AOQ Review 3-6: "Band Candy"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Three, Episode 6: "Band Candy"
(or "The Urban Professionals")
Writer: Jane Espenson
Director: Michael Lange
Sometimes my job is easy because the show makes my points for me.
Let's look at this, the second "comedy" episode in a row. The
previous entry, "Homecoming," picks a silly premise and runs with
it, seeing how it impacts our characters, how they react to it, and the
jokes spring from their personalities. The result is good comedy.
"Band Candy" basically takes one joke and expects us to laugh at it
over and over. That's the difference between good and bad comedy,
right there.
As in many of the sillier shows, the first-act banter prior to stuff
going wrong isn't bad. I particularly like "he's the highest
scoring -" "We know. We did the impressed thing already."
Also the first Buffy/Joyce scene is funny with a point, and shows how
far they still have to go before being really comfortable with each
other... observe Joyce's "stop!" at just the flippant mention of
how easy it is to leave Sunnydale. (Good that they have a reason for
at least one of our near-eighteen-year-olds to not be driving.) And
while this episode doesn't do much for most the ongoing stories, they
still exist and are developing (Angel is starting to move and react
like a human again, for instance). So things are moving along okay
until the cheesy melodramatic music cue that accompanies the chocolate
factory scene...
I've never been a fan of stories that're basic enough to have had a
one-sentence pitch. Adults act like teenagers, or a bad parody
thereof. That's it. At first it might draw some smiles - Giles
rockin' out, Snyder using words like "stoked" and desperately
seeking approval (makes sense that he'd have been that kind of
kid...). But sooner or later, maybe early in act three, there comes a
time when the viewer says "okay, we get it. Got anything else for
us?" and the answer is pretty much no. Buffy wasn't the only one
annoyed by the end at the stereotyped behaviors: if you're not going
to contribute anything interesting, get off my TV screen. It doesn't
help that most of the adult actors couldn't act like teens if their
lives depended on it; Head is decent and Sutherland isn't too
offensive, but the background types? Just... no.
The candy only working on adults doesn't work for me. "Maturity"
isn't a simple discrete thing - look at people like Willow, who's
more mature than most adults in some situations and quite childish in
others. So what's the age cutoff, an arbitrary age or an arbitrary
level of "adulthood?" And all teens are portrayed as hard-partyers
(except for the actual teens) here - what would the effect be on
people who acted responsibly when they were kids, and especially on
those who got wilder with age? I think I'm thinking too hard about a
stupid plot device.
To ask Mike Zeares' question: where's the Buffy? I.e. how does all
this affect her or illustrate things about her? Um... she doesn't
like structure and people running her life, but comes to realize that
adults are worthwhile? This ain't high art here. (If anyone has a
more interesting "real" meaning, feel free to share.) I suppose I
should also at least mention the Giles/J. Summers connection, but
honestly, if there are any long-term arcs about Buffy's parental
figures in the future, I'd imagine they'd have to occur in spite of
this show rather than because of it.
Even the weaker episodes of BTVS tend to be part of the big narrative.
One point of interest here is the expansion of the Sunnydale mythology.
Apparently part of running the city is keeping track of the various
demons that need to be appeased. Who or what else might be demanding
tribute? Did previous Mayors know the same things this one does?
There've got to be more stories right there.
It's great to see Robin Sachs back as Ethan, one of my favorite
villains (based mostly on "The Dark Age"). I was kinda worried
they'd forgotten about him. It's not so good to see him mostly
wasted here. He does shine in his few real scenes ("I really don't
know"), and Trick realizes that he's good at holding up his end of
the bargain, so he lives to once again (hopefully) see another show.
The demon looks fairly CGI-ish, but the visuals still aren't bad.
I believe this is the first look at Xander's locker in awhile; it
looks like it's become a shrine to Cordelia. Any more fluking and
he'll have to redecorate.
This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
- The doctor and friends attempting to sing "Louie Louie."
- "It was like nothing made sense anymore. The things I understood
were gone." And she's talking about the SATs.
I don't want to waste any more of my life on this episode. Let's
wrap it up.
So...
One-sentence summary: One idea stretched awfully thin.
AOQ rating: Weak
[Season Three so far:
1) "Anne" - Decent
2) "Dead Man's Party" - Excellent
3) "Faith, Hope, and Trick" - Good
4) "Beauty And The Beasts" - Decent
5) "Homecoming" - Good
6) "Band Candy" - Weak]
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> "Band Candy" basically takes one joke and expects us to laugh at it
> over and over. That's the difference between good and bad comedy,
> right there.
any episode with ethan getting beaten up is worth watching
> how easy it is to leave Sunnydale. (Good that they have a reason for
> at least one of our near-eighteen-year-olds to not be driving.) And
guns cars occasional alearm clocks computers
buffy doesnt do well with modern technology
> The candy only working on adults doesn't work for me. "Maturity"
they didnt say
xander points out hes eaten a ton of it and he isnt any less mature
and they stare at him until he gets the point
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
Shuggie
> Sometimes my job is easy because the show makes my points for me.
> Let's look at this, the second "comedy" episode in a row. The
> previous entry, "Homecoming," picks a silly premise and runs with
> it, seeing how it impacts our characters, how they react to it, and the
> jokes spring from their personalities. The result is good comedy.
> "Band Candy" basically takes one joke and expects us to laugh at it
> over and over. That's the difference between good and bad comedy,
> right there.
>
Aww just when I thought your sense of humour was adjusting. Oh well. I'm
not going to try to convince you that something you think isn't funny
is. (or vice versa for that matter) so just a few comments:
> It doesn't
> help that most of the adult actors couldn't act like teens if their
> lives depended on it; Head is decent and Sutherland isn't too
> offensive, but the background types? Just... no.
I think Head and Sutherland are both better than decent. There's that
scene where they're listening to records and Joyce is desperately trying
to get Giles to pay attention to her without seeming desperate - that's
a very subtle and well-played moment.
>
> The candy only working on adults doesn't work for me. "Maturity"
> isn't a simple discrete thing - look at people like Willow, who's
> more mature than most adults in some situations and quite childish in
> others. So what's the age cutoff, an arbitrary age or an arbitrary
> level of "adulthood?"
Ah but the nice thing about magic is that you make it up as you go, so
it doesn't have to be a maturity cut-off, it can be an age cut-off.
> And all teens are portrayed as hard-partyers
> (except for the actual teens) here - what would the effect be on
> people who acted responsibly when they were kids, and especially on
> those who got wilder with age?
I think part of what's happening is that adults are getting to
experience what it feels like to be young again and some are making up
for lost time.
> I think I'm thinking too hard about a
> stupid plot device.
>
Except for the stupid part I agree.
> To ask Mike Zeares' question: where's the Buffy? I.e. how does all
> this affect her or illustrate things about her? Um... she doesn't
> like structure and people running her life, but comes to realize that
> adults are worthwhile? This ain't high art here. (If anyone has a
> more interesting "real" meaning, feel free to share.)
It ain't high art it's fun. Jane Espenson, the writer, once summarised
it as being about how there are some things we think we'd like until we
get them. Teenagers imagine that it'd be fun if their parents were more
like them but the reality is worse.
> Even the weaker episodes of BTVS tend to be part of the big narrative.
> One point of interest here is the expansion of the Sunnydale mythology.
> Apparently part of running the city is keeping track of the various
> demons that need to be appeased. Who or what else might be demanding
> tribute? Did previous Mayors know the same things this one does?
Actually this is not about being Mayor of Sunnydale it's about begin
Mayor Wilkins specifically. He has to appease Lurconis because of deals
he's made to get where he was. Previous Mayors may or may not have made
similar deals but we don't know that.
> There've got to be more stories right there.
>
> It's great to see Robin Sachs back as Ethan, one of my favorite
> villains (based mostly on "The Dark Age"). I was kinda worried
> they'd forgotten about him. It's not so good to see him mostly
> wasted here. He does shine in his few real scenes ("I really don't
> know"), and Trick realizes that he's good at holding up his end of
> the bargain, so he lives to once again (hopefully) see another show.
>
Yeah Ethan's fun.
> The demon looks fairly CGI-ish, but the visuals still aren't bad.
>
It was just a big CGI snake, and not a very impressive one.
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - The doctor and friends attempting to sing "Louie Louie."
> - "It was like nothing made sense anymore. The things I understood
> were gone." And she's talking about the SATs.
>
You like that joke? That's good since it'll come around again. The 'I
thought they were talking about something supernatural but they're
really talking about something mundane (or vice versa)' is reused at
least a couple of times. And come to think of it was in the teaser for
Witch.
> I don't want to waste any more of my life on this episode. Let's
> wrap it up.
>
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
Harsh but if you can't see the funny then fair I guess.
--
Shuggie
cry...@panix.com
Like BB&B, this is one of my series favorites, and both are
"Excellent" to me. I'm pretty sure my sense of humor is the
opposite of AOQ's! :-)
-Crystal
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Three, Episode 6: "Band Candy"
> (Good that they have a reason for
> at least one of our near-eighteen-year-olds to not be driving.)
Cordy and Xander are both licensed drivers. Cordy since sometime in
season 1 (She's taking Driver's Ed in 'Witch' and has her own car in
'Prophecy Girl' and Xander since the start of season 2. (He volunteers
to be "wheel man" and drive everyone to the dance in 'Inca Mummy Girl,'
before he and Ampata become a date.)
>
> I've never been a fan of stories that're basic enough to have had a
> one-sentence pitch. Adults act like teenagers, or a bad parody
> thereof. That's it. At first it might draw some smiles - Giles
> rockin' out, Snyder using words like "stoked" and desperately
> seeking approval (makes sense that he'd have been that kind of
> kid...). But sooner or later, maybe early in act three, there comes a
> time when the viewer says "okay, we get it. Got anything else for
> us?" and the answer is pretty much no. Buffy wasn't the only one
> annoyed by the end at the stereotyped behaviors: if you're not going
> to contribute anything interesting, get off my TV screen. It doesn't
> help that most of the adult actors couldn't act like teens if their
> lives depended on it; Head is decent and Sutherland isn't too
> offensive, but the background types? Just... no.
>
> The candy only working on adults doesn't work for me. "Maturity"
> isn't a simple discrete thing - look at people like Willow, who's
> more mature than most adults in some situations and quite childish in
> others. So what's the age cutoff, an arbitrary age or an arbitrary
> level of "adulthood?" And all teens are portrayed as hard-partyers
> (except for the actual teens) here - what would the effect be on
> people who acted responsibly when they were kids, and especially on
> those who got wilder with age? I think I'm thinking too hard about a
> stupid plot device.
Once again, someone is taking the "they've turned into teenagers" much
too literally. That was an attempt by Buffy to describe what she was
seeing, not literally what was happening. The candy removed
inhibitions, and made people behave irresponsibly. It was more like it
made everyone who ate it drunk. There's no real explanation for why it
didn't affect the kids that way. It was magic. Sometimes there's no
explanation.
>
> I suppose I
> should also at least mention the Giles/J. Summers connection, but
> honestly, if there are any long-term arcs about Buffy's parental
> figures in the future, I'd imagine they'd have to occur in spite of
> this show rather than because of it.
I thought at the time that one of the things that they wanted to
accomplish with this episode was to spike the guns of the Giles/Joyce
shippers. As you say they just erected a big roadblock to them getting
any closer together.
>
> Even the weaker episodes of BTVS tend to be part of the big narrative.
> One point of interest here is the expansion of the Sunnydale mythology.
> Apparently part of running the city is keeping track of the various
> demons that need to be appeased. Who or what else might be demanding
> tribute? Did previous Mayors know the same things this one does?
> There've got to be more stories right there.
One of the first things that occurred to me when I saw Richard Wilkins
III's name was "What happened to Dick Wilkins I and II? Is R.W.III the
first Wilkins to have held the office of Mayor? Maybe R.W. is some sort
of very long lived demon, who pretends to age for a while, and then
disappears for a bit, only to reappear looking young again, and claiming
to be the previous R.W.'s son.
Was the younger R.W a member of the Delta Zeta Kappa fraternity, of
'Reptile Boy' fame? Maybe he had other demonic patrons (such as
Lurconis) that helped him survive the downfall of Machita.
For fun bits: The Mayor looking for his scotch inside a shrunken head.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Three, Episode 6: "Band Candy"
> (or "The Urban Professionals")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: Michael Lange
Something I've held off commenting on until this point, but this episode
gives more ammunition to my "The Mayor wanted Buffy in Sunnydale High"
theory.
We're told in FH&T that it was the school board that overruled Snyder,
and in this episode, when Buffy asks Snyder where the candy came from,
he tells her "I don't know. It came through the school board. If you
knew that crowd--" with a bit of a shudder. To me, that says that the
school board is firmly under the control of the Mayor.
The Mayor wants Buffy in the school for now, keeping the lid on the
hellmouth, while he concentrates on whatever it is that he's up to.
hopelessly devoted
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Three, Episode 6: "Band Candy"
Yeah! Ethan Rayne! Let the Chaos ensue.
> "Band Candy" basically takes one joke and expects us to laugh at it
> over and over. That's the difference between good and bad comedy,
> right there.
Dispite it's very obvious plotline, I love this ep with a side
splitting passion. What could possibly be more innocent than candy?
Band candy. Add the mere appearance of one Master of chaos.......
The Mayor is looking a bit more menacing with his cabinet of all things
evil "Where'd I put that scotch?"
Him????
> Also the first Buffy/Joyce scene is funny with a point, and shows how
> far they still have to go before being really comfortable with each
> other... observe Joyce's "stop!" at just the flippant mention of
> how easy it is to leave Sunnydale. (Good that they have a reason for
> at least one of our near-eighteen-year-olds to not be driving.)
A runaway who failed the written and "they wouldn't even let you take
the road test", I'm surprised her responsed wasn't more along the lines
of "Are you freakin' nuts?". But, ah at 17 those wires aren't
connected quite yet.
Giles basket ball to the head, Hilarious. Not to mention also being
caught in a bold faced lie about your wareabouts. I did have a little
problem with Joyce actually giving her the alibi "Were you at the
Bronze". The obvious adolescent response, the stop treating me like a
child comeback. Again, Hmmmmm....
> I've never been a fan of stories that're basic enough to have had a
> one-sentence pitch. Adults act like teenagers, or a bad parody
> thereof. That's it. At first it might draw some smiles - Giles
> rockin' out, Snyder using words like "stoked" and desperately
> seeking approval (makes sense that he'd have been that kind of
> kid...). But sooner or later, maybe early in act three, there comes a
> time when the viewer says "okay, we get it. Got anything else for
> us?" and the answer is pretty much no. Buffy wasn't the only one
> annoyed by the end at the stereotyped behaviors: if you're not going
> to contribute anything interesting, get off my TV screen. It doesn't
> help that most of the adult actors couldn't act like teens if their
> lives depended on it; Head is decent and Sutherland isn't too
> offensive, but the background types? Just... no.
>
> The candy only working on adults doesn't work for me. "Maturity"
> isn't a simple discrete thing - look at people like Willow, who's
> more mature than most adults in some situations and quite childish in
> others. So what's the age cutoff, an arbitrary age or an arbitrary
> level of "adulthood?" And all teens are portrayed as hard-partyers
> (except for the actual teens) here - what would the effect be on
> people who acted responsibly when they were kids, and especially on
> those who got wilder with age? I think I'm thinking too hard about a
> stupid plot device.
I'll have to go with the above "Making up for lost time". Also in
stark contrast to Joyce's response in the Witch when asked if she could
go back and relive her glory days. This ep was almost expected.
ASH, I felt was absolutely marvelous, changing everything from language
to stance to facial expressions. He actually looked like a comletely
different person facially.
My favorite moment: Giles kissing Joyce.
Buffy: Mom? Giles?
Giles: Go away. We're busy.
But he doesn't bother to stop kissing her to say it.
Snyder is also great in the complete change. Nice to see the little
horrid, bigoted
rodent-man cut loose. Actually gave me a little sympathy for him and a
greater understanding of why he's such a little snot. If you can't
join 'em, become the principle and make their lives a living hell.
> To ask Mike Zeares' question: where's the Buffy? I.e. how does all
> this affect her or illustrate things about her? Um... she doesn't
> like structure and people running her life, but comes to realize that
> adults are worthwhile? This ain't high art here. (If anyone has a
> more interesting "real" meaning, feel free to share.)
Adults are a necessary evil in the world of growing up.
> Even the weaker episodes of BTVS tend to be part of the big narrative.
> One point of interest here is the expansion of the Sunnydale mythology.
> Apparently part of running the city is keeping track of the various
> demons that need to be appeased. Who or what else might be demanding
> tribute? Did previous Mayors know the same things this one does?
> There've got to be more stories right there.
The first real sense of evill in the last scene with trick "In the
future I'd be careful how many favors you do for me." Spidysense
tingling again.
> It's great to see Robin Sachs back as Ethan, one of my favorite
> villains (based mostly on "The Dark Age"). I was kinda worried
> they'd forgotten about him. It's not so good to see him mostly
> wasted here. He does shine in his few real scenes ("I really don't
> know"), and Trick realizes that he's good at holding up his end of
> the bargain, so he lives to once again (hopefully) see another show.
Ethan is such a wonderful little devil. But not much for the killing.
His reation to Trick's preventative measures shows that although he may
be a little stinker, he's certainly only in it for the "fun".
> The demon looks fairly CGI-ish, but the visuals still aren't bad.
Fairly? Throwback to S1 in a really big snake kind of way. But at
least it wasn't a big CGI Praying Mantis or blob of bubble gum with
eyes.
> I believe this is the first look at Xander's locker in awhile; it
> looks like it's become a shrine to Cordelia. Any more fluking and
> he'll have to redecorate.
>
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - The doctor and friends attempting to sing "Louie Louie."
> - "It was like nothing made sense anymore. The things I understood
> were gone." And she's talking about the SATs.
On a musical note, Beck's Sugar High is not one of my favorite scores
for the series.
Them running through the exact same stacks at the candy factory is a
bit obvious.
The scene to scene transitions are becoming very smooth.
DB is no longer looking as lickable as he was last season (female
perspective). And the second Sesame Street blood reveal bugged.
The W/X reaction to almost being caught by Cordelia, perfect!
Buffy is the prime example of why the driving age should be raised to
25 in very specific cases.
Dispite everything, is on my list of favs, even if it as at the bottom.
For no other reason except ASH is absolutely perfect and amazing to
watch.
One Bit Shy
> As in many of the sillier shows, the first-act banter prior to stuff
> going wrong isn't bad. I particularly like "he's the highest
> scoring -" "We know. We did the impressed thing already."
> Also the first Buffy/Joyce scene is funny with a point, and shows how
> far they still have to go before being really comfortable with each
> other... observe Joyce's "stop!" at just the flippant mention of
> how easy it is to leave Sunnydale. (Good that they have a reason for
> at least one of our near-eighteen-year-olds to not be driving.) And
> while this episode doesn't do much for most the ongoing stories, they
> still exist and are developing (Angel is starting to move and react
> like a human again, for instance). So things are moving along okay
> until the cheesy melodramatic music cue that accompanies the chocolate
> factory scene...
Very pretty scene with Angel doing his exercises. When Buffy appears, she's
awfully fetching.
Angel: You're being careful, right?
Buffy: With Scott?
A moderately amusing misunderstanding. But of course the subtext is being
careful with Angel. Is she?
She's now in trouble with both Joyce and Giles because of her sneaking off
to Angel. (Willow also knows Buffy lied to her.)
In spite of this looming trouble, note how upbeat Buffy is generally.
You didn't mention Willow and Xander playing footsie. It's a small thing, I
know, but it worked for me. I sure wanted Willow's leg on mine. There's
also Willow's spooked response to Cordy saying, "You wanna swap?". W/X
moves forward.
One thing I appreciated about the chocolate factory scene is that they
didn't drag out identifying the candy as the cause. We didn't need any more
seemingly mysterious candy fetish.
> I've never been a fan of stories that're basic enough to have had a
> one-sentence pitch. Adults act like teenagers, or a bad parody
> thereof. That's it. At first it might draw some smiles - Giles
> rockin' out, Snyder using words like "stoked" and desperately
> seeking approval (makes sense that he'd have been that kind of
> kid...). But sooner or later, maybe early in act three, there comes a
> time when the viewer says "okay, we get it. Got anything else for
> us?" and the answer is pretty much no. Buffy wasn't the only one
> annoyed by the end at the stereotyped behaviors: if you're not going
> to contribute anything interesting, get off my TV screen. It doesn't
> help that most of the adult actors couldn't act like teens if their
> lives depended on it; Head is decent and Sutherland isn't too
> offensive, but the background types? Just... no.
I enjoyed the ride more than you did, but I agree that a lot of it was
pretty ragged. Weak lines. Weak acting. Unamusing moments. (Like the
drag race.) But a fair amount worked for me too. "Summers - you drive
like a spaz." I could definitely see Snyder talking like that as a kid.
Giles is mostly very good - and that's a lot of the episode. ("No, you
listen to me. I'm you're watcher, so you do what I tell you. So sod off!"
and "You're my slayer. Go knock his teeth down his...") But mostly I
enjoyed Buffy's reaction to it all - from her eager grabbing of the car keys
to being wigged out by Snyder and Giles facing off. I also liked Joyce's
response to Snyder's come on. And Joyce blowing a bubble while her eyes are
bugged out. And so on.
But if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. Again, comedy is
like that.
>
> The candy only working on adults doesn't work for me. "Maturity"
> isn't a simple discrete thing - look at people like Willow, who's
> more mature than most adults in some situations and quite childish in
> others. So what's the age cutoff, an arbitrary age or an arbitrary
> level of "adulthood?" And all teens are portrayed as hard-partyers
> (except for the actual teens) here - what would the effect be on
> people who acted responsibly when they were kids, and especially on
> those who got wilder with age? I think I'm thinking too hard about a
> stupid plot device.
Probably, yes. But for what it's worth... Willow doesn't eat the candy.
Xander does, though, making for one of the more amusing and telling points
when he realizes how immature he must be normally. The exaggerated behavior
of the adults can be at least partly explained by the need to release the
tension of years of adulthood. Joyce actually says something to that
effect. So the show attempts to address the point. This the first time in
ages that they could let loose, so they go all out.
> To ask Mike Zeares' question: where's the Buffy? I.e. how does all
> this affect her or illustrate things about her? Um... she doesn't
> like structure and people running her life, but comes to realize that
> adults are worthwhile? This ain't high art here. (If anyone has a
> more interesting "real" meaning, feel free to share.)
Actually, I think it eveidences she prefers structure. The running her life
part is just an excuse to cover for the Angel thing - a half lie. But on
the whole I'd rather not go to your question. IMO, first it's a lark. The
jokes rule. (Even if you don't laugh.)
> I suppose I
> should also at least mention the Giles/J. Summers connection, but
> honestly, if there are any long-term arcs about Buffy's parental
> figures in the future, I'd imagine they'd have to occur in spite of
> this show rather than because of it.
Well, you just remember this when Joyce turns up pregnant and they have to
fight their way through vampire anti-abortion protesters.
> The demon looks fairly CGI-ish, but the visuals still aren't bad.
The entire scene in the sewers is, IMO, horrible. After substantial
improvement staging fights all season long, they really threw a clunker in
here. Nothing works. I particularly dislike having a stone container to
hold the babies that just rolls away with no effort.
> One-sentence summary: One idea stretched awfully thin.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
I won't quibble. It would be a decent from me.
OBS
kenm47
lack of Faith continuity, no sign of her and no metion IIRC.
Like others noted, what strikes some as funny is not always a
universal.
Moved the W/X thing along, brought out that Cordy has layers (I'm
thinking that was someone's real sour note), got Giles and Joyce
together, Ethan made a showing, the Mayor is getting more evil yet
balance that with his day-to-day mayoral duties.
Plus they took a riff on real life school event, that candy crap.
Excellent with a smidgen off the top. Go Jane!
Ken (Brooklyn)
Don Sample
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> I particularly dislike having a stone container to
> hold the babies that just rolls away with no effort.
What stone? It looked like a box covered in a bit of carpeting to me,
and it was obviously on wheels.
One Bit Shy
news:dsample-6BAA64...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <12166er...@news.supernews.com>,
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
>> I particularly dislike having a stone container to
>> hold the babies that just rolls away with no effort.
>
> What stone? It looked like a box covered in a bit of carpeting to me,
> and it was obviously on wheels.
Looks like it was intended to be stone to me.
OBS
BTR1701
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Sorry. The only thing IMO that keeps this from beingExcellent is the
> lack of Faith continuity, no sign of her and no metion IIRC.
Well, the real-world explanation for that was that Eliza Dushku was only
signed for a couple of episodes. She was supposed to be like Kendra--
there and then gone again. But according to Whedon, the combination of
Dushku stealing every scene she was in and the overwhelmingly positive
fan response caused them to drastically change their plans for the
character.
kenm47
Makes sort of sense. A line mention would have been nice, still.
Ken (Brooklyn)
hopelessly devoted
Very good to know. Will also keep this in mind with future viewings.
Kevin
kenm47 wrote:
> Sorry. The only thing IMO that keeps this from beingExcellent is the
> lack of Faith continuity, no sign of her and no metion IIRC.
And perhaps the giant plothole at the center: are we to believe that
all this Mayor->Trick->Ethan->factory->bandgeeks->parents rigamarole is
necessary just so the vamp lackeys can steal newborns from the
hospital? Is the maternity ward guarded at 3am by
flame-thrower-brandishing military? BUT, if you set aside *that*
silliness, the remaining silly is great fun. :)
BTW -- Isn't Faith's sporadic absence only a result of her status as a
secondary actor? I'm not sure how that works, but like Angel (S1),
Master, Spike, Dru, etc., they can't use her in every ep, right?
Agreed that we want to see her though -- her performance really carries
a lot of scenes. (Among other reasons.)
> Plus they took a riff on real life school event, that candy crap.
Yes! We couldn't have a soda machine at my school (only "juice"
<COUGH>), but it was fine for 17 different clubs to sell candy bars &
cookies & lollipops.
> Excellent with a smidgen off the top. Go Jane!
Go Jane, indeed! A bright debut, though it doesn't look good for AOQ's
reception of her signature brand of humor in the long run...
--Kevin
kenm47
Kevin wrote:
> kenm47 wrote:
> > Sorry. The only thing IMO that keeps this from being Excellent is the
> > lack of Faith continuity, no sign of her and no metion IIRC.
>
> And perhaps the giant plothole at the center: are we to believe that
> all this Mayor->Trick->Ethan->factory->bandgeeks->parents rigamarole is
> necessary just so the vamp lackeys can steal newborns from the
> hospital? Is the maternity ward guarded at 3am by
> flame-thrower-brandishing military? BUT, if you set aside *that*
> silliness, the remaining silly is great fun. :)
I pretty much gave up expecting logic from any of these EET's plans
once Angelus wanted to eliminate the world he and his fellow vamps were
having so much fun in. Yes, aside from that. Although they do suggest
that the humans would feel so strongly about babies that they would
have somehow possibly mucked up the plan if not so irresponsible from
the candy.
>
> BTW -- Isn't Faith's sporadic absence only a result of her status as a
> secondary actor? I'm not sure how that works, but like Angel (S1),
> Master, Spike, Dru, etc., they can't use her in every ep, right?
> Agreed that we want to see her though -- her performance really carries
> a lot of scenes. (Among other reasons.)
That's what BTR was saying, plus, he says, Faith was not expected to be
around much longer than Kendra was. I don't know his sources on that.
>
> > Plus they took a riff on real life school event, that candy crap.
>
> Yes! We couldn't have a soda machine at my school (only "juice"
> <COUGH>), but it was fine for 17 different clubs to sell candy bars &
> cookies & lollipops.
>
> > Excellent with a smidgen off the top. Go Jane!
>
> Go Jane, indeed! A bright debut, though it doesn't look good for AOQ's
> reception of her signature brand of humor in the long run...
>
>
> --Kevin
Very true. Maybe it's a delayed thing. He'll laugh tomorrow?
Ken (Brooklyn)
Don Sample
"Kevin" <kl...@ucsc.edu> wrote:
> kenm47 wrote:
> > Sorry. The only thing IMO that keeps this from beingExcellent is the
> > lack of Faith continuity, no sign of her and no metion IIRC.
>
> And perhaps the giant plothole at the center: are we to believe that
> all this Mayor->Trick->Ethan->factory->bandgeeks->parents rigamarole is
> necessary just so the vamp lackeys can steal newborns from the
> hospital? Is the maternity ward guarded at 3am by
> flame-thrower-brandishing military? BUT, if you set aside *that*
> silliness, the remaining silly is great fun. :)
It wasn't to make the stealing of the babies possible. It was to derail
the investigation afterwards. Instead of having a single heinous crime
that the population would demand that the police put all their efforts
into solving, you've got one incident in a whole night of incidents, and
because of the way people were acting, the entire population of the town
would have to be suspects, with very little hope of the police narrowing
it down much.
BTR1701
> kenm47 wrote:
> > Sorry. The only thing IMO that keeps this from beingExcellent is the
> > lack of Faith continuity, no sign of her and no metion IIRC.
>
> And perhaps the giant plothole at the center: are we to believe that
> all this Mayor->Trick->Ethan->factory->bandgeeks->parents rigamarole is
> necessary just so the vamp lackeys can steal newborns from the
> hospital? Is the maternity ward guarded at 3am by
> flame-thrower-brandishing military? BUT, if you set aside *that*
> silliness, the remaining silly is great fun. :)
>
> BTW -- Isn't Faith's sporadic absence only a result of her status as a
> secondary actor? I'm not sure how that works, but like Angel (S1),
> Master, Spike, Dru, etc., they can't use her in every ep, right?
They could have used her in as many episodes as they wanted to. The
difference between a guest star and a regular cast member is that
regular cast gets paid whether they are in the episode or not. Guest
stars only get paid for the episodes in which they appear.
Mike Zeares
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> To ask Mike Zeares' question: where's the Buffy? I.e. how does all
> this affect her or illustrate things about her?
I just want to point out that that is actually Joss Whedon's question.
As for the answer -- *shrug*. The whole thing looks like just an
excuse to get Giles and Joyce together. Not that I'm accusing Jane
Espenson of writing bad fanfic or anything. Ok, I am.
> I believe this is the first look at Xander's locker in awhile; it
> looks like it's become a shrine to Cordelia. Any more fluking and
> he'll have to redecorate.
Heh.
> I don't want to waste any more of my life on this episode. Let's
> wrap it up.
That's about how I feel about it. It has its moments, but overall it's
pretty lackluster. I've never felt the love for this episode that a
lot of people have.
-- Mike Zeares
Shuggie
>
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>>
>> To ask Mike Zeares' question: where's the Buffy? I.e. how does all
>> this affect her or illustrate things about her?
>
> I just want to point out that that is actually Joss Whedon's question.
> As for the answer -- *shrug*. The whole thing looks like just an
> excuse to get Giles and Joyce together. Not that I'm accusing Jane
> Espenson of writing bad fanfic or anything. Ok, I am.
>
Clearly you've only read really really good fanfic.
OK so I like Band Candy. But even if I thought it was the worst of the
worst dreck that ever got shown on TV it would still be in the top 5% of
fanfic.
vague disclaimer
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
So they couldn't because they couldn't afford it. Shows have budgets you
know
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend
KenM47
I have to admit I am really surprised when an episode I really enjoyed
gets as much slamming as this one did from folks I otherwise consider
intelligent and with worthwhile things to say. Makes me doubt my own
couch potato credentials.
Weird.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Apteryx
news:1142090375....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Three, Episode 6: "Band Candy"
> (or "The Urban Professionals")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: Michael Lange
>
> The candy only working on adults doesn't work for me. "Maturity"
> isn't a simple discrete thing - look at people like Willow, who's
> more mature than most adults in some situations and quite childish in
> others. So what's the age cutoff, an arbitrary age or an arbitrary
> level of "adulthood?" And all teens are portrayed as hard-partyers
> (except for the actual teens) here - what would the effect be on
> people who acted responsibly when they were kids, and especially on
> those who got wilder with age?
They stayed at home and you didn't see them?
> To ask Mike Zeares' question: where's the Buffy? I.e. how does all
> this affect her or illustrate things about her? Um... she doesn't
> like structure and people running her life, but comes to realize that
> adults are worthwhile?
Or that for the first time she faces the grim reality that at some time she
is going to have to rely on her judgment (shaky as it often is at the
moment) rather than being guided by Giles and Joyce? But clearly having some
fun is the main point here. What's not to like about Giles and Joyce, and
especially their embarassment at the end when Buffy notes that at least she
got to them before they actually DID anything?
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - The doctor and friends attempting to sing "Louie Louie."
> - "It was like nothing made sense anymore. The things I understood
> were gone." And she's talking about the SATs.
A great line and perfectly delivered. And (until the punch line) appearing
to refer Buffy growing up.
> I don't want to waste any more of my life on this episode. Let's
> wrap it up.
>
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: One idea stretched awfully thin.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
After your BBB review I'd have been surprised if you had rated it any
higher. Almost Ted and DMP surprised.
Going by the conversion factor I have elected to apply between my numerical
ratings and your verbal ones, Band Candy is only "Good" for me. The
conversion rate only allows for 12 Excellent episodes and 5 Excellent+ (or
Suburb) ones. But this is so close to Excellent that it deserves to be at
least Good++ . My ranking for it has yo-yoed over the years more than most
episodes do. It has been in my Top Ten, and has also been as low as the high
30's. Currently it seems to be settling into the middle of that range, at
22nd best BtVs episode, 4th best in Season 3
--
Apteryx
Bill Reid
One Bit Shy <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
news:12166er...@news.supernews.com...
>
> I enjoyed the ride more than you did, but I agree that a lot of it was
> pretty ragged. Weak lines. Weak acting. Unamusing moments. (Like the
> drag race.)
But did you notice what cars they were racing?
VOLVO STATION WAGONS!!!
I LOVE a good "car joke". To me, it's hilarious that Giles drives
a Citroen DS9, that's good sophisticated "car humor". I like the humor
of the car that Xander borrows from his uncle in an upcoming
episode, the whole schtick surrounding the car, and future Giles' cars.
But not everybody appreciates a good car joke, because they're just
like Hitler, who drove a Mercedes...
By the way, I would like to point out one small detail that most
people miss in the drag racing scene. A lot of people conclude
that Buffy was not at fault for the accident because the other
drivers were racing. But if you look closely, she clearly drives
right through a stop sign into their path...
---
William Ernest Reid
One Bit Shy
news:bgIQf.11159$8w2....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> One Bit Shy <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
> news:12166er...@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> I enjoyed the ride more than you did, but I agree that a lot of it was
>> pretty ragged. Weak lines. Weak acting. Unamusing moments. (Like the
>> drag race.)
>
> But did you notice what cars they were racing?
>
> VOLVO STATION WAGONS!!!
>
> I LOVE a good "car joke".
Heh-heh. Ok. Just goes to show how different people take jokes.
> To me, it's hilarious that Giles drives
> a Citroen DS9, that's good sophisticated "car humor".
I'm on board with that one. Also reminds me of an old college professor I
had who drove one of them.
> I like the humor
> of the car that Xander borrows from his uncle in an upcoming
> episode, the whole schtick surrounding the car, and future Giles' cars.
Both of those too. (That gal who loved Xander's car - and then turns out to
really love the car and bore poor Xander to tears over it.)
> But not everybody appreciates a good car joke, because they're just
> like Hitler, who drove a Mercedes...
>
> By the way, I would like to point out one small detail that most
> people miss in the drag racing scene. A lot of people conclude
> that Buffy was not at fault for the accident because the other
> drivers were racing. But if you look closely, she clearly drives
> right through a stop sign into their path...
Uh, sorry. You probably saw "STOP" on the pavement, but there's a green
light shown for her too.
Also, the car that hit them wasn't one of the racers.
OBS
BTR1701
vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
How do you know they couldn't afford it?
Don Sample
"Bill Reid" <horme...@happyhealthy.net> wrote:
> By the way, I would like to point out one small detail that most
> people miss in the drag racing scene. A lot of people conclude
> that Buffy was not at fault for the accident because the other
> drivers were racing. But if you look closely, she clearly drives
> right through a stop sign into their path...
Uh, no. She was going through a green light. The guy who hit her ran
the red.
Mel
kenm47 wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
>
>>kenm47 wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry. The only thing IMO that keeps this from being Excellent is the
>>>lack of Faith continuity, no sign of her and no metion IIRC.
>>
>>And perhaps the giant plothole at the center: are we to believe that
>>all this Mayor->Trick->Ethan->factory->bandgeeks->parents rigamarole is
>>necessary just so the vamp lackeys can steal newborns from the
>>hospital? Is the maternity ward guarded at 3am by
>>flame-thrower-brandishing military? BUT, if you set aside *that*
>>silliness, the remaining silly is great fun. :)
>
>
> I pretty much gave up expecting logic from any of these EET's plans
> once Angelus wanted to eliminate the world he and his fellow vamps were
> having so much fun in. Yes, aside from that. Although they do suggest
> that the humans would feel so strongly about babies that they would
> have somehow possibly mucked up the plan if not so irresponsible from
> the candy.
I don't think there was supposed to be logic in Angelus' decision to
send the world to hell. His reason, however, was to send _Buffy_ to hell
as repayment (in his mind) for her putting him through hell. She made
him feel human and he couldn't stand it and when trying to do to her
what he did to Dru didn't seem to be working, his insanity took over and
he decided to end the world.
Xvaqn yvxr ng gur raq bs frnfba fvk jura Jvyybj'f cnva jnf fb terng gung
fur'q engure qrfgebl gur jbeyq guna unir gb srry gung zhpu cnva nal zber.
Or maybe he just got bored....
Mel
>
>snip the rest<
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Well, the real-world explanation for that was that Eliza Dushku was only
> signed for a couple of episodes. She was supposed to be like Kendra--
> there and then gone again. But according to Whedon, the combination of
> Dushku stealing every scene she was in and the overwhelmingly positive
> fan response caused them to drastically change their plans for the
> character.
If that's true, it's cool. I admire the ability to rewrite on the fly
while sticking to an overall plan. But didn't they usually film a
whole bunch of episodes before knowing what the fan response would be?
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Mike Zeares <mze...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> >>
> >> To ask Mike Zeares' question: where's the Buffy? I.e. how does all
> >> this affect her or illustrate things about her?
> >
> > I just want to point out that that is actually Joss Whedon's question.
Yeah, I know, but you're the one who brings it into these threads the
most often.
> > As for the answer -- *shrug*. The whole thing looks like just an
> > excuse to get Giles and Joyce together. Not that I'm accusing Jane
> > Espenson of writing bad fanfic or anything. Ok, I am.
> >
>
> Clearly you've only read really really good fanfic.
"Good fanfic" is a contradiction in terms. (Okay, I don't quite
believe that, but almost.)
But that's a fun analogy. I'm with Mike: "Band Candy" is like a fanfic
that mimics the tropes of the show well enough to be tolerable, and
even has an interesting moment or three, but one's time could be much
better spent doing actual reading.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I have to admit I am really surprised when an episode I really enjoyed
> gets as much slamming as this one did from folks I otherwise consider
> intelligent and with worthwhile things to say. Makes me doubt my own
> couch potato credentials.
>
> Weird.
Yeah, but if your opinions are fully formed, loudly proclaim them to
the world. Even if they're wrong.
-AOQ
~this is especially true if you like something that others dislike,
since we all prefer to find reasons to like the show more rather than
less~
Don Sample
I think that Faith was probably planned for a fairly wide arc. They
wound up keeping her around even longer than they originally planned
though. (Like the original plan for Spike was to only last about half
of season 2. Not sure if he was supposed to die in 'What's My Line' or
if they were going to have Angel take him out, the way Spike took out
the Annoying One.)
vague disclaimer
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Orpnhfr gung'f ubj vg jbexf. Gur ohqtrg jbhyq or frg ng gur ortvaavat bs
gur frnfba, vapyhqvat pnfg pbfgf. Erzrzore ubj Tenir jnf pbzcebzvfrq
orpnhfr WJ oyrj fb zhpu bs gur ohqtrg ba BZJS (cre gur pbzzragnel)?
Naq fvapr gur Qnex Fynlre nep jnf gur cevapvcyr nep sbe gur frnfba...
George W Harris
wrote:
:One thing I appreciated about the chocolate factory scene is that they
:didn't drag out identifying the candy as the cause. We didn't need any more
:seemingly mysterious candy fetish.
:
I very much liked the Rayne-Trick interaction.
"How did you know he...?" "I didn't, but now I know no
one else will."
--
"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'.
Mike Zeares
> > excuse to get Giles and Joyce together. Not that I'm accusing Jane
> > Espenson of writing bad fanfic or anything. Ok, I am.
> >
>
> Clearly you've only read really really good fanfic.
Oh, if only that were true. At least "Band Candy" didn't have Joyce
telling Giles, "I'm your fuckslutwhore!"
-- Mike Zeares (that's actually from a Giles/Buffy fic)
BTR1701
vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
Jura gur frnfba jnf svefg orvat cynaarq bhg, gurl unq ab cynaf gb hfr
Qhfuxh sbe zber guna gjb be guerr rcvfbqrf. Boivbhfyl gung punatrq
fbzrjurer nybat gur jnl fb boivbhfyl zbarl sbe guvatf yvxr thrfg pnfg vf
syhvq.
BTR1701
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
Some shows do that but Buffy was pretty linear. They didn't shoot bits
and pieces of several episodes at once.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> > But didn't they usually film a
> > whole bunch of episodes before knowing what the fan response would be?
>
> Some shows do that but Buffy was pretty linear. They didn't shoot bits
> and pieces of several episodes at once.
Except in S1, which everyone says was shot out of order and was
entriely complete by the time it aired. When did things change?
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> (Like the original plan for Spike was to only last about half
> of season 2. Not sure if he was supposed to die in 'What's My Line' or
> if they were going to have Angel take him out, the way Spike took out
> the Annoying One.)
Now that's interesting.
-AOQ
BTR1701
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
I imagine the first season was unique because of its status as a
mid-season replacement for some other show.
But even then, the episodes may have been shot out of order but as far
as I know, they still shot them one at a time.
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
When they got renewed for an entire second season.
When they were doing season 1, they had no idea when it would be shown.
And it wasn't really shot out of sequence. When they were done, they
had the time (and budget left) to go back and reshoot a couple of items
for the first episode.
Mike Zeares
Correction: S1 wasn't shot out of order. It was just all "in the can"
before it actually aired, which allowed them to reshoot some scenes and
add some others before the premiere. The only examples of this I can
think of are from WTTH/Harvest.
The show started shooting in July, or possibly August (I know their
"break" ended in July), so a number of eps would be done before a
season started airing, depending on the premiere date (one ep every 8
days). The Buffy writers wouldn't have had any idea of the audience's
reaction to Faith in FH&T when they were writing the next few eps, for
example. Once the season started airing, they could gauge the
audience's reaction and make adjustments later in the season. They
took a break some time in November, I think, and then started shooting
the second half in December. I'm doing this from hazy memories of
comments by the Buffy writers. Anyway, the upshot is that the shooting
schedule did not match the airing schedule, which seems to be a common
misconception. They actually wrapped up shooting in early April, for
example. This may be the standard model for network shows.
-- Mike Zeares
vague disclaimer
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Zl haqrefgnaqvat vf gung fur jnf obbxrq sbe nebhaq 10 rcvfbqrf naq jnf
gb qvr ng gur raq bs gur Qnex Fynlre nep (bar bs gur znwbe nepf bs gur
frnfba).
Gur ovttrfg punatr va gur frnfba sebz jung jnf cynaarq jnf Ze Gevpx
orvat qbjatenqrq n gnq - juvpu whfg vaibyirq erneenatvat rkvfgvat
erfbheprf, abg nqqvat n zhygv-rcvfbqr fnynel.
Eric Hunter
The Special Features on Disc 3 (which are spoiler-laden)
suggest that it was more a matter of Joss and the
production team being so impressed with Eliza's
performance that they decided to expand her role.
FH&T was probably shown before they finished
the all of the season, so the fact that the fan
reaction was as positive as Joss's may have
contributed to her getting more screen time, but
I suspect it was more like Julie Benz(Darla), who
was originally supposed to be dusted by the Holy
Water in "The Harvest", but she was too good to
not use longer.
Eric.
--
David E. Milligan
"Mike Zeares" <mze...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142131230.0...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Shuggie wrote:
>> Mike Zeares <mze...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > As for the answer -- *shrug*. The whole thing looks like just an
>> > excuse to get Giles and Joyce together. Not that I'm accusing Jane
>> > Espenson of writing bad fanfic or anything. Ok, I am.
>> >
>>
>> Clearly you've only read really really good fanfic.
>
> Oh, if only that were true. At least "Band Candy" didn't have Joyce
> telling Giles, "I'm your fuckslutwhore!"
>
David
BTR1701
vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
Jryy, guvf vf jung Qhfuxh urefrys unq gb fnl nobhg vg:
D: Ubj qvq lbh svefg trg vaibyirq jvgu "Ohssl"?
N: Fnenu Zvpuryyr Tryyne naq V unq gur fnzr znantre, jub tbg zr zl svefg
zbivr jura V jnf gra lrnef byq. Fur'q unq n unaqshy bs pyvragf sbe
lrnef- zr, Fnenu, Nqevra Oebql, Oevggnal Zhecul. Fbzr cerggl fgryyne
crbcyr. V gubhtug vg jnf n fubj nobhg, lbh xabj, inzcverf. V qvqa'g
jngpu vg. V unq arire orra vagb fpvrapr svpgvba be ubeebe fb zhpu.
Jura V svefg znqr na nhqvgvba gncr sbe gur fubj, V'q whfg tenqhngrq sebz
uvtu fpubby. V jnf nobhg gb raebyy va zl zbz'f havirefvgl [Fhssbyx va
Obfgba, jurer ure zbgure vf n cebsrffbe], naq guvf pnzr hc. Vg jnf
cvgpurq gb zr nf n guerr-gb-svir rcvfbqr nep. Zl zbz unq whfg chg zl
oebgure guebhtu ALH naq V jnagrq gb znxr fbzr zbarl gb chg zlfrys
guebhtu pbyyrtr naq abg or fb zhpu bs n oheqra ba ure. V gubhtug vg
jbhyq or n dhvpx jnl gb znxr fbzr zbarl.
Gur punenpgre jnf qrfpevorq nf ³ovxre tvey zrrgf genvyre cnex². Fur jnf
sebz gur jebat fvqr bs gur genpxf, whfg gbhtu, jvyq. V yvgrenyyl
erzrzore tbvat gb gur znyy va zl ubzrgbja, jnagvat gb tb nyy bhg gb
perngr jung gurl qrfpevorq ba gur cntr. Fb V obhtug guvf oynpx yrngure
irfg naq chg fnsrgl cvaf nyy bire vg naq qvq nyy guvf fvyire wrjryel naq
erq yvcfgvpx. V jber oynpx znxrhc gb or n ovxre tvey naq zvkrq va guvf
xvaq bs gbhtu, va-lbhe-snpr, uneq-nf-anvyf nggvghqr- ohg pyrneyl xrrcvat
va zvaq gung guvf jbhyq or xvaq bs n snpnqr. Na rknttrengrq punenpgre be
fvghngvba.
Ng gur nhqvgvba, gurl jnagrq gb frr n pbhcyr bs chapu zbirf gb frr vs V
jnf culfvpny. Naq V fubjrq gurz gung V jnf culfvpny orpnhfr V jnf n
yvggyr ovg bs n gbzobl naq n jvyq xvq. Naq gung jnf vg naq gurl pnyyrq
zr gb pbzr bhg naq qb gubfr svir fubjf.
Carlos Moreno
> Sometimes my job is easy because the show makes my points for me.
> Let's look at this, the second "comedy" episode in a row. The
> previous entry, "Homecoming," picks a silly premise and runs with
> it, seeing how it impacts our characters, how they react to it, and the
> jokes spring from their personalities. The result is good comedy.
> "Band Candy" basically takes one joke and expects us to laugh at it
> over and over. That's the difference between good and bad comedy,
> right there.
*sigh* ... This is simply too much... I would describe Band Candy
as "hilarious beyond description" -- yet your review makes it sound
like you have a pre-biased view in that you have to find a reason
to explain why every funny episode is bad (Homecoming being the
exception because there's only a very small component of humor)
It's not one idea -- it's one *theme* and all the funny moments
go around that theme.
For that matter, with Homecoming, one could say: "ok, we get it,
Buffy and Cordelia are competing, got anything else for us to
view?"
Besides having Cream's "Tales of Brave Ulyses" (the song he and
Joyce were listening to), Band Candy has too many too hilarious
moments to even count them; but off the top of my head:
Buffy: "Besides, I don't do well in tests.... She said two days
before the SATs"
(ok, not hilarious, but clever enough)
---
Joyce: Take the keys, and Giles can drive me home
Buffy: What ... Sorry, I mean, *what?!!*
Joyce: Take the keys
Buffy: You don't have to tell me twice... Actually, you did,
but ... Bye!!
---
Giles: No, I'm your watcher, so *you* do as I say, so *sod off*
---
The image of Giles talking to the cop (oooh, Coppers's got a
gun) is among the top-10 most hilarious scenes of the series,
I'm sure.
---
Giles asking buffy to punch Ethan (don't remember the exact
phrases, but something about she being his slayer so she should
listen to him and hit Ethan's face), and then jumping and
cheering and saying "YES!" when she did hit him ... I simply
can not understand how can anyone consider these "the same
joke" repeated throughout the episode.
---
Giles realizing the he knew about Lurconis -- Tony Head at
his best!
---
Snyder hitting on Joyce, and doing his Tae Kwon Doe.
---
At the very end, Giles and Joyce pretending that nothing
happened (right ... indeed ... )
(ok, again, not hilarious, but funny enough to be a good
"closing argument" for this hilarious episode)
I can imagine those guys using up three times more reel
than they usually use for filming one episode, of so many
times that the actors -- and maybe the crew -- must have
cracked and rolled on the floor laughing.
> It doesn't
> help that most of the adult actors couldn't act like teens if their
> lives depended on it; Head is decent and Sutherland isn't too
> offensive, but the background types? Just... no.
Maybe you're comparing them with *today's* teenagers?? They
were acting pretty much like teenagers were at the time that
they were teenagers (the typical behaviour and look of teens
back in the 60s or 70s was different than teens today). I
found that they did a very good job -- ok, granted, the
background characters less than Giles and Joyce, but still.
> The candy only working on adults doesn't work for me. "Maturity"
> isn't a simple discrete thing - look at people like Willow, who's
> more mature than most adults in some situations and quite childish in
> others. So what's the age cutoff, an arbitrary age or an arbitrary
> level of "adulthood?" And all teens are portrayed as hard-partyers
> (except for the actual teens) here - what would the effect be on
> people who acted responsibly when they were kids, and especially on
> those who got wilder with age? I think I'm thinking too hard about a
> stupid plot device.
This goes with my idea above that it looks like you're doing
anything necessary to find a justification for why the episode
is bad... It's a *fictional* world, and in this particular
case, it's *magic* we're talking about -- I find it perfectly
reasonable the way it worked (give that it is magic -- if it
was a certain drug they put in the candy, then I'd probably
have an objection)
> Even the weaker episodes of BTVS tend to be part of the big narrative.
> One point of interest here is the expansion of the Sunnydale mythology.
At the risk of being *mildly spoilery*, I'll say the following:
reglardless of whether or not your opinion about Band Candy
changes, *do not* forget it and do not forget the details (i.e.,
do not put it in the "repressed memories" section of your brain),
since this is one of the episodes with the highest number of
references in the future (references as in what happened in
"Beauty and the beasts" with Xander -- the reference to the
Hyena episode).
(perhaps other would like to correct me on this -- please
do rot13 any comments regarding other episodes that have
higher number of references to them)
Cheers,
Carlos
--
Eric Hunter
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
>> isn't a simple discrete thing - look at people like Willow, who's
>> more mature than most adults in some situations and quite childish in
>> others. So what's the age cutoff, an arbitrary age or an arbitrary
>> level of "adulthood?" And all teens are portrayed as hard-partyers
>> (except for the actual teens) here - what would the effect be on
>> people who acted responsibly when they were kids, and especially on
>> those who got wilder with age? I think I'm thinking too hard about a
>> stupid plot device.
>
> This goes with my idea above that it looks like you're doing
> anything necessary to find a justification for why the episode
> is bad... It's a *fictional* world, and in this particular
> case, it's *magic* we're talking about -- I find it perfectly
> reasonable the way it worked (give that it is magic -- if it
> was a certain drug they put in the candy, then I'd probably
> have an objection)
There is a more central point here that AoQ is missing,
I think. While Buffy and the Scoobies claim that the
candy's effect is to make people act irresponsibly, that
is clearly not the case. The candy is making people act
like teenagers, so naturally, it would have minimal
effect on Xander or the other students at Sunnydale
High. It is making adults act irresponsibly, in large part
because unsupervised teenagers will often act irresponsibly.
Eric.
--
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> > Sometimes my job is easy because the show makes my points for me.
> > Let's look at this, the second "comedy" episode in a row. The
> > previous entry, "Homecoming," picks a silly premise and runs with
> > it, seeing how it impacts our characters, how they react to it, and the
> > jokes spring from their personalities. The result is good comedy.
> > "Band Candy" basically takes one joke and expects us to laugh at it
> > over and over. That's the difference between good and bad comedy,
> > right there.
>
> *sigh* ... This is simply too much... I would describe Band Candy
> as "hilarious beyond description" -- yet your review makes it sound
> like you have a pre-biased view in that you have to find a reason
> to explain why every funny episode is bad (Homecoming being the
> exception because there's only a very small component of humor)
Um, "Homecoming" was quite funny, not a "small component."
I come into each and every BTVS episode hoping to enjoy it. Believe it
or not, if I didn't like an episode, it's because I simply *didn't like
it*, not because of some ulterior motive or prejudice against funny
things or whatever you're accusing me of here. And imagine, me feeling
the need to "find a reason to explain" why I liked or didn't like
something, in a *review*! Baffling.
So you liked "Band Candy" and thought it was hilarious. Fine. I
didn't.
> > The candy only working on adults doesn't work for me. "Maturity"
> > isn't a simple discrete thing - look at people like Willow, who's
> > more mature than most adults in some situations and quite childish in
> > others. So what's the age cutoff, an arbitrary age or an arbitrary
> > level of "adulthood?" And all teens are portrayed as hard-partyers
> > (except for the actual teens) here - what would the effect be on
> > people who acted responsibly when they were kids, and especially on
> > those who got wilder with age? I think I'm thinking too hard about a
> > stupid plot device.
>
> This goes with my idea above that it looks like you're doing
> anything necessary to find a justification for why the episode
> is bad... It's a *fictional* world, and in this particular
> case, it's *magic* we're talking about -- I find it perfectly
> reasonable the way it worked (give that it is magic -- if it
> was a certain drug they put in the candy, then I'd probably
> have an objection)
This really isn't worth arguing too strenuously since this is a comedy
epsiode, so the plot per se is even less important than usual. But one
of the cardinal signs of bad fantasy plotting is when it's clear that
magic is working strictly according to what the author says rather than
being an integral part of the fantasy world.
-AOQ
vague disclaimer
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Gur punenpgre jnf qrfpevorq nf Å‚ovxre tvey zrrgf genvyre cnexË›. Fur jnf
> sebz gur jebat fvqr bs gur genpxf, whfg gbhtu, jvyq. V yvgrenyyl
> erzrzore tbvat gb gur znyy va zl ubzrgbja, jnagvat gb tb nyy bhg gb
> perngr jung gurl qrfpevorq ba gur cntr. Fb V obhtug guvf oynpx yrngure
> irfg naq chg fnsrgl cvaf nyy bire vg naq qvq nyy guvf fvyire wrjryel naq
> erq yvcfgvpx. V jber oynpx znxrhc gb or n ovxre tvey naq zvkrq va guvf
> xvaq bs gbhtu, va-lbhe-snpr, uneq-nf-anvyf nggvghqr- ohg pyrneyl xrrcvat
> va zvaq gung guvf jbhyq or xvaq bs n snpnqr. Na rknttrengrq punenpgre be
> fvghngvba.
>
> Ng gur nhqvgvba, gurl jnagrq gb frr n pbhcyr bs chapu zbirf gb frr vs V
> jnf culfvpny. Naq V fubjrq gurz gung V jnf culfvpny orpnhfr V jnf n
> yvggyr ovg bs n gbzobl naq n jvyq xvq. Naq gung jnf vg naq gurl pnyyrq
> zr gb pbzr bhg naq qb gubfr svir fubjf.
Naq lbh ner, orvat gur tbbq "Srq" gung lbh ner, tenfcvat gur qvfgvapgvba
orgjrra "cvgpurq gb zr nf..." naq "uverq zr gb qb..."
BTR1701
vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
> > Gur punenpgre jnf qrfpevorq nf ³ovxre tvey zrrgf genvyre cnex². Fur jnf
> > sebz gur jebat fvqr bs gur genpxf, whfg gbhtu, jvyq. V yvgrenyyl
> > erzrzore tbvat gb gur znyy va zl ubzrgbja, jnagvat gb tb nyy bhg gb
> > perngr jung gurl qrfpevorq ba gur cntr. Fb V obhtug guvf oynpx yrngure
> > irfg naq chg fnsrgl cvaf nyy bire vg naq qvq nyy guvf fvyire wrjryel naq
> > erq yvcfgvpx. V jber oynpx znxrhc gb or n ovxre tvey naq zvkrq va guvf
> > xvaq bs gbhtu, va-lbhe-snpr, uneq-nf-anvyf nggvghqr- ohg pyrneyl xrrcvat
> > va zvaq gung guvf jbhyq or xvaq bs n snpnqr. Na rknttrengrq punenpgre be
> > fvghngvba.
> >
> > Ng gur nhqvgvba, gurl jnagrq gb frr n pbhcyr bs chapu zbirf gb frr vs V
> > jnf culfvpny. Naq V fubjrq gurz gung V jnf culfvpny orpnhfr V jnf n
> > yvggyr ovg bs n gbzobl naq n jvyq xvq. Naq gung jnf vg naq gurl pnyyrq
> > zr gb pbzr bhg naq qb gubfr svir fubjf.
>
> Naq lbh ner, orvat gur tbbq "Srq" gung lbh ner, tenfcvat gur qvfgvapgvba
> orgjrra "cvgpurq gb zr nf..." naq "uverq zr gb qb..."
Did you miss the last sentence: "And that was it and they called me to
come out and do those five shows."
Mike Zeares
Carlos Moreno wrote:
>
> *sigh* ... This is simply too much... I would describe Band Candy
> as "hilarious beyond description"
Whereas I would (and have) describe Band Candy as "stupid yet
marginally fun fanfic."
There is no consensus on many Buffy eps. AoQ is hardly the first
person who has not found the BtVS "wacky comedy" episodes to be less
than hilarious.
-- Mike Zeares
Ian Galbraith
I like the episode a lot although perhaps would rank it just below
excellent. Jane Espenson does end up becoming my second favorite writer on
the show after Joss though.
> This really isn't worth arguing too strenuously since this is a comedy
> epsiode, so the plot per se is even less important than usual. But one
> of the cardinal signs of bad fantasy plotting is when it's clear that
> magic is working strictly according to what the author says rather than
> being an integral part of the fantasy world.
No bad fantasy plotting would be the magic having inconsistent effects.
--
You can't stop the signal
Carlos Moreno
>>*sigh* ... This is simply too much... I would describe Band Candy
>>as "hilarious beyond description" -- yet your review makes it sound
>>like you have a pre-biased view in that you have to find a reason
>>to explain why every funny episode is bad (Homecoming being the
>>exception because there's only a very small component of humor)
>
>
> Um, "Homecoming" was quite funny, not a "small component."
>
> I come into each and every BTVS episode hoping to enjoy it. Believe it
> or not, if I didn't like an episode, it's because I simply *didn't like
> it*, not because of some ulterior motive or prejudice against funny
> things or whatever you're accusing me of here.
Hmmm, taking my comments a little bit too literally, perhaps?
What I meant is that you have a very particular way to go in
"anti-sync" with the style of humor in BtVS -- so far, the two
funniest episodes of the series (BBB and Band Candy), you've
ranked extremely low, with an analysis that *sounds like* you
were determined to find a reason to dislike them. It's humor,
yet you scrutinize it looking for logic flaws, etc. It just
sounds strange -- perhaps it's just being utterly baffled by
looking at those low ratings coming from someone that has
been otherwise pretty much in sync with the general consensus
about most other episodes.
> And imagine, me feeling
> the need to "find a reason to explain" why I liked or didn't like
> something, in a *review*! Baffling.
Well, I take it you *do like* the discussion and the exchange
of points of view -- agreeing or disagreeing; otherwise you
wouldn't be writing these reviews.
> This really isn't worth arguing too strenuously since this is a comedy
> epsiode, so the plot per se is even less important than usual. But one
> of the cardinal signs of bad fantasy plotting is when it's clear that
> magic is working strictly according to what the author says rather than
> being an integral part of the fantasy world.
How is "the fantasy world" different from "according to what the
author says"? -- I mean, Giles is how he is and he says what he
says *because* the authors/scriptwriters say so; Willow is one
of your favourite characters not because there's some fundamental
"Willow essence" -- everything that Willow says and does *is
strictly what the authors say*, not what Willow says... I
really fail to see your point in the above reasoning.
Carlos
--
Eric Hunter
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
>
>> usual. But one of the cardinal signs of bad fantasy plotting is
>> when it's clear that magic is working strictly according to what the
>> author says rather than being an integral part of the fantasy world.
>
> How is "the fantasy world" different from "according to what the
> author says"?
"Halloween" and "The Dark Age" established Ethan as
a worshipper of Chaos. The costumes in "Halloween"
affected small children, teenagers, and adults, everyone
who wore them. It is bad plotting if, in "Band Candy",
the candy only affects adults; Ethan would want everyone
to be irresponsible. It is clear to me that the Scoobies
misinterpreted Ethan's spell. They thought it was making
people act irresponsibly, but it was actually crafted to
make adults act like teenagers, and for that reason had
no effect on the Scoobies or the other students of SHS.
Eric.
--
Arbitrar Of Quality
Carlos Moreno wrote:
> Hmmm, taking my comments a little bit too literally, perhaps?
How else should I take them? Esepcially since you then make the same
comments again.
> What I meant is that you have a very particular way to go in
> "anti-sync" with the style of humor in BtVS -- so far, the two
> funniest episodes of the series
"Go Fish" and "Homecoming?"
> (BBB and Band Candy),
... oh.
> you've
> ranked extremely low, with an analysis that *sounds like* you
> were determined to find a reason to dislike them. It's humor,
> yet you scrutinize it looking for logic flaws, etc.
Again, the dislike always comes first. The anlayis comes because, as a
reviewer, if I don't like something, I feel the need to try to explain
why in a way that will make sense to others. With 3B in particular, I
thought the review described the exact thought process by which I
started out hoping to enjoy the episode and came to loathe it as it
played out.
I think you're off-base with the other comment. I only mentioned the
one thing about plot-logic with regard to "Band Candy," and didn't get
into that at all for 3B.
> > And imagine, me feeling
> > the need to "find a reason to explain" why I liked or didn't like
> > something, in a *review*! Baffling.
>
> Well, I take it you *do like* the discussion and the exchange
> of points of view -- agreeing or disagreeing; otherwise you
> wouldn't be writing these reviews.
True, but on this argument I just don't see what your point is beyond
"this is funny because I say it is."
> > This really isn't worth arguing too strenuously since this is a comedy
> > epsiode, so the plot per se is even less important than usual. But one
> > of the cardinal signs of bad fantasy plotting is when it's clear that
> > magic is working strictly according to what the author says rather than
> > being an integral part of the fantasy world.
>
> How is "the fantasy world" different from "according to what the
> author says"? -- I mean, Giles is how he is and he says what he
> says *because* the authors/scriptwriters say so; Willow is one
> of your favourite characters not because there's some fundamental
> "Willow essence" -- everything that Willow says and does *is
> strictly what the authors say*, not what Willow says... I
> really fail to see your point in the above reasoning.
Characters aren't really relevant here since I'm talking about
mechanical plotting. Basically, the difference is whether or not the
magic seems to operate according to any kind of sense beyond the
demands of the script. (We could go off into a long tangent about
logical magic and how to make it seem like it makes sense without
spelling everything out since it wouldn't be magic if there weren't
some mystery, etc. etc. but it's really not so important here, since BC
is a comedy, and I wouldn't like it much even if the plotting were
better.)
-AOQ
Rowan Hawthorn
> Carlos Moreno wrote:
>
>>Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>This really isn't worth arguing too strenuously since this is a
>>>comedy episode, so the plot per se is even less important than
>>>usual. But one of the cardinal signs of bad fantasy plotting is
>>>when it's clear that magic is working strictly according to what the
>>>author says rather than being an integral part of the fantasy world.
>>
>>How is "the fantasy world" different from "according to what the
>>author says"?
>
>
> "Halloween" and "The Dark Age" established Ethan as
> a worshipper of Chaos. The costumes in "Halloween"
> affected small children, teenagers, and adults, everyone
> who wore them. It is bad plotting if, in "Band Candy",
> the candy only affects adults; Ethan would want everyone
> to be irresponsible.
No, it isn't: "Halloween" was Ethan acting on his own, for his own fun
and games; in "Band Candy," the spell wasn't designed to please Ethan,
it was specifically for the benefit of the Mayor, who contracted with
Ethan to do the job. Somebody hires you to do a job, you do it the way
they request it.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
Carlos Moreno
>>>This really isn't worth arguing too strenuously since this is a
>>>comedy episode, so the plot per se is even less important than
>>>usual. But one of the cardinal signs of bad fantasy plotting is
>>>when it's clear that magic is working strictly according to what the
>>>author says rather than being an integral part of the fantasy world.
>>
>>How is "the fantasy world" different from "according to what the
>>author says"?
>
>
> "Halloween" and "The Dark Age" established Ethan as
> a worshipper of Chaos. The costumes in "Halloween"
> affected small children, teenagers, and adults, everyone
> who wore them. It is bad plotting if, in "Band Candy",
> the candy only affects adults; Ethan would want everyone
> to be irresponsible. It is clear to me that the Scoobies
> misinterpreted Ethan's spell. They thought it was making
> people act irresponsibly, but it was actually crafted to
> make adults act like teenagers
1) Ethan was *hired* to make a spell given instructions;
nothing from Halloween or Dark Age suggests that Ethan
would refuse to do such "speel by hire"
2) The Scoobies did not misinterpret Ethan's spell -- in
fact, Buffy spelled it out (really, no pun intended)
exactly: "they're a bunch of us" were her exact words
when first noticing it. By the time that they notice
that it had to be the candy, which is when she says
something like "it's making people act irresponsibly"
(or something along those lines), it's implicit that
they're talking about *adult* people (it was already
a given that it was not affecting them -- it would
have sounded odd/silly/ridiculous if she had said:
"it has to be the candy; it's making adults act
irresponsibly"
3) The spell was crafted that way because the Mayor
needed it exactly that way -- he was not aware or
expecting that there would be a superhero in town
that happened to be a teenager to spoil his plan;
notice that his plan *did work* given the effect of
the spell -- they *did manage* to steal the babies
thanks to the effect of the spell. The teenager
superhero came after.
Now, if you want to scrutinize and debunk the plot of
this episode, one could say: why the hell would they
need a spell to steal babies -- why not just steal them
by force?!
But then, one could use that argument pretty much for
every single episode -- then no scriptwriting could have
any purpose, and no tv series or movie would ever exist
(ok, comic exaggeration at this point -- but you know
what I'm saying)
Carlos
--
Don Sample
Carlos Moreno <moreno_at_mo...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> 3) The spell was crafted that way because the Mayor
> needed it exactly that way -- he was not aware or
> expecting that there would be a superhero in town
> that happened to be a teenager to spoil his plan;
Actually, he does know that there is a teenage superhero in town. He
might not have anticipated her figuring out what was going on with her
adult support taken away.
> notice that his plan *did work* given the effect of
> the spell -- they *did manage* to steal the babies
> thanks to the effect of the spell. The teenager
> superhero came after.
The spell wasn't so they could steal the babies. It was to muddy the
waters for the investigation that would follow. (The people of
Sunnydale can only ignore so much. The Mayor figured that four babies
disappearing from the hospital was something they wouldn't ignore.)
Carlos Moreno
>> notice that his plan *did work* given the effect of
>> the spell -- they *did manage* to steal the babies
>> thanks to the effect of the spell. The teenager
>> superhero came after.
>
> The spell wasn't so they could steal the babies.
Of course it was!! Did you miss the whole explanation from
Ethan himself while Buffy was threatening him with physical
violence and Giles was cheering for her to punch his face??
That, plus his conversation (with Mr. Trick, presumably?)
on the phone right when Buffy caught him: "town's wide
open, you can go ahead with the ritual .... <he sees Buffy>
... you might wanna hurry"
(the above is quoted off the top of my head)
> It was to muddy the
> waters for the investigation that would follow. (The people of
> Sunnydale can only ignore so much. The Mayor figured that four babies
> disappearing from the hospital was something they wouldn't ignore.)
Ethan does say something along those lines -- "by the time
the effect from the candy wears off, people will blame
themselves" ... I guess your statement above can be seen
as an interpretation, as a possible outcome of this.
Carlos
--
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > waters for the investigation that would follow. (The people of
> > Sunnydale can only ignore so much. The Mayor figured that four babies
> > disappearing from the hospital was something they wouldn't ignore.)
>
> Ethan does say something along those lines -- "by the time
> the effect from the candy wears off, people will blame
> themselves" ... I guess your statement above can be seen
> as an interpretation, as a possible outcome of this.
something ive never been sure about is whether buffy saw the mayor in the sewer
or did he slip away before she noticed him?
she knows about trick but does she know who trick works for
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
Don Sample
<mair_fheal-53904...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > It was to muddy the
> > > waters for the investigation that would follow. (The people of
> > > Sunnydale can only ignore so much. The Mayor figured that four babies
> > > disappearing from the hospital was something they wouldn't ignore.)
> >
> > Ethan does say something along those lines -- "by the time
> > the effect from the candy wears off, people will blame
> > themselves" ... I guess your statement above can be seen
> > as an interpretation, as a possible outcome of this.
>
> something ive never been sure about is whether buffy saw the mayor in the
> sewer
> or did he slip away before she noticed him?
>
> she knows about trick but does she know who trick works for
She never saw him.
KenM47
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think we're supposed to accept that she did NOT see the Mayor.
Ken (Brooklyn)
david serafini
> 3) The spell was crafted that way because the Mayor
> needed it exactly that way -- he was not aware or
> expecting that there would be a superhero in town
> that happened to be a teenager to spoil his plan;
You analysis is ok up to here. There's lots of
evidence that the Mayor knew that Buffy was
at least extraordinarily capable. He clearly had
heard a lot about her from Snyder. At this point it
isn't a stretch to argue that he knew
that there was a Slayer in town. So putting two and
two together, I'd say he knew Buffy was the Slayer.
There's certainly no direct evidence that he didn't
know, and I think you'd have a hard time making that
argument. Of course, I welcome you to try. It's more
fun that way. :-)
-dbs
Clairel
Shuggie wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sometimes my job is easy because the show makes my points for me.
> > Let's look at this, the second "comedy" episode in a row. The
> > previous entry, "Homecoming," picks a silly premise and runs with
> > it, seeing how it impacts our characters, how they react to it, and the
> > jokes spring from their personalities. The result is good comedy.
> > "Band Candy" basically takes one joke and expects us to laugh at it
> > over and over. That's the difference between good and bad comedy,
> > right there.
> >
>
> not going to try to convince you that something you think isn't funny
> is. (or vice versa for that matter) so just a few comments:
>
> > It doesn't
> > help that most of the adult actors couldn't act like teens if their
> > lives depended on it; Head is decent and Sutherland isn't too
> > offensive, but the background types? Just... no.
>
> scene where they're listening to records and Joyce is desperately trying
> to get Giles to pay attention to her without seeming desperate - that's
> a very subtle and well-played moment.
>
> >
> > The candy only working on adults doesn't work for me. "Maturity"
> > isn't a simple discrete thing - look at people like Willow, who's
> > more mature than most adults in some situations and quite childish in
> > others. So what's the age cutoff, an arbitrary age or an arbitrary
> > level of "adulthood?"
>
> it doesn't have to be a maturity cut-off, it can be an age cut-off.
>
> > And all teens are portrayed as hard-partyers
> > (except for the actual teens) here - what would the effect be on
> > people who acted responsibly when they were kids, and especially on
> > those who got wilder with age?
>
> experience what it feels like to be young again and some are making up
> for lost time.
--Well, that reminds me of something I had intended to take up with AOQ
after his season 2 reviews were all over with.
At some point in writing about season 2, AOQ raised the question of
whether Angelus, after he came back at the end of "Surprise," was
different from the Angelus he used to be, just because of his
experience of being reined in by Angel's soul for almost 100 years.
During the first phase of Angelus's existence, his only memories of a
prior existence were memories of being a boisterous tavern-roisterer
and womanizer. The human Liam we saw in "Becoming 1" lived for
pleasure and didn't seem to have a very active conscience.
But when Angelus returned in 1998, he had memories of brooding
soulfully over his past crimes for most of the 20th century, and then
becoming an altruistic do-gooder who helped the Slayer. That must have
irked Angelus much more than his human past as a tavern-roisterer did.
It has always been my belief that because of the memories of soulful
brooding and do-gooding, so repugnant to Angelus, the Angelus of 1998
went totally over the top with major league evil-doing. In other
words, it's a more malignant form of the over-the-top antics that we
see in the adults affected by the magical chocolate in "Band Candy."
The affected adults went totally overboard with their wild and crazy
adolescent behavior precisely "because* they had memories of years and
years' worth of sober, responsible adult behavior, and they were
reacting against that. So, too, Angelus in 1998 was going overboard
and reacting against his memories of soulful gloominess and earnest
altruism.
It's justifiable to make this assumption about Angelus because
everything we know about his past career as an evil vampire indicates
that he had been content with small-scale evil. A family, a hamlet, a
village full of victims--sure, he'd go for that. But trying to end the
world? Trying to get Acathla to swallow up the entire human race? The
point Spike made, that there's no particular advantage in that for an
evil vampire and in fact a lot of disadvantages, is a point that I
think the old Angelus (the 18th and 19th century Angelus) would have
agreed with. But the 1998 Angelus was very different, much more
nihilistic and imprudent.
Well, that's the analogy I would draw between Angelus and "Band Candy."
I hope you're reading this, AOQ, because I'm really interested in how
it seems to you.
By the way, I thought "Band Candy" was tons o' fun and a great debut
for a writer with comical talent (Espenson). I really didn't mind that
what we got in the episode was all there was to it. It was plenty to
satisfy and amuse me.
Clairel
Don Sample
david serafini <dbser...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
There is direct evidence that he knows that there are two Slayers in
town. He knew all about Mr. Trick's little "Slayerfest 98" competition.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> > I think part of what's happening is that adults are getting to
> > experience what it feels like to be young again and some are making up
> > for lost time.
>
> --Well, that reminds me of something I had intended to take up with AOQ
> after his season 2 reviews were all over with. [Theory snipped.]
Oh yeah, I remember you asked the question. I quite like your theory
here, but my only quibble would still be that those who'd known
pre-curse Angelus didn't give any indication whatsoever that post-curse
Angelus was acting any differently. Still, it's an interesting way to
think about it.
-AOQ
George W Harris
<dbser...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Actually, he clearly knew that there were two
Slayers in town. Remember "Homecomeing"?
Slayerfest '98? Hizzonor expressed his admiration for it.
:-dbs
--
Real men don't need macho posturing to bolster their egos.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Clairel
--There is some evidence, actually. Remember all those episodes in
season 2 in which Angelus just wanted to play mind-games with Buffy
instead of killing her? Spike kept making comments to Angelus such as
"I know you've been out of the game a long time, mate, but we do still
kill people. It's sort of our raison d'etre."
Spike remembered the Angelus of old, and Spike thought it was odd that
Angelus wanted to keep on playing games with a slayer instead of doing
the prudent thing, which would be to simply kill her as quickly as
possible.
As for lack of other comments that Spike and Dru might have made about
changes in Angelus since the old days, well, I think that can be
chalked up to two things:
1) Limited screentime, which means not every conversation can be shown
on screen;
2) Spike might have figured that the horrible memories of soulfulness
*would* have affected Angelus, and therefore Spike tacitly made
allowances for that, while at the same time Drusilla was so loony and
reckless that she just accepted anything from her adored Angelus
without any surprise or objection.
And on a related topic I wonder if you remember, AOQ, how I answered
your question in the "What's My Line" review thread by suggesting that
while Drusilla resented the soulful Angel and wanted to make him feel
bad about having killed her family, her feelings toward soulless
Angelus might be very different? Having seen the second half of season
2, you now know that Dru adored the monster who had made her a monster,
yet she despised his ensouled counterpart. Creepy, eh?
Clairel
hopelessly devoted
Clairel wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > Clairel wrote:
> >
> > > > I think part of what's happening is that adults are getting to
> > > > experience what it feels like to be young again and some are making up
> > > > for lost time.
> > >
> > > --Well, that reminds me of something I had intended to take up with AOQ
> > > after his season 2 reviews were all over with. [Theory snipped.]
> >
> > Oh yeah, I remember you asked the question. I quite like your theory
> > here, but my only quibble would still be that those who'd known
> > pre-curse Angelus didn't give any indication whatsoever that post-curse
> > Angelus was acting any differently.
>
> --There is some evidence, actually. Remember all those episodes in
> season 2 in which Angelus just wanted to play mind-games with Buffy
> instead of killing her? Spike kept making comments to Angelus such as
> "I know you've been out of the game a long time, mate, but we do still
> kill people. It's sort of our raison d'etre."
>
> Spike remembered the Angelus of old, and Spike thought it was odd that
> Angelus wanted to keep on playing games with a slayer instead of doing
> the prudent thing, which would be to simply kill her as quickly as
> possible.
Sbby sbe Ybir / Qneyn - Nppbeqvat gb gung yvggyr uvfgbel yrffba, Fcvxr
arire ernyyl zrg Natryhf ng nyy, zreryl Natry va qvfthvfr. Fb Natry'f
zvaq tnzrf jbhyq frrz n yvggyr "bss".
hopelessly devoted
Sorry, got the sequence of events very wrong. As Gilda would say,
"Never mind".
kenm47
Ab. Lbh'er jebat.
Natryhf trgf phefrq va Orpbzvat 1 va 1898. Va Sbby Sbe Ybir gur dhnegrg
vf gbtrgure va 1880. Gung'f 18 lrnef sbe Natrxyhf gb or Fcvxr'f Lbqn.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Sam
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> Don Sample wrote:
> > (Like the original plan for Spike was to only last about half
> > of season 2. Not sure if he was supposed to die in 'What's My Line' or
> > if they were going to have Angel take him out, the way Spike took out
> > the Annoying One.)
>
> Now that's interesting.
>
> -AOQ
He was supposed to die in "What's My Line," and be replaced by Drusilla
as the major villain, until of course the real twist happened and Angel
took over. They changed their mind at the last second because they
liked writing the character so much.
Arbitrar Of Quality
Clairel wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > Oh yeah, I remember you asked the question. I quite like your theory
> > here, but my only quibble would still be that those who'd known
> > pre-curse Angelus didn't give any indication whatsoever that post-curse
> > Angelus was acting any differently.
>
> --There is some evidence, actually. Remember all those episodes in
> season 2 in which Angelus just wanted to play mind-games with Buffy
> instead of killing her? Spike kept making comments to Angelus such as
> "I know you've been out of the game a long time, mate, but we do still
> kill people. It's sort of our raison d'etre."
>
> Spike remembered the Angelus of old, and Spike thought it was odd that
> Angelus wanted to keep on playing games with a slayer instead of doing
> the prudent thing, which would be to simply kill her as quickly as
> possible.
But what about Drusilla's story, both as described in LTM and as seen
in Bec1? It suggests that even pre-soul, Angelus wasn't in it for just
the kill, but (to quote "Passion") "the ecstacy of grief." He plays
with his food. He's not interested in just killing; others' pain is
his pleasure.
-AOQ
Clairel
--I agree with that, AOQ, as far as helpless victims are concerned. A
mere human without superpowers is a victim Angelus would feel he could
safely toy with, at leisure. Or perhaps even a slayer, if she were
chained up really well, or in some other way rendered physically
helpless.
But to try and defeat a slayer with mind-games, while leaving her
physically free to act, is to take crazy risks that could very well
backfire on Angelus. After all, that's what happened in the end -- the
whole scheme backfired on him. If you could go back in time and pose
such a scenario hypothetically to the 18th-19th century Angelus, and
get him to answer you honestly, he would surely agree that the game
wasn't worth the candle. And it wasn't: 1998 Angelus ended up having
achieved none of the goals he wanted to achieve, and having lost
everything he valued.
Prudence dictates that Angelus, having achieved something very precious
to him -- I mean an autonomous existence, free of soul-having, for the
first time in 100 years -- should act in such a way as to safeguard his
freedom and autonomy above all else. The only reason why Angelus
stayed in Sunnydale and played mind-games with Buffy is because he
wasn't paying heed to prudence. The 1998 Angelus was a reckless,
imprudent, crazed Angelus whose outrage at the humane influence that
Buffy had had on his souled counterpart led him to lash out at her in
ways that defied prudence and common sense. The mind-games satisfied
Angelus's sadistic urges but at the same time they jeopardized his
freedom and autonomy. He would have been much better off traveling to
the other side of the world somewhere beyond Buffy's reach, or -- if he
thought that was too risky because Buffy might never give up the search
for him -- then his only other logical option would have been to use
the advantage of surprise, before Buffy knew he had changed inside, and
ambush her, killing her quickly and efficiently. THEN he should have
left Sunnydale right away, so as to avoid reprisals from Giles.
Those are the only two options that were really in Angelus's
self-interest. And with the old Angelus, self-interest had always been
paramount. The old Angelus was quite cunning and had been capable of
thinking long-term, instead of just giving in to impulsive cravings for
short-term gratification. But the 1998 Angelus no longer had a clear
sense of what was in his own self-interest. Acathla swallowing up the
world would pretty much ruin Angelus's prospects for future sadistic
fun, it seems to me, yet Angelus didn't really care if it did.
After his 100 years of soulfulness there was a self-destructive
streak in Angelus that hadn't been there before. It's as if the
memories of what he had done, and what he had been, disgusted him so
much that, when the Acathla opportunity came along, he almost preferred
to just annihilate everything in existence. And even prior to that, he
had knowingly been risking death every day by staying in Sunnydale and
continuing to taunt Buffy. It's like the obverse of moral outrage:
his "immoral outrage" at having loved Buffy and having helped her do
good things drove Angelus obsessively to take crazy risks that ran
counter to his self-interest. The old Angelus, though, had been too
much of a pragmatist to become a martyr for immoral principles.
That's how I see it, anyway.
Clairel
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Those are the only two options that were really in Angelus's
> self-interest. And with the old Angelus, self-interest had always been
> paramount. The old Angelus was quite cunning and had been capable of
> thinking long-term, instead of just giving in to impulsive cravings for
> short-term gratification.
> The old Angelus, though, had been too
> much of a pragmatist to become a martyr for immoral principles.
To sound lawyerly, on what basis are you coming to these conclusions
about Angelus v.1.0? (Or is it based on future revelations?)
I do think this is a very interesting concept you've got here.
-AOQ
Don Sample
"Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote:
Also looking back at 'School Hard' Spike says to Angel: "So, why're you
so scared of this Slayer? Time was you would've taken her out in a
heartbeat," implying that Angel had indeed done that with Slayers in the
past.
Clairel
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> Clairel wrote:
>
> > Those are the only two options that were really in Angelus's
> > self-interest. And with the old Angelus, self-interest had always been
> > paramount. The old Angelus was quite cunning and had been capable of
> > thinking long-term, instead of just giving in to impulsive cravings for
> > short-term gratification.
>
> > The old Angelus, though, had been too
> > much of a pragmatist to become a martyr for immoral principles.
>
> To sound lawyerly, on what basis are you coming to these conclusions
> about Angelus v.1.0? (Or is it based on future revelations?)
--In order to avoid spoiling you, I was trying to base my discussion
on what could be gleaned from the first 42 episodes of BtVS, and not
include mention of anything you haven't seen yet. But I suppose I
might have unconsciously been drawing on a larger overview of
everything I've learned about Angelus over the years. I don't know if
I could have come up with exactly this interpretation back in 1998, but
I think the interpretation is consistent with what had been shown about
Angelus in 1997 and 1998.
You have to ask yourself, don't you, why it is that Angelus's evil
existence spanned a good part of the 18th century and all of the 19th
century up to 1898, yet we never heard talk of him having taken part in
any supernatural end-the-world schemes in the past? I mean, if Angelus
had been interested in such things (which I don't believe he was), he
was obviously unsuccessful: the Buffyverse kept on surviving. As Oz
would say, "Check it out."
In Becoming 2, Spike said "And then somebody comes along with a vision.
Angel could pull it off [i.e., ending the world by means of Acathla]."
Well, I don't think the old Angelus would ever have been interested in
any such vision; do you?
> I do think this is a very interesting concept you've got here.
--Thanks!
Clairel
Mel
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
The only 2 I can think of who knew him pre-curse were Spike and
Drusilla. I can't imagine Dru thinking much about it (or caring, for
that matter) as long as he was her evil daddy again. And Spike was too
busy being jealous to think about anything else.
Who else could compare notes?
Mel
One Bit Shy
news:1142320707.0...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I think your general approach gives a very plausible explanation of
Angeles's Buffy-centric approach. (Also supported by Angeles's Innocence
remark that Buffy made him feel human, which is something you don't
forgive.)
However, Cataula strikes me as harder to explain. Especially since that's
not Buffy-centric. He became very engaged in the end of the world
possibilities and pushed Buffy largely out of the picture. He did toy with
her once, but that was just a ploy to get Giles. At the end he was clearly
annoyed to have to deal with her.
Perhaps the key trigger to that was IOHEFHY. Maybe "forgiving" Buffy (which
he already said he couldn't do) pushed him over the final edge. (Hmmm.
Just noticed that forgive link.)
I've always sensed that during the Angelus period he was slowly going mad.
Which I guess would be in synch with your proposition.
Part of me remains skeptical - thinking that this aspect of Cataula is
really a plot hole born of all the practical functions Cataula serves. But
even if so, this rationale fills the gap better than I initially thought.
Interesting.
OBS
Mel
>>
>
>
> I think your general approach gives a very plausible explanation of
> Angeles's Buffy-centric approach. (Also supported by Angeles's Innocence
> remark that Buffy made him feel human, which is something you don't
> forgive.)
>
> However, Cataula strikes me as harder to explain. Especially since that's
> not Buffy-centric. He became very engaged in the end of the world
> possibilities and pushed Buffy largely out of the picture. He did toy with
> her once, but that was just a ploy to get Giles. At the end he was clearly
> annoyed to have to deal with her.
>
> Perhaps the key trigger to that was IOHEFHY. Maybe "forgiving" Buffy (which
> he already said he couldn't do) pushed him over the final edge. (Hmmm.
> Just noticed that forgive link.)
>
> I've always sensed that during the Angelus period he was slowly going mad.
> Which I guess would be in synch with your proposition.
>
> Part of me remains skeptical - thinking that this aspect of Cataula is
> really a plot hole born of all the practical functions Cataula serves. But
> even if so, this rationale fills the gap better than I initially thought.
> Interesting.
>
> OBS
>
>
>
What/who is Cataula???
Mel
Clairel
--I was just going to ask the same question, but maybe it's a
misspelling of Acathla.
Sheesh, at least Buffy's comical deformations of the name all started
with the letter A...Alfalfa, etc.!
I think what explains Angelus's eagerness to take the opportunity that
Acathla offered, to the point that Angelus even lost interest in Buffy
as compared to his interest in ending the world, is that Angelus just
couldn't handle the painful memories of having loved Buffy and having
done good deeds at her side. Tormenting Buffy personally was no longer
satisfying to Angelus after a certain point; eventually, he felt he had
to make a larger gesture that would just end the painful memories by
ending his own existence, Buffy's existence, and everybody's existence
to boot. Insanity? Yes, certainly it was.
It's ironic that when Angel was re-ensouled, his memories of what he
had done as Angelus drove him to the brink of insanity, but then when
he was de-souled in 1998 Angelus had an equal and opposite reaction to
the memories of what had done as good-guy Angel. There's an
interesting symmetry to that.
Clairel
KenM47
>
<SNIP>
>
>You have to ask yourself, don't you, why it is that Angelus's evil
>existence spanned a good part of the 18th century and all of the 19th
>century up to 1898, yet we never heard talk of him having taken part in
>any supernatural end-the-world schemes in the past? I mean, if Angelus
>had been interested in such things (which I don't believe he was), he
>was obviously unsuccessful: the Buffyverse kept on surviving. As Oz
>would say, "Check it out."
>
No Hellmouth handy.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Clairel
--Simple lack of opportunity? Is that what you're saying?
But you don't really know that Angelus had no opportunities in the
past. (Who says a Hellmouth is required for such opportunities,
anyway? Did the people who long ago transported the petrified Acathla
to Sunnydale want Acathla to be buried near a Hellmouth? Did they
choose the burial site because it was near a Hellmouth? How would that
have been to their advantage? They wanted Acathla to rest undisturbed.
How would proximity to a Hellmough help to insure that?)
In the absence of hard evidence as to what Angelus's past opportunities
were, doesn't it just make more sense to conclude that 18th-19th
century Angelus was having so much evil sadistic fun in the world as it
existed (complete with millions of Torture Victims On Legs) that he
wouldn't have wanted to put an end to all the fun?
In the season 1 episode "Angel," Angel described his past self, when
soulless, as an evil creature who went around carefree and cheerful,
killing and torturing humans with a song in his heart. That sounds
like someone with a zest for the existence he had in the world as it
was. And in a flashback to the 18th century, we see Natryhf erwrpgvat
gur bccbeghavgl gb qjryy haqretebhaq jvgu gur Znfgre, orpnhfr ur
cersref gb ebnz gur fhesnpr jbeyq, nzbat uhznaf, univat uvf rivy
fnqvfgvp sha. Gung gbb qbrfa'g frrz yvxr fbzrobql jub jbhyq jnag gb
raq gur jbeyq. Ohg gung'f orpnhfr 18gu-19gu praghel Natryhf jnfa'g
gbegherq ol ubeevoyr zrzbevrf, gur jnl 1998 Natryhf jnf. (Never mind,
AOQ, if you're reading this it's just a bit of supplementary
evidence--one tile in the mosaic, so to speak.)
Clairel
KenM47
>
>KenM47 wrote:
>> "Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> >
>> >You have to ask yourself, don't you, why it is that Angelus's evil
>> >existence spanned a good part of the 18th century and all of the 19th
>> >century up to 1898, yet we never heard talk of him having taken part in
>> >any supernatural end-the-world schemes in the past? I mean, if Angelus
>> >had been interested in such things (which I don't believe he was), he
>> >was obviously unsuccessful: the Buffyverse kept on surviving. As Oz
>> >would say, "Check it out."
>> >
>>
>> No Hellmouth handy.
>
>--Simple lack of opportunity? Is that what you're saying?
>
>But you don't really know that Angelus had no opportunities in the
>past. (Who says a Hellmouth is required for such opportunities,
>anyway? Did the people who long ago transported the petrified Acathla
>to Sunnydale want Acathla to be buried near a Hellmouth? Did they
>choose the burial site because it was near a Hellmouth? How would that
>have been to their advantage? They wanted Acathla to rest undisturbed.
> How would proximity to a Hellmough help to insure that?)
I accept the concept that the Hellmouth is like a black hole, drawing
all kinds of hoodoo to it.
>
>In the absence of hard evidence as to what Angelus's past opportunities
>were, doesn't it just make more sense to conclude that 18th-19th
>century Angelus was having so much evil sadistic fun in the world as it
>existed (complete with millions of Torture Victims On Legs) that he
>wouldn't have wanted to put an end to all the fun?
It seemed that inflicting emotional and physical pain were Angelus'
main ideas of fun. Who says Angelus could not have just as much "fun"
in the Acathla hell dimension. Just because Spike does not want to
surrender the known for the unknown does not mean that unknown would
be more fitting for the vamps. In fact, it's easy to see Spike's line
to Buffy really being a way for Spike to get aide to eliminate a rival
for Dru - which as that and other reasons makes no sense for Spike to
leave Buffy to fight Angelus alone when Spike thinks Angelus is going
to kill that girl.
>
>In the season 1 episode "Angel," Angel described his past self, when
>soulless, as an evil creature who went around carefree and cheerful,
>killing and torturing humans with a song in his heart. That sounds
>like someone with a zest for the existence he had in the world as it
>was.
We have very sketchy info on what the Acathla hell dimension would
have been like. If it was like the hell dimension in Anne then there
would still be lots of opportunities to inflict that pain upon the
souled humans. At least that's how it seemed to me.
>And in a flashback to the 18th century, we see Natryhf erwrpgvat
>gur bccbeghavgl gb qjryy haqretebhaq jvgu gur Znfgre, orpnhfr ur
>cersref gb ebnz gur fhesnpr jbeyq, nzbat uhznaf, univat uvf rivy
>fnqvfgvp sha. Gung gbb qbrfa'g frrz yvxr fbzrobql jub jbhyq jnag gb
>raq gur jbeyq. Ohg gung'f orpnhfr 18gu-19gu praghel Natryhf jnfa'g
>gbegherq ol ubeevoyr zrzbevrf, gur jnl 1998 Natryhf jnf. (Never mind,
>AOQ, if you're reading this it's just a bit of supplementary
>evidence--one tile in the mosaic, so to speak.)
>
>Clairel
IMO, no fair conclusions can be drawn from such incomplete evidence.
Ken (Brooklyn)
One Bit Shy
news:YKOdnawKKYK...@uci.net...
Spell check screw up. I thought I fixed it. Evidently not. It's supposed
to be Acathla. I got Angelus messed up too. All in all, not one of my more
successful posts. Oh, well.
OBS
One Bit Shy
Yes. I have no idea how spell check came up with that. But now I know it's
a town in Georgia and means either Big Rock or Dead Mulberry.
>
> Sheesh, at least Buffy's comical deformations of the name all started
> with the letter A...Alfalfa, etc.!
>
> I think what explains Angelus's eagerness to take the opportunity that
> Acathla offered, to the point that Angelus even lost interest in Buffy
> as compared to his interest in ending the world, is that Angelus just
> couldn't handle the painful memories of having loved Buffy and having
> done good deeds at her side. Tormenting Buffy personally was no longer
> satisfying to Angelus after a certain point; eventually, he felt he had
> to make a larger gesture that would just end the painful memories by
> ending his own existence, Buffy's existence, and everybody's existence
> to boot. Insanity? Yes, certainly it was.
>
> It's ironic that when Angel was re-ensouled, his memories of what he
> had done as Angelus drove him to the brink of insanity, but then when
> he was de-souled in 1998 Angelus had an equal and opposite reaction to
> the memories of what had done as good-guy Angel. There's an
> interesting symmetry to that.
Poetic symmetry.... At least if you're into morbid poems.
> Clairel
>
Stephen Tempest
>Also looking back at 'School Hard' Spike says to Angel: "So, why're you
>so scared of this Slayer? Time was you would've taken her out in a
>heartbeat," implying that Angel had indeed done that with Slayers in the
>past.
There's also supporting evidence in a later episode:
Va 'Sbby Sbe Ybir' jura Qehfvyyn naabhaprf "Zl Fcvxrl'f xvyyrq n
Fynlre", Natry'f erfcbafr vf "Pbatenghyngvbaf... V thrff gung znxrf
lbh bar bs hf." Sebz pbagrkg, 'hf' pbhyq jryy zrna 'Gur
Inzcverf-jub'ir- xvyyrq-n-Fynlre Pyho'.
(Juvpu qbrf fhttrfg gung Qneyn unf qbar gur fnzr ng fbzr cbvag,
nygubhtu gurer'f ab shegure zragvba bs guvf.)
Stephen
Scythe Matters
> Let's look at this, the second "comedy" episode in a row.
There are some funny moments in the episode, but a "comedy"? Really?
Hmm.
> The result is good comedy.
> "Band Candy" basically takes one joke and expects us to laugh at it
> over and over.
Well, you see, now we're right back to the endless topic #1 between me
and you. Scythe "Cliff Notes" Matters wants you to think about these
questions:
1) Buffy is a senior in high school, with a massive amount of
responsibility because of her Slayerhood. Is she or is she not
conducting her life in a manner befitting her age and responsibilities?
Discuss.
2) Joyce is Buffy's actual mother, and Giles has clearly been identified
as her father figure. What is Buffy's relationship with these
characters, in terms of her Slayer identity and her life in general?
Does she rely on them? Can she act without or against them? What happens
when she does?
3) In "Band Candy," what is taken away from her mother and "father"?
What steps does Buffy take to overcome this difficulty?
4) Is there a lesson that Buffy should learn from the events of "Band
Candy"? How does that fit into the arc of the current season? How does
it fit into the arc of the series since "Surprise/Innocence"? Discuss.
I liked the surface stuff more than you did. No big deal there. But the
surface stuff, yet again, serves two ends: entertainment, and the
greater narrative. And, yet again, here we are talking about the subtext
that's sailing right by...
> Also the first Buffy/Joyce scene is funny with a point, and shows how
> far they still have to go before being really comfortable with each
> other... observe Joyce's "stop!" at just the flippant mention of
> how easy it is to leave Sunnydale.
Yes. Good release of suppressed pain on Sutherland's part.
> (Good that they have a reason for
> at least one of our near-eighteen-year-olds to not be driving.)
Obviously, as with the guns, there's dramatic reason for our characters
to not always be mobile at the speed of auto. Think of it as the
hyperspace/warp speed/wormhole/transporter of the series.
> And while this episode doesn't do much for most the ongoing stories
Heh. Sez you. ;-)
> To ask Mike Zeares' question: where's the Buffy? I.e. how does all
> this affect her or illustrate things about her? Um... she doesn't
> like structure and people running her life, but comes to realize that
> adults are worthwhile?
See the Cliff Notes.
> I suppose I
> should also at least mention the Giles/J. Summers connection, but
> honestly, if there are any long-term arcs about Buffy's parental
> figures in the future, I'd imagine they'd have to occur in spite of
> this show rather than because of it.
Don't fish for spoilers.
> Apparently part of running the city is keeping track of the various
> demons that need to be appeased. Who or what else might be demanding
> tribute? Did previous Mayors know the same things this one does?
> There've got to be more stories right there.
What I loved here was the banality of the menace. We're feeding live
babies to demons...and the Mayor's talking on his mobile about public
works and cancelling his 3 o'clock. At the end, he threatens Trick, and
the threat obviously shakes the vampire...even though we have absolutely
no idea why Trick would be afraid of the Mayor. The slow evolution of
the Mayor's character, from "School Hard" to here, is absolutely
wonderful and really unlike any other baddie I've seen.
However, to your specific point, think back to "Homecoming":
----
Mayor Wilkins: Well, as I understand it, you're not a man... exactly.
(Trick nods) Mr. Trick, I've been the Mayor for quite some time. I like
things to run smoothly. This is a very important year for me.
Trick: Election year.
Mayor Wilkins: Something like that.
----
> It's great to see Robin Sachs back as Ethan, one of my favorite
> villains (based mostly on "The Dark Age"). I was kinda worried
> they'd forgotten about him. It's not so good to see him mostly
> wasted here. He does shine in his few real scenes ("I really don't
> know"), and Trick realizes that he's good at holding up his end of
> the bargain, so he lives to once again (hopefully) see another show.
Ethan's connection to Ripper makes him a fun villian to have around and
re-introduce. But he's a director (or possibly producer) of evil more
than an actor in it, and that's a fundamentally limiting role, so
they've got to pick their spots. On the other hand, he presents a
classic delimma for Buffy: he's human. She can't just kill him. So what
can she do?
That's a question worth thinking about, in the general sense.
> The demon looks fairly CGI-ish, but the visuals still aren't bad.
Low-budget CGI -- and except for the stakings, it pretty much all was --
rarely worked well on this show. I found a certain suspension of
disbelief to really help. B5 was doing much better at the time (not sure
why, but it's not germane here), and of course it's tough to look back
from the context of _The Lord of the Rings_ and such without cringing a bit.
Scythe Matters
> But one
> of the cardinal signs of bad fantasy plotting is when it's clear that
> magic is working strictly according to what the author says rather than
> being an integral part of the fantasy world.
!
"an integral part of the fantasy world"
What, pray tell, does *that* mean? Pleae differentiate "integral part of
the fantasy world" from the authorship thereof, if you don't mind.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Scythe Matters <sp...@spam.spam> wrote:
read some essays and stories by jrr tolkien
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> > Let's look at this, the second "comedy" episode in a row.
>
> There are some funny moments in the episode, but a "comedy"? Really?
>
> Hmm.
If you don't think that BC is a comedy, I'd say you're in the distinct
minority. No one has to be "wrong" here, but all's I'm saying is, ask
the average person who's deluded enough to like this episode why they
appreciate it so much (or just read through the replies here). What do
you think would be a more common answer: "It tells me a lot about how
Buffy deals with her responsiblitles," or "It's hysterical!"?
> I liked the surface stuff more than you did. No big deal there. But the
> surface stuff, yet again, serves two ends: entertainment, and the
> greater narrative. And, yet again, here we are talking about the subtext
> that's sailing right by...
I think it's clear that we have different priorities as viewers. Even
with the pointed questions, I'm really straining to see this epsiode as
clearly articulating any subtext with more depth than "Buffy learns
that grown-ups are o-kay!!" I'm interested to hear what else you might
glean from it, but also try not to miss the trees for the forest here.
> > (Good that they have a reason for
> > at least one of our near-eighteen-year-olds to not be driving.)
>
> Obviously, as with the guns, there's dramatic reason for our characters
> to not always be mobile at the speed of auto. Think of it as the
> hyperspace/warp speed/wormhole/transporter of the series.
Forgettyitis is already that. Intermittant use of cars/guns can be the
replicator.
-AOQ
Scythe Matters
> read some essays and stories by jrr tolkien
I own and have read -- dozens of times -- everything he's written.
You're going to have to do better than that. "Subcreation" doesn't cover
it, and despite "Joss is God" posts on the internet, that's not what's
going on here.
Scythe Matters
> If you don't think that BC is a comedy, I'd say you're in the distinct
> minority.
Well, now I can sympathize more with your plight. ;-)
No, I don't think BC is primarily a comedy. Compared to an average
episode of, say, "Party of Five"...yeah, it's a comedy. Compared to
"Seinfeld," not so much. But BTVS episodes -- sometimes even the most
tragic -- are frequently littered with comedy, and I don't see BC as
being clearly on the funny side of the dividing line. "BB&B" or
"Homecoming," yes. BC is a much tougher call. I think some parts are
quite amusing -- mostly acting rather than bon mots as such -- but I
don't recall laughing at any part of what you identify as "the joke."
> I think it's clear that we have different priorities as viewers.
Yes, we do. I should make it explicit, I suppose: I'm *not* entertained
by shows that only work on one level. Even on first viewing I'm
constantly looking for the subtext, the secondary narrative, the
character development, the arc (if there is one, though I've almost
never liked a show without one) development. If a show doesn't serve
that need, it's not a show I'm going to spend much more time on.
However, I don't think that this is responsive to what I wrote. It's not
about one's priorities as a viewer. It's about seeing or not seeing the
subext, or agreeing or not agreeing with an interpretation thereof. Your
priorities as a viewer may well be to ignore the subtext, but once you
start posting the reviews you're beyond your "viewer priorities" and on
to different things...analysis, deconstruction (in the pre-literary
sense), pattern recognition, speculation, etc.
> Even
> with the pointed questions, I'm really straining to see this epsiode as
> clearly articulating any subtext with more depth than "Buffy learns
> that grown-ups are o-kay!!" I'm interested to hear what else you might
> glean from it, but also try not to miss the trees for the forest here.
I don't have any problem seeing the trees. But pictures of trees are
much, much less interesting than a forest.
Anyway, I don't see why I have to do the work for you. But since I asked:
1) Buffy is a senior in high school, with a massive amount of
responsibility because of her Slayerhood. Is she or is she not
conducting her life in a manner befitting her age and responsibilities?
Discuss.
A: She's making marginal improvement, but this entire Angel story as
currently enacted is massively immature on her part. In fact, so far
this season, there's been a bit of backsliding in terms of understanding
her responsibilities...even as we've seen signs of maturing in her "real
life" (the normal high school girl stuff).
2) Joyce is Buffy's actual mother, and Giles has clearly been identified
as her father figure. What is Buffy's relationship with these
characters, in terms of her Slayer identity and her life in general?
Does she rely on them? Can she act without or against them? What happens
when she does?
A: She relies 100% on them...which is interesting, considering her
(marginal) self-reliance over the summer and in "Anne." Giles,
especially, is fundamental to her entire existence, but both are forever
helping to clean up her messes -- sometimes literally (the house
post-"DMP," Giles vs. Snyder) and sometimes figuratively. She's not
shown much ability or willingness to take on responsibility, and when
she does she relies on instinct more than a maturing understanding.
At the same time, she *is* very controlled by both, which the episode
makes explicity. The level of control from her mother is understandable
and normal (and might even be expected to be a little stronger), but the
amount of control exerted by Giles is...well, think about it objectively
for a moment. How often has she actually defied him? What has been the
result? Has the defiance been permanent or changed their relationship?
Not much, in answer to the latter; she still follows his orders, in a
reasonably docile fashion despite the attitude.
3) In "Band Candy," what is taken away from her mother and "father"?
What steps does Buffy take to overcome this difficulty?
A: Their maturity, yes, but also their ability to guide her. She makes
bad decisions and has to clean up the messes herself. She has to solve
the problem (mostly) by herself, though the recovering Giles helps a bit
at the end. During the episode, she learns what it's like to try to
control people who are acting on their desires without thoughts of
consequence. (And hey, does that remind you of any ongoing plots?) She
has to do this *while* solving the episodic mystery.
4) Is there a lesson that Buffy should learn from the events of "Band
Candy"? How does that fit into the arc of the current season? How does
it fit into the arc of the series since "Surprise/Innocence"? Discuss.
She *should* learn -- and this springs from a point made awfully
explicitly in "Becoming 2" -- that she has to learn more self-reliance.
Not just on the battlefield, as such, but in life in general. She's got
to take more responsibility for and ownership of her decisions, not just
kick them upstairs to Joyce and/or Giles.
> Forgettyitis is already that. Intermittant use of cars/guns can be the
> replicator.
Actually, guns are the holodeck. You'll see.
But you can't possibly see "forgettyitis" in the same light, given
everything you've been shown, can you?
cry...@panix.com
> Scythe Matters wrote:
>
> > There are some funny moments in the episode, but a "comedy"? Really?
>
> If you don't think that BC is a comedy, I'd say you're in the distinct
> minority. No one has to be "wrong" here, but all's I'm saying is, ask
> the average person who's deluded enough to like this episode why they
> appreciate it so much (or just read through the replies here). What do
> you think would be a more common answer: "It tells me a lot about how
> Buffy deals with her responsiblitles," or "It's hysterical!"?
It's hysterical! The subtext is just that: a subtext. The text,
on the other hand, consists of joke after joke after joke. Or,
in your way of looking at things, the same joke after the same
joke after the same joke ;-)
I agree Scythe is probably in the minority here.
-Crystal
George W Harris
wrote:
I think what he means is the difference between
having a set of consistent rules as to how the fantasy
elements of the world works, and following those rules
throughout the story, as opposed to having the immediate
needs of the narrative take precedence. An example
from BtVS would be how the strength of the slayer varies
according to the needs of the plot. Ideally, that shouldn't
happen.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Scythe Matters
> I think what he means is the difference between
> having a set of consistent rules as to how the fantasy
> elements of the world works, and following those rules
> throughout the story, as opposed to having the immediate
> needs of the narrative take precedence. An example
> from BtVS would be how the strength of the slayer varies
> according to the needs of the plot. Ideally, that shouldn't
> happen.
Ideally not. But since there are no established rules for magic in the
Buffyverse (ng yrnfg abg lrg), that can't be what he means. A spell does
what a spell does, there's no internal logic it's violating, and there's
likely no real world comparison to be applied. The author owns the
parameters. If we'd seen this violate something we know about magic --
something from "Witch" or one of Ethan's previous appearances, for
example -- the objection is well-taken. But here, that doesn't apply.
AoQ wrote, "but one of the cardinal signs of bad fantasy plotting is
when it's clear that magic is working strictly according to what the
author says rather than being an integral part of the fantasy world,"
and I would challenge him to demonstrate an up-to-this-point
justification of how the "candy magic" didn't integrate into the Buffyverse.
An example of the "immediate needs of the narrative" taking precedence
over the internal rules would be something like what he's identified
with Cordelia: first she's smart, then she's dumb, then she's nice, then
she's not. The show has actually been surprisingly light on violations
in the fantasy realm thus far, gubhtu gur Natry/Fcvxr/Qeh fver vffhr
pbzrf gb zvaq, and I'm sure I could think of a few more. But the "Band
Candy" magic doesn't violate anything.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
As a guy I know might say, baffling.
> > I think it's clear that we have different priorities as viewers.
>
> Yes, we do. I should make it explicit, I suppose: I'm *not* entertained
> by shows that only work on one level. Even on first viewing I'm
> constantly looking for the subtext, the secondary narrative, the
> character development, the arc (if there is one, though I've almost
> never liked a show without one) development. If a show doesn't serve
> that need, it's not a show I'm going to spend much more time on.
Well, it's worth being up-front about our perspectives. As many may
have gathered, I'm a direct person. I don't enjoy too much dancing
around the issues and doubletalk. So I guess you could describe my
stance as "if you have something to say to me, then SAY IT!" [You have
to do the growling Brooks voice for the full effect.] And of course
the real masterpieces like "Innocence," which have a strong primary
story and a strong subtextual undertone, work for either type of
viewer.
Out of curiosity, did you ever say what you thought of _Firefly_? It
has its share of allegory and multi-level storytelling, but it's not
built around a central metaphor to the extent that _Buffy_ is.
> However, I don't think that this is responsive to what I wrote. It's not
> about one's priorities as a viewer. It's about seeing or not seeing the
> subext, or agreeing or not agreeing with an interpretation thereof. Your
> priorities as a viewer may well be to ignore the subtext, but once you
> start posting the reviews you're beyond your "viewer priorities" and on
> to different things...analysis, deconstruction (in the pre-literary
> sense), pattern recognition, speculation, etc.
We see a few things differently, but that may be the one thing we
actively *disagree* on. My reviews are all about my viewer priorities.
I'm writing for an audience who's already seen the show and knows what
they think of everything. I'm providing one persepctive, of someone
seeing it for the first time and taking down what I notice and what my
opinions are, wearing my tastes and viewer priorities on my sleeve.
That's what I find fun, and I think others do too. Then all the other
viewpoints and interpretations can come up during the discussions
(that's one reason I always look forward to your reponses). So I think
you'll find it frustrating if you expect any changes on that front.
"But wait," one might demand. "Doesn't that make your reviews less
universal, your ratings hopelessly subjective since they're only a
reflection of one person's thought processes rather than a more
calculated assessment of overall merit?" To which I might reply, "and
your point is?"
For what it's worth, since we were having the BATB discussion at the
time, I thought the episode over quite a bit before posting this
review, asking myself whether there was any subtext worth thinking
about, because if not, I didn't get the point and would give it a low
rating. I see where you're coming from with your interpretations. But
I feel that in order of priority/importance, Espenson and the other
writers had the following goals: 1) To make people laugh 2) To expand
and continue the Mayor/Trick storyline 3) To write something to
(proximately) please the people who wanted a Giles/Joyce romance 4
[and least important]) To explore Buffy's relationship to adult
responsibilties within the context of the ongoing stories.
Obviously there's no way to "prove" that without talking to the people
involved. But we can look at the results to see which messages the
episode more and less successfully conveyed. And I think the fact that
of everyone who's commented thus far, you're the only one who sees
"Band Candy" as anything other than absurdist comedy is pretty telling.
-AOQ
Scythe Matters
> Well, it's worth being up-front about our perspectives. As many may
> have gathered, I'm a direct person. I don't enjoy too much dancing
> around the issues and doubletalk. So I guess you could describe my
> stance as "if you have something to say to me, then SAY IT!" [You have
> to do the growling Brooks voice for the full effect.]
Yes, well, it's why no incarnation of Trek is among my favorite shows.
Too obvious and simplistic, by far. (My favorite episodes, of course,
were the less obvious, morally/ethically challenging, and subtextual ones.)
> Out of curiosity, did you ever say what you thought of _Firefly_? It
> has its share of allegory and multi-level storytelling, but it's not
> built around a central metaphor to the extent that _Buffy_ is.
I think it was a little early to make that assertion (especially,
comparing apples to apples, as the fairly simple subtext of BTVS season
1 was not going to be what the much, much more skilled Joss Whedon of
"Firefly" was going to be working with), but I also wonder if you might
-- as here -- have missed some of what was going on.
Anyway, I'm going to deny the root assertion and say that BTVS isn't
built around a central metaphor to the extent you're suggesting. Yes,
there's the "what if the girl in the dark alley fought back?" core of
things, and female empowerment, etc., all of which inform all
incarnations of BTVS to a limited extent, but the important interlaced
metaphors that run through the show -- even the longest-running ones,
which we will only be able to discuss many, many episodes from now, even
though they're fully in evidence thus far -- are different. Sometimes
drastically so.
> We see a few things differently, but that may be the one thing we
> actively *disagree* on. My reviews are all about my viewer priorities.
Yes, the first post. Not the followup posts. If you mean to assert that
all your followup posts *are* relevant only to your initial reaction,
then I have to wonder why you waste your time writing them; everything
you wanted to say should have been included in your initial review, ne
c'est pas?
> I'm writing for an audience who's already seen the show and knows what
> they think of everything.
Well, not really. I suspect this isn't true for everyone, but I and
certainly others have had perspectives changed or at least modified by
some of the discussions here. That's why we have the discussions, you know.
> "But wait," one might demand. "Doesn't that make your reviews less
> universal, your ratings hopelessly subjective since they're only a
> reflection of one person's thought processes rather than a more
> calculated assessment of overall merit?" To which I might reply, "and
> your point is?"
This has nothing to do with my point, so it would be an odd demand were
I to make it. I don't wish you would write the definitive,
all-encompassing reviews. How could you? Why *would* you if you could?
The frustration -- if there is any, and it's minor if so -- is in the
refusal to acknowledge that what's missed is (sometimes) crucial to the
understanding of the show. You get to play both sides here, because your
initial reactions are tainted by the discussion that follows them;
everything that matters in terms of subtext and backstory is going to be
highlighted by someone in response to your reviews, so you don't
actually approach future episodes in your allegedly chaste state of
surface interpretation and first impression. Were you to do so, I think
you'd be experiencing a much different set of reactions and frustrations
on a whole range of issues.
Sometimes, you *do* acknowledge this, with (paraphrasing) "I understand
the notion that X is trying to Y, but I'm still not feeling it." That's
fine, and perfectly valid. More often, you don't, instead merely
absorbing the subtext into your understanding of future episodes, which
is revealed in your understanding of the surface moments. Yet what
precedes that absorption is quite frequently denial of the subtext's
existence. It's a little confusing to watch.
> I feel that in order of priority/importance, Espenson and the other
> writers had the following goals: 1) To make people laugh 2) To expand
> and continue the Mayor/Trick storyline 3) To write something to
> (proximately) please the people who wanted a Giles/Joyce romance 4
> [and least important]) To explore Buffy's relationship to adult
> responsibilties within the context of the ongoing stories.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I suspect that your heirarchy
separates the four items more than would have been the case. Joss and
company are very clear (and someday when the commentaries and interviews
aren't rife with spoilers for you, you can check this for yourself) that
they're -- with occasional exceptions dictated by the content -- looking
for a mix and a balance of comedy, horror, action and drama pretty much
all the time. Your #1 and #4 would be more like 1.11 and 1.14 in usual
ME practice; much less separable than you appear to think.
In any case, I suspect that #1 should actually be "to write an
entertaining episode," which would always be #1. I think the laughter,
to the extent that it's there, is a result of Espenson's natural
proclivities, not a specific pursuit of comedy qua comedy. But you'll be
able to make this judgement on your own one day.
> And I think the fact that
> of everyone who's commented thus far, you're the only one who sees
> "Band Candy" as anything other than absurdist comedy is pretty telling.
Well, I'm not willing to spend the time digging out the proof, but I
don't think that's true; I was just the only one (that I can remember)
to spell it out in more than a passing reference. In any case, since you
didn't find it funny, I guess you'd have to include yourself in the
group of textual malcontents, wouldn't you? ;-) Since the show sees fit
to rather strongly revisit this topic a few more times in post-"Band
Candy" episodes, I'm confident in my interpretation...even if I'm the
only one who is.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Anyway, I'm going to deny the root assertion and say that BTVS isn't
> built around a central metaphor to the extent you're suggesting. Yes,
> there's the "what if the girl in the dark alley fought back?" core of
> things, and female empowerment, etc., all of which inform all
> incarnations of BTVS to a limited extent, but the important interlaced
> metaphors that run through the show -- even the longest-running ones,
> which we will only be able to discuss many, many episodes from now, even
> though they're fully in evidence thus far -- are different. Sometimes
> drastically so.
Interesting. You wouldn't say the show was constructed around a
framework of high school as a Hellmouth with evils manifested as
physical monsters? Obivously its's been evolving (and Graduation Day
is on the horizon). Anyway, I won't be fully equipped to talk about
this for awhile.
> > We see a few things differently, but that may be the one thing we
> > actively *disagree* on. My reviews are all about my viewer priorities.
>
> Yes, the first post. Not the followup posts.
Ah. Agreed, then. The "as a reviewer" part was what was confusing.
> You get to play both sides here, because your
> initial reactions are tainted by the discussion that follows them;
> everything that matters in terms of subtext and backstory is going to be
> highlighted by someone in response to your reviews, so you don't
> actually approach future episodes in your allegedly chaste state of
> surface interpretation and first impression. Were you to do so, I think
> you'd be experiencing a much different set of reactions and frustrations
> on a whole range of issues.
That's true. The setup is reviewer comments, posts to NG without
discussing with anyone else, then there's equivalent of the week of
discussion and trading opinions before the next review. I kinda wonder
whether I'd feel differently about anything if there weren't this
discussion. The talk about "Revelations" is definately affecting how I
think of the rest of S3, for example.
> Sometimes, you *do* acknowledge this, with (paraphrasing) "I understand
> the notion that X is trying to Y, but I'm still not feeling it." [snip] Yet what
> precedes that absorption is quite frequently denial of the subtext's
> existence. It's a little confusing to watch.
"Quite frequently?" Really?
And where does "I see what they were trying for, but I don't think they
made their point," a la BATB fit in?
> Since the show sees fit
> to rather strongly revisit this topic a few more times in post-"Band
> Candy" episodes, I'm confident in my interpretation...even if I'm the
> only one who is.
I wonder how much your watching BC is colored by knowledge of what'll
later build from it... do you remember your initial reaction?
-AOQ