Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

AOQ Review 2-6: "Halloween"

17 views
Skip to first unread message

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 8:29:52 AM2/7/06
to
A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
threads.


BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Two, Episode 6: "Halloween"
(or "If the show does a Christmas Special too, I shall be very
cross")
Writer: Carl Elisworth
Director: Bruce Seth Green

Halloween is just about the only appropriate holiday that lends itself
to a _Buffy_ Holiday Special. But just because we hate to do the
expected, in one of those nice little touches, it turns out to have no
special supernatural significance in the Buffyverse. (I love modern
American Halloween. It represents the triumph of fun over
superstition.)

But there's a problem with the holiday, which (quite indirectly)
leads to a problem with the episode, which highlights a problem with
the series. The problem with the holiday is that if you hate kids,
Halloween is not always so much fun, since they're everywhere. Our
core characters don't have any special interest in associating with
children until they're "volunteered" for the job by Snyder. Who
has responded to the events of "School Hard" by... exhibiting no
change whatsoever. Yeah, stuff really has major consequences on this
show.

This is going to get ranty and off-topic, but it's been building up
for awhile. We have an episode in which Snyder is forced to see Buffy
taking action to defend the school against a supernatural threat and
save the lives of the principal and the people he's with. The end of
that episode makes it clear that he himself doesn't believe the
"rational" explanations that he's feeding the populace. How does
this change the relationship between these characters? Well, I don't
know, since BTVS hasn't bothered to give Shimerman's character a
bona fide personality yet beyond comic-relief plot device. But that
just means there are lots of ways to take this. Snyder could develop
some gratitude and a new respect for the Slaypack, stop trying to heap
pointless crap on them. He could become convinced that they're the
reason the attack happened in the first place, and start making more
serious efforts to get them out of his school. He could start keeping
his distance from Buffy and crew, afraid of getting too close to their
world again. Or he could try to keep things calm on the surface but
when no one else is looking, hire himself a shrink. Or a supernatural
investigator like a Harry Dresden (or like a certain person who I
believe will open a business like that in approximately 1.75 TV
seasons). There are so many different approaches, all of which would
be valid and wouldn't contradict anything seen before. There's
really only one premise that doesn't make much sense - that
everything would stay EXACTLY THE FUCKING SAME.

I'm not asking for much. Continuity is not as scary a word as people
seem to believe, and by using that word I'm not talking about "OMG
she's totally wearing different shoes in this shot!" I'm talking
about characters who react to events in a manner that makes sense.
I'm talking about using "When She Was Back" as something to build
from rather than as a reset button. In my world, we wouldn't still
be that getting episodes like "Reptile Boy" which could easily fit
into the first season with almost no changes, despite everything
that's happened since then.

Since _Star Trek_ comparisons are so common, let's compare. The
original _Trek_ is all about exploring the unknown and seeing what
wacky alien planet or giant amoeba they'll run across this week. No
one expects Kirk to show any signs of trauma from his lover who died
twelve episodes ago, or for the ongoing banter between Spock and McCoy
to "go" anywhere in particular, because _Trek_ is about the plots.
It's an anthology with recurring characters. This doesn't mean
that the principals aren't charismatic and appealing, just that he
nature of the show didn't demand a "direction" for them.
(Although granted, I still liked the Trek franchise better when it got
more serialized [the TOS movies, or my beloved DS9]; I'm just saying
it wasn't always necessary.) BTVS is not that kind of show, at least
not for me. It's very much a character-driven series. I don't
care much about the plots so much as I care about the people involved.
Sure, all the actors are impossibly cute and all the dialogue is too
witty to be "realistic," but the nature of the show demands people
who change and grow, whom viewers can identify with.

Now, it's possible that I'm in the minority, and that people do in
fact watch BTVS primarily to see what the monster of the week will be
and think that the flippy fight scenes are the core of the show. But
from where I'm sitting, I've seen the writers showing a strong
interest in... well, I don't even know what "soap opera" really
means as an adjective anymore, so I'll just stick with overused terms
and say "character continuity." And I don't think it's an
accident that the emotionally heavy episodes like "Prophecy Girl"
and WSWB are among the most popular of the eighteen shows I've seen
so far. They represent what the show does from time to time, but
hasn't done enough with. And that's why I think BTVS has been a
good show that steadfastly (and frustratingly, because of its
incredible potential) refuses to become a great one.

It's funny that I should bring this up in reference to
"Halloween" (remember? The show that this wall of text is
allegedly a review for?), since the ending of this one gives us yet
another chance to turn the corner into something more exciting. I've
just trained myself not to expect great things anymore.

Okay, the episode itself. Early it's fairly placid, with some scenes
that work and others that don't. The most interesting early scene is
probably Xander's testosterone moment. As a rational adult, I do
have to admit that the idea of getting beat up rather than allow an
insult to slide is pretty stupid. But as someone who was once a
teenage boy, I can't help but admire his fearlessness. He
shouldn't have lashed out quite so much at Buffy, though - surely
it's not so embarassing to have a gorgeous chick at your beck and
call?

Most of the exchanges between Buffy and Willow would be interesting
enough even if they weren't also setup for Ghost Willow. I also like
Willow being the audience's stand-in and wondering why Buffy would be
worried about Angel liking someone like Cordelia. The response does
make sense - we really don't know him as well as we'd like to
think. Elsewhere, my loathing of "Giles turns into a gibbering moron
at the mere mention of someone who he's already dating" humor could
provide ammo for another rant, but the rest of that scene is quite fun.
There's not much else to say about the early stuff other than my
deep shock that Weird Costume Guy was up to no good (note: that was
sarcasm).

The big plot point doesn't hit until later in the episode than it
should; there's so much more that could be done. Once the kids start
turning into monsters, the episode picks up in a big way. Oddly, I
don't think I've ever seen this exact storyline done before,
despite how obvious it feels like it should be.

Where to begin... probably with Ghost Willow, since it's mostly her
show. Talk about grace under pressure. She's completely in her
element in situations like this, always the first to figure out
what's going on. One thing I hadn't really noticed until now (and
I doubt the character herself ever thought of it) is that she's also
a born leader, even though we only see her actually take charge of
things when it's by default. The others follow her and quickly learn
to trust her because of the vibe that she's the one in control.
Visually there are some good moments too, particularly when she pops
into Giles' room. And yes, in deference to the baser instincts,
let's at least mention that Allyson Hannigan running around in that
outfit is about as tasty as it gets. The only thing sexier than a geek
in costume is a geek who's irresistible to begin with (which isn't
unheard of even outside the TV world). The way she throws down the
ghost costume at the end is a bit predictable, but really nice to see.

Soldier Xander puts on a good showing for himself too. (Actually, come
to think of it, Xander's good in this role when he's just playing
for the kids, too.) I guess someone on the writing staff respects the
military, because this character combines all the best qualities in a
soldier: physical strength, tactical smarts, readiness to use whatever
(or whoever) one has available, and the innate sense of when to take
orders instead of giving them. Am I thinking too hard about it if I
suggest that Soldier Xander represents the best of "masculinity,"
especially given the earlier scenes?

Belle Buffy isn't so interesting (though she isn't really supposed
to be), nor is the setup/reasoning for including her. What's funny
is that no one ever tries to deliver dialogue like the stuff Gellar has
to do in "Halloween" without also doing a terrible fake accent. So
even though she's mostly talking normally, she can't quite prevent
herself slipping into accent during certain words.

Fanwank challenge! Within the rules and canon of the show, explain why
the ground supports Ghost Willow. Any answer employing the phrases
"TV convention" or "budget" will be disqualified.

I guess it makes sense to have the vampires around to add suspense to a
rare moment when the Slayer is truly helpless. But Spike and company
were really just along for the ride. If you don't believe it, how
else do you explain the fact that he just kinda wanders off at the end
after the costumes are destroyed? [Jon Stewart] Aaaaaaawk-waaaard
[/JS].

Too much Cordelia, as always, although "When it comes to cute guys,
I'm the Slayer" is smile-worthy. And for reasons I don't
understand, Mrs. Quality absolutely adored the line "so, she turned
into an actual feline?"

The closing portions of the episode pit Giles against his old
acquaintance and suggest that he's somehow more than he seems. And
then we leave it at that. Quite potentially interesting, and I tend to
like seeing him save the day. Of course, it'd be more interesting if
I had any confidence that the show will be able to explain why Giles
has never contributed before when a little bad-assery would've been
useful. See, if continuity were stronger, the series would be
better... but I fully expect Giles'-abilities-related inconsistencies
to be yet another thing I'll have to just "accept." (C'mon
show, prove me wrong. I dare you.)

And as for the "be seeing you?" tagline? Sure, this'll b e a
good storyline to have running in the background (hopefully
independently of vampire stuff). But my main reaction was to get funny
mental images of Giles as the main character in a remake of _The
Prisoner_. ("I am not a number! I am a... a librarian, actually...
or at least I was..." You know it'd be ratings gold.)

Speaking of other shows... most of the fandoms I've known were about
video games, where fan art flows as freely as terrible fanfic does. I
don't know if _Buffy_ fandom is the same way, but if so, I'm
guessing the 'net got a flood of Buffy-as-Xena drawings after this
one aired.

Getting back to all the talk about maintaining the status quo,
best-case scenario is that "Halloween" will be remembered as the
one that gets things moving on. (Worst-case is that it'll end up
being remembered as inconsequential fluff. But fun fluff.) Buffy and
Angel wander off together at the end, and Xander is able to admit that
he won't be the one separating them. Now we'll see if he actually
remembers that little factoid. It's good to see someone finally get
a chance to score: hopefully they enjoyed the whole
being-momentarily-happy thing,

Finally, let's note that "Inca Mummy Girl"'s Oz is indeed a
recurring character. Could Willow be the next one who gets lucky? I
don't think so; I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's
moving too slowly for him to be just a love interest. His fascination
with her is somehow related to the supernatural, and probably not
pleasant. You heard it here... last, I guess. And you already know
whether I'm right or wrong. Feel free to discuss the metaphorical
implications of the fact that so far he's only seen her in one
costume or another; I've written too much as it is.


So...

One-sentence summary: Putting aside the big-picture concerns, this
one's a blast.

AOQ rating: Good

[Season Two so far:
1) "When She Was Bad" - Good
2) "Some Assembly Required" - Weak
3) "School Hard" - Decent
4) "Inca Mummy Girl" - Good
5) "Reptile Boy" - Decent
6) "Halloween" - Good]

kenm47

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 9:04:32 AM2/7/06
to
Your inner curmudgeon needs to calm down. It's keeping you from seeing
the greatness that's before you.

Maybe this is another episode that for some is better in the
re-watching a long time after (I'm still trying to avoid spoilers). I
was impressed how again a plausible way was figured out to neutralize
our superhero and put her in believable danger.

Personally, as a long time TV addict, I enjoyed a show that actally was
seasonal when it aired. In the good old days they did it all the time.
I thought it was a clever way to exploit an obvious Buffy-type holiday.

Re Spike: Seems to me there was a lot of character development from
"Well, this is ....neat" to his basically being a coward and again
running away as soon as he loses his edge (some might see that as
smarteer than the average vamp who insists on fighting The Slayer until
dusted).

Development all around. Yes, Willow is a leader. Yes, Giles has more in
his background than we knew. Yes, Xander has a spine and an ingrained
chivalry (OK, positive masculinity), and yes Snyder is still a jerk.
Cordy is still a femme fatale and full of herself, and often funny
(BTW, now she "knows" Angel is a vampire).

Aside: I forgot to mention re RB how terrific Carpenter's line reading
of "Okay" was when the frat boys in the car want her to bring Buffy
over. Almost as good as this ep's "Oh, faboo, more clinging."

BTW: Ghost Willow doesn't sink through the floor because ghosts never
do. They actually hover and give the appearance of being supported.

If there's anything NOW disturbing about the episode, it's what we were
discussing for WSWB: torture. I, for one, still have no issue with
Buffy torturing an evil evil human soulless walking dead husk. I
suddenly felt a tad uncomfortable with Giles beating/torturing evil
human Ethan. Since it saves everyone in the nick of time, I have mixed
feelings about the message.

And also BTW, "Hi honey. I'm home." was a great line in the
circumstances IMO.

I can't rate this episode as less than Excellent. I think that's how I
felt when it first aired in 1997 too.

Ken (Brooklyn)

Scythe Matters

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 9:21:29 AM2/7/06
to
There's something you do twice in this review -- and it's most
certainly not the first time you've done it -- and that's be far, far
too impatient with plot and character. You''re amazingly concerned with
the "reset button" (and rightly so), but you express frustration when
characters don't tell you everything about themselves right away.
You're amazingly concerned with character development (and rightly so),
but you want it too quickly. These are inconsistent positions. I could
point to the places where you're doing it, point out why the positions
are inconsistent regarding those characters and plot points, and advise
specific patience (as could anyone here), but to do so would, I think,
be a spoiler; better to let you find out how you're mistaken at your
own pace. ;-) Suffice it to say, however, that this tendency has caused
you to shoot particularly wide of the mark regarding "Halloween" --
your analysis, I mean, not necessarily your rating (though I think it's
too low).

I don't think it's a spoiler to say this: there are elements of plot
and characterization at work here that are set up from moment alpha and
do not pay off until moment omega. (There are some that don't, of
course; they pay off earlier, or not at all. But you are only at the
beginning of the second season, after a half-length first season. The
show is, in your experience, still in its barest beginnings.) There are
characters with nearly unbelievable arcs, such that if you saw them
upon first appearance and last apperance you'd wonder if it was just
the same actor playing an entirely different character. But these
things happen over time, and in a more realistic way than is the norm
for TV. Characters will, in the main, not change in more than subtle
ways overnight or in the course of a single week's gap between
episodes. Things that you think have been accomplished and forgotten
will come back again (and again, and again). Things are not always what
they seem, nor are plots, nor are characters. Some setups take years to
unfold; there is one character in particular who is acting and moving
in a very consistent, logical fashion towards a goal that you cannot
yet know, but that will not actually be clear or amount to anything
until the middle of next season, despite the fact that the character in
question will be crucial to the conclusion of this season. Another will
soon embark on a character arc that does not reach its inevitable (but
obvious) conclusion for four more years; two others will take even more
time than that. Several characters that you think you've got sussed are
going to surprise you in fairly dramatic ways with their pasts, their
presents and their futures. Another character's flaws, already
consistently exhibited for a season and a quarter to little
consequence, will still be in evidence at the end of their tenure on
the series and will, by that time, have spawned rather dramatic
consequences. This will all happen, but it will not happen by "Lie to
Me."

You would do better, it seems to me, accepting that this show is moving
at a different pace than your expectations. You frequently criticize
the writers for their failures in this regard, which is of course of
great amusement to those who know where you're specifically incorrect
about something, but less important than our amusement is your
appreciation for the intent of the show. It is not trying to impress
you with momentous changes on a weekly basis, though there will be
weeks when it does indeed make the attempt. You've correctly discerned
that the show is more about character than plot, though there will be
times when it very clearly seems to be the opposite. Given that, it
seems hard to understand that you're not willing to let the show move
at the pace of characterization, which is gradual and non-linear.

There are plenty of things to be frustrated about with the series, and
to your great credit you've identified many of those that you should be
(at this point) able to identify. But you shouldn't add to your
frustrations with incorrect expectations.

shuggie

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 9:22:42 AM2/7/06
to

Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:

I haven't re-watched the ep yet so I'm not going to respond in full,
just wanted to comment on a couple of things.

<snip>

> Our
> core characters don't have any special interest in associating with
> children until they're "volunteered" for the job by Snyder. Who
> has responded to the events of "School Hard" by... exhibiting no
> change whatsoever. Yeah, stuff really has major consequences on this
> show.

What you mean the guy who was involved in covering up the events of
School Hard is presenting a facade of everything carrying on as normal?
It may look like reset but actually the apparent reset *is* the
continuity.

<snip rant>

I appreciate this is bugging you, but for those of us that love the
show you've effectively written a big plea to be spoiled. 'cos it's
very hard to defend the show without spoiling. Let me just say two
things.

1) The conversation Snyder had with the Police chief in School Hard was
a big clue that he knows more about things than he's saying. Which
means that there's more to be revealed. It seems to me that what you're
really complaining about is that it hasn't been revealed *yet*. Have
patience.

2) There is a possibility that you haven't thought of. To reveal it
would be a spoiler.

<snip>

> Fanwank challenge! Within the rules and canon of the show, explain why
> the ground supports Ghost Willow.

First explain why the ground needs to support Ghost Willow. An object
needs to be 'supported' if it has mass that is affected by gravity. We
assume that ghosts don't have mass given that they can walk through
walls etc. So the ground doesn't need to hold her up.

Now that being the case there's no reason for Ghost Willow to appear at
ground level rather than above or below it. Except perhaps that her
mind controls her "movements" and her mind is used to thinking of being
at that level.

Mike Zeares

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 10:10:00 AM2/7/06
to
I'm ignoring your rant because, as others said, it can't really be
answered without getting spoilery. We can come back to this after the
end of the season. Or better yet, after Season 3.

Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> Too much Cordelia, as always, although "When it comes to cute guys,
> I'm the Slayer" is smile-worthy.

As this is my all-time favorite Cordelia quote, I must correct it:

"Listen Buffy, you may be hot stuff when it comes to demonology, or
whatever, but when it comes to dating, I'M the Slayer." I also loved
"Oh. He's a v-a-a-a-mpire. But the cuddly kind, like a Care Bear with
fangs." I loves me some snarky Cordy. Charisma ruled that scene.

> And for reasons I don't
> understand, Mrs. Quality absolutely adored the line "so, she turned
> into an actual feline?"

Heh. I love the scene between Cordy and Oz too. "Geez, Cordelia.
You're like a great big cat."

> The closing portions of the episode pit Giles against his old
> acquaintance and suggest that he's somehow more than he seems. And
> then we leave it at that. Quite potentially interesting, and I tend to
> like seeing him save the day. Of course, it'd be more interesting if
> I had any confidence that the show will be able to explain why Giles
> has never contributed before when a little bad-assery would've been
> useful. See, if continuity were stronger, the series would be
> better... but I fully expect Giles'-abilities-related inconsistencies
> to be yet another thing I'll have to just "accept." (C'mon
> show, prove me wrong. I dare you.)

I think often, when the show seems to have poor character continuity,
it's a case of the writers having a better (or worse, as your mileage
may vary) idea later. They didn't have every little detail of the
characters' backgrounds worked out at the beginning, and sometimes come
up with things that don't quite fit with what we've seen before. Well,
I read comic books. I eat retcons for breakfast. I can live with it if
it's an interesting retcon. (ten people will now explain why Halloween
wasn't a Giles retcon).

> Getting back to all the talk about maintaining the status quo,
> best-case scenario is that "Halloween" will be remembered as the
> one that gets things moving on. (Worst-case is that it'll end up
> being remembered as inconsequential fluff. But fun fluff.) Buffy and
> Angel wander off together at the end, and Xander is able to admit that
> he won't be the one separating them. Now we'll see if he actually
> remembers that little factoid. It's good to see someone finally get
> a chance to score: hopefully they enjoyed the whole
> being-momentarily-happy thing,

*kills self to avoid spoiling*

> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Putting aside the big-picture concerns, this
> one's a blast.

Yep. Halloween might be the ep I've watched more than any other. I've
loved it from day one, although I don't place it near the top of the
best eps list (my list of favorites and list of best eps are very
different, because I have a lot of guilty pleasures, although this
isn't one of them). Definitely a Good. Not Earth-shattering
television, but very enjoyable. In fact, it's just... neat.

-- Mike Zeares

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 10:10:09 AM2/7/06
to
In article <1139318992.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

>
> Fanwank challenge! Within the rules and canon of the show, explain why
> the ground supports Ghost Willow.

Who cares?
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend

jil...@hotmail.com

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 10:30:49 AM2/7/06
to
Well, you know that old saying about "assumptions"? Like most of us
did, you're assuming that Snyder doesn't know what's going on for
certain. You're assuming that his personality is not already a
reaction to that knowledge. In other words, you're assuming that Buffy
impresses him in the least. In Snyder's world, she's only a girl who
probably reminds him too much of the ones who would have "gagged
themselves with a spoon" or whatever the saying was when he was in high
school.

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 10:40:25 AM2/7/06
to
In article <1139318992.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"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 6: "Halloween"
> (or "If the show does a Christmas Special too, I shall be very
> cross")
> Writer: Carl Elisworth
> Director: Bruce Seth Green

Others have commented on your tendency to spoiler-fish. It is making you
sound a bit too TWoP wannabee-ish.

I'll content myself with observing that you seem to be having a woods/
trees problem. Don't forget to kick back and enjoy the ride sometimes
(to mix metaphors freely).

Oh, and I can confidently say that somewhere in your review is a turn of
phrase that is gonna come back and bite you arse BIG time.

rrh...@acme.com

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 10:58:46 AM2/7/06
to

shuggie wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:

As I write this, there are five responses, all of them excellent. I
could happily give a "Me, too!" reply to all of them. I am gong with
Shuggie's because he touches on a point that particularly jumped out as
I read Mr. Quality's post:

Exactly. AoQ has not covered all the possibilities for Snyder,
including that which turns out to be the case.

On a meta level, there are two ways to approach a show like this:
giving it the benefit of the doubt and waiting for these things to
resolve themselves, or not giving it the benefit of the doubt and
throwing in the towel. Both are reasonable depending on the
circumstances. I'm not suggesting that we are obliged to watch every
piece of crap that comes on television hoping that, all rational
expectation to the contrary, it will turn out to be brilliant. Life is
short and we all have to made decisions about how to spend our time.

So the question is, does the new viewer such as Mr. Quality have
sufficient reason to give Buffy this benefit? This depends largely on
his opinion of the series to date: is the writing generally
thoughtful, or slapdash? Outside recommendations also come into play.
Do persons whose opinions you often agree with recommend the show? Do
the people in this group come across as thoughtful, or as deluded
fanboys?

For whatever it is worth, Mr. Quality, I have agreed with your
assessments more often than not. This suggests to me that our tastes
are reasonably similar. I also think that we are only now at the point
where the show really hits is stride. If you find this at all
persuasive, then I encourage you to suspend judgment on character
continuity issues. If you think I am a deluded fanboy (as does, for
example, my wife...) then feel free to disregard this.

Richard R. Hershberger

kenm47

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 11:09:38 AM2/7/06
to
"If you think I am a deluded fanboy (as does, for
example, my wife...) then feel free to disregard this."

Yeah? Mine too. :-) She must be right, because I'm enjoying the show
all over again.

Ken (Brooklyn)

Espen Schjønberg

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 11:33:05 AM2/7/06
to
On 07.02.2006 14:29, Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 6: "Halloween"

> Fanwank challenge! Within the rules and canon of the show, explain why


> the ground supports Ghost Willow. Any answer employing the phrases
> "TV convention" or "budget" will be disqualified.

Direction matters. Horizontal ground, vertical wall. Oh, and it is TV
convention, and the budget would have been totally blown if they should
make her float ;-)

Honestly, i am a bit in the "doesn't matter" camp. As you noticed...

> 6) "Halloween" - Good]

Only good? Why not excelllent? Well, it is a problem that Buffy is not
the hero. But Willow is such a good hero here.

It has a problem with torture, and I dislike the torture. I do dislike
violence, even if I not give this impression. I dislike the way torture
here is depicted as "good", and used as a solution. This glorifies the
use of torture as a solution, and this is a bad thing.

Also, Buff lets the vampire off the hook in the end of the show. She
lets him run away relatively easily.

A question: where does she use fake accent? This is not retorical, I
actually wonder! I haven't noticed, I'm not good with english accents.

But I must admit: I love this episode.

And I cannot wait for your next review.

--
Espen

Clairel

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 12:07:05 PM2/7/06
to

--In all the scenes when Buffy has been magically affected to think
she's an 18th-century lady, she has a weird accent. It sometimes
sounds English (sort of) and sometimes like an American Southern Belle.
Think Vivien Leigh playing Scarlet O'Hara.

If your first language isn't English, this may be hard to hear. But
when I'm watching foreign movies in languages that I've learned, I
usually notice when accents are odd. For example, the main character
in "Il Postino" had a really strange way of pronouncing Italian; a
regional dialect, I'm guessing, since the actor was Italian and Italian
was his native language.

When listening to Buffy in "Halloween," listen for dropped R's. That's
the main giveaway. (When she's magically affected her voice is also
higher-pitched; an American girl could have a high-pitched voice,
certainly, but Buffy typically doesn't and it's a giveaway that Buffy
is not herself in those scenes.)

And I agree with others who said AOQ needs to give this series time to
reveal things such as what the real deal is with Snyder, and needs to
assume there is an intelligent mind behind the writing and planning on
this show. All the scenes with Spike were great, too; major viewing
amusement in all of them. I can't believe AOQ is so dismissive of
that.

Clairel

kenm47

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 12:16:06 PM2/7/06
to
OCD: Spike says "Well! This is just... neat!"

I have to remember to look these things up - always. Cannot rely upon
failing memory.

PS: I think this was also the first time we learned that Buffy-verse
vamps can be filmed, well, taped, despite not casting a reflection.
Much fanwanking has resulted from that over the years.

PPS: I also think it's the first time we learn that Dru has verifiable
visions.

And who doesn't love this exchange:

Drusilla: (takes his hand) Do you love my insides? The parts you can't

see?
Spike: Eyeballs to entrails, my sweet. That's why I've got to study
this Slayer. Once I know her I can kill her. And once I kill her you
can
have your run of Sunnyhell. Get strong again.
Drusilla: Don't worry. Everything's switching. Outside to inside.
(breathes at Spike's neck) It makes her weak.
Spike: Really? Did my pet have a vision?
Drusilla: Do you know what I miss? Leeches.
Spike: Come on, talk to Daddy. This thing that makes the Slayer weak?
When is it?
Drusilla: Tomorrow.
Spike: Tomorrow's Halloween. Nothing happens on Halloween.
Drusilla: Someone's come to change it all. Someone new."

Ken (Brooklyn)

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 1:03:40 PM2/7/06
to
As expected, a lot of interesting responses to one particular topic,
and good considerate-ness all around as far as avoiding spoilers.

rrh...@acme.com wrote:

> Exactly. AoQ has not covered all the possibilities for Snyder,
> including that which turns out to be the case.
>
> On a meta level, there are two ways to approach a show like this:
> giving it the benefit of the doubt and waiting for these things to
> resolve themselves, or not giving it the benefit of the doubt and
> throwing in the towel. Both are reasonable depending on the
> circumstances. I'm not suggesting that we are obliged to watch every
> piece of crap that comes on television hoping that, all rational
> expectation to the contrary, it will turn out to be brilliant. Life is
> short and we all have to made decisions about how to spend our time.
>
> So the question is, does the new viewer such as Mr. Quality have
> sufficient reason to give Buffy this benefit? This depends largely on
> his opinion of the series to date: is the writing generally
> thoughtful, or slapdash? Outside recommendations also come into play.
> Do persons whose opinions you often agree with recommend the show? Do
> the people in this group come across as thoughtful, or as deluded
> fanboys?

That really hits at the root of the issue. Do I have substantial
reason to operate from the assumption that Joss et at. know exactly
what they're doing? Based on what I've seen so far, no. The writing
doens't always seem "thoughful," although it's not even close to
"slapdash." Characterization has mostly made sense, but there have
been hiccups too, most of which have been discussed at length in the
appropriate reviews. (And part of it is interpretation too... some
people have agued that phasing Cordelia into the main group was clearly
planned out from the beginning, whereas it looked more to me like a
case of never quite knowing what to do with the character.)

Basically, I've found the writing in the first eighteen episodes to
have a general idea of direction, but to fumble around some. So, the
natural expectation is that if something that seems like an
inappropriate reset-button element is used, there should be some hint,
somewhere, that not all is as it seems. Unless your show has the air
of being flawlessly planned out, you shouldn't automatically expect
viewers to give you the benefit of the doubt.

While it's nice to hear people implying that Snyder's behavior (but
what about the Slaypack not finding said behavior at all odd?) will
eventually make sense, when I put on my new-viewer hat, I don't think l
have adequate reason to take it as any more than face value.

-AOQ.

Vanya6724

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 1:16:22 PM2/7/06
to

vague disclaimer wrote:
> In article <1139318992.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Fanwank challenge! Within the rules and canon of the show, explain why
> > the ground supports Ghost Willow.
>
> Who cares?

True, and this is not just a TV convention - it is a time honored
convention of pretty much any ghost story ever told. Now justifying
vampires being filmable and photographable - that's harder to do.

rrh...@acme.com

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 1:36:17 PM2/7/06
to

I never saw these early seasons as a new viewer. I came in much later
and went back to fill in the early stuff. So I have difficulty judging
your judgments. I have trouble even judging if I would have liked the
show early on. I enjoy clever writing. (Earlier shows I like include
Moonlighting and Northern Exposure. Later shows I like include
Deadwood and Veronica Mars.) I think I would have enjoyed the show for
that. But I also agree that it was spotty early on.

As for the Scoobies not finding Snyder's behavior odd, partly it is
established that people tend to edit Sunnydale weirdnesses from their
memories. The Scoobies could simply be assuming that Snyder is doing
that. But do high school students ever understand, or expect to
understand, the motivations of school administrators?

To reiterate: the show is soon going to, in my opinion, hit its
stride. I just took a glance at an episode guide. Over the rest of
the season I see three or four episodes I consider clunkers and many I
consider terrific. The season arc will really come into its own. If
you finish off the rest of the season and are indifferent, I would say
that at that point you will have given it a fair shot and Buffy isn't
for you. But you really should give it through the end of the season.

Richard R. Hershberger

kenm47

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 1:49:26 PM2/7/06
to
"Over the rest of the season I see three or four episodes I consider
clunkers and many I
consider terrific."

Clunkers? Clunkers?

Some are not as good as the others and thus suffer in comparison, but
"Clunkers"? I say nay, sir; no such thing in Seasons 1, 2 or 3.

YMMV, of course.

Ken (Brooklyn)

Rowan Hawthorn

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 2:07:29 PM2/7/06
to

Actually, since Buffy's vampires are indisputably solid forms, I find it
harder to justify the lack of a reflection, as opposed to older, more
traditional stories, where the vampires were able to become incorporeal
at will.

--
Rowan Hawthorn

"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"

rrh...@acme.com

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 2:03:51 PM2/7/06
to

Rowan Hawthorn wrote:
> Vanya6724 wrote:
> > vague disclaimer wrote:
> >
> >>In article <1139318992.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Fanwank challenge! Within the rules and canon of the show, explain why
> >>>the ground supports Ghost Willow.
> >>
> >>Who cares?
> >
> >
> > True, and this is not just a TV convention - it is a time honored
> > convention of pretty much any ghost story ever told. Now justifying
> > vampires being filmable and photographable - that's harder to do.
> >
>
> Actually, since Buffy's vampires are indisputably solid forms, I find it
> harder to justify the lack of a reflection, as opposed to older, more
> traditional stories, where the vampires were able to become incorporeal
> at will.

As I recall, the Fred Saberhagen vampire stories had the reason for
lack of reflection being the properties of silver. I don't recall any
explanation of the connection between vampires and silver: it just
was. But in any case, they wouldn't film with traditional cameras
either, since the chemical reaction is based on a silver compound. I
don't think the subject of video cameras ever arose: the books were
written long before they were something that non-professionals would
have. But presumably, if they are consistent, a vampire would show up
just fine on video. (Are modern mirrors actually silvered? I'm
guessing not: aluminum, maybe? But I don't know.)

Richard R. Hershberger

rrh...@acme.com

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 2:11:15 PM2/7/06
to

So say you. My mileage does vary. I was thinking specifically of nos.
11 and 20. I'm not really all that crazy about nos. 7 and 12, either.
I suspect that we will agree on which are the best episodes, though.
In any case, better to wait for Mr. Quality to reach them before we go
into more detail.

Richard R. Hershberger

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 2:17:58 PM2/7/06
to
Espen Schjønberg wrote:

> > Fanwank challenge! Within the rules and canon of the show, explain why
> > the ground supports Ghost Willow. Any answer employing the phrases
> > "TV convention" or "budget" will be disqualified.
>
> Direction matters. Horizontal ground, vertical wall. Oh, and it is TV
> convention, and the budget would have been totally blown if they should
> make her float ;-)

Aww, and you were so close to being eligible too... ;-)

> Honestly, i am a bit in the "doesn't matter" camp. As you noticed...

That's why it's not a glaring flaw, it's fanwank!

> > 6) "Halloween" - Good]
>
> Only good? Why not excelllent? Well, it is a problem that Buffy is not
> the hero. But Willow is such a good hero here.

I don't see anything wrong with Wil and Giles getting a show for
themselves every now and then.

Not "Excellent" because it's not quite good enough, obviously. Heh.
I'd rank the first half "Decent" (in part because of the ongoing
continuity debate, and in part becuase it goes on longer than it needs
to with nothing of note happening) and the second half "Excellent."
The end result feels pretty much "Good."

I think you atb-v-s types need to learn to be more satisfied if a
favorite episode gets a "Good." That's like a 4/5 rating, so it's
pretty high praise (especially since I tend to be stingy with the high
ratings). If an episode gets "Good," it means that I liked it and it
made me excited to watch the next one.

-AOQ

kenm47

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 2:18:21 PM2/7/06
to

I thought silver is no longer in most film emulsions these days. No?

The silver connection has been suggested to come from vampires being
descendents of suicide Judas (and the 30 pieces of silver reference to
go with the cross reference). <However, that does not seem to be the
progenitor in the Buffy-verse if Giles is to be believed> Exactly why
silver works on werewolves as well I'm less clear.

http://www.house-eclipse.org/myth/judas.shtml

http://www.angelfire.com/tn/vampires/step3.html

Ken (Brooklyn)

kenm47

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 2:19:41 PM2/7/06
to
"In any case, better to wait for Mr. Quality to reach them before we go

into more detail."

Agreed :-)

Ken (Brooklyn)

Scythe Matters

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 2:25:42 PM2/7/06
to
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:

> That really hits at the root of the issue. Do I have substantial
> reason to operate from the assumption that Joss et at. know exactly
> what they're doing? Based on what I've seen so far, no.

Certainly, Joss and company don't "know exactly what they're doing" at
this stage (this is not Babylon 5) but neither are they operating
without definite goals (this is not Voyager or The X-Files). There are
arcs, and they are planned...not to a Straczynskian level of detail, but
what is?...by Joss (and company). If you don't see them -- and it's
certainly likely that you don't, as people vary in their sensitivity to
such things, and as I wrote earlier these are _very_ early days in terms
of the "Buffyverse" -- that's fine. But this is a very different thing
than asserting that they don't exist, and that the evidence of their
nonexistence is there on the screen. In some cases, you may be missing
things. In others, you may not.

It's spoiling to tell you which is which, of course. ;-)

> Characterization has mostly made sense, but there have
> been hiccups too, most of which have been discussed at length in the
> appropriate reviews.

Yes, there have been, and you've been insightful at identifying some of
the hiccups. But not everything you've identified as out of character is
out of character...and you've missed some things, too. None of this is
surprising, as the show _is_ new (to you). I like the confidence of your
opinions, and your reviews are refreshing...not least because, like
many, I'm taking the opportunity to rewatch as you go along. What I
worry about is your confidence that you see the bigger picture clearly.
A hypothetical reader (Arbitrar of Hindsight, let's call him) could have
some fun excerpting your boldest statements and comparing them with
later realities.

The difference, to me, is in saying "I don't get what they're doing with
[character]" and saying "they don't know what they're doing with
[character]." The latter is either demonstrably true or untrue, and you
will eventually know which. And perhaps it's even more fun (for us) to
see you puruse the latter path.. But it's also more fun (for us) to see
you get as much out of the show as possible -- even if you end up
disliking it -- and there's a rush to judgment that's getting in the way
of that.

> (And part of it is interpretation too... some people have agued that
> phasing Cordelia into the main group was clearly
> planned out from the beginning, whereas it looked more to me like a
> case of never quite knowing what to do with the character.)

Well, how do you know that this is a matter of interpretation? Maybe it
is, and maybe it isn't. Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong. One
follows from the other; if it was intentional, then you missed it.

> Basically, I've found the writing in the first eighteen episodes to
> have a general idea of direction, but to fumble around some.

Yes, that's a characterization I would agree with. Remember that you're
18 episodes into a series. That's not even a full season. You loved DS9
(and so did I, at least until the Dominion destroyed the show), but
while its first 18 were certainly better than TNG's first 18, there was
little to suggest that it would do anything outstanding at that stage.
One could easily have complained that they didn't seem to have anything
interesting for Bashir, or O'Brien, or Dax to do. And why was Kira such
an angry, one-note character? You know the answers to those complaints.

> So the natural expectation is that if something that seems like an


> inappropriate reset-button element is used, there should be some hint,
> somewhere, that not all is as it seems. Unless your show has the air
> of being flawlessly planned out, you shouldn't automatically expect
> viewers to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I don't disagree with that, though remember what I said earlier: you
might not be seeing things correctly. But I think it's your very
tendency to jump to final conclusions that gets in the way of a slightly
deeper analysis that would mitigate some of your fears. (Which is not to
criticize overmuch; I think you've been remarkably incisive for an only
slightly-spoiled first-time viewer.)

And yes, they are still working things out. Their universe is being
invented as they write, and there's not much canon as of yet. Things are
mutable. In greater hindsight, you'll see even more inexplicable
abandonments of old ideas (for example, something Giles said in "The
Witch" is about to be permanently retconned; I doubt this is much of a
spoiler because I suspect you've already seen the retcon), but -- at
least arguably -- these will be to the betterment of the characters and
the series. So in that sense, you're not wrong to point out seeming plot
holes, but if you're going to be incapable of accepting them either
temporarily (when you're wrong about something being an oversight) or
permanently (when you're right), you're going to have trouble with the
series.

Your "not all is as it seems" comment is particularly interesting. I
can't go too far down this path without spoilers, but at this point
there's only one of the main and principal supporting characters that
has had pretty much everything put in front of you, the viewer, to
consider. In some cases, there's no way you'd know that; in others, the
signs and hints are already there; in one specific case, your too-early
conclusion has kept you from seeing the rather dramatic character
development (and its likely conclusion) as well as you should.

> While it's nice to hear people implying that Snyder's behavior (but
> what about the Slaypack not finding said behavior at all odd?)

What should they find odd? Their experience has explicitly (from the
second episode of season one) been that those not-in-the-know aren't
capable of accepting the supernatural events all around them, so why
should Snyder be any different? They weren't privy to Snyder's scene at
the end of "School Hard," even though we were. The other part of
Snyder's behavior is his obvious antipathy towards Buffy. She _does_
skip class an awful lot, she _is_ a poor (or perhaps underachieving,
though it seems that Snyder wouldn't care to make the distinction)
student, she _is_ involved in an awful lot of open violence, she is
confrontational towards authority (ref. "School Hard," yet again) and
the notion that she's something other than she seems has clearly
occurred to more than just Snyder; his treatment of her is justified,
and in character given that he treats pretty much everyone else around
him with contempt.

The Slayerettes, by comparison, are -- with the exception of Giles, who
doesn't directly witness a lot of the Synder/Buffy interaction -- high
schoolers. Normally, high schoolers don't openly defy or even question
the principal, especially one with an obvious mean streak, and
especially when Buffy is an explicit target for expulsion. Buffy and her
cohorts are still 16-17 years old.

This is normal behavior on all sides, and in character. For now. Might
things change?

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 2:30:46 PM2/7/06
to
kenm47 wrote:
> Your inner curmudgeon needs to calm down. It's keeping you from seeing
> the greatness that's before you.

Nope. The show needs to stop arousing my inner curmudgeon so I can
enjoy the good stuff even more.

> BTW: Ghost Willow doesn't sink through the floor because ghosts never
> do. They actually hover and give the appearance of being supported.

Fanwank challenge participants: This is the explanation to beat, at
least so far.

> If there's anything NOW disturbing about the episode, it's what we were
> discussing for WSWB: torture. I, for one, still have no issue with
> Buffy torturing an evil evil human soulless walking dead husk. I
> suddenly felt a tad uncomfortable with Giles beating/torturing evil
> human Ethan. Since it saves everyone in the nick of time, I have mixed
> feelings about the message.

What's weird is that it bothered me (in a moral way, not a "flaw" way)
more in WSWB than it did here. Maybe it's because burining up someone
from the inside seems more evil than just beating them up for some
reason. Or maybe it's becuase Ethan was directly responsible for what
was happening, rather than just someone Giles had gotten his hands on.
It was certainly efffective in making Giles seem like someone not to
fuck with. Pummelling someone for information is a standard
action-hero move, so I guess I'd prefer if the moral implications were
addressed more often.

Now, where are you guys "looking up" your quotes? I'd like to be able
to quote more accurately myself too.

-AOQ

kenm47

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 2:47:36 PM2/7/06
to
"Now, where are you guys "looking up" your quotes? I'd like to be able

to quote more accurately myself too."

Well, over the years I built up a personal resource of fan transcripts
that were on the net. I understand that since then "official" scripts
are available in book form. Just search Amazon for "Buffy scripts."

Just might be some are still availble to find via Google with say an
episode name and the word transcript or the like in the search terms.

A LOT of fan sites are still, amazingly, up and running. Some still
attended to, others just phantoms but still packed with info. Just be
careful, otherwise you'll probably hit a spoiler now and then.

Ken (Brooklyn)

rrh...@acme.com

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 2:53:18 PM2/7/06
to

Probably. I don't know, but silver is expensive and I would expect
that they would come up with something else cheaper.

> The silver connection has been suggested to come from vampires being
> descendents of suicide Judas (and the 30 pieces of silver reference to
> go with the cross reference). <However, that does not seem to be the
> progenitor in the Buffy-verse if Giles is to be believed> Exactly why
> silver works on werewolves as well I'm less clear.

A Judas connection seems unlikely in the Buffyverse. It strikes me as
a retcon in any case. For werewolves (and I am strictly pulling this
out of my butt), they are associated with the moon. In alchemy, silver
is also associated with the moon. Coincidence? Umm... Maybe. Heck
if I know. I have seen suggestions that any connection of vampires
with silver is merely confusion between vampire myths and werewolf
myths. I have never looked into this enough to have an informed
opinion.

Richard R. Hershberger

EGK

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 2:59:01 PM2/7/06
to
On 7 Feb 2006 11:30:46 -0800, "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
wrote:

>kenm47 wrote:


>> Your inner curmudgeon needs to calm down. It's keeping you from seeing
>> the greatness that's before you.
>
>Nope. The show needs to stop arousing my inner curmudgeon so I can
>enjoy the good stuff even more.
>
>> BTW: Ghost Willow doesn't sink through the floor because ghosts never
>> do. They actually hover and give the appearance of being supported.
>
>Fanwank challenge participants: This is the explanation to beat, at
>least so far.

Just curious where you picked up the term "fanwank" if, as you say, you're
unspoiled for BTVS and don't watch much series TV? :)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
(Calvin and Hobbes)

Eric Hunter

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 3:08:05 PM2/7/06
to
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 6: "Halloween"

> We have an episode in which Snyder is forced to see Buffy
> taking action to defend the school against a supernatural
> threat and save the lives of the principal and the people he's
> with. The end of that episode makes it clear that he himself
> doesn't believe the "rational" explanations that he's feeding
> the populace.

Yes, but we don't know if he actually knows the "truth that
is out there".

> How does this change the relationship between
> these characters? Well, I don't know, since BTVS
> hasn't bothered to give Shimerman's character a bona
> fide personality yet beyond comic-relief plot device.

And that is intentional. The over-arching metaphor for
the first three years of BtVS was, "High School is Hell",
and the Principal is the undefined Bogeyman in any high
school. Did you know your high school principal as a
person, or just as an authority figure to be avoided?

> Snyder could develop some gratitude and a new respect
> for the Slaypack, stop trying to heap pointless crap on
> them.

But he has already been defined as an authoritarian who
hates kids. This sort of behavior would be completely
out-of-character for him.

> Or he could try to keep things calm on the surface

Isn't that exactly what he's doing? "Nothing to see here,
move along".

> from where I'm sitting, I've seen the writers showing a strong
> interest in... "character continuity." And I don't think it's an
> accident that the emotionally heavy episodes like "Prophecy Girl"
> and WSWB are among the most popular of the eighteen shows
> I've seen so far. They represent what the show does from time
> to time, but hasn't done enough with. And that's why I think
> BTVS has been a good show that steadfastly (and frustratingly,
> because of its incredible potential) refuses to become a great one.

Lessons sometimes take a while to sink in, and character
growth tends to be incremental, rather than explicit. Cordy
is still shallow and self-absorbed in "Halloween", but not as
much as she was in WTTH. Give them time, they are young
and still growing. ;-)

Eric.
--

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 3:12:10 PM2/7/06
to
In article <1139335420....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

> While it's nice to hear people implying that Snyder's behavior (but
> what about the Slaypack not finding said behavior at all odd?) will
> eventually make sense, when I put on my new-viewer hat, I don't think l
> have adequate reason to take it as any more than face value.
>
> -AOQ.

They don't see a lot of the stuff we do. They didn't get to overhear
the conversation between Snyder and Policeman Bob, or see any of the
scenes in the classroom with Snyder, Joyce and the others. To them,
Snyder behaving the way he always has seems normal, because they haven't
seen any reason for him to behave differently.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>

Patrician

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 3:15:40 PM2/7/06
to

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139318992.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
<snip>

> This is going to get ranty and off-topic, but it's been building up
> for awhile. We have an episode in which Snyder is forced to see Buffy


> taking action to defend the school against a supernatural threat and
> save the lives of the principal and the people he's with. The end of
> that episode makes it clear that he himself doesn't believe the

> "rational" explanations that he's feeding the populace. How does


> this change the relationship between these characters? Well, I don't
> know, since BTVS hasn't bothered to give Shimerman's character a

> bona fide personality yet beyond comic-relief plot device. But that
> just means there are lots of ways to take this. Snyder could develop


> some gratitude and a new respect for the Slaypack, stop trying to heap

> pointless crap on them. He could become convinced that they're the
> reason the attack happened in the first place, and start making more
> serious efforts to get them out of his school. He could start keeping
> his distance from Buffy and crew, afraid of getting too close to their
> world again. Or he could try to keep things calm on the surface but
> when no one else is looking, hire himself a shrink. Or a supernatural
> investigator like a Harry Dresden (or like a certain person who I
> believe will open a business like that in approximately 1.75 TV
> seasons). There are so many different approaches, all of which would
> be valid and wouldn't contradict anything seen before. There's
> really only one premise that doesn't make much sense - that
> everything would stay EXACTLY THE FUCKING SAM.

<snip>

It does make sense, honest it really, really does. Just not yet.

Trev

> One-sentence summary: Putting aside the big-picture concerns, this
> one's a blast.
>
> AOQ rating: Good
>
> [Season Two so far:
> 1) "When She Was Bad" - Good
> 2) "Some Assembly Required" - Weak
> 3) "School Hard" - Decent
> 4) "Inca Mummy Girl" - Good
> 5) "Reptile Boy" - Decent
> 6) "Halloween" - Good]
>


Don Sample

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 3:16:38 PM2/7/06
to
In article <1139336182....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Vanya6724" <vanya...@pochta.ru> wrote:

Very few cameras use mirrors to put the vampire's image onto the
film/CCD.

Patrician

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 3:22:40 PM2/7/06
to

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139318992.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 6: "Halloween"
> (or "If the show does a Christmas Special too, I shall be very
> cross")
> Writer: Carl Elisworth
> Director: Bruce Seth Green
>
<snip>

> Fanwank challenge! Within the rules and canon of the show, explain why

> the ground supports Ghost Willow. Any answer employing the phrases
> "TV convention" or "budget" will be disqualified.
>

<snip>

Humans are creatures of habit. It is a learned "habit" that the ground
supports us and so, as a ghost, Willow believes the same at an unconcieous
level. It could be that if she concentrated she fall below ground level.

Trev

Clairel

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 3:24:03 PM2/7/06
to

EGK wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2006 11:30:46 -0800, "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >kenm47 wrote:
> >> Your inner curmudgeon needs to calm down. It's keeping you from seeing
> >> the greatness that's before you.
> >
> >Nope. The show needs to stop arousing my inner curmudgeon so I can
> >enjoy the good stuff even more.
> >
> >> BTW: Ghost Willow doesn't sink through the floor because ghosts never
> >> do. They actually hover and give the appearance of being supported.
> >
> >Fanwank challenge participants: This is the explanation to beat, at
> >least so far.
>
> Just curious where you picked up the term "fanwank" if, as you say, you're
> unspoiled for BTVS and don't watch much series TV? :)

--Wasn't that term used by comic book fans years before it was ever
used by TV series fans?

Clairel

Eric Hunter

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 3:33:41 PM2/7/06
to
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:

> Now, where are you guys "looking up" your quotes? I'd like to be able
> to quote more accurately myself too.

There are several script sources on the 'net. Personally, I use:

http://www.buffyworld.com/

The transcript for your next episode is at:
http://www.buffyworld.com/buffy/season2/transcripts/19_tran.shtml

Eric.
--

Steve Schaffner

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 3:35:42 PM2/7/06
to
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

> I thought silver is no longer in most film emulsions these days. No?

No, film still has silver. Color films don't have any silver left
by the time you finish developing them, though.

--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce

Jeff Jacoby

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 4:00:36 PM2/7/06
to
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:16:38 -0500, Don <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article <1139336182....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Vanya6724" <vanya...@pochta.ru> wrote:

[snip]

>> True, and this is not just a TV convention - it is a time honored
>> convention of pretty much any ghost story ever told. Now justifying
>> vampires being filmable and photographable - that's harder to do.
>
> Very few cameras use mirrors to put the vampire's image onto the
> film/CCD.

But don't they still use a mirror for the viewfinder?


Jeff

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 4:12:52 PM2/7/06
to
In article <au2dnfmq5P_...@comcast.com>,
Jeff Jacoby <jjaco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

SLRs do, but we've never seen anyone taking a picture of a vamp with an
SLR. If they did, the picture would turn out fine, they just wouldn't
be able to see what they were taking a picture of.

EGK

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 4:18:44 PM2/7/06
to

You got me. I used to read comics in my youth but never heard the term till
I started posting in here. Lots of people think it's an insulting term
without knowing what it means.

Eric Hunter

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 4:22:16 PM2/7/06
to
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/12/valsparana.htm

"Five basic inputs are needed to make a mirror: glass,
a tin solution, a silver solution, a copper solution, and
mirror backing paint. Most mirrors are made by placing
clean pieces of glass flat on a conveyor belt, which
moves the glass through the various stations where the
solutions and paint are applied to the back of each piece
of glass. The first layer applied to the glass is a tin
solution, which is an adhesion promoter so that the
silver will bond to the glass. After the tin solution, a
silver solution is applied, which creates a metal film
on the glass surface, giving the mirror its reflective
surface. The third step is to apply a copper solution,
which helps keep the silver from oxidizing and creates
a surface to which the mirror backing paint will adhere.
Finally, the mirror backing paint is applied. This adds
a hard coating that protects the solutions from
becoming scratched or damaged and further protects
the silver solution from corrosion."

So, yes, mirrors are still silvered.

Eric.
--


Don Sample

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 4:20:19 PM2/7/06
to
In article <dsample-9BCADA...@news.giganews.com>,
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:

> In article <1139336182....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Vanya6724" <vanya...@pochta.ru> wrote:
>
> > vague disclaimer wrote:
> > > In article <1139318992.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Fanwank challenge! Within the rules and canon of the show, explain why
> > > > the ground supports Ghost Willow.
> > >
> > > Who cares?
> >
> > True, and this is not just a TV convention - it is a time honored
> > convention of pretty much any ghost story ever told. Now justifying
> > vampires being filmable and photographable - that's harder to do.
>
> Very few cameras use mirrors to put the vampire's image onto the
> film/CCD.

We do see pictures of a vampire taken with a Polaroid camera, later in
the series, and Polaroids do use mirrors, so here's an alternate theory:

- the no reflection thing is actually a psychological effect, taking
place in the mind of the observer. The light is reflected, and purely
mechanical devices can record that reflected light. But a live observer
can not see it. (This also explains all those times when we get to see
vampire's reflections in background objects. Every time we are
deliberately shown that a vampire has no reflection, we are seeing from
a character's point of view. In the detached camera PoV, we can see
reflections.)

George W Harris

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 4:29:36 PM2/7/06
to
On 7 Feb 2006 07:10:00 -0800, "Mike Zeares" <mze...@yahoo.com> wrote:

:> And for reasons I don't
:> understand, Mrs. Quality absolutely adored the line "so, she turned
:> into an actual feline?"
:
:Heh. I love the scene between Cordy and Oz too. "Geez, Cordelia.
:You're like a great big cat."

*Loved* watching her walk away at the end of
that exchange, too. Yum.
--
"It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country."
-Hermann Goering

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.

Rowan Hawthorn

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 4:56:22 PM2/7/06
to
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> I think you atb-v-s types need to learn to be more satisfied if a
> favorite episode gets a "Good."

Or, perhaps you need to get used to the fact that people *are* going to
have quibbles with your reviews, especially when they feel that you may
have misinterpreted, misconstrued, or simply missed something. That's
the hazards of posting reviews in a medium where the reviews can be
immediately reviewed and responded to, and especially in a group where
every single detail of every episode has been dissected and quibbled
over since the night they aired (and sometimes before...)

You've made a number of good points in your reviews, but a few of the
posters who have responded are also making good points. These are
characters who don't reveal every facet of their character at first
glance, and there are a lot of developments and revelations to come.

rrh...@acme.com

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 4:59:17 PM2/7/06
to

Rowan Hawthorn wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> >
> > I think you atb-v-s types need to learn to be more satisfied if a
> > favorite episode gets a "Good."
>
> Or, perhaps you need to get used to the fact that people *are* going to
> have quibbles with your reviews, especially when they feel that you may
> have misinterpreted, misconstrued, or simply missed something. That's
> the hazards of posting reviews in a medium where the reviews can be
> immediately reviewed and responded to, and especially in a group where
> every single detail of every episode has been dissected and quibbled
> over since the night they aired (and sometimes before...)
>
> You've made a number of good points in your reviews, but a few of the
> posters who have responded are also making good points. These are
> characters who don't reveal every facet of their character at first
> glance, and there are a lot of developments and revelations to come.

Now, now. Mr. Quality has been a mature adult. For that matter, so
has everyone else. The signal to noise ratio in these threads has been
astonishing. (I hope they don't kick us off usenet for breaking the
rules...)

Richard R. Hershberger

rrh...@acme.com

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 5:04:17 PM2/7/06
to

Good retcon! Are you familiar with "Plateau eyes" from Larry Niven's
novel "A Gift from Earth" of thirty or so years ago? He used
essentially the same thing, though he called it "psionic" rather than
"psychological".

Richard R. Hershberger

Apteryx

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 5:18:19 PM2/7/06
to
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1139321072....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Re Spike: Seems to me there was a lot of character development from
> "Well, this is ....neat" to his basically being a coward and again
> running away as soon as he loses his edge (some might see that as
> smarteer than the average vamp who insists on fighting The Slayer until
> dusted).
>
> Development all around. Yes, Willow is a leader. Yes, Giles has more in
> his background than we knew. Yes, Xander has a spine and an ingrained
> chivalry (OK, positive masculinity), and yes Snyder is still a jerk.
> Cordy is still a femme fatale and full of herself, and often funny
> (BTW, now she "knows" Angel is a vampire).

I don't think Willow is showing leadership so much as she is uniquely gifted
in this episode. She is the only character changed by her costume who
remembers who she is, and who the others are. Since there is no comment on
why this should be so, I assume it is a plot device. It would be too hard to
keep the story moving if the only ones who could see the change in Buffy etc
were the ones not changed themselves - Cordelia, Angel and Giles.

This was once one of my favourite episodes, but more than any other episode,
my regard for it has declined with repeated viewing. Not too much though, it
is still a lot of fun. I'd still call it Good, bordering on Excellent.
Overall it is my 48th favourite BtVS episode, 9th best in Season 2.

My main source of irritation with it tends to be Buffy as an absurd
representation of an 18th century "noblewoman"

--
Apteryx


Apteryx

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 5:23:04 PM2/7/06
to
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139318992.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
>
> Fanwank challenge! Within the rules and canon of the show, explain why
> the ground supports Ghost Willow. Any answer employing the phrases
> "TV convention" or "budget" will be disqualified.

Much more challenging fanwank challenge - Why (and how) does the door of
Ethan's shop open and close (off camera, but quite audibly) when Ghost
Willow leaves Giles and Ethan there

--
Apteryx


Rowan Hawthorn

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 5:38:55 PM2/7/06
to

And I don't mean to change that; just pointing out that this group by
nature tends to be quibbilicious by nature, and it may be too much to
expect for readers who have immediate access to *not* quibble with the
reviews.

(I hope they don't kick us off usenet for breaking the
> rules...)
>
> Richard R. Hershberger
>

Rules...?

Scythe Matters

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 5:29:48 PM2/7/06
to
Apteryx wrote:

> She is the only character changed by her costume who
> remembers who she is, and who the others are. Since there is no comment on
> why this should be so, I assume it is a plot device.

She's a ghost, but she's a ghost of Willow. Hence: Willow's memories.

Carlos Moreno

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 5:30:31 PM2/7/06
to
vague disclaimer wrote:

> Oh, and I can confidently say that somewhere in your review is a turn of
> phrase that is gonna come back and bite you arse BIG time.

I know, I know, I know!!! :-)

Are you by any chance talking about this one:

V guvax ogif unf orra n tbbq fubj gung fgrnqsnfgyl naq sehfgengvatyl,
orpnhfr bs vgf vaperqvoyr cbgragvny ershfrf gb orpbzr n terng bar
?

(ROT13'd to avoid spoilage)

Carlos
--

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 5:35:01 PM2/7/06
to
In article <1139347799.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
rrh...@acme.com wrote:

> Don Sample wrote:

> > - the no reflection thing is actually a psychological effect, taking
> > place in the mind of the observer. The light is reflected, and purely
> > mechanical devices can record that reflected light. But a live observer
> > can not see it. (This also explains all those times when we get to see
> > vampire's reflections in background objects. Every time we are
> > deliberately shown that a vampire has no reflection, we are seeing from
> > a character's point of view. In the detached camera PoV, we can see
> > reflections.)
>
> Good retcon! Are you familiar with "Plateau eyes" from Larry Niven's
> novel "A Gift from Earth" of thirty or so years ago? He used
> essentially the same thing, though he called it "psionic" rather than
> "psychological".
>
> Richard R. Hershberger

Yes, I am familiar with "Plateau Eyes."

(And that's a fanwank, not a retcon.)

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 5:39:56 PM2/7/06
to
In article <M09Gf.137535$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
"Apteryx" <apt...@extra.co.nz> wrote:

Buffy didn't become a real 18th century noblewoman. She became what her
idea of a noblewoman was all about. Just like Xander didn't become a
real soldier. He became a movie-type soldier, complete with a gun with
a never emptying magazine. And the vampire got into Buffy's house
without an invitation, because it wasn't a real vampire; it a movie-type
vampire that didn't need an invitation.

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 5:44:30 PM2/7/06
to
In article <d59Gf.137537$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
"Apteryx" <apt...@extra.co.nz> wrote:

Coincidentally, just at that moment, someone came into the shop seeking
shelter from the weirdness that was happening on the streets of
Sunnydale. They hid under the counter when they heard what was going on
in the back between Giles and Ethan, and then snuck out later, after
Giles had gone.

Scythe Matters

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 5:47:19 PM2/7/06
to
Carlos Moreno wrote:
> vague disclaimer wrote:
>
>> Oh, and I can confidently say that somewhere in your review is a turn
>> of phrase that is gonna come back and bite you arse BIG time.

> Are you by any chance talking about this one:

I was thinking this one:

Vg'f tbbq gb frr fbzrbar svanyyl trg n punapr gb fpber: ubcrshyyl [Ohssl
naq Natry] rawblrq gur jubyr orvat-zbzragnevyl-unccl guvat

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 5:42:53 PM2/7/06
to
In article <Mb9Gf.34422$71.8...@wagner.videotron.net>,
Carlos Moreno <moreno_at_mo...@mailinator.com> wrote:

Nope.

This one:

(rot-13 and paraphrased in the interests of even greater obscurity)

Gurer vf n ersrerapr gb zbzragnel unccvarff - vg qbrfa'g fnl cresrpg
ohg, cebcurgvp be jung?
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 5:49:03 PM2/7/06
to
In article <1YSdnTgD2KvvvnTe...@rcn.net>,
Scythe Matters <sp...@spam.spam> wrote:

rot-13

Qvat.

(stifles childish giggle)

Patrician

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 5:50:06 PM2/7/06
to

<rrh...@acme.com> wrote in message
news:1139347799.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

If memory serves Plateau Eyes was caused by looking down the side of
Mount Lookitat into the mist/distance. As the eye (as he explained it) sees
no horizon or edges and this causes a mesmorising effect on the person
leading to a sort of self induced hypnotic trance.

Trev

John Briggs

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 6:28:59 PM2/7/06
to
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> Now, where are you guys "looking up" your quotes? I'd like to be able
> to quote more accurately myself too.

OK, here's trade secret: you can check the actual dialogue quotations by
using the "search" function on the Buffyverse Dialogue Database:
http://vrya.net/bdb/index.php
--
John Briggs


MBangel10 (Melissa)

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 6:32:55 PM2/7/06
to

Carlos, how do I read ROT13? I don't have ROT13 on my list of character
encoding.

Thanks! :)

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 6:36:37 PM2/7/06
to
In article <yu9Gf.16576$wl....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"Patrician" <ghj...@gmail.com> wrote:

No. Plateau Eyes was the psychic ability to make people ignore you. It
wasn't actually called Plateau Eyes in "A Gift from Earth." That was
the name given to the ability when it was referenced in other stories.
A side effect of Plateau Eyes, that gave it its name, was that the
pupils of people's eyes shrank when they were under the influence.

(I used the same effect in my Buffy/Stargate SG-1 story
"Misunderstandings.")

Mike Zeares

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 6:37:53 PM2/7/06
to

Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> I think you atb-v-s types need to learn to be more satisfied if a
> favorite episode gets a "Good." That's like a 4/5 rating, so it's
> pretty high praise (especially since I tend to be stingy with the high
> ratings). If an episode gets "Good," it means that I liked it and it
> made me excited to watch the next one.

That's what it means for me too. I've always reserved "excellent" for
the eps that leave me sitting there going, "wow!" The ones that hit
above the average level of the series.

A lot of these eps weren't that loved the first time out. Some have
become favorites after repeated viewings. There are many reasons for a
Buffy ep to be a favorite. The plot is rarely one of them, IMHO. But
sometimes it is. Those are usually the Excellent ones.

Some people, of course, loved every single thing the show ever did from
the first airing. More power to them.

For me, S2 Disc 2 marks the point where the show started to become
consistantly "good" instead of just "decent." Which doesn't mean it
doesn't continue to have ups and downs.

You hit on one of my major complaints of the show: eps where nothing
much gets going until Act 3. I prefer the eps where the main plot gets
going in the teaser. "Angel" was one of those.

-- Mike Zeares (just because it's my Favorite Show Ever doesn't mean I
can't look at it with critical eyes. It WAS often sloppy. I just
don't care much)

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 6:42:56 PM2/7/06
to
In article <%2aGf.16161$K42....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>,
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Buffyworld.com also has complete transcripts of all episodes.

kenm47

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 6:49:28 PM2/7/06
to

I found an online decoder at

http://www.rot13.com/

Ken (Brooklyn)

MBangel10 (Melissa)

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 6:56:27 PM2/7/06
to
Thanks Ken! :)

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 6:53:23 PM2/7/06
to
In article <%2aGf.16161$K42....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>,
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

However, you need to tread with extreme caution since there are huge
spoilers scattered pretty much throughout that site. The search
functionality is not all that, and there is no effort at all to protect
visitors from spoilers.

John Briggs

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 7:12:53 PM2/7/06
to

You can limit the search by episode number - unfortunately they use the same
episode numbers for the spinoff series...
--
John Briggs


vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 7:16:28 PM2/7/06
to
In article <9IaGf.15864$Fy4....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

So you've just got to get past the vast number of wide open spoilers all
over the front page.

MBangel10 (Melissa)

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 7:31:41 PM2/7/06
to
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 6: "Halloween"
> (or "If the show does a Christmas Special too, I shall be very
> cross")
> Writer: Carl Elisworth
> Director: Bruce Seth Green
>
> Halloween is just about the only appropriate holiday that lends itself
> to a _Buffy_ Holiday Special. But just because we hate to do the
> expected, in one of those nice little touches, it turns out to have no
> special supernatural significance in the Buffyverse. (I love modern
> American Halloween. It represents the triumph of fun over
> superstition.)
>
<snip> Yeah, stuff really has major consequences on this
> show.

This has been responded to quite a bit already but... you ain't seen the
half of it.


>
<snip again>

BTVS is not that kind of show, at least
> not for me. It's very much a character-driven series. I don't
> care much about the plots so much as I care about the people involved.
> Sure, all the actors are impossibly cute and all the dialogue is too
> witty to be "realistic," but the nature of the show demands people
> who change and grow, whom viewers can identify with.

If all I were interested in was the plot of Buffy episodes, I don't
think I would have stayed to see the show come to its conclusion. The
characters are what made me tune in week after week. Through good and
bad story lines, I stayed steadfast in getting my weekly fix of them
because I cared about those darn kids so much.

Yes. Buffy is the the type of show that demands character evolution. I
actually became vested in the characters by mid season 2. By the end of
that season, I had to watch season 3, and so on....

They do grow. A lot.


<snip>
>
> It's funny that I should bring this up in reference to
> "Halloween" (remember? The show that this wall of text is
> allegedly a review for?), since the ending of this one gives us yet
> another chance to turn the corner into something more exciting. I've
> just trained myself not to expect great things anymore.

Good, because when you meet (spoiler) and then later when (spoiler)
happens, and Buffy has to (spoiler).... ah, you'll see. :)
>

>
<snip>
>
> Finally, let's note that "Inca Mummy Girl"'s Oz is indeed a
> recurring character. Could Willow be the next one who gets lucky? I
> don't think so; I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's
> moving too slowly for him to be just a love interest. His fascination
> with her is somehow related to the supernatural, and probably not
> pleasant. You heard it here... last, I guess. And you already know
> whether I'm right or wrong. Feel free to discuss the metaphorical
> implications of the fact that so far he's only seen her in one
> costume or another; I've written too much as it is.

Yep, we do.
>
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Putting aside the big-picture concerns, this
> one's a blast.
>
I've missed posting about the last few episodes. Looks like I'm late on
this one too and everything
pretty much has already been said...So, I want to ask just one question.

I'm surprised you made no mention of Spike and Dru in this episode. As
someone already pointed out, their one scene together where Dru has the
'vision' has to be at least a little noteworthy, right?

P.S. I should be able to follow along better now that my Steelers fever
is finally starting to go down. I did however, make it to the parade
today. :)

Steve Schaffner

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 7:35:31 PM2/7/06
to
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> writes:

And the curtain that Willow brushes aside as she leaves Giles's side?

--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce

John Briggs

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 7:34:29 PM2/7/06
to
vague disclaimer wrote:
> In article <9IaGf.15864$Fy4....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> vague disclaimer wrote:
>>> In article <%2aGf.16161$K42....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>,
>>> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, where are you guys "looking up" your quotes? I'd like to be
>>>>> able to quote more accurately myself too.
>>>>
>>>> OK, here's trade secret: you can check the actual dialogue
>>>> quotations by using the "search" function on the Buffyverse
>>>> Dialogue Database: http://vrya.net/bdb/index.php
>>>
>>> However, you need to tread with extreme caution since there are huge
>>> spoilers scattered pretty much throughout that site. The search
>>> functionality is not all that, and there is no effort at all to
>>> protect visitors from spoilers.
>>
>> You can limit the search by episode number - unfortunately they use
>> the same episode numbers for the spinoff series...
>
> So you've just got to get past the vast number of wide open spoilers
> all over the front page.

OK, go straight to the search page:

http://vrya.net/bdb/search.php
--
John Briggs


vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 8:13:39 PM2/7/06
to
In article <d59Gf.137537$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
"Apteryx" <apt...@extra.co.nz> wrote:

Someone went out dressed up as Carol Anne Freeling.

drifter

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 8:34:46 PM2/7/06
to
rrh...@acme.com wrote:

/some snippage occurs/

> To reiterate: the show is soon going to, in my opinion, hit its
> stride. I just took a glance at an episode guide. Over the rest of
> the season I see three or four episodes I consider clunkers and many I
> consider terrific. The season arc will really come into its own. If
> you finish off the rest of the season and are indifferent, I would say
> that at that point you will have given it a fair shot and Buffy isn't
> for you. But you really should give it through the end of the season.

Pretty much what I told my sister. Last winter she was unemployed
(her boss got hit by a truck) and had to drop down to basic cable. To
give her something to watch, I lent her my first two seasons of Buffy
and said that if she watched all of that and didn't get into it, I would
stop bugging her about it. She called me the *next weekend* and said,
"I need season 3! NOW!" She blasted through all seven seasons in less
than two months, and has become quite a JM addict. I tried to get her
to slow down a bit and savor it, but it was like trying to tell my uncle
he doesn't really need another beer.

--

Kel
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."


drifter

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 8:43:37 PM2/7/06
to
Don Sample wrote:
> In article <dsample-9BCADA...@news.giganews.com>,
> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <1139336182....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Vanya6724" <vanya...@pochta.ru> wrote:
>>
>>> vague disclaimer wrote:
>>>> In article <1139318992.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,

>>>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fanwank challenge! Within the rules and canon of the show,
>>>>> explain why the ground supports Ghost Willow.
>>>>
>>>> Who cares?
>>>
>>> True, and this is not just a TV convention - it is a time honored
>>> convention of pretty much any ghost story ever told. Now justifying
>>> vampires being filmable and photographable - that's harder to do.
>>
>> Very few cameras use mirrors to put the vampire's image onto the
>> film/CCD.
>
> We do see pictures of a vampire taken with a Polaroid camera, later in
> the series, and Polaroids do use mirrors, so here's an alternate
> theory:
>
> - the no reflection thing is actually a psychological effect, taking
> place in the mind of the observer. The light is reflected, and purely
> mechanical devices can record that reflected light. But a live
> observer can not see it. (This also explains all those times when we
> get to see vampire's reflections in background objects. Every time
> we are deliberately shown that a vampire has no reflection, we are
> seeing from a character's point of view. In the detached camera PoV,
> we can see reflections.)

I recall Angel actually explained the no reflection thing in a later ep,
while explaining something else. Not wanting to spoil AOQ, I'll bring
it up at the appropriate time (unless I can't find you, or I forget).

Stephen Tempest

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 8:44:43 PM2/7/06
to
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> writes:

>(or "If the show does a Christmas Special too, I shall be very
>cross")

How do you feel about Thanksgiving Specials?
:)

But seriously, one thing that BtVS was good at was giving a sense of
real time elapsing between episodes, and following the seasons and
holidays does help that.

A friend of mine who also recently watched S1 and S2 for the first
time did say that the thing that really impressed him about _When She
Was Bad_ was the way they picked things up three months or so after
the end of _Prophecy Girl_, and showed that some things had changed
and others remained unresolved - rather than putting the characters
into the traditional TV limbo between seasons.

>Now, it's possible that I'm in the minority, and that people do in
>fact watch BTVS primarily to see what the monster of the week will be
>and think that the flippy fight scenes are the core of the show.

I doubt it... Although I'm one of the apparent minority who prefer
the later seasons of BtVS, and your thoughts here reflect my own views
on *why* I don't like the earlier seasons quite as much - too many
monster-of-the-week episodes, comparatively simplistic
characterisation and motivation (if only because there's less
backstory to build on). But hopefully this means you'll just enjoy
the show more and more as you move forwards...


> One thing I hadn't really noticed until now (and
>I doubt the character herself ever thought of it) is that she's also
>a born leader, even though we only see her actually take charge of
>things when it's by default.

Excellent observation - although her leadership skills are more than
cancelled out by her insecurity most of the time. It's only when
she's either *really* motivated, or else doesn't have time to worry
about the consequences, that she lets herself take charge.

>Fanwank challenge! Within the rules and canon of the show, explain why

>the ground supports Ghost Willow. Any answer employing the phrases
>"TV convention" or "budget" will be disqualified.

It's a well-known fact that ghosts always walk on the ground level *as
it was at the time of their death*. If you go to an old haunted house
where the floor level has been raised over the centuries, then you'll
see ghosts wading through the floor up to their knees.

Stephen

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 8:47:48 PM2/7/06
to
In article <ydllkwm...@phosphorus.broad.mit.edu>,
Steve Schaffner <s...@phosphorus.broad.mit.edu> wrote:

> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> writes:
>
> > In article <d59Gf.137537$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
> > "Apteryx" <apt...@extra.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > > "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1139318992.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > >A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> > > > threads.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fanwank challenge! Within the rules and canon of the show, explain why
> > > > the ground supports Ghost Willow. Any answer employing the phrases
> > > > "TV convention" or "budget" will be disqualified.
> > >
> > > Much more challenging fanwank challenge - Why (and how) does the door of
> > > Ethan's shop open and close (off camera, but quite audibly) when Ghost
> > > Willow leaves Giles and Ethan there
> >
> > Coincidentally, just at that moment, someone came into the shop seeking
> > shelter from the weirdness that was happening on the streets of
> > Sunnydale. They hid under the counter when they heard what was going on
> > in the back between Giles and Ethan, and then snuck out later, after
> > Giles had gone.
>
> And the curtain that Willow brushes aside as she leaves Giles's side?

A draught of air.

Apteryx

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 9:23:33 PM2/7/06
to
"Scythe Matters" <sp...@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:7oSdnfk2OZjKgnTe...@rcn.net...

> Apteryx wrote:
>
> > She is the only character changed by her costume who
>> remembers who she is, and who the others are. Since there is no comment
>> on why this should be so, I assume it is a plot device.
>
> She's a ghost, but she's a ghost of Willow. Hence: Willow's memories.

OK, but that only puts the mystery one step further out. Why does she get to
be a ghost of Willow, with Willow memories, while soldier Xander isn't just
Xander recruited, with Xander memories?

--
Apteryx


Jeff Jacoby

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 9:28:50 PM2/7/06
to
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 17:39:56 -0500, Don <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article <M09Gf.137535$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
> "Apteryx" <apt...@extra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> "kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:1139321072....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

> Just like Xander didn't become a
> real soldier. He became a movie-type soldier, complete with a gun with
> a never emptying magazine.

Rkprcg gung ur unf *erny* fbyqvre zrzbevrf (bs fbzrbar jub zhfg
unir orra fgngvbarq ng gur arneol onfr). Zbivr fbyqvref jbhyqa'g
ernyyl xabj ubj gb qvffnffrzoyr n evsyr va svsgl-frira frbaqf.


Jeff

Steve Schaffner

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 9:30:15 PM2/7/06
to
"Apteryx" <apt...@extra.co.nz> writes:

Because, uh, because Xander is too young to be in the army. Therefore
his costume has to turn him into someone else. Willow, on the other
hand, could drop dead at any time.

Apteryx

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 9:32:20 PM2/7/06
to
"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-1513EF...@news.giganews.com...

> In article <M09Gf.137535$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
> "Apteryx" <apt...@extra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> "kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:1139321072....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > Re Spike: Seems to me there was a lot of character development from
>> > "Well, this is ....neat" to his basically being a coward and again
>> > running away as soon as he loses his edge (some might see that as
>> > smarteer than the average vamp who insists on fighting The Slayer until
>> > dusted).
>> >
>> > Development all around. Yes, Willow is a leader. Yes, Giles has more in
>> > his background than we knew. Yes, Xander has a spine and an ingrained
>> > chivalry (OK, positive masculinity), and yes Snyder is still a jerk.
>> > Cordy is still a femme fatale and full of herself, and often funny
>> > (BTW, now she "knows" Angel is a vampire).
>>
>> I don't think Willow is showing leadership so much as she is uniquely
>> gifted
>> in this episode. She is the only character changed by her costume who

>> remembers who she is, and who the others are. Since there is no comment
>> on
>> why this should be so, I assume it is a plot device. It would be too hard
>> to
>> keep the story moving if the only ones who could see the change in Buffy
>> etc
>> were the ones not changed themselves - Cordelia, Angel and Giles.
>>
>> This was once one of my favourite episodes, but more than any other
>> episode,
>> my regard for it has declined with repeated viewing. Not too much though,
>> it
>> is still a lot of fun. I'd still call it Good, bordering on Excellent.
>> Overall it is my 48th favourite BtVS episode, 9th best in Season 2.
>>
>> My main source of irritation with it tends to be Buffy as an absurd
>> representation of an 18th century "noblewoman"
>
> Buffy didn't become a real 18th century noblewoman. She became what her
> idea of a noblewoman was all about.

That makes sense (but even as Buffy's misconception its still irritating).
But there is the fact that Angel, who supposedly did know 18th century
women, seems to agree with her misconception at the end. Of course, he could
be lying. (Spoilers ROT13'd - Sebz jung jr yrnea yngre nobhg Natry'f uhzna
yvsr, ur jbhyqa'g nccrne gb unir unq zhpu punapr bs pbagnpg jvgu aboyrjbzra,
hayrff ur unq orra n freinag ng fbzr fgntr. Naljnl, ur qvqa'g nccrne gb svaq
zhpu jebat jvgu gur eryngviryl jrnygul ybbxvat Qneyn).


--
Apteryx


Apteryx

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 9:34:20 PM2/7/06
to
"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-6FFCEB...@news.giganews.com...

> In article <d59Gf.137537$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
> "Apteryx" <apt...@extra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>
>> Much more challenging fanwank challenge - Why (and how) does the door of
>> Ethan's shop open and close (off camera, but quite audibly) when Ghost
>> Willow leaves Giles and Ethan there
>
> Coincidentally, just at that moment, someone came into the shop seeking
> shelter from the weirdness that was happening on the streets of
> Sunnydale. They hid under the counter when they heard what was going on
> in the back between Giles and Ethan, and then snuck out later, after
> Giles had gone.

OK :)

But I gave you that one when I thought of the same possibility and reworded
what I had originally written (asking why Ghost Willow opened the door)

--
Apteryx


Don Sample

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 9:54:50 PM2/7/06
to
In article <VKcGf.137580$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
"Apteryx" <apt...@extra.co.nz> wrote:

> "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> news:dsample-1513EF...@news.giganews.com...

> > Buffy didn't become a real 18th century noblewoman. She became what her


> > idea of a noblewoman was all about.
>
> That makes sense (but even as Buffy's misconception its still irritating).
> But there is the fact that Angel, who supposedly did know 18th century
> women, seems to agree with her misconception at the end. Of course, he could
> be lying.

Or as one of the unwashed masses, he had no idea how the upper crust
really lived.

David Empey

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 9:50:26 PM2/7/06
to
Steve Schaffner <s...@phosphorus.broad.mit.edu> wrote in
news:ydlu0ba...@phosphorus.broad.mit.edu:

> "Apteryx" <apt...@extra.co.nz> writes:
>
>>
>> OK, but that only puts the mystery one step further out. Why does
>> she get to be a ghost of Willow, with Willow memories, while soldier
>> Xander isn't just Xander recruited, with Xander memories?
>
> Because, uh, because Xander is too young to be in the army. Therefore

He could have lied about his age... :)

> his costume has to turn him into someone else. Willow, on the other
> hand, could drop dead at any time.
>

--
Dave Empey

"This can be easily fixed by taking 17 levels of Ranger."
--Nockermensch

Opus the Penguin

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 10:23:01 PM2/7/06
to
Don Sample (dsa...@synapse.net) wrote:

> Buffy didn't become a real 18th century noblewoman. She became

> what her idea of a noblewoman was all about. Just like Xander


> didn't become a real soldier. He became a movie-type soldier,
> complete with a gun with a never emptying magazine.

Not true. Hey Arbitrar, look away! Spoiler!


Later on Xander uses the knowledge he gained as a soldier to break
into a real military base and steal a real rocket launcher.

--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet

Opus the Penguin

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 10:23:10 PM2/7/06
to
Eric Hunter (hunt...@comcast.invalid) wrote:

> http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/12/valsparana.htm
>
> "Five basic inputs are needed to make a mirror: glass,
> a tin solution, a silver solution, a copper solution, and
> mirror backing paint. Most mirrors are made by placing
> clean pieces of glass flat on a conveyor belt, which
> moves the glass through the various stations where the
> solutions and paint are applied to the back of each piece
> of glass. The first layer applied to the glass is a tin
> solution, which is an adhesion promoter so that the
> silver will bond to the glass. After the tin solution, a
> silver solution is applied, which creates a metal film
> on the glass surface, giving the mirror its reflective
> surface. The third step is to apply a copper solution,
> which helps keep the silver from oxidizing and creates
> a surface to which the mirror backing paint will adhere.
> Finally, the mirror backing paint is applied. This adds
> a hard coating that protects the solutions from
> becoming scratched or damaged and further protects
> the silver solution from corrosion."
>
> So, yes, mirrors are still silvered.
>

That's interesting and I'm glad to know it. But the broader question
in this sub-thread seems based on a misunderstanding. Vampires don't
reflect. Period. That's my understanding, anyway. They don't reflect
in aluminum foil or a fish pond any more than they do in the bathroom
mirror.

Or maybe that's wrong. Maybe that's why you see Angel's reflection in
the damp street at the end of every Angel opening credit sequence for
5 straight years.

KenM47

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 10:25:58 PM2/7/06
to


That was his spirit guide from TPTB.

Ken (Brooklyn)

Carlos Moreno

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 12:25:33 AM2/8/06
to
vague disclaimer wrote:

>>>>Oh, and I can confidently say that somewhere in your review is a turn
>>>>of phrase that is gonna come back and bite you arse BIG time.
>>

>>>Are you by any chance talking about this one:
>>

>>I was thinking this one:
>>
>>Vg'f tbbq gb frr fbzrbar svanyyl trg n punapr gb fpber: ubcrshyyl [Ohssl
>>naq Natry] rawblrq gur jubyr orvat-zbzragnevyl-unccl guvat

Definitely!!!!!

One important detail, however -- and I will rot13 it also:

Jura ebg-guvegrravat, pnershy jvgu chapghngvba naq gur yvxr -- gur
fdhner-oenpxrg punenpgref znl or boivbhf tvirnjnlf bs jung gur
cuenfr jnf (sbe vafgnapr, vs vg jnf gur bayl cynpr va gur grkg
jurer ur hfrq gur fdhner oenpxrgf -- gung pbhyq or rnfl gb erzrzore
sbe uvz). Bu jryy, V thrff ab ovttvr, ng guvf cbvag V'z nyzbfg
pbaivaprq gung NBD xabjf gur ragver fubj nf jryy nf nal bs hf ;-)

Carlos
--

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 12:48:40 AM2/8/06
to
Patrician wrote:

> Humans are creatures of habit. It is a learned "habit" that the ground
> supports us and so, as a ghost, Willow believes the same at an unconcieous
> level. It could be that if she concentrated she fall below ground level.

This is probably my favorite explanation now.

-AOQ

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 12:49:37 AM2/8/06
to

Eric Hunter wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> > Now, where are you guys "looking up" your quotes? I'd like to be able
> > to quote more accurately myself too.
>
> There are several script sources on the 'net. Personally, I use:
>
> http://www.buffyworld.com/

Thanks.

-AOQ

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 12:50:56 AM2/8/06
to
EGK wrote:

> Just curious where you picked up the term "fanwank" if, as you say, you're
> unspoiled for BTVS and don't watch much series TV? :)

Simple. i got it from you.

-AOQ
~not you personally. You the a.t.b-v-s community~

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 1:01:22 AM2/8/06
to
Scythe Matters wrote:

> The difference, to me, is in saying "I don't get what they're doing with
> [character]" and saying "they don't know what they're doing with
> [character]." The latter is either demonstrably true or untrue, and you
> will eventually know which.

That's a fair point. I'll try to be more conscious of that.

> Yes, that's a characterization I would agree with. Remember that you're
> 18 episodes into a series. That's not even a full season. You loved DS9
> (and so did I, at least until the Dominion destroyed the show), but
> while its first 18 were certainly better than TNG's first 18, there was
> little to suggest that it would do anything outstanding at that stage.
> One could easily have complained that they didn't seem to have anything
> interesting for Bashir, or O'Brien, or Dax to do. And why was Kira such
> an angry, one-note character? You know the answers to those complaints.

The show was still great in the Dominion era, if you ask me. But yes,
the first season was full of blah episodes, and I don't think it was
because there was a grand plan that'd make it all make sense. It was
quite simply because the writers took awhile to give the show a
direction that made it interesting to me.

And to get really picayunish, I though the Kira character first really
clicked with the episode "Progress." That was only fourteen episodes
in, not eighteen. :-)

> > While it's nice to hear people implying that Snyder's behavior (but
> > what about the Slaypack not finding said behavior at all odd?)
>
> What should they find odd? Their experience has explicitly (from the
> second episode of season one) been that those not-in-the-know aren't
> capable of accepting the supernatural events all around them, so why
> should Snyder be any different? They weren't privy to Snyder's scene at
> the end of "School Hard," even though we were.

I suppose I can accept that. If it were me writing, I'd have thrown in
two lines to say something like "you'd think he'd be grateful for what
you did." "Well, no surprise, you know how [pick one: he is/principals
are/people in Sunnydale are]." That takes about ten seconds of
screentime and conveys the message "hey, viewer, we're aware that this
seems strange, but don't worry about it for now."

-AOQ

EGK

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 1:22:18 AM2/8/06
to
On 7 Feb 2006 21:50:56 -0800, "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
wrote:

Right. So obviously you're not nearly as unspoiled as you claim. :)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
(Calvin and Hobbes)

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 2:02:37 AM2/8/06
to
MBangel10 (Melissa) wrote:

> I've missed posting about the last few episodes. Looks like I'm late on
> this one too and everything
> pretty much has already been said...So, I want to ask just one question.
>
> I'm surprised you made no mention of Spike and Dru in this episode. As
> someone already pointed out, their one scene together where Dru has the
> 'vision' has to be at least a little noteworthy, right?

Actually, Spike did get his name mentioned... once.

Fine, here you go: As of "Halloween," Spike is still a mildly
entertaining stock villain, and Drusilla still does nothing for me.
And they really weren't the focus of this episode anyway.

-AOQ

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 2:22:29 AM2/8/06
to
In article <1139378482....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

> I suppose I can accept that. If it were me writing, I'd have thrown in
> two lines to say something like "you'd think he'd be grateful for what
> you did." "Well, no surprise, you know how [pick one: he is/principals
> are/people in Sunnydale are]." That takes about ten seconds of
> screentime and conveys the message "hey, viewer, we're aware that this
> seems strange, but don't worry about it for now."

1) That's a conversation that they already had at the end of 'The
Harvest.'

Buffy: What exactly were you expecting?
Xander: I don't know, something. I mean, the dead rose. We
should at least have an assembly.
Giles: People have a tendency to rationalize what they can,
and forget what they can't.
Buffy: Believe me, I've seen it happen.

2) By this point, Buffy's been the Slayer for nearly two years. She's
given up on thinking that anyone will notice what she does, and thank
her for it.

Patrician

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 2:53:14 AM2/8/06
to

"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-CE0CFE...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <yu9Gf.16576$wl....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> "Patrician" <ghj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <rrh...@acme.com> wrote in message
>> news:1139347799.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>> >
>> > Don Sample wrote:
>> >> In article <dsample-9BCADA...@news.giganews.com>,
>> >> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <1139336182....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > "Vanya6724" <vanya...@pochta.ru> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > vague disclaimer wrote:
>> >> > > > In article
>> >> > > > <1139318992.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,

>> >> > > > "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Fanwank challenge! Within the rules and canon of the show,
>> >> > > > > explain why
>> >> > > > > the ground supports Ghost Willow.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Who cares?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > True, and this is not just a TV convention - it is a time honored
>> >> > > convention of pretty much any ghost story ever told. Now
>> >> > > justifying
>> >> > > vampires being filmable and photographable - that's harder to do.
>> >> >
>> >> > Very few cameras use mirrors to put the vampire's image onto the
>> >> > film/CCD.
>> >>
>> >> We do see pictures of a vampire taken with a Polaroid camera, later in
>> >> the series, and Polaroids do use mirrors, so here's an alternate
>> >> theory:
>> >>
>> >> - the no reflection thing is actually a psychological effect, taking
>> >> place in the mind of the observer. The light is reflected, and purely
>> >> mechanical devices can record that reflected light. But a live
>> >> observer
>> >> can not see it. (This also explains all those times when we get to
>> >> see
>> >> vampire's reflections in background objects. Every time we are
>> >> deliberately shown that a vampire has no reflection, we are seeing
>> >> from
>> >> a character's point of view. In the detached camera PoV, we can see
>> >> reflections.)
>> >
>> > Good retcon! Are you familiar with "Plateau eyes" from Larry Niven's
>> > novel "A Gift from Earth" of thirty or so years ago? He used
>> > essentially the same thing, though he called it "psionic" rather than
>> > "psychological".
>> >
>> > Richard R. Hershberger
>> >
>>
>> If memory serves Plateau Eyes was caused by looking down the side of
>> Mount Lookitat into the mist/distance. As the eye (as he explained it)
>> sees
>> no horizon or edges and this causes a mesmorising effect on the person
>> leading to a sort of self induced hypnotic trance.
>>
>> Trev
>
> No. Plateau Eyes was the psychic ability to make people ignore you. It
> wasn't actually called Plateau Eyes in "A Gift from Earth." That was
> the name given to the ability when it was referenced in other stories.
> A side effect of Plateau Eyes, that gave it its name, was that the
> pupils of people's eyes shrank when they were under the influence.
>
> (I used the same effect in my Buffy/Stargate SG-1 story
> "Misunderstandings.")

>
> --
> Quando omni flunkus moritati
> Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>

No Don, sorry but you need to go back and read A Gift From Earth again.
The power to make people not notice you was a function of the protaginists
brain whereas Plateau Eyes was a mental condition brought on by staring into
nothingness, such as down towards the mists of Mount Lookitat (The Plateau
in the story) and/or looking into the deapths of space.
Niven also mentions it in Ringworld when the three are on their Sky
Cycles and Teela Brown has been looking towards the Ringworld's horizon for
too long. They cure her by landing in a small dell where the horizon is
closer and she comes around naturally.

Trev


John Briggs

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 4:36:54 AM2/8/06
to
Don Sample wrote:
> In article <VKcGf.137580$vH5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
> "Apteryx" <apt...@extra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
>> news:dsample-1513EF...@news.giganews.com...
>
>>> Buffy didn't become a real 18th century noblewoman. She became
>>> what her idea of a noblewoman was all about.
>>
>> That makes sense (but even as Buffy's misconception its still
>> irritating). But there is the fact that Angel, who supposedly did
>> know 18th century women, seems to agree with her misconception at
>> the end. Of course, he could be lying.
>
> Or as one of the unwashed masses, he had no idea how the upper crust
> really lived.

Which is incorrect, of course, but I can't say any more!
--
John Briggs


John Briggs

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 4:40:12 AM2/8/06
to
Apteryx wrote:
>
> My main source of irritation with it tends to be Buffy as an absurd
> representation of an 18th century "noblewoman"

What is absurd about it? Or rather, more absurd than anything else?
--
John Briggs


vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 5:44:17 AM2/8/06
to
In article <SgfGf.58872$HW3.1...@weber.videotron.net>,
Carlos Moreno <moreno_at_mo...@mailinator.com> wrote:

Whoops. Good point - and I'd been so careful to take that into account
in my original post.

Your last point is a thought that has crossed my mind once or twice.
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 6:06:42 AM2/8/06
to
In article <1139378482....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

> If it were me writing, I'd have thrown in
> two lines to say something like "you'd think he'd be grateful for what
> you did." "Well, no surprise, you know how [pick one: he is/principals
> are/people in Sunnydale are]." That takes about ten seconds of
> screentime and conveys the message "hey, viewer, we're aware that this
> seems strange, but don't worry about it for now."

Fortunately, the writers were able - for the most part - to resist the
urge to point out such screamingly bleedin' obvious clunkiness.

The job of the School Hard scene was to establish that the kids aren't
the only ones who know something odd is occurring. Job done. No need to
deal with it further (not even in passing) unless it becomes significant.

shuggie

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 7:43:00 AM2/8/06
to

Apteryx wrote:

> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139318992.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> > threads.
> >
> >
> >

> > Fanwank challenge! Within the rules and canon of the show, explain why

> > the ground supports Ghost Willow. Any answer employing the phrases
> > "TV convention" or "budget" will be disqualified.
>

> Much more challenging fanwank challenge - Why (and how) does the door of
> Ethan's shop open and close (off camera, but quite audibly) when Ghost
> Willow leaves Giles and Ethan there
>

Wow! Most people miss that. It's actually the first appearance of a
poltergeist that's stalking Willow. We don't find out a whole lot more
until the S3 episode 'Run Juliet!' where it wreaks havoc at the school
play.

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 7:54:28 AM2/8/06
to
In article <1139402580.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

I thought that was in "This One Time" (previously "I'm with the Band")?

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages