Angel 4.07
pikelet
See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
These aren't wibblings, 'cos it's nearly four in the morning. YA
FREAKS!
Moments of note:
Wesley. With guns. F**kin up that Beast somethin' good.
You begin to realise what the practice with slo-mo stakes last season
was all about.
Lilah pretending to be Fred, and 'No, leave them on'. Ew (and yet...
yum).
Gunn and his amusingly girly reaction to the rats.
Cordy telling Angel she knows exactly what he did, and then the final
shot of the episode, where he knows exactly what she's doing.
How come I have loads of people always going to me 'Thanks for being
there, you've been such a great friend', yet none of them are (a) as
attractive as Cordy, nor (b) about to repay me with a night of passion
for my efforts?
Just sayin', y'know.
I *like* the Beast. Like that he rises from where Connor was born,
like that he has lots of symbolism and puts bodies around him in the
same formation as the alchemical symbol for fire.
Is that the first time we've heard the name of Darla since 'Lullaby'?
W&H suck at jigsaw puzzles. What kind of shitty law firm are they?
Cordy+Connor=Eww. Also = WTF?!?!?
And Angel watching = Mmm.... trouble at mill, lad.
Funny for an episode that, on the face of it, didn't do much more than
anything else this season, yet I got a sense of *going* somewhere with
this one.
Tim
--
Boom biddy boom biddy boom biddy boom biddy boom
biddy boom biddy boom boom boom.
Niall Harrison
> 'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
Wrong! Apparently called 'Rain of Fire'. Legal issues. You should know.
> See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>
> Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
> you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> These aren't wibblings, 'cos it's nearly four in the morning. YA
> FREAKS!
It's now 8:30, and I should be going to work.
Fine episode. Fine, fine episode.
> Wesley. With guns. F**kin up that Beast somethin' good.
Or, in fact, not f**kin him up one little bit, which makes it even cooler.
> You begin to realise what the practice with slo-mo stakes last season
> was all about.
That was one damn fine fight scene. And now I'm going to show my geek
credentials...
Remember the fight scene music from the first season? Check out the end of
'Somnambulist' or 'Five by Five'? The music I always complained about?
They used it again here. Except this time, it *worked*.
> Cordy telling Angel she knows exactly what he did, and then the final
> shot of the episode, where he knows exactly what she's doing.
That final segment - the rain of fire against the backdrop of LA - was
downright *beautiful*. And the music when Connor and Cordy were getting it
on? Same as the music at the end of 'Tomorrow', when Cordy was floatin'
away.
> How come I have loads of people always going to me 'Thanks for being
> there, you've been such a great friend', yet none of them are (a) as
> attractive as Cordy, nor (b) about to repay me with a night of passion
> for my efforts?
They all have responsibilities. You know, jobs, a life. Kids.
> I *like* the Beast. Like that he rises from where Connor was born,
> like that he has lots of symbolism and puts bodies around him in the
> same formation as the alchemical symbol for fire.
I like that aspect of him. He, uh, does kinda need a personality, though.
Being unkillable isn't going to keep him interesting for very long.
He also needs a reason for not killing AI. Holtz tried, but hey, AI can
outfight humans. Darla and Dru didn't try, but they weren't interested.
But when Wes and Gunn get in the Beast's way, why does he fling them
across the room rather than snapping their neck?
> Is that the first time we've heard the name of Darla since 'Lullaby'?
Yes. And can I just say how much I loved the Beast rising out the back of
Caritas?
> W&H suck at jigsaw puzzles. What kind of shitty law firm are they?
Full of people like Wesley.
> Cordy+Connor=Eww. Also = WTF?!?!?
Forced by real-life considerations, I hear. On the upside, I gather it is
at least *supposed* to be Eww.
> Funny for an episode that, on the face of it, didn't do much more than
> anything else this season, yet I got a sense of *going* somewhere with
> this one.
Might be all the doom-y portents.
I'm just saying.
(Actually, what this felt most like was a lesson in how to move the
characters forward *within* a plot, rather than as a sidebar to it.)
Niall
--
Happiness is...a big purple tennis ball.
Mark Scott-Simons
wrote:
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - pikelet wrote:
>
>> 'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>
>Wrong! Apparently called 'Rain of Fire'. Legal issues. You should know.
>
>> See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>
>> Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>> you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Cordy+Connor=Eww. Also = WTF?!?!?
>
>Forced by real-life considerations, I hear.
You mean Cordy is going to have Conners child?
> On the upside, I gather it is
>at least *supposed* to be Eww.
More than eww, its sick.
Though I do wonder about whether one of the reasons for Cordy's return
was to do with Conner. Is she on a PTB inspired [implanted in her
subconscious] plan to subvert Conner in some way? Or has too little
sleep and to much Alias recently got to me?
Scotty
PS What exactly did the monster say to Angel. I couldn't make it out
pikelet
Scott-Simons <x@x.x> is twanging, all Hoob-like, at me. I calmly say:
>On 18 Nov 2002 08:38:59 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - pikelet wrote:
>>
>>> 'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>
>>Wrong! Apparently called 'Rain of Fire'. Legal issues. You should know.
>>
>>> See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>
>>> Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>> you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>PS What exactly did the monster say to Angel. I couldn't make it out
Something to the effect of 'You really think she's safe? With him?'
At which point Angel runs to Connor's to protect his son and the woman
he loves, only to get the shock of his life.
Sick twist, but neat.
Tim.
Shuggie
wrote:
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - pikelet wrote:
>
>> 'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>
>Wrong! Apparently called 'Rain of Fire'. Legal issues. You should know.
>
>> See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>
>> Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>> you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>> These aren't wibblings, 'cos it's nearly four in the morning. YA
>> FREAKS!
>
>It's now 8:30, and I should be going to work.
>
>Fine episode. Fine, fine episode.
>
>> Wesley. With guns. F**kin up that Beast somethin' good.
>
>Or, in fact, not f**kin him up one little bit, which makes it even cooler.
>
>> You begin to realise what the practice with slo-mo stakes last season
>> was all about.
>
>That was one damn fine fight scene. And now I'm going to show my geek
>credentials...
>
>Remember the fight scene music from the first season? Check out the end of
>'Somnambulist' or 'Five by Five'? The music I always complained about?
>
>They used it again here. Except this time, it *worked*.
>
You realise of course it was a complete steal from Face/Off? But then if
you're nicking from Hitchcock why by shy about John Woo? ')
Is anyone else thinking/hoping that that's not the real Cordy? I know
I'm reading a lot into it/grasping at straws but there was a not too
subtle "invasion of the body snatchers" reference at the beginning
there.
--
Shug
Niall Harrison
> On 18 Nov 2002 08:38:59 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - pikelet wrote:
>>
>>> 'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>
>>Wrong! Apparently called 'Rain of Fire'. Legal issues. You should know.
>>
>>> See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>
>>> Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>> you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Cordy+Connor=Eww. Also = WTF?!?!?
>>
>>Forced by real-life considerations, I hear.
>
> You mean Cordy is going to have Conners child?
One presumes.
And then Angel's gonna devour it. :)
Niall
--
Verbing weirds language.
Niall Harrison
> On 18 Nov 2002 08:38:59 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - pikelet wrote:
>>
>>> 'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>
>>Wrong! Apparently called 'Rain of Fire'. Legal issues. You should know.
>>
>>> See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>
>>> Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>> you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> You realise of course it was a complete steal from Face/Off? But then if
> you're nicking from Hitchcock why by shy about John Woo? ')
Wesley's slo-mo guns are in every Jon Woo film ever, aren't they? Not
just _Face/Off_
> Is anyone else thinking/hoping that that's not the real Cordy?
Personally, no and no, respectively.
Niall
--
When memes collide.
Shuggie
So before anyone else picks me up on it...
I checked and I couldn't find the scene that I was *sure* was there.
There is the same sense of balletic slo-mo violence. But that exact shot
of the dual handguns followed by the shotgun - which feels so familiar -
isn't from Face/Off.
hmmm
Mattia Valente
> 'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>
> See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>
> Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
> you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> These aren't wibblings, 'cos it's nearly four in the morning. YA
> FREAKS!
We're freaks because you're up at 4AM. Uh huh. Right.
> Moments of note:
>
> Wesley. With guns. F**kin up that Beast somethin' good.
\o/
Well, ok, so a shotgun blast at close range to the FACE did absolutely
nothing at all, but besides that, yeah. Coooolness. And so very
'Desperado' (I think that's the movie. It's one of them, anyway..)
> You begin to realise what the practice with slo-mo stakes last season
> was all about.
Heh. Well, last season's stuff was more artsy, I found. This was damn
cool, though.
> Lilah pretending to be Fred, and 'No, leave them on'. Ew (and yet...
> yum).
That was....slightly disturbing. And I ain't sayin' nothing else about
schoolies. You bitch (That's preemptive.)
> Gunn and his amusingly girly reaction to the rats.
Hehe...
> Cordy telling Angel she knows exactly what he did, and then the final
> shot of the episode, where he knows exactly what she's doing.
Oh god that was disturbing. Was that a sympathy bone, then?
> How come I have loads of people always going to me 'Thanks for being
> there, you've been such a great friend', yet none of them are (a) as
> attractive as Cordy, nor (b) about to repay me with a night of passion
> for my efforts?
Hmmm.....
> Just sayin', y'know.
Right.
> I *like* the Beast. Like that he rises from where Connor was born,
> like that he has lots of symbolism and puts bodies around him in the
> same formation as the alchemical symbol for fire.
Oh yes. Most good, that. Pray do continue along these lines. 'cause it's
just quite brilliant at the moment. I'm really hoping we get some more
meaning to what Connor is, that sort of thing, because, well, cooool..
> Is that the first time we've heard the name of Darla since 'Lullaby'?
Umm...I'd check my transcripts, but I've been too lazy to download them
all. Dunno, though.
> W&H suck at jigsaw puzzles. What kind of shitty law firm are they?
The nitpicky heads-splattered-all-over-the-wall kind.
> Cordy+Connor=Eww. Also = WTF?!?!?
Indeed.
> And Angel watching = Mmm.... trouble at mill, lad.
Aye..
> Funny for an episode that, on the face of it, didn't do much more than
> anything else this season, yet I got a sense of *going* somewhere with
> this one.
Well, as far as arc happening, it's only just started, but we got plenty
of character work (yum), and a kick-ass introduction. And, besides,
hello? Rain of friggin' FIRE dude! In LA! It's ROCKS!!!!
I do believe this is the most despaired situation I've witnessed, like,
more or less ever. Other apocalypses, at least we had a clue about what
to do about them. This just came out of nowhere, nothing they're doing
seems to be doing any good at all, and, well..yay!
..that makes me sound sick and tiwsted, doesn't it?
Mattia
--
"Tim Mewling Fucking Sodding Balls Minear" - Tim signing off in
umta
Mattia Valente
> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - pikelet wrote:
>
>
>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>
>
> Wrong! Apparently called 'Rain of Fire'. Legal issues. You should know.
>
>
>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>
>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> credentials...
>
> Remember the fight scene music from the first season? Check out the end of
> 'Somnambulist' or 'Five by Five'? The music I always complained about?
No, but go on...
> They used it again here. Except this time, it *worked*.
Yeesh. Look, I notice music, but I don't necessarily remember it that
well. Then again, I haven't watched 5x5 or Somnabulist in, well, over a
year. Possibly 2 years. Dunno. Aaaaages. 'cause I don't have them on
tape or DVD (woo! R1 Angel rumored out in January!)
>>Cordy telling Angel she knows exactly what he did, and then the final
>>shot of the episode, where he knows exactly what she's doing.
>
> That final segment - the rain of fire against the backdrop of LA - was
> downright *beautiful*.
Hell yes. I'm so looking forward to the SVCD..
> And the music when Connor and Cordy were getting it
> on? Same as the music at the end of 'Tomorrow', when Cordy was floatin'
> away.
Um, right. So they're sticking with making us associate it with
disturbing stuff, then? Gotcha.
> I like that aspect of him. He, uh, does kinda need a personality, though.
> Being unkillable isn't going to keep him interesting for very long.
Well, ok. But, like, he's said 5 words in total or something. Right now,
he's a blank slate. A menace. An unknown. And that's cool.
> He also needs a reason for not killing AI.
Maybe. Maybe he figures they can't hurt him, and they're all gonna die
anyway. Works well enough for me. As of right now, they're not a threat.
At all. In any way, shape or form.
> Holtz tried, but hey, AI can
> outfight humans. Darla and Dru didn't try, but they weren't interested.
Well, quite.
> But when Wes and Gunn get in the Beast's way, why does he fling them
> across the room rather than snapping their neck?
Because it's just as easy. Or because it's like carving someone's heart
out with a spoon: it hurts more. Mwah hah hah. And to be fair, humans
shouldn't be surviving most of that kind of manhandling. Oh, and that's
the most disturbing wound Angel's gotten in a good long while. Perhaps ever.
> Yes. And can I just say how much I loved the Beast rising out the back of
> Caritas?
:-)
>>W&H suck at jigsaw puzzles. What kind of shitty law firm are they?
>
> Full of people like Wesley.
..right.
>>Cordy+Connor=Eww. Also = WTF?!?!?
>
> Forced by real-life considerations, I hear.
I'm hearing that as well. Hoom. A hearty hoom.
> On the upside, I gather it is
> at least *supposed* to be Eww.
Dun dun duuuun. I hope so, anyway.
>>Funny for an episode that, on the face of it, didn't do much more than
>>anything else this season, yet I got a sense of *going* somewhere with
>>this one.
>
> Might be all the doom-y portents.
Could be.
> I'm just saying.
Well, yeah.
> (Actually, what this felt most like was a lesson in how to move the
> characters forward *within* a plot, rather than as a sidebar to it.)
Possibly because, for a change, they have no clue WTF is going on. So
it's easier to work on characters themselves, because what they're doing
doesn't actually manage to influence the plot itself; the plot acts on
them, shapes them, in a good way.
Mattia
--
"Every time people say, 'You've transcended the genre,' I'm
like: No! I believe in genre.'' - Joss Whedon
Mattia Valente
> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
>
>>On 18 Nov 2002 08:38:59 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
>>wrote:
>
>
>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - pikelet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>
>>>Wrong! Apparently called 'Rain of Fire'. Legal issues. You should know.
>>>
>>>
>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>
>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>You realise of course it was a complete steal from Face/Off? But then if
>>you're nicking from Hitchcock why by shy about John Woo? ')
>
> Wesley's slo-mo guns are in every Jon Woo film ever, aren't they? Not
> just _Face/Off_
They're even in his TV shows (well, ok, in 'Once a Thief'). So yeah.
>>Is anyone else thinking/hoping that that's not the real Cordy?
>
> Personally, no and no, respectively.
I'm a bit wigged by it, but I'm with Rea-Boy.
Saskia
Mattia Valente sings:
> pikelet wrote:
> > 'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
> >
> > See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
> >
> > Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
> > you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > These aren't wibblings, 'cos it's nearly four in the morning. YA
> > FREAKS!
>
> We're freaks because you're up at 4AM. Uh huh. Right.
I didn't feel spoken to for one second. Quite telling that you did...
> > Lilah pretending to be Fred, and 'No, leave them on'. Ew (and yet...
> > yum).
>
> That was....slightly disturbing. And I ain't sayin' nothing else about
> schoolies.
Kinky! ;)
> You bitch (That's preemptive.)
Oooer, I love watching guys calling each other bitches. Go on, go on!
<ahem>
> > Gunn and his amusingly girly reaction to the rats.
>
> Hehe...
Only that was most irritating
> > I *like* the Beast. Like that he rises from where Connor was born,
> > like that he has lots of symbolism and puts bodies around him in the
> > same formation as the alchemical symbol for fire.
I wasn't particularly impressed with the beast itself (just another demon
at first glance), but if it's just one form of the evil that is out there
then yeah, kewlness. Especially the link it seems to have with Connor.
> > Cordy+Connor=Eww. Also = WTF?!?!?
>
> Indeed.
Ick ew bah yuck. Now, I have no problems whatsoever with women getting it
on with younger guys, but this just felt incestuous somehow. Wrong wrong
wrong!
--
Saskia
"Oh, eww! Ohh, you should see this thing. The way it does its thing, I
mean, eww! Why do I let you guys drag me into this stuff?"
Mattia Valente
> Life's a show and we all play our parts. And when the music starts,
> Mattia Valente sings:
>
>>pikelet wrote:
>>
>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>
>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>
>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>These aren't wibblings, 'cos it's nearly four in the morning. YA
>>>FREAKS!
>>
>>We're freaks because you're up at 4AM. Uh huh. Right.
>
> I didn't feel spoken to for one second. Quite telling that you did...
:-p
The fact them peeps over on th'other side of the channel call me a freak
('cause of the bizarre accent thing) may have something to do with it ;-)
>>That was....slightly disturbing. And I ain't sayin' nothing else about
>>schoolies.
>
> Kinky! ;)
Shurrup...
>> You bitch (That's preemptive.)
>
> Oooer, I love watching guys calling each other bitches. Go on, go on!
Err...
> <ahem>
Riiight. Ask me about Niall's definition of SF tomorrow, or something.
Complete with soundbite. Mwah hah hah..
>>>Gunn and his amusingly girly reaction to the rats.
>>
>>Hehe...
>
> Only that was most irritating
Nah, c'mon.
> I wasn't particularly impressed with the beast itself (just another demon
> at first glance),
Except, like, demons tend to at least BRUISE. Or something.
> but if it's just one form of the evil that is out there
> then yeah, kewlness. Especially the link it seems to have with Connor.
We shall see. In January, unfortunately, but we shall see.
>>>Cordy+Connor=Eww. Also = WTF?!?!?
>>
>>Indeed.
>
> Ick ew bah yuck. Now, I have no problems whatsoever with women getting it
> on with younger guys, but this just felt incestuous somehow. Wrong wrong
> wrong!
Well, quite. Semi incestuous, somehow.
Mattia
--
"I wield only the power of death. Not syndication." - Tim Minear
zzzzara
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[snip]
>
> I checked and I couldn't find the scene that I was *sure* was there.
> There is the same sense of balletic slo-mo violence. But that exact shot
> of the dual handguns followed by the shotgun - which feels so familiar -
> isn't from Face/Off.
isn't it from the Terminator, that early scene in the bar where Reese
appears and blasts Ah-nold away from Sarah?
Niall Harrison
> Niall Harrison wrote:
>> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - pikelet wrote:
>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>
>>
>> Wrong! Apparently called 'Rain of Fire'. Legal issues. You should know.
>>
>>
>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>
>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
[fight music]
>> They used it again here. Except this time, it *worked*.
>
> Yeesh. Look, I notice music, but I don't necessarily remember it that
> well.
I am the One True Music Geek, then.
> Then again, I haven't watched 5x5 or Somnabulist in, well, over a
> year. Possibly 2 years. Dunno. Aaaaages.
And? Neither have I. :-)
>>>Cordy telling Angel she knows exactly what he did, and then the final
>>>shot of the episode, where he knows exactly what she's doing.
>>
>> That final segment - the rain of fire against the backdrop of LA - was
>> downright *beautiful*.
>
> Hell yes. I'm so looking forward to the SVCD..
Best visual since the end of 'Lullaby'?
>> I like that aspect of him. He, uh, does kinda need a personality, though.
>> Being unkillable isn't going to keep him interesting for very long.
>
> Well, ok. But, like, he's said 5 words in total or something. Right now,
> he's a blank slate. A menace. An unknown. And that's cool.
S'what I said, isn't it? He's cool, but he's going to need work.
>> Yes. And can I just say how much I loved the Beast rising out the back of
>> Caritas?
>
> :-)
It was *so* *damn* *cool*. Really, really cool. Supercool.
Y'know, large portions of ata hate this episode.
>>>Cordy+Connor=Eww. Also = WTF?!?!?
>>
>> Forced by real-life considerations, I hear.
>
> I'm hearing that as well. Hoom. A hearty hoom.
Starting to wonder whether we're not being double-bluffed, though. At the
very least, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Cordy and Connor doing
the deed was part of the original season plan, and that only the
consequences are changed.
>> (Actually, what this felt most like was a lesson in how to move the
>> characters forward *within* a plot, rather than as a sidebar to it.)
>
> Possibly because, for a change, they have no clue WTF is going on.
Best little bit of continuity: W&H have no clue what's happening. This is
because the Beast is linked to Connor, and Connor also blindsided them.
OK, it's not explicity, but I think it's a pretty clear inference.
Tafka
<timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>
>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>
>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
c) You pimp.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>These aren't wibblings, 'cos it's nearly four in the morning. YA
>FREAKS!
Can we get some, this coming season?
>Moments of note:
>
>Wesley. With guns. F**kin up that Beast somethin' good.
Ooh-yes. Just Wesley was good, tbh.
>You begin to realise what the practice with slo-mo stakes last season
>was all about.
I liked the slo-mo here, quite a bit. Worked well - emphasised the
impact, for instance, of Angel->pillar.
>Lilah pretending to be Fred, and 'No, leave them on'. Ew (and yet...
>yum).
Immediate reaction? "Huh" and "Ew". Slowly gave way...
>I *like* the Beast. Like that he rises from where Connor was born,
>like that he has lots of symbolism and puts bodies around him in the
>same formation as the alchemical symbol for fire.
It'll be interesting to see what becomes of him.
>Is that the first time we've heard the name of Darla since 'Lullaby'?
Didn't we get Angel mention her to Holtz at some point? Or Holtz to
Wes? Or to Justine? Or someone, at least.
>W&H suck at jigsaw puzzles. What kind of shitty law firm are they?
Bad. Fancy a job with them? :)
>Cordy+Connor=Eww. Also = WTF?!?!?
Mostly Ewww. And more rumours about CC lend themselves to the possible
theory- so ewww more.
>Funny for an episode that, on the face of it, didn't do much more than
>anything else this season, yet I got a sense of *going* somewhere with
>this one.
Indeed. Still a 'click' somewhere there...
-Tafka-
Today's fish is trout ala crème, enjoy your meal.
pikelet
Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> is twanging, all Hoob-like, at me. I
calmly say:
>Niall Harrison wrote:
>> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - pikelet wrote:
>>
>>
>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>
>>
>> Wrong! Apparently called 'Rain of Fire'. Legal issues. You should know.
>>
>>
>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>
>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> Yes. And can I just say how much I loved the Beast rising out the back of
>> Caritas?
>
>:-)
Think about it. The Beast is 'slouching toward Bethlehem to be born'.
What else was born in Bethlehem, eh?
Signs are starting to point to Connor being the salvation of mankind,
not its ruination after all.
Tim.
Gunnar Harboe
<timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>
>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>
>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Well, that sucked.
Forget what I said about cancelling the show to consolidate the Buffy
team. I don't think I want these writers on Buffy. Maybe they can go to
Smallville or something.
I was just about ready to abandon Ats before 3x22 restored some of my
confidence in the show. As soon as sweep's over and the winter hiatus
starts, it'll be time to follow through on that plan.
Mattia Valente
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
> <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>
>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>
>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>
>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> Well, that sucked.
> Forget what I said about cancelling the show to consolidate the Buffy
> team. I don't think I want these writers on Buffy. Maybe they can go to
> Smallville or something.
You're so, so strange..
> I was just about ready to abandon Ats before 3x22 restored some of my
> confidence in the show. As soon as sweep's over and the winter hiatus
> starts, it'll be time to follow through on that plan.
...wait. You're KIDDING, right? 'Tomorrow'? *Restoring* confidence? It's
what got me all worried about the show again..
/me faints..
Gunnar Harboe
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
>> <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>
>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>
>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>
>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Well, that sucked.
>> Forget what I said about cancelling the show to consolidate the Buffy
>> team. I don't think I want these writers on Buffy. Maybe they can go to
>> Smallville or something.
>
>You're so, so strange..
The corniest, least ominous armaggedon since 'Doomed', the characters
engaged in their petty soap-opera sheenanigans, half the episode devoted
to uninspired martial arts stuff, Lorne's quips so bad you want to punch
him (and let's not even mention Angel's confrontation with Lilah. I'm
about to remove that memory from my brain with a sharp instrument), and
Cordy's worst outfit ever (her hair is starting to look nicer, though).
What is there to like?
Oh! One more thing... It always annoys me when the heroes try to figure
something out for hours, and then suddenly notice something blindingly
obvious. When expert analysts have supposedly worked at it for days
(weeks?), it becomes goddamn ridiculous.
>> I was just about ready to abandon Ats before 3x22 restored some of my
>> confidence in the show. As soon as sweep's over and the winter hiatus
>> starts, it'll be time to follow through on that plan.
>
>...wait. You're KIDDING, right? 'Tomorrow'? *Restoring* confidence? It's
>what got me all worried about the show again..
>
>/me faints..
'Tomorrow' was mostly awful, but dropping Angel into the sea was the
first thing in S3 that had me going "Hey, that's cool!", or even managed
to vaguely surprise me. It made me want to watch the next episode. 4x07
(I don't care which title it goes by. Neither of them are even remotely
clever) made me wish I hadn't watched *this* episode.
Mattia Valente
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:21:17 +0100, Mattia Valente
> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>
>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
>>><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>>
>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>
>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>Well, that sucked.
>>>Forget what I said about cancelling the show to consolidate the Buffy
>>>team. I don't think I want these writers on Buffy. Maybe they can go to
>>>Smallville or something.
>>
>>You're so, so strange..
>
> The corniest, least ominous armaggedon since 'Doomed',
Well....no. I can't begin to describe how wrong that is. 'Doomed', now,
is possibly the worst episode of Buffy ever, still now, despite S6, all
that sort of thing.
We've got a beast who's risen, without preamble or much warning, from
the bowels of the earth from the spot where Connor was born, nobody
knows what the heck is going on, they can't seem to harm this being at
all, whatever they throw at him, and it's raining friggin' FIRE on LA.
How is this 'not ominous'?
> the characters
> engaged in their petty soap-opera sheenanigans,
Like? The only soap-operaish moment for me was the very final 'sympathy
bone' thing, although, even then..
> half the episode devoted to uninspired martial arts stuff,
About 10 minutes thereof. Maybe. At the most. And it looked brilliant.
> Lorne's quips so bad you want to punch
> him (and let's not even mention Angel's confrontation with Lilah. I'm
> about to remove that memory from my brain with a sharp instrument), and
Where to begin with the wrongness of you..
> Cordy's worst outfit ever (her hair is starting to look nicer, though).
> What is there to like?
Oh, well, almost everything? OK, it wasn't the fastest paced episode,
could've done with a bit of a kick early on, but in the end, it delivered.
> Oh! One more thing... It always annoys me when the heroes try to figure
> something out for hours, and then suddenly notice something blindingly
> obvious. When expert analysts have supposedly worked at it for days
> (weeks?), it becomes goddamn ridiculous.
Not really, quite frankly. Losing the forest for the trees? Seems
perfectly normal to me, to be frank. Besides, most of the analysts were
having their brains cleaned off the walls, apparently.
>>...wait. You're KIDDING, right? 'Tomorrow'? *Restoring* confidence? It's
>>what got me all worried about the show again..
>>
>>/me faints..
>
> 'Tomorrow' was mostly awful, but dropping Angel into the sea was the
> first thing in S3 that had me going "Hey, that's cool!", or even managed
> to vaguely surprise me.
You're a strange man with no taste, you are :-p
> It made me want to watch the next episode. 4x07
> (I don't care which title it goes by. Neither of them are even remotely
> clever) made me wish I hadn't watched *this* episode.
You're very, very strange. And I can't actually agree with a single
thing you've said, give or take. Angel sinking in 'Tomorrow' was one of
the few good things about the episode, but nowhere near one of the
defining moments the season produced.
Gunnar Harboe
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:21:17 +0100, Mattia Valente
>> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
>>>><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>>>
>>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>>
>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>Well, that sucked.
>>>>Forget what I said about cancelling the show to consolidate the Buffy
>>>>team. I don't think I want these writers on Buffy. Maybe they can go to
>>>>Smallville or something.
>>>
>>>You're so, so strange..
>>
>> The corniest, least ominous armaggedon since 'Doomed',
>
>Well....no. I can't begin to describe how wrong that is. 'Doomed', now,
>is possibly the worst episode of Buffy ever, still now, despite S6, all
>that sort of thing.
I tend to think 'Hell's Bells' beats it to the post, but just barely.
'Where the Wild Things Are' is a strong contender, as well. But 'Doomed'
is pretty awful, no doubt.
>We've got a beast who's risen, without preamble or much warning, from
>the bowels of the earth from the spot where Connor was born, nobody
>knows what the heck is going on, they can't seem to harm this being at
>all, whatever they throw at him, and it's raining friggin' FIRE on LA.
>How is this 'not ominous'?
The demon-guy has so far not managed to distinguish himself from a
regular MOTW, tunneling and jumping notwithstanding.
The CGI atmospheric effects don't appear to do any damage whatsoever,
and look like a cheap Ghostbusters rip-off anyway.
"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
"Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
With *that* as source material, was this the best they could do?
Somehow, I doubt old Yeats was talking about a generic monster duking it
out in an LA rooftop nightclub.
I find the hints at a Connor-connection uninspiring and uninspired, but
that may partly be because I've lost just about all faith in an Angel
arc by now.
Compare this to Buffy, which has built up nearly unbearable suspense for
its equally mysterious threat, involved most of the characters and not
resorted to excessive pyrotechnics yet.
> > the characters
>> engaged in their petty soap-opera sheenanigans,
>
>Like? The only soap-operaish moment for me was the very final 'sympathy
>bone' thing, although, even then..
Gunn and Fred's little tiff. The blatant attempt to be "edgy" with
Lilah's little role-play (Angel's niche as a "darker Buffy" has been
severely compromised by BtVS's turn towards the dark side, and UPN's
more liberal policies), simultaneously hitting us over the head with
future developments in the F/G/W triangle. Angel/Cordy/Connor ("she
takes his hand!" superzoom). Seriously, isn't it about time for a
Lorne/Gavin/Justine love triangle? "Wesley saves Gunn" melodrama.
Someone make it stop, please!
> > half the episode devoted to uninspired martial arts stuff,
>
>About 10 minutes thereof. Maybe. At the most. And it looked brilliant.
The Connor/Cordy/demon fight certainly didn't, and the big set piece one
suffered heavily from being way too sequential. Any particular reason
why they should attack the big bad one at a time?
> > Lorne's quips so bad you want to punch
>> him (and let's not even mention Angel's confrontation with Lilah. I'm
>> about to remove that memory from my brain with a sharp instrument), and
>
>Where to begin with the wrongness of you..
I'm happy to report that the procedure was a complete success, so I'm
unable to discuss it further.
>> Cordy's worst outfit ever (her hair is starting to look nicer, though).
I read on epguides.com that she is "visibly pregnant" in this episode,
so I assume the garment was chosen to hide that fact.
>> What is there to like?
>
>Oh, well, almost everything? OK, it wasn't the fastest paced episode,
>could've done with a bit of a kick early on, but in the end, it delivered.
Delivered what? Cordy and Connor bonking? (What the fans have always
asked for.)
>> Oh! One more thing... It always annoys me when the heroes try to figure
>> something out for hours, and then suddenly notice something blindingly
>> obvious. When expert analysts have supposedly worked at it for days
>> (weeks?), it becomes goddamn ridiculous.
>
>Not really, quite frankly. Losing the forest for the trees? Seems
>perfectly normal to me, to be frank. Besides, most of the analysts were
>having their brains cleaned off the walls, apparently.
That was the psychics, I believe.
The papers are obviously different parts of the same drawing (for want
of a better word), and putting them all together the structure becomes
immediately evident.
If they'd done something like in 'Contact' and had the pieces fit
together in some funky manner, I would have accepted it. But puhleeze!
(One of the Evil Overlord rules comes to mind: "60. My five-year-old
child advisor will also be asked to decipher any code I am thinking of
using. If he breaks the code in under 30 seconds, it will not be used.
Note: this also applies to passwords.")
>>>...wait. You're KIDDING, right? 'Tomorrow'? *Restoring* confidence? It's
>>>what got me all worried about the show again..
>>>
>>>/me faints..
>>
>> 'Tomorrow' was mostly awful, but dropping Angel into the sea was the
>> first thing in S3 that had me going "Hey, that's cool!", or even managed
>> to vaguely surprise me.
>
>You're a strange man with no taste, you are :-p
>
> > It made me want to watch the next episode. 4x07
>> (I don't care which title it goes by. Neither of them are even remotely
>> clever) made me wish I hadn't watched *this* episode.
>
>You're very, very strange. And I can't actually agree with a single
>thing you've said, give or take. Angel sinking in 'Tomorrow' was one of
>the few good things about the episode, but nowhere near one of the
>defining moments the season produced.
"Defining moments"? I can only imagine you are referring to Holtz taking
Connor, Angel trying to kill Wes, and Connor's return.
No thanks. I like my plot developments un-telegraphed.
Dan Milburn
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
>> <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>
>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>
>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>
>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Well, that sucked.
>> Forget what I said about cancelling the show to consolidate the Buffy
>> team. I don't think I want these writers on Buffy. Maybe they can go to
>> Smallville or something.
>
>You're so, so strange..
I have to say, I agree with him. Except for the 'Tomorrow' part,
obviously.
As seems usual these days, it's mostly down to Cordy. Actually, I
kinda liked Amnesia!Cordy. They should have kept her. This is the
one who can spout nonsense about knowing stuff, "in my heart". And
who shags Connor, for no apparent reason. Let me be clear about
this.. I don't think 'eww' at the merest thought as some seem to. In
fact I find the prospect somewhat more palatable than Angel/Cordy.
But the fact is, it makes no sense. *Why* did it not once occur to
Cordy or Connor that it might be a good idea to try and inform Angel
of the big thing that had just kicked his ass? No, let's sit around
and wait for it to start ending the world, cos that's the smart thing
to do. Wesley, even W&H with some persuasion, think it's a good idea
to co-operate with Angel, but nooo, not the person who supposedly
loves him or his son who's already been to visit once this ep.
Dan
Dave Emberton
message news:vongtugf99k2as5nt...@4ax.com...
> 'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>
> See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>
> Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
> you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
I have to say I'm not the biggest Angel fan, I don't think it's fit to lick
the boots of BTVS to be honest, but how good was this episode? Okay, so
Lilah and Lorne are still the only remotely interesting characters, Wesley's
"darkness" seems to consist of little more than him not shaving for a couple
of days, the whole Cordelia-Connor romance is only slightly less unlikely
than the Cordelia-Angel romance, and the "it's coming" demon (not to be
confused with the one that eats you starting with your bottom) looked like
Tim Curry's Evil from "Legend", but despite all the bad things I can think
about the series, I really enjoyed this episode.
The only problem I see is what are they going to do next week? If this is
the apocalypse 7 episodes into the series, then there's got to be an awful
lot of filler to come.
> Lilah pretending to be Fred, and 'No, leave them on'. Ew (and yet...
> yum).
Now that bit was good ;-)
Dave
Shuggie
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
OK, usual pattern: choose an inappropriately random point to join
discussion and jump in...
>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:21:17 +0100, Mattia Valente
>> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
>>>><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>>>
>>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>>
>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>Well, that sucked.
That's harsh - a lot to like here. I do have a couple of problems with
it - but overall it's a good ep.
>>>>Forget what I said about cancelling the show to consolidate the Buffy
>>>>team. I don't think I want these writers on Buffy. Maybe they can go to
>>>>Smallville or something.
That's *really* harsh. As Oz never said "*no-one* deserves Smallville,
Gunnar"
>>>
>>>You're so, so strange..
>>
>> The corniest, least ominous armaggedon since 'Doomed',
>
<snip mostly for length>
> and it's raining friggin' FIRE on LA.
>How is this 'not ominous'?
>
Check. We've got ominosity oozing out of every pore. It's actually
making a mess on the floor, mind you don't slip in it... too late! :)
> > the characters
>> engaged in their petty soap-opera sheenanigans,
>
>Like? The only soap-operaish moment for me was the very final 'sympathy
>bone' thing, although, even then..
>
Must repress my standard rant when people assume "soap opera"
automatically equals "bad" and merely note that there were elements of
the *bad* soap opera tricks here - but as Mattia says, mainly concerned
with justifying the otherwise totally implausible Cordy/Connor union.
> > half the episode devoted to uninspired martial arts stuff,
>
>About 10 minutes thereof. Maybe. At the most. And it looked brilliant.
>
It did. Although when I hear some of the praise this gets I do think
some people need to get out to the cinema more often. But on a TV budget
this ain't half bad.
> > Lorne's quips so bad you want to punch
>> him (and let's not even mention Angel's confrontation with Lilah. I'm
>> about to remove that memory from my brain with a sharp instrument), and
>
>Where to begin with the wrongness of you..
>
Please begin somewhere - cos on this one, and only this one I think, I'm
with Gunnar. Every time I see Angel turn up at the offices at W&H to get
the missing piece of information he needs to fight the latest MotW I
groan. Even if you think the reason Lilah co-operates is plausible -
they just really over-use this approach. Of course maybe they'll turn it
to their advantage - with so many empty threats on both sides it'd be a
real shock to get an actual attack in such a scene. Until that happens I
groan.
<snip>
>You're very, very strange. And I can't actually agree with a single
>thing you've said, give or take. Angel sinking in 'Tomorrow' was one of
>the few good things about the episode, but nowhere near one of the
>defining moments the season produced.
>
Ok, here's something I've wanted to ask for a while. Why does everyone
hate Tomorrow so much? Can some kind person explain it to me in simple
words? I've done a google search on this group and I'm still not sure -
in fact both Niall and Mattia at the time were saying stuff like "I
don't hate it", "it's ok, has a few bad points" - so it seems opinions
have hardened over time. The only thing I can gather for sure is that
people hated Cordy being turned into a higher being - but everyone
states this as if it's self-evident as to why this is bad.
My own view is that Tomorrow was an ok-but-not-great episode. Anything
that was wrong with it - Angel/Cordy mostly - had been wrong for a
while. I'd actually come to terms with Angel/Cordy and was intrigued to
see where it would go. Now it seems like they've ditched both A/C and
Higher Beingness on the basis of fan reaction and just wrote their way
out of those storylines with as much haste as possible - ignoring the
character continuity mess it leaves behind. It's one of the reasons that
it feels as though almost all the characters have done 180s since last
season.
So, anyway, if anyone can explain why it's self-evident to them that
Cordy being a HP was bad - I'd be grateful for the insight.
Shuggie
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:36:43 +0100, Mattia Valente
><mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:21:17 +0100, Mattia Valente
>>> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
>>>>><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
>The demon-guy has so far not managed to distinguish himself from a
>regular MOTW, tunneling and jumping notwithstanding.
He was clearly faster and stronger than anything we've seen on Angel.
Plus he can trigger, uh you know, RAIN of FIRE! Don't see that every
week.
>The CGI atmospheric effects don't appear to do any damage whatsoever,
>and look like a cheap Ghostbusters rip-off anyway.
>
So failed in execution (for you) but in intent still very ominous.
>"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
>The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
>Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
>Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
>The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
>The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
>The best lack all conviction, while the worst
>Are full of passionate intensity.
>
Random apocalyptic badness but not too specific on details.
>"Surely some revelation is at hand;
>Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
>The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
>When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
>Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
Here's the monster -
>A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
>A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
>Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
So a slow-moving blank eyed lion-man - doesn't sound all that impressive
TBH.
>Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
>The darkness drops again; but now I know
>That twenty centuries of stony sleep
>Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
>And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
>Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
>
>With *that* as source material, was this the best they could do?
Thing is - it's a great poem - but as a guide to making a visually
impressive monster - it's not that great.
>Somehow, I doubt old Yeats was talking about a generic monster duking it
>out in an LA rooftop nightclub.
>
Of course he wasn't - but then SDK isn't doing a screen version of the
Yeats poem - he's doing an Angel episode with a Yeats reference.
--
Shug
Dan Milburn
<shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:36:43 +0100, Mattia Valente
><mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>OK, usual pattern: choose an inappropriately random point to join
>discussion and jump in...
>
>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:21:17 +0100, Mattia Valente
>>> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
>>>>><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>Well, that sucked.
>
>That's harsh - a lot to like here. I do have a couple of problems with
>it - but overall it's a good ep.
>
>>>>>Forget what I said about cancelling the show to consolidate the Buffy
>>>>>team. I don't think I want these writers on Buffy. Maybe they can go to
>>>>>Smallville or something.
>
>That's *really* harsh. As Oz never said "*no-one* deserves Smallville,
>Gunnar"
I believe Mattia likes it. No idea why though.. I do feel SDK is
wasted on 'Angel' at the moment, though..
>>>>
>>>>You're so, so strange..
>>>
>>> The corniest, least ominous armaggedon since 'Doomed',
>>
><snip mostly for length>
>
>> and it's raining friggin' FIRE on LA.
>>How is this 'not ominous'?
>>
>
>Check. We've got ominosity oozing out of every pore. It's actually
>making a mess on the floor, mind you don't slip in it... too late! :)
There's too much for my taste. Feels like they're trying too hard.
>> > the characters
>>> engaged in their petty soap-opera sheenanigans,
>>
>>Like? The only soap-operaish moment for me was the very final 'sympathy
>>bone' thing, although, even then..
>>
>Must repress my standard rant when people assume "soap opera"
>automatically equals "bad" and merely note that there were elements of
>the *bad* soap opera tricks here - but as Mattia says, mainly concerned
>with justifying the otherwise totally implausible Cordy/Connor union.
Which is, like, the main point of the episode.
>> > half the episode devoted to uninspired martial arts stuff,
>>
>>About 10 minutes thereof. Maybe. At the most. And it looked brilliant.
>>
>It did. Although when I hear some of the praise this gets I do think
>some people need to get out to the cinema more often. But on a TV budget
>this ain't half bad.
I thought it was pretty variable myself. The effects when the Beast
actually rose reminded me of 'Expecting', and that's *never* a good
thing. Plus, visuals without a decent story to go with it never
impress me much..
><snip>
>
>>You're very, very strange. And I can't actually agree with a single
>>thing you've said, give or take. Angel sinking in 'Tomorrow' was one of
>>the few good things about the episode, but nowhere near one of the
>>defining moments the season produced.
>>
>
>Ok, here's something I've wanted to ask for a while. Why does everyone
>hate Tomorrow so much? Can some kind person explain it to me in simple
>words? I've done a google search on this group and I'm still not sure -
>in fact both Niall and Mattia at the time were saying stuff like "I
>don't hate it", "it's ok, has a few bad points" - so it seems opinions
>have hardened over time. The only thing I can gather for sure is that
>people hated Cordy being turned into a higher being - but everyone
>states this as if it's self-evident as to why this is bad.
Well, if you're interested, you can see my initial thoughts on the ep:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2CB51482
Also worth reading in that thread (as always) are Helen H's posts.
Niall and Mattia weren't nearly so negative.
Oh, and I'd just like to point out that in retrospect I stand by my
score and every word I wrote. :)
Dan
Mattia Valente
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:55:14 +0000, Shuggie
> <shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:36:43 +0100, Mattia Valente
>><mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>
>>OK, usual pattern: choose an inappropriately random point to join
>>discussion and jump in...
>>
>>
>>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:21:17 +0100, Mattia Valente
>>>><mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
>>>>>><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Smallville or something.
>>>>>
>>That's *really* harsh. As Oz never said "*no-one* deserves Smallville,
>>Gunnar"
>
> I believe Mattia likes it. No idea why though.. I do feel SDK is
> wasted on 'Angel' at the moment, though..
Hmm..
I do like 'Smallville', for the record. It's got a couple of great
characters, and the writing's getting more and more solid (S2 is
actually quite good). It's still more 'fun good' than 'really good', but
it doesn't suck.
>>Check. We've got ominosity oozing out of every pore. It's actually
>>making a mess on the floor, mind you don't slip in it... too late! :)
>
> There's too much for my taste. Feels like they're trying too hard.
Meh. I rewatched, and I don't really think so. The 'issue' I have with
this ep is how they handle the whole Cordy/Connor thing, more than
anything else.
<Tomorrow>
> Well, if you're interested, you can see my initial thoughts on the ep:
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2CB51482
>
> Also worth reading in that thread (as always) are Helen H's posts.
> Niall and Mattia weren't nearly so negative.
No. We were all tryin' to see the good. And, well, it's not a TERRIBLE,
HORRIBLE episode, far from it. But it's got some things that I just
can't forgive, that drag the rest down too much (Cordy and the
unresolvedness of that whole situation bother the heck out of me..)
Ergo, saying that it's the best 'ooh aah' moment of S3 will just cause
me to stare in disbelief, since it's what caused me to worry about S4 so
completely.
> Oh, and I'd just like to point out that in retrospect I stand by my
> score and every word I wrote. :)
:-p
Niall Harrison
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:21:17 +0100, Mattia Valente
> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
>>> <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>
>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>>
>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>
>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> *Why* did it not once occur to
> Cordy or Connor that it might be a good idea to try and inform Angel
> of the big thing that had just kicked his ass?
Because Cordelia was somewhat distracted by the terrible, all-consuming
hopelessness. She really, truly felt, deep down, that there was no point.
Mr Hormones, of course, wasn't going to leave Cordy's side.
Niall
--
Memes don't exist. Tell your friends.
Dan Milburn
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>Dan Milburn wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:55:14 +0000, Shuggie
>> <shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:36:43 +0100, Mattia Valente
>>><mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>OK, usual pattern: choose an inappropriately random point to join
>>>discussion and jump in...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:21:17 +0100, Mattia Valente
>>>>><mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
>>>>>>><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>Check. We've got ominosity oozing out of every pore. It's actually
>>>making a mess on the floor, mind you don't slip in it... too late! :)
>>
>> There's too much for my taste. Feels like they're trying too hard.
>
>Meh. I rewatched, and I don't really think so. The 'issue' I have with
>this ep is how they handle the whole Cordy/Connor thing, more than
>anything else.
Well, me too. It's just, *all* that symbolism, *all* those portents -
it's a bit heavy-handed, and whatever actually happens can't possibly
measure up to what they seem to be leading to.
><Tomorrow>
>> Well, if you're interested, you can see my initial thoughts on the ep:
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2CB51482
>>
>> Also worth reading in that thread (as always) are Helen H's posts.
>> Niall and Mattia weren't nearly so negative.
>
>No. We were all tryin' to see the good. And, well, it's not a TERRIBLE,
>HORRIBLE episode, far from it. But it's got some things that I just
>can't forgive, that drag the rest down too much (Cordy and the
>unresolvedness of that whole situation bother the heck out of me..)
>Ergo, saying that it's the best 'ooh aah' moment of S3 will just cause
>me to stare in disbelief, since it's what caused me to worry about S4 so
>completely.
And one of the reasons for the sentence below is that I think, in
large part, S4 has so far justified those worries as far as Cordelia's
concerned.
>> Oh, and I'd just like to point out that in retrospect I stand by my
>> score and every word I wrote. :)
Dan
Niall Harrison
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:36:43 +0100, Mattia Valente
> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> > half the episode devoted to uninspired martial arts stuff,
>>
>>About 10 minutes thereof. Maybe. At the most. And it looked brilliant.
>
> It did. Although when I hear some of the praise this gets I do think
> some people need to get out to the cinema more often. But on a TV budget
> this ain't half bad.
Well, at least my comments should almost always be taken with an implied
'...on a TV budget' after them.
Fight scenes aren't really a big plus for me, though I just like cool
visual tricks once in a while. :)
Niall
--
Because all I can see are the bars on the window.
Niall Harrison
> "pikelet" <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote in
> message news:vongtugf99k2as5nt...@4ax.com...
>> 'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>
>> See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>
>> Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>> you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> The only problem I see is what are they going to do next week?
Rescue Angel from the bottom of the sea, I believe.
(This was the last episode until january :)
It will be interesting to see how they keep up the momentum, though. I
suspect it will turn out that this was mostly just the light show before
the apocalypse proper.
The upside of no new eps until january is that there'll only be two or
three episode until we're in sweeps again...
Niall
--
Sax's corollary to Trucker's Law: If you are the one to mention Chris Rea
then YOU LOSE, SUCKER!
Dan Milburn
<s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:21:17 +0100, Mattia Valente
>> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
>>>> <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>>>
>>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>>
>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>
>> *Why* did it not once occur to
>> Cordy or Connor that it might be a good idea to try and inform Angel
>> of the big thing that had just kicked his ass?
>
>Because Cordelia was somewhat distracted by the terrible, all-consuming
>hopelessness. She really, truly felt, deep down, that there was no point.
Heh. I think they're gonna have to come up with a damn good
explanation as to exactly *why* Cordelia felt that way. Especially
since her truly felt, deep down, "in my heart" feelings haven't once
been remotely correct in the past.
And even if there was no point, why didn't she want to spend these
last pointless times with her friends and the man she loves?
>Mr Hormones, of course, wasn't going to leave Cordy's side.
Well, obviously. Which may be accurate, but it sure as hell isn't
very interesting.
Dan
Gunnar Harboe
<shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:31:53 +0000, Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:36:43 +0100, Mattia Valente
>><mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:21:17 +0100, Mattia Valente
>>>> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>>>>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
>>>>>><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>The demon-guy has so far not managed to distinguish himself from a
>>regular MOTW, tunneling and jumping notwithstanding.
>
>He was clearly faster and stronger than anything we've seen on Angel.
I don't know. They're all made out to be fast and strong. Regardless:
some guy in monster makeup does not an apocalypse make.
A proper apocalypse needs a ... well, a hellmouth.
>Plus he can trigger, uh you know, RAIN of FIRE! Don't see that every
>week.
>
>>The CGI atmospheric effects don't appear to do any damage whatsoever,
>>and look like a cheap Ghostbusters rip-off anyway.
>
>So failed in execution (for you) but in intent still very ominous.
Intent to be ominous != ominous.
It does not convince me that the world is about to end.
>>"Surely some revelation is at hand;
>>Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
>>The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
>>When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
>>Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
>
>Here's the monster -
I don't think I agree.
>>A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
>>A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
>>Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
>
>So a slow-moving blank eyed lion-man - doesn't sound all that impressive
>TBH.
Errmmm... It's an obvious reference to the sphinx of the Giza.
>Thing is - it's a great poem - but as a guide to making a visually
>impressive monster - it's not that great.
Maybe the problem is in them approaching the question of armaggedon as
being about creating "a visually impressive monster", rather than
thinking of it as a global cataclysm?
I don't think a guy in a demon costume can ever be a satisfying
end-of-the-world threat. It's too "Marvel comics"-y.
>>Somehow, I doubt old Yeats was talking about a generic monster duking it
>>out in an LA rooftop nightclub.
>
>Of course he wasn't - but then SDK isn't doing a screen version of the
>Yeats poem - he's doing an Angel episode with a Yeats reference.
My point was that's it's a fantastically underwhelming apocalypse. Not
in principle any different from what we see on Angel every week.
Niall Harrison
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:23:52 +0000 (UTC), Niall Harrison
> <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:21:17 +0100, Mattia Valente
>>> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
>>>>> <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>> *Why* did it not once occur to
>>> Cordy or Connor that it might be a good idea to try and inform Angel
>>> of the big thing that had just kicked his ass?
>>
>>Because Cordelia was somewhat distracted by the terrible, all-consuming
>>hopelessness. She really, truly felt, deep down, that there was no point.
>
> Heh. I think they're gonna have to come up with a damn good
> explanation as to exactly *why* Cordelia felt that way.
I thought they did, what with the most-painful-ever visions and the deep
psychic trauma that was causing various peoples' heads to explode.
> Especially since her truly felt, deep down, "in my heart" feelings
> haven't once been remotely correct in the past.
CORDELIA:
I know my purpose in this world and it
includes the visions. And if the Powers
That Be aren't complete dumb-asses,
they know it, too.
And that's just the first example that comes to mind.
> And even if there was no point, why didn't she want to spend these
> last pointless times with her friends and the man she loves?
Again with the despair. And in the case of Angel, the being freaked out by
his past.
>>Mr Hormones, of course, wasn't going to leave Cordy's side.
>
> Well, obviously. Which may be accurate, but it sure as hell isn't
> very interesting.
On the contrary, I think Connor's obsession is shaping up quite nicely.
Niall
--
Burn baby burn.
Dan Milburn
<s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:23:52 +0000 (UTC), Niall Harrison
>> <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:21:17 +0100, Mattia Valente
>>>> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
>>>>>> <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>> *Why* did it not once occur to
>>>> Cordy or Connor that it might be a good idea to try and inform Angel
>>>> of the big thing that had just kicked his ass?
>>>
>>>Because Cordelia was somewhat distracted by the terrible, all-consuming
>>>hopelessness. She really, truly felt, deep down, that there was no point.
>>
>> Heh. I think they're gonna have to come up with a damn good
>> explanation as to exactly *why* Cordelia felt that way.
>
>I thought they did, what with the most-painful-ever visions and the deep
>psychic trauma that was causing various peoples' heads to explode.
Not what I meant. *Why* did she have those visions? What possible
purpose could it serve the PTBs to have her feel like that? And if it
wasn't the PTBs, who the frell was it? In fact, given that the last
time she got visions which caused her such great pain, they were being
caused by Lilah, why isn't she assuming that they *aren't* genuine?
All these questions, and more, probably won't be answered in the next
episode of Angel.
>> Especially since her truly felt, deep down, "in my heart" feelings
>> haven't once been remotely correct in the past.
>
>CORDELIA:
>I know my purpose in this world and it
>includes the visions. And if the Powers
>That Be aren't complete dumb-asses,
>they know it, too.
>
>And that's just the first example that comes to mind.
Except her purpose in this world now only includes the visions in as
far as they compel her to believe the end of the world is nigh and
behave completely unlike any incarnation of Cordelia we've ever seen.
>> And even if there was no point, why didn't she want to spend these
>> last pointless times with her friends and the man she loves?
>
>Again with the despair.
Huh? Despair or no, how can going back to Connors, rather than to AI,
possibly be a good choice?
> And in the case of Angel, the being freaked out by
>his past.
Oh yeah, that's convenient isn't it? One might think that a persons
past doesn't really matter very much when the apocalypse is about to
happen..
And I didn't even raise the most important question: why the hell is
she having sex with Connor? If she'd even said something akin to "I
just want to feel something besides the cold", it might have been
slightly convincing, but she didn't, and it wasn't.
>>>Mr Hormones, of course, wasn't going to leave Cordy's side.
>>
>> Well, obviously. Which may be accurate, but it sure as hell isn't
>> very interesting.
>
>On the contrary, I think Connor's obsession is shaping up quite nicely.
Shaping up nicely for what? Rejection? Love triangles? Father/son
conflict? Did I mention the 'not very interesting' part yet?
Dan
Niall Harrison
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:22:09 +0000 (UTC), Niall Harrison
> <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>> Heh. I think they're gonna have to come up with a damn good
>>> explanation as to exactly *why* Cordelia felt that way.
>>
>>I thought they did, what with the most-painful-ever visions and the deep
>>psychic trauma that was causing various peoples' heads to explode.
>
> Not what I meant. *Why* did she have those visions? What possible
> purpose could it serve the PTBs to have her feel like that?
And here I was thinking that 'Birthday' implied that the visions were a
force rather than a directly controlled tool of the PTB.
It's never been established how much control the PTB have over the
visions. See, oh, 'Epiphany' and others.
*If* the PTB have precise control over what they send, one assumes they
didn't realise they were passing the limit of what Cordy can handle.
> Except her purpose in this world now only includes the visions in as
> far as they compel her to believe the end of the world is nigh and
> behave completely unlike any incarnation of Cordelia we've ever seen.
You didn't see depressed!Cordelia in 'Reprise', then?
>>> And even if there was no point, why didn't she want to spend these
>>> last pointless times with her friends and the man she loves?
>>
>>Again with the despair.
>
> Huh? Despair or no, how can going back to Connors, rather than to AI,
> possibly be a good choice?
Whether or not it's a good choice is irrelevant. If you're despairing, you
don't act logically.
See 'Reprise', again.
>>And in the case of Angel, the being freaked out by
>>his past.
>
> Oh yeah, that's convenient isn't it? One might think that a persons
> past doesn't really matter very much when the apocalypse is about to
> happen..
One might also think that the repeated references to Connor's similarities
with Angel were somewhat anvil-like with respect to this issue...
> And I didn't even raise the most important question: why the hell is
> she having sex with Connor? If she'd even said something akin to "I
> just want to feel something besides the cold", it might have been
> slightly convincing, but she didn't, and it wasn't.
...and this one.
She's done it before with Groo, after all.
Shuggie
wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 02:10:06 +0000, Shuggie
><shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:31:53 +0000, Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:36:43 +0100, Mattia Valente
>>><mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:21:17 +0100, Mattia Valente
>>>>> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>>>>>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
>>>>>>><timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>The demon-guy has so far not managed to distinguish himself from a
>>>regular MOTW, tunneling and jumping notwithstanding.
>>
>>He was clearly faster and stronger than anything we've seen on Angel.
>
>I don't know. They're all made out to be fast and strong. Regardless:
>some guy in monster makeup does not an apocalypse make.
>
>A proper apocalypse needs a ... well, a hellmouth.
>
So you're saying you found a hole in the ground with a few tentacles
more impressive than rain of fire over an entire city?
>>Plus he can trigger, uh you know, RAIN of FIRE! Don't see that every
>>week.
>>
>>>The CGI atmospheric effects don't appear to do any damage whatsoever,
>>>and look like a cheap Ghostbusters rip-off anyway.
>>
>>So failed in execution (for you) but in intent still very ominous.
>
>Intent to be ominous != ominous.
>It does not convince me that the world is about to end.
>
I think you misunderstand me. You may not find the CGI very impressive
but it's clear what it portrays (rain of fire) and what it portrays is a
bigger 'sign of the end' than anything we've seen on either show before.
Personally I thought the CGI was fine. Pretty good for TV and better
than anything we've seen before.
>>>"Surely some revelation is at hand;
>>>Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
>>>The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
>>>When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
>>>Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
>>
>>Here's the monster -
>
>I don't think I agree.
>
>>>A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
>>>A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
>>>Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
>>
>>So a slow-moving blank eyed lion-man - doesn't sound all that impressive
>>TBH.
>
>Errmmm... It's an obvious reference to the sphinx of the Giza.
>
>>Thing is - it's a great poem - but as a guide to making a visually
>>impressive monster - it's not that great.
>
>Maybe the problem is in them approaching the question of armaggedon as
>being about creating "a visually impressive monster", rather than
>thinking of it as a global cataclysm?
>
Well I think I misunderstood you. When you said "With *that* as source
material, was this the best they could do?" I assumed you meant the
monster rather than the scenario.
>I don't think a guy in a demon costume can ever be a satisfying
>end-of-the-world threat. It's too "Marvel comics"-y.
>
Except he's clearly not the apocalypse - he merely set it off. Plus this
isn't necessarily the apocalypse per se - just the beginning.
>>>Somehow, I doubt old Yeats was talking about a generic monster duking it
>>>out in an LA rooftop nightclub.
>>
>>Of course he wasn't - but then SDK isn't doing a screen version of the
>>Yeats poem - he's doing an Angel episode with a Yeats reference.
>
>My point was that's it's a fantastically underwhelming apocalypse. Not
>in principle any different from what we see on Angel every week.
See that makes no sense to me. Because we've never seen anything as
large in scale as either the monster or the rain of fire.
Most weeks on Angel we see the gang defeat some monster or other. It may
be threatening them, it more be threatening others but it's usually
pretty localized. Even if it's threatening the world - as in the physics
geek ep whose title I can't be bothered to look up - very few people are
aware of it. Here the entire city is affected and everyone is aware.
And you really think it's just run of the mill?
I'll concede it's not as impressive as it could be - but did you really
expect Deep Impact on a TV budget?
--
Shug
Gunnar Harboe
<shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Yes.
Although I wouldn't put it in terms of "impressive" myself. It's more a
matter of "credible threat". The hellmouth opening made me believe the
world was about to end in a way the rain of fire didn't.
I also observe that SDK saw fit to let Cordelia assert that she really
believes this is the end (the only way it seems to affect the characters
even a little), as though to try and convince the audience. I'm afraid I
can't even get into that mindset of suspension of disbelief that would
have me innocently worrying about that.
>>>Plus he can trigger, uh you know, RAIN of FIRE! Don't see that every
>>>week.
>>>
>>>>The CGI atmospheric effects don't appear to do any damage whatsoever,
>>>>and look like a cheap Ghostbusters rip-off anyway.
>>>
>>>So failed in execution (for you) but in intent still very ominous.
>>
>>Intent to be ominous != ominous.
>>It does not convince me that the world is about to end.
>
>I think you misunderstand me. You may not find the CGI very impressive
>but it's clear what it portrays (rain of fire) and what it portrays is a
>bigger 'sign of the end' than anything we've seen on either show before.
>Personally I thought the CGI was fine. Pretty good for TV and better
>than anything we've seen before.
No, you misunderstand me. It's not about the CGI effect per se. That's
rather lovely, in a serene sort of way. It's about it appearing
completely harmless, not much more than fireworks. Fire *and
destruction* from the sky, then we might be talking.
However, since this presumably isn't what's going to destroy the world,
it's more about the wiggins-factor than anything else. I would have been
more freaked by a cloud of locusts, for instance (the sparrows were a
step in the right direction, but too brief and inconsequential).
This sort of thing works in Ghostbusters, where it's all a big joke
anyway. Trying to play it straight is a mistake, however.
>>My point was that's it's a fantastically underwhelming apocalypse. Not
>>in principle any different from what we see on Angel every week.
>
>See that makes no sense to me. Because we've never seen anything as
>large in scale as either the monster or the rain of fire.
There I don't agree with you. I'm sure there's been physically bigger
monsters on Angel, and it's hardly the first enemy that has appeared
unharmable initially (not to mention that Buffy did the invincible foe
bit two years ago). The rain may cover a bigger area than previous
effects, but that doesn't automatically make it more dramatic to the
story, IMO.
>Most weeks on Angel we see the gang defeat some monster or other. It may
>be threatening them, it more be threatening others but it's usually
>pretty localized. Even if it's threatening the world - as in the physics
>geek ep whose title I can't be bothered to look up - very few people are
>aware of it. Here the entire city is affected and everyone is aware.
Well, that just seems irrelevant to me.
>And you really think it's just run of the mill?
>
>I'll concede it's not as impressive as it could be - but did you really
>expect Deep Impact on a TV budget?
Deep Impact? Don't know it. That's one of the asteroid flicks from a few
years back, right? I'm not really into action films.
I will say that the producers ought to be able to back up their FX with
consequences. If they're going to do a rain of fire, they'd better do
wholesale destruction, mayhem and mass hysteria too.
Dan Milburn
> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:22:09 +0000 (UTC), Niall Harrison
>> <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by
>>>>>>>>>now if you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> Heh. I think they're gonna have to come up with a damn good
>>>> explanation as to exactly *why* Cordelia felt that way.
>>>
>>>I thought they did, what with the most-painful-ever visions and the
>>>deep psychic trauma that was causing various peoples' heads to explode.
>>
>> Not what I meant. *Why* did she have those visions? What possible
>> purpose could it serve the PTBs to have her feel like that?
>
> And here I was thinking that 'Birthday' implied that the visions were a
> force rather than a directly controlled tool of the PTB.
But a force generally directed towards helping those who need help, and
more specifically, aiding Angel in his 'mission'. I realise that hasn't
actually happened for a while, but still.. We're seeing nothing like that
here.
> *If* the PTB have precise control over what they send, one assumes they
> didn't realise they were passing the limit of what Cordy can handle.
In which case, the PTBs screwed up, big time, and *that* needs to be
addressed.
None of which deals with my question about why we, or she, should believe
that they're genuine at all. Let's see: 'To Shanshu in LA', Cordy gets
horribly painful visions which drive her mad and nearly kill her. 'That
Vision Thing', ditto. What's the common factor here? No, I'm not saying
this is down to W&H, clearly it's not, but it doesn't seem implausible
that these are specifically designed, by some force, to keep Cordy out of
the game. In fact, from where I'm sitting, it seems extremely likely.
Anyway, we can speculate all we like, but all I'm really saying is that we
don't have adequate explanation for what's going on re Cordy and visions.
We need one, and I have a feeling we won't get it.
>> Except her purpose in this world now only includes the visions in as
>> far as they compel her to believe the end of the world is nigh and
>> behave completely unlike any incarnation of Cordelia we've ever seen.
>
> You didn't see depressed!Cordelia in 'Reprise', then?
Cordy had sex with the man she loved's son in 'Reprise'?? Wow, I must
have missed that one. :P
>>>And in the case of Angel, the being freaked out by his past.
>>
>> Oh yeah, that's convenient isn't it?
And anyway, precisely when and why did this happen? Seems a lot was going
on up in 'heaven' in the time it took Angel and co to drive home from
Vegas.
>> One might think that a persons
>> past doesn't really matter very much when the apocalypse is about to
>> happen..
>
> One might also think that the repeated references to Connor's
> similarities with Angel were somewhat anvil-like with respect to this
> issue...
I'm sorry, you've lost me here. What have Connors similarities with Angel
got to do with this point?
>> And I didn't even raise the most important question: why the hell is
>> she having sex with Connor? If she'd even said something akin to "I
>> just want to feel something besides the cold", it might have been
>> slightly convincing, but she didn't, and it wasn't.
>
> ...and this one.
>
> She's done it before with Groo, after all.
Done what? Are you saying Connor is Angel-substitute? The difference, as
if I need to point it out, was that she herself believed she was in love
with Groo. This time, she's just *told* Angel that she's in love with
him. Connor doesn't care, he just wants to get laid, but it's not
remotely fair on him or Angel to behave the way she is. In fact, if one
wanted to deliberately cause rifts among the only people who might have a
chance of averting the apocalypse, this would be a pretty good way of
going about it, wouldn't you say?
Dan
Iain Clark
Also, the fight scene that most resembles this one in Angel is
Connor's arrival from Quortoth*. What with the choice of birthplace
and all, I'm thinking there's some deliberate paralleling going on
there.
Iain
*(I forget where the apostrophes go)
--
"Caught a bolt of lightning
Cursed the day he let it go"
Iain Clark
I don't believe the PTB's intent was to make her feel that way. It
wasn't the vision per se that caused her despair - it was just one of
a number of factors.
>wasn't the PTBs, who the frell was it? In fact, given that the last
>time she got visions which caused her such great pain, they were being
>caused by Lilah, why isn't she assuming that they *aren't* genuine?
>
We had no sign that they were This Vision Thing bad; they caused no
physical harm. They were just a powerful version of her current
visions - enough to knock the wind out of her.
They tied in perfectly to her dreams, and they already knew something
bad was up, so why not believe them?
>All these questions, and more, probably won't be answered in the next
>episode of Angel.
>
>>> Especially since her truly felt, deep down, "in my heart" feelings
>>> haven't once been remotely correct in the past.
>>
>>CORDELIA:
>>I know my purpose in this world and it
>>includes the visions. And if the Powers
>>That Be aren't complete dumb-asses,
>>they know it, too.
>>
>>And that's just the first example that comes to mind.
>
>Except her purpose in this world now only includes the visions in as
>far as they compel her to believe the end of the world is nigh and
>behave completely unlike any incarnation of Cordelia we've ever seen.
>
She was disillusioned. She didn't understand why she was back in the
world, and was beginning to "realise" that she had no purpose. the
Powers didn't appear to have returned her in order to stop the
apocalypse. She had no special wisdom. She couldn't even remember
the key parts of what she knew. To all appearances it was now too
late to save the world.
Sure, in a few hours she might rally round, but a moment of despair at
rock-bottom is allowable.
>>> And even if there was no point, why didn't she want to spend these
>>> last pointless times with her friends and the man she loves?
>>
>>Again with the despair.
>
>Huh? Despair or no, how can going back to Connors, rather than to AI,
>possibly be a good choice?
>
She trusts Connor and feels safe with him. they were both wounded and
needed to tend their wounds. I'm not saying they shouldn't have gone
to the Hotel, but it's a believable choice to go to Connor's.
>> And in the case of Angel, the being freaked out by
>>his past.
>
>Oh yeah, that's convenient isn't it? One might think that a persons
>past doesn't really matter very much when the apocalypse is about to
>happen..
>
>And I didn't even raise the most important question: why the hell is
>she having sex with Connor? If she'd even said something akin to "I
>just want to feel something besides the cold", it might have been
>slightly convincing, but she didn't, and it wasn't.
>
She did say something. She was depressed and scared, and she said she
wanted Connor to experience something genuine before he died. It may
be corny as hell, but it's a valid reason.
I still don't like the pairing, but since it's clearly intended to be
an act of kindness/mercy/sympathy I can buy it.
Iain
Niall Harrison
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:22:38 +0000, Niall Harrison wrote:
>> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:22:09 +0000 (UTC), Niall Harrison
>>> <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by
>>>>>>>>>>now if you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Not what I meant. *Why* did she have those visions? What possible
>>> purpose could it serve the PTBs to have her feel like that?
>>
>> And here I was thinking that 'Birthday' implied that the visions were a
>> force rather than a directly controlled tool of the PTB.
>
> But a force generally directed towards helping those who need help, and
> more specifically, aiding Angel in his 'mission'.
A force directed towards doing good in the world would be more accurate.
You're changing the issue, though. Now you're asking why Cordy got a
vision of a Big Bad arising - to which I say, um, as a warning? - rather
than asking why it serves the PTB to have her feel like that.
Come to think of it, those answers are kinda complementary.
>> *If* the PTB have precise control over what they send, one assumes they
>> didn't realise they were passing the limit of what Cordy can handle.
>
> In which case, the PTBs screwed up, big time, and *that* needs to be
> addressed.
How so? The result of overloading Cordy was that she couldn't muster the
willpower to spend her last moments with her friends. Sad for her, not a
big minus for the Powers.
If you're going to say it matters because she didn't go and tell Angel
what she knew, well, what did she know that would have made a difference?
She knew the Beast was big and tough. They knew that already. They would
still have tried - would still have had to try - to take it down.
I suppose she could have guessed that the Beast has some connection with
Connor but again, not seeing how that's particularly useful for Angel.
> None of which deals with my question about why we, or she, should believe
> that they're genuine at all.
See Iain's response on this one.
>>>>And in the case of Angel, the being freaked out by his past.
>>>
>>> Oh yeah, that's convenient isn't it?
>
> And anyway, precisely when and why did this happen? Seems a lot was going
> on up in 'heaven' in the time it took Angel and co to drive home from
> Vegas.
And Connor aged eighteen years in a few weeks. I'm not seeing a huge
problem here.
>>> And I didn't even raise the most important question: why the hell is
>>> she having sex with Connor? If she'd even said something akin to "I
>>> just want to feel something besides the cold", it might have been
>>> slightly convincing, but she didn't, and it wasn't.
>>
>> ...and this one.
>>
>> She's done it before with Groo, after all.
>
> Done what? Are you saying Connor is Angel-substitute?
Um, yes. Like I said, I thought it was fairly obvious.
> The difference, as if I need to point it out, was that she herself
> believed she was in love with Groo.
So?
I'm not seeing how that makes any difference.
> This time, she's just *told* Angel that she's in love with him.
But can't deal with being near him. Hence, she goes for the closest
available equivalent.
> Connor doesn't care, he just wants to get laid, but it's not
> remotely fair on him or Angel to behave the way she is.
And I'm sure, on some level, she realises that. But she doesn't expect the
world to be around long enough for it to matter.
Niall
--
IRC killed the Usenet star.
Niall Harrison
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:45:29 +0000, Shuggie
> <shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
> I also observe that SDK saw fit to let Cordelia assert that she really
> believes this is the end (the only way it seems to affect the characters
> even a little),
"Connor...this is where you were born."
"Do you really think she's safe with him?"
(So, do we suspect there may be some kind of connection between the Beast
and Connor?)
Niall
--
But is it art?
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:45:29 +0000, Shuggie
>> <shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
>> I also observe that SDK saw fit to let Cordelia assert that she really
>> believes this is the end (the only way it seems to affect the characters
>> even a little),
>
>"Connor...this is where you were born."
>
>"Do you really think she's safe with him?"
I was referring to the rain of fire specifically.
Dan Milburn
wrote:
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Gunnar Harboe wrote:
You mean.. even though wise and all-knowing Cordelia said "in her
heart" she knew there wasn't? Nah, don't buy it....
Dan
Dan Milburn
The other factors being?
>>wasn't the PTBs, who the frell was it? In fact, given that the last
>>time she got visions which caused her such great pain, they were being
>>caused by Lilah, why isn't she assuming that they *aren't* genuine?
>>
>
>We had no sign that they were This Vision Thing bad; they caused no
>physical harm. They were just a powerful version of her current
>visions - enough to knock the wind out of her.
Which, given that she was given her demon form specifically so that
she could cope with the visions, should be cause for alarm, or even
suspicion.
>They tied in perfectly to her dreams, and they already knew something
>bad was up, so why not believe them?
The visions in TVT were accurate, they were just misleading..
>>All these questions, and more, probably won't be answered in the next
>>episode of Angel.
>>
>>>> Especially since her truly felt, deep down, "in my heart" feelings
>>>> haven't once been remotely correct in the past.
>>>
>>>CORDELIA:
>>>I know my purpose in this world and it
>>>includes the visions. And if the Powers
>>>That Be aren't complete dumb-asses,
>>>they know it, too.
>>>
>>>And that's just the first example that comes to mind.
>>
>>Except her purpose in this world now only includes the visions in as
>>far as they compel her to believe the end of the world is nigh and
>>behave completely unlike any incarnation of Cordelia we've ever seen.
>>
>
>She was disillusioned. She didn't understand why she was back in the
>world, and was beginning to "realise" that she had no purpose. the
>Powers didn't appear to have returned her in order to stop the
>apocalypse. She had no special wisdom. She couldn't even remember
>the key parts of what she knew. To all appearances it was now too
>late to save the world.
All of which appears somewhat contrived to bring about what happened..
>>>> And even if there was no point, why didn't she want to spend these
>>>> last pointless times with her friends and the man she loves?
>>>
>>>Again with the despair.
>>
>>Huh? Despair or no, how can going back to Connors, rather than to AI,
>>possibly be a good choice?
>>
>
>She trusts Connor and feels safe with him.
No, that was Amnesia!Cordy, do keep up.
This one has every reason to distrust Connor, and very little reason
to distrust Angel, Gunn, Fred or Lorne. Except for the whole thing
about her, for some as yet unexplained reason, having experienced
Angels past and realising that hey! he really was an evil
mass-murderer, cos that never sunk in before.
> they were both wounded and
>needed to tend their wounds.
In which case, go get help.
> I'm not saying they shouldn't have gone
>to the Hotel, but it's a believable choice to go to Connor's.
YMMV. Personally, I was screaming at the TV *go tell Angel what's
happening!* It was Cordy acting stupid for plot rather than character
reasons, and that's never fun to watch.
>>> And in the case of Angel, the being freaked out by
>>>his past.
>>
>>Oh yeah, that's convenient isn't it? One might think that a persons
>>past doesn't really matter very much when the apocalypse is about to
>>happen..
>>
>>And I didn't even raise the most important question: why the hell is
>>she having sex with Connor? If she'd even said something akin to "I
>>just want to feel something besides the cold", it might have been
>>slightly convincing, but she didn't, and it wasn't.
>>
>
>She did say something. She was depressed and scared, and she said she
>wanted Connor to experience something genuine before he died. It may
>be corny as hell, but it's a valid reason.
Again, YMMV. I didn't find it at all valid, or convincing, and it
does rather seem that I'm in the majority in having that view.
>I still don't like the pairing, but since it's clearly intended to be
>an act of kindness/mercy/sympathy I can buy it.
It's the fact that it's intended as an act of kindness/mercy/sympathy
that means I can't.
Dan
Dan Milburn
wrote:
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:22:38 +0000, Niall Harrison wrote:
>>> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:22:09 +0000 (UTC), Niall Harrison
>>>> <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by
>>>>>>>>>>>now if you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>> Not what I meant. *Why* did she have those visions? What possible
>>>> purpose could it serve the PTBs to have her feel like that?
>>>
>>> And here I was thinking that 'Birthday' implied that the visions were a
>>> force rather than a directly controlled tool of the PTB.
>>
>> But a force generally directed towards helping those who need help, and
>> more specifically, aiding Angel in his 'mission'.
>
>A force directed towards doing good in the world would be more accurate.
>
>You're changing the issue, though. Now you're asking why Cordy got a
>vision of a Big Bad arising - to which I say, um, as a warning?
Which does, um, what good in the world?
> - rather
>than asking why it serves the PTB to have her feel like that.
No I'm not. I'm asking why she got a vision of the Big Bad which made
her feel like that. She could have got a vision of the Big Bad
arising which *didn't* make her feel like that. The writers, or the
PTBs, or whoever *chose* to send her this extra-bad despair-causing
vision, for some reason.
>Come to think of it, those answers are kinda complementary.
>
>>> *If* the PTB have precise control over what they send, one assumes they
>>> didn't realise they were passing the limit of what Cordy can handle.
>>
>> In which case, the PTBs screwed up, big time, and *that* needs to be
>> addressed.
>
>How so? The result of overloading Cordy was that she couldn't muster the
>willpower to spend her last moments with her friends. Sad for her, not a
>big minus for the Powers.
She couldn't muster the willpower to do *anything*. In any case, if
she's not, or she's unable, to do anything positive with it, why would
they bother sending her the vision at all?
>If you're going to say it matters because she didn't go and tell Angel
>what she knew, well, what did she know that would have made a difference?
>She knew the Beast was big and tough. They knew that already. They would
>still have tried - would still have had to try - to take it down.
Well, it would have saved us the scenes with Lilah and the map-finding
for a start. What did she know that would have made a difference? We
don't know, because they haven't told us. If there wasn't anything in
the vision that would have made a difference, then there was no point
in it being sent at all. Except to incapacitate Cordy...
>I suppose she could have guessed that the Beast has some connection with
>Connor but again, not seeing how that's particularly useful for Angel.
Or she could have said, as in fact she does, that it doesn't.
>> None of which deals with my question about why we, or she, should believe
>> that they're genuine at all.
>
>See Iain's response on this one.
>
>>>>>And in the case of Angel, the being freaked out by his past.
>>>>
>>>> Oh yeah, that's convenient isn't it?
>>
>> And anyway, precisely when and why did this happen? Seems a lot was going
>> on up in 'heaven' in the time it took Angel and co to drive home from
>> Vegas.
>
>And Connor aged eighteen years in a few weeks. I'm not seeing a huge
>problem here.
Well, if you recall, one or two people did see a problem with that,
but anyway... Because we had an explanation? He was sucked into a
hell-dimension, it's well-established on the show that some other
dimensions have vastly accelerated time passage relative to our own.
It may have been obvious and cliched, but it did fit.
We *saw* Cordys dimension happening in real-time, which means that,
until we have evidence to the contrary, everything that happened to
her between moving the dial on the slot-machine and appearing in the
hotel happened in the time it took the others to drive home from
Vegas. Which is, what, a few hours? Plus, again with the why
Cordelia would *want* to find out about Angels past? Or if she
didn't, who forced it upon her?
>>>> And I didn't even raise the most important question: why the hell is
>>>> she having sex with Connor? If she'd even said something akin to "I
>>>> just want to feel something besides the cold", it might have been
>>>> slightly convincing, but she didn't, and it wasn't.
>>>
>>> ...and this one.
>>>
>>> She's done it before with Groo, after all.
>>
>> Done what? Are you saying Connor is Angel-substitute?
>
>Um, yes. Like I said, I thought it was fairly obvious.
>
>> The difference, as if I need to point it out, was that she herself
>> believed she was in love with Groo.
>
>So?
>
>I'm not seeing how that makes any difference.
You're not seeing any difference between sleeping with the person you
think you're in love with, and sleeping with the person you think
you're in love with's son? At all? If that's the case, I genuinely
have no adequate response....
Dan
Linda
"Gunnar Harboe" <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:f1vqtusuhe0r7aouc...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:45:29 +0000, Shuggie
> <shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:00:05 +0000, Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
Just jumping in for one point I noticed.
>
> I will say that the producers ought to be able to back up their FX with
> consequences. If they're going to do a rain of fire, they'd better do
> wholesale destruction, mayhem and mass hysteria too.
It looked to me as if those people in the diner with Fred were experiencing
mayhem and mass hysteria. As for wholesale destruction, we mostly saw rooftops
but I'm hoping there'll be more scenes showing that in the next episode.
--
Best Regards,
Linda
Mmmmmm...Angel
Iain Clark
Milburn) wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 22:04:21 +0000, Iain Clark
><iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:16:39 GMT, daniel...@hotmail.com (Dan
>>Milburn) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:22:09 +0000 (UTC), Niall Harrison
>>><s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:23:52 +0000 (UTC), Niall Harrison
>>>>> <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:21:17 +0100, Mattia Valente
>>>>>>> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 03:38:22 +0000, pikelet
>>>>>>>>> <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>>>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> In fact, given that the last
>>>time she got visions which caused her such great pain, they were being
>>>caused by Lilah, why isn't she assuming that they *aren't* genuine?
>>
>>We had no sign that they were This Vision Thing bad; they caused no
>>physical harm. They were just a powerful version of her current
>>visions - enough to knock the wind out of her.
>
>Which, given that she was given her demon form specifically so that
>she could cope with the visions, should be cause for alarm, or even
>suspicion.
>
Well, they *are* cause for alarm. Cause for alarm about just how
powerful the thing they're facing is. Lorne's reaction to seeing her
mind is also cause for alarm. W&H's interest in seeing those images
is cause for alarm.
Basically, I can't see what plausible reason she has to doubt the
vision at this stage.
>>They tied in perfectly to her dreams, and they already knew something
>>bad was up, so why not believe them?
>
>The visions in TVT were accurate, they were just misleading..
>
Remember that she got the memory of this Beast back when her amnesia
was removed. She has every reason to suspect this comes from her time
with the Powers, and no clear reason to doubt it as far as I can see.
Especially when there's a huge beast lumbering around and an
apocalypse apparently starting, right on cue.
>>She was disillusioned. She didn't understand why she was back in the
>>world, and was beginning to "realise" that she had no purpose. the
>>Powers didn't appear to have returned her in order to stop the
>>apocalypse. She had no special wisdom. She couldn't even remember
>>the key parts of what she knew. To all appearances it was now too
>>late to save the world.
>
>All of which appears somewhat contrived to bring about what happened..
>
Possibly. But they're genuine reasons, presented in the episode.
>>She trusts Connor and feels safe with him.
>
>No, that was Amnesia!Cordy, do keep up.
>
But this Cordy still has all the memories of Amnesia!Cordy, and isn't
about to forget what Connor did for her of late. She can't simply
discard that affection and gratitude.
>This one has every reason to distrust Connor, and very little reason
>to distrust Angel, Gunn, Fred or Lorne. Except for the whole thing
>about her, for some as yet unexplained reason, having experienced
>Angels past and realising that hey! he really was an evil
>mass-murderer, cos that never sunk in before.
>
As for the Angel past thing, that seems to be there (IMO) purely to
nix the Angel-Cordy romance, rather than make her distrust Angel. We
have every indication that she trusts Angel, and confides in him. She
still wanted him to rescue her when she was a higher being. It's just
that she can't wholeheartedly love him when she's recently
experienced, first hand and in glorious emotional technicolor, what
Angelus did.
Now, it seems unfair to tar Angel with the brush of his past actions,
and not do the same for Connor, but I can live with it for the moment
because her relationships with the two are so different.
She's not using Angel's past as a reason to mistrust him, she's using
it as a reason to say she can't commit to him for now. That's fine -
she's not professing commitment to Connor either, and in fact (despite
her actions at the end) she clearly loves Angel, not Connor.
>> I'm not saying they shouldn't have gone
>>to the Hotel, but it's a believable choice to go to Connor's.
>
>YMMV. Personally, I was screaming at the TV *go tell Angel what's
>happening!* It was Cordy acting stupid for plot rather than character
>reasons, and that's never fun to watch.
>
It never seemed stupid at the time, to me. Maybe it's because we, the
audience, know that she won't find them at the Hotel anyway since the
fight on the rooftop must be taking place simultaneously with Cordy
and Connor nursing their wounds. I dunno.
>>>> And in the case of Angel, the being freaked out by
>>>>his past.
>>>
>>>Oh yeah, that's convenient isn't it? One might think that a persons
>>>past doesn't really matter very much when the apocalypse is about to
>>>happen..
>>>
I didn't get any impression she made a conscious choice to avoid
Angel. For all we know Connor's place was the nearest safe haven.
(Heck, for all we know they tried the Hyperion en route, and found
nobody home.)
>>>And I didn't even raise the most important question: why the hell is
>>>she having sex with Connor? If she'd even said something akin to "I
>>>just want to feel something besides the cold", it might have been
>>>slightly convincing, but she didn't, and it wasn't.
>>
>>She did say something. She was depressed and scared, and she said she
>>wanted Connor to experience something genuine before he died. It may
>>be corny as hell, but it's a valid reason.
>
>Again, YMMV. I didn't find it at all valid, or convincing, and it
>does rather seem that I'm in the majority in having that view.
>
I don't find it especially convincing, however you made out there was
no reason given - there was.
As for validity, it works better if you buy into the characters'
conviction that this Apocalypse is really here, now, happening. I
don't think we've had quite enough build up, but it just about works
for me.
>>I still don't like the pairing, but since it's clearly intended to be
>>an act of kindness/mercy/sympathy I can buy it.
>
>It's the fact that it's intended as an act of kindness/mercy/sympathy
>that means I can't.
>
I find it a very odd action for Cordy, but just about acceptable given
the events this season that have led her to this point.
I'd say the episode has a few flaws, but absolutely nowhere near the
level of contrivance and annoyingness of Tomorrow. Not enough to
drag it down for me. It was a solid, above average episode. Not
superb. Not Lullaby great. But very good.
Iain Clark
<li...@DELETESPAMsusieword.com> wrote:
>
>"Gunnar Harboe" <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:f1vqtusuhe0r7aouc...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:45:29 +0000, Shuggie
>> <shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:00:05 +0000, Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>> >>>>>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>
>
>Just jumping in for one point I noticed.
>>
>> I will say that the producers ought to be able to back up their FX with
>> consequences. If they're going to do a rain of fire, they'd better do
>> wholesale destruction, mayhem and mass hysteria too.
>
>It looked to me as if those people in the diner with Fred were experiencing
>mayhem and mass hysteria.
Yep. It looked like Ming the Merciless had just pressed the "Hot
Hail" button :-)
> As for wholesale destruction, we mostly saw rooftops
>but I'm hoping there'll be more scenes showing that in the next episode.
Yes, budget allowing.
Gunnar Harboe
<iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 03:16:13 GMT, "Linda"
><li...@DELETESPAMsusieword.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gunnar Harboe" <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>news:f1vqtusuhe0r7aouc...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:45:29 +0000, Shuggie
>>> <shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:00:05 +0000, Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>> >>>>>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>
>>Just jumping in for one point I noticed.
>>>
>>> I will say that the producers ought to be able to back up their FX with
>>> consequences. If they're going to do a rain of fire, they'd better do
>>> wholesale destruction, mayhem and mass hysteria too.
>>
>>It looked to me as if those people in the diner with Fred were experiencing
>>mayhem and mass hysteria.
Errr.. you better rewatch those scenes. There's a small earthquake, and
the diner guests hide under their tables like good LA-ians (the windows
don't actually break, and there's no sign of any actual damage). Then
during the rain of fire, the waitress is freaked, definitely, but all
she does is turn around to look in each direction. There's no "mass
hysteria", even if we allow some five people to be counted as a mass.
>Yep. It looked like Ming the Merciless had just pressed the "Hot
>Hail" button :-)
>
>> As for wholesale destruction, we mostly saw rooftops
>>but I'm hoping there'll be more scenes showing that in the next episode.
>
>Yes, budget allowing.
If we don't see it, I'm not going to be satisfied with a "didn't have
the budget" explanation. If they don't have the budget to do a rain of
fire, then don't do a rain of fire.
Iain Clark
wrote:
Before we get all annoyed at the writers, let's see what's actually
going on. I'm strongly of the opinion that everything so far amounts
to "signs and portents" - the plagues of creatures and the rain of
fire both.
It's a prelude to something bigger. So the intent of the Rain of Fire
may not be to do any significant damage whatsoever. (But you can
understand why someone might think the End Was Nigh.)
Shuggie
wrote:
I find that odd. A few tentacles in a room and Giles' word is all the
evidence we have of a credible threat. That's no reason to disbelieve it
- suspension of disbelief after all - but it's not more credible than a
monster killing lots of people, plagues of rats and birds and rain of
fire.
>I also observe that SDK saw fit to let Cordelia assert that she really
>believes this is the end (the only way it seems to affect the characters
>even a little), as though to try and convince the audience. I'm afraid I
>can't even get into that mindset of suspension of disbelief that would
>have me innocently worrying about that.
>
That's not the reason SDK has Cordy make that statement. It's so he can
have her justify sleeping with Connor - not something that especially
works but still - if they hadn't had Connor and Cordy get it together
she wouldn't have said that.
<snip>
>>>My point was that's it's a fantastically underwhelming apocalypse. Not
>>>in principle any different from what we see on Angel every week.
>>
>>See that makes no sense to me. Because we've never seen anything as
>>large in scale as either the monster or the rain of fire.
>
>There I don't agree with you. I'm sure there's been physically bigger
>monsters on Angel, and it's hardly the first enemy that has appeared
>unharmable initially (not to mention that Buffy did the invincible foe
>bit two years ago).
Except this monster already has a higher body count than 99% of all
Buffy or Angel monsters. And yet you still think it's a standard MotW?
> The rain may cover a bigger area than previous
>effects, but that doesn't automatically make it more dramatic to the
>story, IMO.
Of course it does. More people are under immediate threat.
>
>>Most weeks on Angel we see the gang defeat some monster or other. It may
>>be threatening them, it more be threatening others but it's usually
>>pretty localized. Even if it's threatening the world - as in the physics
>>geek ep whose title I can't be bothered to look up - very few people are
>>aware of it. Here the entire city is affected and everyone is aware.
>
>Well, that just seems irrelevant to me.
>
It's about scale - something you were complaining about the lack of.
"global catacyclsm" I believe was your phrase. Well this is not global
but it is city-wide and that's city-less-a-room bigger than any threat
so far.
>>And you really think it's just run of the mill?
>>
>>I'll concede it's not as impressive as it could be - but did you really
>>expect Deep Impact on a TV budget?
>
>Deep Impact? Don't know it. That's one of the asteroid flicks from a few
>years back, right? I'm not really into action films.
>
Yes it was. TBH I never saw the whole thing either - but it was an
example of a big-budget 'global cataclysm' movie.
>I will say that the producers ought to be able to back up their FX with
>consequences. If they're going to do a rain of fire, they'd better do
>wholesale destruction, mayhem and mass hysteria too.
Who says they won't? But as I keep saying this is begining of the end
not the end itself.
Niall Harrison
> On 22 Nov 2002 23:03:01 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:22:38 +0000, Niall Harrison wrote:
>>>> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:22:09 +0000 (UTC), Niall Harrison
>>>>> <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by
>>>>>>>>>>>>now if you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>> force rather than a directly controlled tool of the PTB.
>>>
>>> But a force generally directed towards helping those who need help, and
>>> more specifically, aiding Angel in his 'mission'.
>>
>>A force directed towards doing good in the world would be more accurate.
>>
>>You're changing the issue, though. Now you're asking why Cordy got a
>>vision of a Big Bad arising - to which I say, um, as a warning?
>
> Which does, um, what good in the world?
With any luck, it stops it from being ended. I'd chalk that up as a good
thing.
>> - rather
>>than asking why it serves the PTB to have her feel like that.
>
> No I'm not. I'm asking why she got a vision of the Big Bad which made
> her feel like that. She could have got a vision of the Big Bad
> arising which *didn't* make her feel like that.
Based on what?
As far as I can remember, the intensity of the visions has always been
related to their content. 'Dead End', for instance.
And you're once again assuming that someone has control over the visions
to be able to turn them down. Or, maybe they *did* turn it down as much as
they could.
You're postulating all kinds of complex mechanisms for the operation of
the visions when all we actually know is that they come, randomly.
> She couldn't muster the willpower to do *anything*. In any case, if
> she's not, or she's unable, to do anything positive with it, why would
> they bother sending her the vision at all?
So that Angel would know the Beast was coming.
(Or possibly because they wanted Connor to be there when the Beast rose?)
>>If you're going to say it matters because she didn't go and tell Angel
>>what she knew, well, what did she know that would have made a difference?
>>She knew the Beast was big and tough. They knew that already. They would
>>still have tried - would still have had to try - to take it down.
>
> Well, it would have saved us the scenes with Lilah and the map-finding
> for a start.
It would? How so? Cordy's vision was about the Beast rising, not where the
Beast was going afterwards.
> What did she know that would have made a difference? We don't know,
> because they haven't told us.
So now you're assuming Cordelia knows more than is indicated on-screen?
> If there wasn't anything in the vision that would have made a
> difference, then there was no point in it being sent at all.
Except that Angel got warned that the Beast was coming right the hell
then.
> We *saw* Cordys dimension happening in real-time,
But we didn't see Cordy's perspective. For all we know, she was
omniscient. In fact, hasn't it been implied that that was the case? I'm
not sure.
>>> The difference, as if I need to point it out, was that she herself
>>> believed she was in love with Groo.
>>
>>So?
>>
>>I'm not seeing how that makes any difference.
>
> You're not seeing any difference between sleeping with the person you
> think you're in love with, and sleeping with the person you think
> you're in love with's son? At all? If that's the case, I genuinely
> have no adequate response....
Obviously there's a difference. But I don't see how it makes any
difference in the analysis at hand.
In both cases, Cordelia has a stated motive for sleeping with the person
concerned. She thinks she's in love with Groo, and she wants to give
Connor a moment of happiness before he dies. In both cases, it's
blindingly obvious to the viewer that what she's actually doing, at least
in part, is latching on to the nearest available Angel-substitute.
Niall Harrison
Well, that wasn't Cordelia being Wise. That was Cordelia trying to stop
Connor becoming suicidal.
Niall Harrison
So you're separating the rain of fire from the rest of the apocalyptic
doom? Uh, why?
At the end of the episode, Angel is beaten, broken and emotionally
wrecked. Gunn is out for the count. Cordelia is despondent. All these
things are a direct result of the coming of the Beast. The fact that none
of them got hit by a fireball seems an odd reason to claim that the
apocalypse isn't affecting them.
Tan Coul
<timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote:
>Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:28:03 +0100. I'm in alt.buffy.europe. Mattia
>Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> is twanging, all Hoob-like, at me. I
>calmly say:
>
>>Niall Harrison wrote:
>>> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - pikelet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong! Apparently called 'Rain of Fire'. Legal issues. You should know.
>>>
>>>
>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>
>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>>> Yes. And can I just say how much I loved the Beast rising out the back of
>>> Caritas?
>>
>>:-)
>
>Think about it. The Beast is 'slouching toward Bethlehem to be born'.
>
>What else was born in Bethlehem, eh?
>
>Signs are starting to point to Connor being the salvation of mankind,
>not its ruination after all.
If Connor's my salvation, I'm not sure I want to be saved... ;-)
--
Colin B.
Bored now...
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>> On 22 Nov 2002 23:23:37 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:45:29 +0000, Shuggie
>>>> <shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>> I also observe that SDK saw fit to let Cordelia assert that she really
>>>> believes this is the end (the only way it seems to affect the characters
>>>> even a little),
>>>
>>>"Connor...this is where you were born."
>>>
>>>"Do you really think she's safe with him?"
>>
>> I was referring to the rain of fire specifically.
>
>So you're separating the rain of fire from the rest of the apocalyptic
>doom? Uh, why?
For the purpose of analysis. I find the apocalypse underwhelming because
it seems to consist of one guy in a monster suit doing what guys in
monster suits do, and a CGI effect that doesn't actually do anything
except look nice. I don't find that impressive. I don't find it grand. I
don't find it portentous. I don't find it unsettling. I find it
desperately unimaginative and a bit lame.
The other elements are nice (I particularly liked the hail of sparrows),
but not handled very well or consistently, and are pretty much
extraneous to the plot.
Sarah Elton
"pikelet" <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote in
message news:vongtugf99k2as5nt...@4ax.com...
> 'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>
> See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>
> Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
> you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> FREAKS!
>
> Moments of note:
>
>
> Lilah pretending to be Fred, and 'No, leave them on'. Ew (and yet...
> yum).
>
Yup - there was something very disturbing yet oddly compelling about that
whole thing!
> Cordy telling Angel she knows exactly what he did, and then the final
> shot of the episode, where he knows exactly what she's doing.
>
Very nicely done....
> How come I have loads of people always going to me 'Thanks for being
> there, you've been such a great friend', yet none of them are (a) as
> attractive as Cordy, nor (b) about to repay me with a night of passion
> for my efforts?
>
Are you as attractive as Connor? :o)
> Just sayin', y'know.
> Cordy+Connor=Eww. Also = WTF?!?!?
>
> And Angel watching = Mmm.... trouble at mill, lad.
>
Well hopefully he won't watch much longer or it just gets creepy. :o)
> Funny for an episode that, on the face of it, didn't do much more than
> anything else this season, yet I got a sense of *going* somewhere with
> this one.
>
I thought the rain of fire (hence the title) at the end was supposed to be
the start of the end of the world? If so, the episode was most definitely
going somewhere!!
The season feels a bit slower than others - eps are very very good but can
drag a bit in places. It seems to be picking up a bit now though. Can't wait
for the next one - stupid Christmas hiatus!
Sarah
Mattia Valente
> "pikelet" <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote in
> message news:vongtugf99k2as5nt...@4ax.com...
>
>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>
>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>
>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>yum).
>
> Yup - there was something very disturbing yet oddly compelling about that
> whole thing!
Um, yeah. That's it.
>>How come I have loads of people always going to me 'Thanks for being
>>there, you've been such a great friend', yet none of them are (a) as
>>attractive as Cordy, nor (b) about to repay me with a night of passion
>>for my efforts?
>
> Are you as attractive as Connor? :o)
Tim's made 'o' sexy bitchness. Well, so Niall tells us all, but I don't
*quite* get that 'sex god' vibe.
>>Cordy+Connor=Eww. Also = WTF?!?!?
>>
>>And Angel watching = Mmm.... trouble at mill, lad.
>
> Well hopefully he won't watch much longer or it just gets creepy. :o)
Who knows what 'round' C&C were in, and when Angelcakes showed up, eh?
> I thought the rain of fire (hence the title) at the end was supposed to be
> the start of the end of the world? If so, the episode was most definitely
> going somewhere!!
That's the implication, in any event..
> The season feels a bit slower than others - eps are very very good but can
> drag a bit in places. It seems to be picking up a bit now though. Can't wait
> for the next one - stupid Christmas hiatus!
Indeed. I think part of that is because we haven't really had anything
really satisfying in terms of 'other' story, arc or non, happening in
this first bit of the season; Cordy's story is still developing, and far
from totally convincing. By contrast, S1 was, well, standalones ahoy, S2
had a really really strong arc going in the first 7 eps, and S3 had TVT,
Fred issues, and Billy to round things out before stuff kicked off in
terms of big big arc. Plus preggers Darla teasers. So...
Mattia
--
"I wield only the power of death. Not syndication." - Tim Minear
Niall Harrison
> "pikelet" <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote in
> message news:vongtugf99k2as5nt...@4ax.com...
>> 'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>
>> See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>
>> Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>> you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> How come I have loads of people always going to me 'Thanks for being
>> there, you've been such a great friend', yet none of them are (a) as
>> attractive as Cordy, nor (b) about to repay me with a night of passion
>> for my efforts?
>
> Are you as attractive as Connor? :o)
Only to single mothers.
Mattia Valente
*sits back, grabs a beer, and waits for the fun to begin...*
Mattia
--
''I don't want to create responsible shows with lawyers in them.
I want to invade people's dreams.'' - Joss Whedon
Linda
"Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:3DF3A6E2...@std.vu.nl...
> Niall Harrison wrote:
> > Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Sarah Elton wrote:
> >
> >>"pikelet" <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote in
> >>message news:vongtugf99k2as5nt...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
> >>>
> >>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
> >>>
> >>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
> >>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >>>How come I have loads of people always going to me 'Thanks for being
> >>>there, you've been such a great friend', yet none of them are (a) as
> >>>attractive as Cordy, nor (b) about to repay me with a night of passion
> >>>for my efforts?
> >>
> >>Are you as attractive as Connor? :o)
> >
> >
> > Only to single mothers.
>
> *sits back, grabs a beer, and waits for the fun to begin...*
/me goes gets another beer for Mattia and herself then makes herself comfortable
next to Mattia. Hope it's a good show...
Saskia
sings:
I have munchies! <drops on the couch in between Linda and Mattia>
Let the show begin!
--
Saskia
"If we die in here, I'm gonna kick your ass. I mean it."
pikelet
You're a bitch.
And you will pay. Oh, yes, you will pay.
Tim.
Niall Harrison
Dude, I think they were expecting a better show than that.
Niall
--
Another casualty of applied metaphysics.
Mattia Valente
> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - pikelet wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 18:34:52 +0000, Niall Harrison wrote:
>>
>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Sarah Elton wrote:
>>>
>>>>"pikelet" <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.issmenotwithspammylips> wrote in
>>>>message news:vongtugf99k2as5nt...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>'Apocalypse Now-ish'.
>>>>>
>>>>>See, most weeks somebody else makes the first post.
>>>>>
>>>>>Spoilers down below for an episode you'll only have watched by now if
>>>>>you (a) have broadband, or (b) live in the States. Sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>How come I have loads of people always going to me 'Thanks for being
>>>>>there, you've been such a great friend', yet none of them are (a) as
>>>>>attractive as Cordy, nor (b) about to repay me with a night of passion
>>>>>for my efforts?
>>>>
>>>>Are you as attractive as Connor? :o)
>>>
>>>Only to single mothers.
>>
>>You're a bitch.
>>
>>And you will pay. Oh, yes, you will pay.
>
>
> Dude, I think they were expecting a better show than that.
*grabs another beer*
Yeah. Not *quite* up to standard, Binky. BTW, those quilts...you knit
them for your single mums' kids?
(http://www.binkypatrol.org/..this makes no sense unless you read umta.
In April. Or googled for it this evening..try 'Binky Patrol'.)
Mattia
--
"How I used to write for Lois and Clark? Mostly in my underwear
with a large tub of ice cream. What's it to ya?" - Tim Minear
Scott Kelly
Mattia Valente said -
>Niall Harrison wrote:
>> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - pikelet wrote:
<snip>
>>>And you will pay. Oh, yes, you will pay.
>>
>> Dude, I think they were expecting a better show than that.
>
>*grabs another beer*
>
>Yeah. Not *quite* up to standard, Binky. BTW, those quilts...you knit
>them for your single mums' kids?
>
>(http://www.binkypatrol.org/..this makes no sense unless you read umta.
>In April. Or googled for it this evening..try 'Binky Patrol'.)
I am here you know. Talking as if I wasn't. Bugger.
;-)
Scott
--
Linda
"Saskia" <saskia...@nksf.nl> wrote in message
news:MPG.185eebc65...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
/me goes and gets her special homemade biscotti, sits on other side of Mattia
and offers it to Saskia and Mattia.
Hmmmm...Mattia sandwich. Much better than the show so far.
Saskia
Oh yum! These are really excellent, Linda!
> Hmmmm...Mattia sandwich. Much better than the show so far.
Indeed ;-)) Not that hard, since the show is pretty boring sofar.
--
Saskia
Gunn : "What are you doing?"
Wes : "Trying to imagine myself as John Wayne in Rio Bravo. You?"
Gunn : "Austin Stoker, Assault on Precinct Thirteen."
Cordy: "If we live through this, trade in the DVD Players and get a
life."
pikelet
I'm here. And they're talking as if I'm here. But I wish I wasn't.
Or, alternatively, I wish they were here. Right where I am now. In real
life. So I could kill them all slowly and painfully.
Tim.
Mattia Valente
Tasty!
>>Hmmmm...Mattia sandwich. Much better than the show so far.
>
> Indeed ;-)) Not that hard, since the show is pretty boring sofar.
Erm....
....right.
Mattia
--
"Too many obsessions to list. My obsessions have obsessions." -
Steve DeKnight
Mattia Valente
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:39:41 +0000, Scott Kelly wrote:
>>Mattia Valente said -
>>>Niall Harrison wrote:
>>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - pikelet wrote:
>>>>>And you will pay. Oh, yes, you will pay.
>>>>
>>>>Dude, I think they were expecting a better show than that.
>>>
>>>*grabs another beer*
>>>
>>>Yeah. Not *quite* up to standard, Binky. BTW, those quilts...you knit
>>>them for your single mums' kids?
>>>
>>>(http://www.binkypatrol.org/..this makes no sense unless you read umta.
>>>In April. Or googled for it this evening..try 'Binky Patrol'.)
>>
>>I am here you know. Talking as if I wasn't. Bugger.
>
> I'm here. And they're talking as if I'm here. But I wish I wasn't.
Awwww....
> Or, alternatively, I wish they were here. Right where I am now. In real
> life. So I could kill them all slowly and painfully.
Mwah hah hah..
My work here is done. For now.