AOQ Review 2-10: "What's My Line (Part Two)"

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 12:18:15 AM2/13/06
to
A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
threads.


BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Two, Episode 10: "What's My Line (Part Two)"
(or "And then there were two")
Writer: Marti Noxon
Director: David Semel


There's no "previously on BTVS..." (at least not on the DVDs).
It's straight onto the hot Slayer-on-Slayer action. They quickly
decide to figure out what's going on, and let the viewer do the same.


I hadn't figured the explanation for Kendra's presence would be so
simple. The idea that Buffy's short-lived death ("just a
little") led to the choosing of a new Slayer is one of those things
that I didn't see coming at all, but made perfect sense once it was
revealed. From there, a good portion of WML2 has the two characters
playing off each other and exploring their contrasting approaches to
Slaying. Despite Kendra's bizarre intermittent accent (or perfect
Montserratian one, as the case may be), I quite enjoyed these
exchanges. Buffy gets to feel that she's clearly in the right about
certain things (having friends and a life), whereas other issues are a
bit harder to explain (being behind on some of the Slayer book-smarts
or dating a famous mass murderer). Throughout it all, Buffy maintains
a tone of light sarcasm - enough to offset Kendra's constant
earnestness but not enough to break the tone of the episode. She's
landing on her feet when faced with a weird situation. Besides the
quotables ("you just gonna attack people randomly until you find a
bad one?"), there's also her imitation of Kendra and Giles laughing
over books. Anyway, it's fun to watch. So are the parts where we
see that she has a sense of humor too, however muted ("did anyone
explain to you what 'secret identity' means?").

Looking back it's interesting to note that the themes explored here
aren't exactly subtle or novel - Slayer as a job versus a state of
being. It's not the biggest of surprises that they each have their
share of excesses and can learn a few things from each other. But they
really do establish a good buddy-movie vibe that keeps the scenes
flowing well. What's also interesting is that although Willow (and
the viewer) express horror at the idea of Buffy being replaced, she's
less bothered once she has a little time to think about the idea. The
normal life is a fantasy of hers that briefly looks like it could
become a reality. As usual, a crisis makes her realize that she
wouldn't be quite the same if she weren't a Slayer, but one might
not expect her to consider the alternatives so seriously.

The Order Of Turaka thing is still going on... actually, I'm going to
keep calling them the Order Of Long Fantasy Name, just because. They
reinsert themselves into the main story during a brief moment of
calm... in the scene leading up to Weapons Lady coming after Buffy I
was wondering "what's up with this? Why are we spending time
here?" Then it made sense. This episode's tone bounces around a
lot, so the viewer just has to try to keep up with the action, but
it's worth it. I was trying to decide whether I think that this
episode diminishes the OOLFN after making them so scary in Part One,
but now I think it's not a big deal. The threat wasn't that they
were invincible, just that they'd never stop coming. So they end up
being called off rather than defeated per se. Works for me.

Even when Buffy isn't dealing with OOLFN business, Xander and
Cordelia are running from Worm Guy and trying to come up with a better
plan that waiting for Buffy to save them. Unfortunately, they end up
in a closet together for the single worst scene since the show's
inception, as they end up making out after a bout of name-calling.
Xander wasn't the only one who wanted to vomit afterwards. I'm
guessing that there was some element of parody in it, between resorting
to the über-convention of hostility leading to a kiss, the
uncharacteristically bad acting from Nick Brendon, and the swelling
musical score. Which of course raises an obvious question from viewer
to show: why the fuck are you doing parody in the middle of a major
episode, and why are you wasting your lead characters on a joke? (And
if the parody was all unintentional, well, as Giles might say, the
Buffyverse is doomed.)

As far as we reviewers are concerned, scenes this atrocious are an
excuse to steal other people's word patterns and hyperbolically vent,
so here goes... I won't refer to the closet scene as "atrocious"
anymore, since that would be unfair to all the atrocious scenes in
television history that look like _Casablanca_ next to this festering
boil on the ass of the series. It supports my conviction that
there's no divine justice, because such a thing would have mandated a
steel-toed kick to the testicles and/or ovaries of everyone in any way
involved with the creation of that abomination. (And before anyone
asks, no, I will not "tell you how I really feel."). Just in terms
of the little AOQ ratings, let me say that I might've let it slide
had it been left at that. Instead, the episode loses any chance at
"Excellent" for the fact that it saw fit to show us that scene
_twice_. You gotta take a stand sometime.

Moving on. Thanks to Willy's ability to make a deal, Angel ends up
in the hands of Spike and Drusilla, where our plots tie neatly together
when he turns out to be the key to their ritual. Drusilla gets a
chance to indulge in her love of cruelty and inaudible dialogue (I
honestly couldn't hear most of her lines, and that was with the
volume way up). I'm quite confused about a few things here, so
please explain (or say "it gets explained eventually, don't
worry"):
1) So Drusilla bears a grudge against Angelus. Which would seem to
make sense. Except that doesn't becoming a vampire remove every
trace of the original soul? As a fellow demon, shouldn't Dru
sympathize with Angelus' motives more than present-day Angel himself
does?
2) Based on some of the NG posts, I guess I should ignore "School
Hard" implying that Spike and Angel had a history together
independent of the thing with Drusilla, possibly related to the
"sire" thing? And I don't see why Spike would (apparently)
welcome Angel as a friend (and Angel would buy it) if he was interested
in letting Drusilla have her revenge.

As in Part One, an interesting thing about these scenes, most obviously
the one in which Angel tries to bait Spike into ruining the ritual, is
that it shows Spike as being very much on the edge, liable to lose
control at any time. In public situations he still looks flippant and
uncaring ("I'm thinkin' maybe dinner and a movie. I don't want
to rush into anything"), but it's a façade that's crumbling
throughout the two-parter.

There's a real theme throughout the show of getting monsters angry to
draw their attention. Huh.

In the background, it appears that the whole point of the computer
company story, complete with the mysterious stuff, was just to get
Willow and Oz (whose hair... is brown!) to finally meet. Seems like
some wasted screen time setting that up. I do like the way their
personalities gel. Contrary to what I'd expected, Oz just seems like
a nice kid who could teach even the other leads a few lessons in
slackerdom. If someone would rather talk about animal crackers than
anything remotely serious or emotional, sometimes it makes sense to
indulge him.

And naturally it all comes down to a big noisy fight. Nothing
earth-shattering, but it's fun to watch the Slayers united, Willow
actually getting to dust a vamp (this is the first time I can recall
her doing that, unless she also did in "The Harvest"), and
Buffy's uncanny ability to improvise (you set it up with the
dialogue, then you pay it off).

Kendra heads home (convention would be to kill her off, but we're all
unconventional and stuff); it'd be nice to see her again, maybe once
a year or so. Our heroes head home too, realistically hopeful that
they've won for good but properly aware that until you see a body
(which is hard to do with vampires), the villain may not be gone. And
a stronger Drusilla arises from the ashes. The character could use a
change, so I'm all for it. Will she still be insane? That was
rhetorical.


So...

One-sentence summary: Mostly quite good, weighed down a bit by a
certain pair of scenes...

AOQ rating: Good

[Season Two so far:
1) "When She Was Bad" - Good
2) "Some Assembly Required" - Weak
3) "School Hard" - Decent
4) "Inca Mummy Girl" - Good
5) "Reptile Boy" - Decent
6) "Halloween" - Good
7) "Lie To Me" - Good
8) "The Dark Age" - Good
9) "What's My Line (Part One)" - Good
10) "What's My Line (Part Two)" - Good]

Clairel

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 12:49:53 AM2/13/06
to

--Okay, you want explanations. So here goes.

Remember back in School Hard at the high school, Angel was dragging
Xander around by the neck as if Xander were his victim, all for the
purpose of making Spike believe that he (Angel) was evil? Well, as
long as Spike believed Angel was still the same old soulless Angelus
who had been his "Yoda" long ago, then of course Spike would welcome
Angel(us) as a friend. Why not?

Only when Spike realizes Angel is faking, and has truly becoming a good
guy, does Spike no longer welcome Angel as a friend.

As for whether a soulless vampire like Drusilla would want revenge for
the killing of her human family, or would sympathize with the motives
of the demon who did the killing, you might consider that Drusilla's
treatment of, and attitude toward, soulless Angelus might differ from
her treatment of, and attitude toward, soulful Angel. In other words,
all the seeming indignation she expresses over the killing of her
family might be something she brings up because she knows Angel has a
conscience that would be bothered by it. She herself of course has no
such conscience, and might never reproach the soulless Angelus for the
killing of her family. It wouldn't bother soulless Angelus, so it
isn't something she could torment him with (even supposing she wanted
to torment him). Angel's soulfulness is something that makes soulless
vampires bristle.

There, I think I managed that without being spoilery.

I liked this episode better than you did, but that's because I actually
enjoy Sam-and-Diane style sparkage to a certain extent. The episode
doesn't lose points with me just because Xander and Cordelia did their
Sam-and-Diane thing.

Clairel

Clairel

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 12:56:37 AM2/13/06
to
I just remembered something that seemed lacking in your review, AOQ:
didn't the final scene, with the Big Reveal that Spike and Drusilla
survived the buildng's collapse and the fire after all, and that
Drusilla has her full strength back, strike you strongly? You say
nothng about it. Wasn't that a fantastic final scene, though, with Dru
hauling the limp and unconscious Spike out of the rubble and talking
about all that she now is capable of? Didn't it leave you just
drooling with eagerness for future developments?

And wasn't that a great showdown in the old church? I don't think BtVS
had ever done a fight scene that well, up to that time.

Clairel

Shuggie

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 4:53:05 AM2/13/06
to
Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

>
> The Order Of Turaka thing is still going on... actually, I'm going to
> keep calling them the Order Of Long Fantasy Name, just because. They
> reinsert themselves into the main story during a brief moment of
> calm... in the scene leading up to Weapons Lady coming after Buffy I
> was wondering "what's up with this? Why are we spending time
> here?" Then it made sense. This episode's tone bounces around a
> lot, so the viewer just has to try to keep up with the action, but
> it's worth it. I was trying to decide whether I think that this
> episode diminishes the OOLFN after making them so scary in Part One,
> but now I think it's not a big deal. The threat wasn't that they
> were invincible, just that they'd never stop coming. So they end up
> being called off rather than defeated per se. Works for me.

Whereas I found it a bit convenient.

>
> Even when Buffy isn't dealing with OOLFN business, Xander and
> Cordelia are running from Worm Guy and trying to come up with a better
> plan that waiting for Buffy to save them. Unfortunately, they end up
> in a closet together for the single worst scene since the show's
> inception, as they end up making out after a bout of name-calling.
> Xander wasn't the only one who wanted to vomit afterwards. I'm
> guessing that there was some element of parody in it, between resorting

> to the ?ber-convention of hostility leading to a kiss, the


> uncharacteristically bad acting from Nick Brendon, and the swelling
> musical score. Which of course raises an obvious question from viewer
> to show: why the fuck are you doing parody in the middle of a major
> episode, and why are you wasting your lead characters on a joke? (And
> if the parody was all unintentional, well, as Giles might say, the
> Buffyverse is doomed.)
>

If the Buffyverse was doomed every time a fan hated a particular scene
it'd spend most of its time being doomed. Come to think of it...

> As far as we reviewers are concerned, scenes this atrocious are an
> excuse to steal other people's word patterns and hyperbolically vent,
> so here goes... I won't refer to the closet scene as "atrocious"
> anymore, since that would be unfair to all the atrocious scenes in
> television history that look like _Casablanca_ next to this festering
> boil on the ass of the series. It supports my conviction that
> there's no divine justice, because such a thing would have mandated a
> steel-toed kick to the testicles and/or ovaries of everyone in any way
> involved with the creation of that abomination. (And before anyone
> asks, no, I will not "tell you how I really feel."). Just in terms
> of the little AOQ ratings, let me say that I might've let it slide
> had it been left at that. Instead, the episode loses any chance at
> "Excellent" for the fact that it saw fit to show us that scene
> _twice_. You gotta take a stand sometime.
>

Aww where's your sense of romance?

OK, when I first saw season 2 I was hoping Willow and Xander would get
together, so when I saw this scene I was annoyed because of that. Also I
think the big-fight-leading-to-"I hate you"-and-then-they-kiss is really
hard to pull off well and here they don't. Although for me at least the
fact that they repeat it sort of helps. In the same way that an unfunny
joke can become funny merely through repetition, the Xander-Cordy thing
begins to convince me that there is some underlying sexual tension
there.

> I'm quite confused about a few things here, so
> please explain (or say "it gets explained eventually, don't
> worry"):
> 1) So Drusilla bears a grudge against Angelus. Which would seem to
> make sense. Except that doesn't becoming a vampire remove every
> trace of the original soul? As a fellow demon, shouldn't Dru
> sympathize with Angelus' motives more than present-day Angel himself
> does?
> 2) Based on some of the NG posts, I guess I should ignore "School
> Hard" implying that Spike and Angel had a history together
> independent of the thing with Drusilla, possibly related to the
> "sire" thing? And I don't see why Spike would (apparently)
> welcome Angel as a friend (and Angel would buy it) if he was interested
> in letting Drusilla have her revenge.
>

OK.

1) There is some history between Spike, Angel and Dru - that much is not
a spoiler. You'll have noticed that Spike and Dru are the recurring
baddies this season. So, it's not unreasonable to think that they might
explore that history some more. Whether it'll answer all your questions
I don't know.

2) The scene between Dru and Angel - well on one level she's torturing
him and on another it's almost a kind of foreplay. Whether Dru actually
dislikes Angel (though I think she dislikes that he's now good) is less
important than the fact that she gets off on causing pain. That she
reminds him of what he did to her family, knowing he has a soul, just
means she adds a psychological element to her torture. Given vampire
stories are almost always about sex and that Buffyverse vamps creatures
who enjoy evil - the S&M vibe was almost inevitable at some point.

> In the background, it appears that the whole point of the computer
> company story, complete with the mysterious stuff, was just to get
> Willow and Oz (whose hair... is brown!) to finally meet. Seems like
> some wasted screen time setting that up. I do like the way their
> personalities gel. Contrary to what I'd expected, Oz just seems like
> a nice kid who could teach even the other leads a few lessons in
> slackerdom. If someone would rather talk about animal crackers than
> anything remotely serious or emotional, sometimes it makes sense to
> indulge him.
>

Oz is just cool on lots of levels. That his ambition in life is a
particularly fiendish chord on the guitar. That he 'gets' Willow. That
he can come up with a line like "I mock you with my monkey pants". (Used
to use that one as a mild, semi-serious insult for a while, really
confused people)

> And naturally it all comes down to a big noisy fight. Nothing
> earth-shattering, but it's fun to watch the Slayers united, Willow
> actually getting to dust a vamp (this is the first time I can recall
> her doing that, unless she also did in "The Harvest"), and
> Buffy's uncanny ability to improvise (you set it up with the
> dialogue, then you pay it off).
>

Someone pitched the line "two Slayers, no waiting" to Joss and he loved
it so much that he built the plot of WML2 to allow it to happen. The
'big noisy fight' is ok. However it was ruined for me by the commentary
which pointed out that although there's lots going on in the church,
they only ever really show you people fighting in little groups so as to
break it up into shots that are doable on a TV budget. Now every time I
watch it that's all I notice.

> Kendra heads home (convention would be to kill her off, but we're all
> unconventional and stuff); it'd be nice to see her again, maybe once
> a year or so. Our heroes head home too, realistically hopeful that
> they've won for good but properly aware that until you see a body
> (which is hard to do with vampires), the villain may not be gone. And
> a stronger Drusilla arises from the ashes. The character could use a
> change, so I'm all for it. Will she still be insane? That was
> rhetorical.
>

!

That was a rhetorical answer.

--
Shuggie

blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/shuggie/

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 4:59:00 AM2/13/06
to
In article <1139807894.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 10: "What's My Line (Part Two)"
> (or "And then there were two")
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: David Semel

<snip>

> So are the parts where we
> see that she has a sense of humor too, however muted ("did anyone
> explain to you what 'secret identity' means?").
>

This, to me is key: Kendra has to come over as repressed *not* stupid.

<snip>


>
> In the background, it appears that the whole point of the computer
> company story, complete with the mysterious stuff, was just to get
> Willow and Oz (whose hair... is brown!) to finally meet. Seems like
> some wasted screen time setting that up. I do like the way their
> personalities gel. Contrary to what I'd expected, Oz just seems like
> a nice kid who could teach even the other leads a few lessons in
> slackerdom. If someone would rather talk about animal crackers than
> anything remotely serious or emotional, sometimes it makes sense to
> indulge him.

So you didn't notice what he said in the middle of the Animal Crackers
speech?
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend

Eric Hunter

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 6:35:28 AM2/13/06
to
vague disclaimer wrote:
> In article <1139807894.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>> threads.
>>
>> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>> Season Two, Episode 10: "What's My Line (Part Two)"
>> (or "And then there were two")
>> Writer: Marti Noxon
>> Director: David Semel
>
> <snip>
>
>> In the background, it appears that the whole point of the computer
>> company story, complete with the mysterious stuff, was just to get
>> Willow and Oz (whose hair... is brown!) to finally meet. Seems like
>> some wasted screen time setting that up. I do like the way their
>> personalities gel. Contrary to what I'd expected, Oz just seems like
>> a nice kid who could teach even the other leads a few lessons in
>> slackerdom. If someone would rather talk about animal crackers than
>> anything remotely serious or emotional, sometimes it makes sense to
>> indulge him.
>
> So you didn't notice what he said in the middle of the Animal Crackers
> speech?

Oz: The monkey's the only cookie animal that gets to wear clothes, you
know that?

Willow smiles brightly.

--> Oz: You have the sweetest smile I've ever seen. <--

Willow is surprised by the compliment.

Oz: (continues down the hall) So, I'm wondering, do the other cookie
animals feel sorta ripped? Like, is the hippo going, 'Hey, man, where
are *my* pants? I have my hippo dignity!'

Willow laughs.


Eric.
--

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 8:11:23 AM2/13/06
to
In article <8r6dnRGKRcS...@comcast.com>,
"Eric Hunter" <hunt...@comcast.invalid> wrote:

Quite. Oz has grasped that Willow is cripplingly shy and that a head-on
approach will cause her to run. Drop it in the middle of inconsequential
musing and then move on before she has a chance to realise she was
supposed to run away (as it were)....

And of course he preceded it by emphasising how embarrassed *he* would
be (yeah, right) at being thanked. He's a man on a mission.

One of my all-time favourite scenes from the show.

kenm47

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 8:32:06 AM2/13/06
to
OK. "Good" it is, but so very important in many ways for what comes
later. Remember this show may have gaffes, but a major strength is that
stuff that happens has consequences of all different kinds, and
generally things are NOT forgotten.

The Kendra mystery: How did her parents know she was a potential Slayer
to hand her over at a young age to the CoW? Now I know you haven't seen
the movie, and that Joss insists the movie is not canon for the show,
but how come pre-calling Kendra's family knew? Who else knows?

This is all more mysterious than her accent.

" The threat wasn't that they
were invincible, just that they'd never stop coming. So they end up
being called off rather than defeated per se."

Well, actually Giles statement only comes to three although easy to
think he meant more. What he said was:

"Where there's one, there will be another, and
another. They won't stop coming until the job is done."

You seem to have a particular problem with Cordelia and now
Xander/Cordelia. Never bothered me all that much. Won't say more for
fear of spoilage. She is now very much part of the group. BTW, I
believe this is the first reference to "The Scoobies," the Buffy
support group. Ironic, ain't it?

Willy? This kind of bothered me. A "bar" where vampires hang out with a
human familiar? That was new. Willy is in Sunnydale and knows about
vamps, and even conspires with them. Hmmmm?

BTW, why was Angel so debilitated from his "sun cell" experience? He
never was touched by the sun's rays, so why so weak?

"Drusilla gets a chance to indulge in her love of cruelty and inaudible
dialogue (I
honestly couldn't hear most of her lines, and that was with the volume
way up)."

May I suggest go to language selection on the DVDs and pick Engklish
subtitles. They're not perfect, but they often help.

"As a fellow demon, shouldn't Dru sympathize with Angelus' motives more
than present-day Angel himself does? "

Well, we know the vampire demon has the human's memories, and have no
problem with inflicting harm on others, and Dru was nuts anyway
(apparently what the human condition is when turned carries over into
the vamp's existence), so why not torture Angel?

The rest of your questions there (and often elsewhere) would call for
spoilers, so I'll pass.

Other points: Oz genuinely likes Willow. Willow deserves to be liked.
He's cool and funny and loves her smile. No problem here.

Clairel is right. No comment about Dru pulling Spike out from under the
organ ruins and carrying him out? Very powerful moment there IMO. Still
insane? Well, you'll have to watch to know! BTW, all vamps, other than
Angel, would probably be insane in the sense of psychotic sociopaths.

One more ep and you'll have half of season 2 over with (for the first
time - someday you might want to come back and rewatch it all).

Ken (Brooklyn)

KenM47

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 9:03:33 AM2/13/06
to
vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:


IAWTP

Ken (Brooklyn)

EGK

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 9:48:40 AM2/13/06
to
On 12 Feb 2006 21:18:15 -0800, "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
wrote:

>Even when Buffy isn't dealing with OOLFN business, Xander and


>Cordelia are running from Worm Guy and trying to come up with a better
>plan that waiting for Buffy to save them. Unfortunately, they end up
>in a closet together for the single worst scene since the show's
>inception, as they end up making out after a bout of name-calling.
>Xander wasn't the only one who wanted to vomit afterwards. I'm
>guessing that there was some element of parody in it, between resorting
>to the über-convention of hostility leading to a kiss, the
>uncharacteristically bad acting from Nick Brendon, and the swelling
>musical score. Which of course raises an obvious question from viewer
>to show: why the fuck are you doing parody in the middle of a major
>episode, and why are you wasting your lead characters on a joke? (And
>if the parody was all unintentional, well, as Giles might say, the
>Buffyverse is doomed.)

Since parody was basically the spice of life to Buffy the Vampire Slayer,
this never bothered me at all. From reading your earlier reviews you seem
to dislike the Cordelia character quite a bit and Xander isn't far behind.
Do you think that might color your views of these scenes a bit?

At this time it's really a romance or even a relationship. It's hormones.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 10:02:57 AM2/13/06
to
In article <1139837526.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> to hand her over at a young age to the CoW?

That what? Not named at this stage.

KenM47

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 10:26:32 AM2/13/06
to
vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:

>In article <1139837526.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> to hand her over at a young age to the CoW?
>
>That what? Not named at this stage.


Sorry. Forget that. I stand corrected:

"Kendra: My parents, dey sent me to my Watcher when I
was very young.
Buffy: How young?
Kendra: I don’t remember dem, actually. I’ve seen pictures.
But, uh, dat’s how seriously de calling is taken
by my people. My modder and fadder gave me to my
Watcher because dey believed dat dey were doing de
right ting for me, and for de world."

So make that: "to hand her over at a young age to her Watcher."


Ken (Brooklyn)

EGK

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 10:34:57 AM2/13/06
to

Your accent sounds sooo phony when you try to do Kendra <G>

KenM47

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 10:38:15 AM2/13/06
to
EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:26:32 GMT, KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1139837526.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> to hand her over at a young age to the CoW?
>>>
>>>That what? Not named at this stage.
>>
>>
>>Sorry. Forget that. I stand corrected:
>>
>>"Kendra: My parents, dey sent me to my Watcher when I
>>was very young.
>>Buffy: How young?
>>Kendra: I don’t remember dem, actually. I’ve seen pictures.
>>But, uh, dat’s how seriously de calling is taken
>>by my people. My modder and fadder gave me to my
>>Watcher because dey believed dat dey were doing de
>>right ting for me, and for de world."
>>
>>So make that: "to hand her over at a young age to her Watcher."
>>
>>
>>Ken (Brooklyn)
>
>Your accent sounds sooo phony when you try to do Kendra <G>


Tink so?

LOL

Ken (Brooklyn)

Message has been deleted

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 11:00:46 AM2/13/06
to
In article <n591v1t5p251n5a9p...@4ax.com>,
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

My God! Are you from Montserrat?

Sam

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 1:26:30 PM2/13/06
to

Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> Even when Buffy isn't dealing with OOLFN business, Xander and
> Cordelia are running from Worm Guy and trying to come up with a better
> plan that waiting for Buffy to save them. Unfortunately, they end up
> in a closet together for the single worst scene since the show's
> inception, as they end up making out after a bout of name-calling.
> Xander wasn't the only one who wanted to vomit afterwards. I'm
> guessing that there was some element of parody in it, between resorting
> to the über-convention of hostility leading to a kiss, the
> uncharacteristically bad acting from Nick Brendon, and the swelling
> musical score. Which of course raises an obvious question from viewer
> to show: why the fuck are you doing parody in the middle of a major
> episode, and why are you wasting your lead characters on a joke? (And
> if the parody was all unintentional, well, as Giles might say, the
> Buffyverse is doomed.)

The parody is certainly intentional. Personally, I found those bits of
the episode hilarious. I think it was the swelling, melodramatic music
that did it for me.

As for why they'd throw something that light into a major episode...
well, I don't want to tell you my theory, but it may make more sense in
a little while.

> 1) So Drusilla bears a grudge against Angelus. Which would seem to
> make sense. Except that doesn't becoming a vampire remove every
> trace of the original soul? As a fellow demon, shouldn't Dru
> sympathize with Angelus' motives more than present-day Angel himself
> does?

The show makes a pretty strong distinction between the soul and the
mind. Someone asked Joss about it way back when, so I reckon it's fair
game for you to hear, since it was already circulating back when this
aired -- to Joss, the soul is basically just what provides a being's
moral compass. It's sort of an ambiguous, amorphous semi-quantification
of your conscience. When you become a vampire, the result is a demon
with none of your morality (and, in fact, an opposite desire to hurt
and kill) -- but in all other respects, an identical mind. Become a
vampire, and all your memories, emotions, and even your personality are
carried right over into the demon version of you. (Except the ones
changed by your suddenly being ok with eating people, obviously.)

So Drusilla still remembers loving her family. She might not have any
problem with murder in general, but she still remembers being
heartbroken when Angelus killed them.

Spike and Drusilla are, in many ways, Joss' way of addressing the very
complaint you've made a few times -- that vampires aren't complex
enough. He brings out something interesting with them: the idea that
demons
can be irredeemably evil, but still just as psychologically complex and
emotional and three dimensional as the human characters. Spike really
loves Drusilla. Drusilla misses her family. (Even though she'd have no
qualms about eating yours.)

> 2) Based on some of the NG posts, I guess I should ignore "School
> Hard" implying that Spike and Angel had a history together
> independent of the thing with Drusilla, possibly related to the
> "sire" thing? And I don't see why Spike would (apparently)
> welcome Angel as a friend (and Angel would buy it) if he was interested
> in letting Drusilla have her revenge.

It gets explained later.

However, the explanation is somewhat complicated by the fact that Joss
did change his mind about something midway through. So, without going
into too much detail: Yeah, Spike and Angel and Drusilla all have a
history together. The exact nature of that history is still very murky
at this point in the series, though.

> As in Part One, an interesting thing about these scenes, most obviously
> the one in which Angel tries to bait Spike into ruining the ritual, is
> that it shows Spike as being very much on the edge, liable to lose
> control at any time. In public situations he still looks flippant and
> uncaring ("I'm thinkin' maybe dinner and a movie. I don't want
> to rush into anything"), but it's a façade that's crumbling
> throughout the two-parter.

I think you'll like where they go with Spike from here on out. This is
really where he goes from being a fun stock villain to a fully realized
character.

--Sam

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 2:43:14 PM2/13/06
to
In article <1h16c3...@ID-256697.user.uni-berlin.de>,
shu...@gmail.com (Shuggie) wrote:

> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > The Order Of Turaka thing is still going on... actually, I'm going to
> > keep calling them the Order Of Long Fantasy Name, just because. They
> > reinsert themselves into the main story during a brief moment of
> > calm... in the scene leading up to Weapons Lady coming after Buffy I
> > was wondering "what's up with this? Why are we spending time
> > here?" Then it made sense. This episode's tone bounces around a
> > lot, so the viewer just has to try to keep up with the action, but
> > it's worth it. I was trying to decide whether I think that this
> > episode diminishes the OOLFN after making them so scary in Part One,
> > but now I think it's not a big deal. The threat wasn't that they
> > were invincible, just that they'd never stop coming. So they end up
> > being called off rather than defeated per se. Works for me.
>
> Whereas I found it a bit convenient.

My theory is that Spike didn't spring for the whole "We'll hunt her to
the ends of the Earth" package. He only paid for the much cheaper
"We'll send three assassins" deal.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 4:40:35 PM2/13/06
to
vague disclaimer wrote:

> Quite. Oz has grasped that Willow is cripplingly shy and that a head-on
> approach will cause her to run. Drop it in the middle of inconsequential
> musing and then move on before she has a chance to realise she was
> supposed to run away (as it were)....
>
> And of course he preceded it by emphasising how embarrassed *he* would
> be (yeah, right) at being thanked. He's a man on a mission.

Interesting. I think I was inclined to take Oz more on his word that
he doesn't handle the intense stuff well. So he finds ways to say all
his I-like-you stuff in an ironic way, or quickly changes the subject
afterward. Maybe (like Willow) I didn't pick up that it's all a
calculated strategy to get her...

It's a fun scene either way.

-AOQ

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 4:56:48 PM2/13/06
to
Shuggie wrote:

> [Re: The Scene That Should Not Be]


>
> Aww where's your sense of romance?

Needs more Willow.

> OK, when I first saw season 2 I was hoping Willow and Xander would get
> together, so when I saw this scene I was annoyed because of that. Also I
> think the big-fight-leading-to-"I hate you"-and-then-they-kiss is really
> hard to pull off well and here they don't.

Totally agreed with the second sentance.

EGK asked whether my hatred for Cordelia (I like Xander pretty well,
he's just written inconsistently) influenced my opinion. Well, it's
true that I don't like Cordelia, and it's true that I don't like the
idea of she and Xander as a couple (their hostility is a lot easier to
buy as actual animosity than it is as hidden attraction). But even
putting aside all of the long-term questions, TSTSNB itself is painful
to watch. For all the wrong reasons, it'll be my first entry on the
list of BTVS moments that I'll always have to FF through.

> Someone pitched the line "two Slayers, no waiting" to Joss and he loved
> it so much that he built the plot of WML2 to allow it to happen. The
> 'big noisy fight' is ok. However it was ruined for me by the commentary
> which pointed out that although there's lots going on in the church,
> they only ever really show you people fighting in little groups so as to
> break it up into shots that are doable on a TV budget. Now every time I
> watch it that's all I notice.

The little groups make it kinda intimate, though; a few people fighting
really hard. It allows for moments like "okay, switch."

-AOQ

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 4:59:25 PM2/13/06
to

Clairel wrote:
> I just remembered something that seemed lacking in your review, AOQ:
> didn't the final scene, with the Big Reveal that Spike and Drusilla
> survived the buildng's collapse and the fire after all, and that
> Drusilla has her full strength back, strike you strongly? You say
> nothng about it. Wasn't that a fantastic final scene, though, with Dru
> hauling the limp and unconscious Spike out of the rubble and talking
> about all that she now is capable of? Didn't it leave you just
> drooling with eagerness for future developments?

I mentioned it in passing and made a brief comment on it, in a manner
suggesting that I found it intriguing.

So, I'm not struck strongly, but I'm intrigued. The actor did a lot
with one line to suggest that Drusilla will be a lot different now.

-AOQ

Rowan Hawthorn

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 5:13:15 PM2/13/06
to

I wouldn't exactly say it's a "calculated strategy," per se, but yeah,
he got a handle pretty quickly on how Willow's emotional buttons work.
(Well, he thought he did, until she shows up with shackles and a
cat-o'nine-tails on his birthday...<eg>)

--
Rowan Hawthorn

"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 5:07:18 PM2/13/06
to
In article <1139866835.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

Heh. I wouldn't say calculated, just on a mission - and improvising
well, I'd say.

William George Ferguson

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 5:28:32 PM2/13/06
to
On 13 Feb 2006 05:32:06 -0800, "kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>OK. "Good" it is, but so very important in many ways for what comes
>later. Remember this show may have gaffes, but a major strength is that
> stuff that happens has consequences of all different kinds, and
>generally things are NOT forgotten.
>
>The Kendra mystery: How did her parents know she was a potential Slayer
>to hand her over at a young age to the CoW?

I think Don Sample was the first one on the newsgroup back in 97 to come
up with the obvious explanation. They didn't. We have only Kendra's
explanation that her parents handed her over to the Watchers because they
were so gung ho on her Slayer destiny, and that is clearly second-hand
knowledge, something that Kendra has been told by her Watcher, since she
can't even remember her parents ("But I've seen pictures"). The Watchers
are maybe not the sweetest most loveable group of people on earth.


--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little

KenM47

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 6:02:35 PM2/13/06
to

Thanks

Ken (Brooklyn)

MBangel10 (Melissa)

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 7:10:51 PM2/13/06
to
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 10: "What's My Line (Part Two)"
> (or "And then there were two")
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: David Semel
>
>
> There's no "previously on BTVS..." (at least not on the DVDs).
> It's straight onto the hot Slayer-on-Slayer action. They quickly
> decide to figure out what's going on, and let the viewer do the same.

Part of me wishes they would have added them to the DVD's.


>
>
> I hadn't figured the explanation for Kendra's presence would be so
> simple. The idea that Buffy's short-lived death ("just a
> little") led to the choosing of a new Slayer is one of those things
> that I didn't see coming at all, but made perfect sense once it was
> revealed. From there, a good portion of WML2 has the two characters
> playing off each other and exploring their contrasting approaches to
> Slaying. Despite Kendra's bizarre intermittent accent (or perfect
> Montserratian one, as the case may be), I quite enjoyed these
> exchanges. Buffy gets to feel that she's clearly in the right about
> certain things (having friends and a life), whereas other issues are a
> bit harder to explain (being behind on some of the Slayer book-smarts
> or dating a famous mass murderer). Throughout it all, Buffy maintains
> a tone of light sarcasm - enough to offset Kendra's constant
> earnestness but not enough to break the tone of the episode. She's
> landing on her feet when faced with a weird situation. Besides the
> quotables ("you just gonna attack people randomly until you find a
> bad one?"), there's also her imitation of Kendra and Giles laughing
> over books. Anyway, it's fun to watch. So are the parts where we
> see that she has a sense of humor too, however muted ("did anyone
> explain to you what 'secret identity' means?").

My favorite exchange between Buffy and Kendra was the moment in Giles
office. When Buffy ticks Kendra off. That was entertaining.
>
<snip>
>

This simply cracks me up. From the moment you mentioned the hallway
scene in SAR, I knew you were going to despise this scene. All of your
LJ readers couldn't wait to see how much you were going to rant about
it. Fun stuff. You did not disappoint. hehe

I would link to them but some are quite spoiler heavy and I don't want
to ruin anything for you. :)


>
> Moving on. Thanks to Willy's ability to make a deal, Angel ends up
> in the hands of Spike and Drusilla, where our plots tie neatly together
> when he turns out to be the key to their ritual. Drusilla gets a
> chance to indulge in her love of cruelty and inaudible dialogue (I
> honestly couldn't hear most of her lines, and that was with the
> volume way up). I'm quite confused about a few things here, so
> please explain (or say "it gets explained eventually, don't
> worry"):

(dialogue snagged from buffyworld.com)

Drusilla's room. She runs her hand across the lid of an elegant wooden
box labeled 'Holy Water'. She sings quietly as she lifts the lid and
takes out a small crystal pitcher.

Drusilla: The lamb is caught in the blackberry patch. (approaches
Angel) My mummy ate lemons. Raw.

She kneels next to him. Angel is tied to the posts of her canopy bed by
both wrists high above his head.

Drusilla: She said she loved the way they made her mouth... (runs her
hand down and up his chest) tingle. Little Anne.

She lets some of the holy water trickle onto his chest. It steams and
burns like acid. Angel jerks his head back in pain and stifles a scream.

Drusilla: Her favorite was custard... brandied pears.

Angel: Dru...

Drusilla: (sternly) Shhh! (stands up) And pomegranates. (climbs onto
the bed behind Angel) They used to make her face and fingers aaall red.

She reaches over his shoulder and lets more holy water dribble onto his
chest. Again Angel grits his teeth in pain, but won't let himself scream
out loud.

Drusilla: Remember? Hmm? Little fingers. Little hands. Do you?

Angel: (shivering in pain) If I could...

Drusilla: (interrupts angrily) Bite your tongue! They used to eat cake,
and eggs, and honey. (sweetly) Until you came and ripped their throats
out.

She pours the rest of the holy water onto his chest, and Angel screams
out loud in agony.


<snip>
>

>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Mostly quite good, weighed down a bit by a
> certain pair of scenes...

Even with the Cordy/Xander moment, I give this one an 'Excellent'. Then
again, I thought that moment was particularly funny. Ah, well...

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 7:19:53 PM2/13/06
to
In article <x4idnaEwt_i...@comcast.com>,
"MBangel10 (Melissa)" <mban...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >
> > There's no "previously on BTVS..." (at least not on the DVDs).
> > It's straight onto the hot Slayer-on-Slayer action. They quickly
> > decide to figure out what's going on, and let the viewer do the same.
>
> Part of me wishes they would have added them to the DVD's.
> >

In the UK they did - but only from S3 onwards.

MBangel10 (Melissa)

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 7:24:26 PM2/13/06
to

I tell ya, the UK always gets all the good Buffy stuff...

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 7:37:28 PM2/13/06
to
In article <2tCdnWiy4YP...@comcast.com>,
"MBangel10 (Melissa)" <mban...@comcast.net> wrote:

N znwbe orarsvg orvat gur bcra perqvgf bs Gur Tvsg orvat vagnpg.

MBangel10 (Melissa)

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 7:51:42 PM2/13/06
to
vague disclaimer wrote:
> In article <2tCdnWiy4YP...@comcast.com>,
> "MBangel10 (Melissa)" <mban...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> vague disclaimer wrote:
>>> In article <x4idnaEwt_i...@comcast.com>,
>>> "MBangel10 (Melissa)" <mban...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There's no "previously on BTVS..." (at least not on the DVDs).
>>>>> It's straight onto the hot Slayer-on-Slayer action. They quickly
>>>>> decide to figure out what's going on, and let the viewer do the same.
>>>> Part of me wishes they would have added them to the DVD's.
>>> In the UK they did - but only from S3 onwards.
>> I tell ya, the UK always gets all the good Buffy stuff...
>
> N znwbe orarsvg orvat gur bcra perqvgf bs Gur Tvsg orvat vagnpg.

At least we got that as an extra. :)

Rowan Hawthorn

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 9:30:14 PM2/13/06
to
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> Shuggie wrote:
>
>
>>[Re: The Scene That Should Not Be]
>>
>>Aww where's your sense of romance?
>
>
> Needs more Willow.
>

Yes!!

David Empey

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 9:14:43 PM2/13/06
to
"Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in news:1139809793.262525.35420
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I liked this episode better than you did, but that's because I actually
> enjoy Sam-and-Diane style sparkage to a certain extent. The episode
> doesn't lose points with me just because Xander and Cordelia did their
> Sam-and-Diane thing.
>
>

I can't speak for AoQ, of course, but *my* objection to those scenes
stems not from the Sam-and-Diane-sparkage but from the fact that I
found the acting completely and egregiously unconvincing. And the
writing was sub-par, too, imho.

(Or is "unconvincing" to be expected in "Sam-and-Diane-sparkage"?
I never watched much *Cheers*.)

--
Dave Empey

"This can be easily fixed by taking 17 levels of Ranger."
--Nockermensch

David Empey

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 9:22:01 PM2/13/06
to
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in news:dsample-
E14148.144...@news.giganews.com:

Or maybe the OoT stopped sending assassins after the check bounced?

KenM47

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 9:41:14 PM2/13/06
to
David Empey <dem...@cruzio.com> wrote:

>"Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in news:1139809793.262525.35420
>@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I liked this episode better than you did, but that's because I actually
>> enjoy Sam-and-Diane style sparkage to a certain extent. The episode
>> doesn't lose points with me just because Xander and Cordelia did their
>> Sam-and-Diane thing.
>>
>>
>
>I can't speak for AoQ, of course, but *my* objection to those scenes
>stems not from the Sam-and-Diane-sparkage but from the fact that I
>found the acting completely and egregiously unconvincing. And the
>writing was sub-par, too, imho.
>
>(Or is "unconvincing" to be expected in "Sam-and-Diane-sparkage"?
>I never watched much *Cheers*.)


I can't recall how I felt about it in 1997. I do recall thinking
Charisma was looking a lot better, IMO, in those episodes. The bangs
helped.

Now, I just see it in itself as a joke portrayal of just high school
hormonic goofiness. If anything it was kind of prophetic to the tales
of today's high school kids (middle and upper middle if not lower
rich) having f*** buddies rather than steadies.

I just don't know.

Ken (Brooklyn)

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 10:13:29 PM2/13/06
to
In article <Xns9769BAD533CA...@129.250.170.84>,
David Empey <dem...@cruzio.com> wrote:

I really don't think that they're the sort of people that you want to
kite a cheque to.

Mike Zeares

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 12:31:51 AM2/14/06
to

Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:

Which of course raises an obvious question from viewer
> to show: why the fuck are you doing parody in the middle of a major
> episode, and why are you wasting your lead characters on a joke?

I think this was part of the show not taking itself too seriously.
YMMV.

> As far as we reviewers are concerned, scenes this atrocious are an
> excuse to steal other people's word patterns and hyperbolically vent,
> so here goes... I won't refer to the closet scene as "atrocious"
> anymore, since that would be unfair to all the atrocious scenes in
> television history that look like _Casablanca_ next to this festering
> boil on the ass of the series. It supports my conviction that
> there's no divine justice, because such a thing would have mandated a
> steel-toed kick to the testicles and/or ovaries of everyone in any way
> involved with the creation of that abomination. (And before anyone
> asks, no, I will not "tell you how I really feel."). Just in terms
> of the little AOQ ratings, let me say that I might've let it slide
> had it been left at that. Instead, the episode loses any chance at
> "Excellent" for the fact that it saw fit to show us that scene
> _twice_. You gotta take a stand sometime.

That was beautiful. The dramatic irony in your reviews leading up to
this has been nearly unbearable, ever since you mentioned that the show
had better not get these two together. Well, HA!

I think my reaction to those scenes back in the day was mostly an
eye-rolling "Oh, please." Actually, that's still my reaction.

Jeff Jacoby

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 1:08:22 AM2/14/06
to
On 13 Feb 2006 21:31:51 -0800, Mike <mze...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> Which of course raises an obvious question from viewer
>> to show: why the fuck are you doing parody in the middle of a major
>> episode, and why are you wasting your lead characters on a joke?
>
> I think this was part of the show not taking itself too seriously.
> YMMV.

Which for me, has always been a *big* part of its appeal.

Jeff

KenM47

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 6:15:27 AM2/14/06
to
Jeff Jacoby <jjaco...@yahoo.com> wrote:


ROT13

Hagvy nobhg Gur Obql jura, bs pbhefr, vg fgnegrq gb, naq juvpu vg qvq
guebhtu frnfbaf 6 naq 7

Ken (Brooklyn)

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 7:20:08 AM2/14/06
to
In article <oqe3v1515os12sbku...@4ax.com>,
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Erfrzoyvat fghpx erpbeq abj (vf gung n fvzvyvr gung rira fyvtugyl jbexf
gurfr qnlf?). Yrg vg tb hagvy n zber nccebcevngr gvzr (yvxr jura NbD
trgf gurer).

kenm47

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 7:52:07 AM2/14/06
to

V'yy gel gb nibvq gur cebibpngvbaf. Jura NBD trgf gurer, vs ur trgf
gurer, V qb abg rkcrpg gb or cbfgvat.

Ken (Brooklyn)

Clairel

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 3:43:31 PM2/14/06
to

David Empey wrote:
> "Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in news:1139809793.262525.35420
> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I liked this episode better than you did, but that's because I actually
> > enjoy Sam-and-Diane style sparkage to a certain extent. The episode
> > doesn't lose points with me just because Xander and Cordelia did their
> > Sam-and-Diane thing.
> >
> >
>
> I can't speak for AoQ, of course, but *my* objection to those scenes
> stems not from the Sam-and-Diane-sparkage but from the fact that I
> found the acting completely and egregiously unconvincing. And the
> writing was sub-par, too, imho.
>
> (Or is "unconvincing" to be expected in "Sam-and-Diane-sparkage"?
> I never watched much *Cheers*.)

--Shelley Long and Ted Danson made me believe in it. (And I thought
Charisma Carpenter and Nick Brendon were convincing enough in WML, too.
I don't have a problem with the level of acting quality in that
scene.)

I don't obsess over old "Cheers" episodes, but the angry kissing one is
probably my favorite, except for the hilarious one about the Woody
Harrelson character and his fiancee belonging to different Lutheran
synods. THAT was priceless.

Clairel

David Empey

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 6:43:21 PM2/14/06
to
"Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in
news:1139949811....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
> David Empey wrote:
>>

[re: Cordelia and Xander's first kiss:]

>> I can't speak for AoQ, of course, but *my* objection to those scenes
>> stems not from the Sam-and-Diane-sparkage but from the fact that I
>> found the acting completely and egregiously unconvincing. And the
>> writing was sub-par, too, imho.
>>
>> (Or is "unconvincing" to be expected in "Sam-and-Diane-sparkage"?
>> I never watched much *Cheers*.)
>
> --Shelley Long and Ted Danson made me believe in it. (And I thought
> Charisma Carpenter and Nick Brendon were convincing enough in WML,
> too.
> I don't have a problem with the level of acting quality in that
> scene.)

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I don't think the story is all that implausible, especially as ISTR
that in previous episodes Xander and Cordelia several times went out
of their way to speak to each other (insult each other, that is. Like
Willow said, when a boy likes a girl, he hits her on the arm and
runs away. Although that technique never worked very well at
getting the girls to like me.)

But that particular scene doesn't work for me.

>
> I don't obsess over old "Cheers" episodes, but the angry kissing one
> is probably my favorite, except for the hilarious one about the Woody
> Harrelson character and his fiancee belonging to different Lutheran
> synods. THAT was priceless.

Guess I'll have to look those up sometime. Harrelson's character was
in general quite funny, as I recall; funnier than the guy he replaced,
imho.

Terry

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 1:54:33 PM2/15/06
to
"Eric Hunter" <hunt...@comcast.invalid> wrote in news:8r6dnRGKRcS1823eRVn-
g...@comcast.com:


> --> Oz: You have the sweetest smile I've ever seen. <--

That line, and its delivery, makes me melt Every. Single. Time.

It's just honest and sweet and not confrontational. Note to guys: Girls dig
that line.

Terry

James Craine

unread,
May 20, 2006, 8:56:45 PM5/20/06
to

Sam wrote:

> Spike and Drusilla are, in many ways, Joss' way of addressing the very
> complaint you've made a few times -- that vampires aren't complex
> enough. He does something interesting with them, and it's a theme that
> will be carried through the rest of the series: the idea that demons
> can be irredeemably evil, but still just as psychologically complex and
> emotional and three dimensional as the human characters. Spike really
> loves Drusilla. Drusilla misses her family. (Even though she'd have no
> qualms about eating yours.)

But she wouldn't have any qualms about eating hers either.
Angelus fed on his sister and mother, and he cared for them.

ajs...@aol.com

unread,
May 21, 2006, 12:59:15 AM5/21/06
to
"But she wouldn't have any qualms about eating hers either.
Angelus fed on his sister and mother, and he cared for them."

I'm not so sure that Liam didn't resent his other family members as
well. They didn't seem to buffer Liam from his father for example.

Look at Penn, I don't think he was killing his family over and over
again out of indifference.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages