Revisiting AOQ Review 1-4: "Teacher's Pet"
Apteryx
> Date: Jan 9 2006, 2:46 pm
> Subject: AOQ Review 1-4: "Teacher's Pet"
> To: alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer
>
>
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season One, Episode 4: "Teacher's Pet"
> (or "...then I ram my ovipositor down your throat and lay my eggs in
> your chest. But
> I'm not an alien!")
> Writer: David Greenwalt
> Director: Bruce Seth Green
My comments on this one are posted a little later than usual on account of
Ireland beating Pakistan in the Cricket World Cup on St Patrick's Day...
> There's good stuff and bad stuff in "Teacher's Pet."
True...
> I want to say
> that the good outweighs the bad, considering that there's a lot more
> of
> it. But the badness in this show is pervasive, and leaves an
> unpleasant enough taste in one's mouth that it weighs down the rest of
> the show and keeps it from being too much of a winner. The sheer
> awfulness of a few key scenes ensures that the best TP as a whole can
> aspire to is inoffensiveness.
Badness? Sheer awfulness?... What can it be?
> So which parts are the ones that I find so egregious? You can pretty
> much take any scene that includes Xander in the first three-quarters
> of
> the show and use it as an example. We start with the merely stupid
> (the opening dream sequence)
I love the dream sequence. The first time the show uses the gimmick of a
dream sequence in the teaser, and (apart from the great BBB) the only time
Buffy reacts to Xander as he thinks he deserves.
> and quickly proceed to the irritating.
> Remember the previous three episodes when the character had defining
> traits other than horniness? Well, forget about them here, because
> this is all about Xander the thirteen-year-old, emitting a constant
> stream of babble about what a stud he is. The show doesn't seem to
> know whether he's honestly deluded enough to believe any of it
> (certainly his inexplicably accusing Buffy of jealousy when she tries
> to tell him about Ms. French would suggest genuine stupidity) or
> whether he's just overcompensating for his insecurity. It doesn't
> really matter; he's annoying and unfunny. There are so many better
> ways to go with this character, as anyone who watched "Witch" can
> attest to. Note that Xander thinks with his cock a lot in that
> episode
> too, yet he's still, you know, likable. Those were good days.
Well yeah, it is way OTT. But then again, it's Musetta Vander! And even
though she's right, Buffy is way jumping to conclusions at the time she
warns Xander. Sure, the fact Miss French can rotate her head 180º is pretty
good evidence she's not human, so, OK, reason for concern, but just because
some bugs can do that means she's a bug? Buffy hasn't even ruled out the
possibility that she could be an owl.
> (Oh, and Buffy? You could put forth a little actual effort when it
> comes to keeping your friends from walking into what you know is
> life-threatening danger. You're a superhero; you're capable of
> running
> after someone who's walking away.)
>
> The episode's other major bad point, which is connected to the
> previous
> complaint, comes from Ms. French. Bad TV shows often posit that all
> males are sex-obsessed and therefore stupid. Bad SF/F shows use this
> idea in the form of Fantasy Stock Plot #306, in which a female has
> special powers (insect pheromones, in this case) which, by themselves,
> leave all males drooling and powerless in her grasp. This plot has
> never been the basis for anything that wasn't pure shit, and the
> scenes
> in this episode continue that trend. As a guy, I would like to take
> this chance to make the point that humans are not insects; we have
> cognition and such to go along with the evolutionarily conserved
> hormone signals. Thus, being affected by a sexually attractive woman
> should not automatically transform a male character into a slavering
> moron. This fact might be useful to those writers seeking to create
> individuals that audiences might relate to or like, and in fact to
> anyone wishing to write something that doesn't suck.
>
> There's a lot of effort elsewhere to write something that doesn't
> suck.
> The opening sequence is a good example. Dr. Jeffrey is a character
> who exists for the sole purpose of dying, but the scene leading up to
> it is going to do its damndest to make him interesting. In about two
> minutes, he gets both deadpan humor ("I just don't care") and a
> respectable frame of mind for a teacher unaware of the whole Hellmouth
> thing (disappointment that a clearly capable student isn't bothering
> to
> live up to her potential). So I actually was disappointed when he
> died. One thing I like about this show in general is that just
> because
> a character isn't important doesn't mean he's exempt from a little
> development.
Indeed, and in fact the very fact that he is an intelligent and sensitive
authority figure pretty much guarantees that either he is going to become a
main character, or die pretty soon.
> The rest of the cast do a respectable job putting together the clues
> and figuring out the deal with their new substitute. But even
> ignoring
> my other objections to this episode, I thought the idea of a giant
> insect disguised as a human is ultimately a little too silly for its
> own good. Yes, I am indeed aware that this is a show about vampires.
> It's still too silly for its own good. The actors make a noble effort
> to lend the situation some gravity, but you can never quite forget
> that
> the ultimate goal is to save people from being raped and eaten by a
> preying mantis.
>
> (While we're still peripherally on our preying mantis here, any
> particular reason she eats some people right away while making the
> time
> and effort to lure others to her den?)
>
> Angel puts in another appearance here (I missed seeing him last week),
> and actor David Boreanaz continues to resist the urge to emote in any
> way. He's seeming a little less mysterious and more bland after three
> episodes of this, but the ending (and the introduction of some
> contextual sexual tension) suggests that we are going somewhere, so
> that''s not a problem. Again, I really can't look at Angel as a
> totally naive viewer the way I'd like to (I'm always like "THIS guy
> gets his own show?"). So far he's been interesting mostly for seeing
> Buffy's reactions to his mysterious-stranger act ("No, you're just
> going to give me some cryptic clue and disappear into the night").
Of course, he had acquired much more gravitas and substance before he got
his
own show. Especially around the waist.
> Speaking of being missed, have I mentioned yet how deeply I love
> Principal Flutie?
Aw, that's just so sad :)
> The "healing" scene is, predictably, the best of
> the
> show.
I especially liked his terse command at the end - "Heal!"
> "Teacher's Pet" is full of fun moments and nice little touches. Just
> to list a few, how about the role of Fork-Guy in general, and Buffy's
> ability to see wooden stakes anywhere? Or the idea of the bat call,
> and the use of a double-sided cassette to add a little urgency?
The double-sided tape was good, but the basic idea of the bat call? So I'm a
2 metre long mantis that eats people, what kind of bat am I afraid of?
> Or
> the
> scene with the real Ms. French? Or the fact that Cordelia only gets
> about four lines, all of which are pretty good? Or Giles' mad friend,
> especially given that the payoff is that one sided phone conversation
> ("You were right, old boy. No, not about everything.")? Or Xander's
> escape attempt? Or his going nuts on the bug corpse and the musical
> transition into the next scene? There's a really strong episode
> somewhere under the exoskeleton of "Teacher's Pet," constantly trying
> to gnaw its way out from under the weaker scenes.
>
> Okay, so what's the deal with Willow gushing over Xander at the end?
> First of all, I hadn't pegged her as prude enough to consider
> virginity
> automatically a good thing (or a turn-on). And secondly, I thought
> "Welcome To The Hellmouth" had established them as old friends who
> weren't interested in anything romantic, but now it seems like that's
> suddenly changed.
Willow's tricky. She wanted you to think that. And as to whether she ever
thought of virginity as automatically a good thing before, we know that she
does now, now that she knows it's a Xander thing.
> The stage is set for what a certain wise man would
> call a Love Rhombus, with Buffy, Angel, Xander, and Willow. I don't
> think that's necessarily the best place for the show to go, but it's
> still too early to criticize the idea.
>
> Buffy's treatment of the broken glasses at the end is really quite
> sweet. Again, a little acknowledgment of the fact that Jeffrey was a
> person rather than a plot device.
>
> Hopefully the final shot doesn't mean we'll have any more mantis
> stories. Once is acceptable, twice is painful. Let's move on to
> werewolves or evil clowns or something.
>
> So....
>
> One-sentence summary: Clearly more good than bad, but the bad stuff
> is
> really awful.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
I'd agree with that rating, even though I suspect I like it more than you. I
agree with most of the faults you find in it (except with the dream
sequence), but I don't let
them bug me. It's my 92nd favourite BtVS episode, 11th best in season 1
--
Apteryx
Michael Ikeda
news:etiee8$ii0$1...@aioe.org:
>> From: "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
>> Date: Jan 9 2006, 2:46 pm
>> Subject: AOQ Review 1-4: "Teacher's Pet"
>> To: alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer
>>
>>
>> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these
>> review threads.
>>
>> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>> Season One, Episode 4: "Teacher's Pet"
>> (or "...then I ram my ovipositor down your throat and lay my
>> eggs in your chest. But
>> I'm not an alien!")
>> Writer: David Greenwalt
>> Director: Bruce Seth Green
>
>>
>> Okay, so what's the deal with Willow gushing over Xander at the
>> end? First of all, I hadn't pegged her as prude enough to
>> consider virginity
>> automatically a good thing (or a turn-on). And secondly, I
>> thought "Welcome To The Hellmouth" had established them as old
>> friends who weren't interested in anything romantic, but now it
>> seems like that's suddenly changed.
>
> Willow's tricky. She wanted you to think that. And as to whether
> she ever thought of virginity as automatically a good thing
> before, we know that she does now, now that she knows it's a
> Xander thing.
>
She probably already knew (or at least suspected) that it was a
Xander thing.
Giles: Uh, well, basically the, uh, the She-Mantis assumes the
form of a beautiful woman and then lures innocent virgins back to
her nest.
Buffy: Virgins? Well, Xander's not a, uh... I mean, he's
probably...
Willow: (quickly gets up, worried) ...gonna die! (goes to the
phone)
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
Arnold Kim
"Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:etiee8$ii0$1...@aioe.org...
>> From: "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
>> Date: Jan 9 2006, 2:46 pm
>> Subject: AOQ Review 1-4: "Teacher's Pet"
>> To: alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer
>>
>>
>> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>> threads.
>>
>> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>> Season One, Episode 4: "Teacher's Pet"
>> (or "...then I ram my ovipositor down your throat and lay my eggs in
>> your chest. But
>> I'm not an alien!")
>> Writer: David Greenwalt
>> Director: Bruce Seth Green
>
>> much take any scene that includes Xander in the first three-quarters
>> of
>> the show and use it as an example. We start with the merely stupid
>> (the opening dream sequence)
>
> I love the dream sequence. The first time the show uses the gimmick of a
> dream sequence in the teaser, and (apart from the great BBB) the only time
> Buffy reacts to Xander as he thinks he deserves.
That dream is also completely in character for Xander.
>> and quickly proceed to the irritating.
>> Remember the previous three episodes when the character had defining
>> traits other than horniness? Well, forget about them here, because
>> this is all about Xander the thirteen-year-old, emitting a constant
>> stream of babble about what a stud he is. The show doesn't seem to
>> know whether he's honestly deluded enough to believe any of it
>> (certainly his inexplicably accusing Buffy of jealousy when she tries
>> to tell him about Ms. French would suggest genuine stupidity) or
>> whether he's just overcompensating for his insecurity. It doesn't
>> really matter; he's annoying and unfunny. There are so many better
>> ways to go with this character, as anyone who watched "Witch" can
>> attest to. Note that Xander thinks with his cock a lot in that
>> episode
>> too, yet he's still, you know, likable. Those were good days.
>
> Well yeah, it is way OTT. But then again, it's Musetta Vander! And even
> though she's right, Buffy is way jumping to conclusions at the time she
> warns Xander. Sure, the fact Miss French can rotate her head 180º is
> pretty
> good evidence she's not human, so, OK, reason for concern, but just
> because
> some bugs can do that means she's a bug? Buffy hasn't even ruled out the
> possibility that she could be an owl.
Or other, non-animal based demon who could do that with her head.
>> (Oh, and Buffy? You could put forth a little actual effort when it
>> comes to keeping your friends from walking into what you know is
>> life-threatening danger. You're a superhero; you're capable of
>> running
>> after someone who's walking away.)
>>
>> The episode's other major bad point, which is connected to the
>> previous
>> complaint, comes from Ms. French. Bad TV shows often posit that all
>> males are sex-obsessed and therefore stupid. Bad SF/F shows use this
>> idea in the form of Fantasy Stock Plot #306, in which a female has
>> special powers (insect pheromones, in this case) which, by themselves,
>> leave all males drooling and powerless in her grasp. This plot has
>> never been the basis for anything that wasn't pure shit, and the
>> scenes
>> in this episode continue that trend. As a guy, I would like to take
>> this chance to make the point that humans are not insects; we have
>> cognition and such to go along with the evolutionarily conserved
>> hormone signals. Thus, being affected by a sexually attractive woman
>> should not automatically transform a male character into a slavering
>> moron. This fact might be useful to those writers seeking to create
>> individuals that audiences might relate to or like, and in fact to
>> anyone wishing to write something that doesn't suck.
I just pretty much attributed it to "magical pheromones" and left it at
that.
Anyway, I think the fact that it's a teacher adds somewhat of a different
element to it. I also like that Buffy openly wondered why an older woman
would want to go after a teenage boy and can't find someone her own age.
That argument's brought up about male sexual predators, but usually not the
other way around.
>> The rest of the cast do a respectable job putting together the clues
>> and figuring out the deal with their new substitute. But even
>> ignoring
>> my other objections to this episode, I thought the idea of a giant
>> insect disguised as a human is ultimately a little too silly for its
>> own good. Yes, I am indeed aware that this is a show about vampires.
>> It's still too silly for its own good. The actors make a noble effort
>> to lend the situation some gravity, but you can never quite forget
>> that
>> the ultimate goal is to save people from being raped and eaten by a
>> preying mantis.
I dunno, I think that they were well aware of how silly it was. One of my
favorite moments in the episode is when buffy starts to fight the She-Mantis
and pulls out two giant cans of bug spray. LOL.
>> "Teacher's Pet" is full of fun moments and nice little touches. Just
>> to list a few, how about the role of Fork-Guy in general, and Buffy's
>> ability to see wooden stakes anywhere? Or the idea of the bat call,
>> and the use of a double-sided cassette to add a little urgency?
>
> The double-sided tape was good, but the basic idea of the bat call? So I'm
> a
> 2 metre long mantis that eats people, what kind of bat am I afraid of?
I always thought that it wasn't fear or instinct, but rather the sound
physically did something to their nervous system.
>> Okay, so what's the deal with Willow gushing over Xander at the end?
>> First of all, I hadn't pegged her as prude enough to consider
>> virginity
>> automatically a good thing (or a turn-on). And secondly, I thought
>> "Welcome To The Hellmouth" had established them as old friends who
>> weren't interested in anything romantic, but now it seems like that's
>> suddenly changed.
>
> Willow's tricky. She wanted you to think that. And as to whether she ever
> thought of virginity as automatically a good thing before, we know that
> she
> does now, now that she knows it's a Xander thing.
I also don't necessarily think that thinking virginity is a good thing
necessarily means she's a prude. 75% of teens do -not- have sex in high
school.
>> The stage is set for what a certain wise man would
>> call a Love Rhombus, with Buffy, Angel, Xander, and Willow. I don't
>> think that's necessarily the best place for the show to go, but it's
>> still too early to criticize the idea.
>>
>> Buffy's treatment of the broken glasses at the end is really quite
>> sweet. Again, a little acknowledgment of the fact that Jeffrey was a
>> person rather than a plot device.
>>
>> Hopefully the final shot doesn't mean we'll have any more mantis
>> stories. Once is acceptable, twice is painful. Let's move on to
>> werewolves or evil clowns or something.
>>
>> So....
>>
>> One-sentence summary: Clearly more good than bad, but the bad stuff
>> is
>> really awful.
>>
>> AOQ rating: Decent
>
> I'd agree with that rating, even though I suspect I like it more than you.
> I
> agree with most of the faults you find in it (except with the dream
> sequence), but I don't let
> them bug me. It's my 92nd favourite BtVS episode, 11th best in season 1
Interesting that the episode is near the bottom of S1, but closer to the
middle overall. I'd more or less agree with your ranking; just goes to show
the dropoff in quality during the later seasons.
Arnold Kim
Arnold Kim
just started watching S1 again for the first time in a couple of years (I'm
several episodes ahead).
Arnold Kim
Don Sample
wrote:
> > From: "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
> > Date: Jan 9 2006, 2:46 pm
> > Subject: AOQ Review 1-4: "Teacher's Pet"
> > To: alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer
> >
> >
> > A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> > threads.
> >
> > BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> > Season One, Episode 4: "Teacher's Pet"
> > Okay, so what's the deal with Willow gushing over Xander at the
> > end? First of all, I hadn't pegged her as prude enough to consider
> > virginity automatically a good thing (or a turn-on). And secondly,
> > I thought "Welcome To The Hellmouth" had established them as old
> > friends who weren't interested in anything romantic, but now it
> > seems like that's suddenly changed.
>
> Willow's tricky. She wanted you to think that.
And I must say, it was pretty obvious in "Witch" that Willow was still
carrying a torch for Xander, from the way she was reacting to his trying
to work up the nerve to ask Buffy out, telling her that she was like a
guy friend, and her reaction to Buffy calling him "one of the girls."
Willow saying that she and Xander were "just friends" was a blatant trip
to denial land from the beginning.
> And as to whether she ever
> thought of virginity as automatically a good thing before, we know that she
> does now, now that she knows it's a Xander thing.
I didn't see Willow's statements at the end as prudish. She was just
trying to bolster Xander's ego after he'd been outed.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Arbitrar Of Quality
> > From: "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
> Well yeah, it is way OTT. But then again, it's Musetta Vander! And even
> though she's right, Buffy is way jumping to conclusions at the time she
> warns Xander. Sure, the fact Miss French can rotate her head 180º is pretty
> good evidence she's not human, so, OK, reason for concern, but just because
> some bugs can do that means she's a bug? Buffy hasn't even ruled out the
> possibility that she could be an owl.
Owls are assholes.
> > "Teacher's Pet" is full of fun moments and nice little touches. Just
> > to list a few, how about the role of Fork-Guy in general, and Buffy's
> > ability to see wooden stakes anywhere? Or the idea of the bat call,
> > and the use of a double-sided cassette to add a little urgency?
>
> > Or
> > the
> > scene with the real Ms. French? Or the fact that Cordelia only gets
> > about four lines, all of which are pretty good? Or Giles' mad friend,
> > especially given that the payoff is that one sided phone conversation
> > ("You were right, old boy. No, not about everything.")? Or Xander's
> > escape attempt? Or his going nuts on the bug corpse and the musical
> > transition into the next scene? There's a really strong episode
> > somewhere under the exoskeleton of "Teacher's Pet," constantly trying
> > to gnaw its way out from under the weaker scenes.
> > Okay, so what's the deal with Willow gushing over Xander at the end?
> > First of all, I hadn't pegged her as prude enough to consider
> > virginity
> > automatically a good thing (or a turn-on). And secondly, I thought
> > "Welcome To The Hellmouth" had established them as old friends who
> > weren't interested in anything romantic, but now it seems like that's
> > suddenly changed.
>
> Willow's tricky. She wanted you to think that. And as to whether she ever
> thought of virginity as automatically a good thing before, we know that she
> does now, now that she knows it's a Xander thing.
That's one particular bit that I've never gotten. Both the script for
WTTH and the comments from other viewers seem to suggest that it
should be abundantly clear from the beginning that Willow's lusting
after Xander, whatever her words might say. (BTW, totally not an
exclusively gay woman who hasn't "found out" yet. Just saying.) I've
never gotten that impression, and I've watched the first episode a
fair amount by this point (every time you introduce someone new to the
show, it's another viewing of WTTH...)
I'd remembered this one as one of those episodes where I hated the
main plot, but where the peripheral stuff was good enough to save it.
Well, I still hate the main plot - utterly worthless - although no
longer mind the dream for the reasons that everyone else have pointed
out - it's a Xander thing. What's changed is that I have no idea why
I (and some others posting in the re-thread) was so wild about the
rest, which seemed pretty dreary this time around. Still like Flutie
and the one side we see of the phone conversation. Nothing much else
stands out. The ongoing B/A story is hurt by the completeness of how
much they hadn't figured out Angel yet at this point in the series.
He's basically unrecognizable.
This episode introduces the Xander = demon-magnet running joke, but I
think it also establishes the Xander = Buttmonkey paradigm that would
haunt the show until S5 or so. Need someone to stand around and make
unfunny loud comments? Need someone to kick around who'll cheerfully
come back for more abuse? Xander. No need to make him resemble a
real person or anything. Joss and David G. generally remembered that
there was an actual character under there (not that it helped episodes
like this one or NKABOTFD very much), but the way other writers would
handle him in later seasons suggests to me an unpleasantly callous
treatment of the guy. So when I'm feeling uncharitable toward TP, I
figure that it all comes back to this episode.
In conclusion, as a more seasoned arbiter, I declare that "Teacher's
Pet" sucks. Weak.
Oh, yeah...
> I'd agree with that rating, even though I suspect I like it more than you. I
> agree with most of the faults you find in it (except with the dream
> sequence), but I don't let
> them bug me.
Ow.
-AOQ
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
threads, right?
Apteryx <apt...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> From: "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
>> Date: Jan 9 2006, 2:46 pm
>> Subject: AOQ Review 1-4: "Teacher's Pet"
>> To: alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer
>> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>> Season One, Episode 4: "Teacher's Pet"
>> (or "...then I ram my ovipositor down your throat and lay my eggs in
>> your chest. But
>> I'm not an alien!")
>> Writer: David Greenwalt
>> Director: Bruce Seth Green
>
.
> My comments on this one are posted a little later than usual on account of
> Ireland beating Pakistan in the Cricket World Cup on St Patrick's Day...
Excellent. My ancestors can rest easy now.
>> I want to say
>> that the good outweighs the bad, considering that there's a lot more
>> of
>> it. But the badness in this show is pervasive, and leaves an
>> unpleasant enough taste in one's mouth that it weighs down the rest of
>> the show and keeps it from being too much of a winner. The sheer
>> awfulness of a few key scenes ensures that the best TP as a whole can
>> aspire to is inoffensiveness.
In my opinion Teacher's Pet only gradually reveals its true suckiness.
(Does that make it more painful or less?) I thought Xander's dream was
amusing. Over the top, sure, but not as much as certain later scenes
(plus OTTness is more acceptable in dream sequences). And Buffy's
after-class conversation with Dr. Gregory was quite nice. But the main
MOTW plot gets worse and worse the longer it goes on, and there are fewer
and fewer nice bits to balance it out.
>> So which parts are the ones that I find so egregious? You can pretty
>> much take any scene that includes Xander in the first three-quarters
>> of
>> the show and use it as an example.
Agreed, with the exception of the dream sequence and *maybe* Xander's
conversation with Blaine at the Bronze. In the latter, it was mildly nice
to see Xander sneering at Blaine -- he might want to be more popular, but
he has some standards.
>> Remember the previous three episodes when the character had defining
>> traits other than horniness? Well, forget about them here, because
>> this is all about Xander the thirteen-year-old, emitting a constant
>> stream of babble about what a stud he is. The show doesn't seem to
>> know whether he's honestly deluded enough to believe any of it
>> (certainly his inexplicably accusing Buffy of jealousy when she tries
>> to tell him about Ms. French would suggest genuine stupidity) or
>> whether he's just overcompensating for his insecurity.
Teacher's Pet tries to make it more palatable by giving us the bug-demon
pheremones to blame it on. But I'm not convinced and mostly agree with
AOQ's description, "annoying and unfunny."
> Well yeah, it is way OTT. But then again, it's Musetta Vander! And even
> though she's right, Buffy is way jumping to conclusions at the time she
> warns Xander. Sure, the fact Miss French can rotate her head 180º is pretty
> good evidence she's not human, so, OK, reason for concern, but just because
> some bugs can do that means she's a bug? Buffy hasn't even ruled out the
> possibility that she could be an owl.
Agreed with Apteryx there. The illogic of the whole giant bug thing is as
big a problem as the OTT depiction of horny Xander. It's not just the
basic idea that's silly, the way it's developed makes little sense. Why,
for example, would a recording of bat sonar make the giant mantis's
nervous system go haywire? If matises (mantes?) are really scared of
bats, you'd think the sound would trigger its fight-or-flight reflexes,
not make it freeze up.
>> special powers (insect pheromones, in this case) which, by themselves,
>> leave all males drooling and powerless in her grasp. This plot has
>> never been the basis for anything that wasn't pure shit, and the
>> scenes
>> in this episode continue that trend.
Well said. And I certainly hope no one on the ME staff thought this plot
was somehow "feminist."
>> (While we're still peripherally on our preying mantis here, any
>> particular reason she eats some people right away while making the
>> time
>> and effort to lure others to her den?)
She ate them if she had doubts about their virginity, I guess. The ones
lured to her den were the ones she mated with before eating. She killed
Dr. Gregory specifically so that she could take his place and gain access
to a roomful of high school boys.
>> gets his own show?"). So far he's been interesting mostly for seeing
>> Buffy's reactions to his mysterious-stranger act ("No, you're just
>> going to give me some cryptic clue and disappear into the night").
>
> Of course, he had acquired much more gravitas and substance before he got
> his
> own show. Especially around the waist.
Oh, I'd say around the neck, which looks roughly twice as thick by the
time we see him on AtS.
>> The "healing" scene is, predictably, the best of
>> the
>> show.
>
> I especially liked his terse command at the end - "Heal!"
My favorite part was "I'm always here if you need a hug -- but not a real
hug! Because there's no touching, this school is sensitive to wrong
touching."
>> "Teacher's Pet" is full of fun moments and nice little touches. Just
>> to list a few, how about the role of Fork-Guy in general, and Buffy's
>> ability to see wooden stakes anywhere? Or the idea of the bat call,
>> and the use of a double-sided cassette to add a little urgency?
Here I have to disagree with AOQ. I found Fork-Guy annoyingly silly.
(And it was a bit of a cop out to have him get loose and attack Buffy, so
she wasn't faced with the small awkwardness of using him and then coldly
staking him.) And while playing the wrong side of the tape was amusing,
the basic idea of the bat call as a weapon didn't work for me, as
described above.
>> Okay, so what's the deal with Willow gushing over Xander at the end?
>> First of all, I hadn't pegged her as prude enough to consider
>> virginity
>> automatically a good thing (or a turn-on).
As Dan already said, she was probably trying to salve Xander's wounded
ego. Also, favoring virginity for 16-year-olds is not the same as a
prudish exaltation of virginity in general. (Though I'm not sure how many
actual 16-year-olds would make that distinction.)
>> Buffy's treatment of the broken glasses at the end is really quite
>> sweet. Again, a little acknowledgment of the fact that Jeffrey was a
>> person rather than a plot device.
And the new, more unpleasant science teacher showed us that Buffy might
not find many more allies on the teaching staff to replace Dr. Gregory.
>> Hopefully the final shot doesn't mean we'll have any more mantis
>> stories. Once is acceptable, twice is painful.
I say those eggs were unfertilized and therefore harmless. That one that
cracked open wasn't hatching, it was just a little dried out.
>> Let's move on to
>> werewolves or evil clowns or something.
Patience....
>> AOQ rating: Decent
I'd go along with AOQ's new rating of Weak. Though it doesn't bother me
as much as certain later episodes made when ME should have known better,
TP might be the lowest-quality episode of the entire series.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> We all agree that it's okay to post spoilers in these "Revisiting AOQ"
> threads, right?
Flutie dies in episode 6.
> Why,
> for example, would a recording of bat sonar make the giant mantis's
> nervous system go haywire? If matises (mantes?) are really scared of
> bats, you'd think the sound would trigger its fight-or-flight reflexes,
> not make it freeze up.
Actually, evolutionarily speaking, there are several tiers of nervous
responses to what medical-types vaguely call "stress." The first, and
most primitive, is to completely freeze up and basically play dead,
which is useful in some situations. In higher animals, except in the
most mortal of terror, it can be overridden by the next coping
mechanism up the line, which is the classic fight-or-flight
sympathetic response (and some argue that that in turn can be
overridden in humans during mild stress through things like social
behaviors). I'm not sure where insects fall in the spectrum.
> >> special powers (insect pheromones, in this case) which, by themselves,
> >> leave all males drooling and powerless in her grasp. This plot has
> >> never been the basis for anything that wasn't pure shit, and the
> >> scenes
> >> in this episode continue that trend.
>
> Well said. And I certainly hope no one on the ME staff thought this plot
> was somehow "feminist."
Right up there with other feminist classics like "Bewitched, Bothered,
and Bewildered." My hunch is that the gender roles weren't the point
of TP.
> >> Hopefully the final shot doesn't mean we'll have any more mantis
> >> stories. Once is acceptable, twice is painful.
>
> I say those eggs were unfertilized and therefore harmless. That one that
> cracked open wasn't hatching, it was just a little dried out.
D'ya think there were ever any plans to do a follow-up?
> >> Let's move on to
> >> werewolves or evil clowns or something.
I was a little surprised how long we went without any werewolves;
they're kinda a standard. The hyenas were enough growling for awhile,
I guess, and didn't require them to build any costumes.
-AOQ
One Bit Shy
>> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>> Season One, Episode 4: "Teacher's Pet"
>> I want to say
>> that the good outweighs the bad, considering that there's a lot more
>> of
>> it. But the badness in this show is pervasive, and leaves an
>> unpleasant enough taste in one's mouth that it weighs down the rest of
>> the show and keeps it from being too much of a winner. The sheer
>> awfulness of a few key scenes ensures that the best TP as a whole can
>> aspire to is inoffensiveness.
>
> Badness? Sheer awfulness?... What can it be?
LOL. Well AOQ's original assessment seems to match general reaction. The
episode is kind of famously awful. His final rating seems almost kind.
Though I think I liked it better than he did.
>> So which parts are the ones that I find so egregious? You can pretty
>> much take any scene that includes Xander in the first three-quarters
>> of
>> the show and use it as an example. We start with the merely stupid
>> (the opening dream sequence)
>
> I love the dream sequence. The first time the show uses the gimmick of a
> dream sequence in the teaser, and (apart from the great BBB) the only time
> Buffy reacts to Xander as he thinks he deserves.
I forgot about the Xander dream. It's nice to know that Xander's pillow
fight dream in S7 is so well founded in his character. Some things about
Xander never change.
Anyway, I like the dream just for how it reinforces the notion of our lovely
insect being the living representation of Xander's fantasies. Buffy being
in the dream confuses the connection a little initially. But that gets
resolved later when Miss French's come on prompts a dream reprise and
subsequent confusion within Xander as the thought of Buffy intrudes -
suggesting that Xander's interest in Buffy isn't entirely hormonal, even
though he can't separate that in his mind.
I know that the general dopey feel of the story tends to overwhelm nuance,
but I think they were really trying to slip some nuance into it.
>> and quickly proceed to the irritating.
>> Remember the previous three episodes when the character had defining
>> traits other than horniness? Well, forget about them here, because
>> this is all about Xander the thirteen-year-old, emitting a constant
>> stream of babble about what a stud he is. The show doesn't seem to
>> know whether he's honestly deluded enough to believe any of it
>> (certainly his inexplicably accusing Buffy of jealousy when she tries
>> to tell him about Ms. French would suggest genuine stupidity) or
>> whether he's just overcompensating for his insecurity. It doesn't
>> really matter; he's annoying and unfunny. There are so many better
>> ways to go with this character, as anyone who watched "Witch" can
>> attest to. Note that Xander thinks with his cock a lot in that
>> episode
>> too, yet he's still, you know, likable. Those were good days.
Pheromones. This is a magical creature inducing Xander into exaggerated
behavior. Of course it's based on his natural desires - and Miss French
presents herself as the answer to his dreams. But there's still a kind of
magical influence at work on Xander that makes his behavior much worse.
That may not make it any less annoying. YMMV. But it at least explains the
logic of it. Probably improves the episode some once it's really
understood. I remember reading this comment back when I was catching up
with his reviews first time. I believe there are a few more of similar
nature to come. My reaction then was that AOQ was struggling a bit to get a
handle on how the metaphor story elements fit into early BtVS. I suspect
most people do. This isn't the most scintillating example, but I'm curious
if it looks any different to AOQ today.
> Well yeah, it is way OTT. But then again, it's Musetta Vander! And even
> though she's right, Buffy is way jumping to conclusions at the time she
> warns Xander. Sure, the fact Miss French can rotate her head 180º is
> pretty
> good evidence she's not human, so, OK, reason for concern, but just
> because
> some bugs can do that means she's a bug? Buffy hasn't even ruled out the
> possibility that she could be an owl.
You're funny.
>> (Oh, and Buffy? You could put forth a little actual effort when it
>> comes to keeping your friends from walking into what you know is
>> life-threatening danger. You're a superhero; you're capable of
>> running
>> after someone who's walking away.)
I remember the debate about this. In the list of firsts, is this BtVS's
first controversey?
>> The episode's other major bad point, which is connected to the
>> previous
>> complaint,
But shouldn't it modify the previous complaint? Whether the idea sucks or
not, Xander is still acting this way because he's dosed, not because
something so extreme is where they want to take the real character.
>> comes from Ms. French. Bad TV shows often posit that all
>> males are sex-obsessed and therefore stupid. Bad SF/F shows use this
>> idea in the form of Fantasy Stock Plot #306, in which a female has
>> special powers (insect pheromones, in this case) which, by themselves,
>> leave all males drooling and powerless in her grasp. This plot has
>> never been the basis for anything that wasn't pure shit, and the
>> scenes
>> in this episode continue that trend. As a guy, I would like to take
>> this chance to make the point that humans are not insects; we have
>> cognition and such to go along with the evolutionarily conserved
>> hormone signals. Thus, being affected by a sexually attractive woman
>> should not automatically transform a male character into a slavering
>> moron. This fact might be useful to those writers seeking to create
>> individuals that audiences might relate to or like, and in fact to
>> anyone wishing to write something that doesn't suck.
I don't think it's one of the more appealing stories. Bug science fiction
doesn't seem to be well regarded either, even though a lot was made in its
day. But I don't think it's that awful either. Teenage male hormones run
amok certainly is a characteristic of high school life - surely a natural
for the monster as metaphor theme of early BtVS. I don't know what your
high school was like, but the guys at mine seemed mighty aware of who the
hot teachers were. Not every male was tranformed into a slavering moron at
the site of a sultry gal, but I don't recall a lack of those who were.
And Miss French does have a nasty air to her.
>> The opening sequence is a good example. Dr. Jeffrey is a character
>> who exists for the sole purpose of dying, but the scene leading up to
>> it is going to do its damndest to make him interesting. In about two
>> minutes, he gets both deadpan humor ("I just don't care") and a
>> respectable frame of mind for a teacher unaware of the whole Hellmouth
>> thing (disappointment that a clearly capable student isn't bothering
>> to
>> live up to her potential). So I actually was disappointed when he
>> died. One thing I like about this show in general is that just
>> because
>> a character isn't important doesn't mean he's exempt from a little
>> development.
His small part is the best thing in the episode for me. Not just because
he's a good character, but because his loss quietly matters. He was the
good side of education, one of the things that connected Buffy to normal
life in a happy sense. Now it's been snatched away from her. Not because
she's a Slayer - though one might argue that The Slayer is naturally drawn
to this kind of trouble, and such trouble drawn to her. But still a
narrowing of her life. One that pushes her in a Slayer direction.
>> Angel puts in another appearance here (I missed seeing him last week),
>> and actor David Boreanaz continues to resist the urge to emote in any
>> way. He's seeming a little less mysterious and more bland after three
>> episodes of this, but the ending (and the introduction of some
>> contextual sexual tension) suggests that we are going somewhere, so
>> that''s not a problem. Again, I really can't look at Angel as a
>> totally naive viewer the way I'd like to (I'm always like "THIS guy
>> gets his own show?"). So far he's been interesting mostly for seeing
>> Buffy's reactions to his mysterious-stranger act ("No, you're just
>> going to give me some cryptic clue and disappear into the night").
I'm reminded how much I disliked the original take on Angel. I guess he's
going for something James Deanish here. Whatever it is, it comes across as
smirks and annoying attitude. Maybe Buffy's attraction in spite of that
ties into this episode. Pheromones.
Giving Buffy the jacket was a nice touch though.
>> "Teacher's Pet" is full of fun moments and nice little touches. Just
>> to list a few, how about the role of Fork-Guy in general, and Buffy's
>> ability to see wooden stakes anywhere? Or the idea of the bat call,
>> and the use of a double-sided cassette to add a little urgency?
>
> The double-sided tape was good, but the basic idea of the bat call? So I'm
> a
> 2 metre long mantis that eats people, what kind of bat am I afraid of?
In an episode that uses pheromones to induce uncontrollable actions by
Xander, I think there's probably room for a giant preying mantis to have an
uncontrollable instinctive response to bat noises.
But I liked the bug spray the best.
>> Or the fact that Cordelia only gets
>> about four lines, all of which are pretty good?
Really good. A nice dose of early Cordy logic. Plus the wonderful, "Excuse
you," as she bumps Willow out of the way.
Which reminds me, I noticed AOQ still doesn't like the famous line from the
Harvest, "I have to have the most expensive thing. Not because it's
expensive, but because it costs more."
That's still one of my favorite Cordy moments. I like the situation,
Cordelia holding court. (The throng around her really are like courtiers to
a queen. I suppose technically that would make them courtisans, but that's
taken on a prostitute connotation.) The line is funny initially for its
seemingly stupid non-distinction. But there really is a logic to it - Cordy
logic. It's not about indulging in good things - though she certainly does
like that. Rather, it's about status. Standing apart and above others. If
she was with a group buying ten cent bubble gum, she'd find the fifty cent
piece - even if she doesn't like bubble gum. She's the queen. Everything
she does and is must stand out from those around her.
That's still dumb, but not in a retarded way. It's an insight into how she
thinks. She's so totally self centered that she seems only able to process
information in terms of how it reflects on her - the queen. It often leads
to remarkebly dumb results, but not for lack of intelligence. This will
lead to a number of wonderful moments - many of which are quite amusing.
Sometimes she'll also struggle to express feelings that nobody can recognize
through her self centered filter.
The grief counseling scene this episode is a nice version. It's amusing to
see her find the good in losing more weight than her diet provides. But
you'll note that she did lose weight as a result of finding the body. What
she said doesn't actually deny her trauma. She just found a uniquely Cordy
way of coping with it.
Ultimately I'll like Anya in this general role much more than Cordelia. But
I still appreciate Cordy's way.
>> Okay, so what's the deal with Willow gushing over Xander at the end?
>> First of all, I hadn't pegged her as prude enough to consider
>> virginity
>> automatically a good thing (or a turn-on). And secondly, I thought
>> "Welcome To The Hellmouth" had established them as old friends who
>> weren't interested in anything romantic, but now it seems like that's
>> suddenly changed.
I have no recollection of my original reaction to Willow's thing for Xander.
Probably buried by the random way I first saw the show. Until AOQ pointed
it out, it hadn't occurred to me that Willow's attitude towards him was
changing. Looking back to Witch, when it really shows up, I think it rises
up through jealousy as she sees Xander eying Buffy. Perhaps coincident with
rising sexual awareness as she grows up. Maybe even a side effect of Buffy
sweeping in and suddenly making her life interesting. Or maybe she's been
hiding it for a while and just hasn't had anybody to express it to before.
There's probably some good fan fic to be found in a peak at her diary around
now.
>> The stage is set for what a certain wise man would
>> call a Love Rhombus, with Buffy, Angel, Xander, and Willow. I don't
>> think that's necessarily the best place for the show to go, but it's
>> still too early to criticize the idea.
Love Rhombus. That's funny.
>> Hopefully the final shot doesn't mean we'll have any more mantis
>> stories. Once is acceptable, twice is painful. Let's move on to
>> werewolves or evil clowns or something.
Heh. AOQ, did you know how much discussion there was early on about whether
you were actually watching this for the first time? Quite a lively debate.
>>
>> So....
>>
>> One-sentence summary: Clearly more good than bad, but the bad stuff
>> is
>> really awful.
>>
>> AOQ rating: Decent
>
> I'd agree with that rating, even though I suspect I like it more than you.
> I
> agree with most of the faults you find in it (except with the dream
> sequence), but I don't let
> them bug me. It's my 92nd favourite BtVS episode, 11th best in season 1
That's my reaction too. Decent, but I think I liked it more than AOQ.
OBS
Rowan Hawthorn
>> From: "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
>> Date: Jan 9 2006, 2:46 pm
>> Subject: AOQ Review 1-4: "Teacher's Pet"
>> To: alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer
>>
>>
>
Oh, yeah. I'm still upset that she wasn't cast as Vampirella. (On the
other hand, seeing how badly the movie sucked, maybe that was a blessing
in disguise...)
>
>> "Teacher's Pet" is full of fun moments and nice little touches. Just
>> to list a few, how about the role of Fork-Guy in general, and Buffy's
>> ability to see wooden stakes anywhere? Or the idea of the bat call,
>> and the use of a double-sided cassette to add a little urgency?
>
> The double-sided tape was good, but the basic idea of the bat call? So I'm a
> 2 metre long mantis that eats people, what kind of bat am I afraid of?
A flying fox with a 6-foot wingspan? The possibility that a whole
colony might show up for dinner? Okay, I got nothin'...
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
Rowan Hawthorn
> On Mar 18, 2:38 pm, chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
>> We all agree that it's okay to post spoilers in these "Revisiting AOQ"
>> threads, right?
>
> Flutie dies in episode 6.
>
DAMMIT! Now you tell me...
>
>>>> Hopefully the final shot doesn't mean we'll have any more mantis
>>>> stories. Once is acceptable, twice is painful.
>> I say those eggs were unfertilized and therefore harmless. That one that
>> cracked open wasn't hatching, it was just a little dried out.
>
> D'ya think there were ever any plans to do a follow-up?
I doubt it. More likely, it was just an homage to (or parody of) horror
B-movie cliches.
Stephen Tempest
> So I'm a
>2 metre long mantis that eats people, what kind of bat am I afraid of?
Giant demonic ones?
http://www.glorantha.com/products/images/cover1304.jpg
Stephen
Manfred Noland
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
>> nervous system go haywire? If matises (mantes?) are really scared of
>> bats, you'd think the sound would trigger its fight-or-flight reflexes,
>> not make it freeze up.
>
> Actually, evolutionarily speaking, there are several tiers of nervous
> responses to what medical-types vaguely call "stress." The first, and
> most primitive, is to completely freeze up and basically play dead,
> which is useful in some situations. In higher animals, except in the
> most mortal of terror, it can be overridden by the next coping
> mechanism up the line, which is the classic fight-or-flight
> sympathetic response (and some argue that that in turn can be
> overridden in humans during mild stress through things like social
> behaviors). I'm not sure where insects fall in the spectrum.
Okay, between you and Mariposas, I'm starting to suspect that some portion
of TP might possibly have been scientifically accurate, and the cognitive
dissonance is killing me. If I was a robot in some old B movie, right now
I'd be spinning in circles moaning "Does not compute! Does not compute!"
in an increasingly distorted voice, as smoke poured from my head.
>> I say those eggs were unfertilized and therefore harmless. That one that
>> cracked open wasn't hatching, it was just a little dried out.
>
> D'ya think there were ever any plans to do a follow-up?
Like Rowan said, it was most likely just reusing or playing off of old
movie cliches, without any thought of future mantis episodes. After all,
a second mantis appearance wouldn't have had the same deep, deep emotional
impact that the first one did.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> "Apteryx" <apte...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> That may not make it any less annoying. YMMV. But it at least explains the
> logic of it. Probably improves the episode some once it's really
> understood. I remember reading this comment back when I was catching up
> with his reviews first time. I believe there are a few more of similar
> nature to come. My reaction then was that AOQ was struggling a bit to get a
> handle on how the metaphor story elements fit into early BtVS. I suspect
> most people do. This isn't the most scintillating example, but I'm curious
> if it looks any different to AOQ today.
In a hurry and am responding to this point last, so this'll be brief.
I'm still basically a text guy. If something is unpleasant to watch
on the surface, it actively drives me away from trying to look for any
more meaning. The A-story of "Teacher's Pet" in general and Xander's
dialogue in particular is like the proverbial nails on a chalkboard,
and I don't care what interesting diminished chord they're screeching
in.
> >> The episode's other major bad point, which is connected to the
> >> previous
> >> complaint,
>
> But shouldn't it modify the previous complaint? Whether the idea sucks or
> not, Xander is still acting this way because he's dosed, not because
> something so extreme is where they want to take the real character.
But even back in my early reviewing days, I got a sense that episodes
like this are still trying to say something about the affected
character.
> >> Angel puts in another appearance here (I missed seeing him last week),
> >> and actor David Boreanaz continues to resist the urge to emote in any
> >> way. He's seeming a little less mysterious and more bland after three
> >> episodes of this, but the ending (and the introduction of some
> >> contextual sexual tension) suggests that we are going somewhere, so
> >> that''s not a problem. Again, I really can't look at Angel as a
> >> totally naive viewer the way I'd like to (I'm always like "THIS guy
> >> gets his own show?"). So far he's been interesting mostly for seeing
> >> Buffy's reactions to his mysterious-stranger act ("No, you're just
> >> going to give me some cryptic clue and disappear into the night").
>
> I'm reminded how much I disliked the original take on Angel. I guess he's
> going for something James Deanish here. Whatever it is, it comes across as
> smirks and annoying attitude. Maybe Buffy's attraction in spite of that
> ties into this episode. Pheromones.
>
> Giving Buffy the jacket was a nice touch though.
Only becuase it let Xander snark at it. I had also forgotten how
annoying Angel was in the early episodes, although "The Harvest" hints
at better things. Obviously they were still trying to work out the
character. He's trying way too hard to do the quiet rebel thing, and
I'm very glad he ditched the smugness. As an Angel fan, I'm going to
just pretend he's a little rusty at this point (about a year post-
alley, and presumably a pretty solitary year) with his usually dead-on
imitations of human personality types, and a little scared, and is
overcompensating with this persona.
> Which reminds me, I noticed AOQ still doesn't like the famous line from the
> Harvest, "I have to have the most expensive thing. Not because it's
> expensive, but because it costs more."
>
> That's still one of my favorite Cordy moments. I like the situation,
> Cordelia holding court. (The throng around her really are like courtiers to
> a queen. I suppose technically that would make them courtisans, but that's
> taken on a prostitute connotation.) The line is funny initially for its
> seemingly stupid non-distinction. But there really is a logic to it - Cordy
> logic. It's not about indulging in good things - though she certainly does
> like that. Rather, it's about status. Standing apart and above others. If
> she was with a group buying ten cent bubble gum, she'd find the fifty cent
> piece - even if she doesn't like bubble gum. She's the queen. Everything
> she does and is must stand out from those around her.
The problem is that if it makes sense, it's not a joke anymore, and
it's clearly played as one. If it were cut down to something like
"just because it costs more, you know?" (or even if the emphasis were
totally on "more" in the actual quote), it'd be a better look at
Cordelia, but would lose the contradiction in logic that gives it its
alleged humor value.
> >> Okay, so what's the deal with Willow gushing over Xander at the end?
> >> First of all, I hadn't pegged her as prude enough to consider
> >> virginity
> >> automatically a good thing (or a turn-on). And secondly, I thought
> >> "Welcome To The Hellmouth" had established them as old friends who
> >> weren't interested in anything romantic, but now it seems like that's
> >> suddenly changed.
>
> I have no recollection of my original reaction to Willow's thing for Xander.
> Probably buried by the random way I first saw the show. Until AOQ pointed
> it out, it hadn't occurred to me that Willow's attitude towards him was
> changing. Looking back to Witch, when it really shows up, I think it rises
> up through jealousy as she sees Xander eying Buffy. Perhaps coincident with
> rising sexual awareness as she grows up. Maybe even a side effect of Buffy
> sweeping in and suddenly making her life interesting. Or maybe she's been
> hiding it for a while and just hasn't had anybody to express it to before.
The shooting script for WTTH seems to suggest that it's there
throughout the series. But if I were rewriting things to make them
make more sense to me, I prefer the idea of jealousy after Buffy's
arrival as the trigger.
> >> The stage is set for what a certain wise man would
> >> call a Love Rhombus, with Buffy, Angel, Xander, and Willow. I don't
> >> think that's necessarily the best place for the show to go, but it's
> >> still too early to criticize the idea.
>
> Love Rhombus. That's funny.
I can't claim credit for the phrase, which comes from elsewhere on the
Internets.
> Heh. AOQ, did you know how much discussion there was early on about whether
> you were actually watching this for the first time? Quite a lively debate.
Yeah, well into S2, it seems that some people were convinced I was
perpetuating some kind of joke.
-AOQ
One Bit Shy
news:1174350506.2...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 18, 5:07 pm, "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>> That may not make it any less annoying. YMMV. But it at least explains
>> the
>> logic of it. Probably improves the episode some once it's really
>> understood. I remember reading this comment back when I was catching up
>> with his reviews first time. I believe there are a few more of similar
>> nature to come. My reaction then was that AOQ was struggling a bit to
>> get a
>> handle on how the metaphor story elements fit into early BtVS. I suspect
>> most people do. This isn't the most scintillating example, but I'm
>> curious
>> if it looks any different to AOQ today.
>
> In a hurry and am responding to this point last, so this'll be brief.
> I'm still basically a text guy. If something is unpleasant to watch
> on the surface, it actively drives me away from trying to look for any
> more meaning. The A-story of "Teacher's Pet" in general and Xander's
> dialogue in particular is like the proverbial nails on a chalkboard,
> and I don't care what interesting diminished chord they're screeching
> in.
Fair enough. It's not really the best example of the technique anyway. I'm
sure not going to claim TP as one of BtVS's better episodes.
>> I'm reminded how much I disliked the original take on Angel. I guess
>> he's
>> going for something James Deanish here. Whatever it is, it comes across
>> as
>> smirks and annoying attitude. Maybe Buffy's attraction in spite of that
>> ties into this episode. Pheromones.
>>
>> Giving Buffy the jacket was a nice touch though.
>
> Only becuase it let Xander snark at it. I had also forgotten how
> annoying Angel was in the early episodes, although "The Harvest" hints
> at better things. Obviously they were still trying to work out the
> character. He's trying way too hard to do the quiet rebel thing, and
> I'm very glad he ditched the smugness. As an Angel fan, I'm going to
> just pretend he's a little rusty at this point (about a year post-
> alley, and presumably a pretty solitary year) with his usually dead-on
> imitations of human personality types, and a little scared, and is
> overcompensating with this persona.
Sort of like my pretense that Darla's childish manner in the opening
episodes was just her playing the schoolgirl part as something to keep
unlife interesting.
Well - I tried. I do think they periodically play with tortured Cordy logic
that seems of a type.
OBS
Maysha Gupta Nidhi (Pirate King)
✅▶️▶️ CLICK HERE Full HD✅720p✅1080p✅4K✅
WATCH ✅💻📺📱👉https://co.fastmovies.org
ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ ✅📺📱💻👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴💚 Really Amazing ️You Can Try This💚ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ LINK >👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴💚 CLICK HERE Full HD 1080p 4K💚WATCH LINK >👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴💚Really Amazing ️You Can Try This💚WATCH💚ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ LINK >👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
✅WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
💚WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org