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 Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

RATT: Buffy 7ABB10 - Bring on the Night [SPOILERS]

5 views

Skip to first unread message

Mattia Valente

unread,

Dec 16, 2002, 1:43:51 PM12/16/02

Dum de dum..

Can you tell I'm cramming really hard for an exam this friday? Well? can
you?

ahem.

SPOILERS Buffy 7ABB10 - Bring on the Night
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hmmm.

That was, in fact, quite rockin', from a tension building, and
exposition time p.o.v., but it's frustratingly 'argh! dammit! WHAT THE
HECK IS GOING ON HERE?!?!?' sort of way. It's all rather 'oooh, cool',
but as far as story goes, it's a continuation of what we had before,
there's little to no closure on some stuff, and, well, um, ARGH! I don't
WANT to wait another 2 weeks for the next ep! ARGH!

Right. So did I like it? Mixed. Parts of me are all 'hell yeah!'
because, well, coooool; other parts are 'well, it was decent, but not
really thrillingly awesome'. Comments on bits and pieces in random order
follow.

* Our Ubervamp who has a species name I've forgotten already. Whoa.
Cool. So he's playing minion, and he's a good bit stronger than anything
we've seen before. By a fairly wide margin. Stakes no good, doesn't like
sunlight, but beat Buffy into a bloody pulp. Vampires have species.
That's just....nifty. Am I the only one who's hoping he sired Annabelle?

* Spike and the First: takes on Dru's form. It's trying to win him over
with the image of the other woman he loved. Spike is being all noble and
clinging to Buffy's belief in him. Gotta say, these were the weakest
parts of the ep, and one of the weakest Spike segments this season. I
mean, yay, Druness, but, umm...not quite working for me.

Oh, and getting beaten up by ME guy. Question, though: What the hell was
that drowning all about? He's a VAMPIRE. Why the hell should that be
bothering him? WHY? To annoy him a little?

* Andrew: Tee hee. Xander geek bonding. Besides that, good for a
geek-related laugh here and there, but not much more. Did I miss the
scene where someone explained the whole 'that wasn't warren, that was an
evil thing tricking you' bit to Andrew? Or, erm...y'know.

* Willow: whoa, that freaked me. Cool, though. I do believe that's the
same visual we saw in 'Amends'. Most good. Can't use her magic, though.

* ME Guy: Is damn strong. And violent. Pulpy Internal Bleeding Buffy. I
did really like the fight choerography, though, I must say. And is it
still the same guy who played one of the gentlemen and Gnarl? I think
so...Also, I was kind of amused by the 'finding the cave' thing. Again
by falling through a hole. Tee hee.

* Principal Wood: is clearly not as he seems. I don't know if I'll say
he's evil, but his cryptic 'once you've seen evil, you can't look at
things the same way' thing, his little laugh when he says 'mysteries',
and his all-round...creepy factor. Cooool. I like.

* Slayers in Waiting: Woo! Slayers in Waiting! So we were right. Which
was, well, pretty much clear. One's dead already, one chatters a lot,
and one has the hots for Willow (apparently. Tee hee. Willow doesn't
seem immune, for that matter..) Some interesting scenes.

* Giles: OK. I'm worried. Very worried. We started the flashback again,
and I thought 'oh, ok, we get to find out how he got saved'. But nooo. I
cannot think of one moment where we see him touch anything, open
anything, touch anyone. Ever. Not once. Not to help Buffy out of a hole
in the ground. Not a single hug. Nowhere. And one of his slayerettes had
the books. That he supposedly broke in and stole (right before
Boomtasticness. The CoW thought it was the bringers, but, well, this
might be kosher..) I hope they're just messing with us.

* Final scene: rather good. But, um, eh? I really don't know where we're
going from here. OK, so we're heading towards endgame, but right now
we're all just busy getting scared of scheming on the part of the FE,
and ME Guy's indestrucibility and brute strength. Admittedly, Buffy
looks worse off than after facing a normal vamp without her powers
(Helpless) but...Hmm. It's rather bitchin' though.

The ep's not great, on it's own. It's setup, done well mostly,
following...setup. So we're getting quite a bit of that. We got some
reveals last time. This time, we're left hanging, wondering what the
heck's gonna come next. And worried and intruiged in equal measures.

For the record, I'm still loving this season. Just hating waiting for
new eps.

Mattia
--
"It's low stress and the only place I get called "fucking," and
that's always funny." - Tim Minear, on why uk.media.tv.angel is
such a great place

Shuggie

unread,

Dec 16, 2002, 2:15:00 PM12/16/02

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:43:51 +0100, Mattia Valente
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:

>Dum de dum..
>
>Can you tell I'm cramming really hard for an exam this friday? Well? can
>you?
>
>ahem.
>

I think, for your own good of course, you should immediately send me
your copy of this episode.

--
Shug

Buttercup: You mock my pain!
Westley: Life is pain, Highness! Anyone who says differently is
selling something.

pikelet

unread,

Dec 16, 2002, 3:08:43 PM12/16/02

Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:43:51 +0100. I'm in alt.buffy.europe. Mattia
Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> is twanging, all Hoob-like, at me. I
calmly say:

To be honest, I thought it was the first really 'so-so' episode of the
season to date.

Three proto-slayers, one of which fancies Willow, or at least flirts a
little with her. The other two, of course, have shit accents. One of
them sounds like she's straight from the Van Dyke School of Mockney,
the other sounds like she's not sure whether to be Australian or not.

Typically, they leave the one with the 'Gor blimey lawks a mercy
guv'NAH' accent in the show, whilst killing off the other, slightly
less dodgy accented one.

Buffy and Giles don't make physical contact *once*? Also, Giles
throwing in his 'can only take the form of dead people' infodump on
the First might well be significant.

Principal Wood's being groomed to be a baddy, so I'm guessing he's
not. Though possibly a pawn of some kind.

They mention Faith. They're blatantly going to bust her out of jail.

All that talk about deepest darkest fears and all that - we saw
Willow's, with her turning evil again briefly and endangering
everyone. Buffy's is a vampire she can't fight. What's anybody else's?

Should feel epic. But feels like 'Quickening' without the humour. And
with more cheesy speeches.

Ho hum.

Tim.

--
Boom biddy boom biddy boom biddy boom biddy boom
biddy boom biddy boom boom boom.

sparhawk

unread,

Dec 16, 2002, 3:55:37 PM12/16/02

its worse than when the snooker is on...

> Right. So did I like it? Mixed. Parts of me are all 'hell yeah!'
> because, well, coooool; other parts are 'well, it was decent, but not
> really thrillingly awesome'. Comments on bits and pieces in random
> order follow.
>
> * Our Ubervamp who has a species name I've forgotten already. Whoa.
> Cool. So he's playing minion, and he's a good bit stronger than
> anything we've seen before. By a fairly wide margin. Stakes no good,
> doesn't like sunlight, but beat Buffy into a bloody pulp. Vampires
> have species. That's just....nifty. Am I the only one who's hoping he
> sired Annabelle?

scary bloke, reminded me of the Master in Salems Lot

> * Spike and the First: takes on Dru's form. It's trying to win him
> over with the image of the other woman he loved. Spike is being all
> noble and clinging to Buffy's belief in him. Gotta say, these were
> the weakest parts of the ep, and one of the weakest Spike segments
> this season. I mean, yay, Druness, but, umm...not quite working for
> me.
>
> Oh, and getting beaten up by ME guy. Question, though: What the hell
> was that drowning all about? He's a VAMPIRE. Why the hell should that
> be bothering him? WHY? To annoy him a little?

I quite liked it when Spike told "Dru" why he wouldnt join her side

> * Andrew: Tee hee. Xander geek bonding. Besides that, good for a
> geek-related laugh here and there, but not much more. Did I miss the
> scene where someone explained the whole 'that wasn't warren, that was
> an evil thing tricking you' bit to Andrew? Or, erm...y'know.

I thought it had been mentioned to him an ep or two ago, but I have a bad
memory and could well be wrong

> * Willow: whoa, that freaked me. Cool, though. I do believe that's the
> same visual we saw in 'Amends'. Most good. Can't use her magic,
> though.
>
> * ME Guy: Is damn strong. And violent. Pulpy Internal Bleeding Buffy.
> I did really like the fight choerography, though, I must say. And is
> it still the same guy who played one of the gentlemen and Gnarl? I
> think so...Also, I was kind of amused by the 'finding the cave'
> thing. Again by falling through a hole. Tee hee.

hehehe

just knew he was gonna be there tho as soon as she fell down

> * Principal Wood: is clearly not as he seems. I don't know if I'll say
> he's evil, but his cryptic 'once you've seen evil, you can't look at
> things the same way' thing, his little laugh when he says 'mysteries',
> and his all-round...creepy factor. Cooool. I like.
>
> * Slayers in Waiting: Woo! Slayers in Waiting! So we were right. Which
> was, well, pretty much clear. One's dead already, one chatters a lot,
> and one has the hots for Willow (apparently. Tee hee. Willow doesn't
> seem immune, for that matter..) Some interesting scenes.

annoying accents tho, glad they didnt say all that much

> * Giles: OK. I'm worried. Very worried. We started the flashback
> again, and I thought 'oh, ok, we get to find out how he got saved'.
> But nooo. I cannot think of one moment where we see him touch
> anything, open anything, touch anyone. Ever. Not once. Not to help
> Buffy out of a hole in the ground. Not a single hug. Nowhere. And one
> of his slayerettes had the books. That he supposedly broke in and
> stole (right before Boomtasticness. The CoW thought it was the
> bringers, but, well, this might be kosher..) I hope they're just
> messing with us.

I thought that was very weak, the whole I robbed em thing

> * Final scene: rather good. But, um, eh? I really don't know where
> we're going from here. OK, so we're heading towards endgame, but
> right now we're all just busy getting scared of scheming on the part
> of the FE, and ME Guy's indestrucibility and brute strength.
> Admittedly, Buffy looks worse off than after facing a normal vamp
> without her powers (Helpless) but...Hmm. It's rather bitchin' though.

indeed, the build up to the speech reminded me of what happened when she had
to face Angelus on her own for some reason, probably coz of the earlier
scene with Willow when she said she wished she could do something to help
but couldnt etc

> The ep's not great, on it's own. It's setup, done well mostly,
> following...setup. So we're getting quite a bit of that. We got some
> reveals last time. This time, we're left hanging, wondering what the
> heck's gonna come next. And worried and intruiged in equal measures.
>
> For the record, I'm still loving this season. Just hating waiting for
> new eps.

yeah, why did they have to put Christmas in the middle of the season,
inconsiderate I call it... :)

Mattia Valente

unread,

Dec 16, 2002, 4:27:50 PM12/16/02

In some ways it was, probably mainly because it lacks any real form of
cohesion, and doesn't quite have the theme going strong enough to pull
it out of it's rut. It's not bad, but it's definitely a case of 'whee,
nifty, now lets get the hell on with it and tell the story!'

For the first ep with Giles in it, for example, it wasn't terribly
convincing.

> Three proto-slayers, one of which fancies Willow, or at least flirts a
> little with her.

The look on her (Willow's) face is absolutely priceless. I wonder if
Giles told the gals about Willow's sexual orientation..

> The other two, of course, have shit accents. One of

Ah, yes.

> them sounds like she's straight from the Van Dyke School of Mockney,

Well, which can be sorta kinda fun.

> the other sounds like she's not sure whether to be Australian or not.

This would be the dead one. Who's accent I really really couldn't place
at all. Or rather, couldn't figure out what she was trying to be.

> Typically, they leave the one with the 'Gor blimey lawks a mercy
> guv'NAH' accent in the show, whilst killing off the other, slightly
> less dodgy accented one.

\o/

Well, it was pretty bad. Problem is, this dodgy accented character has
been sketched as a 'blabbermouth'. Oh. Dear.

> Buffy and Giles don't make physical contact *once*? Also, Giles

They don't, do they?

> throwing in his 'can only take the form of dead people' infodump on
> the First might well be significant.

I'm just hoping it's not.

> Principal Wood's being groomed to be a baddy, so I'm guessing he's
> not. Though possibly a pawn of some kind.

Possibly. Or something else entirely. He's an enigma, and I really think
there's more there than meets the eye. That's for sure.

> They mention Faith. They're blatantly going to bust her out of jail.

Hey, why not? It'll annoy Saskia to no end, though...

> All that talk about deepest darkest fears and all that - we saw
> Willow's, with her turning evil again briefly and endangering
> everyone.

Cool scene, though, wasn't it?

> Buffy's is a vampire she can't fight. What's anybody else's?

Dunno, really. We didn't really get anything much at all out of Dawn,
Xander, Anya or, well, anyone else. Oh, and there's Mother Dearest in
Buffy's dreams. Prophetic, or otherwise?

> Should feel epic. But feels like 'Quickening' without the humour. And
> with more cheesy speeches.

It would feel epic if it had real punch beyond showing us what may come.
Spike's scenes were, as I said, downright dissapointing. And this from
Petrie (although, possibly, Noxon wrote those. Hmm. I thought she was
too busy to write stuff, dammit..), mr. 'Fool for Love'. As it is, it's
too smeared out, for lack of a better word.

> Ho hum.

Righty-o.

3 weeks until the next one. But there's hols in the middle there, so
we'll live. Oh, and this week's Firefly? Class. May post about that
later, in a further procrastinatory bout.

Mattia
--
''I don't want to create responsible shows with lawyers in them.
I want to invade people's dreams.'' - Joss Whedon

Mattia Valente

unread,

Dec 16, 2002, 4:28:29 PM12/16/02

Shuggie wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:43:51 +0100, Mattia Valente
> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>Dum de dum..
>>Can you tell I'm cramming really hard for an exam this friday? Well? can
>>you?
>>
>>ahem.
>
> I think, for your own good of course, you should immediately send me
> your copy of this episode.

Erm, uh...no time.

*ahem*

Mattia
--
"It's all Shakespeare's fault. The rat bastard." - Joss Whedon

Gunnar Harboe

unread,

Dec 16, 2002, 4:46:11 PM12/16/02

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:43:51 +0100, Mattia Valente
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:

Oh God! It's the Night of the Dodgy English Accents. Even Giles sounded
a bit off, which is odd, coz he's, you know, actually English. And old.
He looked old.

Same goes for Drusilla. Five years down the road, she isn't pulling off
the "immortal vampire" thing. And talking about actresses who've decline
(over on UMTB), Juliet Landau really isn't all that she used to be, is
she? Now, since she was never exactly Academy material in the first
place, what the hell are they bringing her back for?

Which bit?
Oh, actually. I liked the bringing back of Joyce. It would be nice if
Buffy could remember that she's the First (right? I'm suddenly thinking
that her appearing in dreams is slightly different from how the First
has manifested itself before. Maybe there's still a chance that Joyce is
the real thing? Doubt it, though), I like the notion of two enemies who
still talk to each other like mother and daughter.

And Buffy & the Scoobies are still on their amazing competence streak.
Not sitting around, stalling and waiting for the apocalypse? What a
stunning idea! Does this mean Willow gets to be kidnapped again? Or is
Joss's new principle "when in doubt, put Spike in danger"? (More like
"when in doubt, torture Spike".)

>* Our Ubervamp who has a species name I've forgotten already. Whoa.
>Cool. So he's playing minion, and he's a good bit stronger than anything
>we've seen before. By a fairly wide margin. Stakes no good, doesn't like
>sunlight, but beat Buffy into a bloody pulp. Vampires have species.
>That's just....nifty. Am I the only one who's hoping he sired Annabelle?

They decided not enough people were accusing them of ripping off
Jackson's Uruk-Hai, so they named the Ubervamp Turok-Han?

So they're going with the most boring option on the Ubervamp front. Just
yet another demon species, albeit a strong one. What was wrong with the
"pure vampire" and "demon who created vampires" suggestions made on
these ngs?

>Oh, and getting beaten up by ME guy. Question, though: What the hell was
>that drowning all about? He's a VAMPIRE. Why the hell should that be
>bothering him? WHY? To annoy him a little?

It's not like vampires can survive indefinitely under water or anything.
... Oh, wait...

>* Andrew: Tee hee. Xander geek bonding. Besides that, good for a
>geek-related laugh here and there, but not much more. Did I miss the
>scene where someone explained the whole 'that wasn't warren, that was an
>evil thing tricking you' bit to Andrew? Or, erm...y'know.

Andrew is nearly as pointless in this episode as Anya is. She actually
had lines? I must have missed it when I blinked. (That makes minimal
sense, I know.)

>* Slayers in Waiting: Woo! Slayers in Waiting! So we were right. Which
>was, well, pretty much clear. One's dead already, one chatters a lot,
>and one has the hots for Willow (apparently. Tee hee. Willow doesn't
>seem immune, for that matter..) Some interesting scenes.

She looks vaguely like a young Jenny Calendar in some scenes, too. Jenny
was last seen as the First in 'Amends', of course. Hey! If that's really
Giles, it'd be nice if they could bring her back. Robia LaMorte
apparently turned fundamentalist Christian, but maybe by now she's found
that some compromises are necessary to survive as an actress in
Hollywood. I seem to remember something about her appearing at a Buffy
convention recently..

>* Giles: OK. I'm worried. Very worried. We started the flashback again,
>and I thought 'oh, ok, we get to find out how he got saved'. But nooo. I
>cannot think of one moment where we see him touch anything, open
>anything, touch anyone. Ever. Not once. Not to help Buffy out of a hole
>in the ground. Not a single hug. Nowhere. And one of his slayerettes had
>the books. That he supposedly broke in and stole (right before
>Boomtasticness. The CoW thought it was the bringers, but, well, this
>might be kosher..) I hope they're just messing with us.

I didn't think he was dead after 'Sleeper', but now I'm having doubts.
Him not touching anything was *painfully* obvious throughout the
episode, as well as saying creepy stuff to Buffy. Hmmm... Maybe they
*are* just messing.

If this is the last season, I wouldn't necessarily mind him dying. And
after all, it's almost traditional now to kill off a major character
every year.

In conclusion: No, this really wasn't all that good. Let's have more
Ultimate Drew, 'swhat I say.

Mattia Valente

unread,

Dec 16, 2002, 5:10:22 PM12/16/02

Giles just seemed a bit 'off'. Standoffish. Distant. Not non-english, so
much.

> Same goes for Drusilla. Five years down the road, she isn't pulling off
> the "immortal vampire" thing.

Nah, she's doing fine..

> And talking about actresses who've decline
> (over on UMTB), Juliet Landau really isn't all that she used to be, is
> she? Now, since she was never exactly Academy material in the first
> place, what the hell are they bringing her back for?

Eh? Well, frankly, this Dru stuff was wasted here. I love the character,
I love what she can bring to the screen, to an episode, but here,
facsimilie Dru only served to underline that, well, Spike a) knows it's
not her and b) really doesn't care an awful lot any more. The scenes
were just dull. Could've done without them. Bit of 'oh, and now back to
the First, who's annoying Spike and having her pet vampire smack him
around and fake-drown him. Again' feel.

>>Hmmm.
>>
>>That was, in fact, quite rockin', from a tension building, and
>>exposition time p.o.v., but it's frustratingly 'argh! dammit! WHAT THE
>>HECK IS GOING ON HERE?!?!?' sort of way. It's all rather 'oooh, cool',
>
> Which bit?

Several. Finally introducing Slayers: TNG, Giles back, and a big strong
vamp and your good fun possesed!Willow sequence. There's a sense of
danger building.

> Oh, actually. I liked the bringing back of Joyce. It would be nice if
> Buffy could remember that she's the First (right? I'm suddenly thinking
> that her appearing in dreams is slightly different from how the First
> has manifested itself before. Maybe there's still a chance that Joyce is
> the real thing? Doubt it, though),

Don't think it's the first. I'm doubting that more and more. Might be
the real deal, but it might also just be the eternal mystery that is
Buffy's Brain.

> I like the notion of two enemies who
> still talk to each other like mother and daughter.

Heh. Well, maybe. It's not that there was much bad advice being given.

> And Buffy & the Scoobies are still on their amazing competence streak.
> Not sitting around, stalling and waiting for the apocalypse? What a
> stunning idea!

Well, competence...not incompetence, for a change. Thing is, I'm not
sure what the heck Buffy means to do, exactly.

> Does this mean Willow gets to be kidnapped again? Or is
> Joss's new principle "when in doubt, put Spike in danger"? (More like
> "when in doubt, torture Spike".)

'cept that doesn't work so well. Because those scenes just didn't work.
Because Spike's always the beaten up one. If you're gonna torture the
bloke, at least make it MEAN something. It's just Noxon, putting
Shirtless Spike on screen again, I fear. Or maybe I'm being too cynical.

>>* Our Ubervamp who has a species name I've forgotten already. Whoa.
>>Cool. So he's playing minion, and he's a good bit stronger than anything
>>we've seen before. By a fairly wide margin. Stakes no good, doesn't like
>>sunlight, but beat Buffy into a bloody pulp. Vampires have species.
>>That's just....nifty. Am I the only one who's hoping he sired Annabelle?
>
> They decided not enough people were accusing them of ripping off
> Jackson's Uruk-Hai,

Eh? To me, it STILL looks more like the ME guy. Hadn't actually
connected him with Jackson's Orc designs. Still don't see a terribly
striking resemblance, frankly. Look to old style horror movie vampires,
and you get closer, I think.

> so they named the Ubervamp Turok-Han?

Well, not so much a PJ 'ripoff' as a Tolkien one..but I'm waiting to see
the shooting script, for proper spelling.

> So they're going with the most boring option on the Ubervamp front. Just
> yet another demon species, albeit a strong one. What was wrong with the
> "pure vampire" and "demon who created vampires" suggestions made on
> these ngs?

Dunno. But then, I don't know where Joss wants to go with this. I'm
intruiged enough with this, frankly, and I don't know that I'd call it a
terribly 'boring' route, per se. At least he's not making with the
punning wisecracks.

>>Oh, and getting beaten up by ME guy. Question, though: What the hell was
>>that drowning all about? He's a VAMPIRE. Why the hell should that be
>>bothering him? WHY? To annoy him a little?
>
> It's not like vampires can survive indefinitely under water or anything.

....

> ... Oh, wait...

:-p

>>* Andrew: Tee hee. Xander geek bonding. Besides that, good for a
>>geek-related laugh here and there, but not much more. Did I miss the
>>scene where someone explained the whole 'that wasn't warren, that was an
>>evil thing tricking you' bit to Andrew? Or, erm...y'know.
>
> Andrew is nearly as pointless in this episode as Anya is. She actually
> had lines? I must have missed it when I blinked. (That makes minimal
> sense, I know.)

Quite. Well, Anya's lines were all a) strange and not terribly funny and
b) involving torture and mayhem and evil as sexy. Something like that.
Sort of like Dawn's lines, really. At least Andrew's interaction raised
a few smiles here.

>>* Slayers in Waiting: Woo! Slayers in Waiting! So we were right. Which
>>was, well, pretty much clear. One's dead already, one chatters a lot,
>>and one has the hots for Willow (apparently. Tee hee. Willow doesn't
>>seem immune, for that matter..) Some interesting scenes.
>
> She looks vaguely like a young Jenny Calendar in some scenes, too. Jenny
> was last seen as the First in 'Amends', of course. Hey! If that's really
> Giles, it'd be nice if they could bring her back. Robia LaMorte
> apparently turned fundamentalist Christian, but maybe by now she's found
> that some compromises are necessary to survive as an actress in
> Hollywood. I seem to remember something about her appearing at a Buffy
> convention recently..

Yes, she'll be at S3 Events' 'The Harvest' con. I don't really think
we'll see her come back, though. Wouldn't mind it, mind you, but I don't
really know what purpose she'd fulfill, beyond bringing everyone back
from every season ever for some grand finale. Or something.

>>* Giles: OK. I'm worried. Very worried. We started the flashback again,
>>and I thought 'oh, ok, we get to find out how he got saved'. But nooo. I
>>cannot think of one moment where we see him touch anything, open
>>anything, touch anyone. Ever. Not once. Not to help Buffy out of a hole
>>in the ground. Not a single hug. Nowhere. And one of his slayerettes had
>>the books. That he supposedly broke in and stole (right before
>>Boomtasticness. The CoW thought it was the bringers, but, well, this
>>might be kosher..) I hope they're just messing with us.
>
> I didn't think he was dead after 'Sleeper', but now I'm having doubts.

Well, quite.

> Him not touching anything was *painfully* obvious throughout the
> episode, as well as saying creepy stuff to Buffy. Hmmm... Maybe they
> *are* just messing.

And his rather...unreadable expression in reaction to all the plans.
Can't tell if he's worried, annoyed, please, what. Confusing.

> If this is the last season, I wouldn't necessarily mind him dying. And
> after all, it's almost traditional now to kill off a major character
> every year.

Well, but...but...Ripper! It was supposed to be set AFTER Buffy! Hoom,
in any event. How did 'it' fool the Slayers: TNG if Giles is dead?
Projection across half the globe, blah blah blah? Hmmm..

> In conclusion: No, this really wasn't all that good. Let's have more
> Ultimate Drew, 'swhat I say.

All in favor?

Gotcha.

Mattia
--
"Every time people say, 'You've transcended the genre,' I'm
like: No! I believe in genre.'' - Joss Whedon

Gunnar Harboe

unread,

Dec 16, 2002, 6:30:43 PM12/16/02

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 23:10:22 +0100, Mattia Valente

There's a line when Buffy falls down the hole. "Lord, are you alright?"
Sounds odd. Might be Tony's real accent showing through the one he puts
on for the benefit of the Americans.

> > And talking about actresses who've decline
>> (over on UMTB), Juliet Landau really isn't all that she used to be, is
>> she? Now, since she was never exactly Academy material in the first
>> place, what the hell are they bringing her back for?
>
>Eh? Well, frankly, this Dru stuff was wasted here. I love the character,
>I love what she can bring to the screen, to an episode,

Juliet did well in S2. She hasn't been any good in any of her
reappearances since then. Either she or the writers have lost the feel
for the character.

>>>It's all rather 'oooh, cool',
>>
>> Which bit?
>
>Several. Finally introducing Slayers: TNG,

Well, they're all pretty useless so far, and not very interesting as
characters, either.

> Giles back,

It's always good to have ASH on the show, but I didn't find his return
"cool". It'll be cool when they use Giles for something cool on the
show.

Also, with the amount of initiative and capability the scoobies have
displayed this term, I think he's finally become slightly redundant.

> and a big strong
>vamp

We got that last episode. This week it was more like "see that cool
vampire from last episode? He's exactly like every other monster on
Buffy ever".

> and your good fun possesed!Willow sequence.

Meh.
You know, until I read your post I'd completely forgotten about that.
Not really a memorable moment.

> There's a sense of
>danger building.

Hmmm... I've had that sense since at least CwDP, and I felt this week
was more about deflating that threat. The only things that were vaguely
unnerving were Joyce and Giles.

>> Oh, actually. I liked the bringing back of Joyce. It would be nice if
>> Buffy could remember that she's the First (right? I'm suddenly thinking
>> that her appearing in dreams is slightly different from how the First
>> has manifested itself before. Maybe there's still a chance that Joyce is
>> the real thing? Doubt it, though),
>
>Don't think it's the first. I'm doubting that more and more. Might be
>the real deal, but it might also just be the eternal mystery that is
>Buffy's Brain.

But then that couldn't have been what appeared to Dawn. I'm inclined to
believe that what Dawn saw is what Buffy is seeing, whether that is the
First or Joyce.

> > I like the notion of two enemies who
>> still talk to each other like mother and daughter.
>
>Heh. Well, maybe. It's not that there was much bad advice being given.

Joyce seemed to councel despair. Not a very positive message.

> > Does this mean Willow gets to be kidnapped again? Or is
>> Joss's new principle "when in doubt, put Spike in danger"? (More like
>> "when in doubt, torture Spike".)
>
>'cept that doesn't work so well. Because those scenes just didn't work.
>Because Spike's always the beaten up one.

Yeah, that's what I said. "Torture Spike" has become as much a staple of
the show as "put Willow in danger" used to be.

>> They decided not enough people were accusing them of ripping off
>> Jackson's Uruk-Hai,
>
>Eh? To me, it STILL looks more like the ME guy.

Clearly it's Mr Grr Argh.

> Hadn't actually
>connected him with Jackson's Orc designs. Still don't see a terribly
>striking resemblance, frankly. Look to old style horror movie vampires,
>and you get closer, I think.

I wasn't talking about the monster design.

>Dunno. But then, I don't know where Joss wants to go with this. I'm
>intruiged enough with this, frankly, and I don't know that I'd call it a
>terribly 'boring' route, per se. At least he's not making with the
>punning wisecracks.

A neanderthal vampire? No, I'll go out on a limb and say that's
definitely boring. Nor does it explain why he wasn't dusted. Did Buffy
miss his heart? If so, what's to stop her from just being more accurate
next time?

>Yes, she'll be at S3 Events' 'The Harvest' con. I don't really think
>we'll see her come back, though. Wouldn't mind it, mind you, but I don't
>really know what purpose she'd fulfill, beyond bringing everyone back
>from every season ever for some grand finale. Or something.

If Giles should get a visitation from the First, who better than Jenny?

Maybe Randall.

...

Y'all remember Randall, right?

The guy Giles, Ethan and the others killed when they attempted to
exorcise Eyghon, back in the Ripper days ("Giles: The Hellblazer
Years").

Or Ben.

>> If this is the last season, I wouldn't necessarily mind him dying. And
>> after all, it's almost traditional now to kill off a major character
>> every year.
>
>Well, but...but...Ripper! It was supposed to be set AFTER Buffy! Hoom,

TBH, I don't think it's gonna happen anyway.

>in any event. How did 'it' fool the Slayers: TNG if Giles is dead?
>Projection across half the globe, blah blah blah? Hmmm..

The Harbingers were in London. They killed Robson, maybe Giles, probably
blew up the Watchers' Council. They could handle whatever amount of
chanting required (which seems to be rather less than in S3, anyway).

OTOH, there's only so long you can get away with being immaterial
without anyone noticing. What did First!Giles do with his plane ticket?

No, it doesn't actually make sense, assuming the off-screen reality of
the show (it happened but we didn't see it). I wish I could be confident
the writers respect that.

Dave Emberton

unread,

Dec 16, 2002, 7:41:30 PM12/16/02

"Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:3DFE1EE7...@std.vu.nl...

Ooooo.

> * Willow: whoa, that freaked me. Cool, though. I do believe that's the
> same visual we saw in 'Amends'. Most good. Can't use her magic, though.

I suppose they had to have something that explained why Willow with enough
power to destroy the world couldn't just kill the Ubervamp and banish The
First in one wave of her hand.

> * ME Guy: Is damn strong. And violent. Pulpy Internal Bleeding Buffy. I
> did really like the fight choerography, though, I must say. And is it
> still the same guy who played one of the gentlemen and Gnarl? I think
> so...Also, I was kind of amused by the 'finding the cave' thing. Again
> by falling through a hole. Tee hee.

It's the same who played Gnarl, and you may be right about being one of The
Gentlemen. Great fight scene as you say.

> * Slayers in Waiting: Woo! Slayers in Waiting! So we were right. Which
> was, well, pretty much clear. One's dead already, one chatters a lot,
> and one has the hots for Willow (apparently. Tee hee. Willow doesn't
> seem immune, for that matter..) Some interesting scenes.

Yes, but all of a sudden Kendra's accent seems believable ;-)

> * Giles: OK. I'm worried. Very worried. We started the flashback again,
> and I thought 'oh, ok, we get to find out how he got saved'. But nooo. I
> cannot think of one moment where we see him touch anything, open
> anything, touch anyone. Ever. Not once. Not to help Buffy out of a hole
> in the ground. Not a single hug. Nowhere. And one of his slayerettes had
> the books. That he supposedly broke in and stole (right before
> Boomtasticness. The CoW thought it was the bringers, but, well, this
> might be kosher..) I hope they're just messing with us.

Okay, now you've got me worried. I hadn't honestly thought of this, but I
know exactly what you mean, and the reference to M Night Shaylaman in this
ep could almost confirm it to be true. Now that would be a good twist.

> * Final scene: rather good. But, um, eh? I really don't know where we're
> going from here. OK, so we're heading towards endgame, but right now
> we're all just busy getting scared of scheming on the part of the FE,
> and ME Guy's indestrucibility and brute strength. Admittedly, Buffy
> looks worse off than after facing a normal vamp without her powers
> (Helpless) but...Hmm. It's rather bitchin' though.

I didn't like Buffy's speech at the end so much. She said "any questions?",
to which the obvious question was "how, exactly?" Who are they going to
attack? They can attack the harbingers, but they're probably scattered
around the world and I'm not sure that would help too much. And we know that
none of them would stand a chance against the Ubervamp, and the First itself
isn't really a thing that can be fought with weapons.

There's a line somewhere where Giles (I think) said something about Buffy
being the only one with the strength to fight the evil, etc. etc. But as we
know, there's someone else with Slayer strength. Name began with an "F"?
Obviously she's on her way one way or another, but given the circumstances
you'd think breaking Faith out of gaol would be number one priority. Two
slayers effectively doubles their chances, as long as Faith could be trusted
not to switch sides that is.

> For the record, I'm still loving this season. Just hating waiting for
> new eps.

It's been a long wait the last few weeks for sure. One thing that really
strikes me after this ep is that it's only episode 10 of 22. In S5, we saw a
run of 5 arc episodes at the end, are we about to see 15? Probably not, but
it's going to be a bit naff if the evil just goes away for a couple of weeks
whilst we have a few MOTW stories. But if they don't do this then they run
the risk (like "24") of being so convuluted that by the end nobody can
remember what happened at the start.

Dave

George van Hal

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 3:21:13 AM12/17/02

Mattia Valente wrote:
> Dum de dum..

Dum de dum indeed. It's a new ep discussion in abe and I can actually
participate. Wooo!

> Can you tell I'm cramming really hard for an exam this friday? Well? can
> you?

Can you tell I should actually be sleeping? I woke up this morning at a
quarter to seven, couldn't sleep, decided to get up, burn me this
episode and watch. And now I'm in here posting about it. Had all of four
hours of sleep or something. Hope I don't break down during the day,
'cause I have lots of stuff to do ;-)

> ahem.

Indeed. Up, up and away with the posting...

Hmmm?

> That was, in fact, quite rockin',

"quite rockin'"? "QUITE ROCKIN'?" I was jumping up and down in the room
(and that on 4 hours of sleep) after this ep ended going "THAT WAS SO
FUCKING COOL!!!" I was yelling at the screen at various points too. I
mean, this is Buffy the way I love it. Story-arc goodness, laughs,
excitement, interesting developments. It's just so very very COOL.

I swear, M. You've become overly contained over the past few seasons.
It's the lack of discussion with the old crowd, I tell ya...

>from a tension building, and
> exposition time p.o.v., but it's frustratingly 'argh! dammit! WHAT THE
> HECK IS GOING ON HERE?!?!?' sort of way. It's all rather 'oooh, cool',
> but as far as story goes, it's a continuation of what we had before,
> there's little to no closure on some stuff, and, well, um, ARGH! I don't
> WANT to wait another 2 weeks for the next ep! ARGH!

See, this is what Joss and co. are going for. That 'ARGH, give me the
next ep NOW!" feeling. And it's working. For me at least. Sure, there's
no real single-ep contained storyline. But I say, all the better for it.
Who needs single-ep contained storylines? I surely don't. Please make
this season one big-ass single storyline, without any filler or annoying
major storyline distracting sidestories. This is probably gonna be the
last season (can't realy see it going any other way after watching this
episode, this is going to be the kind of closure Buffy deserves) and the
less filler, the less MotW, the less single ep stories, the better for it.

Also, 'closure', way overrated. That's instant gratification stuff.
Sure, there needs to be some closure, some closing off, but this is ep
*10* for crying out loud. Give us set-up. Please.

> Right. So did I like it? Mixed. Parts of me are all 'hell yeah!'
> because, well, coooool; other parts are 'well, it was decent, but not
> really thrillingly awesome'.

Right. Well, I was pretty much blown away. It was all good in my book.
Buffy hasn't been this incredible since, well, ever. Possibly. I mean,
last season we had a serious lack of major sweeping events. I missed the
urgency, I missed our characters being sweeped (there's that word again)
up in events bigger than themselves.

Hell, something I've always complained about was the lack of mytholgy on
the show. We had some pretty incredible storylines. Just see the Angelus
arc in season 2, or the Glory arc in season 5 for instance. It was
always good when our characters had an emotional investment in the big
bad. But we never had the feeling that any of it realy happened from a
point of necessity. Even Glory got more threatening when they pulled in
the personal through Dawn, Tara and Spike.

Now this, on the other hand, is major mythology centered goodness. And
that speech at the end. Wow. Chills down my spine. Those were the words
we've been waiting to hear from Buffy since, well, season 1. No more
reacting, no more waiting, but a full-out frontol attack. The fanboy in
me squeeled with absolute delight..

> Comments on bits and pieces in random order
> follow.

Checksters...

[Übervamp]

> Am I the only one who's hoping he sired Annabelle?

Well, possibly. I mean, two of those things? Might become unbeatable and
thus a tad unrealistic if people survive. So perhaps, I'm thinking, it
might be best if it didn't happen.

> * Spike and the First: takes on Dru's form. It's trying to win him over
> with the image of the other woman he loved. Spike is being all noble and
> clinging to Buffy's belief in him. Gotta say, these were the weakest
> parts of the ep, and one of the weakest Spike segments this season. I
> mean, yay, Druness, but, umm...not quite working for me.

Why? I mean, it worked as a theme. This episode showed the contradiction
between good and evil. Buffy on the one hand, the FE on the other. That
was the whole point. And I think that to make Spike choose between that
good and evil in the form of Buffy, the women he currently loves and
Drusilla the women he used to love was, well, pretty much working all
the way.

> Oh, and getting beaten up by ME guy. Question, though: What the hell was
> that drowning all about? He's a VAMPIRE. Why the hell should that be
> bothering him? WHY? To annoy him a little?

Um, oh, I dunno. Torture? I mean, he can survive, there was no intention
to kill spike. But there must be some drowning sensation. We know that
vampires can inhale and exhale air and so they can probably feel the
drowning sensation, or the filling of lungs with water at least. Must
not be pleasant, methinks.

> * Andrew: Tee hee. Xander geek bonding. Besides that, good for a
> geek-related laugh here and there, but not much more. Did I miss the
> scene where someone explained the whole 'that wasn't warren, that was an
> evil thing tricking you' bit to Andrew? Or, erm...y'know.

Hehe, well, that might have happened ofscreen. Or not. He might've known
all along. I dunno. They sorta do need to explain that a bit more.

Although, gotta say: as comic relief in a stressfull situation? Andrew
is pretty much spot-on. I love the tension relieving comedy, like we had
in early Buffy. That's so much better than the
comedy-because-people-expect-it-from-Buffy stuff we had in the past. And
hey, they made a comment about it.

Also: Anyone else being realy pleased with the way Buffy leading, how we
see bits and pieces of her old self from back in season one in those
slayer in waiting girls? It shows you the development that Buffy has
gone through perfectly. And I still think her friends have been
intrumental in that.

> * Willow: whoa, that freaked me. Cool, though. I do believe that's the
> same visual we saw in 'Amends'. Most good. Can't use her magic, though.

Uhuh, a little bit weak on the visual effects side, though. But very
cool nontheless. Although it seems like a bit weak way to make Willow
less powerfull in the coming apocalypse. Maybe they don't have enough
money to do a lot of Powerfull Wicca[tm] spell like effects. I hope they
get Willow back in the game. She should be able to help.

Although, on the other hand, as far as going back to basics, going back
to the origin of Buffy, is concerned there might be something to say for
just the slayers.

Oh, btw, now I come to think about it: Why hasn't anyone tried to get
Faith into the game? Or, for that matter, Angel and the gang. All is
going wonky in Sunnydale and it doesn't make sense for them to just
ignore another powerfull factor for good. I understand that there can't
be any crossovers as far as having Angel show up on Buffy, but they
should at least deal with it...

That was most good, yes.

Oh, yes, I totally loved that scene to bits. I mean, wow. WTH is going
on with that guy. I am most intrigued...

> * Slayers in Waiting: Woo! Slayers in Waiting! So we were right. Which
> was, well, pretty much clear. One's dead already, one chatters a lot,
> and one has the hots for Willow (apparently. Tee hee. Willow doesn't
> seem immune, for that matter..) Some interesting scenes.

Oh, and, on the "gee I am shallow side", those slayers in waiting were
cute and stuff. Rock on cuteness on Buffy... ;-)

> * Giles: OK. I'm worried. Very worried. We started the flashback again,
> and I thought 'oh, ok, we get to find out how he got saved'. But nooo. I
> cannot think of one moment where we see him touch anything, open
> anything, touch anyone. Ever. Not once. Not to help Buffy out of a hole
> in the ground. Not a single hug. Nowhere. And one of his slayerettes had
> the books. That he supposedly broke in and stole (right before
> Boomtasticness. The CoW thought it was the bringers, but, well, this
> might be kosher..) I hope they're just messing with us.

Uhuh. It'd totally suck if this Giles was a manifestation of the FE. I
also wouldn't realy buy it. We know the FE can act, but we saw some
genuine emotion on the part of Giles during that last speech.I hope
they don't ruin that moment for me ;-)

"Rather bitchin'" again? It was incredibly cool. Honestly. I mean, it
was so very very Buffy, it just feels so incredibly *right*, I mean, I
can see someone not appreciating it without the extensive background
knowlegde, but stuff like this, speeches like that, they don't just
happen on Buffy. The writers don't just make characters say stuff
because it sounds cool. This has Meaning[tm]. It's a major turning point
in the way Buffy deals with, well, anything. They're an army now, taking
the initiative. The only thing more powerfull than evil is Them[tm]. I
mean, wow.

Buffy was kicked to a bloody pulp and yet she has only just started.
With Glory she got desperate, not knowing how to beat her. Now she has
reason to be desperate and she isn't. And you know what, I believe her.
I totally do.

So, who cares if the ep is confined? Like I stated before, you should not
judge an episode on that. It's something which I've never understood.

My conclusion would be:

So, this was possibly the best episode of Buffy season seven thus far.
And seeing the material we've had in this season, that's realy saying
something. Buffy has returned to form, has gone back to basics and I'm
loving every single moment of it. Bring on the Night indeed.

> For the record, I'm still loving this season. Just hating waiting for
> new eps.

Hey, who doesn't ;-)

See Ya,
George
Who's now gonna read the rest of this thread ;-)

George van Hal

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 4:05:06 AM12/17/02

Dave Emberton wrote:

> I didn't like Buffy's speech at the end so much. She said "any questions?",
> to which the obvious question was "how, exactly?" Who are they going to
> attack? They can attack the harbingers, but they're probably scattered
> around the world and I'm not sure that would help too much. And we know that
> none of them would stand a chance against the Ubervamp, and the First itself
> isn't really a thing that can be fought with weapons.

Oh, yes, that's very much a question that needs awnsering. I don't quite
see how this is gonna work either. But we saw a dose of serious
conviction on Buffy's side, so you can bet somethings gonna happen.

Plus, when we look at this from a Viewerverse[tm] point of view, we can
say this: Since this is gonna be the last season, you can bet your
horses that the writers have thought about this one. Going out with a
bang. Like I said, Buffy isn't the show to go with delivering a big-ass
speech just because it sounds cool. They follow through on it.

And just because I can't quite see how it's gonna work right now,
doesn't mean it's not gonna rock ass. I am kinda surprised to see all
the negative comments on this episode in this group. We used to be such
a positive bunch. Except in season four, ofcourse. But I guess that was
before my long-ass absense because of that broken computer.

It seems like everyone is being
"critical-for-the-sake-of-being-critical" (this is a general observation
and perhaps not so much true for the post to which I'm currently
replying). The accents aren't convincing? Right, big deal. There's a
lack of contained storyline? All the better for it, give me some more.
You can't quite see where the writers are going with something? All the
better for it, it's called unpredicatbility, people. That's a *positive*
trait.

Now if it turns out the writers didn't think it through, if it turns out
they're gonna screw this "take the initiative" thing up, if they can't
make it believable, let's please *then* whine and moan about that. We've
had 6.5 seasons of very good tv, with only a few downpoints (season four
and some bits of season 6 come to mind), so I think the writers of
these shows have earned our trust. Let's place the default position on
our expectencies to "positive" and critizise something to death when it
actually *sucks*, or when there's reason to.

> There's a line somewhere where Giles (I think) said something about Buffy
> being the only one with the strength to fight the evil, etc. etc. But as we
> know, there's someone else with Slayer strength. Name began with an "F"?
> Obviously she's on her way one way or another, but given the circumstances
> you'd think breaking Faith out of gaol would be number one priority. Two
> slayers effectively doubles their chances, as long as Faith could be trusted
> not to switch sides that is.

Yes, that's something that bothered me as well. They did mention Faith,
but they never mentioned bringing her in. Or Angel for that matter. All
we got on the "we need muscle" front was a mention of Spike. That just
doesn't gel. We can't ignore all the backstory, and we know that Buff
and co. know how to find Angel. So why the wait? I just don't get it...

> It's been a long wait the last few weeks for sure. One thing that really
> strikes me after this ep is that it's only episode 10 of 22. In S5, we saw a
> run of 5 arc episodes at the end, are we about to see 15? Probably not, but
> it's going to be a bit naff if the evil just goes away for a couple of weeks
> whilst we have a few MOTW stories. But if they don't do this then they run
> the risk (like "24") of being so convuluted that by the end nobody can
> remember what happened at the start.

Complicated huge-ass storylines are a plus. As long as it keeps making
sense and as long as the writing is good. "24" was a perfect example of
a great show, done well. Ok, I have yet to see the last 8 episodes of
season one, so they might've gone and screwed things up in those for all
I know, but mostly I'm a big fan of big storylines. It's something that
I've always loved about Buffy as well. The large storyline goodness.
Especially when it's as interesting as this one.

Basically I haven't enjoyed myself with Buffy as much as this since a
looong while. It's just great.

See Ya,
George

Mattia Valente

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 4:06:10 AM12/17/02

Mwah...

> Juliet did well in S2. She hasn't been any good in any of her
> reappearances since then. Either she or the writers have lost the feel
> for the character.

That, my friend, is balls.

>>Several. Finally introducing Slayers: TNG,
>
> Well, they're all pretty useless so far, and not very interesting as
> characters, either.

That's the point. They're potentials in a lot of ways: they might get
interesting, but they haven't gotten the chance too. Too early to call
'not very interesting'.

>>Giles back,
>
> It's always good to have ASH on the show, but I didn't find his return
> "cool". It'll be cool when they use Giles for something cool on the
> show.

He doesn't have to do 'cool' things; my issue is the not clearing up of
the what the heck is going on with Giles question.

> Also, with the amount of initiative and capability the scoobies have
> displayed this term, I think he's finally become slightly redundant.

Not that they were getting anywhere, for the most part. But, well, no,
redundant he isn't. Yet.

>>and a big strong
>>vamp
>
> We got that last episode.

Not so much.

> This week it was more like "see that cool
> vampire from last episode? He's exactly like every other monster on
> Buffy ever".

Only....not. He's not the most original beasite ever, but that's not the
challenge here. It's effective use of what is there, and that's what we
were given.

>>and your good fun possesed!Willow sequence.
>
> Meh.
> You know, until I read your post I'd completely forgotten about that.
> Not really a memorable moment.

You're a strange man..

>>There's a sense of danger building.
>
> Hmmm... I've had that sense since at least CwDP, and I felt this week
> was more about deflating that threat. The only things that were vaguely
> unnerving were Joyce and Giles.

Not from our PoV; CwDP is more about creating a mood. That builds
tension. Uncertainty. This is about establishing (or rather, trying to
establish; they didn't do it very well) actual threat beyond words.

>>Don't think it's the first. I'm doubting that more and more. Might be
>>the real deal, but it might also just be the eternal mystery that is
>>Buffy's Brain.
>
> But then that couldn't have been what appeared to Dawn. I'm inclined to
> believe that what Dawn saw is what Buffy is seeing, whether that is the
> First or Joyce.

Why, though?

>>>I like the notion of two enemies who
>>>still talk to each other like mother and daughter.
>>
>>Heh. Well, maybe. It's not that there was much bad advice being given.
>
> Joyce seemed to councel despair. Not a very positive message.

It was all rather vague, for me.

>>'cept that doesn't work so well. Because those scenes just didn't work.
>>Because Spike's always the beaten up one.
>
> Yeah, that's what I said. "Torture Spike" has become as much a staple of
> the show as "put Willow in danger" used to be.

But 'put Willow in Danger' still worked better.

>>Eh? To me, it STILL looks more like the ME guy.
>
> Clearly it's Mr Grr Argh.

Indeed.

>>Dunno. But then, I don't know where Joss wants to go with this. I'm
>>intruiged enough with this, frankly, and I don't know that I'd call it a
>>terribly 'boring' route, per se. At least he's not making with the
>>punning wisecracks.
>
> A neanderthal vampire? No, I'll go out on a limb and say that's
> definitely boring.

Why? Because he's 'just' strong? Besides, the point is, the big bad here
has a minion that's stronger, physically, than anyone since Glory.

> Nor does it explain why he wasn't dusted. Did Buffy
> miss his heart? If so, what's to stop her from just being more accurate
> next time?

Who says the same rules apply? Besides, puny little stake wasn't enough
for Kakistos, and he wasn't anywhere near as old as this one.

>>Yes, she'll be at S3 Events' 'The Harvest' con. I don't really think
>>we'll see her come back, though. Wouldn't mind it, mind you, but I don't
>>really know what purpose she'd fulfill, beyond bringing everyone back
>
>>from every season ever for some grand finale. Or something.
>
> If Giles should get a visitation from the First, who better than Jenny?

...assuming he ain't dead.

> Maybe Randall.
>
> ...
>
> Y'all remember Randall, right?
>
> The guy Giles, Ethan and the others killed when they attempted to
> exorcise Eyghon, back in the Ripper days ("Giles: The Hellblazer
> Years").

Right. But since we never saw the guy, it would be nifty, but not
terribly poingant.

> Or Ben.

That might be cool.

>>>If this is the last season, I wouldn't necessarily mind him dying. And
>>>after all, it's almost traditional now to kill off a major character
>>>every year.
>>
>>Well, but...but...Ripper! It was supposed to be set AFTER Buffy! Hoom,
>
> TBH, I don't think it's gonna happen anyway.

I'm getting very mixed messages.

>>in any event. How did 'it' fool the Slayers: TNG if Giles is dead?
>>Projection across half the globe, blah blah blah? Hmmm..
>
> The Harbingers were in London. They killed Robson, maybe Giles, probably
> blew up the Watchers' Council. They could handle whatever amount of
> chanting required (which seems to be rather less than in S3, anyway).

Well yes. This ep basically established that what little we do know of
the First from, say, S3, is bound to be at the very least incomplete.
The First isn't acting terribly 'in character', relative to it's past
actions.

> OTOH, there's only so long you can get away with being immaterial
> without anyone noticing. What did First!Giles do with his plane ticket?

Said 'you girls go on before me, I'll be in business class'. Or
something. There are ways. Plus there's the whole messing with people's
heads issue. By the First, I mean.

> No, it doesn't actually make sense, assuming the off-screen reality of
> the show (it happened but we didn't see it). I wish I could be confident
> the writers respect that.

It can make sense. If you're stubbornly going to insist it can't, well,
that's a problem you've got.

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

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 4:34:34 AM12/17/02

George van Hal wrote:
> Mattia Valente wrote:
>
>> Dum de dum..
>
> Dum de dum indeed. It's a new ep discussion in abe and I can actually
> participate. Wooo!

/me faints...

>> Can you tell I'm cramming really hard for an exam this friday? Well?
>> can you?
>
> Can you tell I should actually be sleeping? I woke up this morning at a
> quarter to seven, couldn't sleep, decided to get up, burn me this
> episode and watch. And now I'm in here posting about it. Had all of four
> hours of sleep or something. Hope I don't break down during the day,
> 'cause I have lots of stuff to do ;-)

\o/

>> ahem.
>
> Indeed. Up, up and away with the posting...

RAWK!

A bit, yeah. A certain something was missing. I dunno what. I do have
the feeling this may be a 'grower', and age well.

>> That was, in fact, quite rockin',
>
> "quite rockin'"? "QUITE ROCKIN'?" I was jumping up and down in the room
> (and that on 4 hours of sleep) after this ep ended going "THAT WAS SO
> FUCKING COOL!!!" I was yelling at the screen at various points too. I
> mean, this is Buffy the way I love it. Story-arc goodness, laughs,
> excitement, interesting developments. It's just so very very COOL.

Yes, but not as much class as CwDP, or poingancy as NLM, for that
matter. It was better than 'Sleeper', though, I felt. It's got
interesting developments coming out the wazzoo but it needed that
certain extra something.

> I swear, M. You've become overly contained over the past few seasons.

Not really. S6 just wasn't that great, dude.

> It's the lack of discussion with the old crowd, I tell ya...

Riiight. They get lazy and are 'hmpf, your critisizing, too much work to
think of response so I'll ignore it'. No fun.

>> from a tension building, and exposition time p.o.v., but it's
>> frustratingly 'argh! dammit! WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON HERE?!?!?' sort
>> of way. It's all rather 'oooh, cool', but as far as story goes, it's a
>> continuation of what we had before, there's little to no closure on
>> some stuff, and, well, um, ARGH! I don't WANT to wait another 2 weeks
>> for the next ep! ARGH!
>
> See, this is what Joss and co. are going for. That 'ARGH, give me the
> next ep NOW!" feeling. And it's working.

Oh, that it is. No question about it. It's the way they're doing it
that's slightly less satisfying; worked better the past three times :-)

> For me at least. Sure, there's
> no real single-ep contained storyline. But I say, all the better for it.

I prefer it when they strike a balance; last week's ep, for example,
didn't have a 'self contained storyline' as such, but it felt more
cohesive. Probably because all the parts fit together, somehow. For me,
in this ep, the Spike scenes in particular just didn't work.

> Who needs single-ep contained storylines? I surely don't. Please make
> this season one big-ass single storyline, without any filler or annoying
> major storyline distracting sidestories.

Look at 'Passion'. That's arc, massively, but it's ALSO go it's own
story. I don't mean standalones per se, but some element of 'more
story'. Look at S5; the best episodes, by far, are the ones that combine
both story and arc; when things get a bit fuzzy, like around
Spiral/TWotW, it becomes a little less defined, and fun if you're
watching back to back, but otherwise just frustrating. And the episodes
themselves aren't going to be classics. I want them to be.

> This is probably gonna be the
> last season (can't realy see it going any other way after watching this
> episode, this is going to be the kind of closure Buffy deserves) and the
> less filler, the less MotW, the less single ep stories, the better for it.

..and don't get me wrong, I don't WANT those. But look at the last 3
episodes. All had more of a self contained story while moving the arc along.

> Also, 'closure', way overrated. That's instant gratification stuff.

I know. But a balance is good.

> Sure, there needs to be some closure, some closing off, but this is ep
> *10* for crying out loud. Give us set-up. Please.

Look, I'm not saying it's required, but to make the ep anything more
than a cool progression to the ACTUAL really cool stuff that's (one
assumes) coming up in future episodes, make it mean something beyond
"those scenes were damn cool", it needs more.

The episode works, becase it sustains tension, and moves things along a
good bit. It's interesting, intruiging, and gives me the feeling I'll
get more out of it after I've seen 'the rest', as it were. But that
doesn't make it an episode that, as an EPISODE, impresses me horribly much.

Right now, it's no more than the sum of it's parts. Which is a nice
little sum, but beyond that...

>> Right. So did I like it? Mixed. Parts of me are all 'hell yeah!'
>> because, well, coooool; other parts are 'well, it was decent, but not
>> really thrillingly awesome'.
>
> Right. Well, I was pretty much blown away. It was all good in my book.
> Buffy hasn't been this incredible since, well, ever. Possibly. I mean,
> last season we had a serious lack of major sweeping events. I missed the
> urgency, I missed our characters being sweeped (there's that word again)

'cept it should be 'swept'

> up in events bigger than themselves.

Very much true. And to be honest, the things that bug me are nitpicky,
sort of VST type deals. Like Messing with our Heads re: Giles. And the
outright weakness of the Spike stuff. That has got to be the least
interesting JM/JL set of scenes ever. And that's a shame.

> Hell, something I've always complained about was the lack of mytholgy on
> the show.

See, THIS is what I'm pleased about. Not getting Gunnar's assertion that
he's 'just another boring vamp'.

> We had some pretty incredible storylines. Just see the Angelus
> arc in season 2, or the Glory arc in season 5 for instance. It was
> always good when our characters had an emotional investment in the big
> bad. But we never had the feeling that any of it realy happened from a
> point of necessity. Even Glory got more threatening when they pulled in
> the personal through Dawn, Tara and Spike.

This underlines the issue for me: this is a good, perhaps great ep for
representing what the season is about, where it might go, etc. But it's
not so thrilling as an episode.

> Now this, on the other hand, is major mythology centered goodness. And
> that speech at the end. Wow. Chills down my spine. Those were the words
> we've been waiting to hear from Buffy since, well, season 1. No more
> reacting, no more waiting, but a full-out frontol attack. The fanboy in
> me squeeled with absolute delight..

Well, ok. Mine did as well, despite the relative cheese of the lines. At
least she didn't say 'Good' is what stands against 'Evil'. phew :o)

Story elements, no problems here. The EPISODE itself? More issues.

>> Comments on bits and pieces in random order follow.

> [Übervamp]
>> Am I the only one who's hoping he sired Annabelle?
>
> Well, possibly. I mean, two of those things? Might become unbeatable and
> thus a tad unrealistic if people survive. So perhaps, I'm thinking, it
> might be best if it didn't happen.

Pshaw. He'll be beatable. Just not in one-on-one hand-t-hand combat, I'd
say. Most effective taking Willow out of the equation this way, though.
Still think she's got something to contribute, judging by the
trying-to-kill-her ness of the First.

>> * Spike and the First: takes on Dru's form. It's trying to win him
>> over with the image of the other woman he loved. Spike is being all
>> noble and clinging to Buffy's belief in him. Gotta say, these were the
>> weakest parts of the ep, and one of the weakest Spike segments this
>> season. I mean, yay, Druness, but, umm...not quite working for me.
>
> Why? I mean, it worked as a theme. This episode showed the contradiction
> between good and evil.

But it didn't, really. Why's the first doing it? Because it can. The
writing's decidedly uninspired, and really, really isn't covering ANY
new ground. This doesn't go to show for anything larger than the
characters. It was more impressive when Spike was facing Glory, quite
frankly.

> Buffy on the one hand, the FE on the other. That
> was the whole point. And I think that to make Spike choose between that
> good and evil in the form of Buffy, the women he currently loves and
> Drusilla the women he used to love was, well, pretty much working all
> the way.

If he'd believed that it WAS Dru, maybe. But even he didn't. And said it
outright. I get the symbolism, I do, but it was a retread of what we
KNEW. As were a number of the scenes between B and S in the last few
eps, but those WORKED better. They had more punch. More chemistry. This
lacked spark. It had the whole "..and now, back to drowning Spike!" feel
to it.

>> Oh, and getting beaten up by ME guy. Question, though: What the hell
>> was that drowning all about? He's a VAMPIRE. Why the hell should that
>> be bothering him? WHY? To annoy him a little?
>
> Um, oh, I dunno. Torture? I mean, he can survive, there was no intention
> to kill spike. But there must be some drowning sensation.

Why 'must'?

> We know that
> vampires can inhale and exhale air and so they can probably feel the
> drowning sensation, or the filling of lungs with water at least. Must
> not be pleasant, methinks.

But pfft, c'mon. It's still daft. I think it's mostly just that they
can't show anything more graphic on TV.

>> * Andrew: Tee hee. Xander geek bonding. Besides that, good for a
>> geek-related laugh here and there, but not much more. Did I miss the
>> scene where someone explained the whole 'that wasn't warren, that was
>> an evil thing tricking you' bit to Andrew? Or, erm...y'know.
>
> Hehe, well, that might have happened ofscreen. Or not. He might've known
> all along. I dunno. They sorta do need to explain that a bit more.

They've done this once in the past this season. Can't remember the ep,
but they referred to something they probably filmed, but cut from the
final ep.

> Although, gotta say: as comic relief in a stressfull situation? Andrew
> is pretty much spot-on. I love the tension relieving comedy, like we had
> in early Buffy. That's so much better than the
> comedy-because-people-expect-it-from-Buffy stuff we had in the past. And
> hey, they made a comment about it.

:o)

> Also: Anyone else being realy pleased with the way Buffy leading, how we
> see bits and pieces of her old self from back in season one in those
> slayer in waiting girls? It shows you the development that Buffy has
> gone through perfectly. And I still think her friends have been
> intrumental in that.

Well, yeah. And duh.

>> * Willow: whoa, that freaked me. Cool, though. I do believe that's the
>> same visual we saw in 'Amends'. Most good. Can't use her magic, though.
>
> Uhuh, a little bit weak on the visual effects side, though.

Eh? How so?

> But very
> cool nontheless. Although it seems like a bit weak way to make Willow
> less powerfull in the coming apocalypse. Maybe they don't have enough
> money to do a lot of Powerfull Wicca[tm] spell like effects. I hope they
> get Willow back in the game. She should be able to help.

Commented on this above already.

> Although, on the other hand, as far as going back to basics, going back
> to the origin of Buffy, is concerned there might be something to say for
> just the slayers.

Well, Buffy and, maybe, Faith. THe potentials just have training.

> Oh, btw, now I come to think about it: Why hasn't anyone tried to get
> Faith into the game? Or, for that matter, Angel and the gang. All is
> going wonky in Sunnydale and it doesn't make sense for them to just
> ignore another powerfull factor for good. I understand that there can't
> be any crossovers as far as having Angel show up on Buffy, but they
> should at least deal with it...

They should NOW, after having proclaimed pro-activeness instead of the
'sit on your ass' approach to apocalypses. So, no, not terribly strange
they haven't done anything YET.

But, umm...go watch 'Angel'. That might help clear up a few things.

>> * ME Guy: Is damn strong. And violent. Pulpy Internal Bleeding Buffy.
>> I did really like the fight choerography, though, I must say. And is
>> it still the same guy who played one of the gentlemen and Gnarl? I
>> think so...Also, I was kind of amused by the 'finding the cave' thing.
>> Again by falling through a hole. Tee hee.
>
> That was most good, yes.

See? I'm not THAT cynical.

>> * Principal Wood: is clearly not as he seems. I don't know if I'll say
>> he's evil, but his cryptic 'once you've seen evil, you can't look at
>> things the same way' thing, his little laugh when he says 'mysteries',
>> and his all-round...creepy factor. Cooool. I like.
>
> Oh, yes, I totally loved that scene to bits. I mean, wow. WTH is going
> on with that guy. I am most intrigued...

Want more info.

ahehehehe....

>> * Giles: OK. I'm worried. Very worried. We started the flashback
>> again, and I thought 'oh, ok, we get to find out how he got saved'.
>> But nooo. I cannot think of one moment where we see him touch
>> anything, open anything, touch anyone. Ever. Not once. Not to help
>> Buffy out of a hole in the ground. Not a single hug. Nowhere. And one
>> of his slayerettes had the books. That he supposedly broke in and
>> stole (right before Boomtasticness. The CoW thought it was the
>> bringers, but, well, this might be kosher..) I hope they're just
>> messing with us.
>
> Uhuh. It'd totally suck if this Giles was a manifestation of the FE. I
> also wouldn't realy buy it.

Well...that's the thing.

> We know the FE can act, but we saw some
> genuine emotion on the part of Giles during that last speech.I hope
> they don't ruin that moment for me ;-)

Y'see, maybe it's me and my worried look, but the expression on his face
at the end of that speech was far, far too ambiguous for my liking. I
didn't know quite what to make of it.

>> * Final scene: rather good. But, um, eh? I really don't know where
>> we're going from here. OK, so we're heading towards endgame, but right
>> now we're all just busy getting scared of scheming on the part of the
>> FE, and ME Guy's indestrucibility and brute strength. Admittedly,
>> Buffy looks worse off than after facing a normal vamp without her
>> powers (Helpless) but...Hmm. It's rather bitchin' though.
>
> "Rather bitchin'" again? It was incredibly cool. Honestly. I mean, it
> was so very very Buffy, it just feels so incredibly *right*, I mean, I

Admittedly, yes. But it's not really surprising, is it? Admit it, you
saw the speech coming a mile off!

> can see someone not appreciating it without the extensive background
> knowlegde, but stuff like this, speeches like that, they don't just
> happen on Buffy. The writers don't just make characters say stuff
> because it sounds cool. This has Meaning[tm]. It's a major turning point
> in the way Buffy deals with, well, anything. They're an army now, taking
> the initiative. The only thing more powerfull than evil is Them[tm]. I
> mean, wow.

As a concept, yes. I'm just being bothered by the reality of the 'verse
at the moment: what does this mean, exactly. It's piqued my interest,
I'd say. Of course, this is the niftiest speech since 'Checkpoint' :o)

> Buffy was kicked to a bloody pulp and yet she has only just started.
> With Glory she got desperate, not knowing how to beat her. Now she has
> reason to be desperate and she isn't. And you know what, I believe her.
> I totally do.

Well yes. It's another growth step on Buffy's road to wherever, that's
for certain. And it's good because of that.

>> The ep's not great, on it's own. It's setup, done well mostly,
>> following...setup. So we're getting quite a bit of that. We got some
>> reveals last time. This time, we're left hanging, wondering what the
>> heck's gonna come next. And worried and intruiged in equal measures.
>
> So, who cares if the ep is confined? Like I stated before, you should not
> judge an episode on that. It's something which I've never understood.

You should if you're judging the EPISODE on it's own merits. As said,
views may, and probably will, change as the season progresses. It's a
feeling I've got. As a part of the greater whole, no probs. As just the
part, it's lacking in something a lot of other Buffy eps have, without
having to 'give up' anything.

> My conclusion would be:
> So, this was possibly the best episode of Buffy season seven thus far.

Nowhere near.

> And seeing the material we've had in this season, that's realy saying
> something. Buffy has returned to form, has gone back to basics and I'm
> loving every single moment of it. Bring on the Night indeed.

It's a good starting off point for the rest of the story. But 'Help',
'CwDP', 'NLM' are all better episodes, as episodes go. This has some of
the most interesting story developments this season. That's not the same
thing as 'best episode'.

Mattia Valente

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 4:48:54 AM12/17/02

> Oh, yes, that's very much a question that needs awnsering. I don't quite
> see how this is gonna work either. But we saw a dose of serious
> conviction on Buffy's side, so you can bet somethings gonna happen.

Well, fine.

> Plus, when we look at this from a Viewerverse[tm] point of view, we can
> say this: Since this is gonna be the last season, you can bet your
> horses that the writers have thought about this one. Going out with a
> bang. Like I said, Buffy isn't the show to go with delivering a big-ass
> speech just because it sounds cool. They follow through on it.

True enough.

Indeed. We're still positive; read back a few threads. The thing is, I'm
all for exposing weaknesses in episodes, and looking at why they don't
quite work on a certain level. That's what discussion is; otherwise
we're down to drooling fanboy cheering.

> It seems like everyone is being
> "critical-for-the-sake-of-being-critical" (this is a general observation
> and perhaps not so much true for the post to which I'm currently
> replying). The accents aren't convincing? Right, big deal. There's a

That's more of a peeve. Consider most of the guys posting are actually
english. From England.

> lack of contained storyline? All the better for it, give me some more.
> You can't quite see where the writers are going with something? All the
> better for it, it's called unpredicatbility, people. That's a *positive*
> trait.

I'm not complaining that I can't see where they're going with it. At
all. This ep reminds me of 'Quickening', in a way; it's great fun to
watch, a whole buttload of stuff happens, movement movement movement,
but ultimately, we're not dealing with an episode that, at the end of
the season, I'll remember and go 'oooh, that was definitely one of the
bestest eps this season!'.

On the one hand, good, because it's integrated smoothly into the
seasonal narrative as a whole (see example of '24'; that show's built on
this concept, and it works for me. No probs. I like to see a blend of
both on 'Buffy', because in my experience, that's when it does it's best
work). Otoh, too bad, because episodes that are singularly great are,
well, woo!

> Let's place the default position on
> our expectencies to "positive" and critizise something to death when it
> actually *sucks*, or when there's reason to.

Who's being wholly negative? The criticism I do give is, IMO, valid. It
doesn't mean the ep sucks. Or doesn't rock.

> Yes, that's something that bothered me as well. They did mention Faith,
> but they never mentioned bringing her in. Or Angel for that matter. All
> we got on the "we need muscle" front was a mention of Spike. That just
> doesn't gel. We can't ignore all the backstory, and we know that Buff
> and co. know how to find Angel. So why the wait? I just don't get it...

Go watch Angel. Now.

<24>

> Complicated huge-ass storylines are a plus. As long as it keeps making
> sense and as long as the writing is good. "24" was a perfect example of
> a great show, done well. Ok, I have yet to see the last 8 episodes of
> season one, so they might've gone and screwed things up in those for all
> I know, but mostly I'm a big fan of big storylines. It's something that
> I've always loved about Buffy as well. The large storyline goodness.
> Especially when it's as interesting as this one.

Indeed. That's the positiveness. But as I outlined above, the flipside
is that 'Buffy' manages to marry this AND an internally consistent
thematically complex story beyond the arc when it's at it's best.

Thinking back on it, while I still don't feel some bits of the ep Gel,
there is the whole locus of control issue; Buffy and the Gang are waaay
out of control. They try to regain it, but at the same time acknowledge
that they don't have it (go around, get beaten up, Giles and TNG Slayers
are on the run, Xander's boarding up the windows, which is kinda symbolic..)

This does also mean we don't get the strength of the characters shining
through and imposing their 'reality' on the story being told, fleshing
it out as it were. It's happening to them, they're being swept along, so
as far as storytelling in a broader 'Arc' sense goes, it's all good. And
we get affirmation that things are going to change at the end of the ep.

Still won't make this episode, as an EPISODE, a true classic. A turning
point? Vitally improtant to the story arc? What makes it possible to
create greatness? Sure thing. Nothing against setup, the ride's most of
the journey, but it's the short stops by the wayside that tend to stick
in my mind.

> Basically I haven't enjoyed myself with Buffy as much as this since a
> looong while. It's just great.

:o)

Well, S6 was never really all that much *fun*, and S5, whilst often
great, was also often..depressing.

Mattia
--
"NUDITY, NUDITY, NUDITY." - Joss Whedon on S5

Mattia Valente

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 10:29:24 AM12/17/02

Gunnar Harboe wrote:

>>>Hell, something I've always complained about was the lack of mytholgy on
>>>the show.
>>
>>See, THIS is what I'm pleased about. Not getting Gunnar's assertion that
>>he's 'just another boring vamp'.
>

> And it's exactly this that I'm *dis*pleased about. I think making the
> Ubervamp a neanderthal vampire destroys most of the mythos
> possibilities.

Destroys some, opens up others.

> Maybe I'm having the wrong connotations with neanderthal. To me, it
> means that Grragh is basically a vampire, except physically stronger,
> and more primitive (apparently meaning he can't speak).

Different race. But sharing of common ancestry (if the analogy is
correct, anyway), but it could mean it's an ancestor of modern vampires.
This might be one of the 'Old Ones' the master refers to.

> Moreover, it seems like he's *a* Turok-Han, just one random member of
> the race.

..which is good.

> What does that mean? No longer any intriguing connection to the genesis
> of vampires. No relationship to the First Slayer. No particular reason
> why the First Evil was so keen to release it.

Not yet.

> I was hoping the Ubervamp was going to be something more than just the
> First's muscle. Maybe something more like the Anointed One was to the
> Master. I was hoping it would relate to the origin of the vampire
> mythology. I was disappointed.

The Annoying one was utterly squandered, though. I'm withholding
judgement on what the heck I need to think of this being right now. As
for speech...there's no reason for him to speak human (modern) tounges,
is there. He seems to understand them OK, ish. Unless the first is
communicating differently.

> He's a strong vampire, yes. But Buffy beats strong vampires on a regular
> basis. (And it's not bad that he's beatable. It just shouldn't seem so
> ordinary.)

Well, 'regular'....when, since S3?

>>>Hehe, well, that might have happened ofscreen. Or not. He might've known
>>>all along. I dunno. They sorta do need to explain that a bit more.
>>
>>They've done this once in the past this season. Can't remember the ep,
>>but they referred to something they probably filmed, but cut from the
>>final ep.
>

> Telling Willow about "from beneath you, it devours".
> Telling Anya... stuff.
> Buffy informing the Scoobies that Spike has a soul.

Yes yes, all that, but that's not what I mean.

> I think it's of the good that they let some of this stuff happen
> off-screen. Long explanations would necessarily be involved, which would
> just rehash things for the audience.
>
> Efficient storytelling, is what I call it.

True. I seem to recall a scene in an episode, where they quite
explicitly refer to a previous scene that we'd seen, that had finished,
ie we saw the characters meet, talk, and split up again, and refer to
something that was said, but that wasn't seen. I can't for the life of
me remember what, though. I'll try to find it on rewatch..that's why it
bugged me. Otherwise it wouldn't have 'bothered' me. Thing with Andrew
was that they're pumping him for info, and they only work out who The
First is AFTER he's knocked unconcious. So....

>>>My conclusion would be:
>>>So, this was possibly the best episode of Buffy season seven thus far.
>>
>>Nowhere near.
>

> It is, in fact, more like the worst.

Not that, either, for me.

> ('Beneath You' is pretty indifferent, too, but edges ahead due to
> Spike's bit in the church at the end.)

I really liked 'Beneath You'.

George van Hal

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 1:36:37 PM12/17/02

Mattia Valente wrote:
> George van Hal wrote:
>
>> Mattia Valente wrote:
>>
>>> Dum de dum..
>>
>>
>> Dum de dum indeed. It's a new ep discussion in abe and I can actually
>> participate. Wooo!
>
>
> /me faints...

Hehe :-)

>> Indeed. Up, up and away with the posting...
>
>
> RAWK!

Woo! :-)

See, I don't quite have this feeling of something that's missing. Not at
all even.

> Yes, but not as much class as CwDP, or poingancy as NLM, for that
> matter. It was better than 'Sleeper', though, I felt. It's got
> interesting developments coming out the wazzoo but it needed that
> certain extra something.

Define "certain extra something". We had a MAJOR change in how things
are going to be dealt with, a MAJOR change of mood. This changed a lot.
In the "things happening" department this ep is pretty much unbeaten,
realy. I don't see much other "extra something" that I'd be needing.

Sure, up to this point CwDP was my favorite ep this season, because of
the angle and the major storyarc goodness. This ep however, well, wow.
It'll definately stick in my mind.

>> I swear, M. You've become overly contained over the past few seasons.
>
> Not really. S6 just wasn't that great, dude.

Nope, certainly not the first half. Had some issues here and there even
after that. S5 was pretty fine, and this episode is getting undue
critisism as well imho.

>> It's the lack of discussion with the old crowd, I tell ya...
>
>
> Riiight. They get lazy and are 'hmpf, your critisizing, too much work to
> think of response so I'll ignore it'. No fun.

Well, I'll have to give you that one ;-)

>> See, this is what Joss and co. are going for. That 'ARGH, give me the
>> next ep NOW!" feeling. And it's working.
>
>
> Oh, that it is. No question about it. It's the way they're doing it
> that's slightly less satisfying; worked better the past three times :-)

Hehe, well, see, I have not been bouncing up and down as much before.
CwDP also induced some bouncing, as did some of the other eps this
season. But never as much as this. I just realy love this ep to bits.
Ofcourse that opinion might get a tad tainted if they go and screw
things up next, but that's not what I'm going to assume for now..

> I prefer it when they strike a balance; last week's ep, for example,
> didn't have a 'self contained storyline' as such, but it felt more
> cohesive. Probably because all the parts fit together, somehow. For me,
> in this ep, the Spike scenes in particular just didn't work.

Right. I can see why someone would say the Spike scenes didn't work.
They were pretty repetative, and the drowning and beating up wasn't
*that* interesting. Where it did work, however, was in the symbolism and
the show of Spike's devotion to Buffy. It would have been very easy for
Spike to join with The First, to "redeem" himself to his former evil
self. Because a soul doesn't give anybody the firm resolve to hang in
there and say no to something as powerfull as The First. That, imho, was
the good part of those scenes. Plus, within the setting of the rest of
the episode and the way things were happening at a breathtaking pace,
they just didn't bother me. And they certaintly don't cause the ep to
work less as a whole.

[contained-ep vs storyarc-ep]

> Look at 'Passion'. That's arc, massively, but it's ALSO go it's own
> story.

Oh, yes, sure. 'Passion' has it's own story, very much so. But consider
'Surprise/Innocence' for a moment. Those eps are only contained as a
whole. But that doesn't make 'Surprise' or 'Innocence' bad episodes.

> I don't mean standalones per se, but some element of 'more
> story'. Look at S5; the best episodes, by far, are the ones that combine
> both story and arc; when things get a bit fuzzy, like around
> Spiral/TWotW, it becomes a little less defined, and fun if you're
> watching back to back, but otherwise just frustrating. And the episodes
> themselves aren't going to be classics. I want them to be.

To me, the last 4 eps of season 5 definately *are* a classic. They're
one big story in my mind, and as that they are a very good ride. I don't
see how an episode being contained or not has any effect on it becoming
a classic.

Sure, it's harder to see the episode as a single entity, it's perhaps
harder to say just which ep had that one great story, because that one
great story is spread out over more eps. But just see it this way: the
continuing episodes together form one big episode. A longer, more
gratifying experience because the writers take more time to make stuff
happen, to build it up and bring it to it's climax. Especially in early
'Angel' and early 'Buffy' we had some episodes which might have worked
better if the story was spread. And spreading such a story doesn't mean
you have to add self-contained elements. I don't need those just so
every episode has a defined own identity. That's not an issue.

I can see, how from a reviewing point of view, it would be harder to
rate a single episode this way, because you don't yet know what's gonna
happen in the other 'parts'. But that's a problem the reviewer has, not
a problem of the episode.

Take 'The Lord of the Rings' for instance. The three parts are going to
be one big-ass movie. 'The Two Towers' is gonna be a movie without a
defined beginning or end. It's just going to be the bulk of the story
because all the set-up was done in 'Fellowship of the Ring' and the
climax will happen in 'Return of the King'. Will that fact, up front,
give it less of a chance to work? Nope, because you know what you're
dealing with. You know it's one continuing story. Will moviereviews have
a hard time reviewing it? Nope, because they will look at what is in the
movie itself. The collection of the scenes, how the bulk is done.

The same goes for Buffy. An episode like this is a completely different
entity from a 'MotW' ep or something which has storyarc elements and
also a well defined self-contained story. And given the fact that it IS
a different experience, you shouldn't try to force it into the same
schedule as those other eps. You judge it on different grounds, not
blame it for being different to begin with, because that's just useless.

Now, you can always say that you like the eps with a bit of
self-containment more, and that would come down to a personal preference
and not to the fact that those episodes are any *better*. To me, it
depends on the episode. Look at CwDP again, for instance. That was
brilliant mostly because it was well defined, because it has a great
theme which is executed with great class. And *then* there's the
storyarcy goodness in the apearance of the FE in various forms, but
that's not the main focuss of the episode.

Now, with BotN we have a diffent focus. The storyarcy goodness *is* the
point of the episode, it deals mostly with set-up and ofcourse we don't
know where a lot of that is heading. It may lead to major suckville, but
that's not an a priori assumption that I'm ready to make.

So what we're left with is an episode which has a collection of
incredibly well executed set-up scenes, some nice revelations and some
very very important stuff. And for what it is, it works incredibly well.
So well, that I was jumping up and down in the room with excitement when
it ended. Does that make for a bad episode? Nowhere near. In my book
this was the best episode to date. Ofcourse it's hard to compare it with
the rest. Comparing CwDP with BotN is very hard because at the basic
core the goal of the episodes are different. But that doesn't stop me at
all. And although it's a very close call, I'll stick with BotN for now.
That might change after a rewatch, or if I find that there's nothing
special in the ep after the intial excitement fades. But that's never
gonna be because it lacked the self-containment.

> The episode works, becase it sustains tension, and moves things along a
> good bit. It's interesting, intruiging, and gives me the feeling I'll
> get more out of it after I've seen 'the rest', as it were. But that
> doesn't make it an episode that, as an EPISODE, impresses me horribly much.
>
> Right now, it's no more than the sum of it's parts. Which is a nice
> little sum, but beyond that...

Right. See, this was my point. You're trying to rate this ep to the
wrong standard. There isn't supposed to be something that's contained.
The 'more than a sum of it's part' is something that has to be judged
when we have seen the entire story. But that doesn't mean that we can't
judge this episode on those parts, and, which is very important in my
book, for it's *potential*. If an episode like this opens up new ways
for the story to go, or if it cashes in on previously created potential
especially well, then, in my book, it's a very good episode. Despite
lacking self-contained elements.

>>I missed our characters being sweeped (there's that word
>> again)
>
>
> 'cept it should be 'swept'

Shutup :-p

>> up in events bigger than themselves.
>
>
> Very much true. And to be honest, the things that bug me are nitpicky,
> sort of VST type deals. Like Messing with our Heads re: Giles. And the
> outright weakness of the Spike stuff. That has got to be the least
> interesting JM/JL set of scenes ever. And that's a shame.

Well, I do sorta see your point on the Spike scenes, although I don't
realy agree. But the Giles does not make this a bad episode. Perhaps
they're just teasing us, perhaps it's even more set-up for future
storylines. We just don't know. But, if anything, it just makes the
possibilties even more endless. And that's a *good* thing.

>> Hell, something I've always complained about was the lack of mytholgy
>> on the show.
>
>
> See, THIS is what I'm pleased about. Not getting Gunnar's assertion that
> he's 'just another boring vamp'.

I know. Very very nice, a type of vampire of which Giles used to think
it was just a myth. A type of vampire which pre-dates the normal ones. A
type of vampire that can beat Buffy to a bloody pulp and is apereantly
impervious to staking. Well, colour me interested in any case.

<snip>

> This underlines the issue for me: this is a good, perhaps great ep for
> representing what the season is about, where it might go, etc. But it's
> not so thrilling as an episode.

And see, that's what I'm saying. There's no need to judge this episode
on it's single apearance per se. That's just trying to do something that
won't work, because it's not that kind of episode. It's another form of
telling things, and in my book it's even more realistic. Normal life
doesn't move along in self-contained episodes, and almost never has
clear self-contained goodness.

>> Now this, on the other hand, is major mythology centered goodness. And
>> that speech at the end. Wow. Chills down my spine. Those were the
>> words we've been waiting to hear from Buffy since, well, season 1. No
>> more reacting, no more waiting, but a full-out frontol attack. The
>> fanboy in me squeeled with absolute delight..
>
>
> Well, ok. Mine did as well, despite the relative cheese of the lines. At
> least she didn't say 'Good' is what stands against 'Evil'. phew :o)

Hehe, okay, yes, THAT would have been cheesy. But hey, guess what, I am
a fan of full overblown speeches like this. I don't always see the
'cheese' in that. I'm not a JMS fan as well for nothing, y'see ;-)

I think this speech was excellently brought and the moment represented a
great bit of acting by SMG. In my book, it was all good.

[Übervamp(s)]

>> Well, possibly. I mean, two of those things? Might become unbeatable
>> and thus a tad unrealistic if people survive. So perhaps, I'm
>> thinking, it might be best if it didn't happen.
>
>
> Pshaw. He'll be beatable. Just not in one-on-one hand-t-hand combat, I'd
> say. Most effective taking Willow out of the equation this way, though.
> Still think she's got something to contribute, judging by the
> trying-to-kill-her ness of the First.

Yup, I'd have to say that I too think she has a big part to play in
this. Or perhaps, the FE was not joking. Perhaps she will go bad again
if she uses her powers, if she lets the FE take control of her. And
perhaps because of that she should stop using her powers.

But, otoh, it does seem awfully convenient that the thing the FE did not
get done in CwDP, it has now done by taking control of Willow for a
moment. There's no guarentee that that's something the FE could do every
single time. It still might be some sort of trick...

[spike scenes again]

>> Why? I mean, it worked as a theme. This episode showed the
>> contradiction between good and evil.
>
>
> But it didn't, really. Why's the first doing it? Because it can. The
> writing's decidedly uninspired, and really, really isn't covering ANY
> new ground. This doesn't go to show for anything larger than the
> characters. It was more impressive when Spike was facing Glory, quite
> frankly.

Well, sure, the FE is just doing it because it can. But what exactly
would be wrong with that. The FE can do whatever the hell it pleases.
That's *why* it's the FE. It's pretty almighty and pretty unstopable
thus far.

>> was the whole point. And I think that to make Spike choose between
>> that good and evil in the form of Buffy, the women he currently loves
>> and Drusilla the women he used to love was, well, pretty much working
>> all the way.
>
>
> If he'd believed that it WAS Dru, maybe. But even he didn't. And said it
> outright.

No, that's not realy the point. It's the symbolism that does the trick
here, the probably intended symbolism on the part of the FE.

> I get the symbolism, I do, but it was a retread of what we
> KNEW. As were a number of the scenes between B and S in the last few
> eps, but those WORKED better. They had more punch. More chemistry. This
> lacked spark. It had the whole "..and now, back to drowning Spike!" feel
> to it.

Sure, I see that. But for me, there was sparkage. I'll give you the fact
that there have been better scenes with Spike. Just take a good look at
this season for a bunch of examples. But that doesn't mean that these
scenes are bad *per se*. And they certaintly do not taint the fact that
I loved this episode.

>> Um, oh, I dunno. Torture? I mean, he can survive, there was no
>> intention to kill spike. But there must be some drowning sensation.
>
>
> Why 'must'?

'might' might've been better. I think the sensation of lungs filling
with water, and the inability to handle on the reflex of breathing
(something which vampires apareantly do have) will at least have some
sort of effect...

> > We know that
>
>> vampires can inhale and exhale air and so they can probably feel the
>> drowning sensation, or the filling of lungs with water at least. Must
>> not be pleasant, methinks.
>
>
> But pfft, c'mon. It's still daft. I think it's mostly just that they
> can't show anything more graphic on TV.

Sure, that's probable.

>> Hehe, well, that might have happened ofscreen. Or not. He might've
>> known all along. I dunno. They sorta do need to explain that a bit more.
>
>
> They've done this once in the past this season. Can't remember the ep,
> but they referred to something they probably filmed, but cut from the
> final ep.

Don't quite remember that either...

>>> * Willow: whoa, that freaked me. Cool, though. I do believe that's
>>> the same visual we saw in 'Amends'. Most good. Can't use her magic,
>>> though.
>>
>>
>> Uhuh, a little bit weak on the visual effects side, though.
>
>
> Eh? How so?

Well, I've just seen better effects on Buffy. It wasn't the most
impressive CGI work I've ever seen...

<snip>

> They should NOW, after having proclaimed pro-activeness instead of the
> 'sit on your ass' approach to apocalypses. So, no, not terribly strange
> they haven't done anything YET.

Uhuh, they should very much so now...

> But, umm...go watch 'Angel'. That might help clear up a few things.

Check. Watch 'Angel'. Might do a bit of that tonight or something..

<snip>

> See? I'm not THAT cynical.

Hehe ;-)

<snip>

>> Uhuh. It'd totally suck if this Giles was a manifestation of the FE. I
>> also wouldn't realy buy it.
>
>
> Well...that's the thing.
>
> > We know the FE can act, but we saw some
>
>> genuine emotion on the part of Giles during that last speech.I hope
>> they don't ruin that moment for me ;-)
>
>
> Y'see, maybe it's me and my worried look, but the expression on his face
> at the end of that speech was far, far too ambiguous for my liking. I
> didn't know quite what to make of it.

Hmm. Right. Interpeted that differently. Must rewatch that scene soon
(not that I realy need an excuse... ;-))...

> Admittedly, yes. But it's not really surprising, is it? Admit it, you
> saw the speech coming a mile off!

Actually? No. I totally didn't. I expected Buffy to give her old
depressing "everything is lost" speech again, like she did in S5 on
several occassions. Was more than pleasantly surprised when this speech
began...

[the speech]

> As a concept, yes. I'm just being bothered by the reality of the 'verse
> at the moment: what does this mean, exactly. It's piqued my interest,
> I'd say. Of course, this is the niftiest speech since 'Checkpoint' :o)

Hehe. Very much so, yes :-) But bothered by the reality. Check. Well, I
*am* a bit worried if they can make true their clames in this episode.
But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it..

See Ya,
George
This one's gonna be long again ;-)

Mattia Valente

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 2:51:23 PM12/17/02

George van Hal wrote:
> Mattia Valente wrote:
>
>> George van Hal wrote:
>>
>>> Mattia Valente wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dum de dum..
>>>
>>> Dum de dum indeed. It's a new ep discussion in abe and I can actually
>>> participate. Wooo!
>>
>> /me faints...
>
> Hehe :-)

:-p

>>> Indeed. Up, up and away with the posting...
>>
>> RAWK!
>
> Woo! :-)

\o/

And yet, I still do..and not because I feel like being contrary and
thinking up things to dislike.

>> Yes, but not as much class as CwDP, or poingancy as NLM, for that
>> matter. It was better than 'Sleeper', though, I felt. It's got
>> interesting developments coming out the wazzoo but it needed that
>> certain extra something.
>
> Define "certain extra something".

Cohesion? Theme that really kicked? Dunno, really. It's just not quite
there, as a whole.

> We had a MAJOR change in how things
> are going to be dealt with,

That's the key here: the very last 2 minutes ANNOUNCE a change for the
FUTURE. Ergo, setup. Does the episode deal with changes approach? No.
Does it show us a different-from-what-they-normally-do tactic? Not at
all. So the final 2 minutes herald a new (and 'why didn't they think of
this before?' kind of approach); we ain't seen it yet.

It's not that I don't trust it'll be meaningful, but forgive me if that
doesn't make me luuuurve the entire episode for leading up to it ;-P

> a MAJOR change of mood. This changed a lot.

Yes, because we get the first head-to-head between Buffy and the Big Bad
in non-mindgame playing ways. It's freaky on a physical level, because
they can't do anything about it. It's familiar, though, to anyone who's
seen S5. Or S1, in Buffy's mind. Or S3, to a degree. What's changed is
how Buffy deals with it. And it's a change from S6, most def.

> In the "things happening" department this ep is pretty much unbeaten,
> realy. I don't see much other "extra something" that I'd be needing.

I think, personally, that both last week's ep, and 'Conversations with
Dead People' beat it out on the 'things happening' front. Here, we've
got a pretty basic 'thing' happening; Giles arrives, tells them what we
knew ("It's the first!!"/"..we know, Giles"), we introduce Slayers: TNG,
kill one, have the rest sit around. Buffy has fights with ME guy. ME guy
tortures Spike. Buffy has herself an epiphany. The End.

Something like that, yes? And I realize I'm being flippant.

The thing is, this works especially well because we've had the
psychological head messin' games in the past 3 episodes. Starting with
the rather brilliant 'Conversations with Dead People', which was sharply
written, intelligent, very engaging, really rather scary on several
occasions, and demonstrated another part of the First's power. Follow
that up with 'Never Leave Me' (ignore 'Sleeper' for the moment..), where
you have slower pacing, perhaps, but a lot of character stuff, AND plot
stuff happens. I can't see that BotN has terribly much MORE really,
actually happening than previous episodes. So, like, explain yourself :-p

> Sure, up to this point CwDP was my favorite ep this season, because of
> the angle and the major storyarc goodness. This ep however, well, wow.
> It'll definately stick in my mind.

Why, exactly? Be specific.

>>> I swear, M. You've become overly contained over the past few seasons.
>>
>> Not really. S6 just wasn't that great, dude.
>
> Nope, certainly not the first half. Had some issues here and there even
> after that. S5 was pretty fine, and this episode is getting undue
> critisism as well imho.

S5 rocked, and, well, this ep's solid. But not much more. Considering
what happened, what did rock, I'm surprised I don't like it more. But I
don't.

>>> It's the lack of discussion with the old crowd, I tell ya...
>>
>> Riiight. They get lazy and are 'hmpf, your critisizing, too much work
>> to think of response so I'll ignore it'. No fun.
>
> Well, I'll have to give you that one ;-)

:oP

>>> See, this is what Joss and co. are going for. That 'ARGH, give me the
>>> next ep NOW!" feeling. And it's working.
>>
>> Oh, that it is. No question about it. It's the way they're doing it
>> that's slightly less satisfying; worked better the past three times :-)
>
> Hehe, well, see, I have not been bouncing up and down as much before.

Ah. I was bouncing off walls after CwDP. And after a few other eps
earlier in the season. Things you probably would've gone 'eh' at. For
example: Help - masterpiece.

> CwDP also induced some bouncing, as did some of the other eps this
> season. But never as much as this. I just realy love this ep to bits.
> Ofcourse that opinion might get a tad tainted if they go and screw
> things up next, but that's not what I'm going to assume for now..

Um, right. You're a slut for action-y not-too-much introspection pieces
from time to time, ain't ya? 'cause I can enjoy those, but I prefer the
others.

>> I prefer it when they strike a balance; last week's ep, for example,
>> didn't have a 'self contained storyline' as such, but it felt more
>> cohesive. Probably because all the parts fit together, somehow. For
>> me, in this ep, the Spike scenes in particular just didn't work.
>
> Right. I can see why someone would say the Spike scenes didn't work.

Phew...;-P

> They were pretty repetative, and the drowning and beating up wasn't
> *that* interesting. Where it did work, however, was in the symbolism and
> the show of Spike's devotion to Buffy. It would have been very easy for
> Spike to join with The First, to "redeem" himself to his former evil
> self. Because a soul doesn't give anybody the firm resolve to hang in
> there and say no to something as powerfull as The First. That, imho, was
> the good part of those scenes.

Yeah, ok.

You know what my problem is with this? This is what Spike's been doing
for the past, well, 9 episodes. And specifically since CwDP. Or rather,
in 'Sleeper'. Once he realises what's going on. We have a number of
really good (but, ultimately, not 'new information) interaction between
Buffy and Spike. And clarity as to where his priorities lie. What he
wants to be. What Buffy sees in him. What strength he gains from that.
So this stuff? Vague non-torture (it's just not making me flinch. Glory
was better at it..), some beating, and repetition.

Spike's got all this potential: do something with it!

> Plus, within the setting of the rest of
> the episode and the way things were happening at a breathtaking pace,
> they just didn't bother me. And they certaintly don't cause the ep to
> work less as a whole.

Take a step back here: what other scenes, beyond the 2 (count 'em) fight
scenes in the, IIRC, 4th and 5th acts (if I'm not mistaken...maybe 3rd
and 5th) were 'breakneck' in pace? We had a goodly bit of other 'rest'
moments that worked far better, were disconcerting (anything with the
principal) and not really 'action! run! fight! do things!'

They do, for me, drag the ep down a little because they don't add much.
No comic relief (Andrew/Xander), no new info (Giles, S:TNG), no reall
wiggins (Willow, Buffy dreams, Principal). And there are a LOT of Spike
scenes, relatively.

> [contained-ep vs storyarc-ep]
>> Look at 'Passion'. That's arc, massively, but it's ALSO go it's own
>> story.
>
> Oh, yes, sure. 'Passion' has it's own story, very much so. But consider
> 'Surprise/Innocence' for a moment. Those eps are only contained as a
> whole. But that doesn't make 'Surprise' or 'Innocence' bad episodes.

No, that's a clear 2 parter, and written as such. And even so,
'Surprise' has it's own story: it's Buffy's B-day, then hell breaks
loose, and there's sex. And a cliffhanger ending. 'Innocence' has the
introduction of Angelus, has the resolution and completion of the Judge
story, so it mixes both arc AND plot.

BotN doesn't, really. What is there is so incidental to the whole that
it's windowdressing: Buffy at work, Giles showing up with Slayers, etc...

> To me, the last 4 eps of season 5 definately *are* a classic. They're
> one big story in my mind, and as that they are a very good ride. I don't
> see how an episode being contained or not has any effect on it becoming
> a classic.

See, as far as I'm concerned, 'Tough Love' is great stuff, 'Spiral' and
'The Weight of the World' are sort of middling episodes; fun if I'm
doing a seasonal rewatch, but just not THAT great or amazing or cool.
And I love 'The Gift', no matter what people say about it. THAT's a
classic. Spiral? TWotW? Nope.

> Sure, it's harder to see the episode as a single entity, it's perhaps
> harder to say just which ep had that one great story, because that one
> great story is spread out over more eps. But just see it this way: the
> continuing episodes together form one big episode. A longer, more
> gratifying experience because the writers take more time to make stuff
> happen, to build it up and bring it to it's climax.

Yes, all good and well; it can be done very well, although a smear like
the very end of S5 might not be best; in some ways, they spread too
little story over too many minutes there. So the whole is more than the
sum of it's parts, yes. But each part within itself is the lesser for
it, in a way; for me, the combo of checkpoint/blood ties was great;
Forever/Intervention/Tough Love segued into a selection of eps that kept
the arc tension in place and ALSO had their own 'thing' going. Spiral
and TWotW a little less so, which The Gift made up for in spades, if
that makes any sense.

> Especially in early
> 'Angel' and early 'Buffy' we had some episodes which might have worked
> better if the story was spread.

such as? Examples.

> And spreading such a story doesn't mean
> you have to add self-contained elements. I don't need those just so
> every episode has a defined own identity. That's not an issue.

Whereas I much prefer it if it does. See, that's because it doesn't take
anything *away* from the episode, but rather adds an extra layer to the
whole, making it more than just a great story, giving it more depth,
some metaphorical meat, as it were.

> I can see, how from a reviewing point of view, it would be harder to
> rate a single episode this way, because you don't yet know what's gonna
> happen in the other 'parts'. But that's a problem the reviewer has, not
> a problem of the episode.

Oh, it's an intentional structural decision. Makes it hard to review.
But it also makes it, as a self-contained element of the season (which
it is, if only because it's aired as such, and not as a multi-parter
back to back) it makes it less on its own than as a part of the whole.

> Take 'The Lord of the Rings' for instance. The three parts are going to
> be one big-ass movie. 'The Two Towers' is gonna be a movie without a
> defined beginning or end. It's just going to be the bulk of the story
> because all the set-up was done in 'Fellowship of the Ring' and the
> climax will happen in 'Return of the King'. Will that fact, up front,
> give it less of a chance to work? Nope, because you know what you're
> dealing with. You know it's one continuing story. Will moviereviews have
> a hard time reviewing it? Nope, because they will look at what is in the
> movie itself. The collection of the scenes, how the bulk is done.

Ah, but LotR has so many individual self contained, or at least
build-climax-partial resolutions built into it that this comparison
doesn't really hold. There are journeys within each journey, stages to
each part of the story which are absent from one episode of TV. 1 LotR
movie is more like a block of eps, say, probably eps 9 through 11,
eventually. Or 12.

If you draw a little flow diagram of LotR with climaxes, etc, you end
with a bumpy graph, what with all the incidentals. For BotN it's more or
less a smooth ride up. Which is fine. But it does mean the episode,
important as a whole, isn't amazingly 'ooh, aah' on it's own.

Besides, we all know how LotR will end; it's seeing how it does it
that's exciting. As for reviewers? They'll still complain about it
structurally, since it's really just part of a movie.

> The same goes for Buffy. An episode like this is a completely different
> entity from a 'MotW' ep or something which has storyarc elements and
> also a well defined self-contained story. And given the fact that it IS
> a different experience, you shouldn't try to force it into the same
> schedule as those other eps. You judge it on different grounds, not
> blame it for being different to begin with, because that's just useless.

See above for most of my reply;

As said, it's perfectly valid as a choice. I suspect we also disagree on
Offspring (which I found rather..dull) and Quickening (fun, but
ultimately inconsequential) to Lullaby, and their relative merits. It's
a 3 parter, sure. But the only really memorable episode, as episodes go,
is Lullaby.

> Now, you can always say that you like the eps with a bit of
> self-containment more, and that would come down to a personal preference
> and not to the fact that those episodes are any *better*.

So one's a great example of one type of ep, and one's a great example of
another type? Fine.

> To me, it
> depends on the episode. Look at CwDP again, for instance. That was
> brilliant mostly because it was well defined, because it has a great
> theme which is executed with great class. And *then* there's the
> storyarcy goodness in the apearance of the FE in various forms, but
> that's not the main focuss of the episode.

It's interwoven, though, that's the thing. And for me, I'll continue to
say that that's 'Better'. Because those are the episodes of Buffy that
give us the most meaning, the most complexity, the most interest. And
yes, I'm going to call that 'Better' than good setup and a fun ride.
Because it's more stimulating on more than one level.

You can get all relativistic on me, and say 'yes, but that's not really
BETTER, now is it?' (you just did, up there), but ultimately, reviewing
isn't objective. It doesn't pretend to be. Opinions, well formed and
supported by what's on-screen, by what you may or may not know about
narrative structure, etc. form the basis of them.

> Now, with BotN we have a diffent focus. The storyarcy goodness *is* the
> point of the episode, it deals mostly with set-up and ofcourse we don't
> know where a lot of that is heading. It may lead to major suckville, but
> that's not an a priori assumption that I'm ready to make.

..and nobody's making it. At least, not here.

> So what we're left with is an episode which has a collection of
> incredibly well executed set-up scenes, some nice revelations and some
> very very important stuff.

What, exactly? Beyond the nature of ME guy and the fact he's STRONG. You
keep saying 'very very important stuff'.

> And for what it is, it works incredibly well.

That's the key: for what it is. It's little more than a collection of
scense. Which I find is too bad. Sure, you've got the possible 'face
your worst fears' things (Buffy sorta has and Willow has, arguably Spike
has but he's been facing them all season, so no real news there)
'theme', but much more? And that's just too bad. IMO, of course.

> So well, that I was jumping up and down in the room with excitement when
> it ended. Does that make for a bad episode? Nowhere near. In my book
> this was the best episode to date.

And for me, the thrill was rather more subdued. What revolutions made
you go 'oooh', exactly? Because to my mind there weren't that many. I
had more 'tingle' moments in other eps.

> Ofcourse it's hard to compare it with
> the rest. Comparing CwDP with BotN is very hard because at the basic
> core the goal of the episodes are different. But that doesn't stop me at
> all. And although it's a very close call, I'll stick with BotN for now.
> That might change after a rewatch, or if I find that there's nothing
> special in the ep after the intial excitement fades. But that's never
> gonna be because it lacked the self-containment.

Well, fair enough. What do you judge your eps on? Straight enjoyment's
going to be one (important) factor, but for discussion, for review,
you're obviously going to have to pinpoint where said enjoyment's coming
from. Otherwise it's just a guilty pleasure. Like 'Charmed' for certain
people who will remain unnamed.

>> Right now, it's no more than the sum of it's parts. Which is a nice
>> little sum, but beyond that...
>
> Right. See, this was my point. You're trying to rate this ep to the
> wrong standard.

Horseshit.

> There isn't supposed to be something that's contained.
> The 'more than a sum of it's part' is something that has to be judged
> when we have seen the entire story. But that doesn't mean that we can't
> judge this episode on those parts, and, which is very important in my
> book, for it's *potential*. If an episode like this opens up new ways
> for the story to go, or if it cashes in on previously created potential
> especially well, then, in my book, it's a very good episode. Despite
> lacking self-contained elements.

No, then it's a collection of good scenes that can lead to greatness.

There is no 'sliding rule' standard, as far as I'm concerned; there are
eps that are better and worse than others. Because certain structures
are more or less conducive to depth and complexity than others. So, yes,
it's hard to compare strucutrally different eps. But it's possible. And
I'm not going to ignore the way the narrative is assembled and say all
forms are equal.

>>> I missed our characters being sweeped (there's that word
>>> again)
>>
>> 'cept it should be 'swept'
>
> Shutup :-p

:-p

>> Very much true. And to be honest, the things that bug me are nitpicky,
>> sort of VST type deals. Like Messing with our Heads re: Giles. And the
>> outright weakness of the Spike stuff. That has got to be the least
>> interesting JM/JL set of scenes ever. And that's a shame.
>
> Well, I do sorta see your point on the Spike scenes, although I don't
> realy agree.

For me, unfortunately, they're shaking at a collection of stuff that's
not always very well matched. Other example: Anya didn't need to be
there at all. Or Dawn, hardly. 'cept for the one laugh we got out of her
'torture' of Andrew.

> But the Giles does not make this a bad episode. Perhaps

Did I say it did?

> they're just teasing us, perhaps it's even more set-up for future
> storylines. We just don't know. But, if anything, it just makes the
> possibilties even more endless. And that's a *good* thing.

It is if they're not just doing it to mess with us completely. 'cause
then it's just evil and mean. The fact I'm sort of hoping they're just
doing it to mess with us without payoff probably doesn't help :-p

(ie, I don't want a dead Giles.)

>>> Hell, something I've always complained about was the lack of mytholgy
>>> on the show.
>>
>> See, THIS is what I'm pleased about. Not getting Gunnar's assertion
>> that he's 'just another boring vamp'.
>
> I know. Very very nice, a type of vampire of which Giles used to think
> it was just a myth. A type of vampire which pre-dates the normal ones. A
> type of vampire that can beat Buffy to a bloody pulp and is apereantly
> impervious to staking. Well, colour me interested in any case.

Aye.

>> This underlines the issue for me: this is a good, perhaps great ep for
>> representing what the season is about, where it might go, etc. But
>> it's not so thrilling as an episode.
>
> And see, that's what I'm saying. There's no need to judge this episode
> on it's single apearance per se.

What the fuck else do I judge it on, then?

> That's just trying to do something that
> won't work, because it's not that kind of episode. It's another form of
> telling things, and in my book it's even more realistic. Normal life
> doesn't move along in self-contained episodes, and almost never has
> clear self-contained goodness.

That works if you're doing realtime stuff, like '24', where the
structure is key. But this isn't realtime. At all. And real life? What
the hell has anything that happened in this episode got to do with real
life? That's the most bizarre analogy to date...

>> Well, ok. Mine did as well, despite the relative cheese of the lines.
>> At least she didn't say 'Good' is what stands against 'Evil'. phew :o)
>
> Hehe, okay, yes, THAT would have been cheesy. But hey, guess what, I am
> a fan of full overblown speeches like this. I don't always see the
> 'cheese' in that. I'm not a JMS fan as well for nothing, y'see ;-)

Riiiight...

> I think this speech was excellently brought and the moment represented a
> great bit of acting by SMG. In my book, it was all good.

Indeed. Although sitting in the chair listening to conversation was more
chilling.

> [Übervamp(s)]

>> Pshaw. He'll be beatable. Just not in one-on-one hand-t-hand combat,
>> I'd say. Most effective taking Willow out of the equation this way,
>> though. Still think she's got something to contribute, judging by the
>> trying-to-kill-her ness of the First.
>
> Yup, I'd have to say that I too think she has a big part to play in
> this. Or perhaps, the FE was not joking. Perhaps she will go bad again
> if she uses her powers, if she lets the FE take control of her. And
> perhaps because of that she should stop using her powers.

She wanted her dead, though. Hmm.

> But, otoh, it does seem awfully convenient that the thing the FE did not
> get done in CwDP, it has now done by taking control of Willow for a
> moment. There's no guarentee that that's something the FE could do every
> single time. It still might be some sort of trick...

Many possibilities.

> Well, sure, the FE is just doing it because it can. But what exactly
> would be wrong with that. The FE can do whatever the hell it pleases.
> That's *why* it's the FE. It's pretty almighty and pretty unstopable
> thus far.

...this doesn't make the Spike scenes better, y'know...and it's
powerful, but not corporeal. Just influential. But no more on Spike.
'cause it doesn't add to anything I've already said.

>> But, umm...go watch 'Angel'. That might help clear up a few things.
>
> Check. Watch 'Angel'. Might do a bit of that tonight or something..

Wise.

>> See? I'm not THAT cynical.
>
> Hehe ;-)

:-p

>> Y'see, maybe it's me and my worried look, but the expression on his
>> face at the end of that speech was far, far too ambiguous for my
>> liking. I didn't know quite what to make of it.
>
> Hmm. Right. Interpeted that differently. Must rewatch that scene soon
> (not that I realy need an excuse... ;-))...

:-)

Oh, and I want to rewatch stuff. Because I feel I've missed details.
Which is why I suspect this might grow to be a better ep than it seems
to be (to me) at the moment.

> Actually? No. I totally didn't. I expected Buffy to give her old
> depressing "everything is lost" speech again, like she did in S5 on
> several occassions. Was more than pleasantly surprised when this speech
> began...

Ah. OK. I saw it coming.

Gunnar Harboe

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 3:42:19 PM12/17/02

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:05:06 +0100, George van Hal <hal0...@planet.nl>
wrote:

>And just because I can't quite see how it's gonna work right now,
>doesn't mean it's not gonna rock ass. I am kinda surprised to see all
>the negative comments on this episode in this group. We used to be such
>a positive bunch. Except in season four, ofcourse. But I guess that was
>before my long-ass absense because of that broken computer.
>
>It seems like everyone is being
>"critical-for-the-sake-of-being-critical" (this is a general observation
>and perhaps not so much true for the post to which I'm currently
>replying).

I've been among the most critical when it comes to this episode, so I
imagine you're referring at least partly to me.

I'd like to state that I am *not* being critical for the sake of it. In
fact, I love S7 so far, and think CwDP in particular is an outstanding
episode, among the best ever on Buffy. When I criticise BotN, it's
because I think it's not very good.

That's undoubtedly partly because the content doesn't appeal to me so
much. Buffy fights the Ubervamp, so what? We learn that it's strong and
all, but after last episode, is that really a surprise? We learn that
the girls being killed were Slayers-inWaiting, which people guessed back
in 7x01. Buffy's speech at the end is heartening, since it's always good
to hear the characters talking sense, but hardly rousing (the only guy
who writes great TV speeches is Aaron Sorkin).

Maybe it's because the confrontation has started. I'm a sucker for the
set-up, the suspense of what's to come. I don't care so much for the
pay-off. YMMV. Put it this way: in 'The Shining', which bit is more
scary; Danny riding his pedal-car through empty corridors, or Jack
chasing him with an axe? For me, it's the corridors, every time.

Gunnar Harboe

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 3:57:36 PM12/17/02

>> They were pretty repetative, and the drowning and beating up wasn't

>> *that* interesting. Where it did work, however, was in the symbolism and
>> the show of Spike's devotion to Buffy. It would have been very easy for
>> Spike to join with The First, to "redeem" himself to his former evil
>> self. Because a soul doesn't give anybody the firm resolve to hang in
>> there and say no to something as powerfull as The First. That, imho, was
>> the good part of those scenes.
>
>Yeah, ok.
>
>You know what my problem is with this? This is what Spike's been doing
>for the past, well, 9 episodes. And specifically since CwDP. Or rather,
>in 'Sleeper'. Once he realises what's going on. We have a number of
>really good (but, ultimately, not 'new information) interaction between
>Buffy and Spike. And clarity as to where his priorities lie. What he
>wants to be. What Buffy sees in him. What strength he gains from that.
>So this stuff? Vague non-torture (it's just not making me flinch. Glory
>was better at it..), some beating, and repetition.

You wanna know what my problem with it is?
Spike isn't going to give in to torture. It just isn't going to happen.
We know that, after Glory, and after the pain he submitted to in order
to get his soul back.

Tormenting him may be fun, if done properly, but it isn't going to serve
any purpose. So any value of the scenes would be in the interplay
between Spike and the First, which isn't all that great -- IMO because
the Drusilla character doesn't work. Just contrast these scenes with
Spike and Dru torturing Angel in 'What's My Line', or VampWillow
torturing Angel in 'The Wish'. (See? Marti can, or at least could, write
good torture scenes.)

George van Hal

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 4:15:44 PM12/17/02

Mattia Valente wrote:
> George van Hal wrote:
>
>> Mattia Valente wrote:
>>
>>> George van Hal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mattia Valente wrote:

Woo! And this in an actual discussion... :-)

>>>>> Dum de dum..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dum de dum indeed. It's a new ep discussion in abe and I can
>>>> actually participate. Wooo!
>>>
>>>
>>> /me faints...
>>
>>
>> Hehe :-)
>
>
> :-p

:-pp

>>>> Indeed. Up, up and away with the posting...
>>>
>>>
>>> RAWK!
>>
>>
>> Woo! :-)
>
>
> \o/

sc\o/re ((c) joN)

[Major-ass snip]

Okay, I'm gonna do the old sum-up-the discussion thing again, before
going into direct replies.

Okay, so what you are saying is this (correct me if I'm wrong):
"For an episode to be good, it needs some form of cohesion, of internal
narritive. It needs a theme, which has to then be worked out well. If it
lacks those things, an episode is per definition worse than the episodes
that do have them. This is because having these things makes for a
better flowing episode and helps the episode be good as a single entitity"

I say:
"An episode does not need any form of cohesion, of internal narritive.
There is not always a need for a clear theme, although if it IS there,
it has to be worked out well. An episode lacking those things is, per
definition, different in nature. As such you can't judge those episodes
on the fact that they're different. Episodes like this are a part of a
large overall seasonal structure and should be rated for their place in
them, for their potential or their cashing in on said potential,
depending on the place the episode takes in the seasonal structure."

So it comes down to the point on how we judge episodes. I judge 'em on
the following

- Enjoyment
- Theme and executement of said theme (if relevant)
- The creating of potential for new episodes; ie: good or bad set-up (if
relevant)
- The cashing in on potential from previous episodes; ie: good or bad
conclusions of existing storyarcs (if relevant)
- Internal logic ('Realism' or 'Believability')
- Consistency within the Buffyverse ('External Logic')
- Character work (Character progress, is everyone acting in character etc.)
- "Buffyverse" rating: Is a particular episode well-placed within the
Buffyverse. Are there a lot of references to earlier episodes, ofscreen
characters or even earlier seasons or other shows (ie: Angel)? If there
are, are these then done well?
- Acting
- The story-layer of the episode (is it exciting, is it lame?)

I think you will agree with me on most of these points, apart from the
set-up and conclusion bits, since those are the things that I rate
exclusive storyarc eps on...

And now, on to the rest, when relevant:

[further reasons why Mattio doesn't like this episode as much as he should]

> That's the key here: the very last 2 minutes ANNOUNCE a change for the
> FUTURE. Ergo, setup. Does the episode deal with changes approach? No.
> Does it show us a different-from-what-they-normally-do tactic? Not at
> all. So the final 2 minutes herald a new (and 'why didn't they think of
> this before?' kind of approach); we ain't seen it yet.
>
> It's not that I don't trust it'll be meaningful, but forgive me if that
> doesn't make me luuuurve the entire episode for leading up to it ;-P

Ok, see, this doesn't bother me. Buffy has an epiphany, well, more power
to her. She needed to go to a place where the epiphany was possible for
her. She needed to be confronted with a scenario that had no hope
whatsoever. We've seen her with such a thing in s5 and she almost
snapped. That could've happened here as well. But she's just in a
different place now. And the threat itself is possibly even worse. So
she reacts a certain way. So, yes, the episode is build-up to that
point. And it does that believably and interestingly.

And, hey, guess what, when you see it like that, there's even some
self-confinedness to it. Who would've thought ;-)

> I think, personally, that both last week's ep,

Hehe, so how long exactly is a week with you? ;-)

> and 'Conversations with
> Dead People' beat it out on the 'things happening' front. Here, we've
> got a pretty basic 'thing' happening; Giles arrives, tells them what we
> knew ("It's the first!!"/"..we know, Giles"), we introduce Slayers: TNG,
> kill one, have the rest sit around. Buffy has fights with ME guy. ME guy
> tortures Spike. Buffy has herself an epiphany. The End.

Well, perhaps. But there's more. It's in the details. It's finally the
set-up to the theme Joss promised us before this season. Buffy hits her
stride. You see her and her friends, you see this well-oiled machine
that has been dealing with stuff like this for ages and reacting to
things all the time, and now they decide to strike back. To go for the
fronal attack aproach. This is more important than just 'a epiphany'.
It's one of the biggest things ever on this show. Buffy and gang strike
back, evil be-ware! It just works so well within the structure of the
show as a whole. It's just such a good final season episode. It has this
great feeling of closure, of going round circle. This is it, the final
showdown, everything we've ever been waiting for. It has that feeling of
excitement at the core. And also it has optimism while still being
exciting and dramatic. Amazing.

And then there's potential to cash in on in later eps. It's throwing
that around left and right. We have S:TNG turning up, we have the
reintroduction of Giles and the question wth is going on with him, we
have word on the ME guy, what he is, and find out he's physically
incredibly strong, we see the FE losing her grip on spike and we have it
realising it is, which has to be of the bad if you're called the FE. It
has further weird And then we have Buffy's epiphany. It has set-up like
nothing before it. And it has humour, and drama, and action. It's that
perfect mix.

>> Hehe, well, see, I have not been bouncing up and down as much before.
>
>
> Ah. I was bouncing off walls after CwDP.

Oh, me too. Literally. But this ep just blew me away. Sure, it's the
speech and the feel of the thing that makes it so great for me, the
little details of the ep, but there you have it.

And after a few other eps
> earlier in the season. Things you probably would've gone 'eh' at. For
> example: Help - masterpiece.

Help was pretty decent as far as a selfcontained episode goes. It was
fun, had good storytelling and all that. But this is not the type of
episode I tune into Buffy for. Sure, it's good. But it's nothing we've
never seen before in shows like The Outer Limits or The Twilight Zone.
It has that sort-of short story-like quality to it, and I totally love
the episode, but to call it a masterpiece is overdoing it a little in my
mind. And in any case, I still enjoy the major larger-than-life episodes
more.

> Um, right. You're a slut for action-y not-too-much introspection pieces
> from time to time, ain't ya? 'cause I can enjoy those, but I prefer the
> others.

Well, that's just the thing. I'm not that much. I prefer actual content
over action. Because, apart from the two Ubervamp attacks, there wasn't
much of the action variety in this episode. So that's not actually it.

I prefer the major storylines, the bigger-than-life,
swept-up-in-events-greater-than-themselves hugeness of it all. The
feeling of importance, of things waiting to happen and all this
potential flying around. That's what I love. And the fact that they do
this in an episode that has great internal logic, ties in with the
buffyverse perfectly well, has excitement, a couple of incredibly good
scenes and the fact that it all makes sense on a character level, well,
it just makes for great watching.

> Take a step back here: what other scenes, beyond the 2 (count 'em) fight
> scenes in the, IIRC, 4th and 5th acts (if I'm not mistaken...maybe 3rd
> and 5th) were 'breakneck' in pace? We had a goodly bit of other 'rest'
> moments that worked far better, were disconcerting (anything with the
> principal) and not really 'action! run! fight! do things!'

I know. There don't need to be action scenes for there to be a
'breakneck' pace. It's just the way the story is told, with the constant
threat on the background, Buffy who's loosing sleep, who can't sleep
because she has to face this, the knowlegde that stuff's gonna happen,
that Übervamp is gonna be on the prowl, the constant tension, the
potential popping up in almost every scene (see the scenes with the
principal for instance) it just adds to an episode that moves quickly
and hasn't got a dull moment or any moments of reflection. Which is what
I meant when I was talking about the incredible pace.

> Whereas I much prefer it if it does. See, that's because it doesn't take
> anything *away* from the episode, but rather adds an extra layer to the
> whole, making it more than just a great story, giving it more depth,
> some metaphorical meat, as it were.

Well, see, that's not always true. Making an episode a true seperate
entity doesn't always have to make it better. It means that we're gonna
shift our focuss to other things contained within the one episode for
several scenes at least during the episode, which means that it may very
well kill the pacing alltogether.

I can see the "methaphorical meat" thing, but to that I'd reply: you can
also have that over several episodes. I don't quite get the distinction
you also seem to be making between two-parters (which are essentially
fine) and multi-parters. Sure, the multi-parter is more stretched, and
features more episodes without a clear beginning or well defined end,
but the multi-parter as a *whole* can be judged on the same things a
single self-contained episode can.

[storyarc-like storytelling is more realistic]

> That works if you're doing realtime stuff, like '24', where the
> structure is key. But this isn't realtime. At all. And real life? What
> the hell has anything that happened in this episode got to do with real
> life? That's the most bizarre analogy to date...

Well, this looks like a strange comment. The default for the Buffyverse
is "real". Everything in it, all the non-realistic elements, become
realistic within that environment. And what has always made Buffy so
incredibly great, is it's accomplishment of making a "real" show,
realistic in emotional sense, in a character sense and in an internal
consistancy sense. There's never a point in the show where you go
doubting the Buffyverse[tm]. To me, the Buffyversep[tm] is an almost
living entity, it's believability is what makes episodes great or weak
(which is why I don't much like some episodes that use the fact that the
Buffyverse[tm] is intertwined with the Viewerverse[tm] for the sake of
humour or not-so-clever storytelling - VST[tm] type discussion, go!).
And as such, when I saw more "realistic", more like "real life", I
compare it to the grand tradition in Buffy to do realistic storytelling.
A tradition which makes the show so great...

See Ya,
George
who wonders if this amount of snippage has actually made it much shorter...

Mattia Valente

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 5:47:56 PM12/17/02

Bugger. Mozilla crashed on me while I was typing up a response. Blast.

George van Hal wrote:
> Mattia Valente wrote:
>> George van Hal wrote:
>>> Mattia Valente wrote:
>>>> George van Hal wrote:
>>>>> Mattia Valente wrote:
>
> Woo! And this in an actual discussion... :-)

TORENTJE!

Been a while.

>> :-p
>
> :-pp

ARGH!!

TETTM[tm]...

>> \o/
>
> sc\o/re ((c) joN)

...the fuck?

> Okay, I'm gonna do the old sum-up-the discussion thing again, before
> going into direct replies.

Righto. Let's hope my WisDum flows again. 'cause my first reply was
really really good. I swear.

> Okay, so what you are saying is this (correct me if I'm wrong):
> "For an episode to be good, it needs some form of cohesion, of internal
> narritive. It needs a theme, which has to then be worked out well. If it
> lacks those things, an episode is per definition worse than the episodes
> that do have them. This is because having these things makes for a
> better flowing episode and helps the episode be good as a single entitity"

Sort of.

I'm saying that the prototype of a Good/Great (and we're talking
superlatives here) 'Buffy' episode contains a story, elements of theme,
some portion of self-containedness (theme can be enough, at times..see
'Loyalty' for Angel S3..), a couple of layers are nice, and arc
elements, both story and character. This is a basic recipe for classic
'Buffy'. Other shows, like '24', have different recipes altogether.

Episodes that don't have all of this to some degree end up not being
quite so hard-hitting, in my book, as those that do. Structure is part
of content.

> I say:
> "An episode does not need any form of cohesion, of internal narritive.
> There is not always a need for a clear theme, although if it IS there,
> it has to be worked out well.

That it's done well is a prerequisite for everything, though.

> An episode lacking those things is, per
> definition, different in nature. As such you can't judge those episodes
> on the fact that they're different. Episodes like this are a part of a
> large overall seasonal structure and should be rated for their place in
> them, for their potential or their cashing in on said potential,
> depending on the place the episode takes in the seasonal structure."

That's where I think the issue is: you're saying 'they're different so
we can't compare them'. Sure, not on equal footing. But we can make a
value judgement about them without it (the value judgement) being
arbitrary or baseless.

For a 'fair' comparison, perhaps, you need to couple this ep to another
one, to make a smaller 'whole', a subset that's relatively
self-contained, perhaps.

But...we've already got subdivision into 45 minute blocks in
teaser-credits-act-act-act-act format. And these are the units I'm
comparing, and I won't cut slack because the format's different.

> So it comes down to the point on how we judge episodes. I judge 'em on
> the following

Okidoki...

> - Enjoyment

Obviously. Including reasons for said enjoyment, not just 'gee, I liked
that but I'm not sure why'..

> - Theme and executement of said theme (if relevant)

Execution, and yes. I'd scratch the 'if relevant'.

> - The creating of potential for new episodes; ie: good or bad set-up (if
> relevant)

Scratch the 'if relevant', and yes. Example: early S5 of Buffy. Great
setup for future 'what does it mean to be a slayer' stuff. Great little
and big moments, which, sadly, weren't cashed in on in the last, oh, 1.5
years. Which makes the scenes more dissapointing now than they were
then, because that 'ooh! ooh! we FINALLY get mythology!' feeling is gone.

> - The cashing in on potential from previous episodes; ie: good or bad
> conclusions of existing storyarcs (if relevant)

Scratch the...y'know. And yes.

> - Internal logic ('Realism' or 'Believability')
> - Consistency within the Buffyverse ('External Logic')

Yes, and yes. Although I think you've got 'internal' and 'external'
flipped around. 'Realism' and 'Believability' are prerequisites for any
story, fictional or otherwise. They're external to the 'verse.

The internal consistency, which sort of defines what the limits of
external logic's applicability are, is internal to the 'verse. The
external logic is brought to bear within the confines of the internal
(verse) logic. At least, that terminology makes more sense to me right
now...

> - Character work (Character progress, is everyone acting in character etc.)

Indeed. Character Arc is as essential a part of Buffy as story arc is.
Perhaps more so, since it often informs the Story Arc (See S6 as a case
in point..)

> - "Buffyverse" rating: Is a particular episode well-placed within the
> Buffyverse. Are there a lot of references to earlier episodes, ofscreen
> characters or even earlier seasons or other shows (ie: Angel)? If there
> are, are these then done well?

aka 'continuity', in both narrow and broad terms.

> - Acting

Goes to execution, natch.

> - The story-layer of the episode (is it exciting, is it lame?)

Indeed.

You left out, perhaps:

- Story arc (though it's implicit, I'll explicitize it. And I know
that's not a word, so shut up)
- Music (particularly score music, although some incidentals...well..)
- Humor: this IS buffy. Must be appropriate
- Drama: see under 'humor'.

> I think you will agree with me on most of these points, apart from the
> set-up and conclusion bits, since those are the things that I rate
> exclusive storyarc eps on...

I think this is where we really diverge: you've got different rating
systems for different kinds of episodes. I tend to weigh all facets of
the whole together. This is, perhaps, why pure standalones, and
arc-driven only episodes, will tend to get lower marks; They can be
really great, but it takes more. The 'standalones' that are great (think
'Anne', think 'Help') are the ones that incorporate big character stuff,
or terrific story/guest star/chemistry, etc. etc. Similarly, great Arc
eps are out there, but they'll tend to have more elements of
'standalones' woven into them.

Strengths in some areas can balance out weaknesses in others, and, all
else being equal, because generally Arc is more interesting than
Standalone (I think we both agree on that..), Arc Only will be more
intruiging than Standalone Only (because it generates more on a story
and a character level than a simple standalone tends to).

I use one scale, you're using different ones, depending on what you're
judging. Which is fine. But if I want to compare, in my mind, ep to ep,
then, well, it's clear what'll win out. Because there's more there, and
if it's all done well...there are always exceptions. This, however,
isn't one of them for me.

> And now, on to the rest, when relevant:

>> It's not that I don't trust it'll be meaningful, but forgive me if
>> that doesn't make me luuuurve the entire episode for leading up to it ;-P
>
> Ok, see, this doesn't bother me. Buffy has an epiphany, well, more power
> to her.

Who's complaining?

> She needed to go to a place where the epiphany was possible for
> her. She needed to be confronted with a scenario that had no hope
> whatsoever. We've seen her with such a thing in s5 and she almost
> snapped.

She went catatonic. And if you'll recall, 'Spiral' doesn't fill me with
a particular sense of wonder. This said, I think I prefer this to
'Spiral', winnebago notwithstanding.

> That could've happened here as well. But she's just in a
> different place now. And the threat itself is possibly even worse. So
> she reacts a certain way. So, yes, the episode is build-up to that
> point. And it does that believably and interestingly.

Yes.

> And, hey, guess what, when you see it like that, there's even some
> self-confinedness to it. Who would've thought ;-)

Did I say there wasn't ANY? Nope.

Thing is, it's not closure as such. It's another acceleration in an ep
of accelration. Adrenaline rush, sure..but as I mentioned, it's what
comes NEXT that really defines this epiphany.

>> I think, personally, that both last week's ep,
>
> Hehe, so how long exactly is a week with you? ;-)

Shurrup. The last ep.

>> and 'Conversations with Dead People' beat it out on the 'things
>> happening' front. Here, we've got a pretty basic 'thing' happening;
>> Giles arrives, tells them what we knew ("It's the first!!"/"..we know,
>> Giles"), we introduce Slayers: TNG, kill one, have the rest sit
>> around. Buffy has fights with ME guy. ME guy tortures Spike. Buffy has
>> herself an epiphany. The End.
>
> Well, perhaps. But there's more. It's in the details.

Like?

> It's finally the
> set-up to the theme Joss promised us before this season. Buffy hits her
> stride.

Covered this twice already: it's great setup, for sure. Amazingly fun.
But she's been hitting her stride for a while now, really. This confirms
it and tells us what to expect later.

> You see her and her friends, you see this well-oiled machine
> that has been dealing with stuff like this for ages and reacting to
> things all the time, and now they decide to strike back. To go for the
> fronal attack aproach. This is more important than just 'a epiphany'.

Except that, well, Buffy's decided. Everyone else has simply been
stunned into silence. They haven't made that move, that change in gear,
not yet. That's for later. This should get interesting :-)

> It's one of the biggest things ever on this show. Buffy and gang strike
> back, evil be-ware!

See, you're getting all high on stuff that hasn't happened yet. Which is
the only point I'm really trying to make.

> It just works so well within the structure of the
> show as a whole. It's just such a good final season episode. It has this
> great feeling of closure, of going round circle.

Full circle.

..and note we're still talking about the implications the last 2 minutes
have for the future.

> This is it, the final
> showdown, everything we've ever been waiting for. It has that feeling of
> excitement at the core. And also it has optimism while still being
> exciting and dramatic. Amazing.

And facing insurmountable odds. Yeah, it's got all that. It's got the
feel nailed down. I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm not saying it's a bad
ep. I'm just saying it doesn't have all the elements in place to be a
GREAT ep, no matter that there's a lot of great stuff in it.

> And then there's potential to cash in on in later eps. It's throwing
> that around left and right. We have S:TNG turning up, we have the
> reintroduction of Giles and the question wth is going on with him, we
> have word on the ME guy, what he is, and find out he's physically
> incredibly strong, we see the FE losing her grip on spike and we have it
> realising it is, which has to be of the bad if you're called the FE. It

Yes until the Spike thing. They could've really driven that home, and it
would've made all kinds of sense, but they didn't really manage.

As for S:TNG turning up: that's all they do. Turn up. And one dies.
Giles: he turns up. And acts mysterious. Both are there for the 'whoa,
cool' factor but don't contribute to *this* particular story at all
much. And that's too bad, 'specially for the Giles angle :-)

> has further weird And then we have Buffy's epiphany. It has set-up like
> nothing before it. And it has humour, and drama, and action. It's that
> perfect mix.

Oh, we've had setup before. Less obvious. Less urgent. But we've had it.
This season and in the past. As for humor...I found it, generally,
rather lacking. Not the bestest ever. I still find it a slightly
unbalanced mix.

>>> Hehe, well, see, I have not been bouncing up and down as much before.
>>
>> Ah. I was bouncing off walls after CwDP.
>
> Oh, me too. Literally. But this ep just blew me away. Sure, it's the
> speech and the feel of the thing that makes it so great for me, the
> little details of the ep, but there you have it.

You're oversensitive to slightly dodgy pep talks. Watch yourself.

>> And after a few other eps
>> earlier in the season. Things you probably would've gone 'eh' at. For
>> example: Help - masterpiece.
>
> Help was pretty decent as far as a selfcontained episode goes. It was
> fun, had good storytelling and all that. But this is not the type of
> episode I tune into Buffy for. Sure, it's good. But it's nothing we've
> never seen before in shows like The Outer Limits or The Twilight Zone.

Pffft. Only...not. It's understated, lovely, great guest star, and has
hints of what's to come. Sure, it's deeply personal, and perhaps that's
why it's more touching, more moving (if less adrenaline rush-y) than
this was. Like 'Untouched', for Angel S2. Again, brilliant. Better than
'Dear Boy'

But it's one that's split the ranks, admittedly.

> It has that sort-of short story-like quality to it, and I totally love
> the episode, but to call it a masterpiece is overdoing it a little in my
> mind. And in any case, I still enjoy the major larger-than-life episodes
> more.

Whereas I *need* there to be something more than just the larger than
life aspect to it. There was some of that here, but not quite enough of
it. Example: it's probably why I find TWotW, the annoying-ass
Ben/Glory/Ben/Glory scenes aside, better than 'Spiral'. Because there's
introspection and we get layers.

Emotional resonance beyond the rush of adrenaline.

>> Um, right. You're a slut for action-y not-too-much introspection
>> pieces from time to time, ain't ya? 'cause I can enjoy those, but I
>> prefer the others.
>
> Well, that's just the thing. I'm not that much. I prefer actual content
> over action. Because, apart from the two Ubervamp attacks, there wasn't
> much of the action variety in this episode. So that's not actually it.

True enough. But the action, the attacks, are the things that actually
drive the episode and bring it to a head. The threat of action, if not
the action per se. Because introspective it isn't.

Besides, 'Action' doesn't mean there's no content. That's what I really,
really liked about this episode: the violence (non-Spike related, that
is) was completely functional. It had emotional reprecussions (I was
getting 'Helpless' flashes...but 'Helpless' was cooler emotionally..) 2
very nicely choreographed fights that weren't terribly long, and meant
something. Both times.

> I prefer the major storylines, the bigger-than-life,
> swept-up-in-events-greater-than-themselves hugeness of it all. The
> feeling of importance, of things waiting to happen and all this
> potential flying around. That's what I love.

So why is S2 your fave? It's the most introspective of the lot of them,
until the very very very last moment. There's no 'larger than life' or
'events greater than themselces'. It's deeply personal. It's an attack
on the world, yes, but ultimately, more importantly, it's an attack on
the characters on a close, personal level. That's what I love about the
final scene, for example: Buffy's made it deeply personal. By affirming
she's going head to head with it, she's pulling us back into the
internal lives of the characters.

And for me, it's all about the characters. All about what they feel.
What they go through. And why. And how. It's important in a larger sense
as well, yes, great. But it's also very important *personally*.

> And the fact that they do
> this in an episode that has great internal logic,

In what sense is it particularly great? Not saying it's illogical, but
what's great about it?

> ties in with the
> buffyverse perfectly well, has excitement, a couple of incredibly good
> scenes and the fact that it all makes sense on a character level, well,
> it just makes for great watching.

It does at that, yes. The episode isn't about Big Good Character work,
though, really. That's the payoff at the end. And a small part of the
ep. THAT aspect's great, but for some reason you keep using that as your
explanation for everything. Which is irnoic, because you're basically
saying the payoff makes the whole episode.

>> Whereas I much prefer it if it does. See, that's because it doesn't
>> take anything *away* from the episode, but rather adds an extra layer
>> to the whole, making it more than just a great story, giving it more
>> depth, some metaphorical meat, as it were.
>
> Well, see, that's not always true. Making an episode a true seperate
> entity doesn't always have to make it better.

You're twisting it. I never said that.

> It means that we're gonna
> shift our focuss to other things contained within the one episode for
> several scenes at least during the episode, which means that it may very
> well kill the pacing alltogether.

But it doesn't have to. That's the point. The unifying thing that
tightens the lot can be a theme. 'Loyalty' is a perfect example of this.
It's very much part of an ongoing story, but the powerful theme binds it
together more than is the case in BotN, for me.

> I can see the "methaphorical meat" thing, but to that I'd reply: you can
> also have that over several episodes.

You can. But whatever comes later on, this ep will never gain an awful
lot of it, unless there's a radical something that causes sever
reinterpretation. But I'm fine with that. The candidate for that would
be Giles, most like.

> I don't quite get the distinction
> you also seem to be making between two-parters (which are essentially
> fine) and multi-parters.

It's not really a distinction, but in a 2 parter, to date, each half has
slightly better defined boundaries.

> Sure, the multi-parter is more stretched, and
> features more episodes without a clear beginning or well defined end,
> but the multi-parter as a *whole* can be judged on the same things a
> single self-contained episode can.

Not really, because it's a different format. You can judge certain
elements of it on par with a self-contained episode, but the episodes
that make it up also need to be part of the whole.

Depending on what you're judging, you take different chunks. Judging
story? Take whatever selection of eps make up an appropriate story
segment. Anywhere between 1 and 4, so far.

Judging episodes? Take each episode as it is. So it can be great setup,
very promising for the future, fun fun fun, without being a great
*episode*. And that's all I'm saying.

> [storyarc-like storytelling is more realistic]

> Well, this looks like a strange comment. The default for the Buffyverse
> is "real". Everything in it, all the non-realistic elements, become
> realistic within that environment. And what has always made Buffy so
> incredibly great, is it's accomplishment of making a "real" show,
> realistic in emotional sense, in a character sense and in an internal
> consistancy sense.

Well quite. I outlined that above.

> There's never a point in the show where you go
> doubting the Buffyverse[tm]. To me, the Buffyversep[tm] is an almost
> living entity, it's believability is what makes episodes great or weak

Yes. and....eps that aren't like this are less realistic?

> And as such, when I saw more "realistic", more like "real life", I
> compare it to the grand tradition in Buffy to do realistic storytelling.
> A tradition which makes the show so great...

..and I just don't see how one form is more 'realistic' than another.
'cause you'd be implying that, say, 'Passion', which is far more
stylised, is less realistic. Which is odd.

Nope. The analogy still sucks :-p

Mattia
--
"If vampires couldn't have erections, our show would have been
12 episodes long." - Joss Whedon

Dave Emberton

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 6:33:29 PM12/17/02

"Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote in message

news:3DFEF306...@std.vu.nl...

> > It seems like everyone is being
> > "critical-for-the-sake-of-being-critical" (this is a general observation
> > and perhaps not so much true for the post to which I'm currently
> > replying). The accents aren't convincing? Right, big deal. There's a
>
> That's more of a peeve. Consider most of the guys posting are actually
> english. From England.

It's amazing that in generally well made drama like Buffy, that they slip so
badly when it comes to accents. There must be pleanty of out of work English
actors (and probably lots in LA) they could have hired. Buffy has an English
star, and an Executive Producer who apparently spent a lot of time here, and
yet nobody points this stuff out. If they put as much effort into the
effects as they did into the accents, Buffy would look like a 70's episode
of Dr Who.

Sorry, it's more than just nit-picking. The effect is that you can be
totally engrossed in the episode and then the cor-blimey-love-a-duck-girl
opens her gob and you just want to throw things at the TV. The worst thing
about BOTN was that they killed the wrong potential slayer ;-)

Talking of TNG, did anybody else notice how short they were? Perhaps that's
why they were hired despite their inability to sound English, because they
don't want to hire anybody that makes SMG look so short? ;-)

> > Yes, that's something that bothered me as well. They did mention Faith,
> > but they never mentioned bringing her in. Or Angel for that matter. All
> > we got on the "we need muscle" front was a mention of Spike. That just
> > doesn't gel. We can't ignore all the backstory, and we know that Buff
> > and co. know how to find Angel. So why the wait? I just don't get it...
>
> Go watch Angel. Now.

So is the big apocalypse coming in Angel the same one that's in Buffy? Is
that what you're hinting at? And I thought crossovers were a thing of the
past.

Dave

Mattia Valente

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 1:35:08 AM12/18/02

>>Go watch Angel. Now.
>
> So is the big apocalypse coming in Angel the same one that's in Buffy? Is
> that what you're hinting at? And I thought crossovers were a thing of the
> past.

Not as such.

Mattia
--
"I wield only the power of death. Not syndication." - Tim Minear

Dan Milburn

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 6:04:42 AM12/18/02

And yet it didn't occur to her to take a weapon of any kind when she went
out after Annabelle. Even though we'd just had a scene with her kitting
out the trainee slayers. No, the stake didn't work, but she still managed
to stick it in him - he wasn't *that* tough. Let's try a sword or
something next time, eh, Buff? Actually, given her little speech,
anything short of a rocket launcher (which, ooh, she still has) will be a
disappointment.

> Vampires have species.
> That's just....nifty. Am I the only one who's hoping he sired Annabelle?
>
> * Spike and the First: takes on Dru's form. It's trying to win him over
> with the image of the other woman he loved. Spike is being all noble and
> clinging to Buffy's belief in him. Gotta say, these were the weakest
> parts of the ep, and one of the weakest Spike segments this season. I
> mean, yay, Druness, but, umm...not quite working for me.

Me neither.

> Oh, and getting beaten up by ME guy. Question, though: What the hell was
> that drowning all about? He's a VAMPIRE. Why the hell should that be
> bothering him? WHY? To annoy him a little?

And him coughing up water. Here's a hint: don't inhale the stuff.

> * Andrew: Tee hee. Xander geek bonding. Besides that, good for a
> geek-related laugh here and there, but not much more.

Andrew rocks. Especially the thing about The First being a lame villain
name.

> * Willow: whoa, that freaked me. Cool, though. I do believe that's the
> same visual we saw in 'Amends'. Most good. Can't use her magic, though.

But she will, won't she?

> * ME Guy: Is damn strong. And violent. Pulpy Internal Bleeding Buffy.

And Giles knows that how? I must have missed the trip to the hospital.
And I have a hard time buying that this can do more damage to her than
Glory..

> I
> did really like the fight choerography, though, I must say.

Yeah, it was pretty good.

He rocks. Although I was being very nit-picky, and pointing out there was
no way he could have seen what was on Buffys LCD screen from that distance
and angle. ;)

> * Slayers in Waiting: Woo! Slayers in Waiting! So we were right. Which
> was, well, pretty much clear. One's dead already, one chatters a lot,
> and one has the hots for Willow (apparently. Tee hee. Willow doesn't
> seem immune, for that matter..) Some interesting scenes.

That scene in the kitchen was nightmarish. And poor Xander's even more
outnumbered than usual. :D

That really jarred. He'd, what, just wandered off somewhere?

> Not a single hug. Nowhere. And one of his slayerettes had the books.
> That he supposedly broke in and stole (right before Boomtasticness. The
> CoW thought it was the bringers, but, well, this might be kosher..) I
> hope they're just messing with us.

Me too.

Or, well, bored of the same. Seriously, I didn't find many of the First's
activities at all scary or particularly intriguing. For the first time
this season, even less so than what's going on in Angel. Buffy got the
crap beaten out of her? Gee, that's never happened before. Spike got
tortured? A bold and original new direction if ever I saw one.

What *was* interesting was the other stuff - Principal Wood, what the heck
is going on with Joyce appearing in Buffys dreams, will Willow manage to
use magic and/or get it on with slayer girl?

I'm with the pikelet on this one. So-so.

Dan

dieter

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 11:23:48 AM12/18/02

Mattia Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote in news:3DFE1EE7.9010307
@std.vu.nl:

> * Giles: OK. I'm worried. Very worried. We started the flashback again,
> and I thought 'oh, ok, we get to find out how he got saved'. But nooo.
I
> cannot think of one moment where we see him touch anything, open
> anything, touch anyone. Ever. Not once. Not to help Buffy out of a hole
> in the ground. Not a single hug. Nowhere. And one of his slayerettes
had
> the books. That he supposedly broke in and stole (right before
> Boomtasticness. The CoW thought it was the bringers, but, well, this
> might be kosher..) I hope they're just messing with us.

Man! I didn't even notice this! They wouldn't actually be pulling a sixth
sense on us now, would they? Dammit, now I will have to rewatch this fine
episode. Oh well :)

Saskia

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 11:41:24 AM12/18/02

Life's a show and we all play our parts. And when the music starts,
dieter sings:

It's true. But for now I am assuming that they are doing this on purpose.
To make us wonder about that.

....

Ok, so it's more hoping than actual assuming ;)

--
Saskia

"He didn't try to slit our throats or anything. That's progress."

Tony Gowland

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 11:44:15 AM12/18/02

Nah, he's a goner. But he's a spirit on the side of good. Like Joyce (who's
actually starting to try and help Buffy now). Possibly helped by that coven
that helped out at the end of series 6.

Maybe.

--
Tony Gowland
http://www.planethalflife.com/freakyzoids/
"A flesh-flashing talent vortex."

bolle boos

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 12:31:01 PM12/18/02

"Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
news:3DFE1EE7...@std.vu.nl...

> Hmmm.
>
> That was, in fact, quite rockin', from a tension building, and
> exposition time p.o.v., but it's frustratingly 'argh! dammit! WHAT THE
> HECK IS GOING ON HERE?!?!?' sort of way. It's all rather 'oooh, cool',
> but as far as story goes, it's a continuation of what we had before,
> there's little to no closure on some stuff, and, well, um, ARGH! I don't
> WANT to wait another 2 weeks for the next ep! ARGH!
>
> Right. So did I like it? Mixed. Parts of me are all 'hell yeah!'
> because, well, coooool; other parts are 'well, it was decent, but not
> really thrillingly awesome'. Comments on bits and pieces in random order
> follow.
>
> * Our Ubervamp who has a species name I've forgotten already. Whoa.
> Cool. So he's playing minion, and he's a good bit stronger than anything
> we've seen before. By a fairly wide margin. Stakes no good, doesn't like

> sunlight, but beat Buffy into a bloody pulp. Vampires have species.

> That's just....nifty. Am I the only one who's hoping he sired Annabelle?

Hmm and a God Gloria couldn`t do that but some vamp from way back can?
I mean not really believable, but still.

same here.

> Oh, and getting beaten up by ME guy. Question, though: What the hell was
> that drowning all about? He's a VAMPIRE. Why the hell should that be
> bothering him? WHY? To annoy him a little?

That was pretty much the point I guess, Dru or the fake dru called it a
pupped
because you can play with it and the best puppet because it don`t break that
easily.

> * Andrew: Tee hee. Xander geek bonding. Besides that, good for a

> geek-related laugh here and there, but not much more. Did I miss the
> scene where someone explained the whole 'that wasn't warren, that was an
> evil thing tricking you' bit to Andrew? Or, erm...y'know.

I wasn`t waiting for that ;7)

> * Willow: whoa, that freaked me. Cool, though. I do believe that's the
> same visual we saw in 'Amends'. Most good. Can't use her magic, though.

Yep the effects were awesome.

> * ME Guy: Is damn strong. And violent. Pulpy Internal Bleeding Buffy. I

> did really like the fight choerography, though, I must say. And is it
> still the same guy who played one of the gentlemen and Gnarl? I think
> so...Also, I was kind of amused by the 'finding the cave' thing. Again
> by falling through a hole. Tee hee.

That happens a lot in this season. ;7)

> * Slayers in Waiting: Woo! Slayers in Waiting! So we were right. Which
> was, well, pretty much clear. One's dead already, one chatters a lot,
> and one has the hots for Willow (apparently. Tee hee. Willow doesn't
> seem immune, for that matter..) Some interesting scenes.

So that was what it was, I wondered what she meant.

> * Giles: OK. I'm worried. Very worried. We started the flashback again,
> and I thought 'oh, ok, we get to find out how he got saved'. But nooo. I
> cannot think of one moment where we see him touch anything, open
> anything, touch anyone. Ever. Not once. Not to help Buffy out of a hole
> in the ground. Not a single hug. Nowhere. And one of his slayerettes had
> the books. That he supposedly broke in and stole (right before
> Boomtasticness. The CoW thought it was the bringers, but, well, this
> might be kosher..) I hope they're just messing with us.

I am getting concerned, I mean , if there is to be a series about the
council
and Giles , how will that happen without the counsil? Or will it be the
youth from giles?

> and ME Guy's indestrucibility and brute strength. Admittedly, Buffy
> looks worse off than after facing a normal vamp without her powers
> (Helpless) but...Hmm. It's rather bitchin' though.

Hmm I was really scared, I saw a definite possesion of buffy there.
I don`t know how Bush his ghost was able to posses the body of buffy
but the end made it the creepiest of all, Bush has taken over Buffy,
brrrrrrrrr
I hoped this season would become scary, but this is just too much. ;7)

> For the record, I'm still loving this season. Just hating waiting for
> new eps.
>

> Mattia
> --
> "It's low stress and the only place I get called "fucking," and
> that's always funny." - Tim Minear, on why uk.media.tv.angel is
> such a great place
>

Iain Clark

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 5:09:05 PM12/18/02

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:06:10 +0100, Mattia Valente
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:

Seconded. She was superb in Angel Season 2, and I've always had a
soft spot for the character, terrible accent notwithstanding.

(I can accept the accent because she comes from Olden Days (tm), where
I find it harder with the potential Slayer who is supposed to have a
contemporary English accent.)

>>>Several. Finally introducing Slayers: TNG,
>>
>> Well, they're all pretty useless so far, and not very interesting as
>> characters, either.
>
>That's the point. They're potentials in a lot of ways: they might get
>interesting, but they haven't gotten the chance too. Too early to call
>'not very interesting'.
>

No, but they are indeed not very interesting so far! I like the idea
of having them around, however, even if they are all wearing red
shirts :-)

>>>Giles back,
>>
>> It's always good to have ASH on the show, but I didn't find his return
>> "cool". It'll be cool when they use Giles for something cool on the
>> show.
>
>He doesn't have to do 'cool' things; my issue is the not clearing up of
>the what the heck is going on with Giles question.
>

They're deliberately leaving us in suspense. they keep showing the
axe swing in the Previously sections, so they know full well that
we're all desperate to find out how (and if) he got out of it.
Sadistic bloody writers, grumble :-)

>>>and a big strong
>>>vamp
>>
>> We got that last episode.
>
>Not so much.
>
> > This week it was more like "see that cool
>> vampire from last episode? He's exactly like every other monster on
>> Buffy ever".
>
>Only....not. He's not the most original beasite ever, but that's not the
>challenge here. It's effective use of what is there, and that's what we
>were given.
>

He was used effectively, but he'll get old very quickly if he just
hangs around being unbeatable, so I hope we get progress next week.

>>>and your good fun possesed!Willow sequence.
>>
>> Meh.
>> You know, until I read your post I'd completely forgotten about that.
>> Not really a memorable moment.
>
>You're a strange man..
>

That was an excellent sequence, I thought. The very epitome of
memorable!

>>>There's a sense of danger building.
>>
>> Hmmm... I've had that sense since at least CwDP, and I felt this week
>> was more about deflating that threat. The only things that were vaguely
>> unnerving were Joyce and Giles.
>
>Not from our PoV; CwDP is more about creating a mood. That builds
>tension. Uncertainty. This is about establishing (or rather, trying to
>establish; they didn't do it very well) actual threat beyond words.
>

Yes, what this episode did do was build on the sense of threat and
momentum. That it did this without telling us anything substantially
new is quite odd!

>
>>>'cept that doesn't work so well. Because those scenes just didn't work.
>>>Because Spike's always the beaten up one.
>>
>> Yeah, that's what I said. "Torture Spike" has become as much a staple of
>> the show as "put Willow in danger" used to be.
>

The Spike scenes fell a bit flat for me because with Spike's current
level of Buffy devotion he had about as much chance of betraying her
as Xander would in the same circumstances.

All that was left was to make them unusually interesting or brutal, so
that we wince along with Spike. That didn't happen. Alternatively
they could have peppered them with genuinely meaty psychological
insights. That didn't happen either. Instead we pretty much got
several scenes of amiable padding, with Drusilla feeling very much
like a missed opportunity.

>But 'put Willow in Danger' still worked better.
>
>>>Eh? To me, it STILL looks more like the ME guy.
>>
>> Clearly it's Mr Grr Argh.
>
>Indeed.
>

Yep. I see no Orc resemblance whatsoever, actually.

>>>Dunno. But then, I don't know where Joss wants to go with this. I'm
>>>intruiged enough with this, frankly, and I don't know that I'd call it a
>>>terribly 'boring' route, per se. At least he's not making with the
>>>punning wisecracks.
>>
>> A neanderthal vampire? No, I'll go out on a limb and say that's
>> definitely boring.
>
>Why? Because he's 'just' strong? Besides, the point is, the big bad here
>has a minion that's stronger, physically, than anyone since Glory.
>

He's potentially interesting, at least.

<Giles: "I've got a theory, I may be dead">

>> OTOH, there's only so long you can get away with being immaterial
>> without anyone noticing. What did First!Giles do with his plane ticket?
>
>Said 'you girls go on before me, I'll be in business class'. Or
>something. There are ways. Plus there's the whole messing with people's
>heads issue. By the First, I mean.
>
>> No, it doesn't actually make sense, assuming the off-screen reality of
>> the show (it happened but we didn't see it). I wish I could be confident
>> the writers respect that.
>
>It can make sense. If you're stubbornly going to insist it can't, well,
>that's a problem you've got.
>

I agree - there are no difficulties with Giles being the First that
couldn't be got around, IMO. Basically, either Giles is dead, or
the writers are deliberately misdirecting us about it. Either way I
need to know soon so that I can concentrate on the rest of the
episodes! I spent more time obsessing about him than taking in the
story this week :-)

Overall - very solid episode. Not the best so far, and not the worst,
with a lot of promise for the future.

Iain
--
"Caught a bolt of lightning
Cursed the day he let it go"

Gunnar Harboe

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 6:26:04 PM12/18/02

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:06:10 +0100, Mattia Valente

>> Juliet did well in S2. She hasn't been any good in any of her
>> reappearances since then. Either she or the writers have lost the feel
>> for the character.
>
>That, my friend, is balls.

It is the gospel truth. It wasn't so noticeable in S2 Angel, because
there any off-ness could be explained by not having Spike to interact
with. But hey! 'Crush' revealed that she no longer has any chemistry
with James Masters, either.

This is setup for something that may be cool in the future. It's not
cool now.

We are discussing things about the episode that makes us go "ooh,
cool!", remember. I like the fact that they're keeping Giles's status a
mystery for the moment. It's the most interesting question on the show
at the moment (Wood less because we don't know him that well, and
therefore care less about him).

>> Also, with the amount of initiative and capability the scoobies have
>> displayed this term, I think he's finally become slightly redundant.
>
>Not that they were getting anywhere, for the most part.

It wouldn't be the Big Bad if they beat it in the first handful of
episodes. I'm talking about their attitude, the group dynamic. They know
that they have to deal with it themselves, and they accept that
responsibility. They don't run for help right away or run around
aimlessly if Giles isn't there to instruct them.

So in that sense, he's become redundant. He's a great character, but you
could now easily have 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' without him and not
sense the loss.

> But, well, no,
>redundant he isn't. Yet.
>
>>>and a big strong
>>>vamp
>>
>> We got that last episode.
>
>Not so much.

I think we did.

> > This week it was more like "see that cool
>> vampire from last episode? He's exactly like every other monster on
>> Buffy ever".
>
>Only....not. He's not the most original beasite ever, but that's not the
>challenge here. It's effective use of what is there, and that's what we
>were given.

I don't think so. The given was an unknown. A "real vampire", with
purpose and powers we could only guess at. Turning that into just a
beefed-up vamp is unsurprising, but still disappointing.

>>>and your good fun possesed!Willow sequence.
>>
>> Meh.
>> You know, until I read your post I'd completely forgotten about that.
>> Not really a memorable moment.
>
>You're a strange man..

I just felt like we'd seen it before, and better.

I'm starting to feel like we've had this discussion before.
Intellectually, we know there's an "actual threat". People have been
killed, sacrificed and tortured, the hellmouth is about to open and from
beneath you it devours. How does Buffy getting her ass kicked improve on
that? The way to make the threat more intense is to build up the
tension, let the mood thicken.

The good bits of this episode, therefore, were the questions of what's
up with Giles, who is this Joyce-woman Buffy keep seeing, and ... that's
all I can think of, really. It'd be interesting to know what the First's
plan is, I guess. At the moment it hardly seems like there's any plan at
all.

So no, I don't agree that there's a sense of danger building. The
tension has in fact fallen off quite a bit since the last few episodes.

>>>Don't think it's the first. I'm doubting that more and more. Might be
>>>the real deal, but it might also just be the eternal mystery that is
>>>Buffy's Brain.
>>
>> But then that couldn't have been what appeared to Dawn. I'm inclined to
>> believe that what Dawn saw is what Buffy is seeing, whether that is the
>> First or Joyce.
>
>Why, though?

Because it feels right from a storytelling POV. The alternative would be
confusing, for starters.

>> A neanderthal vampire? No, I'll go out on a limb and say that's
>> definitely boring.
>
>Why? Because he's 'just' strong?

Yes.

> Besides, the point is, the big bad here
>has a minion that's stronger, physically, than anyone since Glory.

Colour me bored. All very Marvel Comics-y. Besides, by "anyone since
Glory", you're basically just saying physically stronger than the geeks
and Willow. But both them and her presented a graver threat than the
Ubervamp on its own would, regardless of physical strength.

> > Nor does it explain why he wasn't dusted. Did Buffy
>> miss his heart? If so, what's to stop her from just being more accurate
>> next time?
>
>Who says the same rules apply?

With the Ubervamp basically a vampire, it doesn't make sense to me that
they wouldn't. It would be like if neanderthals couldn't be killed by
getting shot.

OTOH, there have been exceptions to many rules. The Master with his
skeleton, Dracula, and Darla getting pregnant. I would be OK with
different rules for Grrargh, in fact I wish they would make him
different from normal vamps (give him the ability to fly!), it's just
that I think the description given in the episode rules it out.

> Besides, puny little stake wasn't enough
>for Kakistos, and he wasn't anywhere near as old as this one.

Right. So all it takes is a bit more effort, and maybe a rocket
launcher.

>>>Yes, she'll be at S3 Events' 'The Harvest' con. I don't really think
>>>we'll see her come back, though. Wouldn't mind it, mind you, but I don't
>>>really know what purpose she'd fulfill, beyond bringing everyone back
>>
>>>from every season ever for some grand finale. Or something.
>>
>> If Giles should get a visitation from the First, who better than Jenny?
>
>...assuming he ain't dead.

That's why I said "If that's really Giles".

>> Maybe Randall.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Y'all remember Randall, right?
>>
>> The guy Giles, Ethan and the others killed when they attempted to
>> exorcise Eyghon, back in the Ripper days ("Giles: The Hellblazer
>> Years").
>
>Right. But since we never saw the guy, it would be nifty, but not
>terribly poingant.

Agreed. Jenny's the best option.

>Well yes. This ep basically established that what little we do know of
>the First from, say, S3, is bound to be at the very least incomplete.
>The First isn't acting terribly 'in character', relative to it's past
>actions.

The explanation that it created evil seems slightly different to that
given in 'Amends', too. But to me it doesn't really make sense to talk
about "creating evil" in the first place, so nevermind.

OK, what about getting in and out of the taxi I assume they took from
the airport? Or fastening the seatbelt on the plane, for that matter?

We haven't seen the kind of mind-control powers that would allow it to
convince people that it actually did these things if it didn't. Not so
much of a problem being incorporeal if you can fake it.

>> No, it doesn't actually make sense, assuming the off-screen reality of
>> the show (it happened but we didn't see it). I wish I could be confident
>> the writers respect that.
>
>It can make sense. If you're stubbornly going to insist it can't, well,
>that's a problem you've got.

Who's stubbornly insisting? That's the first I ever said of it. In fact,
I hadn't even thought about it before you voiced objections to the idea
that he might be the First.

It can make about as much sense as Kendra sneaking away from an airstrip
dressed in shock colours without anyone noticing. There are less strict
requirements when it's not on-screen, I guess.

Neil Sluman

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 6:26:10 PM12/18/02

Mattia Valente wrote:
> Dum de dum..
>
> Can you tell I'm cramming really hard for an exam this friday? Well? can
> you?
>
> ahem.
>

It was interesting, but far too much of an inbetweener. Nothing really
got resolved.

> * Our Ubervamp who has a species name I've forgotten already. Whoa.
> Cool. So he's playing minion, and he's a good bit stronger than anything
> we've seen before. By a fairly wide margin. Stakes no good, doesn't like
> sunlight, but beat Buffy into a bloody pulp. Vampires have species.
> That's just....nifty. Am I the only one who's hoping he sired Annabelle?
>

Stakes no good - Maybe his heart's in the wrong place. I'm not sure
about the whole sunlight thing. It didn't burst into smoke straight
away, but vamps tned to have varying ability to cope with sunlight
depending on the plot.

Beheading will probably do the job. Separating heads from bodies works
for a lot of beasties. Strange she didn't think of bringing an axe with
her for the second fight.

Tough guy, but I want to see Buffy defeat it.

I think Joyce could have tormented him more. He actually respected Joyce.

> Oh, and getting beaten up by ME guy. Question, though: What the hell was
> that drowning all about? He's a VAMPIRE. Why the hell should that be
> bothering him? WHY? To annoy him a little?
>

They also played loud music when he was trying to sleep.

> * Andrew: Tee hee. Xander geek bonding. Besides that, good for a
> geek-related laugh here and there, but not much more. Did I miss the
> scene where someone explained the whole 'that wasn't warren, that was an
> evil thing tricking you' bit to Andrew? Or, erm...y'know.
>

I'll bet they were actually right about the comic issue numbers as well.

> * Willow: whoa, that freaked me. Cool, though. I do believe that's the
> same visual we saw in 'Amends'. Most good. Can't use her magic, though.
>

Not in any way that can result in feedback at least.

I'm trying to come up with a theory here. I have no idea why. I've
never been right with a theory before unless everyone's already got it
first.

Anyway, my first thought was that he knew who Buffy was, but didn't want
to interfere. Perhaps a watcher, or a rogue watcher.

That doesn't seem to fit though. He would have revealed himself to
buffy now. The dead guy in the basement upped the ante a bit. Why did
he need to bury Jonathan anyway? The first could have kept people away.
He might have just felt that it was wrong to leave him just lying
there.

He's too similar to the mayor to be evil. That would be too obvious.
He knows something though. His office being on top of the hellmouth
can't be a coincidence.

He certainly wants to keep an eye on Buffy. That job offer puts her in
a perfect posityion to be watched.

Could he be part of another cell working for the PTB? He suspects that
Buffy may be an ally. He knows about real evil. He must have
experienced something.

> * Slayers in Waiting: Woo! Slayers in Waiting! So we were right. Which
> was, well, pretty much clear. One's dead already, one chatters a lot,
> and one has the hots for Willow (apparently. Tee hee. Willow doesn't
> seem immune, for that matter..) Some interesting scenes.
>

Lots of English accents this week.

> * Giles: OK. I'm worried. Very worried. We started the flashback again,
> and I thought 'oh, ok, we get to find out how he got saved'. But nooo. I
> cannot think of one moment where we see him touch anything, open
> anything, touch anyone. Ever. Not once. Not to help Buffy out of a hole
> in the ground. Not a single hug. Nowhere. And one of his slayerettes had
> the books. That he supposedly broke in and stole (right before
> Boomtasticness. The CoW thought it was the bringers, but, well, this
> might be kosher..) I hope they're just messing with us.
>

Does this mean there will be no Ripper series? A dead star doesn;t bode
well.

Why help at all?

Yep. Not quite desperate to know what happens next though. Just intrigued.

--
Squigs

Dave Emberton

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 4:18:24 AM12/19/02

"Tony Gowland" <to...@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:3e00a62e$0$17808$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...

I think you're probably right about both Giles and Joyce. Xander mentioning
M.Night Shaylaman (director of The Sixth Sense) in the episode is so
obviously a clue.

I think as well as Giles not touching anything, didn't he also walk over the
same ground as Buffy, but Buffy fell into the cave? Either Giles weighs less
than Buffy (don't think so), or Giles weighs nothing at all due to being a
ghost. Hmmm.

Also when we first saw Giles, it looked like Buffy was going to hug him and
then irritating luv-a-duck girl pushed her way in. If all this is true, then
it's going to be interesting how they find out. "Giles, just hold this for
me, oh you can't."

Dave

bolle boos

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 5:06:01 AM12/19/02

"Neil Sluman" <squ...@NOSPAM.postmaster.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:3E010412...@NOSPAM.postmaster.co.uk...

They killed an unkillable oponent in the mall by using a bazooka
I think that would help here too, if it is not dead it is atleast
so much seperated that the parts can`t do much. ;7)

> Tough guy, but I want to see Buffy defeat it.
>
> > * Spike and the First: takes on Dru's form. It's trying to win him over
> > with the image of the other woman he loved. Spike is being all noble and
> > clinging to Buffy's belief in him. Gotta say, these were the weakest
> > parts of the ep, and one of the weakest Spike segments this season. I
> > mean, yay, Druness, but, umm...not quite working for me.
> >
> I think Joyce could have tormented him more. He actually respected Joyce.

He knew it was fake, so I think it wouldn`t matter much.
But he clings to his believe that buffy believes in him.
It wouldn`t really natter if she really does, as long as he believes she
does.
He clings to the love for her, most desperately

Iain Clark

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 2:15:09 PM12/19/02

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 23:26:04 +0000, Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk>
wrote:

>>> OTOH, there's only so long you can get away with being immaterial

>>> without anyone noticing. What did First!Giles do with his plane ticket?
>>
>>Said 'you girls go on before me, I'll be in business class'. Or
>>something. There are ways. Plus there's the whole messing with people's
>>heads issue. By the First, I mean.
>
>OK, what about getting in and out of the taxi I assume they took from
>the airport? Or fastening the seatbelt on the plane, for that matter?
>
>We haven't seen the kind of mind-control powers that would allow it to
>convince people that it actually did these things if it didn't. Not so
>much of a problem being incorporeal if you can fake it.
>

"I have something to take care of here. I'll take a later flight and
meet you in Sunnydale"

IMO there are so many ways he could have engineered this that it isn't
worth dwelling on the exact specifics.

Of course, it may really be Giles. Or they could be suffering
post-hypnotic conditioning as per Spike.

Niall Harrison

unread,

Dec 20, 2002, 4:58:51 PM12/20/02

Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Mattia Valente wrote:
> Dum de dum..

> Can you tell I'm cramming really hard for an exam this friday? Well? can
> you?

> ahem.

> SPOILERS Buffy 7ABB10 - Bring on the Night

> Hmmm.

>
> That was, in fact, quite rockin', from a tension building, and
> exposition time p.o.v., but it's frustratingly 'argh! dammit! WHAT THE
> HECK IS GOING ON HERE?!?!?' sort of way.

I found it a bit unspectacular, to be honest. And did someone screw up the
date? CwDP had a concrete time, and I don't think we're supposed to have
had more than a couple days elapse since then, yet Giles is talking about
christmas. Did I miss something?

> * Our Ubervamp who has a species name I've forgotten already. Whoa.
> Cool.

Eh. Where's a troll hammer when you need one?

More interesting are the implications of another First, another going back
to the beginning vibe.

> * Andrew: Tee hee. Xander geek bonding. Besides that, good for a
> geek-related laugh here and there, but not much more. Did I miss the
> scene where someone explained the whole 'that wasn't warren, that was an
> evil thing tricking you' bit to Andrew? Or, erm...y'know.

I've honestly no idea. The last three eps have all blurred into one for
me.

> * Willow: whoa, that freaked me.

We're going round in circles again, though. We *know* Willow's got
magic-control issues, already.

> * Slayers in Waiting: Woo! Slayers in Waiting! So we were right. Which
> was, well, pretty much clear. One's dead already,

And, uh, why did she run, exactly? It just happened for no reason at all,
as far as I could see.

> * Giles: OK. I'm worried. Very worried.

This bit, I'm still intrigued by. I can't work out if they're bluffing or
double-bluffing us.

> The ep's not great, on it's own. It's setup, done well mostly,
> following...setup.

It's filler, is what it is. Arc filler. :-/

Niall

--
When memes collide.

Derek Jolly

unread,

Dec 20, 2002, 5:54:49 PM12/20/02

Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in
news:10404215...@urchin.earth.li:

>> * Slayers in Waiting: Woo! Slayers in Waiting! So we were right.
>> Which was, well, pretty much clear. One's dead already,
>
> And, uh, why did she run, exactly? It just happened for no reason at
> all, as far as I could see.
>
>> * Giles: OK. I'm worried. Very worried.
>
> This bit, I'm still intrigued by. I can't work out if they're bluffing
> or double-bluffing us.

Conspiracy Theory #4892: I wonder if these two are connected in some
way. Maybe she found something out about Giles. She was certainly
running away pretty sharpish.
--
Derek Jolly (derek at rivetsoft dot freeserve dot co dot uk)
Leaner, cleaner homepage: http://rivet.50megs.com/
comp.sys.sinclair folklore FAQ: http://rivet.50megs.com/cssfolk.html

Niall Harrison

unread,

Dec 20, 2002, 6:11:24 PM12/20/02

Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Gunnar Harboe wrote:

> (the only guy who writes great TV speeches is Aaron Sorkin).

And, y'know, that other guy.

"If nothing we do matters..."

:-)

Niall

--
A little charm and a lot of style.

Niall Harrison

unread,

Dec 20, 2002, 6:44:42 PM12/20/02

> I say:

> An episode does not need any form of cohesion, of internal narrative.

Say what?

Internal narrative is the backbone of any episode, of any series. You can
get away with all sorts of variations on the basic theme - see, oh,
'Restless', or 'Conversations With Dead People' - but there has to be
*something* driving the episode. If you take the spine out of a person,
all you end up with is a bag of mush. :-)

Episodes have to be dramatically satisfying in and of themselves. It's
fine for them to gain extra power from being part of a larger whole -
that's what arc is all about - but if their *only* value is as part of
that larger whole, watching the episodes trickle out over six months isn't
going to be much fun. There needs to be a balance between anticipating the
great things to come, and enjoying the great things that have just
happened.

Even individual episodes of _24_ have their own plots.

> There is not always a need for a clear theme,

I'm fine with obscure themes, but the story has to be about *something*.
Otherwise, why tell it?

So much for the academic argument. How does this apply to 'Bring On The
Night'?

It's an arc episode, the last in a run of four. It's the last episode
before christmas, the last of the autumn run. By rights, this should be an
episode where Things Happen: Some change in the status quo, some temporary
resolution or new threat. We get this, in Buffy's 'no more waiting' speech
at the end.

Thematically, the writers keep on adding layers to the 'back to the
beginning' aspect of things, what with the neandervamp and the
proto-slayers.

As far as I'm concerned, BoTN is well within the limits. Where I have a
problem with it is it does none of it well. It is clumsy, confusing and
cluttered. The Spike/Dru scenes are pointless; the proto-slayers are
obvious caricatures (the american is the cool one, natch), and when one of
them does go walkabout it's for utterly unexplained reasons; Andrew does
nothing; Principal Wood gets vagued up some more; Willow loses control
again; and so on. The only plot thread I thought was handled with any kind
of finesse was the Giles one.

Shuggie

unread,

Dec 20, 2002, 10:07:33 PM12/20/02

On 20 Dec 2002 23:11:24 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>
>> (the only guy who writes great TV speeches is Aaron Sorkin).
>
>And, y'know, that other guy.
>
>"If nothing we do matters..."
>

I'm sorry but that was *not* a great speech. It's an interesting play on
words and it's a brave attempt to re-direct the story-arc with language
alone, but it's little more than hand-waving.

If nothing we do matters then it doesn't matter what we do - one choice
is just as good as another. On which basis - giving up completely is
just as much the right thing to do as continuing fighting evil. Somehow
Angel manages to make it mean the later but not the former.

My fanwank is that he wanted to believe that there was a reason to do
what he felt he should do and this speech merely shows how desperate he
was to find one, given the lengths to which he would torture logic to
find it.

And almost by definition if something requires fanwank it's bad writing.

If you want a good speech by an ME writer then a few of my favourites
are -

Buffy's "It never ends" speech to her mom in Becoming
Spike's "Love's Bitch" in Lover's Walk
Doyle's "Hero" speech from Hero
Pretty much most of Spike's lines in Fool for Love
Buffy's "it's all about power" in Checkpoint

--
Shug

Niall Harrison

unread,

Dec 21, 2002, 4:42:38 AM12/21/02

Spoilers for _Angel_ S2, 'Epiphany'

Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2002 23:11:24 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
> wrote:

>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>
>>> (the only guy who writes great TV speeches is Aaron Sorkin).
>>
>>And, y'know, that other guy.
>>
>>"If nothing we do matters..."
>
> I'm sorry but that was *not* a great speech.

<snip>

> If nothing we do matters then it doesn't matter what we do - one choice
> is just as good as another.

Well...yes. Well done. There's no grand plan, no bigger meaning. The only
reason to do good is...

"...And I want to help people. I want to help because I don't think people
should suffer, as they do."

You don't fight for redemption, or a reward, although you may achieve
those things. You don't fight to beat the demons, although beating the
demons is a good thing. You fight simply because the fight is worth it -
because in and of itself, it is the right thing to do.

Angel isn't desperate for a reason. He has, at long last, found the right
reason.

> If you want a good speech by an ME writer then a few of my favourites
> are -
>
> Buffy's "It never ends" speech to her mom in Becoming
> Spike's "Love's Bitch" in Lover's Walk
> Doyle's "Hero" speech from Hero
> Pretty much most of Spike's lines in Fool for Love
> Buffy's "it's all about power" in Checkpoint

I'm with you apart from on the 'Checkpoint' speech. Other ones I like may
reqiure spoiler space for S3 and 4 _Angel_:

"The good guys are always stalwart and true..." - Giles, 'Lie To Me'
"It's no secret that Sunnydale High isn't really like other high
schools..." - Jonathan, 'The Prom'
"Welcome to the home office" - Holland Manners, 'Reprise'
"I was torn out of there..." - Buffy, 'After Life'
"I want to say it, and mean it, but...I can't" - Darla, 'Lullaby'
"My foot slips, and I don't quite hold..." - The Ballerina, WITW
"Dearest Stephen..." - Holtz' letter, 'Benediction'
"Nothing in the world is as it should be..." - Angel, 'Deep Down'

One that's not on the list is Anya's speech in 'The Body'. It just leaves
me cold, every time. Willow, on the other hand...

Niall

--
Verbing weirds language.

Mark Evans

unread,

Dec 21, 2002, 5:43:25 AM12/21/02

pikelet <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
> Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:43:51 +0100. I'm in alt.buffy.europe. Mattia
> Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> is twanging, all Hoob-like, at me. I
> calmly say:

>>Dum de dum..
>>
>>Can you tell I'm cramming really hard for an exam this friday? Well? can
>>you?
>>
>>ahem.
>>

>>SPOILERS Buffy 7ABB10 - Bring on the Night

>>Hmmm.
>>
>>That was, in fact, quite rockin', from a tension building, and
>>exposition time p.o.v., but it's frustratingly 'argh! dammit! WHAT THE

>>HECK IS GOING ON HERE?!?!?' sort of way. It's all rather 'oooh, cool',
>>but as far as story goes, it's a continuation of what we had before,
>>there's little to no closure on some stuff, and, well, um, ARGH! I don't
>>WANT to wait another 2 weeks for the next ep! ARGH!

> To be honest, I thought it was the first really 'so-so' episode of the
> season to date.

> Three proto-slayers, one of which fancies Willow, or at least flirts a
> little with her. The other two, of course, have shit accents. One of
> them sounds like she's straight from the Van Dyke School of Mockney,
> the other sounds like she's not sure whether to be Australian or not.

> Typically, they leave the one with the 'Gor blimey lawks a mercy
> guv'NAH' accent in the show, whilst killing off the other, slightly
> less dodgy accented one.

Maybe she has the same voice coach as Juliet Landau.

> Buffy and Giles don't make physical contact *once*? Also, Giles
> throwing in his 'can only take the form of dead people' infodump on
> the First might well be significant.

But can the first be in several places at once. We don't
know what happened to Giles, maybe he is being impersonated
by the entity who made it snow in Ammends.

> Principal Wood's being groomed to be a baddy, so I'm guessing he's
> not. Though possibly a pawn of some kind.

Imagine what kind of flack ME would get for having an evil
black man...

Debra

unread,

Dec 21, 2002, 8:05:37 PM12/21/02

>From: Niall Harrison

>...the proto-slayers are

>obvious caricatures (the american is the cool one, natch), and when one of
>them does go walkabout it's for utterly unexplained reasons;

Complaints about the slain Slayer-in-Training running out of the
house may be premature. What might make the most timid and
most compliant of the SITs run out of the house? Perhaps she
came upon a threat in the house more terrifying than the one
outside. Perhaps the sleeper awakes. Perhaps, like Dawn not
remembering/telling the others that Ben was Glory, it is something
that will be explained later, when the sleeper/Giles' true nature/
whatever is revealed.

Debra
~
Slowly re-engaging

Shuggie

unread,

Dec 22, 2002, 9:40:11 AM12/22/02

On 21 Dec 2002 09:42:38 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
wrote:

>
>Spoilers for _Angel_ S2, 'Epiphany'
>
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
>> On 20 Dec 2002 23:11:24 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>
>>>> (the only guy who writes great TV speeches is Aaron Sorkin).
>>>
>>>And, y'know, that other guy.
>>>
>>>"If nothing we do matters..."
>>
>> I'm sorry but that was *not* a great speech.
>
><snip>
>
>> If nothing we do matters then it doesn't matter what we do - one choice
>> is just as good as another.
>
>Well...yes. Well done. There's no grand plan, no bigger meaning. The only
>reason to do good is...
>

Not sure what you're congratulating me for. My point was that *Angel
doesn't say that*. He says

"if - nothing we do matters, - then all that matters is what we do."

which is a nonsense and the logical opposite of what I wrote. He then
goes on to say...

>"...And I want to help people. I want to help because I don't think people
>should suffer, as they do."
>

As if this follows from what he just said - which it doesn't.

>You don't fight for redemption, or a reward, although you may achieve
>those things. You don't fight to beat the demons, although beating the
>demons is a good thing. You fight simply because the fight is worth it -
>because in and of itself, it is the right thing to do.
>

Clearly that's what they want to say but it's not what they actually
say.

>Angel isn't desperate for a reason. He has, at long last, found the right
>reason.
>

But if nothing we do matters then Angel's reason is no more 'right' than
any other. However it is a reason that allows him to make sense of his
journey I suppose.

You see there's a wider reason that I don't care for this speech - which
is that it's yet another example of Angel's writers tendency to change
the ground rules on us. From Amends on Buffy through to To Shanshu in LA
it is clearly portrayed that Angel is working out his redemption by
working with the PTBs to help people. There *is* a design, a plan,
otherwise he'd still be in hell. If there's no plan, no wider purpose
then why are there visions?

Why does Doyle get sent? Angel was fighting the good fight for his own
reasons - if nothing we does matters then he's not in need of any
re-direction. But no, Doyle is sent because the PTBs want to give him
specific direction and because his lack of connection with the people he
was helping was dangerous to his own soul. Or in other words - it does
matter how and why he fights the fight.

So this concept is inconsistent with the overall arc of Angel's
character - before and since. And the only way I can make sense of it is
that it is Angel's personal rationalization of his behaviour. To me the
important part of his epiphany is that he realizes that he has hit
bottom, not that what he says about it.

--
Shug

Fire bad, tree pretty

Niall Harrison

unread,

Dec 22, 2002, 11:51:57 AM12/22/02

Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2002 09:42:38 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>>Spoilers for _Angel_ S2, 'Epiphany'

[Angel says...]

> "if - nothing we do matters, - then all that matters is what we do."
>
> which is a nonsense and the logical opposite of what I wrote. He then
> goes on to say...
>
>>"...And I want to help people. I want to help because I don't think people
>>should suffer, as they do."
>
> As if this follows from what he just said - which it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Perfectly. You're spot-on when you say that Angel's reason
is no more 'right' than any other. That's the point: take away everything
Angel fights for, and all that's left is him. And he still wants to fight
the good fight. It's Angel achieving peace of mind, in a way that is
utterly, completely noble.

And far from contradicting canon, it's something that resonates with
_Buffy_ and _Angel_ all the way back to 'Becoming'.

> From Amends on Buffy through to To Shanshu in LA
> it is clearly portrayed that Angel is working out his redemption by
> working with the PTBs to help people. There *is* a design, a plan,
> otherwise he'd still be in hell. If there's no plan, no wider purpose
> then why are there visions?

No, I think you've missed the point again. From 'Amends' to TSIL, *Angel*
believes there is a plan. It's the only way he can make sense of his being
brought back. Doyle never tells Angel there's a plan, he just tells Angel
that "...whoever sends [the visions] is more powerful than me or you. And
they're just trying to make things right." One case at a time.

> Why does Doyle get sent? Angel was fighting the good fight for his own
> reasons - if nothing we does matters then he's not in need of any
> re-direction.

But he wasn't fighting the good fight in 'City Of...' - he was cutting
himself off. Isolating himself. Becoming, in fact, in danger of playing
the numbers game and hurting those in need.

You're focusing on 'nothing we do matters', and ignoring 'all that matters
is what we do.'

Shuggie

unread,

Dec 22, 2002, 3:41:54 PM12/22/02

On 22 Dec 2002 16:51:57 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
>> On 21 Dec 2002 09:42:38 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>Spoilers for _Angel_ S2, 'Epiphany'
>
>[Angel says...]
>
>> "if - nothing we do matters, - then all that matters is what we do."
>>
>> which is a nonsense and the logical opposite of what I wrote. He then
>> goes on to say...
>>
>>>"...And I want to help people. I want to help because I don't think people
>>>should suffer, as they do."
>>
>> As if this follows from what he just said - which it doesn't.
>
>Yes, it does. Perfectly. You're spot-on when you say that Angel's reason
>is no more 'right' than any other. That's the point: take away everything
>Angel fights for, and all that's left is him.

The problem is that it's me and you saying that not Angel. Angel
specifically *doesn't* say that if nothing matters then any reason will
do. He says that if nothing matters then everything matters. He may as
well say that black is white.

> And he still wants to fight
>the good fight. It's Angel achieving peace of mind, in a way that is
>utterly, completely noble.
>

It's about as noble as it can be for deciding to stop being vengeful and
callous. Deciding that his mission is to help people after all is noble
I suppose. But Angel's too complicated a character to be utterly,
completely anything.

>And far from contradicting canon, it's something that resonates with
>_Buffy_ and _Angel_ all the way back to 'Becoming'.
>

It resonates with Buffy's view of herself but not Angel's. Angel has
never been a simple mirror of Buffy.

Angel's story is about redemption, or it was. Here he specifically says
it's not -

Angel: "...I fought for so long. For redemption, for a reward
- finally just to beat the other guy, but... I never got it."
Kate: "And now you do?"
Angel: "Not all of it. All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because - I

don't think people should suffer"

So the idea of redemption (most of S1) or reward (TSIL specifically) is
replaced by "all I wanna do is help". In what way does this resonate
with the Angel we've seen before?

>> From Amends on Buffy through to To Shanshu in LA
>> it is clearly portrayed that Angel is working out his redemption by
>> working with the PTBs to help people. There *is* a design, a plan,
>> otherwise he'd still be in hell. If there's no plan, no wider purpose
>> then why are there visions?
>
>No, I think you've missed the point again. From 'Amends' to TSIL, *Angel*
>believes there is a plan. It's the only way he can make sense of his being
>brought back. Doyle never tells Angel there's a plan, he just tells Angel
>that "...whoever sends [the visions] is more powerful than me or you. And
>they're just trying to make things right." One case at a time.
>

My point is that there are higher powers, a wider purpose - in the form
of the PTBs. Their fight against evil may be sporadic and "one soul at a
time" but it is still something beyond Angel and his personal fight.
It's something he's been co-opted into. It's more than simply wanting to
help people not suffer.

You can't spend all this time having characters be directed by the PTBs
- often against their own desires, instincts or other loyalties - and
then say - "actually there is no higher purpose, it's all just about you
and what your personal motivation is".

A specific example - in Reunion Angel's following his only personal
vision by trying to go after Darla and Dru when Cordy gets a vision. He
is reluctantly persuaded to rescue a suicidal guy but doesn't stick
around much after. This is clearly shown as Angel going off the rails,
making the wrong choice.

>> Why does Doyle get sent? Angel was fighting the good fight for his own
>> reasons - if nothing we does matters then he's not in need of any
>> re-direction.
>
>But he wasn't fighting the good fight in 'City Of...' - he was cutting
>himself off. Isolating himself. Becoming, in fact, in danger of playing
>the numbers game and hurting those in need.
>

He was fighting vamps and saving people. In his own terms it was the
good fight.

>You're focusing on 'nothing we do matters', and ignoring 'all that matters
>is what we do.'

Because you can't have both. A does not lead to B when A is the exact
opposite of B.

I am trying to demonstrate that the logical conclusion of saying
"nothing we do matters" is the exact opposite of "all that matters is
what we do".

I think that the speech overall gets you to "all that matters is what we
do" in the end - but it's clumsy to start off with this logical
nonsense.

--
Shug

"You're odd."
- Mattia Valente

Firsa

unread,

Dec 22, 2002, 7:30:51 PM12/22/02

Mattia Valente wrote:
> Gunnar Harboe wrote:

>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:43:51 +0100, Mattia Valente
>> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Dum de dum..
>>>
>>> Can you tell I'm cramming really hard for an exam this friday?
>>> Well? can you?
>>>
>>> ahem.
>>>

I know I'm answering a bit late, and, well, I don't usually post here (I do
post in nksf, but there's not much S7 discussion going on there), but I
haven't seen this mentioned yet, and I thought it was a rather nice detail.

>> Oh, actually. I liked the bringing back of Joyce. It would be nice if
>> Buffy could remember that she's the First (right? I'm suddenly
>> thinking that her appearing in dreams is slightly different from how
>> the First has manifested itself before. Maybe there's still a chance
>> that Joyce is the real thing? Doubt it, though),

>
> Don't think it's the first. I'm doubting that more and more. Might be
> the real deal, but it might also just be the eternal mystery that is
> Buffy's Brain.

It's not the First, if what we know of it is true. Joyce touched Buffy, at
least once (when she is looking at her wounds, Joyce puts her hand on it). I
noticed it, because I was paying a lot of attention to Giles not touching
anything. The touching was rather obvious, and I thought it was done
especially so you would know that, whatever it was (a dream? a ghost? did
Dawn see the same thing?) it was *not* the First. It seemed important.

>> Him not touching anything was *painfully* obvious throughout the
>> episode, as well as saying creepy stuff to Buffy. Hmmm... Maybe they
>> *are* just messing.
>
> And his rather...unreadable expression in reaction to all the plans.
> Can't tell if he's worried, annoyed, please, what. Confusing.

This is so strange. I thought I would be crying my eyes out if Giles ever
died on the show. But now I'm just all confused and if we find out he
actually is dead, I think it will be more like a "aha" than a shocking
event. Then again, this is still Joss, so you could be saying "aha" while
crying your eyes out in the end. I'm still kind of secretly hoping there is
another explaination for all this, not storywise (in fact, storywise Giles
being the first now would actually be great), but because I'd really hate to
see him gone. If anyone should survive the series, it's him.

gr, Firsa, loved every episode of S7 so far, this one was no exception.

Shuggie

unread,

Dec 22, 2002, 9:06:54 PM12/22/02

<Snip>

>> Don't think it's the first. I'm doubting that more and more. Might be
>> the real deal, but it might also just be the eternal mystery that is
>> Buffy's Brain.
>
>It's not the First, if what we know of it is true. Joyce touched Buffy, at
>least once (when she is looking at her wounds, Joyce puts her hand on it).

yeah but that was in a dream.
--
Shug

Some say the Gypsy Curse - a hokey concept but 'Danish Curse' just
doesn't sound as good.
- Joss, Innocence commentary

Firsa

unread,

Dec 23, 2002, 4:03:00 AM12/23/02

Well, yeah, but that's just another thing. The sequences with Joyce and
Buffy are nothing like the sequences with the First. Buffy goes into some
kind of sleep or at least zones out for a while (this was while she was
talking to the boy, and he obviously hadn't noticed it, as I think you would
when someone you're talking to is sleeping ;c) ) and then she sees her. We
haven't seen that with anyone else, they are wide awake when they see the
First appear. Just another hint that she isn't the First at all. They made a
point of showing the touch (in closeup), so I guess that was to take away
all doubts about this; Joyce is nothing like the First.

gr, Firsa

Dan Milburn

unread,

Dec 23, 2002, 6:15:02 AM12/23/02

Personally I'd say you're giving them too much benefit of the doubt.
Nothing else in the episode was even remotely that clever.

Dan

Jonathan Dupont

unread,

Dec 23, 2002, 10:53:50 AM12/23/02

Mattia Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote in message news:<3DFE1EE7...@std.vu.nl>...

> Dum de dum..
>
> Can you tell I'm cramming really hard for an exam this friday? Well? can
> you?
>
> ahem.

See, you wouldn't have this problem if you were on 56k like me, and
didn't get to watch them till the following Sunday...

> SPOILERS Buffy 7ABB10 - Bring on the Night

(and Angel S4 "Rain of Fire")

Is good, yes. Still rather blantantly needing an Angel crossover if
they're so desperate for information. Doesn't have to be much - just a
throwaway line or two ("Angel said he was busy but that he remembered
the First being... etc"). In order for Season 4 of Angel to make
sense, I think it has to be a subplot of Buffy S7, and they should at
least hint at that.

I thought it was good, although not stunning. The accents, I have to
admit, slightly got on my nerves. I expected it to be solid due to
Marti authorship, and it was.

> * Our Ubervamp who has a species name I've forgotten already. Whoa.

> Cool. So he's playing minion, and he's a good bit stronger than anything
> we've seen before. By a fairly wide margin. Stakes no good, doesn't like
> sunlight, but beat Buffy into a bloody pulp. Vampires have species.
> That's just....nifty. Am I the only one who's hoping he sired Annabelle?

I'm starting to think that he needs to be a lot more threatening as
the makeup really isn't working for me. And a Glory reference would've
been nice. Still, I don't see one of these things as too much of a
worry (especially compared to Fire Guy in LA). An army of them, maybe.

The First needs to become Jenny and talk to Giles. Or Jesse and
Xander. Or (admittedly not going to happen due to the Kittens) Tara
and Willow. Buffy and Joyce is good, but I want more.

> Oh, and getting beaten up by ME guy. Question, though: What the hell was
> that drowning all about? He's a VAMPIRE. Why the hell should that be
> bothering him? WHY? To annoy him a little?

For a while I wondered if this was supposed to echo Buffy's drowning
in S1. Probably not, but it was all I could come up with.

> * Andrew: Tee hee. Xander geek bonding. Besides that, good for a
> geek-related laugh here and there, but not much more. Did I miss the
> scene where someone explained the whole 'that wasn't warren, that was an
> evil thing tricking you' bit to Andrew? Or, erm...y'know.

Andrew wasn't annoying at all. Amazing. Although perhaps they've done
enough comic book refs for a while.

> * Willow: whoa, that freaked me. Cool, though. I do believe that's the
> same visual we saw in 'Amends'. Most good. Can't use her magic, though.

Yeah, I noticed that. There was a lot of Amends stuff in this one,
although unfortunately having it at Christmas too made no sense.
Anyway, I reckon we'll get fully powered Willow eventually, perhaps in
the finale. Too expensive till then, besides anything else.

Yeah... but First Vampire would've been better.

They're doing well with him at the moment. We're so used to being
triple bluffed and whatever that nobody's quite sure what's going on.
I like it that way.

> * Slayers in Waiting: Woo! Slayers in Waiting! So we were right. Which

> was, well, pretty much clear. One's dead already, one chatters a lot,
> and one has the hots for Willow (apparently. Tee hee. Willow doesn't
> seem immune, for that matter..) Some interesting scenes.

Didn't like any of them. All were cliches and none of them really
interesting. Two of them had headache inducing accents. Perhaps
they'll get better.

> * Giles: OK. I'm worried. Very worried. We started the flashback again,
> and I thought 'oh, ok, we get to find out how he got saved'. But nooo. I
> cannot think of one moment where we see him touch anything, open
> anything, touch anyone. Ever. Not once. Not to help Buffy out of a hole
> in the ground. Not a single hug. Nowhere. And one of his slayerettes had
> the books. That he supposedly broke in and stole (right before
> Boomtasticness. The CoW thought it was the bringers, but, well, this
> might be kosher..) I hope they're just messing with us.

They can't kill Giles... Can't kill Giles ... I reckon the First can
appear as non dead things. Or, for all I knew, Giles did the death and
resurrection thing in his college days. I do find the complaint that
he would have had trouble crossing the atlantic non-corporeally as the
First to be rather silly, to be honest. I just don't see Ulimate Evil,
having his plans foiled by a flight attendant...

I liked it a lot, and they managed to fool me to start with into
thinking they were going late-S5 with Buffy, which was nice. I even
liked the music, which makes me pretty unusual. The only problem is I
don't see how you can not see 9/11 metaphors in there...

> The ep's not great, on it's own. It's setup, done well mostly,

> following...setup. So we're getting quite a bit of that. We got some
> reveals last time. This time, we're left hanging, wondering what the
> heck's gonna come next. And worried and intruiged in equal measures.

It kept me interested and I enjoyed it. I didn't feel like it was a
filler. For a S4+ non-Joss episode, this was good. I enjoyed it, and
hope they've got a good pay off ready for all this.

> For the record, I'm still loving this season. Just hating waiting for
> new eps.
>

> Mattia

I don't know about this season, to be honest. I reckon S6 began better
through to episode 8, but then again I don't think this is going to
fall apart in the same way. We'll see. I'm getting very worried that
we've only got one more ep of Buffy from Joss, ever, now. If he was
doing one before 22, we'd hear about it fairly soon. I don't think
Ultimate Drew can carry epicness on his own.

Jon

Saskia

unread,

Dec 26, 2002, 8:14:09 AM12/26/02

Just rewatched the last two eps :)

It's probably all been said already so you'll have to forgive me, I just
felt like writing down a few thoughts of my own.

Firsa wrote:

Heya Firsa! :-)

>>> Oh, actually. I liked the bringing back of Joyce.

>> Don't think it's the first. I'm doubting that more and more. Might be

>> the real deal, but it might also just be the eternal mystery that is
>> Buffy's Brain.
>
> It's not the First, if what we know of it is true. Joyce touched Buffy, at
> least once

Hmmmmmmm I don't know.... the touching was in a dream, like Shuggie said.
And the First is more than very clever and cunning, so appearing as Joyce
and pretending to care about Buffy would be a very clever thing to do.
Just like it would be very clever to also appear as Giles, to make the
cunning and the scheming complete. Giles' behaviour is very
un-Gileslike... I have never seen him so distant and almost uncaring,
apathic. Also, they're both not exactly being big with the encouraging...
both practically saying 'we might as well lay down now, there's no way you
can fight this thing'. And both telling her that she's alone, that she
can't count on her friends.

I mean, yes things look bad, and yes the First has been around forever and
yes there's probably a pretty good reason for that. But we (and Giles)
mustn't rule out TPTB that created the Slayers, that have mostly protected
Angel sofar as we've seen, but we're in the same universe so I'm sure
they're also protecting Buffy when they need to. They have to protect the
line of Slayers.

Maybe we'll be getting a similar ending as ST:DS9 did, the final battle
between the Pah-wraiths (the First evil) and the Prophets (TPTB)

Then again, it could all be completely different and Giles could be very
much alive and Joyce could be a manifestation of Good. We'll have to wait
and see. Next US airdate: 7 January!!

Saskia

"Oh please, like I'm gonna bother you guys in the middle of the night
because I want sex and can't have it."

Niall Harrison

unread,

Dec 26, 2002, 8:49:44 AM12/26/02

Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Saskia wrote:
>> Mattia Valente wrote:
>>> Gunnar Harboe wrote:

Everyone have a good christmas, by the way?

>>>>> SPOILERS Buffy 7ABB10 - Bring on the Night

Speculation for the end of the season.

>> It's not the First, if what we know of it is true. Joyce touched Buffy, at
>> least once
>
> Hmmmmmmm I don't know.... the touching was in a dream, like Shuggie said.
> And the First is more than very clever and cunning, so appearing as Joyce
> and pretending to care about Buffy would be a very clever thing to do.

I'm inclined to think that Joyce is on the side of the good guys, simply
because of the differences with the manifestations of the First.

Giles I'm on the fence about, but I'm far from convinced that he's dead.

> Maybe we'll be getting a similar ending as ST:DS9 did, the final battle
> between the Pah-wraiths (the First evil) and the Prophets (TPTB)

If there's one thing I want from the resolution of all this, it is that
the First *not* be defeated. Sure, partly that's because it would gut
'Reprise', but mostly it's because it would just be sucky: 'Evil can be
defeated, hurrah!'

Far more interesting to require Buffy to *accept* Evil in some way, or to
*understand* it.

Obviously, there will have to be a big battle in the season finale, and
I'm guessing it'll be an army of light vs army of dark kinda deal. But I
hope the First itself isn't defeated.

> Then again, it could all be completely different and Giles could be very
> much alive and Joyce could be a manifestation of Good. We'll have to wait
> and see. Next US airdate: 7 January!!
>
> :)

Date when we'll find out what's up with Joyce and Giles: End of february,
at the earliest...

Iain Clark

unread,

Dec 26, 2002, 1:07:55 PM12/26/02

On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:41:54 +0000, Shuggie
<shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>On 22 Dec 2002 16:51:57 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
>>> On 21 Dec 2002 09:42:38 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>>Spoilers for _Angel_ S2, 'Epiphany'
>>
>>[Angel says...]
>>
>>> "if - nothing we do matters, - then all that matters is what we do."
>>>
>>> which is a nonsense and the logical opposite of what I wrote. He then
>>> goes on to say...
>>>
>>>>"...And I want to help people. I want to help because I don't think people
>>>>should suffer, as they do."
>>>
>>> As if this follows from what he just said - which it doesn't.
>>
>>Yes, it does. Perfectly. You're spot-on when you say that Angel's reason
>>is no more 'right' than any other. That's the point: take away everything
>>Angel fights for, and all that's left is him.
>
>The problem is that it's me and you saying that not Angel. Angel
>specifically *doesn't* say that if nothing matters then any reason will
>do. He says that if nothing matters then everything matters. He may as
>well say that black is white.
>

I think it makes perfect sense:

"If nothing we do matters" i.e. if there is no grand plan, no score
card, no final battle, no way of arriving at redemption or victory...

"then all that matters is what we do" i.e. then simply doing good is
an end unto itself. If small acts of goodness are all that we can
hope to accomplish, then every small act of goodness means that much
more.

In fact, my only real quibble is that it's not substantively different
from his epiphany in season 2.

>Angel: "...I fought for so long. For redemption, for a reward
>- finally just to beat the other guy, but... I never got it."
>Kate: "And now you do?"
>Angel: "Not all of it. All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because - I
>don't think people should suffer"
>
>So the idea of redemption (most of S1) or reward (TSIL specifically) is
>replaced by "all I wanna do is help". In what way does this resonate
>with the Angel we've seen before?
>

Because it's better, more noble, more selfless. It's a transition
from seeking personal salvation, to seeking the salvation of others.

>
>My point is that there are higher powers, a wider purpose - in the form
>of the PTBs. Their fight against evil may be sporadic and "one soul at a
>time" but it is still something beyond Angel and his personal fight.
>It's something he's been co-opted into. It's more than simply wanting to
>help people not suffer.
>
>You can't spend all this time having characters be directed by the PTBs
>- often against their own desires, instincts or other loyalties - and
>then say - "actually there is no higher purpose, it's all just about you
>and what your personal motivation is".
>

The PTB never do direct them, though. Angel is left to find his own
way through the world, and so he tries to understand things as best he
can.

>A specific example - in Reunion Angel's following his only personal
>vision by trying to go after Darla and Dru when Cordy gets a vision. He
>is reluctantly persuaded to rescue a suicidal guy but doesn't stick
>around much after. This is clearly shown as Angel going off the rails,
>making the wrong choice.
>

Because (as later shown in his epiphany) he's taking his view that the
ultimate victory is all that matters to such an extreme that the whole
purpose of doing good gets lost.

>>You're focusing on 'nothing we do matters', and ignoring 'all that matters
>>is what we do.'
>
>Because you can't have both. A does not lead to B when A is the exact
>opposite of B.
>

They're not opposites. They're a realisation, and a conclusion.
They're only phrased in a way that reverses the words because it's
poetic.

>I am trying to demonstrate that the logical conclusion of saying
>"nothing we do matters" is the exact opposite of "all that matters is
>what we do".
>

Only if you take the most literal possible interpretation, and ignore
the context and the word play involved. I think what's confusing you
is that the word "matters" initially means "achieves an ultimate goal"
and then just "has value".

pikelet

unread,

Dec 26, 2002, 1:22:14 PM12/26/02

Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:07:55 +0000. I'm in alt.buffy.europe. Iain Clark
<iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> is twanging, all Hoob-like, at me. I
calmly say:

>"If nothing we do matters" i.e. if there is no grand plan, no score

>card, no final battle, no way of arriving at redemption or victory...
>
>"then all that matters is what we do" i.e. then simply doing good is
>an end unto itself. If small acts of goodness are all that we can
>hope to accomplish, then every small act of goodness means that much
>more.
>
>In fact, my only real quibble is that it's not substantively different
>from his epiphany in season 2.

There's a reason for that, y'know...

<eg>

Tim.

--
Boom biddy boom biddy boom biddy boom biddy boom
biddy boom biddy boom boom boom.

Iain Clark

unread,

Dec 26, 2002, 7:59:26 PM12/26/02

On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:22:14 +0000, pikelet
<timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:

>Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:07:55 +0000. I'm in alt.buffy.europe. Iain Clark
><iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> is twanging, all Hoob-like, at me. I
>calmly say:
>
>>"If nothing we do matters" i.e. if there is no grand plan, no score
>>card, no final battle, no way of arriving at redemption or victory...
>>
>>"then all that matters is what we do" i.e. then simply doing good is
>>an end unto itself. If small acts of goodness are all that we can
>>hope to accomplish, then every small act of goodness means that much
>>more.
>>
>>In fact, my only real quibble is that it's not substantively different
>>from his epiphany in season 2.
>
>There's a reason for that, y'know...
>
><eg>

Er, yes, I seem to have, er, blended two different speeches in my head
there slightly, *cough* mumble....

Look, I don't want you to think this has anything to do with single
malt whisky, okay? Because it doesn't. And it certainly has nothing
whatsoever to do with white wine. And that glass of Guinness and I
are just friends, there's nothing between us. Just so we're clear.
Okay?

Iain
--
"You were always good at putting words together
And wearing them so loud."

Jonathan Dupont

unread,

Dec 27, 2002, 7:17:17 AM12/27/02

Rather mild spoilers up to Angel 4.1 (and Buffy 7.10)

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E

F
O
R

A
N
G
E
L

4
.
1

Shuggie <shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<n15c0vgko0km32s9q...@4ax.com>...

As has been said, only if you keep the same definition of matter. I
think of it as "If nothing we do will change anything or make good or
whatever, then all that is good is the act itself." Or something like
that. This is why TM writes for Angel and I don't (among other
things).

> >Yes, it does. Perfectly. You're spot-on when you say that Angel's reason
> >is no more 'right' than any other. That's the point: take away everything
> >Angel fights for, and all that's left is him.

Which is "Becoming", sort of.

> The problem is that it's me and you saying that not Angel. Angel
> specifically *doesn't* say that if nothing matters then any reason will
> do. He says that if nothing matters then everything matters. He may as
> well say that black is white.

It's not any reason, so much. The whole point is trying to get Angel
to look away from the big picture (is Earth heaven yet?, so to speak)
and instead do each act for itself.

> > And he still wants to fight
> >the good fight. It's Angel achieving peace of mind, in a way that is
> >utterly, completely noble.
> >
>
> It's about as noble as it can be for deciding to stop being vengeful and
> callous. Deciding that his mission is to help people after all is noble
> I suppose. But Angel's too complicated a character to be utterly,
> completely anything.

It's more than that. Angel's changing his whole reason for operating.

> >And far from contradicting canon, it's something that resonates with
> >_Buffy_ and _Angel_ all the way back to 'Becoming'.
> >
>
> It resonates with Buffy's view of herself but not Angel's. Angel has
> never been a simple mirror of Buffy.
>
> Angel's story is about redemption, or it was. Here he specifically says
> it's not -
>
> Angel: "...I fought for so long. For redemption, for a reward
> - finally just to beat the other guy, but... I never got it."
> Kate: "And now you do?"
> Angel: "Not all of it. All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because - I
> don't think people should suffer"
>
> So the idea of redemption (most of S1) or reward (TSIL specifically) is
> replaced by "all I wanna do is help". In what way does this resonate
> with the Angel we've seen before?

He's changed his whole motive. He's no longer doing things selfishly
to become human and get Buffy (or whatever). He's realised the
futileness of that, and instead has completely changed his world view.

> My point is that there are higher powers, a wider purpose - in the form
> of the PTBs. Their fight against evil may be sporadic and "one soul at a
> time" but it is still something beyond Angel and his personal fight.
> It's something he's been co-opted into. It's more than simply wanting to
> help people not suffer.

True to some extent, but that will come later, and a lot of what TPTB
want is to do with the apocapylses. A lot of the TPTB's purpose is to
have people not suffer, too.

> You can't spend all this time having characters be directed by the PTBs
> - often against their own desires, instincts or other loyalties - and
> then say - "actually there is no higher purpose, it's all just about you
> and what your personal motivation is".

That's saying something different, which I don't agree with. The
higher purpose *is* to help people. And, eventually, save the world.

>
> >> Why does Doyle get sent? Angel was fighting the good fight for his own
> >> reasons - if nothing we does matters then he's not in need of any
> >> re-direction.
> >
> >But he wasn't fighting the good fight in 'City Of...' - he was cutting
> >himself off. Isolating himself. Becoming, in fact, in danger of playing
> >the numbers game and hurting those in need.
> >
>
> He was fighting vamps and saving people. In his own terms it was the
> good fight.

But he wasn't doing it for the right reasons, which is what the quote
actually emphasises as important.

> >You're focusing on 'nothing we do matters', and ignoring 'all that matters
> >is what we do.'
>
> Because you can't have both. A does not lead to B when A is the exact
> opposite of B.
>
> I am trying to demonstrate that the logical conclusion of saying
> "nothing we do matters" is the exact opposite of "all that matters is
> what we do".
>
> I think that the speech overall gets you to "all that matters is what we
> do" in the end - but it's clumsy to start off with this logical
> nonsense.

I definitely think you need the meaning of matters to change for all
this to work. Personally it's my favourite quote from either show,
although I also rather like "Deep Down"'s champions quote (apart from
the use of the word champions), which said the same sort of thing from
a different angle. It works for me, anyway.

Oh, and back to the original topic, Aaron Sorkin does write the best
speeches, true. OTOH, I actually thought Buffy's was rather effective,
mostly because I thought she was going to despair. I don't care if she
doesn't know how she's going to do any of it, because for now that's
unimportant. What's crucial is not giving up, and being determined to
keep going. I guess it depends where they go with it.

Jon

Saskia

unread,

Dec 27, 2002, 1:46:07 PM12/27/02

Niall Harrison wrote:

> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Saskia wrote:
>>> Mattia Valente wrote:
>>>> Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>
> Everyone have a good christmas, by the way?

Yup, I have, thanks. A nice relaxing day with my folks. Nice dinner (made
it myself and no-one died). Unfortunately they weren't able to go out and
buy presents, but I got some cash and I'll be off to the big city tomorrow
to *finally* buy a new copy of the LOTR books (mine are in such a bad
state that I actually lost a page), a TTT calendar, and a dvd (haven't
decided if it'll be TNG or Buffy).

We'll have to wait and see. It could get interestingly confusing if this
Joyce was on the other side.

> If there's one thing I want from the resolution of all this, it is that
> the First *not* be defeated. Sure, partly that's because it would gut
> 'Reprise', but mostly it's because it would just be sucky: 'Evil can be
> defeated, hurrah!'

Good point, I agree.

> Date when we'll find out what's up with Joyce and Giles: End of february,
> at the earliest...

Probably...

Saskia

"She (Buffy) killed him. Oops. My bad. It's just dust, I forgot to sweep
under the rug."

Shuggie

unread,

Dec 27, 2002, 1:56:43 PM12/27/02

On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:07:55 +0000, Iain Clark
<iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:

<snip>

>I think it makes perfect sense:
>
>"If nothing we do matters" i.e. if there is no grand plan, no score
>card, no final battle, no way of arriving at redemption or victory...
>
>"then all that matters is what we do" i.e. then simply doing good is
>an end unto itself. If small acts of goodness are all that we can
>hope to accomplish, then every small act of goodness means that much
>more.
>

As I keep on saying it wants to say that but it doesn't. It sacrifices
logic for the symmetry of the prose. Good writing can have both.

<snip>

>>Angel: "...I fought for so long. For redemption, for a reward
>>- finally just to beat the other guy, but... I never got it."
>>Kate: "And now you do?"
>>Angel: "Not all of it. All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because - I
>>don't think people should suffer"
>>
>>So the idea of redemption (most of S1) or reward (TSIL specifically) is
>>replaced by "all I wanna do is help". In what way does this resonate
>>with the Angel we've seen before?
>>
>
>Because it's better, more noble, more selfless. It's a transition
>from seeking personal salvation, to seeking the salvation of others.
>

If you check the context I originally said that this epiphany was an
inconsistency with the previous and subsequent direction of the show.
Niall said it wasn't because "it's something that resonates with
_Buffy_ and _Angel_ all the way back to 'Becoming'". So yes I agree with
you - it is a transition.

>>
>>My point is that there are higher powers, a wider purpose - in the form
>>of the PTBs. Their fight against evil may be sporadic and "one soul at a
>>time" but it is still something beyond Angel and his personal fight.
>>It's something he's been co-opted into. It's more than simply wanting to
>>help people not suffer.
>>
>>You can't spend all this time having characters be directed by the PTBs
>>- often against their own desires, instincts or other loyalties - and
>>then say - "actually there is no higher purpose, it's all just about you
>>and what your personal motivation is".
>>
>
>The PTB never do direct them, though.

The visions are *not* direction?

>Angel is left to find his own
>way through the world, and so he tries to understand things as best he
>can.
>

Yes because the PTBs don't direct him in that sense - in a completely
specific sense. The "working out" of Angel's salvation is down to him.

>>A specific example - in Reunion Angel's following his only personal
>>vision by trying to go after Darla and Dru when Cordy gets a vision. He
>>is reluctantly persuaded to rescue a suicidal guy but doesn't stick
>>around much after. This is clearly shown as Angel going off the rails,
>>making the wrong choice.
>>
>
>Because (as later shown in his epiphany) he's taking his view that the
>ultimate victory is all that matters to such an extreme that the whole
>purpose of doing good gets lost.
>

But the point is that there *is* a mission which he is capable of
missing. In this case he was meant to stay and help the boy and he
doesn't.

>>>You're focusing on 'nothing we do matters', and ignoring 'all that matters
>>>is what we do.'
>>
>>Because you can't have both. A does not lead to B when A is the exact
>>opposite of B.
>>
>
>They're not opposites. They're a realisation, and a conclusion.
>They're only phrased in a way that reverses the words because it's
>poetic.
>

I'm aware of the reason for the sentence structure as I said above. But
to make sense you have to twist the meaning to an extent where it no
longer qualifies as great writing. At least for me.

>>I am trying to demonstrate that the logical conclusion of saying
>>"nothing we do matters" is the exact opposite of "all that matters is
>>what we do".
>>
>
>Only if you take the most literal possible interpretation, and ignore
>the context and the word play involved. I think what's confusing you
>is that the word "matters" initially means "achieves an ultimate goal"
>and then just "has value".
>

I'm not confused I just don't agree with you.

Iain Clark

unread,

Dec 27, 2002, 3:28:47 PM12/27/02

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:56:43 +0000, Shuggie
<shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:07:55 +0000, Iain Clark
><iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:

<"If nothing we do matters then all that matters is what we do">

>As I keep on saying it wants to say that but it doesn't. It sacrifices
>logic for the symmetry of the prose. Good writing can have both.
>

It works for me, because I think it's no more imprecise than most
pieces of dialogue.

<snip>

>If you check the context I originally said that this epiphany was an
>inconsistency with the previous and subsequent direction of the show.
>Niall said it wasn't because "it's something that resonates with
>_Buffy_ and _Angel_ all the way back to 'Becoming'". So yes I agree with
>you - it is a transition.
>

Yes, but I also agree with Niall. It's a change of emphasis, not a
complete break from the past.

I don't see it as inconsistent, because it keeps Angel on the same
path (of being a champion and doing good) but takes it to another
level by showing that the emphasis is on the journey, not the
destination.

In fact there may not even *be* a destination.

>>>
>>>My point is that there are higher powers, a wider purpose - in the form
>>>of the PTBs. Their fight against evil may be sporadic and "one soul at a
>>>time" but it is still something beyond Angel and his personal fight.
>>>It's something he's been co-opted into. It's more than simply wanting to
>>>help people not suffer.
>>>

Why can't the PTB's wider purpose be to 'help people not suffer'?

Isn't that the point of Angel's epiphany - that the ends don't justify
the means? The means are what is important.

<snip>

>The visions are *not* direction?
>
>>Angel is left to find his own
>>way through the world, and so he tries to understand things as best he
>>can.
>
>Yes because the PTBs don't direct him in that sense - in a completely
>specific sense. The "working out" of Angel's salvation is down to him.
>

Yes. The PTB simply reinforce the idea that Angel should do good by
giving him a shove in the right general direction: 'Reminder: here
is a specific person in need of good-doing'.

They don't guide him in *what* needs doing, or what the ultimate
result will be, or what philosophical outlook he should adopt.

>>>A specific example - in Reunion Angel's following his only personal
>>>vision by trying to go after Darla and Dru when Cordy gets a vision. He
>>>is reluctantly persuaded to rescue a suicidal guy but doesn't stick
>>>around much after. This is clearly shown as Angel going off the rails,
>>>making the wrong choice.
>>
>>Because (as later shown in his epiphany) he's taking his view that the
>>ultimate victory is all that matters to such an extreme that the whole
>>purpose of doing good gets lost.
>
>But the point is that there *is* a mission which he is capable of
>missing. In this case he was meant to stay and help the boy and he
>doesn't.
>

Well, yes and no. The PTB's "mission" is arguably to do good in
general. Nothing more complex.

The problem is not that Angel is following a personal philosophy.
He's always done that, and whether his philosophy was right or wrong,
he had the right basic idea. It lead him to do good.

The problem is that he takes his philosophy to such an extreme that it
leads him to stop doing good. He loses sight of the very goal he's
trying to achieve.

This is why he finds himself at odds with the PTB. It's not about the
suicidal boy in particular. That's not a "mission" in the strategic
sense. The "mission" is just about not ignoring *any* cry for help,
and the boy is one example of it.

>>>I am trying to demonstrate that the logical conclusion of saying
>>>"nothing we do matters" is the exact opposite of "all that matters is
>>>what we do".
>>
>>Only if you take the most literal possible interpretation, and ignore
>>the context and the word play involved. I think what's confusing you
>>is that the word "matters" initially means "achieves an ultimate goal"
>>and then just "has value".
>
>I'm not confused I just don't agree with you.

You mean that's not the same thing? ;-)

Shuggie

unread,

Dec 27, 2002, 7:00:28 PM12/27/02

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 20:28:47 +0000, Iain Clark
<iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:56:43 +0000, Shuggie
><shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:07:55 +0000, Iain Clark
>><iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:
>
><"If nothing we do matters then all that matters is what we do">
>
>>As I keep on saying it wants to say that but it doesn't. It sacrifices
>>logic for the symmetry of the prose. Good writing can have both.
>>
>
>It works for me, because I think it's no more imprecise than most
>pieces of dialogue.
>
><snip>
>>If you check the context I originally said that this epiphany was an
>>inconsistency with the previous and subsequent direction of the show.
>>Niall said it wasn't because "it's something that resonates with
>>_Buffy_ and _Angel_ all the way back to 'Becoming'". So yes I agree with
>>you - it is a transition.
>>
>
>Yes, but I also agree with Niall. It's a change of emphasis, not a
>complete break from the past.
>
>I don't see it as inconsistent, because it keeps Angel on the same
>path (of being a champion and doing good) but takes it to another
>level by showing that the emphasis is on the journey, not the
>destination.
>
>In fact there may not even *be* a destination.

But there clearly was a destination - To Shanshu in LA is very clear on
this - Angel's reward for doing good was to become human.

>
>>>>
>>>>My point is that there are higher powers, a wider purpose - in the form
>>>>of the PTBs. Their fight against evil may be sporadic and "one soul at a
>>>>time" but it is still something beyond Angel and his personal fight.
>>>>It's something he's been co-opted into. It's more than simply wanting to
>>>>help people not suffer.
>>>>
>
>Why can't the PTB's wider purpose be to 'help people not suffer'?
>

It might well be. Probably is - but that's *their* purpose.

Up until this point Angel was working for the PTBs, he was receiving
most of his caseload from them via visions.

This "any act of kindness" thing takes him from the specific role of one
of the PTBs' Champions to kinda just Champion-at-large. That in itself
doesn't bother me - but they haven't followed up on this new direction -
they've basically reverted to the old one.

>Isn't that the point of Angel's epiphany - that the ends don't justify
>the means? The means are what is important.
>

But according to you it also says that there may not even be any
specific ends - other than to make the world a better place.

<snip>

>>>>A specific example - in Reunion Angel's following his only personal
>>>>vision by trying to go after Darla and Dru when Cordy gets a vision. He
>>>>is reluctantly persuaded to rescue a suicidal guy but doesn't stick
>>>>around much after. This is clearly shown as Angel going off the rails,
>>>>making the wrong choice.
>>>
>>>Because (as later shown in his epiphany) he's taking his view that the
>>>ultimate victory is all that matters to such an extreme that the whole
>>>purpose of doing good gets lost.
>>
>>But the point is that there *is* a mission which he is capable of
>>missing. In this case he was meant to stay and help the boy and he
>>doesn't.
>>
>
>Well, yes and no. The PTB's "mission" is arguably to do good in
>general. Nothing more complex.
>

If that's the case then Angel going to stop Dru and Darla was just as
worthwhile as staying to help the suicidal guy - but it's not presented
that way is it?

>The problem is not that Angel is following a personal philosophy.
>He's always done that, and whether his philosophy was right or wrong,
>he had the right basic idea. It lead him to do good.
>
>The problem is that he takes his philosophy to such an extreme that it
>leads him to stop doing good. He loses sight of the very goal he's
>trying to achieve.
>
>This is why he finds himself at odds with the PTB. It's not about the
>suicidal boy in particular. That's not a "mission" in the strategic
>sense. The "mission" is just about not ignoring *any* cry for help,
>and the boy is one example of it.
>

The problem with that argument is the old Superman conundrum - even with
super-powers you still can't help everyone - you simply can't be in
enough places at once. So there are cries for help that go, not ignored
but unheeded. Which means you have to make choices about which ones you
heed.

A vision from the PTBs was always one to heed before this. Here we see
Angel choose something other than what the PTBs would have him do. It's
interesting to note that Angel's choice is not necessarily inherently
wrong at this point - it's only later that we find out that it was a
mistake. At this point the only thing that Angel can be judged for is
not following the PTBs direction.

Which leads me at least to think that we're supposed to see Angel's
mini-rebellion against the PTBs itself as wrong.

--
Shug

No bumpy foreheads, no living long, no prospering. It's really a way of
saying that in the future people will be exactly the same as they are
now... only you know, they'll have spaceships
- Joss on Firefly

Iain Clark

unread,

Dec 28, 2002, 12:03:02 PM12/28/02

On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 00:00:28 +0000, Shuggie
<shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 20:28:47 +0000, Iain Clark
><iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:56:43 +0000, Shuggie
>><shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:07:55 +0000, Iain Clark
>>><iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:

<Angel's epiphany>

>>I don't see it as inconsistent, because it keeps Angel on the same
>>path (of being a champion and doing good) but takes it to another
>>level by showing that the emphasis is on the journey, not the
>>destination.
>>
>>In fact there may not even *be* a destination.
>
>But there clearly was a destination - To Shanshu in LA is very clear on
>this - Angel's reward for doing good was to become human.
>

I think I went too far here, since this is only my conjecture.

It's just that as shown in Judgment, if you concentrate on the reward,
you're missing the point. You have to trust that the destination will
take care of itself, one day.

>Up until this point Angel was working for the PTBs, he was receiving
>most of his caseload from them via visions.
>

We don't know the purpose of the PTB's visions. It seems that there
are times when they're doing a bit of prioritising for him -
signposting important cases. At other times they seem to be simply
highlighting a random example of someone in need. We can't see any
bigger picture so it's hard to know.

In Reunion the vision seems to be an attempt to pull Angel back from
the path he's chosen. ( Alternately, it's a coincidental vision that
serves the story purpose of showing the viewer that Angel is on the
wrong track).

>This "any act of kindness" thing takes him from the specific role of one
>of the PTBs' Champions to kinda just Champion-at-large. That in itself
>doesn't bother me - but they haven't followed up on this new direction -
>they've basically reverted to the old one.
>

I don't see this. Just because the PTBs want Angel to do good for its
own sake, that doesn't lessen his importance. Anyone can do day to
day acts of kindness. Angel can also defeat supernatural evil and
vanquish powerful forces. He's still a key player, and he can still
be one of their champions.

It all depends what the PTBs are trying to achieve, and we don't know
for sure, so how can we judge that Angel is no longer important?

>>Isn't that the point of Angel's epiphany - that the ends don't justify
>>the means? The means are what is important.
>
>But according to you it also says that there may not even be any
>specific ends - other than to make the world a better place.
>

Actually, I think we've had plenty of signs that an apocalypse is
coming at some stage and that there's a battle being fought for
Angel's soul - his role in that apocalypse.

So if there is an ultimate goal for the PTBs and a special importance
for Angel I suppose that will be it. But that's a long-term thing,
and it's achieved in the short term by Angel being a good person. Not
by Angel trying to win the whole war against evil at any cost.

><snip>
>
>>>>>A specific example - in Reunion Angel's following his only personal
>>>>>vision by trying to go after Darla and Dru when Cordy gets a vision. He
>>>>>is reluctantly persuaded to rescue a suicidal guy but doesn't stick
>>>>>around much after. This is clearly shown as Angel going off the rails,
>>>>>making the wrong choice.
>>>>
>>>>Because (as later shown in his epiphany) he's taking his view that the
>>>>ultimate victory is all that matters to such an extreme that the whole
>>>>purpose of doing good gets lost.
>>>
>>>But the point is that there *is* a mission which he is capable of
>>>missing. In this case he was meant to stay and help the boy and he
>>>doesn't.
>>
>>Well, yes and no. The PTB's "mission" is arguably to do good in
>>general. Nothing more complex.
>
>If that's the case then Angel going to stop Dru and Darla was just as
>worthwhile as staying to help the suicidal guy - but it's not presented
>that way is it?
>

Because going to Dru and Darla wasn't about doing good, however much
Angel may have kidded himself. It was about obsession and revenge,
and seeking a "quick fix" solution. In fact he didn't help anyone at
all by going there.

>The problem with that argument is the old Superman conundrum - even with
>super-powers you still can't help everyone - you simply can't be in
>enough places at once. So there are cries for help that go, not ignored
>but unheeded. Which means you have to make choices about which ones you
>heed.
>

You're right that he can only do one good act at a time. This is
simple practicality; some people will be missed.

That's different from wilfully ignoring someone's cry for help in
favour of an obsessive quest that's actually leading you down a path
of evil (or at least beigneness <g>)

>A vision from the PTBs was always one to heed before this. Here we see
>Angel choose something other than what the PTBs would have him do. It's
>interesting to note that Angel's choice is not necessarily inherently
>wrong at this point - it's only later that we find out that it was a
>mistake. At this point the only thing that Angel can be judged for is
>not following the PTBs direction.
>

It seemed pretty clear to me that it was inherently wrong.

>Which leads me at least to think that we're supposed to see Angel's
>mini-rebellion against the PTBs itself as wrong.

I think it's a very fine distinction, but for me it's not that Angel
is rebelling against the PTBs vision in favour of his own goal, per
se. It's more general than that. It's that he's abandoned the
principle that underpins what the PTB do - the basic principle of
helping a human being in need. He's no longer doing good, even if he
thinks he is.

He's not just picking between cases of equal merit on a practical
basis, he's choosing to ignore a case in favour of revenge. This
undermines everything the PTB appear to stand for, and it certainly
places his role in any future apocalypse in jeopardy.

I don't see a conflict between the basic principle that to be good you
should help people for its own sake, and the fact that the PTB may
have a bigger game plan which can only be fulfilled by people who are
good.

Gunnar Harboe

unread,

Dec 28, 2002, 12:09:07 PM12/28/02

On 23 Dec 2002 07:53:50 -0800, jonatha...@hotmail.com (Jonathan

>They can't kill Giles... Can't kill Giles ... I reckon the First can
>appear as non dead things. Or, for all I knew, Giles did the death and
>resurrection thing in his college days. I do find the complaint that
>he would have had trouble crossing the atlantic non-corporeally as the
>First to be rather silly, to be honest. I just don't see Ulimate Evil,
>having his plans foiled by a flight attendant...

It's not that. It's just that on consideration, I don't think you can
spend that long with people before they notice that you can't touch
anything. You can make it seem to work on TV or in movies (e.g. The 6th
Sense) by choosing what to show, what to suggest and what to omit, but
in reality there's just too many everyday tasks that require interacting
with things/people, from opening a door to putting the kettle on to
paying the cabbie to hugging/shaking hands with your friends to
switching the light on to pressing the button at the zebra crossing.

Consider when Giles and Buffy went out. Either he went first, in which
case he'd have to open the door, or he went last, in which case he'd
have to close it. Sure, there would be ways to get around that, but how
long could he go on avoiding any physical task before it started to seem
mighty weird?

- Hey Giles, could you hand me that pencil?
- Annabel, give Xander the pencil.

- We're having dinner, Giles. Don't you want anything?
- I ... ate earlier.
- When?
- Err ... so what's with this Ubervamp, then?

We see Giles for what, 15 minutes? in this episode, and find it
suggestive that he doesn't touch anything (admittedly we have reason to
suspect he might be dead). And the Slayerettes and Scoobies wouldn't
notice after spending hours or days with him?

I'm afraid I don't find that plausible.

That's not to say that I think it's impossible that Giles is dead and
it's the First impersonating him. Only that if so, I think there's a
pretty large plot hole requiring more than the usual suspension of
disbelief to accept.

Shuggie

unread,

Dec 28, 2002, 12:52:56 PM12/28/02

On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 17:03:02 +0000, Iain Clark
<iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:

<snip>

>>This "any act of kindness" thing takes him from the specific role of one
>>of the PTBs' Champions to kinda just Champion-at-large. That in itself
>>doesn't bother me - but they haven't followed up on this new direction -
>>they've basically reverted to the old one.
>>
>
>I don't see this. Just because the PTBs want Angel to do good for its
>own sake, that doesn't lessen his importance.

I didn't say he was less important - he's still a "player" in the coming
apocalypse after all - I said his role has changed. He's gone from being
a Champion for the PTBs specifically to just a general Champion for good
- except he's not always the best judge of what's good, his own emotions
get in the way a lot.

<snip>

>>It's
>>interesting to note that Angel's choice is not necessarily inherently
>>wrong at this point

<snip>

>It seemed pretty clear to me that it was inherently wrong.
>

OK. We disagree on that. But do you not agree that Angel's action is
presented as disobedience to the PTBs?

This appears to be our fundamental point of difference: if I'm reading
you right you don't think that Angel's relationship with the PTBs is one
of master-servant but of two forces for good occasionally co-operating.

I think that master-servant is probably overstating it - it's looser
than that - but it was set up with the PTBs leading and Angel following.
This speech in particular seemed to mark a break from that to the second
(your?) model of their relationship. Except they seem to play fast and
loose with the whole concept as it suits the episode that week.

To make it more general for a second - one of the reasons I'm not so
much a fan of Angel as I am of Buffy is that there's less consistency in
the overall direction of the characters, particularly Angel himself.
Buffy has problems with consistency and continuity as well but it seems
to have a better sense of itself, changes seem to happen organically.
Angel re-invents itself periodically, often radically, in order to tell
an interesting story. And as interesting as those stories can be the
changes needed can often feel jarring.

This speech is an example of this.

--
Shug

The Dude abides.

Iain Clark

unread,

Dec 28, 2002, 1:59:48 PM12/28/02

On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 17:52:56 +0000, Shuggie
<shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 17:03:02 +0000, Iain Clark
><iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:
>

General character spoilers for the first six or so episodes of Angel
Season 4, now follow:

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

>
>This appears to be our fundamental point of difference: if I'm reading
>you right you don't think that Angel's relationship with the PTBs is one
>of master-servant but of two forces for good occasionally co-operating.
>
>I think that master-servant is probably overstating it - it's looser
>than that - but it was set up with the PTBs leading and Angel following.
>This speech in particular seemed to mark a break from that to the second
>(your?) model of their relationship. Except they seem to play fast and
>loose with the whole concept as it suits the episode that week.
>

This is one area where I don't feel the inconsistency that you do, but
I must confess that I sometimes find it very hard to have these
discussions without forgetting important nuances of the series.

For me, Angel is a free agent who does good. He's also a champion who
furthers the ends of the PTB. The two are inextricably linked,
because the PTB seem to be the major force for good in the Angelverse.

The Powers brought him back from hell to make amends, and he is
strongly tied to them. He accepts that their purpose is his own, and
that he operates partly within their purview. When they send a vision
he respects their guidance. But he isn't, and never has been, their
literal servant. He remains a free agent.

For me, what happened with Angel's epiphany is that Angel lost sight
of his purpose for a time, and ceased to be true to either himself or
the PTB. The PTB failed in their attempts to bring him back on
course. In the end he found his own way back to the path of good.

Afterwards the status quo with the PTB was essentially restored,
except that Angel has found a truer sense of his own place in the
world.

>To make it more general for a second - one of the reasons I'm not so
>much a fan of Angel as I am of Buffy is that there's less consistency in
>the overall direction of the characters, particularly Angel himself.
>Buffy has problems with consistency and continuity as well but it seems
>to have a better sense of itself, changes seem to happen organically.
>Angel re-invents itself periodically, often radically, in order to tell
>an interesting story. And as interesting as those stories can be the
>changes needed can often feel jarring.
>
>This speech is an example of this.

I agree that Angel the series is sometimes inconsistent in its
characterisation, and I agree that this is largely because there is no
overarching model for the way the characters will change.

Neither Buffy nor Angel has a single overarching plan for what will
happen, especially not in terms of the behaviour of the characters,
but Buffy has the theme of "growing up", and despite all the ups and
downs this provides a shape for the characters' experiences.

On Angel the characters also progress, but there comes a point at
which you feel they've arrived somewhere. Angel's epiphany is one
such moment. The trick then is to prevent the characters from
stagnating without pulling an arbitrary change out of the hat. This
is more easily said than done.

I feel Wesley's current direction at the end of S3 and start of S4
suffers from this a little, and doesn't (quite) feel like an organic
progression. Although as it happens it's turned out magnificently
well so far.

I also feel that Cordy's direction has suffered slightly. I'm all for
her becoming more mature and assured, but her love for Angel and her
higher-being-ness don't feel quite as organic as they should.

The same can be argued for both Fred and Gunn, who at times have
floundered slightly and then found a new direction.

Having said all that, the show is generally very successful at pulling
this off despite the slight contrivance required.

With the character of Angel the difficulty is in reinvigorating his
sense of purpose without changing the fundamental direction of the
show. To my mind they did this very successfully with the epiphany,
but are now having slightly more trouble keeping him moving forward.
They've tried to do it by giving him things to care about, and putting
those things in conflict with his "mission", but in some ways this
causes more problems than it solves.

0 new messages