Portrait of the Newsgroup as a Disgruntled Audience
Chris Zabel
"baking/cooking/cookies" metaphor gets brought out like a prized horse to do
its paces.
2. The observation that the character "Eve" and possibly the actress
playing her is awful. Even if it's true it's gotten awfully trite.
3. Whenever a ProSpike/AntiSpike argument breaks out, almost immediately
labels and accusations start getting slung by both sides fairly and
unfairly.
4. The "Where is Wes" bromides. I like the character too, but in a cast
this big now with several new players, some characters will be in the
background more than others.
5. Bringing up how you really like what they have "done" with Fred this
year. This was soooo last month it's not funny.
6. The talk of 'ships and possible future ships. I guess some people might
be new to AtS so I'll explain. Give up any hope of any real ship on this
show. This is not Buffy here folks. The main character is purposely built
to be ship free(it's canon, RTFM) and AtS's other brief trips into shipping
include unentertaining disasters like Fred/Gunn.
7. Posting just to complain about the person making the post, not the post
itself.
8. Posting to complain about the type of posters mentioned in #7. This was
old before Angel was young.
9. The use of "All-purpose Spike" as a reason for something. To some Spike
is responsible for everything on AtS and the world around it, including but
not limited to: Angel's hair that day, Connor's relationship with Cordelia,
AtS ratings going up, AtS ratings going down, the plight of children in the
third world, Lorne's reluctance to come out of the closet, corn prices on
the Comdex, Whedon's male pattern baldness, etc.
10. The old warhorse "This is the worst season of Angel ever..." and its
converse "This is the best season of Angel ever..." Playing the odds it
most likely isn't either one of them.
Rose
>
>
>4. The "Where is Wes" bromides. I like the character too, but in a cast
>this big now with several new players, some characters will be in the
>background more than others.
Wes being the most interesting character on the show imo (Spike could have
been, but he's not) and being played by the best actor on the show, should have
been the last character to be pushed into the background. JMO.
Rose
"The more I know, the less I sleep." -- Eames
SWeick
>1. Whenever a possible Angel-Buffy romance is mentioned, the awful
>"baking/cooking/cookies" metaphor gets brought out like a prized horse to do
>its paces.
Sorry, the audience didn't write that metaphor. The writers
did. If it's an awful metaphor, blame the ones who created it.
But that would make you disgruntled, now wouldn't it?
>2. The observation that the character "Eve" and possibly the actress
>playing her is awful. Even if it's true it's gotten awfully trite.
Well, not one to give an opinion on acting much one way or another,
the problem isn't in saying the actress is bad. The problem is in saying
the actress slept their way on the show, which insults both the actress
and showrunners. And of course all the other personal attacks.
>3. Whenever a ProSpike/AntiSpike argument breaks out, almost immediately
>labels and accusations start getting slung by both sides fairly and
>unfairly.
If something is fairly slung, it's fair. If your disgruntledness is fair,
it's fair. It should be posted on a newsgroup.
Seems someone is disgruntled by fair postings.
>4. The "Where is Wes" bromides. I like the character too, but in a cast
>this big now with several new players, some characters will be in the
>background more than others.
Again, if the accusation is the cast is too big, a long time complaint
on BtVS and a concern mentioned in previous seasons on AtS,
then complaining that one of the more interesting characters
with one of the best actors on the show is being ignored is fair.
Dusgruntled, heal thyself.
>5. Bringing up how you really like what they have "done" with Fred this
>year. This was soooo last month it's not funny.
They've done something with Fred?
>6. The talk of 'ships and possible future ships. I guess some people might
>be new to AtS so I'll explain. Give up any hope of any real ship on this
>show. This is not Buffy here folks.
No, but seeing that the writers have almost all written for BtVS,
that is a fair concern.
The main character is purposely built
>to be ship free(it's canon, RTFM) and AtS's other brief trips into shipping
>include unentertaining disasters like Fred/Gunn.
Seeing that ME frequently doesn't learn from its mistakes, not
seeing why it's disgruntled, instead of accurate, that you don't
want to see a relationship and complain about its evolvement
early on. Spred is readily doable, and something I don't want.
Hell, they're doing Fred and whathisname, the evil scientist. Don't
want that one either.
>7. Posting just to complain about the person making the post, not the post
>itself.
Oh, the "you can't call me a name" post after you just complained
about those complaining, labeling them disgruntled.
Hypocrite much?
>8. Posting to complain about the type of posters mentioned in #7. This was
>old before Angel was young.
Posting about a people complaining about the faults of the show
was as equally old, yet did it stop you?
Nooooooo.
>9. The use of "All-purpose Spike" as a reason for something.
That's "New and Improve Spike!", thank you very much.
To some Spike
>is responsible for everything on AtS and the world around it, including but
>not limited to: Angel's hair that day,
He didn't have as many bad ones before, now did he? :-)
Connor's relationship with Cordelia,
>AtS ratings going up, AtS ratings going down, the plight of children in the
>third world,
Only the ratings are even remotely doing with Spike, and the effects
are properly debatable on this newsgroup.
>Lorne's reluctance to come out of the closet,
What would Lorne be doing in a closet? He's het from where his
dimension is sitting. (Granted, I'm guessing Lorne's mom
was a beauty pageant winner, which tells you how that dimension
is situated.)
corn prices on
>the Comdex, Whedon's male pattern baldness, etc.
Male Pattern Baldness! WooHoo! There is a God!
:-)
>10. The old warhorse "This is the worst season of Angel ever..." and its
>converse "This is the best season of Angel ever..." Playing the odds it
>most likely isn't either one of them.
Yeah, but seeing the ratings as being about where they were
when concerns about cancellation occurred, the odd are
getting better that a given season is/isn't.
BTW, disgruntled about people being disgruntled? Get a life! :-P
Stephen Weick
(Hey, what are you looking down here for?)
Mike Craney
news:20031130065252...@mb-m17.aol.com:
> "Chris Zabel" alep...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>
>>1. Whenever a possible Angel-Buffy romance is mentioned, the awful
>>"baking/cooking/cookies" metaphor gets brought out like a prized horse
>>to do its paces.
<snip>
By going over this stuff line by line, you risk missing the larger
picture.
Small cult hits as they are, these shows play to millions of people. A
few hundred of those post opinions about them on forums such as these,
and it's become axiomiatic in the internet world that the number of
netizens that voice their opinion on anything is rarely a representative
sample of that issue upon which the opinion is being voiced.
That said, you often hear from netizens here than "ME doesn't listen."
This translates to "ME doesn't listen to the .0001% of their total
viewers that post on the internet."
Phrased like that, it's easy to understand why they don't. They're
looking at the bigger picture.
Personally, I didn't have anything to do with any of the BtVS or Angel
boards until late in the cycle -- Buffy S6, except for the occassional
episode I missed and went searching for an episode guide. I had no idea
what the netizens liked and what they didn't like, so imagine my suprise
when:
1) I found that the general opinion was that BtVS was getting worse, not
better, in its later seasons. (I preferred the increasingly ominous tone
of the later years.)
2) People generally had a problem with Dawn, whom I liked. (There is a
difference between an actress being annoying and the character being
annoying. 100% of 14 year old girls are annoying. I've dealt with
hundreds, I know. If Dawn annoyed you, then give the actress her due.)
3) People generally had a problem with Riley, who (female I-like-the-BAD-
boy emotions aside), is precisely the kind of character guy every dad
hopes their daughter ends up with. I liked Riley. (In reality, guys like
Riley, fully realizing their character advantage over the other loser
guys out there, generally sit around at Church until they're 30, thinking
to themselves, "What the FUCK is with all these loser chicks nowadays",
as they watch girl after girl go for the bad-guy, have sex, get dummped,
become an emotional wreck, swear off bad-guys, then repeat the cycle like
a shampoo, while they sit there being emotionally available and a
"friend" to them, waiting for them to figure out how life really works.
Explains why overseas internet marriage agencies are booming.)
4) People, somehow, for some reason unbenownst to me, actually LIKE
Spike's whiny nasty act (and still do.)
5) People liked Andrew, who, in my opinion, would have been a great
candiddate for human sacrifice. (It is, IMHO, completely inconsistent to
like Andrew and not like Kennedy.)
6) Grown people are still stuck on this "BuffyandAngelforeva" thing,
where any person over the age of 18 knows there's no such thing as a
"born for each other" romantic fantasy. Relationships are work.
Now, I'm sure that somebody will think that the above point(s) is/are the
purpose of this note, and respond erroneously. The point is, however,
that the miniscule number of fans that take this stuff onto the net is
not representative of the overall fan base, and for all anyone here
knows, some of the above opinions *might* represent the majority of non-
net-posting ME-show watchers.
Mike
SWeick
>swe...@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in
>news:20031130065252...@mb-m17.aol.com:
>
>> "Chris Zabel" alep...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>1. Whenever a possible Angel-Buffy romance is mentioned, the awful
>>>"baking/cooking/cookies" metaphor gets brought out like a prized horse
>>>to do its paces.
>
>
><snip>
>
>By going over this stuff line by line, you risk missing the larger
>picture.
If parts fall apart, the larger picture fails to hold.
>Small cult hits as they are, these shows play to millions of people. A
>few hundred of those post opinions about them on forums such as these,
>and it's become axiomiatic in the internet world that the number of
>netizens that voice their opinion on anything is rarely a representative
>sample of that issue upon which the opinion is being voiced.
All going under the heading of "Duh!"
OTOH, it does represent the obsessive side and often isn't
that far off base.
>That said, you often hear from netizens here than "ME doesn't listen."
Again, Duh!
Seeing that two sides are often given in the arguments, which
one should they listen to?
>Phrased like that, it's easy to understand why they don't. They're
>looking at the bigger picture.
ME is looking to get another season or two out of a series that's
basically done. They gave up on artistry a long time ago. It's
a job. Punch it out, feed the monster, and go home and have
a life.
>Personally, I didn't have anything to do with any of the BtVS or Angel
>boards until late in the cycle -- Buffy S6,
Then you missed a lot.
>1) I found that the general opinion was that BtVS was getting worse, not
>better, in its later seasons. (I preferred the increasingly ominous tone
>of the later years.)
But the fact is it was worse. It lost the original premise and
never was able to replace it.
>2) People generally had a problem with Dawn, whom I liked. (There is a
>difference between an actress being annoying and the character being
>annoying. 100% of 14 year old girls are annoying. I've dealt with
>hundreds, I know. If Dawn annoyed you, then give the actress her due.)
(I'll ignore that you are taking Dawn and the actress as the same. People
hated Dawn but didn't hate MT.)
All I wanted was Dawn in a bikini dancing, with ample hip movements.
Was that so much to ask for?
>3) People generally had a problem with Riley, who (female I-like-the-BAD-
>boy emotions aside), is precisely the kind of character guy every dad
>hopes their daughter ends up with. I liked Riley.
Ah, you did get that Riley was written as a fascist twit who later became
a boyfriend who was hooked on prostitutes?
>4) People, somehow, for some reason unbenownst to me, actually LIKE
>Spike's whiny nasty act (and still do.)
OK, you got me on that one.
>5) People liked Andrew, who, in my opinion, would have been a great
>candiddate for human sacrifice. (It is, IMHO, completely inconsistent to
>like Andrew and not like Kennedy.)
Didn't like either, so I guess I'm OK.
>6) Grown people are still stuck on this "BuffyandAngelforeva" thing,
>where any person over the age of 18 knows there's no such thing as a
>"born for each other" romantic fantasy. Relationships are work.
So does writing them well. That's why Cordelia/Angel was blown
apart, cause the writers aren't competent to write a relationship
that both sides work on. It's easier to write "Soul-mate" love stories.
>The point is, however,
>that the miniscule number of fans that take this stuff onto the net is
>not representative of the overall fan base, and for all anyone here
>knows, some of the above opinions *might* represent the majority of non-
>net-posting ME-show watchers.
Again, so what is your point? That you're wrong? That you're right?
That you have no clue?
Big whup.
Laz
> 3) People generally had a problem with Riley,
I think it might have appeared that way on-line because people who liked
him tended to get shouted down by people who hated him. The people who
hated him usually turned out to be Spike fans. Mostly women, but a few
guys fell into that category (Riley-hater/Spike-lover) as well.
> who (female
> I-like-the-BAD- boy emotions aside), is precisely the kind of character
> guy every dad hopes their daughter ends up with. I liked Riley. (In
> reality, guys like Riley, fully realizing their character advantage over
> the other loser guys out there, generally sit around at Church until
> they're 30, thinking to themselves, "What the FUCK is with all these
> loser chicks nowadays", as they watch girl after girl go for the
> bad-guy, have sex, get dummped, become an emotional wreck, swear off
> bad-guys, then repeat the cycle like a shampoo, while they sit there
> being emotionally available and a "friend" to them, waiting for them to
> figure out how life really works.
Until the more intelligent Riley-types finally realize that this IS how
life really works.
My eyes were opened when I was 25 or so and took a new girl on a date to
see "The Empire Strikes Back." After the movie, we were talking about
this and that, and out of the blue she looks at me and says, "Who do you
think girls go for? Luke Skywalker or Han Solo?"
Well, being the naive Riley-type that I was, I immediately answered,
"Luke, of course."
She smiled, having expected this answer, and said, "Nope. 9 out of 10
girls would pick Han Solo, every time."
That small statement had a big effect on me. I was shocked to my core,
first of all, because I knew as soon as she said it that it was true, and
it didn't match up with my view of the world at all. I didn't understand
it, and it would be a very long time before I really accepted it since it
required so many changes in my world-view.
I did, finally, accept it, and so do all the smart Rileys of the world.
It is, and has always been, how real life works. Some guys get this
instinctively. Most of us, though, are thick-headed, and actually require
an epiphany to get it.
I think Riley finally got it. That's why he never bothered to look out
the helicopter window. That was a realistic scene to me.
--
Laz
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
Shuggie
the kind you'd like to see. If people keep going over the same issues then
post about something new.
--
Shug
Snuggles
Laz <sendyo...@here.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:22:22 +0000, Mike Craney wrote:
>
>
> > 3) People generally had a problem with Riley,
>
> I think it might have appeared that way on-line because people who liked
> him tended to get shouted down by people who hated him. The people who
> hated him usually turned out to be Spike fans. Mostly women, but a few
> guys fell into that category (Riley-hater/Spike-lover) as well.
>
> > who (female
> > I-like-the-BAD- boy emotions aside), is precisely the kind of character
> > guy every dad hopes their daughter ends up with. I liked Riley. (In
> > reality, guys like Riley, fully realizing their character advantage over
> > the other loser guys out there, generally sit around at Church until
> > they're 30, thinking to themselves, "What the FUCK is with all these
> > loser chicks nowadays", as they watch girl after girl go for the
> > bad-guy, have sex, get dummped, become an emotional wreck, swear off
> > bad-guys, then repeat the cycle like a shampoo, while they sit there
> > being emotionally available and a "friend" to them, waiting for them to
> > figure out how life really works.
>
> Until the more intelligent Riley-types finally realize that this IS how
> life really works.
>
> My eyes were opened when I was 25 or so and took a new girl on a date to
> see "The Empire Strikes Back." After the movie, we were talking about
> this and that, and out of the blue she looks at me and says, "Who do you
> think girls go for? Luke Skywalker or Han Solo?"
Oh my God.... you took a date to The Empire Strikes Back?!?!
Sorry, couldn't resist. However, here's a clue for free. It's not true
that women prefer bad boys over good boys, it just sometimes looks that
way. We (and yes I'm generalizing) prefer risk takers over boring guys.
The behavioral set that makes up the classic "bad boy" tends to include
risk taking behavior and that what sets women off. Why do you think
women like fire fighters? These are good guys who are doing a very
dangerous job and they rescue the stray cats to boot. If you're a good
guy, who likes to have fun and knows where the clitoris is then you're
as good as gold.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snuggles, not Shuggie
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin Fish
Shuggie <shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
The thing that has been, it is that which shall be; and that which is
done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the
sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9-14)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the Darwin Fishes swim!
www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shuggie
wrote:
>5) People liked Andrew, who, in my opinion, would have been a great
>candiddate for human sacrifice. (It is, IMHO, completely inconsistent to
>like Andrew and not like Kennedy.)
>
That's a bizarre statement. Andrew and Kennedy have completely different
personalities. Why should liking a comic geek mean you should also like a
bratty rich kid?
Of course some people will like both, but some will like one and not the other
or neither.
>
>Now, I'm sure that somebody will think that the above point(s) is/are the
>purpose of this note, and respond erroneously.
I understood the point of your post, but choose to respond to that which I
found interesting.
--
Shug
Juleen
Mike Craney wrote:
> 5) People liked Andrew, who, in my opinion, would have been a great
> candiddate for human sacrifice. (It is, IMHO, completely inconsistent
> to like Andrew and not like Kennedy.)
Oh someone else that doesn't like Andrew. I was beginning to think I was
the only person in the whole freaking fandom that hates the little shit.
Can I light the pyre, draw the pentigram, maybe do some rital
mutialation of his throat, something for the sacrifice, please?
Jul
KenM47
Put me down for membership in the Andrew sucked life from the show
group. A waste all around.
Ken
Harold Groot
For me, Andrew is like pepper. He is an irritant. A =light=
sprinkling can improve other food, but ME decided to unscrew the cap
and dump several tablespoons of Andrew over the steak/show, which
suffered greatly as a result.
As for Kennedy, I simply didn't find the Willow/Kennedy relationship
to be projected in a believable way. AH came across to me as
uncomfortable in their scenes, which she hadn't in the Willow/Tara
scenes. And while Willow (as opposed to AH) was supposed to be
uncomfortable at the beginning, surely ME intended her to be
comfortable with it towards the end - and it just didn't seem that way
to me.
Rose
>
>3) People generally had a problem with Riley, who (female I-like-the-BAD-
>boy emotions aside), is precisely the kind of character guy every dad
>hopes their daughter ends up with.
Then every dad has a big problem if they want their daughter to end up with a
self-centered, immature recovering addict with a tendency to violence.
> they're 30, thinking
>to themselves, "What the FUCK is with all these loser chicks nowadays",
>as they watch girl after girl go for the >bad-guy,
Guys like Riley are very popular. They join frats and have pretty blonde
sorority girls flinging themselves at them. Guys love guys like Riley, too,
because he's athletic, macho and punches people he doesn't like.
Rose
>From: Laz sendyo...@here.com
>Date: 11/30/2003 7:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <pan.2003.11.30....@here.com>
>
>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:22:22 +0000, Mike Craney wrote:
>
>
>> 3) People generally had a problem with Riley,
>
>I think it might have appeared that way on-line because people who liked
>him tended to get shouted down by people who hated him. The people who
>hated him usually turned out to be Spike fans. Mostly women, but a few
>guys fell into that category (Riley-hater/Spike-lover) as well.
>
Riley and Spike were both bad boys. The difference was that Riley was a bad boy
with no personality, and Spike was a bad boy with an entertaining personality.
I prefer bad boys in leather to bad boys in letterman's jackets. Lots of
women, however, prefer bad boys in letterman's jackets. Athletic bullies like
Riley were hugely popular when I was in high school AND in college.
That said, I think it's funny that women are always accused of going for the
wrong person. How many men prefer plain, overweight girls of good character to
beautiful, thin bombshells of dubious character? :)
Linda
"KenM47" <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:dfgksvolikl9q8obs...@4ax.com...
> "Juleen" <REMOVE...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Mike Craney wrote:
> > > 5) People liked Andrew, who, in my opinion, would have been a great
> >> candiddate for human sacrifice. (It is, IMHO, completely inconsistent
> >> to like Andrew and not like Kennedy.)
> >
> >Oh someone else that doesn't like Andrew. I was beginning to think I was
> >the only person in the whole freaking fandom that hates the little shit.
> >
> >Can I light the pyre, draw the pentigram, maybe do some rital
> >mutialation of his throat, something for the sacrifice, please?
>
> group. A waste all around.
I'm another who just found Andrew to be annoying. Not as annoying as Kennedy
but still very annoying.
I never found him to be funny. Anya was always funnier than Andrew.
I'll bring the gag, ropes, and matches.
--
Best regards,
Linda
Mmmmmm......Angel
EGK
wrote:
BTVS should have ended with Andrew staking Spike in his sleep for accidently
breaking his last Boba Fett figurine. Then saving the world by obviously
committing suicide (rather then Buffy and Spike's possible suicides) while
holding the broken pieces in his hands.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
alphakitten
>
> 1) I found that the general opinion was that BtVS was getting worse, not
> better, in its later seasons. (I preferred the increasingly ominous tone
> of the later years.)
Same here.
>
> 5) People liked Andrew, who, in my opinion, would have been a great
> candiddate for human sacrifice. (It is, IMHO, completely inconsistent to
> like Andrew and not like Kennedy.)
>
>
Huh? Why? Andrew was hilarious. Even when he was evil, he was at least
fun to watch, and Tom Lenk rules. Kennedy was just flat out unpleasant
and portrayed by a magnificently limited actress. Not seeing the
inconsistency here...
The NightRaven
"Chris Zabel" <alep...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_thyb.27681$Rk5....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> 7. Posting just to complain about the person making the post, not the
post
> itself.
>
> 8. Posting to complain about the type of posters mentioned in #7. This
was
> old before Angel was young.
I would like to complain about people that post just to complain about
people
that post to complain about posters that complain........
(What? That's old too?)
- NightRaven
EGK
I complain therefore I am.
BTR1701
<REMOVE...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> Mike Craney wrote:
> > 5) People liked Andrew, who, in my opinion, would have been a great
> > candiddate for human sacrifice. (It is, IMHO, completely inconsistent
> > to like Andrew and not like Kennedy.)
>
> Oh someone else that doesn't like Andrew. I was beginning to think I was
> the only person in the whole freaking fandom that hates the little shit.
You can bring the total to three. If there's one character in the entire
Buffy universe I wish had never been introduced, it's Andrew.
To this day I'm stunned that such a fingernails-on-the-blackboard
persona could have such a fan following.
Juleen
I think that's the part that amazes me most. He is irritating beyond
belief to start with,brings nothing to the show, and is the biggest line
stealer of them all as Xander stood in the background sweeping floors. I
really don't know how the same people can rave about Andrew and at the
same time complain about Spike stealing screen time when Andrew
blatantly did it. As far as I'm concerned he contributed absolutely
nothing to the last two years other than making me cringe, and wasting
valuable story time.
Jul
--
Sig Wanted
No Experience Necessary
SWeick
>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:09:49 +0100, "The NightRaven"
><The_Nig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Chris Zabel" <alep...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:_thyb.27681$Rk5....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> 7. Posting just to complain about the person making the post, not the
>>post
>>> itself.
>>>
>>> 8. Posting to complain about the type of posters mentioned in #7. This
>>was
>>> old before Angel was young.
>>
>>I would like to complain about people that post just to complain about
>>people
>>that post to complain about posters that complain........
>>
>>(What? That's old too?)
>
>I complain therefore I am.
If a disgruntled post falls in an empty newsgroup, does it make
a sound?
Peachy Ashie Passion
>>Subject: Re: Portrait of the Newsgroup as a Disgruntled Audience
>>From: Laz sendyo...@here.com
>>Date: 11/30/2003 7:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <pan.2003.11.30....@here.com>
>>
>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:22:22 +0000, Mike Craney wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>3) People generally had a problem with Riley,
>>
>>I think it might have appeared that way on-line because people who liked
>>him tended to get shouted down by people who hated him. The people who
>>hated him usually turned out to be Spike fans. Mostly women, but a few
>>guys fell into that category (Riley-hater/Spike-lover) as well.
>>
>
>
> Riley and Spike were both bad boys. The difference was that Riley was a bad boy
> with no personality, and Spike was a bad boy with an entertaining personality.
I dunno Rose.. How was Riley a bad boy?
I'm just not seeing it.
Tammy Stephanie Davis
Peachy Ashie Passion <res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
Neither do I. He was a soldier, which means he wouldn't qualify for sainthood,
and he had issues of feeling inferior to Buffy and there is that whole
letting-vampires-feed-from-him wierdness (which screamed "I need therapy!" as few
things could), but Riley overall was a good man who often risked his life fighting
evil. I never saw him as a bad boy - certainly not in the same league as Spike.
And Riley definitely had a personality.
--
KenM47
OK. I'll say it. At least I'll say what I think IT is.
BTVS S7 did a lost of pandering to what had to have been perceived as
a wide gay audience. That pandering was in the persons of both Andrew
and Kennedy.
Did not work for straight me, but maybe it made the Kittens and their
buds happy.
Ken
Laz
>>Subject: Re: Portrait of the Newsgroup as a Disgruntled Audience From:
>>Laz sendyo...@here.com
>>Date: 11/30/2003 7:41 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
>><pan.2003.11.30....@here.com>
>>
>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:22:22 +0000, Mike Craney wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 3) People generally had a problem with Riley,
>>
>>I think it might have appeared that way on-line because people who liked
>>him tended to get shouted down by people who hated him. The people who
>>hated him usually turned out to be Spike fans. Mostly women, but a few
>>guys fell into that category (Riley-hater/Spike-lover) as well.
>>
>>
> Riley and Spike were both bad boys. The difference was that Riley was a
> bad boy with no personality, and Spike was a bad boy with an
> entertaining personality.
I've seen it said before that Riley was a "bad boy," but I've never
understood where that comes from. He was written and portrayed as a
basic, white-bread, church-going farmboy. I think that's how most viewers
saw him.
> I prefer bad boys in leather to bad boys in letterman's jackets. Lots
> of women, however, prefer bad boys in letterman's jackets. Athletic
> bullies like Riley were hugely popular when I was in high school AND in
> college.
The fact that he beat up Spike and fake-staked him doesn't make Riley a
bully, nor does it make him a bad boy in any way. Spike was an evil
killer. Riley should have used a wooden stake, and if he really WAS a
bad-boy bully as you claim, he would have.
> That said, I think it's funny that women are always accused of going for
> the wrong person. How many men prefer plain, overweight girls of good
> character to beautiful, thin bombshells of dubious character? :)
Yeah, because women look beyond that fat, sweaty paunch and receding
hairline to see the good, sweet man inside, and they reject the hunk with
washboard abs because they can see he's shallow and egotistical.
Absolutely. Happens that all the time. :)
Jillun
> this and that, and out of the blue she looks at me and says, "Who do you
> think girls go for? Luke Skywalker or Han Solo?"
>
> Well, being the naive Riley-type that I was, I immediately answered,
> "Luke, of course."
>
> She smiled, having expected this answer, and said, "Nope. 9 out of 10
> girls would pick Han Solo, every time."
Yeah. Do you know what kind of a love life she's in store for? By
the way, I am a woman. The real "Han Solos" leave a trail of
man-haters behind them, because in reality, these guys are terrible
people and it's horribly painful for a girl to wake to that
realization.
Laz
Heh. She's the one who asked me, actually. As in, "Hey, you gonna take
me to see the new Star Wars movie or not?" Or something like that. I
think she was a big Harrison Ford fan.
> Sorry, couldn't resist. However, here's a clue for free. It's not true
> that women prefer bad boys over good boys, it just sometimes looks that
> way.
There's a reason it looks that way. :)
> We (and yes I'm generalizing) prefer risk takers over boring guys.
That too, yes.
> The behavioral set that makes up the classic "bad boy" tends to include
> risk taking behavior and that what sets women off. Why do you think
> women like fire fighters?
And cops. I know.
> These are good guys who are doing a very dangerous job and they rescue
> the stray cats to boot.
And this describes Riley almost to a tee. Didn't they even have a scene
of him rescuing a cat? If they didn't they missed a good chance, because
that's exactly how he was.
Riley was a good guy, doing an extremely dangerous job (much more
dangerous than firefighting or police work, in fact), and tutoring college
students on the side. He was even tall and handsome. An unbeatable
combination, right?
Nope. That's not how it works. Female viewers, by an overwhelming
margin, preferred the evil Spike, a character they knew had brutally
murdered countless men, women, and children. They swooned over the bad
boy and despised the good guy, even going so far as hoping that Spike
would kill Riley, preferably in the most painful manner imaginable.
(Check the Google archives for some interesting threads during that time.)
> If you're a good
> guy, who likes to have fun and knows where the clitoris is then you're
> as good as gold.
I wouldn't disagree with that, except that you could leave out the "good
guy" part without changing the truth of the statement. The "good guy"
part is unnecessary.
himiko
> "Chris Zabel" alep...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >2. The observation that the character "Eve" and possibly the actress
> >playing her is awful. Even if it's true it's gotten awfully trite.
>
>
> Well, not one to give an opinion on acting much one way or another,
> the problem isn't in saying the actress is bad. The problem is in saying
> the actress slept their way on the show, which insults both the actress
> and showrunners. And of course all the other personal attacks.
As the person accused of having said this, I would like once again to
point out that I never said this. I said I thought she must have
connections of some sort to be hired for such an important role when
she is so clearly talent challenged. Since she is still getting work
even after her "performance" as Eve, I will repeat that opinion. She
must indeed have mondo huge connections to stay employed when there
are so many beautiful people (she IS pretty) who also have talent in
Hollywood. I have no idea what those connections might be, but I am
increasingly sure they are there. Casual sex, BTW, is not included in
my list of possibilities; you don't get the chance to screw up a
quality show just for a quick tumble. When I said sexual connection,
I meant more likely she's the wife or serious SO of someone very
important. I consider it even more likely that she is the daughter or
other blood relation of someone very important.
Of course, it's always possible that those in charge are so devoid of
taste or discrimination that they have failed to notice the obvious
acting limitations that have been noted by a horde of grousing fans,
self included, whose numbers by now far surpass those who groused
about MB or MT. I doubt that, however. Casting is generally pretty
good on ME productions. Even those who seemed to me to fall short of
the usual norm (MB, early DB, IL) never sank to the amateurish wannabe
level we're seeing from Sarah Thompson.
As for mentioning it. Yes, it's getting old. It's also getting more
and more inevitable as it increasingly distracts from what is
otherwise a good season....and even a good role; Eve is a great role
and in the hands of a real actress could be a chance equivalent to
what ME gave JM with the role of Spike. But ST is no JM. She isn't
even an Iyari Limon.
And it's now becoming clear that Eve is very central to the story arc.
We have to pay attention to what she says and does which isn't easy
when she makes you cringe with every meaningless verbal inflection and
pointless grimace. Try writing a reasonable response to any episode
without mentioning that. I only wish I could watch an episode with
her in it and not notice that.
> The main character is purposely built
> >to be ship free(it's canon, RTFM)
Wrong. The main character is purposely built to be happy ship free.
This does not preclude miserable ships which have sailed several times
on AtS.
> and AtS's other brief trips into shipping
> >include unentertaining disasters like Fred/Gunn.
I enjoyed their relationship. For a long time, it was the one bright,
normal point in the show. It didn't have much to do with the story
arc, but it didn't detract either, and it did build their respective
characters into what we see today...so good character development
story arc.
>
> Seeing that ME frequently doesn't learn from its mistakes, not
> seeing why it's disgruntled, instead of accurate, that you don't
> want to see a relationship and complain about its evolvement
> early on. Spred is readily doable, and something I don't want.
>
> Hell, they're doing Fred and whathisname, the evil scientist. Don't
> want that one either.
Why not? It's related to Wes's story which, I thought, was what you
wanted to see more of.
himiko
Mike Craney
news:20031130145330...@mb-m13.aol.com:
> Mike wrote:
>
>>
>>3) People generally had a problem with Riley, who (female
>>I-like-the-BAD- boy emotions aside), is precisely the kind of
>>character guy every dad hopes their daughter ends up with.
>
> Then every dad has a big problem if they want their daughter to end up
> with a self-centered, immature recovering addict with a tendency to
> violence.
Well, if that's your *original* read of Riley, then I'd agree.
But that wasn;t his *original* character, was it? You're taking the flaws
he displayed AFTER he was snubbed and are using them to justify your
position.
Mike
Mike Craney
news:3fca3f9f...@news.west.earthlink.net:
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:35:21 -0600, "Juleen"
> <REMOVE...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>>Mike Craney wrote:
>> > 5) People liked Andrew, who, in my opinion, would have been a great
>>> candiddate for human sacrifice. (It is, IMHO, completely
>>> inconsistent to like Andrew and not like Kennedy.)
>
>>Oh someone else that doesn't like Andrew. I was beginning to think I
>>was the only person in the whole freaking fandom that hates the little
>>shit. Can I light the pyre, draw the pentigram, maybe do some rital
>>mutialation of his throat, something for the sacrifice, please?
Oh, let's. Let's make everyone who likes him watch.
>
> For me, Andrew is like pepper. He is an irritant. A =light=
> sprinkling can improve other food, but ME decided to unscrew the cap
> and dump several tablespoons of Andrew over the steak/show, which
> suffered greatly as a result.
I concur.
>
> As for Kennedy, I simply didn't find the Willow/Kennedy relationship
> to be projected in a believable way. AH came across to me as
> uncomfortable in their scenes, which she hadn't in the Willow/Tara
> scenes. And while Willow (as opposed to AH) was supposed to be
> uncomfortable at the beginning, surely ME intended her to be
> comfortable with it towards the end - and it just didn't seem that way
> to me.
They didn't have much on-screen chemistry, I'd agree. However, the
*notion* of another love interest for Willow wasn't wrong, the *notion*
of a bratty, snippy potential wasn't wrong, and Iyari Limon was, in my
opinion, adequate in the part.
Mike
Mike
Mike Craney
news:DJtyb.8494$n4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
He wasn't. He was a good guy. He wasn't perfect. There's a big difference
between a good guy fighting his demons (which we all do) and a bad guy
enjoying them.
Mike
Mike Craney
news:pan.2003.11.30....@here.com:
Well, see that IS PRECISELY the analagous situation (inverted). Immature
boys daydream about doing Pamela Anderson or some like plastic floozy
wanting them, while immature girls daydream about marrying the knight in
shining armour. Both are common television themes, both are mythology,
but both affect the way we see relationships and the world, and not for
the better.
>
> Yeah, because women look beyond that fat, sweaty paunch and receding
> hairline to see the good, sweet man inside, and they reject the hunk
> with washboard abs because they can see he's shallow and egotistical.
> Absolutely. Happens that all the time. :)
Well, actually it DOES happen all the time, and thank God it does.
Otherwise, the US divorce rate'd be at 90% rather than 50.
Mike
Tammy Stephanie Davis
:
:
:> 3) People generally had a problem with Riley,
:
:I think it might have appeared that way on-line because people who liked
:him tended to get shouted down by people who hated him. The people who
:hated him usually turned out to be Spike fans. Mostly women, but a few
:guys fell into that category (Riley-hater/Spike-lover) as well.
:> who (female
:> I-like-the-BAD- boy emotions aside), is precisely the kind of character
:> reality, guys like Riley, fully realizing their character advantage over
:> the other loser guys out there, generally sit around at Church until
:> they're 30, thinking to themselves, "What the FUCK is with all these
:> loser chicks nowadays", as they watch girl after girl go for the
:> bad-guy, have sex, get dummped, become an emotional wreck, swear off
:> bad-guys, then repeat the cycle like a shampoo, while they sit there
:> being emotionally available and a "friend" to them, waiting for them to
:> figure out how life really works.
:
:Until the more intelligent Riley-types finally realize that this IS how
:life really works.
:
:My eyes were opened when I was 25 or so and took a new girl on a date to
:see "The Empire Strikes Back." After the movie, we were talking about
:this and that, and out of the blue she looks at me and says, "Who do you
:think girls go for? Luke Skywalker or Han Solo?"
:Well, being the naive Riley-type that I was, I immediately answered,
:"Luke, of course."
:
:She smiled, having expected this answer, and said, "Nope. 9 out of 10
:girls would pick Han Solo, every time."
:That small statement had a big effect on me. I was shocked to my core,
:first of all, because I knew as soon as she said it that it was true, and
:it didn't match up with my view of the world at all. I didn't understand
:it, and it would be a very long time before I really accepted it since it
:required so many changes in my world-view.
:
:I did, finally, accept it, and so do all the smart Rileys of the world.
:It is, and has always been, how real life works. Some guys get this
:instinctively. Most of us, though, are thick-headed, and actually require
:an epiphany to get it.
:
:I think Riley finally got it. That's why he never bothered to look out
:the helicopter window. That was a realistic scene to me.
First of all, Luke in The Empire Strikes Back was still a teenager - and he
often acted like one. As for Riley, I think he was just as much running
away from what he had become. Paying vampires to drain you isn't exactly
being a poster boy for emotional health. The guy had issues. And its a
shame that he never mentioned how he resolved them when he came back in
season six.
--
Darwin Fish
t...@robotron.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Tammy Stephanie Davis) wrote:
>
> First of all, Luke in The Empire Strikes Back was still a teenager - and he
> often acted like one. As for Riley, I think he was just as much running
> away from what he had become. Paying vampires to drain you isn't exactly
> being a poster boy for emotional health. The guy had issues. And its a
> shame that he never mentioned how he resolved them when he came back in
> season six.
Love of a good woman? It can do wonders...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the Darwin Fishes swim!
www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy. Just Roy.
> For me, Andrew is like pepper. He is an irritant.
I interpreted Andrew as a comedic replacement for both Xander and
Giles. Andrew was the bumbling loser who got hit on the head a lot,
freeing Xander to become the heartfelt confidant that Willow so
desperately needed, and Giles to become the schemer who plotted to
have Spike destroyed.
> surely ME intended her to be comfortable with it towards the end
Willow never was completley comfortable with Kennedy, up until the
end. She always was afraid of what would happen if she "let go", even
during W/K's love scene in "Touched".
W/T was much more emotionally developed, true, but then again Tara
never had to face a post-Dark Evil Willow.
Mike Craney
news:da6fca96.03113...@posting.google.com:
> que...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote in message
> news:<3fca3f9f...@news.west.earthlink.net>...
>
>> For me, Andrew is like pepper. He is an irritant.
>
> I interpreted Andrew as a comedic replacement for both Xander and
> Giles. Andrew was the bumbling loser who got hit on the head a lot,
> freeing Xander to become the heartfelt confidant that Willow so
> desperately needed, and Giles to become the schemer who plotted to
> have Spike destroyed.
I'd agree that was what was intended, but as it worked out, Xander got
precious little run as the senior confidant, and Andrew annoyance seemed
pretty much everywhere.
MIke
Dave
> a wide gay audience. That pandering was in the persons of both Andrew
> and Kennedy.
>
> Did not work for straight me, but maybe it made the Kittens and their
> buds happy.
>
> Ken
I found Andrew annoying, but not as annoying as Dawn. Certainly there
was far too much screen time spent on Andrew during the last
episodes. Still the spoiled and vindictive nature of Dawn made me
despise her, while Andrew was merely a boring, yammering, dolt.
Not sure about the "gay" thing. Does Nieleon measure that?
Chris Zabel
news:0m4ksv8r5ocobol53...@4ax.com...
> If you're unhappy with the kind of posts you see on this ng then start
making
> the kind you'd like to see. If people keep going over the same issues then
> post about something new.
> --
> Shug
That was kind of my point with my original post, that this group needed a
kick in its ass. Of course "bad boy" Riley hijacks the thread. That was
pretty much the last kind of response I expected.
Rose
>
>Did not work for straight me, but maybe it made the Kittens and their
>buds happy.
>
>Ken
>
I thought Andrew was funny. By S7, he was the only funny character left.
Rose
"The more I know, the less I sleep." -- Eames
A.E. Jabbour
AS much as it pains me to admit it, I thought Andrew was funny at
the end of S7 too.
I missed a bunch of episodes during S7, but those which I did see
I laughed when Andrew would make some joke.
And this is coming from someone who thought he was the worst
addition in the history of BtVS, and that he was totally
idiotic in previous season.
The little I saw of him, I laughed, at the end. Now, we can
argue about whether that says more about Andrew or about the
series ... That's for a different day.
--
AE Jabbour
"I mean, I may have ripped off Vertigo, The Shining, James Ellroy,
James M. Cain, Barton Fink, Rebel Without a Cause, Vertigo,
Psycho, Kiss Me Deadly, Double Indemnity and The Hudsucker Proxy
- but I'm certainly no plagiarist!"
Tim Minear, alt.tv.angel, 10.05.2000
Rose
>Date: 11/30/2003 3:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <c65619af.03113...@posting.google.com>
Fortunately, Star Wars was a movie, not real life, so girls getting crushes on
Han Solo because he was played by Harrison Ford before Mr. Ford developed a
stick up his butt is not necessarily indicative of whom they'll pick. I loved
Han Solo and yet never once dated a smuggler or knowingly dated a guy involved
with any sort of gang.
One thing not pointed out is that Leia and Han were a good match because they
were both unpleasant people. Leia was a bitch. Not a bad person, but nasty.
No one tears their hair over Luke being in love with a woman who talked to Luke
and Han like they were pieces of shit even though they risked their necks to
save her.
Once Luke grew up and wasn't a whiney boy, he was quite sexy. I found him very
attractive in Return of the Jedi.
Rose
>
>Riley was a good guy,
Riley was an asshole. Spike was too, but the difference is, Spike was supposed
to be an asshole. Riley was an asshole who was being sold to us as a wonderful
person, and there are few things more annoying.
>
>Nope. That's not how it works. Female viewers, by an overwhelming
>margin, preferred the evil Spike,
They also loved Oz, who was a wonderful person before he boinked Veruca, but
remembering that would disturb your Sam Kinison-like attitude toward women.
Oz was the nice guy and the perfect boyfriend (for his first few years) on
BtVS, not Riley.
Rose
>Date: 11/30/2003 3:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns9443B49241C26mc...@151.164.30.93>
No, I'm talking about Riley from around the time of Something Blue or
thereabouts.
A.E. Jabbour
> Riley and Spike were both bad boys. The difference was that Riley was a bad boy
> with no personality, and Spike was a bad boy with an entertaining personality.
This is something which we always disagree upon, Rose.
I have never seen Riley as a bad guy. I think he actually was a
decent guy who tried his best.
Maybe I am missing some huge part of his character, but I don't
think so. He has always seemed like a good guy who just couldn't
find his place.
I don't ever remember him being "bad."
A.E. Jabbour
>
> No, I'm talking about Riley from around the time of Something Blue or
> thereabouts.
Riley had two scenes in SB, if I remember correctly.
And they were cute.
What is your problem with him at that point?
Rose
>Date: 11/30/2003 3:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns9443B61B5B423mc...@151.164.30.93>
Riley wasn't a "bad guy", which is a synonym for "villain", he was a bad boy,
which means something different. Bad boy means the guy you shouldn't be with
because he's dangerous or dysfunctional, but he's so attractive in some way
that you date him anyway.
Riley and Spike were both bad boys. Riley was the bad boy athlete, Spike was
the bad boy hood. However, Riley was not evil, Spike was evil. That's true.
In the real world, if you put a gun to my head and said "You must date Riley
the macho prick or Spike the sociopath" I'd date the macho prick. (Then I'd
run away and join a convent.) However, when watching TV, I go with the one
played by the actor with the most heart, passion and sex appeal. For me, that
was Spike because James Marsters was playing him. If the Marsters were playing
Riley and Blucas were playing Spike, I dare say I'd prefer Riley.
Rose
>Message-id: <pan.2003.11.30....@here.com>
>
>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:59:27 +0000, Rose wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Portrait of the Newsgroup as a Disgruntled Audience From:
>>>Laz sendyo...@here.com
>>>Date: 11/30/2003 7:41 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
>>><pan.2003.11.30....@here.com>
>>>
>>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:22:22 +0000, Mike Craney wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3) People generally had a problem with Riley,
>>>
>>>I think it might have appeared that way on-line because people who liked
>>>him tended to get shouted down by people who hated him. The people who
>>>hated him usually turned out to be Spike fans. Mostly women, but a few
>>>guys fell into that category (Riley-hater/Spike-lover) as well.
>>>
>>>
>> Riley and Spike were both bad boys. The difference was that Riley was a
>> bad boy with no personality, and Spike was a bad boy with an
>> entertaining personality.
>
>I've seen it said before that Riley was a "bad boy," but I've never
>understood where that comes from. He was written and portrayed as a
>basic, white-bread, church-going farmboy. I think that's how most viewers
>saw him.
>
There was a divide.
Riley had violent impulse control issues... note how he punched out Parker for
saying something he didn't like. Parker quote unquote deserved it but if I
punched out every jerk who deserved it I'd probably be in jail for 25 year to
life by now due to Cali's 3 strikes law.
Riley shoved Willow to the floor when he was strung out, and his way of showing
he felt bad about it was to say "My behavior was out there." A truly nice guy
would have felt terrible and apologized, maybe even brought her flowers or
something.
When Buffy told Riley she didn't want to see him anymore in Doomed (S4), he
told her she was stupid and self-involved. Real nice.
Riley knocked out Xander when Xander was under Dracula's control and showed
absolutely no concern for Xander's welfare, didn't ask how he was, nothing.
And Xander was supposedly his friend.
Riley was a willing and enthusiastic participant in a program that involved
capturing and torturing and experimenting on sentient beings. As opposed to
going for the quick kill, as Buffy did.
Riley went on to develop a sex/drug type addiction and blame Buffy for it
because she didn't dote on him enough while her mother had brain cancer.
Yeah, what a prince.
Rose
>Date: 12/1/2003 12:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <bqests$20k6vk$7...@ID-137314.news.uni-berlin.de>
>
>Rose <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
>
>> Riley and Spike were both bad boys. The difference was that Riley was a bad
>boy
>> with no personality, and Spike was a bad boy with an entertaining
>personality.
>
>This is something which we always disagree upon, Rose.
>
>I have never seen Riley as a bad guy. I think he actually was a
>decent guy who tried his best.
>
He wasn't a "bad guy." There's a big difference between a bad guy and a bad
boy in common usage of the phrases. A bad guy is a villain, usually evil. A
bad boy is a guy who does not live up to societal standards for good behavior,
and who may or may not be evil.
Han Solo was a bad boy at first, went on to be a total knight in shining armor.
He was never a bad guy. Darth Vader was a bad guy.
Soulless Spike was a bad guy and a bad boy. Souled Spike is a bad boy but not
a bad guy.
Riley was a bad boy disguised as wholesome young man, but he was never a bad
guy.
Angel was a bad guy at times and not a bad guy at times. The term bad boy
doesn't quite suit him, though, I guess because there was never anything boyish
about him to me, as opposed to Spike and Riley who both had boyish qualities.
I saw Spike and Riley as flip sides of the same coin. Two bad boys, one a nerd
turned cool hood, one disguised as a stalward young gentleman.
A.E. Jabbour
[snip]
> Angel was a bad guy at times and not a bad guy at times. The term bad boy
> doesn't quite suit him, though, I guess because there was never anything boyish
> about him to me, as opposed to Spike and Riley who both had boyish qualities.
> I saw Spike and Riley as flip sides of the same coin. Two bad boys, one a nerd
> turned cool hood, one disguised as a stalward young gentleman.
>
> Rose
> "The more I know, the less I sleep." -- Eames
I'm still not getting the "bad" part in Riley, though.
Admittedly, once he sort of flipped out he was not the best.
But before that, I don't get what was bad about him. Yes, he
was sort of Midwest cornfed decent guy.
But why was he bad in any sense? He seemed to try to find
a way to deal with Buffy all the time. He wanted to to try
to find a way to make things right whenever he felt he had
caused wrong.
I just don't see Riley as anything but a decent sort of
fellow.
If I'm wrong, please show me where.
Rose
>From: aej17D...@comcast.net (A.E. Jabbour)
>Message-id: <bqeupd$207ptp$1...@ID-137314.news.uni-berlin.de>
>
>Rose <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Angel was a bad guy at times and not a bad guy at times. The term bad boy
>> doesn't quite suit him, though, I guess because there was never anything
>boyish
>> about him to me, as opposed to Spike and Riley who both had boyish
>qualities.
>> I saw Spike and Riley as flip sides of the same coin. Two bad boys, one a
>nerd
>> turned cool hood, one disguised as a stalward young gentleman.
>>
>> Rose
>> "The more I know, the less I sleep." -- Eames
>
>I'm still not getting the "bad" part in Riley, though.
>
>Admittedly, once he sort of flipped out he was not the best.
>But before that, I don't get what was bad about him. Yes, he
>was sort of Midwest cornfed decent guy.
>
>But why was he bad in any sense? He seemed to try to find
>a way to deal with Buffy all the time. He wanted to to try
>to find a way to make things right whenever he felt he had
>caused wrong.
>
>I just don't see Riley as anything but a decent sort of
>fellow.
>
>If I'm wrong, please show me where.
>
Please see my other posts in this thread... I have provided a list (not
entirely inclusive) of Riley's (imo) bad qualities and deeds.
Mikko Löppönen
"Rose"
> Riley had violent impulse control issues...
It seems like everyone on Buffy had violent impulse control issues...
> Riley knocked out Xander when Xander was under Dracula's control and
showed
> absolutely no concern for Xander's welfare, didn't ask how he was,
nothing.
> And Xander was supposedly his friend.
Who hasn't knocked out Xander? Angel did it. And Buffy knocked out Xander
AND Oz in the second ep of the fourth season. Did they apologize? Nope.
> Riley was a willing and enthusiastic participant in a program that
involved
> capturing and torturing and experimenting on sentient beings. As opposed
to
> going for the quick kill, as Buffy did.
Riley was in the military. In the army. You do what you're told. You could
just as well hate every guy who goes in the army. Because the army kills
whales and...well, even other human beings. Besides, I didn't see Riley
torturing anyone.
> Riley went on to develop a sex/drug type addiction and blame Buffy for it
> because she didn't dote on him enough while her mother had brain cancer.
Yeah. They wrote him out of the series. Isn't it strange that people began
to like Riley when he was beginning to go "bad" in the fifth season?
Laz
> Laz <sendyo...@here.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2003.11.30....@here.com:
>> Yeah, because women look beyond that fat, sweaty paunch and receding
>> hairline to see the good, sweet man inside, and they reject the hunk
>> with washboard abs because they can see he's shallow and egotistical.
>> Absolutely. Happens that all the time. :)
>
> Well, actually it DOES happen all the time, and thank God it does.
> Otherwise, the US divorce rate'd be at 90% rather than 50.
The divorce rate wasn't always 50%. As the availability of washboard abs
has climbed (with the exploding number of gyms and exercise machines), so
has the divorce rate.
Not that there's necessarily a connection. I'm just pointing out that
there isn't an endless supply of hunks, just as there isn't an infinite
number of Pamela Andersons. Most of us date who we can, and when things
click, we become emotionally attached. After a while, we realize that our
S.O. is actually a lot more beautiful (or handsome) than we first thought.
We just hadn't noticed it before.
Rose was complaining that guys don't look beyond the surface. Well,
that's true at first. But it's also true of women. That was my only
point.
--
Laz
Laz
> Larry wrote:
>
>
>>Riley was a good guy,
>
> Riley was an asshole. Spike was too, but the difference is, Spike was
> supposed to be an asshole. Riley was an asshole who was being sold to
> us as a wonderful person, and there are few things more annoying.
>
>
>>Nope. That's not how it works. Female viewers, by an overwhelming
>>margin, preferred the evil Spike,
>
> They also loved Oz, who was a wonderful person before he boinked Veruca,
> but remembering that would disturb your Sam Kinison-like attitude toward
> women.
Oz had a bit of mystery about him, played lead guitar in a rock band, and
he was a dangerous werewolf three days out of the month. And of course,
he was clearly devoted to Willow. Isn't that a pretty common fantasy for
women? Being with a guy in a rock and roll band who is totally committed
to only you? Oz was all of that until, as you point out, he spoiled the
fantasy by sleeping with Veruca.
And...I notice you are a member of the Bloody Awful Poets Society, not
the Terse Werewolf Guitarist Society. The truth is that there is
practically no female fan following for Oz at all, and not because he left
the show. There never was when he was on it, either, beyond liking the
character and being happy for Willow.
You might have liked Oz, but you went absolutely nuts over Spike.
--
Laz
Shuggie
says...
>
>"Shuggie" <shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:0m4ksv8r5ocobol53...@4ax.com...
>> If you're unhappy with the kind of posts you see on this ng then start
>making
>> the kind you'd like to see. If people keep going over the same issues then
>> post about something new.
>> --
>> Shug
>
>That was kind of my point with my original post,
No, I meant rather than complain why don't you yourself, Chris Zabel, post the
kind of thing you want to see. Lead by example. It may not work but it's got a
better chance than a laundry list of complaints.
>that this group needed a
>kick in its ass.
Maybe you haven't been around usenet, or erm humans, long enough to figure this
out - but that almost never works.
> Of course "bad boy" Riley hijacks the thread. That was
>pretty much the last kind of response I expected.
So you did know that but you went ahead anyway. So since you knew that it
wouldn't have a positive effect - can we assume you were merely venting?
Rose
>
>Rose was complaining that guys don't >look beyond the surface.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
My point is that some men will go for hot bad girls over plain nice girls, just
as some women will go for hot bad boys over plain nice men.
Rose
>Date: 12/1/2003 4:11 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <pan.2003.12.01....@here.com>
>
>On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:04:48 +0000, Rose wrote:
>
>> Larry wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Riley was a good guy,
>>
>> Riley was an asshole. Spike was too, but the difference is, Spike was
>> supposed to be an asshole. Riley was an asshole who was being sold to
>> us as a wonderful person, and there are few things more annoying.
>>
>>
>>>Nope. That's not how it works. Female viewers, by an overwhelming
>>>margin, preferred the evil Spike,
>>
>> They also loved Oz, who was a wonderful person before he boinked Veruca,
>> but remembering that would disturb your Sam Kinison-like attitude toward
>> women.
>
>Oz had a bit of mystery about him, >played lead guitar in a rock band,
Eh. I don't think the rock band thing had much to do with it in his case. He
didn't have a "cool rock star" look. Oz had a laid back, confident manner but
he was dorky looking.
> and
>he was a dangerous werewolf three days >out of the month.
Yeah, and Riley had a chip and a drug problem that made him dangerous at times.
It evens out.
>And of course,
>he was clearly devoted to Willow.
Isn't that part of what being a good man is? Being devoted to the woman you
love?
>Isn't that a pretty common fantasy for
>women? Being with a guy in a rock and roll band who is totally committed
>to only you? Oz was all of that until, as you point out, he spoiled the
>fantasy by sleeping with Veruca.
>
>And...I notice you are a member of the >Bloody Awful Poets Society, not
>the Terse Werewolf Guitarist Society.
I got into BtVS well into my 30s, Laz. I would have been a bit of a perv to go
"nuts" as you put it over a a high school boy.
>The truth is that there is
>practically no female fan following for Oz >at all,
There most certainly was. There was quite a bit of fanfic devoted to him.
There's no female following for him now, sure. He left the show.
>and not because he left
>the show. There never was when he was on it, either, beyond liking the
>character and being happy for Willow.
>
Untrue.
>You might have liked Oz, but you went absolutely nuts over Spike.
>
Again, there is the age factor. And the fact that Marsters had more acting
ability and charisma (imo) than Seth Green. As for other women watching, I'm
sure the fact that Marsters is much better looking than Seth Green didn't hurt
either. People tend to go for the looks when it comes to TV characters.
That's not generally my thing, but it's true of many men and women.
One thing you're ignoring is that Spike got far more popular after women found
out he used to be a geek. That's when BAPS formed, that is when the
redemptionist movement started.
Of course having a dangerous edge makes TV characters attractive. Why else
would Buffy, who could beat the hell out of any guy she's with, Faith, Vampire
Willow and Darla be so popular? Why was Nasty Cordelia more popular with men
than Saint Cordelia? Riley also had a dangerous edge, and was the type of guy
lots of women in real life go for, to boot, the popular jock.
I could see people getting defensive over fans preferring Spike to a kind,
decent, loving, choir-boy science nerd, but why guys are getting outraged on
behalf of Riley, who represents the kind of guy who made nice non-jock guys'
lives miserable in high school, I really dont quite get.
>--
>Laz
Rose
>Who hasn't knocked out Xander? Angel >did it.
Angel and Xander hated each other, Xander even tried to help Faith kill Angel.
Riley and Xander were friends. This doesn't make what Angel did okay, but it
makes Riley's attitude more disturbing.
And btw, pro-Xanderists attacked Angel for punching Xander.
>And Buffy knocked out Xander
>AND Oz in the second ep of the fourth >season.
I plead ignorance and stupidity on this one. I hated "Living Conditions" so
much I barely remember a thing about it. Did Buffy show any concern for their
welfare? If so, that's bad. But Buffy was really no bargain as a person in
many ways.
David Cheatham
> Rose <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Did not work for straight me, but maybe it made the Kittens and
> > > their buds happy.
> > >
> > > Ken
> > >
> >
> > I thought Andrew was funny. By S7, he was the only funny character
> > left.
> >
> > Rose
> > "The more I know, the less I sleep." -- Eames
>
> AS much as it pains me to admit it, I thought Andrew was funny at
> the end of S7 too.
>
> I missed a bunch of episodes during S7, but those which I did see
> I laughed when Andrew would make some joke.
>
> And this is coming from someone who thought he was the worst
> addition in the history of BtVS, and that he was totally
> idiotic in previous season.
>
> The little I saw of him, I laughed, at the end. Now, we can
> argue about whether that says more about Andrew or about the
> series ... That's for a different day.
I'm going to say I thought Andrew was frickin hilarious most of the
time.
I could have done with slightly less whining, but I just don't like
whining in general.
--
Remove the hostname part directly after the @ to respond.
KenM47
>In article <DJtyb.8494$n4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
>Peachy Ashie Passion <res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
>:Rose wrote:
>:>>Subject: Re: Portrait of the Newsgroup as a Disgruntled Audience
>:>>From: Laz sendyo...@here.com
>:>>Date: 11/30/2003 7:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
>:>>Message-id: <pan.2003.11.30....@here.com>
>:>>
>:>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:22:22 +0000, Mike Craney wrote:
>:>>
>:>>
>:>>
>:>>>3) People generally had a problem with Riley,
>:>>
>:>>I think it might have appeared that way on-line because people who liked
>:>>him tended to get shouted down by people who hated him. The people who
>:>>hated him usually turned out to be Spike fans. Mostly women, but a few
>:>>guys fell into that category (Riley-hater/Spike-lover) as well.
>:>>
>:>
>:>
>:> Riley and Spike were both bad boys. The difference was that Riley was a bad boy
>:> with no personality, and Spike was a bad boy with an entertaining personality.
>:
>: I dunno Rose.. How was Riley a bad boy?
>:
>: I'm just not seeing it.
>
>Neither do I. He was a soldier, which means he wouldn't qualify for sainthood,
>and he had issues of feeling inferior to Buffy and there is that whole
>letting-vampires-feed-from-him wierdness (which screamed "I need therapy!" as few
>things could), but Riley overall was a good man who often risked his life fighting
>evil. I never saw him as a bad boy - certainly not in the same league as Spike.
>
>And Riley definitely had a personality.
IAWTP. I never saw the "stalker" so many complained about. Just a guy
infatuated and looking to make contact. I also believe he only became
addicted to vamps guy as a result of all the anti-Riley posts here and
elsewhere (raising again the question of whether anyone really pays
attention to what gets said by the fans). If what I've read over the
years re JW planning Buffy ultimately getting back with Angel, then
Riley had to be disposed of somehow.
Ken
EGK
>>
>>
>>Did not work for straight me, but maybe it made the Kittens and their
>>buds happy.
>>
>>Ken
>>
>
>I thought Andrew was funny. By S7, he was the only funny character left.
Andrew was funny. I can't imagine people having a sense of humor who didn't
laugh at some of his lines. On the other hand, I thought Andrew was a
perfect example of what had gone wrong with the show. His humor was mostly
forced. He wasn't a real character but a caricature. An even better
example was Jonathan. He was a real character in the HS years too. By
season 6 he was just a total parody. A show that began with sly and witty
parodies of other things had completed the shift to parodying itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
KenM47
>On 01 Dec 2003 07:57:40 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>Did not work for straight me, but maybe it made the Kittens and their
>>>buds happy.
>>>
>>>Ken
>>>
>>
>>I thought Andrew was funny. By S7, he was the only funny character left.
>
>Andrew was funny. I can't imagine people having a sense of humor who didn't
>laugh at some of his lines. On the other hand, I thought Andrew was a
>perfect example of what had gone wrong with the show. His humor was mostly
>forced. He wasn't a real character but a caricature. An even better
>example was Jonathan. He was a real character in the HS years too. By
>season 6 he was just a total parody. A show that began with sly and witty
>parodies of other things had completed the shift to parodying itself.
>
Funny (no pun intended) I always thought I had a decent sense of
humor. The humor was one of the amazing things about BTVS that got me
to love it so. I thought Andrew's lines were mildly humorous at times,
but I didn't care for TL's delivery. "Forcing" the humor generally
does not work for me. Perhaps the story plots also kept me from
enjoying any truly funny lines.
Ken
Juleen
KenM47 wrote:
> EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Andrew was funny. I can't imagine people having a sense of humor
>> who didn't laugh at some of his lines. On the other hand, I thought
>> Andrew was a perfect example of what had gone wrong with the show.
>> His humor was mostly forced. He wasn't a real character but a
>> caricature. An even better example was Jonathan. He was a real
>> character in the HS years too. By season 6 he was just a total
>> parody. A show that began with sly and witty parodies of other
>> things had completed the shift to parodying itself.
>>
>
> Funny (no pun intended) I always thought I had a decent sense of
> humor. The humor was one of the amazing things about BTVS that got me
> to love it so. I thought Andrew's lines were mildly humorous at times,
> but I didn't care for TL's delivery. "Forcing" the humor generally
> does not work for me. Perhaps the story plots also kept me from
> enjoying any truly funny lines.
>
> Ken
I think the lines would have been funny coming out of Xander's mouth,
instead of by TL who really has no sense of timing. Blech!
Jul
--
Sig Wanted
No Experience Necessary
Mark Jones
> Again, there is the age factor. And the fact that Marsters had more acting
> ability and charisma (imo) than Seth Green.
Not hardly.
> Of course having a dangerous edge makes TV characters attractive. Why else
> would Buffy, who could beat the hell out of any guy she's with, Faith, Vampire
> Willow and Darla be so popular? Why was Nasty Cordelia more popular with men
> than Saint Cordelia?
I don't deny the "dangerous" stuff--I've always been fond of dangerous
women. But as for Nasty Cordy vs St. Cordy, the real answer is that the
writing of Saint Cordelia sucked. Sucked hard. Sucked bad. It was
part and parcel of the all-suckage, all-the-time writing on Angel at
that time.
EGK
Well, there's mildly amusing and then there's gut-busting laughter. I have
to side more with mildly amusing too but my point was he was given a lot of
the best lines on the show in season 7.
Mostly I was comparing Andrew with Xander from the HS years. I think most
people knew someone like Xander who had a quick wit and where the humor was
a fine line between funny and caustic. Everyone in HS knew someone like
Jonathan or Larry or Cordy and her friends. All the characters just seemed
more real to me then and it was easier to buy in to this world they were
creating for us.
With Andrew they just went with the total caricature of a nerd. It went
along with how insular both Buffy and Angel became. There's no sense of our
real world in these shows any longer. Metaphors for real world events are
easier to accept when the characters being used are recognizable as real
people.
The last is why i agreed with your theory about The Body. Once Joyce was
killed off on BTVS, the final tie to any semblance of reality was also
killed off. Angel did it even earlier then BTVS when demons and vampires
and magic became so commonplace. Angel's original mission statement to help
the helpless is pretty ridiculous now. How does Angel still help people in
the "real" world when there's no sense of reality on the show any longer?
Heck, let them go to the corner 7-11 and buy a magic spell to fix whatever
problem they're having. The closest they come to the real world is seeing
some girl turned in to werewolf now.
Rose
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:01:59 +0000, Mike Craney wrote:
>
> > Laz <sendyo...@here.com> wrote in
> > news:pan.2003.11.30....@here.com:
> >> Yeah, because women look beyond that fat, sweaty paunch and receding
> >> hairline to see the good, sweet man inside, and they reject the hunk
> >> with washboard abs because they can see he's shallow and egotistical.
> >> Absolutely. Happens that all the time. :)
> >
> > Well, actually it DOES happen all the time, and thank God it does.
> > Otherwise, the US divorce rate'd be at 90% rather than 50.
>
> The divorce rate wasn't always 50%. As the availability of washboard abs
> has climbed (with the exploding number of gyms and exercise machines), so
> has the divorce rate.
>
You can hardly blame a woman for leaving a man who has worked out and
gotten himself washboard abs. Because...yuck.
Rose
Preferring smooth abs since 1979
Clairel
> "Juleen" <REMOVE...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
> >BTR1701 wrote:
> >> In article <bqd9p4$20ht71$1...@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Juleen"
> >> <REMOVE...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mike Craney wrote:
> >>> > 5) People liked Andrew, who, in my opinion, would have been a
> great
> >>>> candiddate for human sacrifice. (It is, IMHO, completely
> >>>> inconsistent to like Andrew and not like Kennedy.)
> >>>
> >>> Oh someone else that doesn't like Andrew. I was beginning to think I
> >>> was the only person in the whole freaking fandom that hates the
> >>> little shit.
> >>
> >> You can bring the total to three. If there's one character in the
> >> entire Buffy universe I wish had never been introduced, it's Andrew.
> >>
> >> To this day I'm stunned that such a fingernails-on-the-blackboard
> >> persona could have such a fan following.
> >
> >I think that's the part that amazes me most. He is irritating beyond
> >belief to start with,brings nothing to the show, and is the biggest line
> >stealer of them all as Xander stood in the background sweeping floors. I
> >really don't know how the same people can rave about Andrew and at the
> >same time complain about Spike stealing screen time when Andrew
> >blatantly did it. As far as I'm concerned he contributed absolutely
> >nothing to the last two years other than making me cringe, and wasting
> >valuable story time.
> >Jul
>
> OK. I'll say it. At least I'll say what I think IT is.
>
> BTVS S7 did a lost of pandering to what had to have been perceived as
> a wide gay audience. That pandering was in the persons of both Andrew
> and Kennedy.
>
> Did not work for straight me, but maybe it made the Kittens and their
> buds happy.
--Yes, because gay people only enjoy watching other gay people on
TV...and heterosexuals only enjoy watching other heterosexuals on
TV...and then there's the Lithuanian immigrant demographic, mustn't
forget about them, they only enjoy watching other Lithuanians on TV...
There are actually some viewers out there--I, for one--who enjoy
seeing a mix of ethnic groups and sexual orientations that
approximates what I actually encounter in the world around me. If it
disgusts you so much to see the make-up of the world's population
reflected in the characters on your TV screen, you must be pretty
miserable living in this world. What do you do, go out of your way
and make a point of avoiding gay men and lesbians all the time?
Why do they bother you so much?
Clairel
EGK
>KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<knsksvoo9ub3ct7s6...@4ax.com>...
>> OK. I'll say it. At least I'll say what I think IT is.
>>
>> BTVS S7 did a lost of pandering to what had to have been perceived as
>> a wide gay audience. That pandering was in the persons of both Andrew
>> and Kennedy.
>>
>> Did not work for straight me, but maybe it made the Kittens and their
>> buds happy.
>
>--Yes, because gay people only enjoy watching other gay people on
>TV...and heterosexuals only enjoy watching other heterosexuals on
>TV...and then there's the Lithuanian immigrant demographic, mustn't
>forget about them, they only enjoy watching other Lithuanians on TV...
>
>There are actually some viewers out there--I, for one--who enjoy
>seeing a mix of ethnic groups and sexual orientations that
>approximates what I actually encounter in the world around me. If it
>disgusts you so much to see the make-up of the world's population
>reflected in the characters on your TV screen, you must be pretty
>miserable living in this world. What do you do, go out of your way
>and make a point of avoiding gay men and lesbians all the time?
>
>Why do they bother you so much?
Nothing like missing his point is there? He never said "they" bothered him.
He said the writers at ME pandered and I agree with him. The "kittens" he
referred to are the ones who took out ads saying they'd never watch a show
made by ME again after they killed off their precious Tara. Why not ask
them the questions you just asked Ken?
Clairel
> >
> > 1) I found that the general opinion was that BtVS was getting worse, not
> > better, in its later seasons. (I preferred the increasingly ominous tone
> > of the later years.)
>
>
> Same here.
>
>
> >
> > 5) People liked Andrew, who, in my opinion, would have been a great
> > candiddate for human sacrifice. (It is, IMHO, completely inconsistent to
> > like Andrew and not like Kennedy.)
> >
> >
>
>
> fun to watch, and Tom Lenk rules. Kennedy was just flat out unpleasant
> and portrayed by a magnificently limited actress. Not seeing the
> inconsistency here...
--I pretty much agree. Not that I disliked Kennedy, and I actually
thought the actress who played her, Iyari Limon, was quite talented;
but the main point is that ME wasn't even *trying* for comedy and
humor with Kennedy (most of the time), and they were with Andrew
almost all the time. For me it worked beautifully. He has me in
stitches. (His two moments of pathos, at the end of "Storyteller" and
the end of "Chosen," also worked well for me because Tom Lenk is such
a good actor.)
I use present tense because I was just rewatching BtVS seasons 6 and 7
this weekend, and there were so many hilarious Andrew bits that I had
forgotten about. I cracked up every time one came on.
Anyway, comparing Andrew and Kennedy in BtVS season 7 is like
comparing Dogberry and Hero in "Much Ado About Nothing." They're
characters who have totally different dramatic functions, and there's
no correlation whatsoever between them.
Clairel
KenM47
You need help. "Disgusts"?? Where do you see "disgusts"? That it
didn't reach me means it "bothers" me to see gays and lesbians
depicted? Really Clairel, get off your high horse once in a while.
And yes, I do believe people like to see their groups represented on
TV. Not unlike Whoopi Goldberg's comments about the pleasure and pride
she took in seeing Uhuru on Star Trek. As one example.
Ken
Juleen
I don't think Ken was saying that it bothered him, but when only about
4% of the population is gay, and out of about 8 cast members a third of
them are portrayed as gay you begin to wonder.
Jul
P.S. Ken don't let this go to your head :)
himiko
> >
> > Yeah, because women look beyond that fat, sweaty paunch and receding
> > hairline to see the good, sweet man inside, and they reject the hunk
> > with washboard abs because they can see he's shallow and egotistical.
> > Absolutely. Happens that all the time. :)
>
> Well, actually it DOES happen all the time, and thank God it does.
> Otherwise, the US divorce rate'd be at 90% rather than 50.
I disagree. The divorce rate would be waaaaaaaay down if women went
only for washboard abs. Of course, the marriage rate would also be
waaaaaaaaaaaaaay down. The celibacy rate for straight men would be
quite high though.
himiko (who's never really understood how the species continues
considering that men and women seem to be hard-wired never to
understand or get along with each other)
William George Ferguson
>
>Eh. I don't think the rock band thing had much to do with it in his case. He
>didn't have a "cool rock star" look. Oz had a laid back, confident manner but
>he was dorky looking.
Instead of the 'cool rock star' look, like Mick Jagger, or Buddy Holly,
or Ric Ocasek.
Face it, the only reason most rock stars are thought to look cool is
because they are rock stars. (nothing really to do with your thesis,
just jumping on that point)
In fact, the vast majority of rock stars have said they originally
started/joined rock bands to get girls. The guys who actually really
looked cool didn't need to do that.
--
You've reached the Tittles. We can't come to the phone right now
If you want to leave a message for Christine, Press 1
For Bentley, Press 2
Or to speak to, or worship, Master Tarfall, Underlord of Pain, Press 3
Janet
> First of all, Luke in The Empire Strikes Back was still a teenager - and he
> often acted like one. As for Riley, I think he was just as much running
> away from what he had become. Paying vampires to drain you isn't exactly
> being a poster boy for emotional health. The guy had issues. And its a
> shame that he never mentioned how he resolved them when he came back in
> season six.
> --
Riley resolved his issues by finding a woman that wasn't faster or
stronger than he was. He didn't need vamps sucking on him b/c he was
finally the boss with everyone thinking he was the most wonderful-ist
demon fighter in the world.
I really liked Riley when he first arrived on the show. I loved how
much Buffy confused him. My favorite scenes were of him asking
everyone if they thought Buffy was weird. But once Riley found out
who and what Buffy was, he changed. He didn't like knowing that this
cute little girl could easily whip his butt with 1 hand.
Then the writers made him worse. Suddenly he wanted all of Buffy's
time. The girl had to go out and save the world every night, deal
with a bratty sister that clung to her like a leech and putting on a
brave face for her dying mother. But he's whinning b/c Buffy doesn't
run to him to cry. Buffy never had anyone to emotionally rely on.
Hell, even her best friends would occasionally emotionally desert her
and ol' mom was walking around in her own little world for most of the
series. Buffy became the closest with Angel and even then there was a
wall between them b/c she was never quite sure about him.
Katie
>OK. I'll say it. At least I'll say what I think IT is.
>
>BTVS S7 did a lost of pandering to what had to have been perceived as
>a wide gay audience. That pandering was in the persons of both Andrew
>and Kennedy.
>
>Did not work for straight me, but maybe it made the Kittens and their
>buds happy.
>
>Ken
>
I think that is absurd. Andrew was effeminate, and, if memory serves me right,
never even came out. I think that's hardly a great representative for the
gay/lesbian community. In fact, the funny girly gay guy is getting really old,
really quick. I wouldn't be suprised if some found it offensive. The Kennedy
thing was a bit forced, but they didn't have a lot of time or space, and
obviously wanted Willow to be with someone..Willow's gay...obviously that
someone is going to be a girl. The only problem I saw with their relationship
was the actress who played her and subpar writing.
I suppose Gunn's existance on Ats is just pandering to the black community,
just as Giles is to the British fans.
KT
Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies do divert me I own, and I laugh
at them whenever I can. ~ Jane Austen
KenM47
>>From: KenM47
>
>>OK. I'll say it. At least I'll say what I think IT is.
>>
>>BTVS S7 did a lost of pandering to what had to have been perceived as
>>a wide gay audience. That pandering was in the persons of both Andrew
>>and Kennedy.
>>
>>Did not work for straight me, but maybe it made the Kittens and their
>>buds happy.
>>
>>Ken
>>
>
>I think that is absurd. Andrew was effeminate, and, if memory serves me right,
>never even came out. I think that's hardly a great representative for the
>gay/lesbian community. In fact, the funny girly gay guy is getting really old,
>really quick. I wouldn't be suprised if some found it offensive. The Kennedy
>thing was a bit forced, but they didn't have a lot of time or space, and
>obviously wanted Willow to be with someone..Willow's gay...obviously that
>someone is going to be a girl. The only problem I saw with their relationship
>was the actress who played her and subpar writing.
>I suppose Gunn's existance on Ats is just pandering to the black community,
>just as Giles is to the British fans.
>
>
>
>KT
>
Now that you bring it up..........
Ken :-)
EGK
>>From: KenM47
>
>>OK. I'll say it. At least I'll say what I think IT is.
>>
>>BTVS S7 did a lost of pandering to what had to have been perceived as
>>a wide gay audience. That pandering was in the persons of both Andrew
>>and Kennedy.
>>
>>Did not work for straight me, but maybe it made the Kittens and their
>>buds happy.
>>
>>Ken
>>
>
>I think that is absurd. Andrew was effeminate, and, if memory serves me right,
>never even came out. I think that's hardly a great representative for the
>gay/lesbian community.
He said he thought they pandered. He didn't say he thought they pandered
well. That was kind of the point for me. There were a lot of innuendos,
winking of eyes, subtext. It just smacked of the writers trying way too
hard to be cute.
> In fact, the funny girly gay guy is getting really old,
>really quick. I wouldn't be suprised if some found it offensive.
See above.
> The Kennedy
>thing was a bit forced, but they didn't have a lot of time or space, and
>obviously wanted Willow to be with someone..Willow's gay...obviously that
>someone is going to be a girl. The only problem I saw with their relationship
>was the actress who played her and subpar writing.
Isn't "the actress who played her and subpar writing" a pretty damning
condemnation all by itself?
>I suppose Gunn's existance on Ats is just pandering to the black community,
>just as Giles is to the British fans.
Color or ethnicity alone doesn't constitute pandering. Gunn was a bit too
cliched at first as a mostly black gang leader. I found that Gunn more
interesting then what they turned him in to though.
Katie
>> The Kennedy
>>thing was a bit forced, but they didn't have a lot of time or space, and
>>obviously wanted Willow to be with someone..Willow's gay...obviously that
>>someone is going to be a girl. The only problem I saw with their
>relationship
>>was the actress who played her and subpar writing.
>
>Isn't "the actress who played her and subpar writing" a pretty damning
>condemnation all by itself?
>
So ME hired a crappy actress so they could appease the lesbian fans? No, that
doesn't seem like condemnation to me. Now if they hired Pamela Anderson...then
I'd reconsider my position.
EGK
>>From: EGK m...@privacy.net
>
>>> The Kennedy
>>>thing was a bit forced, but they didn't have a lot of time or space, and
>>>obviously wanted Willow to be with someone..Willow's gay...obviously that
>>>someone is going to be a girl. The only problem I saw with their
>>relationship
>>>was the actress who played her and subpar writing.
>>
>>Isn't "the actress who played her and subpar writing" a pretty damning
>>condemnation all by itself?
>>
>
>So ME hired a crappy actress so they could appease the lesbian fans? No, that
>doesn't seem like condemnation to me. Now if they hired Pamela Anderson...then
>I'd reconsider my position.
It's difficult to tell how sub par the actress is when they have such a
badly written part to play. The actress and the writing were forced. There
was no time to develop the character.
DarkMagic
"Chris Zabel" <alep...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_thyb.27681$Rk5....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> 1. Whenever a possible Angel-Buffy romance is mentioned, the awful
> "baking/cooking/cookies" metaphor gets brought out like a prized horse to
do
> its paces.
>
It does? I try to avoid it at all costs.
> 2. The observation that the character "Eve" and possibly the actress
> playing her is awful. Even if it's true it's gotten awfully trite.
>
Too soon to be trite. Besides we're given a fresh dose of her to complain
about with every new episode.
> 3. Whenever a ProSpike/AntiSpike argument breaks out, almost immediately
> labels and accusations start getting slung by both sides fairly and
> unfairly.
>
Whenever a Spike argument "breaks out"? It started in the middle of Season
5 and never ended.
> 4. The "Where is Wes" bromides. I like the character too, but in a cast
> this big now with several new players, some characters will be in the
> background more than others.
>
Is that "Where is Wes"? literally speaking, or figuratively speaking? Wes
as he had become seems to have dissapeared completely. Wes as we once knew
him is there all of the time.
> 5. Bringing up how you really like what they have "done" with Fred this
> year. This was soooo last month it's not funny.
>
What have they done with Fred this year?
> 6. The talk of 'ships and possible future ships. I guess some people
might
> be new to AtS so I'll explain. Give up any hope of any real ship on this
> show. This is not Buffy here folks.
Haw! Haw! Haw! Give up on any real ship in this universe folks, this is ME
here.
> 7. Posting just to complain about the person making the post, not the
post
> itself.
>
What about posting just to complain about the posts without giving credit to
the good posts?
>
> 9. The use of "All-purpose Spike" as a reason for something. To some
Spike
> is responsible for everything on AtS and the world around it, including
but
> not limited to: Angel's hair that day,
One does wonder which one of them started using "product" first.
Connor's relationship with Cordelia,
> AtS ratings going up, AtS ratings going down, the plight of children in
the
> third world, Lorne's reluctance to come out of the closet, corn prices on
> the Comdex, Whedon's male pattern baldness, etc.
>
> 10. The old warhorse "This is the worst season of Angel ever..." and its
> converse "This is the best season of Angel ever..." Playing the odds it
> most likely isn't either one of them.
The worst season of Angel ever was last season. I saw the flicker of a
rerun last week and flinched in pain.
> --
Shannon
"No one wants to put words in J.K. Rowling's mouth, but it's safe to assume
when she hails her reader's creativity, she has in mind something other than
the tales wherein Professor Snape is fellated by the Sorting Hat." Tracy
Mayor, The Boston Globe, 6/25/03
alphakitten
FWIW, her soul was temporarily AWOL at the time.
~Angel
alphakitten
>
> Between this and all the posts about Spike somehow abusing Harmony in
> "Destiny", which I also didn't see at all, I keep wondering if we are
> all watching the same show.
>
> adios,
> alicat
Rarely, if ever Ali... ;)
~Angel
Shuggie
>Larry wrote:
>
>>
>>Riley was a good guy,
>
>Riley was an asshole. Spike was too, but the difference is, Spike was supposed
>to be an asshole.
No. The difference is that while Riley was (arguably) an asshole, Spike was an
unrepentant, conscienceless serial killer. A being who delighted in death,
pain, torture and chaos.
Riley was a nice guy with some flaws. But let's not pretend he's even in the
same league as Spike.
>Riley was an asshole who was being sold to us as a wonderful
>person, and there are few things more annoying.
As opposed to a vicious killer being sold to us as a funny comic (basically
harmless) villain? Actually I bought it, for the sake of the story, which was
fun - but I understand why those that didn't, didn't.
--
Shug
Shuggie
>
>Riley wasn't a "bad guy", which is a synonym for "villain", he was a bad boy,
>which means something different. Bad boy means the guy you shouldn't be with
>because he's dangerous or dysfunctional, but he's so attractive in some way
>that you date him anyway.
bad boy also means the guy that breaks the rules cos he's a rebel but
basically has a heart of gold and eventually does what's right - in his own
way. That's not Riley. Riley may have done some 'bad' things. But he's not a
'bad boy'. His superficial persona is too goody-goody and especially too
play-by-the-rules to carry that off. He lives and dies by the rules, that's
one of the first things that he and Buffy conflict over.
Riley's not a saint - but he's not a 'bad boy'. He's too conventional for
that.
>
>Riley and Spike were both bad boys. Riley was the bad boy athlete,
You're mistaking Riley with the pre-coming-out Larry. That's the bad-boy
athlete. The macho jock that some girls are attracted to (until they learn
better). Riley's the guy helping the lesbians put up their banner - very
dangerous, the guy who likes picnics and just driving - very rebelious.
Like I say, you can make the case that Riley's not perfect. But no way is he a
bad boy.
--
Shug
Laz
> Laz wrote:
>
>>
>>Rose was complaining that guys don't >look beyond the surface.
>
> Please don't put words in my mouth.
Sorry, I didn't mean to. I really did think that's what you meant when
you wrote:
"...I think it's funny that women are always accused of going for the
wrong person. How many men prefer plain, overweight girls of good character to
beautiful, thin bombshells of dubious character?"
--
Laz
Laz
>>Subject: Re: Portrait of the Newsgroup as a Disgruntled Audience From:
>>Laz sendyo...@here.com
>
>>And...I notice you are a member of the >Bloody Awful Poets Society, not
>>the Terse Werewolf Guitarist Society.
>
> I got into BtVS well into my 30s, Laz. I would have been a bit of a
> perv to go "nuts" as you put it over a a high school boy.
So the female fan following you claim elsewhere for Oz consisted of
teenage girls and middle-aged perverts?
>>The truth is that there is
>>practically no female fan following for Oz >at all,
>
> There most certainly was. There was quite a bit of fanfic devoted to
> him. There's no female following for him now, sure. He left the show.
There was never any more following for him than for any other character.
You were using Oz as an example of a nice, good guy that women loved to
counter the idea that women tend to be attracted to the bad boy hottie.
I'm saying that your example is not a good one. Women did not form clubs
in honor of Oz, dozens of web sites devoted to his character did not
spring up, women did not organize mailing lists just to talk about their
love for Oz.
>>and not because he left
>>the show. There never was when he was on it, either, beyond liking the
>>character and being happy for Willow.
>>
>>
> Untrue.
>
>>You might have liked Oz, but you went absolutely nuts over Spike.
>>
>>
> Again, there is the age factor. And the fact that Marsters had more
> acting ability and charisma (imo) than Seth Green.
I assume the (imo) is meant to apply to acting ability as well as
charisma. Personally, I think Marsters is a scene-stealer, tending
towards over-the-top, attention-getting characterizations, but that's just
my opinion. I think there are situations where JM's in-your-face acting
is appropriate; I just don't think it's all the time, every scene. I'm a
fan of understated portrayals, so I prefer the styles of Seth Green and
David Boreanaz.
But...I'm a heterosexual male, so there's nothing romantic or sexual that
might be coloring my preferences.
I also happen to love what Jessica Alba did with Dark Angel, but I'll tell
that I don't have a clue whether or not she can act. All I could see when
I watched the show was Jessica Alba, who God apparently created directly
from my imaginings of what the perfect female must look like.
> One thing you're ignoring is that Spike got far more popular after women
> found out he used to be a geek. That's when BAPS formed, that is when
> the redemptionist movement started.
Well, not to belabor the obvious, but it would have been pretty hard to
form the Bloody Awful Poet Society before you found out Spike had been a
Bloody Awful Poet.
You're right, though. His popularity soared when it was revealed that
Spike had been a nerd.
> Of course having a dangerous edge makes TV characters attractive. Why
> else would Buffy, who could beat the hell out of any guy she's with,
> Faith, Vampire Willow and Darla be so popular?
Nothing to do with danger. For guys, it's all about being naughty. Not
evil. Naughty. Vamp Willow oozed naughty sexiness. So did Faith. Darla,
too, most of the time.
> Why was Nasty Cordelia
> more popular with men than Saint Cordelia?
I can't speak for other guys, but I couldn't stand her when she was a
bitch.
> Riley also had a dangerous
> edge, and was the type of guy lots of women in real life go for, to
> boot, the popular jock.
>
> I could see people getting defensive over fans preferring Spike to a
> kind, decent, loving, choir-boy science nerd, but why guys are getting
> outraged on behalf of Riley, who represents the kind of guy who made
> nice non-jock guys' lives miserable in high school,
I really, really have no idea where you're getting that, because almost no
one else saw him that way. If you want an in-show example of a bully
jock, look at Larry. Before he came out, I mean. He really WAS a bully,
and he acted just like bullies in real life act.
Riley was nothing like that. The more you say he was, the more it sounds
like after-the-fact justification for hating a guy who didn't deserve
being hated. Either that, or you've just never known any real bullies.
--
Laz
Alane Sue
>From: Laz sendyo...@here.com
>You were using Oz as an example of a nice, good guy that women loved to
>counter the idea that women tend to be attracted to the bad boy hottie.
>
>I'm saying that your example is not a good one. Women did not form clubs
>in honor of Oz, dozens of web sites devoted to his character did not
>spring up, women did not organize mailing lists just to talk about their
>love for Oz.
The funny thing is that whenever I've ever taken one
of those Web-based "tests" on which "Buffy"
character I'd be matched with, it always comes up
Oz, not Spike.
I am WAY too old for Oz, but when I was high school,
he's exactly the kind of guy I liked and hoped would
like me. :)
I was one of the founders of BAPS because I wanted
to see Spike become a better man. But on a personal
level, I was not effulgent enough for Spike or
William, even back in my 20s. I never had any
romantic illusions or delusions about him. LOL! And
really, while many of the female members of BAPS
appreciate Spike's looks, we never sat around
and posted how much we "loved" him. Oh, and there
are male members of BAPS, too.
We wanted him to be Redeemed (dammit.) Some
wanted him with Buffy. Others most definitely did
not. I was satisfied with him going out in a blaze of
glory on "Chosen" (although happy to see him again
on AtS) while others were seriously PO'd at the end.
I watched BtVS right from Season 1. I thought Spike
was mildly entertaining, but it wasn't until "Fool
for Love" -- when he uttered his bad poet/good man
line that I desperately wanted Spike to find his way
back to that man again. I honestly never paid any
attention to his looks before that episode.
Alane
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>Rose <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
>>
>> No, I'm talking about Riley from around the time of Something Blue or
>> thereabouts.
>
>Riley had two scenes in SB, if I remember correctly.
>
>And they were cute.
>
>What is your problem with him at that point?
Rose is almost certainly misremembering the specific episode. Her
flashpoint on the newsgroup (and not just hers, but several other
female posters) was the conversation between Riley and Buffy in Doomed
(the 'long line of fry cooks who don't live past 25' conversation).
Their take (mine too, though I didn't get as exercised about it) was
that Riley discounted Buffy's world-view and felt she should tailor
her life to his.
Chris Zabel
news:7dsmsvsaivto3f6u7...@4ax.com...
> Andrew was funny. I can't imagine people having a sense of humor who
didn't
> laugh at some of his lines. On the other hand, I thought Andrew was a
> perfect example of what had gone wrong with the show. His humor was
mostly
> forced. He wasn't a real character but a caricature. An even better
> example was Jonathan. He was a real character in the HS years too. By
> season 6 he was just a total parody. A show that began with sly and witty
> parodies of other things had completed the shift to parodying itself.
This is probably closest to my opinion of Andrew. Taken on his own, his
jokes were usually funny. But he wasn't an integrated character into the
drama of the season. Why would Buffy and the gang keep him around? It was
apparent that Andrew's character was nothing more than an attempt by the
writers to force some comedy into a show that had forgotten how to be funny
with its own main characters.
Rose
>Date: 12/1/2003 12:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <5bdaf79e.03120...@posting.google.com>
>
>t...@robotron.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Tammy Stephanie Davis) wrote in message
>news:<H0wyb.5718$H91.1...@news.itd.umich.edu>...
>> First of all, Luke in The Empire Strikes Back was still a teenager - and he
>> often acted like one. As for Riley, I think he was just as much running
>> away from what he had become. Paying vampires to drain you isn't exactly
>> being a poster boy for emotional health. The guy had issues. And its a
>> shame that he never mentioned how he resolved them when he came back in
>> season six.
>> --
>
>Riley resolved his issues by finding a woman that wasn't faster or
>stronger than he was. He didn't need vamps sucking on him b/c he was
>finally the boss with everyone thinking he was the most wonderful-ist
>demon fighter in the world.
>
>I really liked Riley when he first arrived on >the show.
I did too, when he was a charmingly awkward psychology whiz. I was pissed off
at Buffy for mooning over Parker when a perfectly sweet Riley was right there
in the wings in "Beer Bad." Then they made Riley a macho jerk.
Rose
>Date: 12/1/2003 1:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <u5dnsv8mou5v0int9...@4ax.com>
>
>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:22:25 GMT, t...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
>(Tammy Stephanie Davis) wrote:
>
>>In article <DJtyb.8494$n4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
>>Peachy Ashie Passion <res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>:Rose wrote:
>>:>>Subject: Re: Portrait of the Newsgroup as a Disgruntled Audience
>>:>>From: Laz sendyo...@here.com
>>:>>Date: 11/30/2003 7:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>:>>Message-id: <pan.2003.11.30....@here.com>
>>:>>
>>:>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:22:22 +0000, Mike Craney wrote:
>>:>>
>>:>>
>>:>>
>>:>>>3) People generally had a problem with Riley,
>>:>>
>>:>>I think it might have appeared that way on-line because people who liked
>>:>>him tended to get shouted down by people who hated him. The people who
>>:>>hated him usually turned out to be Spike fans. Mostly women, but a few
>>:>>guys fell into that category (Riley-hater/Spike-lover) as well.
>>:>>
>>:>
>>:>
>>:> Riley and Spike were both bad boys. The difference was that Riley was a
>bad boy
>>:> with no personality, and Spike was a bad boy with an entertaining
>personality.
>>:
>>: I dunno Rose.. How was Riley a bad boy?
>>:
>>: I'm just not seeing it.
>>
>>Neither do I. He was a soldier, which means he wouldn't qualify for
>sainthood,
>>and he had issues of feeling inferior to Buffy and there is that whole
>>letting-vampires-feed-from-him wierdness (which screamed "I need therapy!"
>as few
>>things could), but Riley overall was a good man who often risked his life
>fighting
>>evil. I never saw him as a bad boy - certainly not in the same league as
>Spike.
>>
>>And Riley definitely had a personality.
>
>
>I don't get it either. Somehow it seems that Rose equates soldier/jock
>with automatically being a high school >bully -
Nope. I equate Riley The Soldier Jock with being a high school bully because
at times he acted like one.
Rose
>Date: 12/1/2003 3:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <dqjnsv0gep1hc3g9l...@4ax.com>
>
>On 01 Dec 2003 08:04:48 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote:
>
>>Larry wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Riley was a good guy,
>>
>>Riley was an asshole. Spike was too, but the difference is, Spike was
>supposed
>>to be an asshole.
>
>No. The difference is that while Riley was (arguably) an asshole, Spike was
>an
>unrepentant, conscienceless serial killer. A being who delighted in death,
>pain, torture and chaos.
>
>Riley was a nice guy with some flaws. But let's not pretend he's even in the
>same league as Spike.
>
>>Riley was an asshole who was being sold to us as a wonderful
>>person, and there are few things more annoying.
>
>As opposed to a vicious killer being sold to us as a funny comic (basically
>harmless) villain?
Yes. As opposed to that. I don't find it annoying when villains are made to
be funny, dark-comic characters. I do find it annoying when a character is
written as a jerk but is presented as a wonderful human being.
And now that Spike is no longer soulless, you may notice that I am far harder
on him. In fact, I dislike Spike and take little if any pleasure in watching
him for more than one or two episodes in a season for the first time this
year...because he's being written as a jerk, imo, and with a soul he has no
excuse to be a jerk.
Rose
>
>Like I say, you can make the case that Riley's not perfect. But no way is he
>a
>bad boy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Rose
>Date: 12/1/2003 10:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <vsn1pcc...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>Rose wrote:
>
>> Again, there is the age factor. And the fact that Marsters had more acting
>> ability and charisma (imo) than Seth Green.
>
>
You're saying it's not hardly my opinion that Marsters had more acting ability
and charisma than Seth Green? :o) [Note the "imo" in that sentence.]
Rose
>Date: 12/1/2003 11:20 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <jm4nsvotp3sm8d69b...@4ax.com>
>
>>>From: Laz sendyo...@here.com
>>>Oz had a bit of mystery about him, >played lead guitar in a rock band,
>>
>fyl...@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote:
>>Eh. I don't think the rock band thing had much to do with it in his case.
>He
>>didn't have a "cool rock star" look. Oz had a laid back, confident manner
>but
>>he was dorky looking.
>
>Instead of the 'cool rock star' look, like Mick Jagger, or Buddy Holly,
>or Ric Ocasek.
>
I am on board with you as to Buddy Holly. Ric Ocasek, while not handsome, was
cool. And Mick Jagger was not only cool, he was drop dead fricking gorgeous in
his day. And if you go telling me a person with an over-size mouth can't be
considered fricking gorgeous, then tell me why women like Julia Roberts and
Angelina Jolie are celebrated for their beauty.
>Face it, the only reason most rock stars are thought to look cool is
>because they are rock stars. (nothing really to do with your thesis,
>just jumping on that point)
>
But rock stars become rock stars, rather than wanna bes whom people snicker at,
because they have that je ne sais quoi.
>In fact, the vast majority of rock stars have said they originally
>started/joined rock bands to get girls. The guys who actually really
>looked cool didn't need to do that.
>
From what I've heard, uncool rock musicians get the leftovers attracted by the
charismatic members.
>
>--
>You've reached the Tittles. We can't come to the phone right now
>If you want to leave a message for Christine, Press 1
>For Bentley, Press 2
>Or to speak to, or worship, Master Tarfall, Underlord of Pain, Press 3
>
>
>
>
>
>
Rose
>Message-id: <pan.2003.12.02....@here.com>
>
>On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:21:56 +0000, Rose wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Portrait of the Newsgroup as a Disgruntled Audience From:
>>>Laz sendyo...@here.com
>>
>>>And...I notice you are a member of the >Bloody Awful Poets Society, not
>>>the Terse Werewolf Guitarist Society.
>>
>> I got into BtVS well into my 30s, Laz. I would have been a bit of a
>> perv to go "nuts" as you put it over a a high school boy.
>
>So the female fan following you claim elsewhere for Oz consisted of
>teenage girls and middle-aged perverts?
>
I have no idea if middle aged perverts dug Oz. I don't remember any middle
aged people being in love with Oz. Then again, I haven't known all THAT many
middle aged fans of BtVS. Unless you consider 33 to be middle aged, which I do
not. (I've always considered middle age to start at age 45, 40 at the very
earliest.)
I do know that I've read romantic fanfic featuring Oz. I remember reading
posts by females saying they loved Oz back in S3.
>>>The truth is that there is
>>>practically no female fan following for Oz >at all,
>>
>> There most certainly was. There was quite a bit of fanfic devoted to
>> him. There's no female following for him now, sure. He left the show.
>
>There was never any more following for >him than for any other character.
Which isn't half bad, considering the other regular characters all had pretty
solid fan followings, including Riley. You might not know this, but there was
a fanfic group called Riley's Girls who wrote erotic fiction in an alternate
universe in which Riley was a vampire.
>You were using Oz as an example of a nice, good guy that women loved to
>counter the idea that women tend to be attracted to the bad boy hottie.
>
Well, let's not overstate my position. Of course lots of women, me included,
are often attracted to bad boy hotties, just as lots of men are often attracted
to bad girl hotties. Part of the fun of fiction is identifying with or
fantasizing about the naughty side of life.
And it's not just the opposite sex. One of my favorite female movie characters
is Catherine Tremmel in Basic Instinct but I would have nothing to do with
anyone like her in real life.
What I'm disputing is that the fact that many women love bad boy characters
means they don't like good men in real life, or that they never love good guy
characters in real life. Look how much women love Tom Cruise and Harrison
Ford's characters... they usually play good guys. I'm also disputing the idea
that it's only women who are attracted to naughty, attractive members of the
opposite sex.
>I'm saying that your example is not a good one. Women did not form clubs
>in honor of Oz, dozens of web sites devoted to his character did not
>spring up, women did not organize mailing lists just to talk about their
>love for Oz.
Well, I'm not so sure there were no Oz mailing lists or clubs. He didn't reach
the heights of popularity Spike did, which is true. But that does not mean
that Oz was not loved and admired by women. The clubs that sprang up about
Spike, by the way, were largely inspired by the movement to redeem him, and
that was inspired by women's love for William the Bloody Awful Poet, a
character reviled by many men as a big wimp, but adored by a lot of Spike
Redemptionists. There was quite a bit of fanfic in which Spike gets a soul and
basically turns into William.
I think when we met William, Spike's struggle became our struggle because a lot
of us could identify with what it was like to be an outsider who was laughed at
and then somehow became cool or a survivor and fought back (if we hadn't, we'd
all be hiding under rocks instead of out living our lives). Spike fought back
in a violent way that we would not because we're good people, but we identify
with the underlying struggle and anger.
Oz didn't go through anything like that. Everyone liked him, he had friends,
his life was pretty settled except for having a kind of male uber-PMS once a
month. He didn't need a lot of rooting for, because he was already there.
But again, I don't really know why men don't admire Oz more. Riley gets
defended a lot, but Oz was a much better person, imo, until he met Veruca.
>
>>>and not because he left
>>>the show. There never was when he was on it, either, beyond liking the
>>>character and being happy for Willow.
>>>
>>>
>> Untrue.
>>
>>>You might have liked Oz, but you went absolutely nuts over Spike.
>>>
>>>
>> Again, there is the age factor. And the fact that Marsters had more
>> acting ability and charisma (imo) than Seth Green.
>
>I assume the (imo) is meant to apply to acting ability as well as
>charisma. Personally, I think Marsters is a scene-stealer, tending
>towards over-the-top, attention-getting characterizations, but that's just
>my opinion.
James Marsters performances are not consistent, imo, in that sometimes he's
brilliant and at other times he's just average. He is not a great actor, but
he is capable of expressing complex emotions. For all that he chews the scenery
at times, I think his best work occurs when he is still and quiet.
Seth Green is likeable and engaging but he's pretty much always the same in
every role I've seen him in, and expresses little variety. Marsters has more
passion and a wider range.
That said, Marsters wasn't the best or even the second best actor among the
Jossverse regulars in my opinion, Alexis Denisof and Anthony Stewart Head both
being superior, in my opinion.
I think there are situations where JM's in-your-face acting
>is appropriate; I just don't think it's all the time, every scene. I'm a
>fan of understated portrayals, so I prefer the styles of Seth Green and
>David Boreanaz.
>
Again, I think Marsters is at his best when he's understated.
I've known plenty.
I liked Riley very much until he started showing his bullyish tendencies. If
you think I had some kind of innate prejudice against him because of Spike or
Angel, I'd like an explanation for why I liked him all the way through
Something Blue. (After that he started to grate on me a bit, and it was in
Doomed that I started hating him.)
Zombie Elvis
and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness:
mja...@yahoo.com (Janet) wrote in
<5bdaf79e.03120...@posting.google.com>:
> t...@robotron.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Tammy Stephanie Davis) wrote in message news:<H0wyb.5718$H91.1...@news.itd.umich.edu>...
> > First of all, Luke in The Empire Strikes Back was still a teenager - and he
> > often acted like one. As for Riley, I think he was just as much running
> > away from what he had become. Paying vampires to drain you isn't exactly
> > being a poster boy for emotional health. The guy had issues. And its a
> > shame that he never mentioned how he resolved them when he came back in
> > season six.
> > --
>
> Riley resolved his issues by finding a woman that wasn't faster or
> stronger than he was. He didn't need vamps sucking on him b/c he was
> finally the boss with everyone thinking he was the most wonderful-ist
> demon fighter in the world.
The woman Riley married was also a demon fighter. And all indications
were that she could hold her own against him in terms of demon
fighting.
My own personal theory is that he was simply going through a bad time
when he had these issues. Things got better after he learned to cope
with his diminished strength, forgot about Buffy, and got back into
the swing of things hunting demons with his special army unit. That I
think is the real message of "As You Were," that even good people can
go through dark times when there seems to be no light at the end of
the tunnel, eventually things get better. Hell, that was a prominent
the message of most of season six.
>
> I really liked Riley when he first arrived on the show. I loved how
> much Buffy confused him. My favorite scenes were of him asking
> everyone if they thought Buffy was weird. But once Riley found out
> who and what Buffy was, he changed. He didn't like knowing that this
> cute little girl could easily whip his butt with 1 hand.
Riley found out what Buffy was shortly after he asked her out on their
first date, in fact he found out what she was mere hours after he
kissed her for the first time. The fact that this "cute little girl"
was "spiderman strong" didn't intimidate her, it actually seemed to
turn him on -- especially when this cute little girl who could whip
his butt with one hand instead chose to go in an rescue him after the
drugs the Initiative gave him started to go bad. No, it wasn't until
Riley realized that Buffy didn't love him that he started feeling
inadequate. And it wasn't until he started feeling shut out of her
life that he started paying vamp hos to munch on him.
>
> Then the writers made him worse. Suddenly he wanted all of Buffy's
> time. The girl had to go out and save the world every night, deal
> with a bratty sister that clung to her like a leech and putting on a
> brave face for her dying mother. But he's whinning b/c Buffy doesn't
> run to him to cry.
Exactly one of the sentences in this paragraph is correct IMHO. Riley
didn't want all of Buffy's time. He wanted validation that he was
still important to her. Riley had been exposed to a series of very
sobering reality checks since he'd met Buffy. First, that he wasn't
the macho demon fighter he thought he was and I'm not talking about
the fact that Buffy is stronger than he is; I'm talking about the fact
that all of his fabulous strength and speed that allowed him to at
least almost keep up with Buffy physically turned out to be a result
of the Initiative pumping him with performance enhancing drugs.
Then, he realized that Buffy didn't really love him. And then Buffy
started shutting him off emotionally. Riley was already feeling pretty
useless when his spidey-strength was taken away. The fact that Buffy
was shutting down emotionally instead of turning to him for comfort in
her hour of need, knocked his ego down further. In other words, yes he
was whining because Buffy doesn't run to him to cry. He also became
increasingly paranoid and jealous because he couldn't just talk to her
about this and instead let thing fester until he was feeding himself
to vamp hos for an ego boost.
Riley had some serious flaws but not being the boss wasn't one of
them. In fact, his background with the Initiative made him ideally
suited to taking orders and letting someone else be in charge. If
anything, it was his need to play the strong silent type who never has
a problem that was the undoing of his relationship with Buffy. He
pretended that nothing bothered him, throwing petty little tantrums
(fake-staking Spike, trying take on entire nests of vampires) behind
Buffy's back, and succeeding only making himself feel even worse when
the woman he loves doesn't still much need or want him around for
anything beyond sex.
> Buffy never had anyone to emotionally rely on.
> Hell, even her best friends would occasionally emotionally desert her
> and ol' mom was walking around in her own little world for most of the
> series. Buffy became the closest with Angel and even then there was a
> wall between them b/c she was never quite sure about him.
Part of this was Buffy's own doing. She tends to shut people out
emotionally when she's going through emotional turmoil.
--
"Screw destiny! Destiny's just another word for
inevitable. And nothing's inevitable if you stand up,
look it in the eye and say, 'You're evitable.'"
-- Winifred Burkle
Roberto Castillo
roberto...@ameritech.net
http://www.freewebs.com/robertocastillo/
Shuggie
>
[snip]
>>>Riley was an asshole who was being sold to us as a wonderful
>>>person, and there are few things more annoying.
>>
>>As opposed to a vicious killer being sold to us as a funny comic (basically
>>harmless) villain?
>
>Yes. As opposed to that. I don't find it annoying when villains are made to
>be funny, dark-comic characters. I do find it annoying when a character is
>written as a jerk but is presented as a wonderful human being.
But for the most part S4 Spike wasn't darkly comic, he was merely comic. And
that was done very deliberately to allow us to feel ok with the fact that he's
not being staked.
Surely presenting an evil creature as if he's suddenly ok because he's
temporarily less harmful (I won't say harmless) is just as bad as presenting a
jerk as someone good? Worse in my book.
Not that it bothered me personally. I knew what they were doing and was happy to
go along with.
>
>And now that Spike is no longer soulless, you may notice that I am far harder
>on him.
I've noticed that, yes. You are consistent.
>In fact, I dislike Spike and take little if any pleasure in watching
>him for more than one or two episodes in a season for the first time this
>year...because he's being written as a jerk, imo, and with a soul he has no
>excuse to be a jerk.
Which is fine but most people are jerks at least some of the time. I'm less
bothered with AtS Spike being a jerk in terms of doing things which are wrong,
and more bothered with him acting like a pre-teen school-boy.
Shuggie
>
>Shuggers wrote:
>
>>
>>Like I say, you can make the case that Riley's not perfect. But no way is he
>>a
>>bad boy.
>
>We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>
aww heck that's no fun!