AOQ Review 2-14: "Innocence"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Two, Episode 14: "Innocence"
(or "WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM US? WE'RE EVIL! EEEEEEVIL!")
Writer: Joss Whedon
Director: Joss Whedon
Angel falls off the pig's blood wagon. I have no idea why that
wasn't the cliffhanger, actually. And then soon afterward the magic
words "written and directed by Joss Whedon" come up, and we're
off. Remember that soul, that extra spark that I said "Surprise"
lacked? Well, here's the difference. This is what it was missing.
Focusing on the early scenes with Angel... actually, before he even
enters, we see Da Judge cast in his proper context. Remember how no
one seemed to pick up on the camp factor in "Surprise?" Well, now
Spike steps into as something of the audience's stand-in, poking fun
at Big Blue, as well as anything he's surrounded by ("It's
interesting to me that 'preparing' looks a great bit like sitting on
your ass." "Well, [Buffy's] *in* the world, so that should work
out." "Now, I know you haven't been in the game for a while, mate,
but we still do kill people. Sort of our raison d'etre, you know.")
Heh. I also like the way he's thrilled to see Angelus back in the
fold at first; the actors have great rhythm in their scenes together.
(I'll bet terrible Spike/Angel fanfic started flowing like wine at
this point.) Then he seems to gradually come to the reluctant
conclusion that the big guy is a threat to his spot on the vampire
totem pole, though the only clues are non-verbal. He spends the
episode in his wheelchair lurking in the shadows, and I'm finally a
little invested in where this character is going.
Angelus is a much happier guy than be-souled Angel, all things
considered. I guess it's just an angsty show. I don't know if it
says anything about the actor, but (much like Nick Brendon in "The
Pack"), Boreanaz looks like he was born to play a total asshole. The
joyful callousness with which he kills Buffy's afterglow and hits her
right where she's most emotionally vulnerable is something to behold.
That's real evil, not cheesy fantasy evil.
The explanation for the de-cursifying puts a twist on the setup scenes
from "Surprise." Calendar's folks aren't only bitter with
Angel; they also realize that the world is in danger if he and Buffy
are allowed to get too happy together, and are thus ultimately
interested in protecting people, same as our heroes. Cool. And Buffy
then gets a reason to blame herself for it... obviously she's not at
fault, but she can't be expected to be thinking too clearly about
things at this point.
I must point out, though, that having the victim revert the moment he
finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
Meanwhile back at the school, we do soap opera stuff, and it's Good
Soap Opera. Willow sees the Moron Twins making out, and flips out in a
typically Wilow way ("well, not 'knew it' in the sense of having the
slightest idea..."). While the anger in her line that it "just
means that you'd rather be with someone you hate than be with me"
isn't entirely fair to Xander given how passive she's been, it
represents years of pent-up frustration from her (and possibly some
from the audience too). Her stance once she gets over herself hits
all the right pragmatic notes: things aren't okay, but unlike in some
movies and shows, the fate of the world does take priority over solving
everyone's personal problems.
And this leads into the reappearance of Angel so he can let us know how
willing to kill he is, and use the always effective (as long as it's
not overused) trick of getting the viewer's attention by putting
Willow in danger. Good on Xander for picking up on the subtle
wrongness, and on Calendar for jumping back into this thing that
she's involved with. Not being too proud to retreat when it makes
sense, Angelus takes off, but not before kissing his potential Slayer.
Dick. Things are indeed getting interesting.
Moving back to our soap opera story, there's the scene in the van,
where Willow broaches the difficult task of moving things with Oz along
to the making-out stage. He lets us know how much he fantasizes about
it, and then _turns her down_. Because he's a perceptive guy, and
isn't interested in being used as an accessory to her issues with
Xander. Awesome. And then to make things even nicer, Willow doesn't
question it or get mad, because she's been where he is, and sees that
he's right. It's as if these two are competing to see who can
elicit more AOQ-love. We'll call it a draw.
[At this point, convention would be to have Willow move on, just before
Xander starts to reciprocate her former feelings. But we'll see.]
And meanwhile, Xander and Cordelia are obtaining some weapons and
coming up with quite a clever way to incorporate the events of
"Halloween" into the story. I'm sure we could list little
inconsistencies in recent episodes where Xander having soldier prowess
would've been nice had the script remembered it, but you know what?
It's still a cool bit of continuity. This scene also includes the
(hopefully) classic "I'm seventeen. Looking at linoleum makes me
wanna have sex."
The scene in which Buffy falls onto the bed crying is one of the very
few moments of the series thus far where Gellar's acting doesn't
work for me. But the look in her eyes once she wakes up gets things
back on track.
BTVS has a lot of action in it overall, but since we viewers are so
desensitized to the killin' stuff, it doesn't always achieve the
visceral thrills it should. "Ted" had that great "hell fuckin'
yeah" moment midway through, but excepting that, the last time I've
really been so involved in an action scene was "Nightmares." Well,
that feeling is in full force when our heroes come up with a
deceptively obvious way around the "no weapon forged..." thing and
Buffy gets herself a nice big gun and blows Da Judge apart.
"What's that? [Boom]" Best. Present. Ever. The subsequent
B/A fight is pretty exciting too. I'm not a fan (as a strategist, I
mean; I like it fine as a viewer) of Buffy letting Angel live at the
end. She's crossed the line between sentiment and stupidity here, I
think.
Finally, let me mention that the last car scene is played just right.
Giles somehow being simultaneously tough-love and supportive is what
the situation calls for.
And so things end for the moment, although the story continues. The
Angel of the last year and a half is essentially dead, at least for
now. If I were watching in '98, I think I'd guess that he'd be
back eventually, but I wouldn't be sure. It's hard to be sure with
these shows.
So...
One-sentence summary: A strong candidate for Best. Episode. Ev...
well, so far.
AOQ rating: Excellent
[Season Two so far:
1) "When She Was Bad" - Good
2) "Some Assembly Required" - Weak
3) "School Hard" - Decent
4) "Inca Mummy Girl" - Good
5) "Reptile Boy" - Decent
6) "Halloween" - Good
7) "Lie To Me" - Good
8) "The Dark Age" - Good
9) "What's My Line (Part One)" - Good
10) "What's My Line (Part Two)" - Good
11) "Ted" - Excellent
12) "Bad Eggs" - Bad
13) "Surprise" - Decent
14) "Innocence" - Excellent]
Bill Reid
Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140313617.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I don't know if it
> says anything about the actor, but (much like Nick Brendon in "The
> Pack"), Boreanaz looks like he was born to play a total asshole.
Just a quick note on this topic:
Before he got married again to his current Playboy Playmate wife,
David Boring-Anus struck me as being the most juvenile crude stupid
piece of crap that ever crawled out of a Hollywood Junior rat-pack,
and THAT'S saying something. He had a reputation on the "Buffy"
set for his frequent hilarious joke of exposing himself, and loved to
talk about genitalia inappropriately on TV talk shows.
And yeah, he instantly became SO much more convincing as a
bad guy in this episode than any of his attempts at being a good
guy previously...almost like type-casting, hmmmmm...
He did mellow out after he got married and had a kid, and I think
his acting constantly improved. Can't really speak about Brendon
because I never saw him on a TV talk show, so I don't know if he's
a jerk too...
---
William Ernest Reid
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
> both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
everybody knows this is a stupid clause
the people inside the show including the gypsies know its stupid
and the writers and producer know its stupod
with new dna techniques it has become possible to reexamine evidence
for some people currently waiting for execution
that could decide guilt or innocence far beyond a reasonable doubt
and generally speaking prosecutors and victims and their survivors
do everything they can to suppress the evidence and prevent retrials
they are far more interested in killing someone
anyone
as their human sacrafice then in getting to the truth
sounds pretty stupid to me
they say real life is full of things you would never get away with in fiction
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
Shuggie
> Angelus is a much happier guy than be-souled Angel, all things
> considered. I guess it's just an angsty show. I don't know if it
> says anything about the actor, but (much like Nick Brendon in "The
> Pack"), Boreanaz looks like he was born to play a total asshole.
This is some of his best work.
> The
> joyful callousness with which he kills Buffy's afterglow and hits her
> right where she's most emotionally vulnerable is something to behold.
> That's real evil, not cheesy fantasy evil.
>
Yep.
> The explanation for the de-cursifying puts a twist on the setup scenes
> from "Surprise." Calendar's folks aren't only bitter with
> Angel; they also realize that the world is in danger if he and Buffy
> are allowed to get too happy together, and are thus ultimately
> interested in protecting people, same as our heroes. Cool. And Buffy
> then gets a reason to blame herself for it... obviously she's not at
> fault, but she can't be expected to be thinking too clearly about
> things at this point.
>
> I must point out, though, that having the victim revert the moment he
> finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
> both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
>
It is. But we don't really know whether they get to "design" the curse.
Maybe they have some limitation that means there has to be a loophole.
Anyhow, Joss agrees. He says it's pretty stupid and struggled over how
to make it work and he came up with 'Vengeance is a living thing'. The
idea that Vengeance is like some arbitrary god that the Kalderash serve.
To be honest it doesn't really hold together all that well but it's
worth overlooking because of what it buys us - namely the return of
Angelus.
> Moving back to our soap opera story, there's the scene in the van,
> where Willow broaches the difficult task of moving things with Oz along
> to the making-out stage. He lets us know how much he fantasizes about
> it, and then _turns her down_. Because he's a perceptive guy, and
> isn't interested in being used as an accessory to her issues with
> Xander. Awesome. And then to make things even nicer, Willow doesn't
> question it or get mad, because she's been where he is, and sees that
> he's right. It's as if these two are competing to see who can
> elicit more AOQ-love. We'll call it a draw.
>
OK, this is what I love about Joss as a writer and this show. If you
listen to the commentary for the ep (and do it's great, just not yet)
you discover that he wrote this scene specifically to make the fans love
Oz. Fans liked the idea of Willow and Xander, Oz gets in the way of
that, not loving Oz. Instead of thinking, 'OK, Oz just isn't working' he
fixes it. He makes us love Oz, as we watch Willow discover how great Oz
is. Pure genius. (and of course the scene wouldn't work without Aly and
Seth and their considerable talents)
> The scene in which Buffy falls onto the bed crying is one of the very
> few moments of the series thus far where Gellar's acting doesn't
> work for me. But the look in her eyes once she wakes up gets things
> back on track.
Again from the commentary Joss thought this is one scene he, as director
got wrong. He said he shouldn't gone to close up to capture the intimacy
of the pain.
>
> BTVS has a lot of action in it overall, but since we viewers are so
> desensitized to the killin' stuff, it doesn't always achieve the
> visceral thrills it should. "Ted" had that great "hell fuckin'
> yeah" moment midway through, but excepting that, the last time I've
> really been so involved in an action scene was "Nightmares." Well,
> that feeling is in full force when our heroes come up with a
> deceptively obvious way around the "no weapon forged..." thing and
> Buffy gets herself a nice big gun and blows Da Judge apart.
> "What's that? [Boom]" Best. Present. Ever.
I never really got that 'no weapon forged' thing. It basically means
that there was an implicit 'no weapon forged (at the time the Judge was
first created but later who knows?)' clause? Oh well. It gave Joss the
chance to play with rocket launchers.
> The subsequent
> B/A fight is pretty exciting too. I'm not a fan (as a strategist, I
> mean; I like it fine as a viewer) of Buffy letting Angel live at the
> end. She's crossed the line between sentiment and stupidity here, I
> think.
>
I think you'd have to be a pretty cold-hearted strategist to not realise
that killing the first man she loved, the first and only man she's had
sex with, less that 24 hours after she's had that sex was something of a
tall order.
> Finally, let me mention that the last car scene is played just right.
> Giles somehow being simultaneously tough-love and supportive is what
> the situation calls for.
>
And beautifully acted by Tony Head.
> One-sentence summary: A strong candidate for Best. Episode. Ev...
> well, so far.
So far? yes. Ever? no, but it's probably in my top ten.
--
Shuggie
alphakitten
Shuggie wrote:
>
> OK, this is what I love about Joss as a writer and this show. If you
> listen to the commentary for the ep (and do it's great, just not yet)
> you discover that he wrote this scene specifically to make the fans love
> Oz. Fans liked the idea of Willow and Xander, Oz gets in the way of
> that, not loving Oz. Instead of thinking, 'OK, Oz just isn't working' he
> fixes it. He makes us love Oz, as we watch Willow discover how great Oz
> is. Pure genius.
>
Vs bayl ur pbhyq unir fhpprffshyyl chyyrq gung gevpx bss jvgu Evyrl...
~Angel
One Bit Shy
news:ku0lc3-...@ID-256697.user.uni-berlin.de...
> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> I must point out, though, that having the victim revert the moment he
>> finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
>> both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
>>
>
> It is. But we don't really know whether they get to "design" the curse.
> Maybe they have some limitation that means there has to be a loophole.
> Anyhow, Joss agrees. He says it's pretty stupid and struggled over how
> to make it work and he came up with 'Vengeance is a living thing'. The
> idea that Vengeance is like some arbitrary god that the Kalderash serve.
> To be honest it doesn't really hold together all that well but it's
> worth overlooking because of what it buys us - namely the return of
> Angelus.
I don't quite understand how "Vengeance is a living thing," solves the
problem. But I'm really glad the vengeance philosophy was included anyway.
It's fascinating and really brings alive the character and the whole gypsy
tribe vendetta sub-plot.
I think your initial solution pretty much nails it anyway. I tend to think
of it as misery being the bond tying soul to demon - how this magic works.
Without the misery, the soul is freed. The gypsies didn't know how else to
do it.
Besides, there's a tradition in many magic universes that all spells can
somehow be undone. Hmmm. I wonder if that's consistant in this one.
<snip>
> Again from the commentary Joss thought this is one scene he, as director
> got wrong. He said he shouldn't gone to close up to capture the intimacy
> of the pain.
Thanks for reminding me - I'd forgotten his comments. I liked the cross and
ring part, but something collapsed as she sobbed and went to the bed. I
wonder what the alternative might look like.
>
>>
>> BTVS has a lot of action in it overall, but since we viewers are so
>> desensitized to the killin' stuff, it doesn't always achieve the
>> visceral thrills it should. "Ted" had that great "hell fuckin'
>> yeah" moment midway through, but excepting that, the last time I've
>> really been so involved in an action scene was "Nightmares." Well,
>> that feeling is in full force when our heroes come up with a
>> deceptively obvious way around the "no weapon forged..." thing and
>> Buffy gets herself a nice big gun and blows Da Judge apart.
>> "What's that? [Boom]" Best. Present. Ever.
>
> I never really got that 'no weapon forged' thing. It basically means
> that there was an implicit 'no weapon forged (at the time the Judge was
> first created but later who knows?)' clause? Oh well. It gave Joss the
> chance to play with rocket launchers.
Now I do remember Joss saying you gotta have a rocket launcher. heh-heh
I don't think you need to think of it somehow undoing the no weapon forged
limitation. We know that he was dismembered previously. All the rocket
launcher achieves is a better job of dismembering. That makes for a less
sophisticated brainstorm for Xander too. He keeps hearing about it taking
an army, when it occurs to him that all they had was swords, and - hell - he
knows what'll do the same thing from 100 yards away. That ol' Judge guy 'll
blow up real good.
OBS
Don Sample
shu...@gmail.com (Shuggie) wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> > BTVS has a lot of action in it overall, but since we viewers are so
> > desensitized to the killin' stuff, it doesn't always achieve the
> > visceral thrills it should. "Ted" had that great "hell fuckin'
> > yeah" moment midway through, but excepting that, the last time I've
> > really been so involved in an action scene was "Nightmares." Well,
> > that feeling is in full force when our heroes come up with a
> > deceptively obvious way around the "no weapon forged..." thing and
> > Buffy gets herself a nice big gun and blows Da Judge apart.
> > "What's that? [Boom]" Best. Present. Ever.
>
> I never really got that 'no weapon forged' thing. It basically means
> that there was an implicit 'no weapon forged (at the time the Judge was
> first created but later who knows?)' clause? Oh well. It gave Joss the
> chance to play with rocket launchers.
People get too hung up on the "no weapon forged" thing. It had nothing
to do with that. It was the "it took an army" part. Xander realized
that what a medieval army did up close and personally with swords and
axes and stuff, modern weaponry can do in a moment, from a safe
distance. The Judge still isn't dead, he's just been rendered down into
pieces again. And this time the pieces are much smaller. Buffy even
tells them to keep the pieces separate.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
a2zmom
too much thought), my "fanwank" is as follows:
The only thing that can release Angel's soul is a moment of perfect
happiness. Pure bliss. A moment where he forgets all the crimes he's
committed and believes himself forgiven. The gypsies were smart enough
to realize that the only way this could come about is through someelse
forgiving Angel. Someone he cared about. Someone he loved.
So, the gypsies remove his soul and he murders the person whose
compassion and love enables him to forgive himself. The the gypsies
re-ensoul him. Now only is his torment worse than it ever was, he now
knows first hand the pain they felt when he killed the clan favorite.
However, over time, the original reasoning was forgotten. The original
spell was lost and the point of the loophole was forgotten. What was
remembered was the need to kepp tabs on Angel - which really only makes
sense, I think, in the scenario I just described.
And as an aside to Mr. Reid - I've seen pretty much every Boreanaz
interview and he comes off as pretty much the opposite of Angelus. A
definite practical joker with a silly sense of humor and a free spirit
to boot, but very mellow and well aware that landing this gig was pure
luck. As far as the removal of clothes, it seems he's a nudist at
heart, and, according to the stunt coordinator, if he looked like that,
he'd take off his clothes also.
Don Sample
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> "Shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ku0lc3-...@ID-256697.user.uni-berlin.de...
> > Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I must point out, though, that having the victim revert the moment he
> >> finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
> >> both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
> >>
> >
> > It is. But we don't really know whether they get to "design" the curse.
> > Maybe they have some limitation that means there has to be a loophole.
> > Anyhow, Joss agrees. He says it's pretty stupid and struggled over how
> > to make it work and he came up with 'Vengeance is a living thing'. The
> > idea that Vengeance is like some arbitrary god that the Kalderash serve.
> > To be honest it doesn't really hold together all that well but it's
> > worth overlooking because of what it buys us - namely the return of
> > Angelus.
>
> I don't quite understand how "Vengeance is a living thing," solves the
> problem. But I'm really glad the vengeance philosophy was included anyway.
> It's fascinating and really brings alive the character and the whole gypsy
> tribe vendetta sub-plot.
It was a typical Joss "If you've got a plot point that doesn't make any
sense, dazzle them with footwork, so maybe they won't notice it" moment.
Yanos comes out with his "Vengeance is a living thing" explanation that
really doesn't explain anything, but it sounded cool, so a lot of people
didn't notice that it didn't make any sense.
--
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
swords iron spear points etc
what a blacksmith does
Terry McNeal
> I must point out, though, that having the victim revert the moment he
> finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
> both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
I think it's brilliant. I further think it may be the best idea Whedon
ever had.
The curse is the one of the great things about BtVS as a series, but I
keep seeing people saying this. They should have had some creepy guy in
a hotel room talking about how the gypsys served vengeance, not
justice. If the gypsies had wanted justice, or were interested in, in
your words, "a world protection standpoint", they'd have just staked
Angel.
The gypsies wanted someone/something to suffer. As long as it was
Angel, so be it. But if someone took pity on the wretched creature and
granted him even a moment of happiness, the suffering would be
transferred to the person who gave Angel that moment of peace. Then
they'd be suffering in Angel's place, and the gypsy's curse would still
hold; someone/something is suffering as they had. If you're looking for
payback, there you go.
Like I said, brilliant.
Terry
EGK
One of my favorite lines in the whole series comes from Innocence and put
that in a nutshell. It still makes me laugh.
Judge: You're a fool. No weapon forged can stop me.
Buffy: That was then...
Xander hands her the weapon from the box, and she raises the anti-tank
rocket launcher to her shoulder.
Buffy: This is now.
Judge: (looking at the others) What's that do?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
(Calvin and Hobbes)
One Bit Shy
news:1140313617.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Really good set of observations. I'm happy that worked for you.
> Angelus is a much happier guy than be-souled Angel, all things
> considered. I guess it's just an angsty show. I don't know if it
> says anything about the actor, but (much like Nick Brendon in "The
> Pack"), Boreanaz looks like he was born to play a total asshole. The
> joyful callousness with which he kills Buffy's afterglow and hits her
> right where she's most emotionally vulnerable is something to behold.
> That's real evil, not cheesy fantasy evil.
One of the most potent scenes ever on BtVS IMO. Joss said he nearly screwed
it up by filming it outside in front of Buffy's house with them dressed in
coats. It didn't work. Only then did it occur to him that this was a
bedroom scene.
> The explanation for the de-cursifying puts a twist on the setup scenes
> from "Surprise." Calendar's folks aren't only bitter with
> Angel; they also realize that the world is in danger if he and Buffy
> are allowed to get too happy together, and are thus ultimately
> interested in protecting people, same as our heroes. Cool. And Buffy
> then gets a reason to blame herself for it... obviously she's not at
> fault, but she can't be expected to be thinking too clearly about
> things at this point.
>
> I must point out, though, that having the victim revert the moment he
> finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
> both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
Maybe they didn't know another way. Magic may not always be a made to order
proposition. Perhaps you have to approximate the desired effect through
less than perfect means. My guess (and believe me, I do mean guess heh-heh)
is that to get the misery they're after, they have to bind the soul to the
demon more so than to the body. (Maybe it's not even possible to do it to
the body, since it's dead.) It's the pain that literally constricts and
binds them. Without the pain...
> Meanwhile back at the school, we do soap opera stuff, and it's Good
> Soap Opera. Willow sees the Moron Twins making out, and flips out in a
> typically Wilow way ("well, not 'knew it' in the sense of having the
> slightest idea..."). While the anger in her line that it "just
> means that you'd rather be with someone you hate than be with me"
> isn't entirely fair to Xander given how passive she's been, it
> represents years of pent-up frustration from her (and possibly some
> from the audience too). Her stance once she gets over herself hits
> all the right pragmatic notes: things aren't okay, but unlike in some
> movies and shows, the fate of the world does take priority over solving
> everyone's personal problems.
So, I have to ask. Here's the payoff for all the closet necking. Was it
worth it? Would it have worked as well without all the prior repetition?
> And this leads into the reappearance of Angel so he can let us know how
> willing to kill he is, and use the always effective (as long as it's
> not overused) trick of getting the viewer's attention by putting
> Willow in danger. Good on Xander for picking up on the subtle
> wrongness, and on Calendar for jumping back into this thing that
> she's involved with. Not being too proud to retreat when it makes
> sense, Angelus takes off, but not before kissing his potential Slayer.
> Dick. Things are indeed getting interesting.
Cool scene. God there are a lot of them in this episode.
> Moving back to our soap opera story, there's the scene in the van,
> where Willow broaches the difficult task of moving things with Oz along
> to the making-out stage. He lets us know how much he fantasizes about
> it, and then _turns her down_. Because he's a perceptive guy, and
> isn't interested in being used as an accessory to her issues with
> Xander. Awesome. And then to make things even nicer, Willow doesn't
> question it or get mad, because she's been where he is, and sees that
> he's right. It's as if these two are competing to see who can
> elicit more AOQ-love. We'll call it a draw.
"Willow kissage." heh
Aw, give her a bigger break. That's not sentiment. It's the storm wash
from an emotional tempest. That's her lover she's contemplating killing.
> Finally, let me mention that the last car scene is played just right.
> Giles somehow being simultaneously tough-love and supportive is what
> the situation calls for.
>
> And so things end for the moment, although the story continues. The
> Angel of the last year and a half is essentially dead, at least for
> now. If I were watching in '98, I think I'd guess that he'd be
> back eventually, but I wouldn't be sure. It's hard to be sure with
> these shows.
>
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: A strong candidate for Best. Episode. Ev...
> well, so far.
I don't have an order. But I'm sure it's somewhere not too far from the
top.
> AOQ rating: Excellent
For me, this is the first episode of the season that absolutely demands some
kind of superlative. Others work for me too, but I understand how they
might not be as universally appreciated. This one, though... It's just too
good. Glad you liked it. And excellent, perceptive review.
On the not so important side, did you notice how packed this episode is?
Not just scene count - though there are a lot. But how everything seems
important - sometimes in 3 or 4 ways. There's just a huge amount of
information here. It's a somewhat common characteristic of Joss written and
directed shows. (Prophecy Girl was packed too, for example.) Though it
shows up now and then in other places. It's one of the characteristics of
BtVS that intrigues me. The sudden wham! when everything happens at once
and everybody and all you knew is twisted inside out and you're left
breathless from both shock and exhaustion.
There's a little scene I really like when they open the rocket launcher box.
Jenny sticks her head in and asks if she can help. Buffy tells her to go
away. Giles is suddenly confronted with an instant decision. He tells
Jenny, yes, go away. Jenny is crushed. Buffy looks at Giles realizing what
a huge moment that just was. But she has to turn her attention back to the
rocket launcher. Everybody has to subordinate their feelings to the crisis
at hand. It's really short, but there's a ton of emotion running through
all three of them, and a huge relationship moment occurs in a second. It's
a big deal...except that comparable big deals are flying at us left and
right and really it's just another scene. That says something to me about
how powerful this show is.
Cheers,
OBS
hopelessly devoted
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> Angel falls off the pig's blood wagon. I have no idea why that
> wasn't the cliffhanger, actually.
I think I said in an earlier post that I had an "idea" that he lost his
soul, but not quite sure until Innocence. The did he or didn't he
question along with the question of "what if he did" were pretty good
fuel.
Another comment......at a later date.
> ("It's
> interesting to me that 'preparing' looks a great bit like sitting on
> your ass." "Well, [Buffy's] *in* the world, so that should work
> out." "Now, I know you haven't been in the game for a while, mate,
> but we still do kill people. Sort of our raison d'etre, you know.")
I'd forgotten about those. LMAO
> and I'm finally a
> little invested in where this character is going.
later.....
> That's real evil, not cheesy fantasy evil.
excellent observation. When you finally say it outright............
> I must point out, though, that having the victim revert the moment he
> finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
> both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
Arguements about the curse will continue on both sides, however I think
we can all relate to "that one guy who turned immediately after". Once
the thrill of the chase is over, the fire is gone.
...................................
> Things are indeed getting interesting.
> The scene in which Buffy falls onto the bed crying is one of the very
> few moments of the series thus far where Gellar's acting doesn't
> work for me. But the look in her eyes once she wakes up gets things
> back on track.
It may be a girly thing, but that particular scene broke my heart.
> BTVS has a lot of action in it overall, but since we viewers are so
> desensitized to the killin' stuff, it doesn't always achieve the
> visceral thrills it should.
Would have to disagree with you on this one. What could be worse than
killing a human being?
> Finally, let me mention that the last car scene is played just right.
> Giles somehow being simultaneously tough-love and supportive is what
> the situation calls for.
This, if I remember correctly, was the first time that I actually fell
in love with Rupert Giles.
> 14) "Innocence" - Excellent] - Joss Whedon
4
One Bit Shy
news:dsample-032517...@news.giganews.com...
Heh-heh. Well, for me, I didn't even notice that it was trying to make
sense. Until I heard the Joss explanation it hadn't occurred to me that it
was supposed to somehow explain the nature of the spell. I just took it as
some kind of creepy cultural obsession. I guess you never know.
OBS
KenM47
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I must point out, though, that having the victim revert the moment he
>> finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
>> both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
>
>everybody knows this is a stupid clause
>the people inside the show including the gypsies know its stupid
>and the writers and producer know its stupod
>
>
Oh, I will resist spoilers. I will.
It is way too soon to examine the curse and all its ramifications.
Just remember:
"To the modern man vengeance is a
verb, an idea. Payback. One thing for another. Like
commerce. Not with us. Vengeance is a living thing.
It passes through generations. It commands. It kills.
* * *
"The curse. Angel is meant to suffer, not to live
as human. One moment of true happiness, of contentment,
one moment where the soul that we restored no
longer plagues his thoughts, and that soul is taken from
him."
* * *
"I hoped to stop it. But I realize now it was arranged
to be so."
* * *
"Yes. It is not justice we serve. It is vengeance."
Time and distance are required.
Ken (Brooklyn)
BTR1701
"hopelessly devoted" <cry...@cinstall.com> wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > BTVS has a lot of action in it overall, but since we viewers are so
> > desensitized to the killin' stuff, it doesn't always achieve the
> > visceral thrills it should.
>
> Would have to disagree with you on this one. What could be worse than
> killing a human being?
Killing lots of them?
kenm47
well, so far.
AOQ rating: Excellent "
Well, that's what redemption looks like these days. Makes reading the
rest of your thoughts this season still something to look forward to.
Other thoughts:
1. No mention still of the stunt work. Great stuff worth noting.
2. No mention of Beck's work. Surprise gave us the first full treatment
of the Buffy/Angel these. Maye it's just me, but I have a Pavlovian
response to those few notes
3. Gripe of mine - others see no foul - Angel gets into Enyos hotel
room without an invite. There are various explorations of this usually
a claim to the effect that hotel rooms are not sufficiently home to a
human occupant so no invite is necessary. Never satisfied me - I
figured vamps should then hang at motels and hotels as it could be an
all you can eat buffet.
4. Weird time shift. between Xander's meet me in a half hour, then
Buffy goes to sleep, wakes up threatens Jenny during the school day,
then it's night again and the white hats are at the Army base.
5. I love Dru, so her bits of business in these two eps are great IMO,
especially the tyhreatening of Dalton, and the later childlike glee in
"Do it again! Do it again!"
6. The birthday was important, AFAIK, b/c an audience in 1998, as well
as the WB, could probably deal with a 17 year old girl losing her
virginity to an older guy better than if a 16 year old did - and Joss
did not have the luxury of waiting for Buffy to turn 18..
7. You got continuity with Buffy's mention to Giles how just kicking
the "smurf" made her feel like she had a fever.
8. There was something way satisfying by Biffy planting that big kick
on Angelus' nuts.
9. Willow's look at Oz was IMO pure wonderment on where did this guy
come from? At least one couple seems to have a good thing going.
10. Scene with Giles at the end - wonderful, as was the little
Joyce/Buffy moment at the very end.
11. Agreed. Upp to then, the best ep yet, especially as the second part
of a two consecutive night two parter.
12. You think you know .... what's to come. You haven't even begun.
Ken (Brooklyn)
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> I must point out, though, that having the victim revert the moment he
> >> finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
> >> both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
> >
> >everybody knows this is a stupid clause
> >the people inside the show including the gypsies know its stupid
> >and the writers and producer know its stupod
> >
> >
>
>
> Oh, I will resist spoilers. I will.
>
> It is way too soon to examine the curse and all its ramifications.
>
> Just remember:
>
> "To the modern man vengeance is a
> verb, an idea. Payback. One thing for another. Like
> commerce. Not with us. Vengeance is a living thing.
> It passes through generations. It commands. It kills.
>
> * * *
> "The curse. Angel is meant to suffer, not to live
the curse is irredeemably stupid
and nice to see uncle enyos pay the price for that
unfortunately stupidity like this is typical in real life
which is why the plot point is acceptable
people are deeply stupid
look at how they vote in the usa palestine israel and venezula
hopelessly devoted
kenm47 wrote:
> "Do it again! Do it again!"
I LOVE that line...............
I have to get S2.
kenm47
launcher box.
Jenny sticks her head in and asks if she can help. Buffy tells her to
go
away. Giles is suddenly confronted with an instant decision. He tells
Jenny, yes, go away. Jenny is crushed. Buffy looks at Giles realizing
what
a huge moment that just was. But she has to turn her attention back to
the
rocket launcher. Everybody has to subordinate their feelings to the
crisis
at hand. It's really short, but there's a ton of emotion running
through
all three of them, and a huge relationship moment occurs in a second.
It's
a big deal...except that comparable big deals are flying at us left and
right and really it's just another scene. That says something to me
about
how powerful this show is."
Yes!! Absolutely!! And well summed.
Ken (Brooklyn)
One Bit Shy
news:1140328971.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Thank you.
One Bit Shy
> "One-sentence summary: A strong candidate for Best. Episode. Ev...
> well, so far.
> 2. No mention of Beck's work. Surprise gave us the first full treatment
> of the Buffy/Angel these. Maye it's just me, but I have a Pavlovian
> response to those few notes
You salivate? ;-)
I did notice as I just watched it how extravagent the score had gotten. I
think I need to explore more the development of music in the series... But
the music here that really got me was Good Night My Love at the end.
> 5. I love Dru, so her bits of business in these two eps are great IMO,
> especially the tyhreatening of Dalton, and the later childlike glee in
> "Do it again! Do it again!"
That is such a great moment. Dru is huge part of why I think Surprise works
pretty well on its own.
OBS
Apteryx
news:1140313617.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 14: "Innocence"
> (or "WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM US? WE'RE EVIL! EEEEEEVIL!")
>
> finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
> both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
>
> Meanwhile back at the school, we do soap opera stuff, and it's Good
> Soap Opera. Willow sees the Moron Twins making out, and flips out in a
> typically Wilow way ("well, not 'knew it' in the sense of having the
> slightest idea..."). While the anger in her line that it "just
> means that you'd rather be with someone you hate than be with me"
> isn't entirely fair to Xander given how passive she's been, it
> represents years of pent-up frustration from her (and possibly some
> from the audience too). Her stance once she gets over herself hits
> all the right pragmatic notes: things aren't okay, but unlike in some
> movies and shows, the fate of the world does take priority over solving
> everyone's personal problems.
>
>
> coming up with quite a clever way to incorporate the events of
> "Halloween" into the story. I'm sure we could list little
> inconsistencies in recent episodes where Xander having soldier prowess
> would've been nice had the script remembered it, but you know what?
> It's still a cool bit of continuity. This scene also includes the
> (hopefully) classic "I'm seventeen. Looking at linoleum makes me
> wanna have sex."
>
> The scene in which Buffy falls onto the bed crying is one of the very
> few moments of the series thus far where Gellar's acting doesn't
> work for me. But the look in her eyes once she wakes up gets things
> back on track.
>
>
>
>
> One-sentence summary: A strong candidate for Best. Episode. Ev...
> well, so far.
>
> AOQ rating: Excellent
If Surprise/Innocence were rated in some Meistersinger fashion, starting
with 10 points and having one deducted for every flaw, it would score 0 long
before it was over. The thing is full of flaws, you have identified some,
and others have chipped.
But... it just doesn't matter, it is brilliant enough to just ride over all
the plot holes and missteps. While some of the background is dodgy in the
extreme, everything about Buffy herself (writing and acting) is flawless. We
see her not only suffer the mundane fate of the boyfriend who "changes"
after she sleeps with him, we see her stripped of her last hope of a normal
life, a loving relationship with the only person in the world with whom it
might have worked. Now she is just the Slayer. And Buffy.
Innocence is my 4th favourite BtVS episode, and the 2nd best in Season 2.
And definitely the best BtVS episode so far.
--
Apteryx
Apteryx
news:1140322800.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Interesting, but it would only work if he found that moment of happiness
with another person. What if his decades of isolation had driven him to the
black arts of stamp collecting, and he had experienced his moment of true
happiness by discovering a previously unknown example of the British Guiana
Black on Magenta?
My take is that it is just shoddy gypsy craftsmanship. They thought they
never wanted him to be happy, and just didn't pay enough attention to the
precise wording of the curse before it was cast. Only afterwards did they
realise that they had landed themselves the perpetual job of watching him to
see he didn't get too happy.
--
Apteryx
John Briggs
>
> He did mellow out after he got married and had a kid, and I think
> his acting constantly improved. Can't really speak about Brendon
> because I never saw him on a TV talk show, so I don't know if he's
> a jerk too...
He's on the "Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Panel Discussion" on
the S6 DVD set, but he appears to be drunk.
--
John Briggs
Daniel Damouth
news:1140328476.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> 2. No mention of Beck's work. Surprise gave us the first full
> treatment of the Buffy/Angel these. Maye it's just me, but I have
> a Pavlovian response to those few notes
Behaviorism is reinforced through repetition, and you and I have lots
of that. My emotional response to the music of the show increased with
each iteration, I think. And the same probably holds true for other
aspects of the show.
-Dan Damouth
--
Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all
other countries because you were born in it. -- George Bernard Shaw
Shuggie
> news:ku0lc3-...@ID-256697.user.uni-berlin.de...
>> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I must point out, though, that having the victim revert the moment he
>>> finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
>>> both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
>>>
>>
>> It is. But we don't really know whether they get to "design" the curse.
>> Maybe they have some limitation that means there has to be a loophole.
>> Anyhow, Joss agrees. He says it's pretty stupid and struggled over how
>> to make it work and he came up with 'Vengeance is a living thing'. The
>> idea that Vengeance is like some arbitrary god that the Kalderash serve.
>> To be honest it doesn't really hold together all that well but it's
>> worth overlooking because of what it buys us - namely the return of
>> Angelus.
>
> I don't quite understand how "Vengeance is a living thing," solves the
> problem.
The idea is that they serve vengeance, "it commands" as Enyos says, and
so they are not free to simply say "this doesn't make sense let's not do
it". "Vengeance *demands* his pain is eternal, as ours is" so that
demand is a higher priority than making the curse safer to innocent
bystanders (or in fact themselves). It's like a stupid religion that
makes you sacrifice a virgin to make the sun come up.
Daniel Damouth
restrict myself to a few things that I don't believe I've commented on
before.
The final scene between Buffy and her mother.
Joyce: "What did you do for you birthday? Did you have fun?"
Buffy (pause): "I got older."
Joyce: "You look the same to me."
Here I think Joyce is lying through her teeth. Joyce noticed something
different about Buffy that morning. Also, it's evident in this scene
that Buffy is indeed older. Joyce is trying to be a good mother.
Then a moment later:
Joyce: "Well, go on, make a wish."
Buffy: "I'll just let it burn."
IMO, Buffy isn't "letting the candle burn" for Angel's soul to return.
She's afraid to make any more wishes because the current dire situation
is the result of her acting on her desires in the first place.
-Dan Damouth
Scythe Matters
Excellent review. I was worried that you wouldn't respond to this one.
Eventually, you'll be indifferent to one of the key favorites, but I'm
glad to see it wasn't here; if it had been, you'd probably have been
better-served abandoning the series.
> Spike steps into as something of the audience's stand-in, poking fun
> at Big Blue
As does Buffy: "smurf," she calls him. As we discussed vis-à-vis the
previous review, The Judge was theoretically fearsome but ultimately not
the actual threat; thus, he's dismissed in a particularly fun way.
> I also like the way he's thrilled to see Angelus back in the
> fold at first; the actors have great rhythm in their scenes together.
They do, but I don't think he's thrilled at any point. There's a studied
reluctance to his happiness -- somewhat justified, as we see later in
the episode -- that's unquestionably different from Dru's overt (and
wonderfully nutty) glee. Marsters does good work here.
> (I'll bet terrible Spike/Angel fanfic started flowing like wine at
> this point.)
Terrible fanfic has always been with us, and rather shocking proportion
of it involves Spike. Not to excuse the Angel stuff, either. ;-)
> Then he seems to gradually come to the reluctant
> conclusion that the big guy is a threat to his spot on the vampire
> totem pole, though the only clues are non-verbal.
Again, I think it's not reluctant. I think it's there, to some extent,
from moment one.
> Angelus is a much happier guy than be-souled Angel, all things
> considered. I guess it's just an angsty show. I don't know if it
> says anything about the actor, but (much like Nick Brendon in "The
> Pack"), Boreanaz looks like he was born to play a total asshole.
At this point, I had started to wonder if Boreanaz *could* act. This
episode showed that he could, and the joyful evil he brings to Angelus
is very enjoyable...from a viewer's perspective. Not so much from Buffy's.
But why should Angel be happy? He's cursed with a lifetime of regrets
for the evil he's done. He's miserable and angsty for good reason.
> The
> joyful callousness with which he kills Buffy's afterglow and hits her
> right where she's most emotionally vulnerable is something to behold.
> That's real evil, not cheesy fantasy evil.
Another borrowing from Joss' commentary track: he points out that here
we have the very essence of the show, its "mission statement" if you
will. On one hand, we have the myth of Slayer and vampire, with The
Judge and the rocket launcher and all the accordant trappings of a
fantasy show. On the other hand, we have the very simple and commonplace
"I slept with my boyfriend and now he's being mean to me" story. They
work together on a really visceral level, which magnifies their power.
Angel's brutality to Buffy is somewhat physical, but it's mostly
emotional...and the emotional resonance comes from the simpler teen
story rather than the complicated Buffyverse mythology. It's really well
done here...and you've already seen instances where it's less well done.
Incidentally, I thought the acting in "Innocence" was terrific across
the board, but Gellar really hits it out of the park here...and then
comes up to bat and does it again, and again, and again. The scene with
Angel/Willow/Xander/Jenny in the school hallway is just terrific. And
back on the subject of scenes that people don't rewatch because they're
too emotionally raw, the Buffy/Angel interaction in his room is one for
me. It's just amazingly hard to watch, because it's so *real*.
> The explanation for the de-cursifying puts a twist on the setup scenes
> from "Surprise." Calendar's folks aren't only bitter with
> Angel; they also realize that the world is in danger if he and Buffy
> are allowed to get too happy together, and are thus ultimately
> interested in protecting people, same as our heroes.
I agree that it's an interesting twist, though I don't know if they're
actually interested in protecting people. It's as many others have
answered: vengeance as an end in itself, and damn the consequences.
Well, now we see the consequences: Angel's gone bad because no one who
had this crucial piece of information shared it with him (or Buffy),
Jenny is paying her own price, her uncle's dead in what the commentary
suggests is a particularly brutal way...on film, Joss went for the
emotional brutality of "was it good for you?" instead, Giles has several
new reasons to be miserable, and Buffy's a mess. She gets one job done,
but she's still a mess.
Vengeance. Not justice.
> And Buffy
> then gets a reason to blame herself for it... obviously she's not at
> fault, but she can't be expected to be thinking too clearly about
> things at this point.
Remember when I said that things seemed to be turning grey around her,
but she still had two avenues of clarity: slaying and her relationship
with Angel? "Ted" gnawed away at the former, but only a little bit. The
second one has been taken away in one brutal moment. It's terrific drama.
> I must point out, though, that having the victim revert the moment he
> finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
> both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
"Stupid" from an engineering standpoint, sure. But that's not how magic
works here...and if it did, it would be bad. Magic is easy, from a plot
perspective, in that it can theoretically solve any problem: poof! To
make the show work without falling into the "TECH modulate the TECH
resonance frequency TECH tetrion particles TECH = solution" trap that so
many genre shows fall into, it can't be perfect. In fact, it has to be
relentlessly flawed. This curse -- a rather major piece of magic -- has
a pretty big honking flaw, doesn't it?
This is further proof that the purpose of the gypsies here isn't world
protection; as someone said, they'd have just staked him if that were
the goal. It's still just vengeance, with all the unhappy consequences
you now see.
> Meanwhile back at the school, we do soap opera stuff, and it's Good
> Soap Opera.
Yes.
> Willow sees the Moron Twins making out, and flips out in a
> typically Wilow way ("well, not 'knew it' in the sense of having the
> slightest idea...").
And an insightful line: "you have *gross* emotional problems." You've
noticed several of them -- the very existence of the Cordelia
relationship, the way he acts re: Buffy/Angel -- and now you're getting
a payoff you probably didn't think you'd get. Everyone on this show has
flaws (you don't know all of them yet, of course), and one of Xander's
is now writ large. Once again, the show demonstrates that resolution
comes to those who wait. ;-)
> While the anger in her line that it "just
> means that you'd rather be with someone you hate than be with me"
> isn't entirely fair to Xander given how passive she's been
Maybe. He knows she's in love with him, though -- he's always known it
(ref. "The Pack") -- and has still thought nothing of throwing his
desire for Buffy in her face, repeatedly. And now the Cordelia thing. So
I don't think it's exactly UNfair.
> Her stance once she gets over herself hits
> all the right pragmatic notes: things aren't okay, but unlike in some
> movies and shows, the fate of the world does take priority over solving
> everyone's personal problems.
Yes. Buffy does this too...to a point, as you later note. Ditto Giles.
> And this leads into the reappearance of Angel so he can let us know how
> willing to kill he is, and use the always effective (as long as it's
> not overused) trick of getting the viewer's attention by putting
> Willow in danger.
Joss is in fact quite explicit that when he really wants to make the
audience worry, he puts Willow in danger. And while he's doing it, he
makes an interesting point that revisits something I wrote in response
to your "Surprise" review -- that even know the audience *knows* Willow
won't be killed, the threat to her still works in a way it doesn't work
towards everyone else. But we also "knew" that Angel and Buffy would be
The Great Romance -- bumps on the road, certainly, but ultimately the
perfect match of Slayer and vampire -- and the show just blew that out
of the water. Or at least, it appears that they've done so. It's an
early demonstration of the lengths to which this show will go when
necessary.
> Moving back to our soap opera story, there's the scene in the van,
> where Willow broaches the difficult task of moving things with Oz along
> to the making-out stage. He lets us know how much he fantasizes about
> it, and then _turns her down_. Because he's a perceptive guy, and
> isn't interested in being used as an accessory to her issues with
> Xander. Awesome. And then to make things even nicer, Willow doesn't
> question it or get mad, because she's been where he is, and sees that
> he's right. It's as if these two are competing to see who can
> elicit more AOQ-love. We'll call it a draw.
Others have described the purpose of this scene. Joss calls the end
something like this: Oz is delivering the lines about "I want you to be
kissing me" and she's looking at him, and as her expression changes Joss
says (possibly paraphrased) "and fall in love with him...*now*."
> (hopefully) classic "I'm seventeen. Looking at linoleum makes me
> wanna have sex."
Unquestionably a classic line. The whole X/C scene here (and its
prelude: "wear something trashy...(looks down)...er") were terrific.
> The scene in which Buffy falls onto the bed crying is one of the very
> few moments of the series thus far where Gellar's acting doesn't
> work for me.
An earlier response was mistyped...Joss said he messed up by not going
closer on her face here. I think the acting was just right, but the
directing didn't support it well enough.
> BTVS has a lot of action in it overall, but since we viewers are so
> desensitized to the killin' stuff, it doesn't always achieve the
> visceral thrills it should.
Well, some kills are more visceral than others. But as you've seen, the
kills are empty without the emotional pain, and often the show will go
for the emotional pain over the physical pain.
> I'm not a fan (as a strategist, I
> mean; I like it fine as a viewer) of Buffy letting Angel live at the
> end. She's crossed the line between sentiment and stupidity here, I
> think.
Echoing many others, what could one possibly want from her? Nonetheless,
I don't think you're misinterpreting the scene.
> Finally, let me mention that the last car scene is played just right.
> Giles somehow being simultaneously tough-love and supportive is what
> the situation calls for.
Yes. Here, ASH hits his own grand slam. He's capable of terrific
subtlety in scenes with Buffy where he plays the actual, rather than
metaphorical, father figure, and this is one of the best examples.
> And so things end for the moment, although the story continues. The
> Angel of the last year and a half is essentially dead, at least for
> now. If I were watching in '98, I think I'd guess that he'd be
> back eventually, but I wouldn't be sure. It's hard to be sure with
> these shows.
Good. They've got you uncertain and off-balance. That's the correct
response. ;-)
> One-sentence summary: A strong candidate for Best. Episode. Ev...
> well, so far.
This is the episode where, for me (and for many, many others...including
Joss), everything changed. Suddenly, the emotional stakes were much,
much more serious than they'd ever been. There were a whole bunch of
episodes before this that I liked, but this is the first one that I loved.
Stephen Tempest
>>ow, I know you haven't been in the game for a while, mate,
>> but we still do kill people. Sort of our raison d'etre, you know.")
>
>I'd forgotten about those. LMAO
I remember, at the time, being struck by the fact that Spike could
casually drop French expressions into his conversation - it didn't
really fit his punkish street-thug persona, and suggested he had
hidden intellectual depths...
Stephen
vague disclaimer
"Apteryx" <apt...@extra.co.nz> wrote:
> My take is that it is just shoddy gypsy craftsmanship. They thought they
> never wanted him to be happy, and just didn't pay enough attention to the
> precise wording of the curse before it was cast. Only afterwards did they
> realise that they had landed themselves the perpetual job of watching him to
> see he didn't get too happy.
That's a variant on my take: magic has a price and the caster doesn't
get to set that price. In the case the price is the risk that Angelus
would come back and eat your children's children.
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend
Shuggie
> vengeance as an end in itself, and damn the consequences.
Very succinctly put.
Mel
alphakitten wrote:
>
>
> Shuggie wrote:
>
>>
>> OK, this is what I love about Joss as a writer and this show. If you
>> listen to the commentary for the ep (and do it's great, just not yet)
>> you discover that he wrote this scene specifically to make the fans love
>> Oz. Fans liked the idea of Willow and Xander, Oz gets in the way of
>> that, not loving Oz. Instead of thinking, 'OK, Oz just isn't working' he
>> fixes it. He makes us love Oz, as we watch Willow discover how great Oz
>> is. Pure genius.
>
>
>
>
> Vs bayl ur pbhyq unir fhpprffshyyl chyyrq gung gevpx bss jvgu Evyrl...
>
>
> ~Angel
>
Jryy, Evyrl jnf yvxrnoyr hagvy gurl qrpvqrq gb znxr uvz hayvxrnoyr. Gur
ovttrfg ceboyrz gurer jnf, nf Fcvxr jbhyq fnl, ur jnfa'g n onq obl naq
vafgrnq raqrq hc orvat xvaqn obevat.
Mel
Mel
Don Sample wrote:
> In article <ku0lc3-...@ID-256697.user.uni-berlin.de>,
> shu...@gmail.com (Shuggie) wrote:
>
>
>>Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>BTVS has a lot of action in it overall, but since we viewers are so
>>>desensitized to the killin' stuff, it doesn't always achieve the
>>>visceral thrills it should. "Ted" had that great "hell fuckin'
>>>yeah" moment midway through, but excepting that, the last time I've
>>>really been so involved in an action scene was "Nightmares." Well,
>>>that feeling is in full force when our heroes come up with a
>>>deceptively obvious way around the "no weapon forged..." thing and
>>>Buffy gets herself a nice big gun and blows Da Judge apart.
>>>"What's that? [Boom]" Best. Present. Ever.
>>
>>I never really got that 'no weapon forged' thing. It basically means
>>that there was an implicit 'no weapon forged (at the time the Judge was
>>first created but later who knows?)' clause? Oh well. It gave Joss the
>>chance to play with rocket launchers.
>
>
> People get too hung up on the "no weapon forged" thing. It had nothing
> to do with that. It was the "it took an army" part. Xander realized
> that what a medieval army did up close and personally with swords and
> axes and stuff, modern weaponry can do in a moment, from a safe
> distance. The Judge still isn't dead, he's just been rendered down into
> pieces again. And this time the pieces are much smaller. Buffy even
> tells them to keep the pieces separate.
"Pieces? Our job SUCKS."
I imagine if the pieces were burned to ash the scattered to the winds it
would be rather difficult to assemble "Da Judge" again.
Mel
Mel
Don Sample wrote:
> In article <11vfp4g...@news.supernews.com>,
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
>
>>"Shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ku0lc3-...@ID-256697.user.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>>>Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>I must point out, though, that having the victim revert the moment he
>>>>finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
>>>>both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It is. But we don't really know whether they get to "design" the curse.
>>>Maybe they have some limitation that means there has to be a loophole.
>>>Anyhow, Joss agrees. He says it's pretty stupid and struggled over how
>>>to make it work and he came up with 'Vengeance is a living thing'. The
>>>idea that Vengeance is like some arbitrary god that the Kalderash serve.
>>>To be honest it doesn't really hold together all that well but it's
>>>worth overlooking because of what it buys us - namely the return of
>>>Angelus.
>>
>>I don't quite understand how "Vengeance is a living thing," solves the
>>problem. But I'm really glad the vengeance philosophy was included anyway.
>>It's fascinating and really brings alive the character and the whole gypsy
>>tribe vendetta sub-plot.
>
>
> It was a typical Joss "If you've got a plot point that doesn't make any
> sense, dazzle them with footwork, so maybe they won't notice it" moment.
> Yanos comes out with his "Vengeance is a living thing" explanation that
> really doesn't explain anything, but it sounded cool, so a lot of people
> didn't notice that it didn't make any sense.
Of course it doesn't make sense. Vengeance isn't supposed to make sense.
Jenny points that out rather well:
"Uncle, this is _insanity_. People are going to die."
Yanos didn't seem to care. Maybe he did once Angelus came to kill him
though.
Mel
>
>
>
>>I think your initial solution pretty much nails it anyway. I tend to think
>>of it as misery being the bond tying soul to demon - how this magic works.
>>Without the misery, the soul is freed. The gypsies didn't know how else to
>>do it.
>>
>>Besides, there's a tradition in many magic universes that all spells can
>>somehow be undone. Hmmm. I wonder if that's consistant in this one.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Again from the commentary Joss thought this is one scene he, as director
>>>got wrong. He said he shouldn't gone to close up to capture the intimacy
>>>of the pain.
>>
>>Thanks for reminding me - I'd forgotten his comments. I liked the cross and
>>ring part, but something collapsed as she sobbed and went to the bed. I
>>wonder what the alternative might look like.
>>
>>
>>>>BTVS has a lot of action in it overall, but since we viewers are so
>>>>desensitized to the killin' stuff, it doesn't always achieve the
>>>>visceral thrills it should. "Ted" had that great "hell fuckin'
>>>>yeah" moment midway through, but excepting that, the last time I've
>>>>really been so involved in an action scene was "Nightmares." Well,
>>>>that feeling is in full force when our heroes come up with a
>>>>deceptively obvious way around the "no weapon forged..." thing and
>>>>Buffy gets herself a nice big gun and blows Da Judge apart.
>>>>"What's that? [Boom]" Best. Present. Ever.
>>>
>>>I never really got that 'no weapon forged' thing. It basically means
>>>that there was an implicit 'no weapon forged (at the time the Judge was
>>>first created but later who knows?)' clause? Oh well. It gave Joss the
>>>chance to play with rocket launchers.
>>
>>Now I do remember Joss saying you gotta have a rocket launcher. heh-heh
>>
>>I don't think you need to think of it somehow undoing the no weapon forged
>>limitation. We know that he was dismembered previously. All the rocket
>>launcher achieves is a better job of dismembering. That makes for a less
>>sophisticated brainstorm for Xander too. He keeps hearing about it taking
>>an army, when it occurs to him that all they had was swords, and - hell - he
>>knows what'll do the same thing from 100 yards away. That ol' Judge guy 'll
>>blow up real good.
>>
>>OBS
>
>
Carlos Moreno
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> One-sentence summary: A strong candidate for Best. Episode. Ev...
> well, so far.
>
Ok, it would look like now you're getting it!! :-)
Oh wait:
> And then soon afterward the magic
> words "written and directed by Joss Whedon" come up, and we're
> off.
Confirmed: You *are* getting it!! :-)
I'm still profoundly depressed that Innocence and Ted have the
same rating -- for that matter, Innocence and anything else so
far having the same rating is already depressing... But *Ted*
of all the episodes!!! Even more depressing.
Oh well... You'll notice (probably already did) that you'll
have to periodically adjust your scale -- for instance, all of
your previous ratings should have automatically been adjusted
to the previous level, to open up an exclusive "Excellent" for
Innocence.
Carlos
--
alphakitten
Knaqre naq Bm jrera'g onq oblf naq gurl jrera'g obevat. ZR jrer
cresrpgyl pncnoyr bs jevgvat vagrerfgvat tbbq thlf, fb jung gur uryy
unccrarq jvgu Ze Svaa?
~Angel
Carlos Moreno
>> [...] Joss agrees. He says it's pretty stupid and struggled over how
>>to make it work and he came up with 'Vengeance is a living thing'. The
>>idea that Vengeance is like some arbitrary god that the Kalderash serve.
>>To be honest it doesn't really hold together all that well but it's
>>worth overlooking because of what it buys us - namely the return of
>>Angelus.
My newsreader is behaving badly, so the thread is showing quite
incomplete -- but whoever said the above, I must add:
*WHAT*?!!! It bought us the return of Angelus?!! Try it bought
us one of the most spectacular and brilliant plot twists ever
seen on TV!!!!!
As if the initial idea of the curse alone was not twisted enough,
it comes with a fine print clause that leads to this surprise and
this twisted outcome?!!! I'd forgive *anything* in exchange for
this!!
Carlos
--
Eric Hunter
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>> One-sentence summary: A strong candidate for Best. Episode. Ev...
>> well, so far.
>>
>> AOQ rating: Excellent
>
> Ok, it would look like now you're getting it!! :-)
> Oh well... You'll notice (probably already did) that you'll
> have to periodically adjust your scale -- for instance, all of
> your previous ratings should have automatically been adjusted
> to the previous level, to open up an exclusive "Excellent" for
> Innocence.
He does have "Superlative" and "Abomination" tucked
away for special occasions. "Innocence" is generally
considered a "Top-10" show for the series, which is
pretty remarkable for a 2nd season, mid-season show,
and you admit that it is better than "Witch", "The Pack",
"Prophecy Girl", and "Ted", so, out of curiosity, AoQ,
why didn't "Innocence" get a "Superlative"?
Eric.
--
MBangel10 (Melissa)
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 14: "Innocence"
> (or "WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM US? WE'RE EVIL! EEEEEEVIL!")
> Director: Joss Whedon
>
> Angel falls off the pig's blood wagon.
Bwahahaha! Great line. :)
>I have no idea why that
> wasn't the cliffhanger, actually. And then soon afterward the magic
> words "written and directed by Joss Whedon" come up, and we're
> off. Remember that soul, that extra spark that I said "Surprise"
> lacked? Well, here's the difference. This is what it was missing.
>
> Focusing on the early scenes with Angel... actually, before he even
> enters, we see Da Judge cast in his proper context. Remember how no
> one seemed to pick up on the camp factor in "Surprise?" Well, now
> Spike steps into as something of the audience's stand-in, poking fun
> at Big Blue, as well as anything he's surrounded by ("It's
> interesting to me that 'preparing' looks a great bit like sitting on
> your ass." "Well, [Buffy's] *in* the world, so that should work
> out." "Now, I know you haven't been in the game for a while, mate,
> but we still do kill people. Sort of our raison d'etre, you know.")
> Heh. I also like the way he's thrilled to see Angelus back in the
> fold at first; the actors have great rhythm in their scenes together.
> (I'll bet terrible Spike/Angel fanfic started flowing like wine at
> this point.) Then he seems to gradually come to the reluctant
> conclusion that the big guy is a threat to his spot on the vampire
> totem pole, though the only clues are non-verbal. He spends the
> episode in his wheelchair lurking in the shadows, and I'm finally a
> little invested in where this character is going.
Good investment. It pays out well.
>
> Angelus is a much happier guy than be-souled Angel, all things
> considered. I guess it's just an angsty show. I don't know if it
> says anything about the actor, but (much like Nick Brendon in "The
> Pack"), Boreanaz looks like he was born to play a total asshole. The
> joyful callousness with which he kills Buffy's afterglow and hits her
> right where she's most emotionally vulnerable is something to behold.
> That's real evil, not cheesy fantasy evil.
Boreanaz plays the asshole very well. This was the start of the DB can
actually act discussions. :)
>
> The explanation for the de-cursifying puts a twist on the setup scenes
> from "Surprise." Calendar's folks aren't only bitter with
> Angel; they also realize that the world is in danger if he and Buffy
> are allowed to get too happy together, and are thus ultimately
> interested in protecting people, same as our heroes. Cool. And Buffy
> then gets a reason to blame herself for it... obviously she's not at
> fault, but she can't be expected to be thinking too clearly about
> things at this point.
>
> I must point out, though, that having the victim revert the moment he
> finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
> both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
I agree it's a pretty stupid loophole and this has been discussed ad
nauseam over the years but I'll give Joss kudos for giving us such a
juicy storyline over top the silly premise.
>
<snip>
>
> Moving back to our soap opera story, there's the scene in the van,
> where Willow broaches the difficult task of moving things with Oz along
> to the making-out stage. He lets us know how much he fantasizes about
> it, and then _turns her down_. Because he's a perceptive guy, and
> isn't interested in being used as an accessory to her issues with
> Xander. Awesome. And then to make things even nicer, Willow doesn't
> question it or get mad, because she's been where he is, and sees that
> he's right. It's as if these two are competing to see who can
> elicit more AOQ-love. We'll call it a draw.
Oz rules. :)
>
> [At this point, convention would be to have Willow move on, just before
> Xander starts to reciprocate her former feelings. But we'll see.]
>
> And meanwhile, Xander and Cordelia are obtaining some weapons and
> coming up with quite a clever way to incorporate the events of
> "Halloween" into the story. I'm sure we could list little
> inconsistencies in recent episodes where Xander having soldier prowess
> would've been nice had the script remembered it, but you know what?
> It's still a cool bit of continuity. This scene also includes the
> (hopefully) classic "I'm seventeen. Looking at linoleum makes me
> wanna have sex."
Yep, it is indeed a classic line.
>
<snip>
>
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: A strong candidate for Best. Episode. Ev...
> well, so far.
>
> AOQ rating: Excellent
I didn't know which way you were going to go with your reviews on S/I
but I'm glad you enjoyed them as much as I'd hoped. I'm also glad you
didn't rate this one as 'Superlative' considering how much better a few
more episodes in this season are. :)
>
> [Season Two so far:
> 1) "When She Was Bad" - Good
> 2) "Some Assembly Required" - Weak
> 3) "School Hard" - Decent
> 4) "Inca Mummy Girl" - Good
> 5) "Reptile Boy" - Decent
> 6) "Halloween" - Good
> 7) "Lie To Me" - Good
> 8) "The Dark Age" - Good
> 9) "What's My Line (Part One)" - Good
> 10) "What's My Line (Part Two)" - Good
> 11) "Ted" - Excellent
> 12) "Bad Eggs" - Bad
> 13) "Surprise" - Decent
> 14) "Innocence" - Excellent]
>
Shuggie
>
>>> [...] Joss agrees. He says it's pretty stupid and struggled over how
>>>to make it work and he came up with 'Vengeance is a living thing'. The
>>>idea that Vengeance is like some arbitrary god that the Kalderash serve.
>>>To be honest it doesn't really hold together all that well but it's
>>>worth overlooking because of what it buys us - namely the return of
>>>Angelus.
>
> My newsreader is behaving badly, so the thread is showing quite
> incomplete -- but whoever said the above,
that would be me
>I must add:
>
> *WHAT*?!!! It bought us the return of Angelus?!! Try it bought
> us one of the most spectacular and brilliant plot twists ever
> seen on TV!!!!!
>
Erm yeah, that's what I meant.
> As if the initial idea of the curse alone was not twisted enough,
> it comes with a fine print clause that leads to this surprise and
> this twisted outcome?!!! I'd forgive *anything* in exchange for
> this!!
>
> Carlos
> --
--
Shuggie
Mel
alphakitten wrote:
Gurl znl abg or "onq oblf" ohg gurl qb unir synjf:
Knaqre: wrnybhf bs nyy Ohssl'f oblsevraqf naq npgrq nppbeqvatyl rirel
punapr ur tbg
Bm: jrerjbys, jvgu nyy gur qnexarff gung riraghnyyl ragnvyf.
Evyrl: fbyqvre, naq bapr gur fbyqvre oryvrs va uvf zvffvba jnf
haqrezvarq, nyy gung jnf yrsg jnf n tbbq-gjb fubrf jub raqrq onqyl jura
ur gevrq gb haqrefgnaq gur qnexre fvqr bs yvsr. Vg jnfa'g uvz naq vg
qvqa'g jbex sbe uvz. Ur jnf orggre bss orvat obevat :-)
Qba'g trg zr jebat, V npghnyyl yvxrq Evyrl jura ur jnf vagebqhprq ohg V
ungrq gur jnl ur raqrq hc. Ur jnf gur bar orunivat yvxr na nff naq
fbzrubj Knaqre znqr vg bhg or Ohssl'f snhyg. Ur fubhyq unir erzrzorerq
jung ur fnvq gb Ohssl va "Cebcurpl Tvey" -- "Rvgure lbh srry n guvat be
lbh qba'g." Whfg orpnhfr fur qvqa'g ybir Evyrl gur jnl ur jnagrq ure gb
fubhyqa'g znxr ure bhg gb or n onq crefba.
Mel
alphakitten
V'z ragveryl jvgu lbh ba gur ynfg cneg. Ohg V qvfnterr jvgu gur abgvba
gung Evyrl jnf fhpu n tbbq thl. Ur unq n qvfgvapg anfgl fgernx. Sebz
orengvat Ohssl sbe erwrpgvat uvz va Qbbzrq gb chapuvat Cnexre gb uvf
vzzrqvngyrl fhfcrpgvat gur jbefg bs Ohssl va Gur Lbxb Snpgbe. V gubhtug
ur jnf ng orfg, n ceng.
~Angel
Arbitrar Of Quality
> He does have "Superlative" and "Abomination" tucked
> away for special occasions. "Innocence" is generally
> considered a "Top-10" show for the series, which is
> pretty remarkable for a 2nd season, mid-season show,
> and you admit that it is better than "Witch", "The Pack",
> "Prophecy Girl", and "Ted", so, out of curiosity, AoQ,
> why didn't "Innocence" get a "Superlative"?
Well considering how stingy I am with the "Excellent"s... I mentioned
the all-caps ratings since they do exist, but they're reserved for the
most extreme of extreme circumstances. The episodes that make me cry,
or change my life... or make me hate the world and regret that I ever
picked up the series. During a seven-year run, the number of times you
can expect to see those two ratings could be counted on one hand,
possibly without using any of the fingers. Seriously, think of it as a
five-point rating scale.
[_Firefly_ is full of "Excellent" episodes, but there's only one I'd
even consider for "SUPERLATIVE" ("War Stories"), and even that one
might be 'merely' "Excellent" if I had to decide.]
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Regarding the curse and the lophole. After giving a lot of thought (way
> too much thought), my "fanwank" is as follows:
>
> The only thing that can release Angel's soul is a moment of perfect
> happiness. Pure bliss. A moment where he forgets all the crimes he's
> committed and believes himself forgiven. The gypsies were smart enough
> to realize that the only way this could come about is through someelse
> forgiving Angel. Someone he cared about. Someone he loved.
>
> So, the gypsies remove his soul and he murders the person whose
> compassion and love enables him to forgive himself. The the gypsies
> re-ensoul him. Now only is his torment worse than it ever was, he now
> knows first hand the pain they felt when he killed the clan favorite.
>
> However, over time, the original reasoning was forgotten. The original
> spell was lost and the point of the loophole was forgotten. What was
> remembered was the need to kepp tabs on Angel - which really only makes
> sense, I think, in the scenario I just described.
This is my favorite fanwank around it so far, although I can roll with
"the magic is imperfect" too.
As far as those who argue that "vengeance" on Angelus is being served,
well, he looks real miserable in "Innocence." Good job, guys.
-AOQ
KenM47
We can revisit this later. I won't say when. Now is not the time, IMO.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Shuggie
> the all-caps ratings since they do exist, but they're reserved for the
> most extreme of extreme circumstances. The episodes that make me cry,
> or change my life... or make me hate the world and regret that I ever
> picked up the series. During a seven-year run, the number of times you
> can expect to see those two ratings could be counted on one hand,
> possibly without using any of the fingers. Seriously, think of it as a
> five-point rating scale.
>
So you're grading on a curve?
> [_Firefly_ is full of "Excellent" episodes, but there's only one I'd
> even consider for "SUPERLATIVE" ("War Stories"), and even that one
> might be 'merely' "Excellent" if I had to decide.]
>
I absolutely love War Stories. It easily rates 5/5 on my personal scale.
Having said that I can think of at least five BtVS episodes off the top
of my head which are easily better.
Of course that's my scale, on which Objects in Space is about as good as
you can get and in yours it didn't equal War Stories, so mileage
obviously does vary.
One Bit Shy
Oh, I see. It's not so much that it explains why the curse doesn't work
better. More so it explains why they'd use it even though it's so
imperfect - and spend eternity making sure it keeps working. Ok. I can
live with that.
OBS
kenm47
Fubeg irefvba: Lbh sbetrg jr xabj gurer'f zber gb vg. Jung gur Ebznav
ryqre jbzra sberfnj jr qb abg xabj, ohg jr pna guvax gurl znl unir
sberfrra Natry (jub jr xabj riraghnyyl erzrzorerq naq jnf shvyg evqqra
bire rirel rivy npg Natryhf pbzzvggrq) ybfvat uvf uhzna fbhy, Natryhf,
jub unf orra gbezragrq bhg bs pbageby, orarngu gur fhesnpr, sbeprq gb
novqr Natry'f tbbq jbexf, ernffhzrf pbageby bs gur qrnq Yvnz uhfx.
Jr xabj yngre Natry'f uhzna fbhy ergheaf, abj fhssrervat sebz
rirelguvat orsber, gur arj qrnguf pnhfrq ol Natryhf, naq gur cnva bs
oryvrivat ur pna arire ernyyl or jvgu Ohssl ntnva (hagvy VJEL, naq gura
trgf gb fhssre nyy bire ntnva). Zrnajuvyr, Natry onpx va pbageby yrnirf
Natryhf fhozretrq naq novqvat Natry'f arj tbbq jbexf nf jryy nf gur
fhssrevat orpnhfr ur pna'g fgnaq Natry'f uhzna fbhy fhssrevat.
Phefr fgvyy jbexf sbe zr, rira vs Wbff unq abg gubhtug nyy bs guvf bhg
nf bs Vaabprapr.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Arbitrar Of Quality
> > Angelus is a much happier guy than be-souled Angel, all things
> > considered. I guess it's just an angsty show. I don't know if it
> > says anything about the actor, but (much like Nick Brendon in "The
> > Pack"), Boreanaz looks like he was born to play a total asshole. The
> > joyful callousness with which he kills Buffy's afterglow and hits her
> > right where she's most emotionally vulnerable is something to behold.
> > That's real evil, not cheesy fantasy evil.
>
> One of the most potent scenes ever on BtVS IMO. Joss said he nearly screwed
> it up by filming it outside in front of Buffy's house with them dressed in
> coats. It didn't work. Only then did it occur to him that this was a
> bedroom scene.
Ah, nice save. The ability to self-edit is an important gift.
> So, I have to ask. Here's the payoff for all the closet necking. Was it
> worth it? Would it have worked as well without all the prior repetition?
One of the lines I had in mind (this is what happens when you write;
you start "rehearsing" lines) to describe The Scene That Should Not Be
was "no amount of retcon or later developments can possibly redeem what
we've seen here." I still feel that way; the scene itself (and most of
the reiterations of it) would've been painful to watch even if I didn't
disagree with the pairing itself.
I'm not sure what the repetition has to do with the Willow/Xander
exchanges in "Innocence." That scene is about those two, not Cordelia;
she's just the trigger, not the ultimate cause. So I think the the
scene (though maybe not the episode as a whole) would've worked just as
well had this been their first kiss. It also would've done no real
damage to the W/X exchanges had someone other than Cordelia been
involved, for that matter, or had the Cordelia character been
conceptualized differently from day one, or...
> > I'm not a fan (as a strategist, I
> > mean; I like it fine as a viewer) of Buffy letting Angel live at the
> > end. She's crossed the line between sentiment and stupidity here, I
> > think.
>
> Aw, give her a bigger break. That's not sentiment. It's the storm wash
> from an emotional tempest. That's her lover she's contemplating killing.
Much as I hate to say it, maybe a Slayer can't afford the luxury of
that kind of emotion. That raises the question of where you draw the
line; don't want to live in "What's My Line" style isolation either.
My point is that although it's both forgivable and consistent with the
way Buffy has been portrayed so far, I think it's still a mistake
> There's a little scene I really like when they open the rocket launcher box.
> Jenny sticks her head in and asks if she can help. Buffy tells her to go
> away. Giles is suddenly confronted with an instant decision. He tells
> Jenny, yes, go away. Jenny is crushed. Buffy looks at Giles realizing what
> a huge moment that just was. But she has to turn her attention back to the
> rocket launcher. Everybody has to subordinate their feelings to the crisis
> at hand. It's really short, but there's a ton of emotion running through
> all three of them, and a huge relationship moment occurs in a second. It's
> a big deal...except that comparable big deals are flying at us left and
> right and really it's just another scene. That says something to me about
> how powerful this show is.
Nicely stated.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
Shuggie wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well considering how stingy I am with the "Excellent"s... I mentioned
> > the all-caps ratings since they do exist, but they're reserved for the
> > most extreme of extreme circumstances. The episodes that make me cry,
> > or change my life... or make me hate the world and regret that I ever
> > picked up the series. During a seven-year run, the number of times you
> > can expect to see those two ratings could be counted on one hand,
> > possibly without using any of the fingers. Seriously, think of it as a
> > five-point rating scale.
> >
>
> So you're grading on a curve?
Um... no.
-AOQ
Espen Schjønberg
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>I must point out, though, that having the victim revert the moment he
>>>finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
>>>both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
>>
>>the people inside the show including the gypsies know its stupid
>>and the writers and producer know its stupod
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Oh, I will resist spoilers. I will.
>
> It is way too soon to examine the curse and all its ramifications.
I never had problems with the curse.
It naturally has some words in it, like: " to make sure you never again
has an hour of peace in your mind, you will be cursed with your soul."
When Angel sleeps besides a girl who loves him- and he loves her - and
he knows she loves her - and so on - the first line of the curse is broken.
Hence, the curse is broken.
It never was "if Angel has an orgasm, he loses his soul".
It could have broken without sex. That was because the gypsies started
to react in the first place. It even could have survived the sex. But it
didn't, because waking up next to a girl he loved was an hour of peace.
--
Espen
Espen Schjønberg
>
> Then a moment later:
>
> Joyce: "Well, go on, make a wish."
> Buffy: "I'll just let it burn."
>
> IMO, Buffy isn't "letting the candle burn" for Angel's soul to return.
> She's afraid to make any more wishes because the current dire situation
> is the result of her acting on her desires in the first place.
I think this is one of those really heavy Buffy moments. It's so good.
(Or of course, terrible.)
I think she doesn't want to blow it out, to not see her wish come
through. Also, she thinks it was enough to snuff out one flame this
birthsday.
She has gotten older.
Fur unf tbggra byqre. Fur vf nf qrcerffrq nf gur ovmneebohss va gur
jvfu: gur jbeyq vf jung vg vf. Jr svtug, jr qvr. Fvzcry jvfuvat pnaabg
punatr gung.
--
Espen
John Briggs
>
> One of the most potent scenes ever on BtVS IMO. Joss said he nearly
> screwed it up by filming it outside in front of Buffy's house with
> them dressed in coats. It didn't work. Only then did it occur to
> him that this was a bedroom scene.
I'm not sure that the evidence of the script bears that out - does the
published version indicate that scene as a late change?
--
John Briggs
Don Sample
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
The version published in The Script Book has that scene taking place in
Buffy's front yard.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
One Bit Shy
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1140378628....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> The curse, ROT13 for the usual reasons:
>
> Fubeg irefvba: Lbh sbetrg jr xabj gurer'f zber gb vg. Jung gur Ebznav
> ryqre jbzra sberfnj jr qb abg xabj, ohg jr pna guvax gurl znl unir
> sberfrra Natry (jub jr xabj riraghnyyl erzrzorerq naq jnf shvyg evqqra
> bire rirel rivy npg Natryhf pbzzvggrq) ybfvat uvf uhzna fbhy, Natryhf,
> jub unf orra gbezragrq bhg bs pbageby, orarngu gur fhesnpr, sbeprq gb
> novqr Natry'f tbbq jbexf, ernffhzrf pbageby bs gur qrnq Yvnz uhfx.
"Fur znqr zr srry yvxr n uhzna orvat. Gung'f abg gur xvaq bs guvat lbh whfg
sbetvir."
> Jr xabj yngre Natry'f uhzna fbhy ergheaf, abj fhssrervat sebz
> rirelguvat orsber, gur arj qrnguf pnhfrq ol Natryhf, naq gur cnva bs
> oryvrivat ur pna arire ernyyl or jvgu Ohssl ntnva (hagvy VJEL, naq gura
> trgf gb fhssre nyy bire ntnva). Zrnajuvyr, Natry onpx va pbageby yrnirf
> Natryhf fhozretrq naq novqvat Natry'f arj tbbq jbexf nf jryy nf gur
> fhssrevat orpnhfr ur pna'g fgnaq Natry'f uhzna fbhy fhssrevat.
V unq gb ybbx hc VJEL. V'z nsenvq gung V'z abg gung pbairefnag jvgu gur
Natry frevrf. Vagrerfgvat fgbel. V fhccbfr bar bs gurfr qnlf V'yy unir gb
trg gung pbyyrpgvba.
> Phefr fgvyy jbexf sbe zr, rira vs Wbff unq abg gubhtug nyy bs guvf bhg
> nf bs Vaabprapr.
Fb onfvpnyyl lbh'er fnlvat gung Natry raqf hc gbezragrq nyy jnlf. Obgu onq
qrrqf naq tbbq. Obgu jvgu naq jvgubhg n fbhy. Qbhoyl fb jvgu n fbhy, fvapr
Natryhf zhfg or oheevrq va gur qrzba sbeprq gb novqr gur "tbbqarff". Fb gur
ybbcubyr vfa'g ernyyl n ybbcubyr - whfg n cngu gb n qvssrerag gbezrag.
Vf gung zber be yrff vg?
Vs fb, gura V guvax V nterr jvgu vg, gubhtu V'z fxrcgvpny ubj zhpu bs gung
jbhyq unir orra sberfrra.
Abar gur yrff, vg'f n irel inyvq cbvag gung Natryhf jvyy snpr uvf bja
gbezrag. Naq n ernfba gb erivfvg gur rssrpgvirarff bs gur phefr ng n yngre
cbvag.
Gunaxf sbe gur gubhtug.
OBS
George W Harris
<tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
:> Aw, give her a bigger break. That's not sentiment. It's the storm wash
:> from an emotional tempest. That's her lover she's contemplating killing.
:
:Much as I hate to say it, maybe a Slayer can't afford the luxury of
:that kind of emotion.
Ah, but remember Buffy's exchange with Kendra in
Giles' office in WML2: the emotion she feels gives her
strength. This is the price she pays for that strength.
--
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV!
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Don Sample
George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2006 11:57:54 -0800, "Arbitrar Of Quality"
> <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> Aw, give her a bigger break. That's not sentiment. It's the storm wash
> :> from an emotional tempest. That's her lover she's contemplating killing.
> :
> :Much as I hate to say it, maybe a Slayer can't afford the luxury of
> :that kind of emotion.
>
> Ah, but remember Buffy's exchange with Kendra in
> Giles' office in WML2: the emotion she feels gives her
> strength. This is the price she pays for that strength.
"That kind of emotion" is not all emotion. To a certain extent, every
person that Angel kills from now on is, to some extent, Buffy's fault.
She had the opportunity to stop him, and she didn't.
kenm47
Vs fb, gura V guvax V nterr jvgu vg, gubhtu V'z fxrcgvpny ubj zhpu bs
gung
jbhyq unir orra sberfrra.
Abar gur yrff, vg'f n irel inyvq cbvag gung Natryhf jvyy snpr uvf bja
gbezrag. Naq n ernfba gb erivfvg gur rssrpgvirarff bs gur phefr ng n
yngre
cbvag.
Gunaxf sbe gur gubhtug.
OBS "
Yes, that is pretty much my fanwank on it. You're welcome.
PS: V qb guvax n Ohssl sna fubhyq pngpu ng yrnfg gur Natry pebffbire
rcvfbqrf (va gur pbeerpg beqre) jvgu Ohssl'f F4.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Michael Ikeda
news:1140379074.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
(snipped)
>
> I'm not sure what the repetition has to do with the
> Willow/Xander exchanges in "Innocence." That scene is about
> those two, not Cordelia; she's just the trigger, not the
> ultimate cause. So I think the the scene (though maybe not the
> episode as a whole) would've worked just as well had this been
> their first kiss. It also would've done no real damage to the
> W/X exchanges had someone other than Cordelia been involved, for
> that matter, or had the Cordelia character been conceptualized
> differently from day one, or...
>
In order for the scene to work as well as it does (at least in the same
way that it does), it HAS to be not just someone Willow dislikes, but
someone both she and Xander have a long history of hostilities with.
Which means that it basically has to be Cordelia.
And the fact that it's NOT the first kiss, and Willow realizes that it
isn't the first kiss, and that it's something that's been going on for
a while which Xander has deliberately hidden from her, is also vital.
It's one thing for Xander to be kissing Cordelia, it's a whole other
thing for him to conceal it from Willow. And it isn't entirely clear
which of those things makes Willow feel more hurt.
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
a2zmom
interesting one.
vf haunccl, uvf zrgubq gb znxr V svaq vg uneq gb oryvrir gung nf ybat
nf Natryhf vf haunccl sbe gur guvatf ur qvq jura ur unq n fbhy, gung'f
tbbq rabhtu sbe gur tlcfvrf.
Orpnhfr, yrg'f snpr vg, vs Natryhf uvzfrys srry orggre vf gb xvyy naq
gbegher. Vg'f abg haernfbanoyr gb nffhzr gung uvf obql pbhag sbe gur
svefg bar uhaqerq svsgl lrnef jnf nal jurer orgrra svsgl gubhfnaq gb
bar uhaqerq gubhfnaq qrnq. Gung'f n ybg bs qrnq crbcyr. V ershfr gb
oryvir gung gur tlcfvrf gubhtug gung jnf svar naq qnaql.
V fgvyy tb ol zl nffhzcgvba - gung gurl svtherq gurl'q erphefr uvz naq
guvf jnl ur'q srry rira zber thvyg.
Nyfb, V pna'g or fher ohg lbh frrz gb or tbvat jvgu gur nffhzcgvba gung
Natry naq Nartyhf ner frcnengr orvatf. V qba'g. V oryvrir gung gurl ner
bar naq gur fnzr, gur bayl qvssrerapr orvat n pbafpvrapr naq n frg bs
zbeny inyhrf.
Mel
Jung pbhyq cbffvoyl or onq nobhg chapuvat Cnexre???? :-)
Ohg frevbhfyl, V guvax nyy gubfr guvatf fgrz sebz uvf oynpx naq
juvgr/tbbq naq onq ivrj bs gur jbeyq (naq qrzbaf), fbzrguvat Ohssl unq
ybfg ybat orsber. Ur riraghnyyl tbg bire vg, ohg gura jrag gbb sne gur
bgure qverpgvba, guvaxvat qbvat "onq" guvatf jnf fbzrubj bx vs ab bar
(rkprcg Ohssl) tbg uheg.
Mel
Mel
John Briggs wrote:
I believe he talks about it in the commentary for that episode. Couldn't
say what version of a script any of it appears in, if any.
Mel
John Briggs
> In article <VS4Kf.43825$494....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> One Bit Shy wrote:
>>>
>>> One of the most potent scenes ever on BtVS IMO. Joss said he nearly
>>> screwed it up by filming it outside in front of Buffy's house with
>>> them dressed in coats. It didn't work. Only then did it occur to
>>> him that this was a bedroom scene.
>>
>> I'm not sure that the evidence of the script bears that out - does
>> the published version indicate that scene as a late change?
>
> The version published in The Script Book has that scene taking place
> in Buffy's front yard.
Could you check again, please? What are the date and colour? Because the
script I've got (dated December 2, 1997 - no colour given) has:
EXT. IN FRONT OF BUFFY'S HOUSE - NIGHT
Buffy walks along the street. She reaches her house, then turns and leaves.
INT. ANGEL'S APARTMENT - NIGHT
Buffy enters, goes to the bed. Angel steps up behind her.
--
John Briggs
Jeff Jacoby
<alphak...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> Shuggie wrote:
>
>>
>> OK, this is what I love about Joss as a writer and this show. If you
>> listen to the commentary for the ep (and do it's great, just not yet)
>> you discover that he wrote this scene specifically to make the fans love
>> Oz. Fans liked the idea of Willow and Xander, Oz gets in the way of
>> that, not loving Oz. Instead of thinking, 'OK, Oz just isn't working' he
>> fixes it. He makes us love Oz, as we watch Willow discover how great Oz
>> is. Pure genius.
>>
>
>
>
> Vs bayl ur pbhyq unir fhpprffshyyl chyyrq gung gevpx bss jvgu Evyrl...
Be jvyybj naq gnen. Vg gbbx n lrne (sbe zr) orsber vg frrzrq gung
gurl npghnyyl orybatrq gbtrgure; ohg whfg gur bar pvgrq fprar sbe
jvyybj naq bm.
Jeff
Scythe Matters
> I believe he talks about it in the commentary for that episode. Couldn't
> say what version of a script any of it appears in, if any.
Yes. It's in the commentary for "Innocence." He says that the scene just
wasn't working, that Sarah and David were getting really frustrated, and
suddenly he realized that them bundled up in coats on her front lawn
wasn't the way the scene needed to play, and that he moved it to the
bedroom and "got it" right away. Or something along those lines.
Don Sample
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
14. EXT. IN FRONT OF BUFFY'S HOUSE - NIGHT 14
Buffy walks along the street. It's dark and not altogether
uncreepy.
As she reaches her house, Angel steps out of the shadows.
That's on a blue page, from December 4 (December 2 is the white
version, but there is no change bar for scene 14 indicated on that page,
the change was in scene 13. There are also pink pages dated December 5.)
Do you have an actual script, or one of the HTMLified ones from Shrift?
They don't indicate what colours individual pages are, or show the
change bars, or scene numbers.
John Briggs
It's a nice story - but it doesn't seem to tie up with the dates on the
scripts.
--
John Briggs
Don Sample
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
What script are you looking at?
Scythe Matters
> I'm not sure what the repetition has to do with the Willow/Xander
> exchanges in "Innocence." That scene is about those two, not Cordelia;
> she's just the trigger, not the ultimate cause. So I think the the
> scene (though maybe not the episode as a whole) would've worked just as
> well had this been their first kiss. It also would've done no real
> damage to the W/X exchanges had someone other than Cordelia been
> involved, for that matter, or had the Cordelia character been
> conceptualized differently from day one, or...
Michael Ikeda explained this well, I think. The scene *would not* be the
same without the setup. Too soon, and Xander just breaks it off to
mollify his best friend. The X/C "should we maybe...go?" scene in
"Surprise" suggests that he's become emotionally involved, and thus is
probably going to continue the relationship despite the pain it's
causing Willow. That wasn't the case in "What's My Line?" when they were
both in denial. Further, Willow wouldn't have had that specific reaction
if the other woman had been, say, Buffy...or random extra Betty. It
would have hurt, sure, but not in the bigger way that it does with
Cordelia ("you'd rather be with someone you hate"). Cordelia/Xander is,
at the moment, the single worst thing that could (emotionally) happen to
Willow, and thus in the Jossverse it needs to happen; after "Innocence,"
this should not surprise you.
The essential tripod of friendship on which the show stands is now
weakened, but since Buffy is the axis the tripod still functions. (In
fact, Buffy needs her support system more than ever.) If Buffy/Xander is
the source of Willow's pain, the tripod topples and the core of the show
is fragmented, because while Willow would probably be able to forgive
Xander, she would be unlikely to forgive Buffy. (That might be
interesting to explore, actually, but I think there's rather enough pain
going around at the moment.) And if the source of Willow's pain is
someone completely unrelated to the gang, there's no emotional
resonance. Xander *is* likely to maintain his relationship with
Cordelia, he (and she) *are* going to remain part of the Slayerettes,
Willow *is* going to have to move on to allow her relationship with Oz
to grow, and they're all going to have to find a way to deal with the
consequences.
What remains to be seen is what happens now.
> Much as I hate to say it, maybe a Slayer can't afford the luxury of
> that kind of emotion.
Maybe you're right. But that's a different issue from whether or not
it's understandable for her to be unable to kill him. For her to just
off him here, so soon and so easily, would be far, far too simple a
solution...and too quick, as well. From a dramatic standpoint, she needs
to live this specific misery right now. And I think it's obvious that,
despite her despair, she has to believe -- or maybe just hope -- that
there's some sort of way to fix things. I think it's necessary for the
viewers to believe that, too. Because, certainly, a love story like this
one...in which viewers are invested (and they certainly were, for the
most part)...has to be redeemable. It can't be easy, and it can't happen
in act IV of the same episode, but it has to be possible.
> My point is that although it's both forgivable and consistent with the
> way Buffy has been portrayed so far, I think it's still a mistake
As I wrote before, of *course* it's a mistake, strategically. But she's
made mistakes before, and probably will again. It's good that you
recognize that it's consistent with her character; that's not always
clear to people at first viewing.
John Briggs
Yes, the latter is what I've got. Can you tell me what the change is in
scene 13 - or on one of the pink pages?
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
> In article <Hv7Kf.43847$494....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Scythe Matters wrote:
>>> Mel wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe he talks about it in the commentary for that episode.
>>>> Couldn't say what version of a script any of it appears in, if any.
>>>
>>> Yes. It's in the commentary for "Innocence." He says that the scene
>>> just wasn't working, that Sarah and David were getting really
>>> frustrated, and suddenly he realized that them bundled up in coats
>>> on her front lawn wasn't the way the scene needed to play, and that
>>> he moved it to the bedroom and "got it" right away. Or something
>>> along those lines.
>>
>> It's a nice story - but it doesn't seem to tie up with the dates on
>> the scripts.
>
> What script are you looking at?
An html version - probably from the Psyche site.
--
John Briggs
Don Sample
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
The blue scene 13 seems to have been a general rewrite of the scene
between Willow and Xander in the hall. (The "You'd rather be with
someone you hate, than be with me" encounter.) What it was like before
the rewrite, I can't tell you.
The pink pages seem to be a rewrite of the hallway scene, from just
after Angel grabs Willow, to the end of Act II.
Terry
> Season Two, Episode 14: "Innocence"
> (or "WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM US? WE'RE EVIL! EEEEEEVIL!")
> Writer: Joss Whedon
> Director: Joss Whedon
I was waiting and waiting for you to get to this one. Just reading your
review makes me remember how awesome this ep was. I haven't read anyone
else's comments yet, but I'll make a few.
> (I'll bet terrible Spike/Angel fanfic started flowing like wine at
> this point.)
*whistles nonchalantly* Maybe it all wasn't terrible..... oh, well, maybe
it was!
> The
> joyful callousness with which he kills Buffy's afterglow and hits her
> right where she's most emotionally vulnerable is something to behold.
> That's real evil, not cheesy fantasy evil.
Talk about just huge, gaping, sucking wounds. That scene is so painful to
watch.
> I must point out, though, that having the victim revert the moment he
> finds contentment is a really really stupid way to design a curse, from
> both a world protection standpoint and a keep-the-vampire-unhappy one.
>
Yeah. Agreed.
>It's as if these two are competing to see who can
> elicit more AOQ-love. We'll call it a draw.
It is possible to be more *everything*? I love these two.
> This scene also includes the
> (hopefully) classic "I'm seventeen. Looking at linoleum makes me
> wanna have sex."
Oh, yeah. Classic.
> Finally, let me mention that the last car scene is played just right.
> Giles somehow being simultaneously tough-love and supportive is what
> the situation calls for.
He's just absolutely perfect here. I fell in all sorts of love with Giles
here.
> One-sentence summary: A strong candidate for Best. Episode. Ev...
> well, so far.
I'm so glad you liked it as much as many of us did!
Terry
Terry
news:dsample-2208DC...@news.giganews.com:
>To a certain extent, every
> person that Angel kills from now on is, to some extent, Buffy's fault.
> She had the opportunity to stop him, and she didn't.
Yes, but...
Nsgre ur trgf uvf fbhy onpx, rirel crefba ur fnirf nyfb bjrf n qrog gb
Ohssl abg fgbccvat uvz urer.
Terry
John Briggs
OK, at this late stage, I find that the "Innocence" script is on the DVD!
It corresponds to the version I have. The scene in Angel's room is
designated "A15". The rewritten scenes for the end of Act 2 are designated
A17 and B17 (as they should be in your script). We have no way of knowing
whether A15 was on pink pages (script book printed from defective copy) or a
later version.
--
John Briggs
jil...@hotmail.com
Don Sample wrote:
> It was a typical Joss "If you've got a plot point that doesn't make any
> sense, dazzle them with footwork, so maybe they won't notice it" moment.
> Yanos comes out with his "Vengeance is a living thing" explanation that
> really doesn't explain anything, but it sounded cool, so a lot of people
> didn't notice that it didn't make any sense.
On the vengeance thing... the fact is, in REAL life aside from this
show we love... vengeance is not about what's fair or right. Vengeance
is about the rage of the person seeking vengeance. Vengeance is why we
have laws and lawyers. People seeking vengeance will sometimes be so
blind with rage, they'll kill whoever is in their path to get to the
person they hate. They won't notice if evidence indicates they've got
the wrong guy. Sometimes even when they know it's the wrong person,
they'll take it out on this one because he's in reach. Or she.
Mike Zeares
Are you suggesting that Joss was lying in his commentary? Otherwise, I
can't see why you're making an issue of this.
-- Mike Zeares
KenM47
>kenm47, I have to dsiagree with your theory although it is an
>interesting one.
No problem.
>
> V svaq vg uneq gb oryvrir gung nf ybat
>nf Natryhf vf haunccl sbe gur guvatf ur qvq jura ur unq n fbhy, gung'f
>tbbq rabhtu sbe gur tlcfvrf.
V qba'g guvax gung'f vg nybar.
>
>Orpnhfr, yrg'f snpr vg, vs Natryhf uvzfrys srry orggre vf gb xvyy naq
>gbegher. Vg'f abg haernfbanoyr gb nffhzr gung uvf obql pbhag sbe gur
>svefg bar uhaqerq svsgl lrnef jnf nal jurer orgrra svsgl gubhfnaq gb
>bar uhaqerq gubhfnaq qrnq. Gung'f n ybg bs qrnq crbcyr. V ershfr gb
>oryvir gung gur tlcfvrf gubhtug gung jnf svar naq qnaql.
Sebz gur fgbel gbyq fb sne naq jung jr xabj sebz shgher rcvfbqrf bs
obgu Ohssl naq Natry, gur obql pbhag bs gur orybirq Ebznav cevaprff
naq ure snzvyl naq sevraqf vf cerggl zhpu nyy gurl pnerq nobhg.
Bgurejvfr gurl pbhyq unir orra qbvat "tbbq" jvgu phefrf nyy bire gur
cynpr, naq gurl qvqa'g.
>
>V fgvyy tb ol zl nffhzcgvba - gung gurl svtherq gurl'q erphefr uvz naq
>guvf jnl ur'q srry rira zber thvyg.
V nterr gung gur frpbaq uhzna fbhy erfgbengvba jnf cneg bs vg. Jr'er
abg va qvfnterrzrag urer hayrff V'z zvffvat fbzrguvat.
>
>Nyfb, V pna'g or fher ohg lbh frrz gb or tbvat jvgu gur nffhzcgvba gung
>Natry naq Nartyhf ner frcnengr orvatf. V qba'g. V oryvrir gung gurl ner
>bar naq gur fnzr, gur bayl qvssrerapr orvat n pbafpvrapr naq n frg bs
>zbeny inyhrf.
Jryy, urer jr qb qvfnterr. Nyy pnaba nf V trg vg fnlf Natry (uhzna
fbhy, nyfb xabja nf Yvnz, nygubhtu V qba'g xabj vs vg jnf rire ernyyl
pyrne gung Natry'f uhzna fbhyq jnf Yvnz'f) naq Natryhf (qrzba fbhy)
znl frdhraagvnyyl be ng gur fnzr gvzr bpphcl gur bapr yvivat abj qrnq
Yvnz uhfx, ohg gurl ner frcnengr ragvgvrf. Svefg gurer jnf Yvnz jvgu
n uhzna fbhy. Gura gurer jnf Qneyn fvevat Natryhf, uhzna fbhy tbar naq
qrzba fbhy. Gura gurer vf gur phefr jvgu gur uhzna fbhy ntnva
bpphclvat gur uhfx naq Natry hfhnyyl va pbageby (rkprcg jura Natry
trgf gbb qehttrq jvgu unccl qehtf nf va "Rgreavgl" naq Natryhf gnxrf
nqinagntr bs gur snyfryl vaqlhprq unccl fgngr - juvpu nyfb fubjf gur
qrzba fbhy fheivirq gur uhzna fbhy'f erghea va "Orpbzvat 2" OGJ,
"Rgreavgl" znxrf ab frafr VZB, ohg gung'f n qvssrerag enag) nf va "Gur
Qnex Ntr" ohg va gurer naq pncnoyr bs npgvat. Gura Natry fyrrcf jvgu
Ohssl naq gur uhzna fbhy vf evccrq sebz uvz yrnivat BAYL gur qrzba
fbhyyrq Natryhf (juvpu jr nyfb fnj ntnva va Natry gung arkg gb ynfg
ubeevoyr lrne). Gura Jvyybj erfgberf gur uhzna fbhy whfg orsber
fraqvat Natry gb "uryy" va Orpbzvat 2.
Gung'f ubj V frr vg.
Ken (Brooklyn)
a2zmom
your post, I'm just going to list my reply. I'm going to split this
into 2 posts because it is long.
Gur Natry/Natryhf qvivqr
Svefg bss, ubj qbrf Natry frr guvf:
Va guerr frnfbaf bs OgIF, V pna'g svaq nal rivqrapr gung Natry rire
ersref gb Natryhf rkprcg gb fnl "V qvq gurfr guvatf". Rira jura vg
jbhyq or zhpu rnfvre sbe nyy pbaprearq vs ur qvq frcnengr uvzfrys, ur
arire qbrf. (Rirelobql ryfr qbrf, ohg V'z abg pbaprearq jvgu gurve
srryvatf ba gur fhowrpg).
Bire ba NgF, gur bayl vafgnaprf V pna svaq ner gvrq va jvgu gur frnfba
4 fgbelyvar. Vzzrqvngryl orsber uvf fbhy vf qryvorengryl erzbirq Natry
qbrf ersre gb Natryhf naq gung V guvax gung unf zber gb qb jvgu tenzzne
naq rnfr bs qvfgvapgvba orgjrra fbhy naq ha-fbhyrq. Jura ur gnyxf gb
Pbaabe evtug orsber ur unf ur fbhy q
Jryy, whfg xrrc va zvaq gung jungrire Natryhf fnlf, jungrire ur
qbrf-erzrzore, ur'f abg lbhe sngure. V nz. Ab znggre jung
unccraf-be, unccrarq-V-V ybir lbh.
Va guvf vafgnapr, gur rkpunatr znxrf frafr, rfcrpvnyyl pbafvqrevat
Pbaabe'f srryvatf gbjneq Natry.
Naq svanyyl, nsgre Natry'f fbhy vf erfgberq ur znxrf n qvfgvapgvba
orgjrra uvzfrys naq Natryhf, gur bayl gvzr V pna erzrzore uvz rire
qbvat fb. V graq gb frr vg nf cnegyl n gnpgvpny zbir - gur jbeyq vf
fgvyy va tenir qnatre naq ur pna'g nssbeq sbe uvf grnz abg gb unir
pbzcyrgr gehfg va uvz. V frr vg nyfb gung fvapr ybfvat uvf fbhy jnf n
qryvorengr zbir gung jnf fnapgvbarq ol gur tebhc nf n jubyr, ur srryf
yrff thvygl nobhg vg guna hfhny. Nsgre nyy, ur qvqa'g yvxr gur vqrn gb
ortva jvgu.
KenM47
>Ken, you've hit upon one of my favorite topics. I'm not going to repeat
>your post, I'm just going to list my reply. I'm going to split this
>into 2 posts because it is long.
>
<SNIP>
But there is The Dark Age (not a spoiler, AOQ did this one already):
"Angel's face twists and contorts as the demons inside of him fight it
out. He is thrown to the crate and hits his head. His face goes
through a few more contortions when Eyghon suddenly appears,
apparently gaining the upper hand. After a moment Angel's face shifts
back to normal, then back to Eyghon, then back to normal again. He is
thrown back against the wall. Another moment's struggle and the demon
inside Angel throws Eyghon out. Without a host body to occupy Eyghon
quickly crumbles into ashes.Angel gasps and collapses to the floor.
They all run over to his aid. Giles reaches out to Jenny. She shifts
to look at him.
Giles: Jenny!
Jenny: Rupert...
Ethan gets up and runs from the shop.
Buffy: You knew that if the demon was in trouble it was gonna jump
into the nearest dead person.
Angel: I put it in danger.
Willow: And it jumped. (stands up)
Angel: (gets up) I've had a demon inside me for a couple hundred
years... (exhales) just waitin' for a good fight."
Ken (Brooklyn)
a2zmom
Jung vf n inzcver? Va n frafr, vg nyy pbzrf qbja gb guvf. Naq V'ir
urneq n ybg bs rkcynangvbaf. Ohg onfrq ba jung V'ir frra ba gur fubj,
gur bayl guvat gung znxrf frafr gb zr vf gung gur qrzba vf n zvaqyrff
ornfg qevira ol na rkgerzryl ivbyrag oybbqyhfg. Guvf pbeerfcbaqf gb
jung jr jrer fubja va Clyrn. Gurersber, nyy gur crefbanyvgl bs gur
inzcver pbzrf sebz gur uhzna gjvfgrq guebhtu gur cevfz bs qrzbavp
hetrf, pbhcyrq jvgu n ynpx bs pbafpvrapr naq zbenyf (juvpu vf cerggl
zhpu jung gur fbhy frrzf gb or). Gur zber vffhrf lbh unir nf n uhzna,
gur zber rivy gur inzcver vf. (Guvf vf nffhzvat lbh jrer n snveyl
vagryyvtrag crefba. Fghcvq crefba, fghcvq inzcver)
Naq V guvax gung zngpurf hc jvgu gur inzcverf jr'ir frra nf uhznaf.
Jvyyvnz snyyf bofrffviryl "va ybir" jvgu Prpryvn, n jbzna ur xabjf
nofbyhgryl abguvat nobhg whqtvat ol gur inthrarff bs gur cbrz ur jevgrf
sbe ure. Fcvxr fcraqf 100 lrnef jvgu Qeh naq vf fubpxrq jura fur snyyf
evtug onpx vagb orq jvgu Natry. Fcvxr qbrfa'g unir n zbeny pbzcnff,
jung ur unf vf n arrq gb cyrnfr uvf pheerag pehfu. Gurersber ur svtugf
ba gur fvqr bs tbbq naq jvyyvatyl jvgufgnaqf gbegher sbe Ohssl, ohg
nyfb jvfgshyyl ybbxf ng gur qrzba ovxre tnat va Onetnvavat. (nyy guvf
vf cer fbhy.)
N ybg bs crbcyr (rfcrpvnyyl qrjl rlrq O/Nref) gnyx nobhg ubj Natry naq
Natryhf unir abguvat va pbzzba, juvpu vf bar bs gur ovt nethzragf nobhg
jul Natry qbrfa'g arrq erqrzcgvba naq jul Nztry/Natryhf ner gjb
frcnengr vaqvivqhnyf. Evvvvtug. Guvf vf gur thl jub ybpxrq crbcyr va n
ebbz gb or zheqrerq, nyzbfg fzbgurerq uvf orfg sevraq naq jnf nobhg gb
gbegher fbzrbar sbe vasbezngvba. Gur ernfba Natry nccrnef gb or fb
qvssrerag sebz Natryhf vf orpnhfr Natry abeznyyl xrrcf nyy bs uvf
rzbgvbaf ba n gvtug yrnfu.
Natry frrxf erqrzcgvba sbe uvf hafbhyrq pevzrf abg orpnhfr gurl jrer
gur pevzrf bs n qrzba ohg orpnhfr ur srryf gurl jrer gur pevzrf bs n
zna. Ur'f orra sbeprq gb pbzr snpr gb snpr jvgu uvf bja qnexarff naq,
nf n erfhyg bayl sbphfrf ba gung nfcrpg bs uvzfrys. Natry frrf uvzfrys
nf n zna jub'f abg bayl rkprcgvbany ng zheqre, gbegher naq encr ohg nf
n zna jub rawblf vg gb obbg. Nf ur fnlf va Nzraqf: vg'f abg gur qrzba
va zr gung arrqf xvyyvat - vg'f gur zna.
Natry uvzfrys fgngrf gung gurer vf ab crefbanyvgl qvssrerapr orgjrra
gur qrzba naq zna. Jr nyfb xabj gung gur fbhy ergevrirq vf fcrpvsvp gb
Natry; gung'f znqr boivbhf qhevat gur rivy Pbeql nep ba NgF. V qbqa'g
guvax gurer vf n qrzba fbhy cre fnl, pregnvayl abg jura vg pbzrf gb gur
inzcver qrzba. Vg'f n ornfg, abguvat zber. Vs gurer jnf fhpu n guvat
naq Natry npghnyyl unf gjb frcnengr pbafpvbhfarffrf nethvat vafvqr uvz,
gura ur'f na nffubyr gb srry thvygl sbe nalguvat gur qrzba pnhfrq. Vg'f
abg yvxr ur nfxrq gb or ghearq vagb n inzcver.
Ohg, vs zl pbagragvba vf gehr, naq vg'f bhe qnexrfg vzchyfrf gung thvqr
gur inzcver gura Natry unf n gerzraqbhf nzbhag gb srry phycnoyr nobhg.
a2zmom
IMO, Angel is speaking metaphorically here - the demon that's taken
over Jenny jumps into him so he's says "his" demon beat hers up. But
the simple fact is Angel doesn't have a demon inside of him - he **is**
a demon (and that's something Angel states over and over again).
>From the episode "Angel": "I can walk like a man, but I'm not one. I
wanted to kill you tonight."
The rest of this I will put in spoiler code:
Vs Natry naq Nartyhf ner vaqrrq gjb frcnengr crbcyr erfvqvat va gur
fnzr obql, gura ubj pbzr Natryhf jnfa'g jung jr fnj jura Natry yrgf gur
qrzba serr va Gur Qnex Ntr?
Vafgrnq, jung jr fnj vf onfvpnyyl jung jr fnj va gur Clyrn nep - n
enj svtugvat znpuvar, n ornfg abguvat zber. Jung V jbhyq nethr jnf gung
onfvpnyyl, Natry yrg uvf qrzbavp vafgvapgf gnxr bire. Ohg gung'f n sne
pel sebz pynvzvat gung Natryhf vf fbzr xvaq bs frcnengr orvat jub gbbx
hc erfvqrapr jvguva Natry.
V zrna, vs gung'f gehr, jul vfa'g gur pnfr sbe Unezbal be Fcvxr be
Qneyn? Qbrfa'g vg znxr zber frafr gung gurer vf bar crefbanyvgl jubfr
zbgvirf ner rivy orpnhfr gur fbhy unf orra fgevccrq njnl naq vafgrnq
oybbqyhfg naq n cebcrafvgl sbe rivy qbvat unf orra nqqrq?
Don Sample
"a2zmom" <robin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> re: The Dark Age (which I thought you might reference).
>
> IMO, Angel is speaking metaphorically here - the demon that's taken
> over Jenny jumps into him so he's says "his" demon beat hers up. But
> the simple fact is Angel doesn't have a demon inside of him - he **is**
> a demon (and that's something Angel states over and over again).
There are different ways of looking at this.
Some people look at the demon like a layer of oil poured over water. It
floats on top, not mixing with the water underneath. The water is still
there, relatively uncontaminated by the oil. There is a clear
demarkation between the one and the other. You can skim the oil off,
and you've got separate containers of oil and water again.
For others it's like alcohol poured into water. They mix together.
There is nothing to distinguish where the one starts and the other
stops. And it is very difficult to separate them again. You can try to
distil one from the other, but once they've been mixed, you're always
going to have some water in your alcohol, and alcohol in your water.
Angel's soul is some other liquid. For the oil and water folks, it
floats on top of the oil, keeping that nasty oil out of sight. For the
alcohol and water folks, it just gets mixed in with the rest, diluting
the effects of the alcohol. Either way, the oil, or the alcohol is
still there.
alphakitten
Vg whfg gbbx gur wbvarq unaqf va Uhfu sbe zr.
Angel
Espen Schjønberg
> Ken, you've hit upon one of my favorite topics.
Yeah. Here, I am in the camp of "start a new thread". I don't read this
because I don't have the time to copy -past - rot13 - and so on. Of
course, you may say there is no such thing as not the time, but now you
have a really big thread here.
--
Espen
Michael Ikeda
news:1140406227.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
(snipped)
>
> Natry uvzfrys fgngrf gung gurer vf ab crefbanyvgl qvssrerapr
> orgjrra gur qrzba naq zna. Jr nyfb xabj gung gur fbhy ergevrirq
> vf fcrpvsvp gb Natry; gung'f znqr boivbhf qhevat gur rivy Pbeql
> nep ba NgF. V qbqa'g guvax gurer vf n qrzba fbhy cre fnl,
> pregnvayl abg jura vg pbzrf gb gur inzcver qrzba. Vg'f n ornfg,
> abguvat zber. Vs gurer jnf fhpu n guvat naq Natry npghnyyl unf
> gjb frcnengr pbafpvbhfarffrf nethvat vafvqr uvz, gura ur'f na
> nffubyr gb srry thvygl sbe nalguvat gur qrzba pnhfrq. Vg'f abg
> yvxr ur nfxrq gb or ghearq vagb n inzcver.
Nygubhtu onfrq ba gur fprar va Orpbzvat 1, sebz Natry'f crefcrpgvir n
pbhcyr bs praghevrf yngre, ur zvtug jryy srry gung ur QVQ nterr gb
orpbzr n inzcver. Rira vs ur qvqa'g obgure gb trg nal qrgnvyf ba
jung ur jnf ernyyl nterrvat gb.
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
Daniel Damouth
news:WaqdnX7GntMLlWTe...@rcn.net:
>> My point is that although it's both forgivable and consistent
>> with the way Buffy has been portrayed so far, I think it's still
>> a mistake
>
> As I wrote before, of *course* it's a mistake, strategically. But
> she's made mistakes before, and probably will again. It's good
> that you recognize that it's consistent with her character; that's
> not always clear to people at first viewing.
I would say, of *course* it's a strategic mistake. Angel has already
killed people personally and participated in a plot to destroy the
world, and there's no hint of any hope to somehow turn him good again.
This mistake bothered me when I first saw it. But it didn't take me
long to start seeing the show from the perspective of character. It
was a strategic mistake, but not a writing mistake.
-Dan Damouth
KenM47
>"a2zmom" <robin...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:1140406227.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
>(snipped)
>
>>
>> Natry uvzfrys fgngrf gung gurer vf ab crefbanyvgl qvssrerapr
>> orgjrra gur qrzba naq zna. Jr nyfb xabj gung gur fbhy ergevrirq
>> vf fcrpvsvp gb Natry; gung'f znqr boivbhf qhevat gur rivy Pbeql
>> nep ba NgF. V qbqa'g guvax gurer vf n qrzba fbhy cre fnl,
>> pregnvayl abg jura vg pbzrf gb gur inzcver qrzba. Vg'f n ornfg,
>> abguvat zber. Vs gurer jnf fhpu n guvat naq Natry npghnyyl unf
>> gjb frcnengr pbafpvbhfarffrf nethvat vafvqr uvz, gura ur'f na
>> nffubyr gb srry thvygl sbe nalguvat gur qrzba pnhfrq. Vg'f abg
>> yvxr ur nfxrq gb or ghearq vagb n inzcver.
>
>Nygubhtu onfrq ba gur fprar va Orpbzvat 1, sebz Natry'f crefcrpgvir n
>pbhcyr bs praghevrf yngre, ur zvtug jryy srry gung ur QVQ nterr gb
>orpbzr n inzcver. Rira vs ur qvqa'g obgure gb trg nal qrgnvyf ba
>jung ur jnf ernyyl nterrvat gb.
>
Whfg fnlvat V'z qbar jvgu guvf sbe abj. V'ir fnvq zl cbfvgvba. V nyfb
abgrq ryfrjurer V unir yvggyr hfr sbe "Natry" bapr gur Clyrn nep
ortna. Vs V jnagrq gb gnyx ng yratgu shegure nobhg Natry V jbhyq gnxr
vg bire gb gur Natry at.
V qb nterr gung jnfgery Yvnz pbhyq jryy guvax uvf qrfver sbe
rkpvgrzrag naq nyybjnapr gb Qneyn gb ovgr uvz znqr Yvnz/Natry
erfcbafvoyr sbe jung, Natryhf, pnzr nsgre.
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
Lbhe sbetrggvat gung guvf vf abg sbetbggra va gur fubj. V whfg
erjngpurq Cunfrf. V unq sbetbggra gur pbzzragf er Ohssl'f thvyg
nyernql rzretvat sbe abg qhfgvat Natry.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure what the repetition has to do with the Willow/Xander
> > exchanges in "Innocence." That scene is about those two, not Cordelia;
> > she's just the trigger, not the ultimate cause. So I think the the
> > scene (though maybe not the episode as a whole) would've worked just as
> > well had this been their first kiss. It also would've done no real
> > damage to the W/X exchanges had someone other than Cordelia been
> > involved, for that matter, or had the Cordelia character been
> > conceptualized differently from day one, or...
>
> Michael Ikeda explained this well, I think. The scene *would not* be the
> same without the setup. Too soon, and Xander just breaks it off to
> mollify his best friend. The X/C "should we maybe...go?" scene in
> "Surprise" suggests that he's become emotionally involved, and thus is
> probably going to continue the relationship despite the pain it's
> causing Willow. That wasn't the case in "What's My Line?" when they were
> both in denial. Further, Willow wouldn't have had that specific reaction
> if the other woman had been, say, Buffy...or random extra Betty. It
> would have hurt, sure, but not in the bigger way that it does with
> Cordelia ("you'd rather be with someone you hate").
Doesn't anyone else see Cordelia as basically irrelevant to the
stuation? Willow's outburrst is the culmination of years of
frustration with Xander. All that was needed is a "trigger" to push
her over the edge and get this stuff to bubble to the surface - Xander
hiding a relationship with Cordelia of all people, in this case. So an
ongoing X/C relationship is one such trigger, but there were other ways
to get to basically the same place as "Innocence," especially if we're
allowed to re-write many episodes backward in our scenarios.
Returning to OBS's original question of whether the scene in
"Innocence" retroactively justifies TSTSNB and the other X/C scenes in
prvious episodes, I say no, no, and again no. There were ways of
setting up "Innocence" that didn't involve X/C. And perhaps more
importantly, if we want to leave "Innocence" completely identical,
there were ways of doing X/C without TSTSNB.
> As I wrote before, of *course* it's a mistake, strategically. But she's
> made mistakes before, and probably will again. It's good that you
> recognize that it's consistent with her character; that's not always
> clear to people at first viewing.
Buffy behaved the same way in a sorta-similar situation in "Angel."
She's far from infallible where he's concerned. I think we all agree
that, to quote a later response, it's a character mistake, not a
writing one.
-AOQ
Michael Ikeda
I don't see how Cordelia can be "basically irrelevant". There are
three things going on and they all reinforce each other.
1) Xander is having a relationship with someone.
2) The someone being Cordelia, who Willow dislikes and she thought
Xander did too.
(And here it basically has to be Cordelia. There isn't anyone else
who we have enough backstory of hostilities for to substitute for
her.)
3) Xander hiding the relationship from Willow.
(And again it almost has to be Cordelia. Xander hasn't generally
hid relationships or hoped-for relationships from Willow, from what
we've seen. Cordelia he hides because of a history of hostilities.
And Cordelia is the only one we have enough backstory on to make
the hiding feel consistent with past characterization of Xander.)
I don't see that we get the same outburst from #1 alone. We also
need 2 and 3 and for that we need the ongoing X/C relationship.
(snipped)
Scythe Matters
> Doesn't anyone else see Cordelia as basically irrelevant to the
> stuation?
I haven't taken a poll. But as I noted a while ago, you've got a bit of
a blind spot regarding Cordelia, that I think makes you miss obvious
stuff. Certainly you've yet to comment on some really dramatic character
changes there...more dramatic, pre-"Innocence," than any other character
on the show. I think your emotional antipathy for her character prevents
you from understanding why this does, in fact, have to be Cordelia.
> Willow's outburrst is the culmination of years of
> frustration with Xander. All that was needed is a "trigger" to push
> her over the edge and get this stuff to bubble to the surface - Xander
> hiding a relationship with Cordelia of all people, in this case. So an
> ongoing X/C relationship is one such trigger, but there were other ways
> to get to basically the same place as "Innocence," especially if we're
> allowed to re-write many episodes backward in our scenarios.
Well, it's been clear from episode one that Xander wanted to be with
Buffy. Willow knew this, and despite her obvious sadness she submerged
it. She even helped him practice asking Buffy to the dance. With the
teacher/mantis, she clearly didn't approve, but there was also no
similar outburst of anger. In neither case do we get to the rage and
betrayal in "Innocence." In those cases, we'd have resigned acceptance.
Consistent, but certainly not the dramatic scene in the hallway.
So: no, you're just not seeing it correctly, based on what the show has
given us thus far. It could *only* be Cordelia that leads to this scene.
> Returning to OBS's original question of whether the scene in
> "Innocence" retroactively justifies TSTSNB and the other X/C scenes in
> prvious episodes, I say no, no, and again no. There were ways of
> setting up "Innocence" that didn't involve X/C. And perhaps more
> importantly, if we want to leave "Innocence" completely identical,
> there were ways of doing X/C without TSTSNB.
In regards to the latter: there may have been, but you never would have
accepted them because of your blind spot re: Cordelia. In regards to the
former, I simply think you're wrong. But let's see what others say.
On a somewhat different topic, I just remembered something else
important in this episode. In the van, Oz recognizes without any
apparent evidence that Willow is trying to get back at Xander. It's a
credit to his special perceptiveness. But look at what this says about
Willow's reaction to trauma: her first instinct was rage (you can also
bring in "IRYJ" here), her second was revenge. She's geeky and
mild-mannered most of the time (though we've seen the steel inside), but
this is a new part of her character that we're seeing. It's interesting,
and it's not entirely admirable.
Stephen Tempest
>Vg whfg gbbx gur wbvarq unaqf va Uhfu sbe zr.
I'm thirty seconds behind you. :)
Vg jnf gur cneg jurer gurl obgu ghearq fvzhygnarbhfyl gb ybbx ng gur
fbqn znpuvar, naq vg jrag sylvat guebhtu gur nve, gung pbaivaprq zr.
Stephen
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> Doesn't anyone else see Cordelia as basically irrelevant to the
> stuation? Willow's outburrst is the culmination of years of
> frustration with Xander. All that was needed is a "trigger" to push
> her over the edge and get this stuff to bubble to the surface - Xander
> hiding a relationship with Cordelia of all people, in this case. So an
> ongoing X/C relationship is one such trigger, but there were other ways
> to get to basically the same place as "Innocence," especially if we're
> allowed to re-write many episodes backward in our scenarios.
If it had been some random Jane Doe, Willow wouldn't have reacted
anything like she did. She didn't have any violent objection to Xander
and Ampata, back when she thought Ampata was a real girl. She was
saddened, but there was no yelling, and she even encouraged Xander to
ask Ampata for a date.
Eric Hunter
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>
>>>
>> Was it worth it? Would it have worked as well without all the prior
>> repetition?
>
> One of the lines I had in mind (this is what happens when you write;
> you start "rehearsing" lines) to describe The Scene That Should Not Be
> was "no amount of retcon or later developments can possibly redeem
> what we've seen here." I still feel that way; the scene itself (and
> most of the reiterations of it) would've been painful to watch even
> if I didn't disagree with the pairing itself.
>
> I'm not sure what the repetition has to do with the Willow/Xander
> exchanges in "Innocence." That scene is about those two, not
> Cordelia; she's just the trigger, not the ultimate cause. So I think
> the scene (though maybe not the episode as a whole) would've
> worked just as well had this been their first kiss. It also would've
> done no real damage to the W/X exchanges had someone other than
> Cordelia been involved, for that matter, or had the Cordelia
> character been conceptualized differently from day one, or...
Well, it would have given Xander an, "it never happened
before, it was gross, and it will never happen again!" out.
At this point Xander is beginning to have/admit to real
feelings for Cordelia, so it is a more emotionally-charged
scene.
>>> I'm not a fan (as a strategist, I mean; I like it fine
>>> as a viewer) of Buffy letting Angel live at the end.
>>> She's crossed the line between sentiment and stupidity
>>> here, I think.
>>
>> Aw, give her a bigger break. That's not sentiment. It's
>> the storm wash from an emotional tempest. That's her
>> lover she's contemplating killing.
>
> Much as I hate to say it, maybe a Slayer can't afford the luxury of
> that kind of emotion. That raises the question of where you draw the
> line; don't want to live in "What's My Line" style isolation either.
> My point is that although it's both forgivable and consistent with the
> way Buffy has been portrayed so far, I think it's still a mistake
Rationally, staking Angelus was the thing to do, but
given the emotional pain he caused her with, "You got a
lot to learn about men, kiddo. Although I guess you
proved that last night.", kicking him in the nuts was
emotionally necessary. As for your point about the
Slayer not being able to afford that kind of emotion,
you're just plain wrong. "Love keeps her in the air
when she ought to fall down, tells you she's hurting
'fore she keens. Makes her a home". The message
of BtVS is the same as that of "Serenity", "Love is
the most powerful force in the 'verse". Buffy's love
might make her make questionable decisions from
time to time, but it is what gives her the strength to
survive where every previous Slayer died.
Eric.
--
Don Sample
"Eric Hunter" <hunt...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
> Rationally, staking Angelus was the thing to do, but
> given the emotional pain he caused her with, "You got a
> lot to learn about men, kiddo. Although I guess you
> proved that last night.", kicking him in the nuts was
> emotionally necessary.
So kick him in the nuts, and *then* stake him.
KenM47
>In article <gPidnXaN78o...@comcast.com>,
> "Eric Hunter" <hunt...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Rationally, staking Angelus was the thing to do, but
>> given the emotional pain he caused her with, "You got a
>> lot to learn about men, kiddo. Although I guess you
>> proved that last night.", kicking him in the nuts was
>> emotionally necessary.
>
>So kick him in the nuts, and *then* stake him.
She's not yet convinced Angel has completely vacated the husk, or, if
he had, that he can't come "home."
Ken (Brooklyn)
vague disclaimer
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Exactly. She doesn't want to kill him. She wants to save him.
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend