Angel 4.09
pikelet
opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
The Night'.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This week's 'Buffy' left me feeling unconvinced. It was serviceable,
but made me feel like the arc had stalled finally after being
distinctly unsteady since about episode 7.
This week's 'Angel', however, rocked all socks.
I hate spoilers. I hate them, hate them, hate them, and I hate that a
few days ago I was spoiled for some fairly massive developments in
season 4 that'll probably last me up to episode 16 or so. But even
having heard rumours about certain things does not, I'm glad to say,
dim the effect of a damn fine episode.
Manny = rock.
Uncertainty over who the bad guy really is = rock.
Gwen = rock, despite her being Rogue from 'The X-Men' (even down to
the streaky hair).
Lorne = rock.
Angel's rousing speech being shot down as just plain dumb, just like
the one in 'Bring On The Night' *should* have been = rock.
The Beast has a plan! This = rock.
Sun disappearing = rock.
There being a reason for the Beast destroying W&H after all = rock.
W&H being wiped out and cut off from the senior partners, and the fact
that the writers don't use this just as an excuse to get rid of W&H,
but also mention that the little girl *had* to die, thus advancing the
arc plot and making the massacre more than merely filler in retrospect
= rock.
Angel trying to get over Cordy/Connor, and not becoming a simpering
fool around Cordy as he always used to with Buffy = rock.
Stevie Wonder = rock.
Connor's cry of 'Dad!' as Angel goes to enter the building, doing its
bit to remind us that they are father and son and there is a
relationship there, just like the bit last week when Angel hugged him
suddenly = rock.
Direction of gradual flashbacks being integrated into the final scene
as Cordy realises what's going on = rock.
The fact that Cordy can remember stuff that Angel can't, yet we're
still immediately turning to Angelus rather than trying to refresh
Cordy's memory = little bit of suck.
'As evil plans go, it doesn't suck' = rock.
Mere Smith = rock.
'In Loving Memory of Glenn Quinn' = 'nuff said.
Tim
Andrew Cameron
message news:7hvr2v8httrn4hcgc...@4ax.com...
> Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
> opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
> The Night'.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> This week's 'Buffy' left me feeling unconvinced. It was serviceable,
> but made me feel like the arc had stalled finally after being
> distinctly unsteady since about episode 7.
>
> This week's 'Angel', however, rocked all socks.
Tim's entire post = snip.
Tim's entire post = rock.
Andrew Cameron
Gunnar Harboe
<timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
>opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
>The Night'.
Yeah, spoilers for Buffy up to BotN.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
'Long Day's Journey'
(What is it with these horrible puns/popculture references for episode
titles? Make it stop, please!)
Something sensible finally going on in 'Angel'. That's novel. A big
undefeatable evil is killing members of a mysterious order. Our heroes
seek them out to protect them. The evil thing uses mind control to make
the vampire with a soul kill. Really. How do they manage to come up with
these things?
Did anyone else think that life for the monster guy must be like one of
these computer adventure games? "Collect the pieces of the symbol of Ra
(cue subquests), combine them and speak the incantation in order to blot
out the sun to cause the return of Angelus to end the world to win the
game." I think I'll start calling him Guybrush.
>This week's 'Buffy' left me feeling unconvinced. It was serviceable,
>but made me feel like the arc had stalled finally after being
>distinctly unsteady since about episode 7.
>
>This week's 'Angel', however, rocked all socks.
It didn't suck. Probably the strongest episode this season, although
that's not saying much. Pity that I've lost all belief in this series;
when Wes was doing his occultism-babble bit I was just laughing at him.
>I hate spoilers. I hate them, hate them, hate them, and I hate that a
>few days ago I was spoiled for some fairly massive developments in
>season 4 that'll probably last me up to episode 16 or so.
I heard that one, too, but it didn't really bother me. Anyway, you would
know after having seen this episode *anyway*.
> But even
>having heard rumours about certain things does not, I'm glad to say,
>dim the effect of a damn fine episode.
>
>Manny = rock.
He was good. Reminded me of one or more other characters with a similar
shtick, but I can't remember exactly who. Whistler? Doc? Early Doyle?
>Uncertainty over who the bad guy really is = rock.
Well, it was obvious that it was either Spandexia, Angel or just
Guybrush himself (who, after all, can teleport, right?).
>Gwen = rock, despite her being Rogue from 'The X-Men' (even down to
>the streaky hair).
She *must* be a joke on X-Men style superheroines in spandex costumes?
>Lorne = rock.
Lorne is getting intensely annoying. I don't think Angel needs a reason
to be brusque with him. "There's other fish in the sea"? What a way to
be inappropriate, irrelevant and cliche all in one sentence.
>Angel's rousing speech being shot down as just plain dumb, just like
>the one in 'Bring On The Night' *should* have been = rock.
>
>The Beast has a plan! This = rock.
The season finally fulfils the minimum requirements for an arc. Yes,
well done!
>Sun disappearing = rock.
Well, this explains the snippet from the Buffy shooting script that was
posted recently.
>There being a reason for the Beast destroying W&H after all = rock.
>
>W&H being wiped out and cut off from the senior partners, and the fact
>that the writers don't use this just as an excuse to get rid of W&H,
>but also mention that the little girl *had* to die, thus advancing the
>arc plot and making the massacre more than merely filler in retrospect
>= rock.
>
>Angel trying to get over Cordy/Connor, and not becoming a simpering
>fool around Cordy as he always used to with Buffy = rock.
>
>Stevie Wonder = rock.
Stevie Wonder?
>Connor's cry of 'Dad!' as Angel goes to enter the building, doing its
>bit to remind us that they are father and son and there is a
>relationship there, just like the bit last week when Angel hugged him
>suddenly = rock.
>
>Direction of gradual flashbacks being integrated into the final scene
>as Cordy realises what's going on = rock.
Tired.
>The fact that Cordy can remember stuff that Angel can't, yet we're
>still immediately turning to Angelus rather than trying to refresh
>Cordy's memory = little bit of suck.
>
>'As evil plans go, it doesn't suck' = rock.
>
>Mere Smith = rock.
>
>'In Loving Memory of Glenn Quinn' = 'nuff said.
Obsessing over Connor being the answer among them when none of the
viewers can be fooled into believing he's in with the evil = suck.
In a show which prides itself on killing characters, what is Gunn still
doing alive?
Amy Acker is looking seriously anorectic.
pikelet
Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> is twanging, all Hoob-like, at me. I calmly
say:
>On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:23:17 +0000, pikelet
><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
>>opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
>>The Night'.
>
>Yeah, spoilers for Buffy up to BotN.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>'Long Day's Journey'
>(What is it with these horrible puns/popculture references for episode
>titles? Make it stop, please!)
Only one of those Real Fans is ever gonna care, though. The ones that
look up the episode titles, when most mere mortals don't have a clue
what they are until the videos come out.
>Something sensible finally going on in 'Angel'. That's novel.
A tad harsh. If by this you mean that we've finally got the closest
thing to an explanation of what the Beast is actually *doing*, then
remember it's only episode 9. If 'Buffy' had just stopped dead in
November after 'Conversations With Dead People', then resumed last
week with 'Sleeper', I daresay that we'd be thinking that 'Buffy' had
been interminably slow with the plot developments too.
In short, the story arc for 'Angel' this season wasn't supposed to
take this long. As Niall's noted in another thread, there's a
reference to 'Long Day's Journey' in 'Bring On The Night', suggesting
that all these plot developments should have happened before December.
>A big
>undefeatable evil is killing members of a mysterious order. Our heroes
>seek them out to protect them. The evil thing uses mind control to make
>the vampire with a soul kill. Really. How do they manage to come up with
>these things?
Um. Maybe they sit and talk about stuff they'd like to do this season.
And Angel definitely killed Manny now? Say wha'?
>>I hate spoilers. I hate them, hate them, hate them, and I hate that a
>>few days ago I was spoiled for some fairly massive developments in
>>season 4 that'll probably last me up to episode 16 or so.
>
>I heard that one, too, but it didn't really bother me. Anyway, you would
>know after having seen this episode *anyway*.
No, I don't think you necessarily have, and no, you really really
wouldn't. What I'm talking about goes, sadly, far beyond the scope of
this episode.
>> But even
>>having heard rumours about certain things does not, I'm glad to say,
>>dim the effect of a damn fine episode.
>>
>>Manny = rock.
>
>He was good. Reminded me of one or more other characters with a similar
>shtick, but I can't remember exactly who. Whistler? Doc? Early Doyle?
Chap whose name escapes me from 'Parting Gifts'? Hints of Jaydon from
'The Shroud of Rahmon', too.
>>Uncertainty over who the bad guy really is = rock.
>
>Well, it was obvious that it was either Spandexia, Angel or just
>Guybrush himself (who, after all, can teleport, right?).
Or Connor, remember.
And if the Beast knows Angelus, then who the hell is he, and what the
hell is he to Angelus?
>>Gwen = rock, despite her being Rogue from 'The X-Men' (even down to
>>the streaky hair).
>
>She *must* be a joke on X-Men style superheroines in spandex costumes?
If it is, it's the kinda joke I like.
Who needs Faith?
>>Lorne = rock.
>
>Lorne is getting intensely annoying. I don't think Angel needs a reason
>to be brusque with him. "There's other fish in the sea"? What a way to
>be inappropriate, irrelevant and cliche all in one sentence.
But, let's be honest, also right. Lorne's empathic and understands
Angel quite well. The bubbling sexual tension thing Angel and Gwen
have going on is probably entirely predictable, from Lorne's
perspective.
>>The Beast has a plan! This = rock.
>
>The season finally fulfils the minimum requirements for an arc. Yes,
>well done!
After the usually-employed number of episodes for the establishment of
an arc. Go, sarcasm!
>>Sun disappearing = rock.
>
>Well, this explains the snippet from the Buffy shooting script that was
>posted recently.
Precisely.
>>Stevie Wonder = rock.
>
>Stevie Wonder?
Did you not watch the teaser, then?
>>Direction of gradual flashbacks being integrated into the final scene
>>as Cordy realises what's going on = rock.
>
>Tired.
Disagree.
>Obsessing over Connor being the answer among them when none of the
>viewers can be fooled into believing he's in with the evil = suck.
He can be 'the answer', without necessarily being 'in with the evil'.
Gunn's the only one who thought that. And Gunn, lest we forget, is
also the only person who, in 'Lullaby' was reminding people that the
as-yet unborn Connor had the potential to be evil. Gunn's often ready
to believe the worst, and not afraid to be the voice of doom and
gloom. He's figured Connor as having potential for evil since before
the kid was born.
>Amy Acker is looking seriously anorectic.
Hmm. 'Anorexic', I believe you mean. She can't be insecure about her
figure, considering the number of jokes the writers make about her
being a 'stick'. Same thing tends to evidence that they're not really
trying to make out that she's some role-model for physical appearance.
But anyway, what's that got to do with the price of hats?
Tim
John Briggs
news:qiat2v8dn7tg7m7dt...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:23:17 +0000, pikelet
> <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
> >Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
> >opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
> >The Night'.
>
> Yeah, spoilers for Buffy up to BotN.
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> 'Long Day's Journey'
> (What is it with these horrible puns/popculture references for episode
> titles? Make it stop, please!)
>
is to be applauded, surely?
John Briggs
Gunnar Harboe
<timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:04:49 +0000. I'm in alt.buffy.europe. Gunnar
>Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> is twanging, all Hoob-like, at me. I calmly
>say:
>>On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:23:17 +0000, pikelet
>><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
>>>opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
>>>The Night'.
>>
>>Yeah, spoilers for Buffy up to BotN.
Mild spoiler for upcoming Angel eps (which you'll probably have guessed
already)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>'Long Day's Journey'
>>(What is it with these horrible puns/popculture references for episode
>>titles? Make it stop, please!)
>
>Only one of those Real Fans is ever gonna care, though. The ones that
>look up the episode titles, when most mere mortals don't have a clue
>what they are until the videos come out.
Or someone who downloads the episodes ...
>>Something sensible finally going on in 'Angel'. That's novel.
>
>A tad harsh. If by this you mean that we've finally got the closest
>thing to an explanation of what the Beast is actually *doing*, then
>remember it's only episode 9. If 'Buffy' had just stopped dead in
>November after 'Conversations With Dead People', then resumed last
>week with 'Sleeper', I daresay that we'd be thinking that 'Buffy' had
>been interminably slow with the plot developments too.
>
>In short, the story arc for 'Angel' this season wasn't supposed to
>take this long. As Niall's noted in another thread, there's a
>reference to 'Long Day's Journey' in 'Bring On The Night', suggesting
>that all these plot developments should have happened before December.
Point taken. It's just that I found the S3 arc dull and predictable, and
the S4 arc up till recently nonsensical and lacking in resonance. So
it's a relief to experience forward momentum and the plot thickening.
>>A big
>>undefeatable evil is killing members of a mysterious order. Our heroes
>>seek them out to protect them. The evil thing uses mind control to make
>>the vampire with a soul kill. Really. How do they manage to come up with
>>these things?
>
>Um. Maybe they sit and talk about stuff they'd like to do this season.
Maybe they should divide up the ideas then, rather than doing the same
stuff on both shows.
>And Angel definitely killed Manny now? Say wha'?
Oh. Yeah. I thought that was clear. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions,
but it seemed to make such perfect sense.
>>>I hate spoilers. I hate them, hate them, hate them, and I hate that a
>>>few days ago I was spoiled for some fairly massive developments in
>>>season 4 that'll probably last me up to episode 16 or so.
>>
>>I heard that one, too, but it didn't really bother me. Anyway, you would
>>know after having seen this episode *anyway*.
>
>No, I don't think you necessarily have, and no, you really really
>wouldn't. What I'm talking about goes, sadly, far beyond the scope of
>this episode.
Hmmmmok. Maybe I haven't heard it all, then. I just heard rumours they
were going to bring back Angelus.
>>> But even
>>>having heard rumours about certain things does not, I'm glad to say,
>>>dim the effect of a damn fine episode.
>>>
>>>Manny = rock.
>>
>>He was good. Reminded me of one or more other characters with a similar
>>shtick, but I can't remember exactly who. Whistler? Doc? Early Doyle?
>
>Chap whose name escapes me from 'Parting Gifts'? Hints of Jaydon from
>'The Shroud of Rahmon', too.
Can't remember those guys very well. Also the puppet from "Puppet Show",
maybe.
>>>Uncertainty over who the bad guy really is = rock.
>>
>>Well, it was obvious that it was either Spandexia, Angel or just
>>Guybrush himself (who, after all, can teleport, right?).
>
>Or Connor, remember.
No way.
>And if the Beast knows Angelus, then who the hell is he, and what the
>hell is he to Angelus?
Perhaps Guybrush and Angelus hatched the whole plan together, complete
with Connor and all, and Angelus then somehow got the memory of it
erased (Zaphod Beeblebrox-style). In which case bringing him back isn't
going to do much good.
How is that supposed to work, anyway? It's my understanding that Angel
is just Angelus with a soul. The demon is still within him (see 'The
Dark Age' or even those stupid Pylea eps). There's no "bringing back",
it's just the removal of Angel's soul.
>>>Gwen = rock, despite her being Rogue from 'The X-Men' (even down to
>>>the streaky hair).
>>
>>She *must* be a joke on X-Men style superheroines in spandex costumes?
>
>If it is, it's the kinda joke I like.
Yeah, she's good fun. That's the great thing with this kind of joke: you
can make fun of something and at the same time exploit what makes it
work. And .... errrr, they're definitely exploiting Gwen for all she's
worth.
>Who needs Faith?
Hey! Why shouldn't we get a Rogue Slayer vs. Electro-Shock Girl fight? I
think we've earned it.
>>>Lorne = rock.
>>
>>Lorne is getting intensely annoying. I don't think Angel needs a reason
>>to be brusque with him. "There's other fish in the sea"? What a way to
>>be inappropriate, irrelevant and cliche all in one sentence.
>
>But, let's be honest, also right. Lorne's empathic and understands
>Angel quite well. The bubbling sexual tension thing Angel and Gwen
>have going on is probably entirely predictable, from Lorne's
>perspective.
I didn't actually consider that this was foreshadowing. Which is stupid
of me since it's obvious from the previously that she was going to make
a reappearance.
But Lorne still annoys me. He can be right all he wants. Just because
something is right doesn't mean it's a helpful or even meaningful thing
to say. The only purpose his comment might have had is to encourage
Angel to find a rebound date. Yet if he's all with the vibes, he must
know C&C aren't going to be shopping for engagement rings any time soon.
So we're to take it he just can't get enough excitement and wants to
keep this little soap opera running for as long as possible?
Lorne is OK on the (increasingly rare) occasions when he makes a good
joke, like the one about evil people not carrying off the way he
dresses: "it gets camp". Other than that, he is just tedious. ("Good
likeness. Mind if I run screaming from the room?" <groan>)
>>>The Beast has a plan! This = rock.
>>
>>The season finally fulfils the minimum requirements for an arc. Yes,
>>well done!
>
>After the usually-employed number of episodes for the establishment of
>an arc. Go, sarcasm!
Woohoo!
>>>Sun disappearing = rock.
>>
>>Well, this explains the snippet from the Buffy shooting script that was
>>posted recently.
>
>Precisely.
>
>>>Stevie Wonder = rock.
>>
>>Stevie Wonder?
>
>Did you not watch the teaser, then?
Gotcha.
You're saying Mr Wonder wears dark glasses because his eyes are really
scary?
>>>Direction of gradual flashbacks being integrated into the final scene
>>>as Cordy realises what's going on = rock.
>>
>>Tired.
>
>Disagree.
>
>>Obsessing over Connor being the answer among them when none of the
>>viewers can be fooled into believing he's in with the evil = suck.
>
>He can be 'the answer', without necessarily being 'in with the evil'.
>Gunn's the only one who thought that.
OK, I should have specified my criticism more. Wasn't there a bit about
why they haven't killed off Gunn yet, or did I end up not writing that?
> And Gunn, lest we forget, is
>also the only person who, in 'Lullaby' was reminding people that the
>as-yet unborn Connor had the potential to be evil. Gunn's often ready
>to believe the worst, and not afraid to be the voice of doom and
>gloom. He's figured Connor as having potential for evil since before
>the kid was born.
>
>>Amy Acker is looking seriously anorectic.
>
>Hmm. 'Anorexic', I believe you mean.
Yeah, sorry. My foreign origins peeking through there.
> She can't be insecure about her
>figure, considering the number of jokes the writers make about her
>being a 'stick'. Same thing tends to evidence that they're not really
>trying to make out that she's some role-model for physical appearance.
>
>But anyway, what's that got to do with the price of hats?
I'm just uncomfortable watching all the really skinny girls on TV. It
always makes me feel worried for them.
Mattia Valente
> Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
> opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
> The Night'.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> This week's 'Buffy' left me feeling unconvinced. It was serviceable,
> but made me feel like the arc had stalled finally after being
> distinctly unsteady since about episode 7.
Well, it has. Sorta. It's doing filler eps. Good ones, IMO, but filler
eps they still are.
> This week's 'Angel', however, rocked all socks.
Oh, god, but it truly did. Angel's *finally* really found it's stride.
It was taking a while, and the standalonish stuff wasn't really doing it
for me, so I'm chuffed.
> I hate spoilers. I hate them, hate them, hate them, and I hate that a
> few days ago I was spoiled for some fairly massive developments in
> season 4 that'll probably last me up to episode 16 or so. But even
> having heard rumours about certain things does not, I'm glad to say,
> dim the effect of a damn fine episode.
I know nothing. So I'll ignore this and give you my sincerest condolences.
> Manny = rock.
It was all 'Whistler Returns'. Only worse.
> Uncertainty over who the bad guy really is = rock.
HELL yes. Particularly the flashbacky stuff. Rock rock ROCK.
> Gwen = rock, despite her being Rogue from 'The X-Men' (even down to
> the streaky hair).
Indeed. And damn she looks good.
I'll add Cordelia = amusingly annoying pain in the ass-ish. So shallow,
so pathetic. Jealous about a kiss when she's been boinkin' around.
> Lorne = rock.
Yep :-)
> Angel's rousing speech being shot down as just plain dumb, just like
> the one in 'Bring On The Night' *should* have been = rock.
:-p
Well, it was Rock. But then again, it was an even stupider plan.
> The Beast has a plan! This = rock.
Oh yes. Muchly. A plan that comes to fruition, so far, and hasn't
managed to be stopped in any significant way by anybody. Woo!
> Sun disappearing = rock.
Rocktastic.
> There being a reason for the Beast destroying W&H after all = rock.
Woo!
> W&H being wiped out and cut off from the senior partners, and the fact
> that the writers don't use this just as an excuse to get rid of W&H,
> but also mention that the little girl *had* to die, thus advancing the
> arc plot and making the massacre more than merely filler in retrospect
> = rock.
Indeed. Add to this several other continuity things, like, well, Gwen
herself. More importantly a friggin' REASON for Cordy not to remember
everything. Then again, this doesn't quite gel with the whole 'I can't
be with you because I remember what you did as Angelus' thing. Ah well.
> Angel trying to get over Cordy/Connor, and not becoming a simpering
> fool around Cordy as he always used to with Buffy = rock.
He had Gwen to play around with :-)
> Stevie Wonder = rock.
Explain.
> Connor's cry of 'Dad!' as Angel goes to enter the building, doing its
> bit to remind us that they are father and son and there is a
> relationship there, just like the bit last week when Angel hugged him
> suddenly = rock.
Um, let's not push it shall we?
> Direction of gradual flashbacks being integrated into the final scene
> as Cordy realises what's going on = rock.
Aye. Kick-ASS. Mostly the reveal. This do be a truly interesting plot
development.
> The fact that Cordy can remember stuff that Angel can't, yet we're
> still immediately turning to Angelus rather than trying to refresh
> Cordy's memory = little bit of suck.
Yes. And what I said above a little.
> 'As evil plans go, it doesn't suck' = rock.
Hi-fucking-larious.
> Mere Smith = rock.
We knew this, didn't we?
> 'In Loving Memory of Glenn Quinn' = 'nuff said.
RIP.
Mattia
--
"If vampires couldn't have erections, our show would have been
12 episodes long." - Joss Whedon
Mattia Valente
> Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:04:49 +0000. I'm in alt.buffy.europe. Gunnar
> Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> is twanging, all Hoob-like, at me. I calmly
> say:
>
>
>>On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:23:17 +0000, pikelet
>><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>
>>>Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
>>>opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
>>>The Night'.
>>
>>Yeah, spoilers for Buffy up to BotN.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>'Long Day's Journey'
>>(What is it with these horrible puns/popculture references for episode
>>titles? Make it stop, please!)
>
> Only one of those Real Fans is ever gonna care, though. The ones that
> look up the episode titles, when most mere mortals don't have a clue
> what they are until the videos come out.
Aheh.
>>Something sensible finally going on in 'Angel'. That's novel.
>
> A tad harsh. If by this you mean that we've finally got the closest
> thing to an explanation of what the Beast is actually *doing*, then
> remember it's only episode 9. If 'Buffy' had just stopped dead in
> November after 'Conversations With Dead People', then resumed last
> week with 'Sleeper', I daresay that we'd be thinking that 'Buffy' had
> been interminably slow with the plot developments too.
Agreed. Although I was enjoying Buffy's non-arc stuff more, frankly.
> In short, the story arc for 'Angel' this season wasn't supposed to
> take this long. As Niall's noted in another thread, there's a
> reference to 'Long Day's Journey' in 'Bring On The Night', suggesting
> that all these plot developments should have happened before December.
Very good points.
>>A big
>>undefeatable evil is killing members of a mysterious order. Our heroes
>>seek them out to protect them. The evil thing uses mind control to make
>>the vampire with a soul kill. Really. How do they manage to come up with
>>these things?
>
> Um. Maybe they sit and talk about stuff they'd like to do this season.
Indeed.
> And Angel definitely killed Manny now? Say wha'?
Quite. He may have just conked him out and let the beast in and out. Or
he may not be involved directly. We just don't know.
>>>I hate spoilers. I hate them, hate them, hate them, and I hate that a
>>>few days ago I was spoiled for some fairly massive developments in
>>>season 4 that'll probably last me up to episode 16 or so.
>>
>>I heard that one, too, but it didn't really bother me. Anyway, you would
>>know after having seen this episode *anyway*.
>
> No, I don't think you necessarily have, and no, you really really
> wouldn't. What I'm talking about goes, sadly, far beyond the scope of
> this episode.
Poo.
>>>Uncertainty over who the bad guy really is = rock.
>>
>>Well, it was obvious that it was either Spandexia, Angel or just
>>Guybrush himself (who, after all, can teleport, right?).
>
> Or Connor, remember.
Righto.
> And if the Beast knows Angelus, then who the hell is he, and what the
> hell is he to Angelus?
Yes. What the heck is going on?
>>>Gwen = rock, despite her being Rogue from 'The X-Men' (even down to
>>>the streaky hair).
>>
>>She *must* be a joke on X-Men style superheroines in spandex costumes?
>
> If it is, it's the kinda joke I like.
Indeed. Sexy jokes are good.
> Who needs Faith?
Ahehe....well, they wouldn't do badly to call on her..
>>>Lorne = rock.
>>
>>Lorne is getting intensely annoying. I don't think Angel needs a reason
>>to be brusque with him. "There's other fish in the sea"? What a way to
>>be inappropriate, irrelevant and cliche all in one sentence.
>
> But, let's be honest, also right. Lorne's empathic and understands
> Angel quite well. The bubbling sexual tension thing Angel and Gwen
> have going on is probably entirely predictable, from Lorne's
> perspective.
Indeed.
>>>The Beast has a plan! This = rock.
>>
>>The season finally fulfils the minimum requirements for an arc. Yes,
>>well done!
>
> After the usually-employed number of episodes for the establishment of
> an arc. Go, sarcasm!
Woo! SARCASM!!!
>>>Stevie Wonder = rock.
>>
>>Stevie Wonder?
>
> Did you not watch the teaser, then?
I did, but, erm, that guy isn't all that Stevie Wonder.
>>>Direction of gradual flashbacks being integrated into the final scene
>>>as Cordy realises what's going on = rock.
>>
>>Tired.
>
> Disagree.
Just 'good'. Especially because it wasn't a vision after all. Makes it
interesting. Could've done without the 'I'm not sure it was the past
preset future' spiel. Make it worse ;-)
>>Obsessing over Connor being the answer among them when none of the
>>viewers can be fooled into believing he's in with the evil = suck.
>
> He can be 'the answer', without necessarily being 'in with the evil'.
Quite. He's linked to Angel, after all. And Beasty Boy did show up right
where he was born. And hasn't been trying to kill him all too much.
Plus, ritual in his room.
> Gunn's the only one who thought that. And Gunn, lest we forget, is
> also the only person who, in 'Lullaby' was reminding people that the
> as-yet unborn Connor had the potential to be evil. Gunn's often ready
> to believe the worst, and not afraid to be the voice of doom and
> gloom. He's figured Connor as having potential for evil since before
> the kid was born.
Quite. To be fair, most of what Connor's done sort of justifies the fear.
>>Amy Acker is looking seriously anorectic.
>
> Hmm. 'Anorexic', I believe you mean. She can't be insecure about her
> figure, considering the number of jokes the writers make about her
> being a 'stick'. Same thing tends to evidence that they're not really
> trying to make out that she's some role-model for physical appearance.
Indeed. She's looking like she does in real life, I'll tell you that
much. No thinner.
> But anyway, what's that got to do with the price of hats?
Eh?
Mattia
--
"Too many obsessions to list. My obsessions have obsessions." -
Steve DeKnight
Mattia Valente
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:07:35 +0000, pikelet
> <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>
>>Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:04:49 +0000. I'm in alt.buffy.europe. Gunnar
>>Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> is twanging, all Hoob-like, at me. I calmly
>>say:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:23:17 +0000, pikelet
>>><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
>>>>opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
>>>>The Night'.
>>>
>>>Yeah, spoilers for Buffy up to BotN.
>>
>
> Mild spoiler for upcoming Angel eps (which you'll probably have guessed
> already)
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>take this long. As Niall's noted in another thread, there's a
>>reference to 'Long Day's Journey' in 'Bring On The Night', suggesting
>>that all these plot developments should have happened before December.
>
> Point taken. It's just that I found the S3 arc dull and predictable, and
> the S4 arc up till recently nonsensical and lacking in resonance. So
> it's a relief to experience forward momentum and the plot thickening.
It's down to taste, then. Why are you still downloading if it's not
doing it for you?
>>Um. Maybe they sit and talk about stuff they'd like to do this season.
>
> Maybe they should divide up the ideas then, rather than doing the same
> stuff on both shows.
Eh?
>>And Angel definitely killed Manny now? Say wha'?
>
> Oh. Yeah. I thought that was clear. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions,
> but it seemed to make such perfect sense.
They want you to sort of think that. Or at least consider it.
> Can't remember those guys very well. Also the puppet from "Puppet Show",
> maybe.
Ahehehe.....
>>>Well, it was obvious that it was either Spandexia, Angel or just
>>>Guybrush himself (who, after all, can teleport, right?).
>>
>>Or Connor, remember.
>
> No way.
Could be. Unlikely, but still.
> Perhaps Guybrush and Angelus hatched the whole plan together, complete
> with Connor and all, and Angelus then somehow got the memory of it
> erased (Zaphod Beeblebrox-style). In which case bringing him back isn't
> going to do much good.
Maybe. But you can't really know that.
> How is that supposed to work, anyway? It's my understanding that Angel
> is just Angelus with a soul.
Yep...
> The demon is still within him (see 'The
> Dark Age' or even those stupid Pylea eps). There's no "bringing back",
> it's just the removal of Angel's soul.
It's still bringing him back. Or forth. Because he's not there now.
Since he's ensouled. You're getting far, far too hung up on the wording ;-)
>>Who needs Faith?
>
> Hey! Why shouldn't we get a Rogue Slayer vs. Electro-Shock Girl fight? I
> think we've earned it.
Oo...fair point.
> OK, I should have specified my criticism more. Wasn't there a bit about
> why they haven't killed off Gunn yet, or did I end up not writing that?
I don't believe you wrote that...at least, I don't recall reading it.
>>>Amy Acker is looking seriously anorectic.
>>
>>Hmm. 'Anorexic', I believe you mean.
>
> Yeah, sorry. My foreign origins peeking through there.
Evil...or just foreign.
*mattia looks at his own passports*
....never mind.
>>But anyway, what's that got to do with the price of hats?
>
> I'm just uncomfortable watching all the really skinny girls on TV. It
> always makes me feel worried for them.
Some people are just built like that.
Mattia
--
" Chocolate. Chocolate. Chocolate. Some people make too big a
deal about caramel, when everyone knows it’s, like, fourth in
line behind chocolate, puffed rice and, um, other crunchy
things..." - Drew Z. Greenberg, The Bronze, July 2001
Gunnar Harboe
Because I expect it to be the last season and there are hints of
cross-overs of some kind or another. And the downloading is no big
hassle.
>>>Um. Maybe they sit and talk about stuff they'd like to do this season.
>>
>> Maybe they should divide up the ideas then, rather than doing the same
>> stuff on both shows.
>
>Eh?
Lots of what was going on in this episode was strangely reminiscent of
the current Buffy arc, which was what I sort of hinted in the post
before.
>> Perhaps Guybrush and Angelus hatched the whole plan together, complete
>> with Connor and all, and Angelus then somehow got the memory of it
>> erased (Zaphod Beeblebrox-style). In which case bringing him back isn't
>> going to do much good.
>
>Maybe. But you can't really know that.
No, I'm just speculatin'.
>> How is that supposed to work, anyway? It's my understanding that Angel
>> is just Angelus with a soul.
>
>Yep...
>
> > The demon is still within him (see 'The
>> Dark Age' or even those stupid Pylea eps). There's no "bringing back",
>> it's just the removal of Angel's soul.
>
>It's still bringing him back. Or forth. Because he's not there now.
>Since he's ensouled. You're getting far, far too hung up on the wording ;-)
My point is that Angel has all of Angelus within him. Including
memories, in theory. There's no point "summoning" Angelus in order to
question him. Which is what I get the impression they're planning to do.
>> OK, I should have specified my criticism more. Wasn't there a bit about
>> why they haven't killed off Gunn yet, or did I end up not writing that?
>
>I don't believe you wrote that...at least, I don't recall reading it.
OK, it was going to be something along the lines of "On a show that
prides itself on killing regular and recurring characters, why is Gunn
still alive?"
>> I'm just uncomfortable watching all the really skinny girls on TV. It
>> always makes me feel worried for them.
>
>Some people are just built like that.
And those freaks shouldn't be on television!
Covert Badger
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:07:35 +0000, pikelet
>> <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>
>>>Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:04:49 +0000. I'm in alt.buffy.europe. Gunnar
>>>Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> is twanging, all Hoob-like, at me. I calmly
>>>say:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:23:17 +0000, pikelet
>>>><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
>>>>>opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
>>>>>The Night'.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, spoilers for Buffy up to BotN.
>>>
>>
>> Mild spoiler for upcoming Angel eps (which you'll probably have guessed
>> already)
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>Well, it was obvious that it was either Spandexia, Angel or just
>>>>Guybrush himself (who, after all, can teleport, right?).
>>>
>>>Or Connor, remember.
>>
>> No way.
>
>Could be. Unlikely, but still.
<delurks>
Just to chime in here - the whole apartment (presumably worth a
sizeable chunk of $33m) appears to be designed to Gwen's
specifications, including doors that have no handles and can only be
opened by being zapped with electricity. We get two rather obvious
close shots of Gwen opening doors; once when they first arrive, then
again when she opens the panic room. Assuming it wasn't the beast
teleporting around (which is doubtful since someone went to the
trouble of knocking out the cameras - which of course only Gwen knew
about), how would Angel, or anyone else get to Manny? Gwen is
definitely one of the top suspects.
--
covertbadger@blueOOPS_LOOK_OUT_ITS_A_TRAPyonder.co.uk
Gamer Tag: Covert Badger
We've been bored before, we'll be bored again
Shadows to the wall
Dan Milburn
> Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
> opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
> The Night'.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Manny = rock.
Really? I thought he got very tiresome after about 10 seconds. One
lapdancing joke, I can handle. Two is just unnecessary.
> Uncertainty over who the bad guy really is = rock.
Although they played up the 'possibility' of it being Connor to a
ridiculous extent.
> Gwen = rock, despite her being Rogue from 'The X-Men' (even down to the
> streaky hair).
Mostly. The sexual tension stuff with Angel is kinda lame.
> Lorne = rock.
Well, obviously.
> Sun disappearing = rock.
The problem here is that they can't do this on the scale that it really
needs. The whole of LA having fire rained on it and then having the sun
blotted out? Can you imagine the rioting, the soldiers being sent in?
Their budget certainly can't.
> There being a reason for the Beast destroying W&H after all = rock.
It never occurred to me that there wouldn't be.
> Angel trying to get over Cordy/Connor
Er, when? Sitting in his room brooding and drawing pictures? Remarkably
similar to the methods he used to 'get over' Darla in S2, really.
>, and not becoming a simpering fool
> around Cordy as he always used to with Buffy = rock.
No, just completely ignoring the fact that he's supposedly a 'champion'
(how I hate that word when it's used in this show these days) and there's
a city that needs saving in favour of his own personal problems until this
is forcefully pointed out to him. Twice.
> Connor's cry of 'Dad!' as Angel goes to enter the building, doing its
> bit to remind us that they are father and son and there is a
> relationship there, just like the bit last week when Angel hugged him
> suddenly = rock.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a relationship.
> Direction of gradual flashbacks being integrated into the final scene as
> Cordy realises what's going on = rock.
In an utterly contrived manner.
> The fact that Cordy can remember stuff that Angel can't, yet we're still
> immediately turning to Angelus rather than trying to refresh Cordy's
> memory = little bit of suck.
They'd better have a damn good explanation as to why Angel can't remember,
since a)the whole point of the curse in the first place was that he would
have the memories of everything he'd done as Angelus, and b)it was pointed
out last week that Angel has a photographic memory. And, as Gunnar
pointed out, they'd also better have a damn good explanation as to why
Angel can't remember and Angelus (presumably) can, since everything on
both 'Buffy' and 'Angel' to date suggests that their memories are shared.
> 'As evil plans go, it doesn't suck' = rock.
Class.
Connor being thrown out of a window = rock. Finally a use for the
slo-mo!
Dan
pikelet
>On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:07:35 +0000, pikelet
><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:04:49 +0000. I'm in alt.buffy.europe. Gunnar
>>Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> is twanging, all Hoob-like, at me. I calmly
>>say:
>>>On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:23:17 +0000, pikelet
>>><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>>Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
>>>>opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
>>>>The Night'.
>>>
>>>Yeah, spoilers for Buffy up to BotN.
>
>Mild spoiler for upcoming Angel eps (which you'll probably have guessed
>already)
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>And Angel definitely killed Manny now? Say wha'?
>
>Oh. Yeah. I thought that was clear. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions,
>but it seemed to make such perfect sense.
1) Only Gwen can open the doors. They made a big deal of that.
2) There was blood 'n' guts everywhere, and Angel seemed strangely
clean afterwards, if that's what he'd been up to.
3) The Beast got hold of the orb somehow.
Tim
Tafka
Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:23:17 +0000 in alt.buffy.europe said:
>Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
>opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
>The Night'.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Just the quick comments, probably echoing others:
Connor out of the window? Very good.
The Beast knocking, politely, on the door for Connor to open it and
have big-reveal? Nice.
Lorne's line about "perfect happiness" re: Cordelia at the beginning.
It seemed a little shoe-horned and I thought that, if Angelus is going
to return in any way, then it'd be this way somehow. Possibly setting
it as bait for viewers then having Wes emerging from the shadows
(notice how many times he's done that this episode alone? Always
coming from the shadows, from afar. Still not in the group-loving.
Season of Wes, as nat's said before) to rock with the "bringing
Angelus back" vibes.
Manny was amusing, yes.
Cordelia was annoying, of course.
Jealous and all.
THE WIG! THE WIG! GO WIG! (ahem)
Niall's face when he finally realised that "The Beast" was, in every
way shape & form, better than Holtz & Darla as counters to Angel?
Priceless :)
As Tim said over on ata at the time, he had a massive introduction. An
hellacious second episode and, well, seemingly two days after killing
off the whole (we presume) of W&H LA he puts out the sun. It's just
damn good.
I'm certainly very happy that we've got another 5 (was supposed to be
6, but never mind) weeks of Angel. In a row. Without break.
Good, good good.
-Tafka-
"Just because I [...] did in Doyle, made Kate fatherless,
had Angel eat his own father on camera, slice his sister
off camera, munch on momma on camera, don't mean you can't trust me."
Niall Harrison
> pikelet <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> on
> Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:23:17 +0000 in alt.buffy.europe said:
>>Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
>>opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
>>The Night'.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> Niall's face when he finally realised that "The Beast" was, in every
> way shape & form, better than Holtz & Darla as counters to Angel?
> Priceless :)
It may well be, if it ever happens. But it hasn't happened yet. He's a
good villain. He has victories; that makes him a credible threat. But he
ain't Darla, and he sure as hell ain't Holtz.
Other than that? _Angel_ demonstrating it can kick _Buffy_'s ass in the
arc stakes any day of the week = rock.
Niall
--
When memes collide.
Tafka
in alt.buffy.europe said:
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Tafka wrote:
>> pikelet <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> on
>> Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:23:17 +0000 in alt.buffy.europe said:
>
>>>Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
>>>opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
>>>The Night'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
>> Niall's face when he finally realised that "The Beast" was, in every
>> way shape & form, better than Holtz & Darla as counters to Angel?
>> Priceless :)
>
>It may well be, if it ever happens. But it hasn't happened yet. He's a
>good villain. He has victories; that makes him a credible threat. But he
>ain't Darla, and he sure as hell ain't Holtz.
I knew it'd get you out of your quiet-spell :)
And no-one will ever by as good as Holtz. Well, not unless they kick a
lot of proverbial-ass.
Darla, really, didn't do a lot to the laddie - let's be honest. She
upset him and made him go shades of grey, but what the hell? Some
lawyers died (much more important stuff died due to The
Beast-including lawyers) due to Angel not caring. Wes got shot as AI
went on their merry way. Kate got sacked, OD'd & then recovered. All
good :)
>Other than that? _Angel_ demonstrating it can kick _Buffy_'s ass in the
>arc stakes any day of the week = rock.
Was it ever in doubt? (/me watches Mattia et al step up to say that
Buffy's better... :P)
Gunnar Harboe
<tafka...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> wrote:
>Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> on 25 Jan 2003 00:39:50 GMT
>in alt.buffy.europe said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>Other than that? _Angel_ demonstrating it can kick _Buffy_'s ass in the
>>arc stakes any day of the week = rock.
>
>Was it ever in doubt? (/me watches Mattia et al step up to say that
>Buffy's better... :P)
We don't like to say anything, because when your delusional system
finally breaks down you're going to be a danger to yourself and others.
Ian Shuttleworth
timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips (pikelet) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 'As evil plans go, it doesn't suck' = rock.
And possibly a slightly significant use of the construction. What's the
only other time we've heard it? "Well, that didn't suck" - Lilah in
Wesley's bed, post-shaggage.
--
Ian S.
Ian Shuttleworth
john.b...@ntlworld.com (John Briggs) wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > 'Long Day's Journey'
> > (What is it with these horrible puns/popculture references for episode
> > titles? Make it stop, please!)
> >
> What's pop culture about it? It sounds more like high culture to me,
> which
> is to be applauded, surely?
Yup. Closest Eugene O'Neill's ever got to pop culture is being played by
Jack Nicholson in Warren Beatty's "Reds". Oh, and turning up in the
lyrics to the first Dexy's single.
--
Ian S.
Ian Shuttleworth
> >>anorectic.
> >
> >Hmm. 'Anorexic', I believe you mean.
>
> Yeah, sorry. My foreign origins peeking through there.
Either's valid. As, indeed, is "anoretic". "Anorectic" is a form that
predates the entry of anorexia into mainstream consciousness.
--
Ian S.
John Briggs
news:memo.20030125...@shutters.compulink.co.uk...
How does that differ from "Buffy's timing really doesn't suck", from "When
She Was Bad" (Season 2)?
John Briggs
Tafka
alt.buffy.europe said:
No, really.
Quite how has Buffy been better than Angel when comparing Angel Season
Two-Four (so far) and Buffy Season Five-Seven (so far)?
Buffy might have some nicer touches and, possibly, occasional nifty
character work but for general arcs and the like?
Not a chance.
-Tafka-
You 21st century types are so jaded
Gunnar Harboe
I was talking Buffy S7 vs. Angel S4. And saying Angel's current arc
kicks the ass of Buffy's is just absurd.
Angel S2 was better than Buffy S5, no argument. Buffy S6 didn't really
have a proper arc, but what we got was better than the utter shite of
Angel S3.
Dan Milburn
Maybe not absurd, but it's certainly not better. Actually, Angel is
starting to show signs of promise after a poor start, but then Buffy had
my interest from the very first episode, and although things have slowed
down somewhat, it hasn't wavered all that much.
> Angel S2 was better than Buffy S5, no argument.
Angel S2 = rock. For the most part.
> Buffy S6 didn't really
> have a proper arc, but what we got was better than the utter shite of
> Angel S3.
Angel S3 had periods where it was utterly fantastic. I think that WITW
through to Forgiving is possibly the best run of episodes either show's
ever done. And then it got poor.
Dan
Tafka
alt.buffy.europe said:
>On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:33:25 +0000, Tafka
><tafka...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> wrote:
>>Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> on Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:51:18 +0000 in
>>alt.buffy.europe said:
>>>On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:24:11 +0000, Tafka
>>><tafka...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> wrote:
>>>>Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> on 25 Jan 2003 00:39:50 GMT
>>>>in alt.buffy.europe said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>Other than that? _Angel_ demonstrating it can kick _Buffy_'s ass in the
>>>>>arc stakes any day of the week = rock.
>>>>
>>>>Was it ever in doubt? (/me watches Mattia et al step up to say that
>>>>Buffy's better... :P)
>>>
>>>We don't like to say anything, because when your delusional system
>>>finally breaks down you're going to be a danger to yourself and others.
>>
>>No, really.
>>
>>Quite how has Buffy been better than Angel when comparing Angel Season
>>Two-Four (so far) and Buffy Season Five-Seven (so far)?
>>
>>Buffy might have some nicer touches and, possibly, occasional nifty
>>character work but for general arcs and the like?
>>
>>Not a chance.
>
>I was talking Buffy S7 vs. Angel S4. And saying Angel's current arc
>kicks the ass of Buffy's is just absurd.
And I was talking as per Niall's statement that Angel is better at
arcs than Buffy. And has been, consistently.
>Angel S2 was better than Buffy S5, no argument. Buffy S6 didn't really
>have a proper arc, but what we got was better than the utter shite of
>Angel S3.
Buffy S6 was pants.
As Dan says, WITW-Forgiving was brilliant (bar "Couplet") and the
November sweeps, quite frankly, wiped the floor with Buffy's - OMWF or
no OMWF.
-Tafka-
"I meant to say, he's my favoritest character since Doyle."
"That's it, Angel's eating it." - Tim Minear
Dave Emberton
message news:7hvr2v8httrn4hcgc...@4ax.com...
> opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
> The Night'.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
found it's feet in S4.
> Gwen = rock, despite her being Rogue from 'The X-Men' (even down to
> the streaky hair).
When Gwen first appeared at the hotel doorway, did anybody else think "Yaay!
It's Faith!". I did, then realised it actually wasn't.
> Lorne = rock.
As always.
No Lilah = definitely not rock.
> Sun disappearing = rock.
Yeah, but how does the sun disappear in LA for long enough for all the evil
things to take control, and then spread outwards? Surely it's going to be
covering a bigger area than that - are we going to see perpetual darkness in
Sunnydale from now on?
> Angel trying to get over Cordy/Connor, and not becoming a simpering
> fool around Cordy as he always used to with Buffy = rock.
Must admit this was handled well. I've always thought the Cordy/Connor
relationship was only there to make the Cordy/Angel relationship seem less
totally unbelievable.
> 'In Loving Memory of Glenn Quinn' = 'nuff said.
Indeed.
Dave
Niall Harrison
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:33:25 +0000, Tafka
> <tafka...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> wrote:
>>Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> on Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:51:18 +0000 in
>>alt.buffy.europe said:
>>>On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:24:11 +0000, Tafka
>>><tafka...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> wrote:
>>>>Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> on 25 Jan 2003 00:39:50 GMT
>>>>in alt.buffy.europe said:
General spoilers for _Buffy_ up to 7x11 and _Angel_ through 4x09.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>Buffy might have some nicer touches and, possibly, occasional nifty
>>character work but for general arcs and the like?
>>
>>Not a chance.
>
> I was talking Buffy S7 vs. Angel S4. And saying Angel's current arc
> kicks the ass of Buffy's is just absurd.
_Buffy_ doesn't have an arc. _Buffy_ has repetition: Of 'from beneath you,
it devours', of Spike torture, of attacks on the Summers' house, of fights
with the Ubervamp, of Principal Wood acting suspiciously. If you're lucky,
you might get one of those plots advanced incrementally in an episode. On
the other hand, you might have the Giles situation.
_Buffy_'s big bad appeared in episode one, and after eleven episodes (I
haven't seen 7x12 yet), we *still* only know vague outlines of its plan.
_Angel_'s big bad popped up three episodes ago, and we have a good idea
why it's here, and what it's trying to do. The plot can move on to
something else, a new place, rather than retreading the same ground.
_Buffy_ has areas in which it beats _Angel_. But arc plotting ain't one of
them. Not even close.
Niall Harrison
> "pikelet" <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote in
> message news:7hvr2v8httrn4hcgc...@4ax.com...
>> Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
>> opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
>> The Night'.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Angel trying to get over Cordy/Connor, and not becoming a simpering
>> fool around Cordy as he always used to with Buffy = rock.
>
> Must admit this was handled well. I've always thought the Cordy/Connor
> relationship was only there to make the Cordy/Angel relationship seem less
> totally unbelievable.
Cordy and Connor happened so that nobody had a reason to call Cordy a
saint any longer.
Niall
--
A little charm and a lot of style.
Gunnar Harboe
Once out of four is hardly consistent.
>>Angel S2 was better than Buffy S5, no argument. Buffy S6 didn't really
>>have a proper arc, but what we got was better than the utter shite of
>>Angel S3.
>
>Buffy S6 was pants.
It really wasn't. There were a number of horrible episodes ('Hell's
Bells'), and it was rarely if ever great, but mostly it was pretty good.
>As Dan says, WITW-Forgiving was brilliant (bar "Couplet") and the
>November sweeps, quite frankly, wiped the floor with Buffy's - OMWF or
>no OMWF.
Pssssh! I had no time for WitW ("Oooh! Scary ballet-master man"), and
the "will Angel kill Connor?" arc never had me interested. It was too
obvious, too visibly constructed as a means to mess up the characters.
And did anyone *not* know instantly when Holtz jumped through the portal
that Connor would soon be back, all grown up?
I don't think there was a single week last year when I enjoyed 'Angel'
more than 'Buffy'. Maybe the first few episodes. However, I found the
trio funny and Holtz lame, so once each show had established its
arch-nemesiseses, 'Angel' had no chance.
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:33:25 +0000, Tafka
>> <tafka...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> wrote:
>>>Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> on Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:51:18 +0000 in
>>>alt.buffy.europe said:
>>>>On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:24:11 +0000, Tafka
>>>><tafka...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> wrote:
>>>>>Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> on 25 Jan 2003 00:39:50 GMT
>>>>>in alt.buffy.europe said:
>
>General spoilers for _Buffy_ up to 7x11 and _Angel_ through 4x09.
>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>Buffy might have some nicer touches and, possibly, occasional nifty
>>>character work but for general arcs and the like?
>>>
>>>Not a chance.
>>
>> I was talking Buffy S7 vs. Angel S4. And saying Angel's current arc
>> kicks the ass of Buffy's is just absurd.
>
>_Buffy_ doesn't have an arc. _Buffy_ has repetition: Of 'from beneath you,
>it devours', of Spike torture, of attacks on the Summers' house, of fights
>with the Ubervamp, of Principal Wood acting suspiciously. If you're lucky,
>you might get one of those plots advanced incrementally in an episode. On
>the other hand, you might have the Giles situation.
>
>_Buffy_'s big bad appeared in episode one, and after eleven episodes (I
>haven't seen 7x12 yet), we *still* only know vague outlines of its plan.
Y'see, I *like* that. I enjoy the tension, the guessing, the not having
a good idea what's going on. The perfect arc, IMO, would be established
in episode 1 and revealed in the season finale. Take the arc of Babylon
5, for example. It was what, S3? before it was finally revealed what it
was all about. *That's* a real arc.
>_Angel_'s big bad popped up three episodes ago, and we have a good idea
>why it's here, and what it's trying to do. The plot can move on to
>something else, a new place, rather than retreading the same ground.
And by just rushing along with the plot it fails to create sufficient
tension. The only real buildup we got was a somewhat ridiculous vision
and Lorne failing at being the least bit ominous, even when quoting
Yeats.
John Briggs
news:10435378...@urchin.earth.li...
Don't be absurd. Cordy/Connor happened because Charisma Carpenter is
pregnant, and it had to be worked into the plot somehow!
John Briggs
Niall Harrison
> On 25 Jan 2003 23:35:25 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:33:25 +0000, Tafka
>>> <tafka...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> wrote:
>>>>Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> on Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:51:18 +0000 in
>>>>alt.buffy.europe said:
>>>>>On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:24:11 +0000, Tafka
>>>>><tafka...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> wrote:
>>>>>>Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> on 25 Jan 2003 00:39:50 GMT
>>>>>>in alt.buffy.europe said:
>>
>>General spoilers for _Buffy_ up to 7x11 and _Angel_ through 4x09.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>> I was talking Buffy S7 vs. Angel S4. And saying Angel's current arc
>>> kicks the ass of Buffy's is just absurd.
>>
>>_Buffy_ doesn't have an arc. _Buffy_ has repetition: Of 'from beneath you,
>>it devours', of Spike torture, of attacks on the Summers' house, of fights
>>with the Ubervamp, of Principal Wood acting suspiciously. If you're lucky,
>>you might get one of those plots advanced incrementally in an episode. On
>>the other hand, you might have the Giles situation.
>>
>>_Buffy_'s big bad appeared in episode one, and after eleven episodes (I
>>haven't seen 7x12 yet), we *still* only know vague outlines of its plan.
>
> Y'see, I *like* that. I enjoy the tension, the guessing, the not having
> a good idea what's going on. The perfect arc, IMO, would be established
> in episode 1 and revealed in the season finale. Take the arc of Babylon
> 5, for example. It was what, S3? before it was finally revealed what it
> was all about. *That's* a real arc.
Only if something happens in the meantime. Arc is not "establish point A,
have 20 episodes of filler, then establish point B". Arc is the journey
between those points, and for the past four episodes, _Buffy_ has just
been going round and round in circles. OK, maybe a spiral, since there
has been *some* progression, but not much.
_Angel_ has progression, but it still has the ongoing questions. What's up
with Connor, for instance. It's just that _Angel_ doesn't just reiterate
the questions, it develops them. As did B5.
>>_Angel_'s big bad popped up three episodes ago, and we have a good idea
>>why it's here, and what it's trying to do. The plot can move on to
>>something else, a new place, rather than retreading the same ground.
>
> And by just rushing along with the plot it fails to create sufficient
> tension. The only real buildup we got was a somewhat ridiculous vision
> and Lorne failing at being the least bit ominous, even when quoting
> Yeats.
*shrug*. In your opinion. I thought Lorne in STB was vaguely ominous, more
so in StB. On the other hand, since I'd guessed from 'Lessons' that the
First was killing potential slayers, waiting 11 episodes to find out that
I'd been right hasn't done a whole lot for me.
Niall
--
Hope's the child of what luck brings.
Dave Emberton
news:wDFY9.3884$RZ.3...@newsfep4-win.server.ntli.net...
I suspect John is totally right about that. Angel couldn't father another
child, so somebody had to do the deed with Cordelia.
Dave
Ian Shuttleworth
john.b...@ntlworld.com (John Briggs) wrote:
> How does that differ from "Buffy's timing really doesn't suck", from
> "When She Was Bad" (Season 2)?
In the crucial sense that, er, I'd forgotten that one. Sorry.
But the point remains within the character context in which I made it.
--
Ian S.
Niall Harrison
> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>> On 25 Jan 2003 23:35:25 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:33:25 +0000, Tafka
>>>> <tafka...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> wrote:
>>>>>Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> on Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:51:18 +0000 in
>>>>>alt.buffy.europe said:
>>>>>>On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:24:11 +0000, Tafka
>>>>>><tafka...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> on 25 Jan 2003 00:39:50 GMT
>>>>>>>in alt.buffy.europe said:
>>>
>>>General spoilers for _Buffy_ up to 7x11 and _Angel_ through 4x09.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>> I was talking Buffy S7 vs. Angel S4. And saying Angel's current arc
>>>> kicks the ass of Buffy's is just absurd.
[...]
>>>_Buffy_'s big bad appeared in episode one, and after eleven episodes (I
>>>haven't seen 7x12 yet), we *still* only know vague outlines of its plan.
>>
>> Y'see, I *like* that. I enjoy the tension, the guessing, the not having
>> a good idea what's going on. The perfect arc, IMO, would be established
>> in episode 1 and revealed in the season finale.
[...]
> Only if something happens in the meantime.
Something has been niggling me about this pacing issue and I realised what
it is: Even if _Buffy_'s plot was whipping along at a blistering pace, to
a certain extent that wouldn't matter. We all know that the big, final
showdown isn't going to happen until 7x22; to a certain extent,
*anything* between now and then is filler.
(Note: *to a certain extent*. Of *course* there's interest in standalones,
character arcs, everything else; but 'the tension, the guessing, the not
having a good idea what's going on' won't be resolved until the last few
episodes, and knowing that in advance makes the proceedings a lot less
tense.)
On _Angel_, I don't know when the final showdown is going to take place.
Hands up - who thinks we'll be seeing a climactic battle with the Beast in
the season finale?
Didn't think so.
OK, so given Wes' remark at the end of 4x09, who thinks we'll be seeing
_Angel_'s take on 'Becoming' at the end of the season?
Didn't think so on that one, either.
_Angel_'s climaxes are mid-season. That normally means episode 16, except
when it means 15 or 17. This year, things are even more unpredictable due
to the shuffling of the airing schedule. Right now, I go into every
episode wondering if maybe this time, they'll beat the Beast. 4x09 was
meant to be the last episode of sweeps. 4x10 is The December Episode,
traditionally a time for Big Things. Normally, I'd have to say that if
he's survived 4x10 then he'll be around for at least another four episodes
because he has to be there for february sweeps - but this year, we don't
know at what point the writers knew february sweeps would be shifting. The
Beast could be dead in ep 11, at the start of february sweeps. Or he could
team up with Angelus and go on a rampage through episode 15.
Any of these possibilities, and plenty of others besides, could happen; I
haven't even touched on the plot possibilities if 'the answer is within
you' turns out to be a double-bluff and ends up pointing to Connor after
all (or even (gasp!) Cordelia, given that we still don't know what
happened up on high). Or maybe this year, they'll change the structure and
go for a season-ending climax after all. That's what generates tension for
me; not the having of questions unanswered, but not knowing when the
answers will be forthcoming.
Iain Clark
wrote:
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Tafka wrote:
So the point of this post was really to go "Ha! My show's got a
better arc than your show?" ;-P
I'm still enjoying both. Buffy's arc has definitely spluttered a bit
in the last couple of weeks, but I've yet to be convinced that it's
had its arse kicked.
If anything it's weird because the arcs are superficially so similar,
but going in such different directions.
Iain
--
"You've contracted American dreams..."
Iain Clark
wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:05:56 +0100, Mattia Valente
><mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:07:35 +0000, pikelet
>>> <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>>Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:04:49 +0000. I'm in alt.buffy.europe. Gunnar
>>>>Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> is twanging, all Hoob-like, at me. I calmly
>>>>say:
>>>>>On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:23:17 +0000, pikelet
>>>>><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
>>>>>>opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
>>>>>>The Night'.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, spoilers for Buffy up to BotN.
>>>
>>> Mild spoiler for upcoming Angel eps (which you'll probably have guessed
>>> already)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>My point is that Angel has all of Angelus within him. Including
>memories, in theory. There's no point "summoning" Angelus in order to
>question him. Which is what I get the impression they're planning to do.
>
I'd agree, if they hadn't made a big deal about how Angel should have
remembered the beast, but didn't. Clearly there's a reason.
From what we saw here I'm betting Angelus made a deal with the demon,
which in some way is the reason that Angel can't remember the
incident.
Speculation space
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
I'm even wondering if the deal might have had something to do with his
firstborn son....
Iain
--
JOSH: "I drink from the keg of glory, Donna. Bring me
the finest muffins and bagels in all the land."
DONNA: "It's going to be an unbearable day."
Gunnar Harboe
I agree with that, but it still doesn't mean Angelus would remember it.
"Perhaps Guybrush and Angelus hatched the whole plan together, complete
with Connor and all, and Angelus then somehow got the memory of it
erased (Zaphod Beeblebrox-style)."
pikelet
I like the ZB explanation, but I also like the idea that Cordy's
memories are implanted ones that never actually happened. What if the
Beast just made her 'remember' stuff like that?
The more I think about it, the more this all seems like a set-up to
get Angel under suspicion, and quite possibly to get Angelus to reveal
himself again. A carefully crafted plan, rather than 'a big cosmic
oops'.
Tim.
Niall Harrison
> On 25 Jan 2003 00:39:50 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Tafka wrote:
>>> pikelet <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> on
>>> Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:23:17 +0000 in alt.buffy.europe said:
>>
>>>>Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
>>>>opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
>>>>The Night'.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>> Niall's face when he finally realised that "The Beast" was, in every
>>> way shape & form, better than Holtz & Darla as counters to Angel?
>>> Priceless :)
>>
>>It may well be, if it ever happens. But it hasn't happened yet. He's a
>>good villain. He has victories; that makes him a credible threat. But he
>>ain't Darla, and he sure as hell ain't Holtz.
>>
>>Other than that? _Angel_ demonstrating it can kick _Buffy_'s ass in the
>>arc stakes any day of the week = rock.
>
> So the point of this post was really to go "Ha! My show's got a
> better arc than your show?" ;-P
Yep. :-D
It's odd, because I find myself in the position anyone enjoying S6 must
have been in last year. _Angel_'s getting such a kicking from fandom at
large, and I don't understand it. Well, apart from the end of 'Apocalypse,
Nowish' I don't understand it. :)
So I feel the need to redress the balance a little.
> I'm still enjoying both. Buffy's arc has definitely spluttered a bit
> in the last couple of weeks, but I've yet to be convinced that it's
> had its arse kicked.
Standalones, it's ahead by miles; _Angel_ hasn't had a really decent
standalone this season, except maybe 'Spin the Bottle'. And actually, I
liked 'Potential'. It was just the four episode arc interlude, from
'Sleeper' through 'Showtime', that I wasn't impressed with.
> If anything it's weird because the arcs are superficially so similar,
> but going in such different directions.
Indeed. I came across an intriguing maybe-spoiler along these lines today.
It'll be *very* interesting if it turns out to be true.
For those who are interested, it's a detail about something that probably
happens to a returning character in 4x12 or 4x13.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The rumour is that Faith gets broken out of jail by Bringers...
Linda
"pikelet" <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote in
message news:msab3v0g63cqqmaee...@4ax.com...
> Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:10:12 +0000. I'm in alt.buffy.europe. Gunnar
> Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> is twanging, all Hoob-like, at me. I calmly
> say:
> memories are implanted ones that never actually happened. What if the
> Beast just made her 'remember' stuff like that?
This is an idea that I hadn't heard before. Implanted memories by the PTB or the
Beast. One of my theories is that it isn't even Cordy that returned but an evil
clone, doppelganger or whatever. If it is Evil!Cordy, she could outright be
lying.
>
> The more I think about it, the more this all seems like a set-up to
> get Angel under suspicion, and quite possibly to get Angelus to reveal
> himself again. A carefully crafted plan, rather than 'a big cosmic
> oops'.
They need Angelus for something and this is one way to trick Angel into losing
his soul on purpose? I like it.
--
Best Regards,
Linda
Mmmmmm...Angel
Angela Powell
"Niall Harrison" <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:10436644...@urchin.earth.li...
pikelet
<li...@DELETESPAMsusieword.com> is twanging, all Hoob-like, at me. I
calmly say:
I've heard the Evil!Cordy and Fake!Cordy things before, but that just
sucks to my mind. It's a cop-out the likes of which I'd hope ME
wouldn't stoop to. Cordy seems to be acting far too genuinely, even
when there's nobody around to really keep an eye on her.
>> The more I think about it, the more this all seems like a set-up to
>> get Angel under suspicion, and quite possibly to get Angelus to reveal
>> himself again. A carefully crafted plan, rather than 'a big cosmic
>> oops'.
>
>They need Angelus for something and this is one way to trick Angel into losing
>his soul on purpose? I like it.
Precisely. Sounds a bit more appealing to me than the Fake!Cordy
storyline, anyway.
Tim.
Mattia Valente
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:55:00 +0000, Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:33:25 +0000, Tafka
>><tafka...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> on Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:51:18 +0000 in
>>>alt.buffy.europe said:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:24:11 +0000, Tafka
>>>><tafka...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> on 25 Jan 2003 00:39:50 GMT
>>>>>in alt.buffy.europe said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>kicks the ass of Buffy's is just absurd.
>
> Maybe not absurd, but it's certainly not better. Actually, Angel is
> starting to show signs of promise after a poor start, but then Buffy had
> my interest from the very first episode, and although things have slowed
> down somewhat, it hasn't wavered all that much.
Well, quite.
Frankly, this week was the first time the arc, the show, the season at
large really 'clicked' for me. Sllloooowwww start. Buffy S7, OTOH, while
it's busy stalling around a bit now, is rather bitchin' and has been
pretty consistent.
>>Angel S2 was better than Buffy S5, no argument.
>
> Angel S2 = rock. For the most part.
Mostly, yes. But then, I'm firmly in the Buffy S5 = rock camp myself. So
I won't say one arc was better than the other. I mean, Reprise/Epiphany
= pure genius, but what we got after that was almost wholly mediocre.
>>Buffy S6 didn't really
>>have a proper arc, but what we got was better than the utter shite of
>>Angel S3.
>
> Angel S3 had periods where it was utterly fantastic. I think that WITW
> through to Forgiving is possibly the best run of episodes either show's
> ever done. And then it got poor.
Well, I'm all for admitting S3 Angel wiped the floor with S6 Buffy, in
big arc terms.
And to go back further a minute, S1 vs S4....tough call now. At the time
I would've said Angel, all the way, no doubts. Now I don't really know
so much. Mostly because I've tempered my 'S4 is shit' attitude vis a vis
Buffy a little..
Mattia
--
"My beagle went swimming today and now he's typing on my
keyboard with his ample nose. Oh, and he's the bestest
handsomeest beagle EVER." -Tim Minear, Salon.com, May 2001
Mattia Valente
> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dave Emberton wrote:
>
>>"pikelet" <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote in
>>message news:7hvr2v8httrn4hcgc...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>Very brief comments follow spoilerspace. Also very brief mention of my
>>>opinion on 'Buffy' 7.12, and minor teensy-weensy mention of 'Bring On
>>>The Night'.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> saint any longer.
..which solves f*ck all in terms of previous character assasination,
mind you. Besides, she's preggers. Charisma Carpenter, I mean.
Mattia
--
"I wield only the power of death. Not syndication." - Tim Minear
Tafka
+0100 in alt.buffy.europe said:
>And to go back further a minute, S1 vs S4....tough call now. At the time
>I would've said Angel, all the way, no doubts. Now I don't really know
>so much. Mostly because I've tempered my 'S4 is shit' attitude vis a vis
>Buffy a little..
I didn't include Season One of Angel for the purpose that it would
require, in essence, a comparison with Buffy S1.
In effect it was a "new" show which needed the MOTW in order to
introduce everyone and ensure that people felt the need to watch
Angel.
Just my take.
-Tafka-
"I wouldn't let an actor hold my beagle. You may quote me."