Gratuitous sex scenes damage the series
Ed Cannon
since the first episode, seeing how wildly things can vary and
what sidetracks the characters follow, and I cannot think of any
way that depicting sexual intercourse does anything but degrade
the characters and the series. The show could communicate the
same point, that whoever and whoever are having gratuitous sex,
without gratuitously depicting them in action. It is a real
shame the producers are stooping so low, and it makes me fear
that they have run out of good ideas.
Ed Cannon - donotspa...@mail.utexas.edu - Austin, Texas, USA
David M. Sueme
donotspa...@mail.utexas.edu (Ed Cannon) wrote:
>The gratuitous sex scenes damage the series. I've been watching
>since the first episode, seeing how wildly things can vary and
>what sidetracks the characters follow, and I cannot think of any
>way that depicting sexual intercourse does anything but degrade
>the characters and the series.
And the Buffy "camera" is increasingly fascinated with Michelle
Trachtenberg's breasts. BtVS - kiddy porn.
Marti and Janie. Feminists. Pornographers. Hypocrites. Scum.
And worst of all, utterly uninspired. Between the two of them they
could bore a Snap-On half-inch socket driver extention limp.
Dave
Usenet threads are more like rats than snakes. There is no head to chop off - it's when you stop feeding it garbage that it dies.
Mrs. Poet
>From: donotspa...@mail.utexas.edu (Ed Cannon)
>Date: 1/31/02 9:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <a3d84d$rmn$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
>
>The gratuitous sex scenes damage the series. I've been watching
>since the first episode, seeing how wildly things can vary and
>what sidetracks the characters follow, and I cannot think of any
>way that depicting sexual intercourse does anything but degrade
>the characters and the series.
I think there are lots of ways they could depict sexual intercourse that
doesn't degrade the characters or the series. Unfortunately, depicting sex
scenes effectively is not their strong suit. The only sex scene they ever did
that I liked was Buffy and Angel in Innocence.
They could have shown Spike and Buffy in the alley without depicting Spike's
undulating hindquarters, for example. Showing them grab each other and get
going, then focusing on their faces to communicate whatever the show wanted to
about their state of mind at the time would have been far more tasteful and,
imo, effective.
And yeah... I'm not ashamed of the fact that I'd like sex scenes to be
tasteful. Done wrong, they're about as entertaining to watch as people in the
act of taking a crap. There is nothing morally wrong with taking a crap, and
it can be a satisfying experience especially if you need to go real bad, but
that doesn't mean I want to see people do it.
Depicting enough of the act to communicate the emotions of the characters is
enough. Showing functional gyrations just because you can get away with it is
juvenile and not entertaining (to me). Like they said on Seinfeld, there's
good naked (nude girl brushing her hair) and bad naked nude (girl opening a jar
of pickles). Same with sex scenes.
Rose
"But once he got the chip, he started to develop scruples, against his will."
Marti Noxon
"No boogie man. Boogie *lady.*" -- Rose Red
hlk
wrote:
> You're still thinking that sex between Buffy and Spike is supposed to be a
> good thing. It's not. Of course they're going to depict it in a way that
> degrades the characters; that's the *point*. Sleeping with a killer, even a
> killer who's in love with you, is a degrading experience and isn't healthy
> at all. Why in the world would they want to show an inherently degrading
> thing in any other way?
Yay, someone who gets it. Buffy is ashamed of her relationship with
Spike for a reason. It's *supposed* to be degrading to both of them.
EGK
Lots of people get that. It's drowned out by the people who want to see
Spike as a romantic anti-hero who can be swayed from his evil ways by the
love of a good woman. Even most of the people who want that to happen know
the story isn't going that way. They're just holding out hope it will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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)
BTR1701
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:12:45 +0000 (UTC),
> donotspa...@mail.utexas.edu (Ed Cannon) wrote:
>
> >The gratuitous sex scenes damage the series. I've been watching
> >since the first episode, seeing how wildly things can vary and
> >what sidetracks the characters follow, and I cannot think of any
> >way that depicting sexual intercourse does anything but degrade
> >the characters and the series.
>
> And the Buffy "camera" is increasingly fascinated with Michelle
> Trachtenberg's breasts. BtVS - kiddy porn.
>
> Marti and Janie. Feminists. Pornographers. Hypocrites. Scum.
Wow. Now they're pornographers too? Seems like someone doesn't know the
*actual* definition of pornography.
Mrs. Poet
>From: EGK e...@hotmail.com
>Date: 2/1/2002 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <rjll5uc4mu8d58s9g...@4ax.com>
>
>On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 17:34:41 GMT, hlk <h...@cv.orgasm> wrote:
>
>>On 1 Feb 2002 17:04:43 GMT, arro...@yellow.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> You're still thinking that sex between Buffy and Spike is supposed to be a
>>> good thing. It's not. Of course they're going to depict it in a way that
>>> degrades the characters; that's the *point*. Sleeping with a killer, even
>a
>>> killer who's in love with you, is a degrading experience and isn't healthy
>>> at all. Why in the world would they want to show an inherently degrading
>>> thing in any other way?
>>
>>Yay, someone who gets it. Buffy is ashamed of her relationship with
>>Spike for a reason. It's *supposed* to be degrading to both of them.
>
>Lots of people get that. It's drowned out by the people who want to see
>Spike as a romantic anti-hero
He *is* a romantic anti-hero. He's not a hero or a villain, he's a person of
largely bad character who sometimes does heroic things.
If you think you have to be a great guy to be a romantic anti-hero, read
Wuthering Heights, if you haven't already.
>who can be swayed from his evil ways by the
>love of a good woman.
This isn't what I think, for what it's worth.
>Even most of the people who want that to >happen know
>the story isn't going that way.
*No* one knows which way the story is going. Even Joss Whedon could change his
mind over the summer from whatever he is planning right now to do for S7.
>They're just holding out hope it will.
You can't hope for something you know won't happen.
Anti-redemptionists hope Spike won't be redeemed, redemptionists hope he will.
What most of us have trouble tolerating is the fact that we don't know what is
going to happen. So we tell ourselves we are just certain things are going to
go our way, or we just know it's all going to go wrong and we'll have to quit
watching.
\>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>"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)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Rose
EGK
>>Subject: Re: Gratuitous sex scenes damage the series
>>From: EGK e...@hotmail.com
>>Lots of people get that. It's drowned out by the people who want to see
>>Spike as a romantic anti-hero
>
>He *is* a romantic anti-hero. He's not a hero or a villain, he's a person of
>largely bad character who sometimes does heroic things.
Lots of us don't see him that way at all. I personally don't think he can
be seen as anything in particular until he's off his leash created by the
chip. He was more of a romantic anti-hero in lover's walk when he joined
with Buffy and Angel in fighting the vampires. He did good then too but
only in so far as he was forced to and it benefited himself.
>>who can be swayed from his evil ways by the
>>love of a good woman.
>
>This isn't what I think, for what it's worth.
>
>>Even most of the people who want that to >happen know
>>the story isn't going that way.
>
>*No* one knows which way the story is going. Even Joss Whedon could change his
>mind over the summer from whatever he is planning right now to do for S7.
Oh, you misunderstood me here. I was talking about the current sex scenes
that started this thread not the ultimate payoff that might occur. I meant
that even most of the people who are rooting for a Buffy and spike romantic
match realize these current scenes aren't that.
>>They're just holding out hope it will.
>
>You can't hope for something you know won't happen.
>
>Anti-redemptionists hope Spike won't be redeemed, redemptionists hope he will.
>What most of us have trouble tolerating is the fact that we don't know what is
>going to happen. So we tell ourselves we are just certain things are going to
>go our way, or we just know it's all going to go wrong and we'll have to quit
>watching.
What about those of us in the middle who don't really care if Spike is
redeemed or not? We just want the danged chip out of his head and creation
of a better plot point that gets him where they want him to go. Or maybe I
shouldn't say "we". Maybe it's just me who dislikes "Spike and Chip" so
damned much. I think a lot of my problem with this harkens to season 4's
introduction of the technobabble as a main plotpoint. I have an easier time
suspending disbelief in the supernatural aspects then i do the tech which I
think needs to at least be half-heartedly explained. It's also why I
dislike Warren and the nerds.
With earlier episodes like Ted, I could ignore it more easily because it was
a one-shot episode. This is one way I think the show has changed
tremendously. There used to be this parallel with the supernatural world
the show created and the real world that the characters also lived in. Now
even the real world of the Buffyverse is completely unrealistic.
Tante Joan
>What about those of us in the middle who don't really care if Spike is
>redeemed or not? We just want the danged chip out of his head and creation
>of a better plot point that gets him where they want him to go. Or maybe I
>shouldn't say "we". Maybe it's just me who dislikes "Spike and Chip" so
>damned much. I think a lot of my problem with this harkens to season 4's
>introduction of the technobabble as a main plotpoint. I have an easier time
>suspending disbelief in the supernatural aspects then i do the tech which I
>think needs to at least be half-heartedly explained. It's also why I
>dislike Warren and the nerds.
I wonder if there are any who, like me, have lost interest in the chip
issue pretty much entirely, now that Buffy is not protected against
Spikely violence? Truly, what he would or would not do were the chip
removed is not of paramount concern to me, because I'm interested in
Spike as he relates to Buffy, her family and friends, not humans in
general. Shocking, I know, but that girl in the alley was as much an
abstract concept to me as to Spike. Could he bite her? Would it
hurt? It would? OK, cross that off the list and move on. Period.
I like Spike. The show appeals to me more when he's in it, evil, good
or simply there.
TJ
Mrs. Poet
>
>What about those of us in the middle who don't really care if Spike is
>redeemed or not?
Then what I said doesn't apply to you. :)
Moi, I like the chip. It's Spike's eternal punishment for his past evil deeds,
his mark of Cain, if you will. He doesn't deserve to be able to defend himself
against humans. Having the chip is humbling and a constant reminder of what he
is capable of.
James
>
>Marti and Janie. Feminists. Pornographers. Hypocrites. Scum.
Jane writes the episodes. Unless she writes, "camera goes BAM on Dawn's
boobies!" in her script notes, why does she receive blame? Even if she's a
producer, I doubt she could stop that type of Baby Doll-ism all by herself.
>
>And worst of all, utterly uninspired. Between the two of them they
>could bore a Snap-On half-inch socket driver extention limp.
Jane has written some of the funniest episodes in the series history.
Unfortunately, she seems to be overextending herself this season.
James
>Sleeping with a killer, even a
>killer who's in love with you, is a degrading experience and isn't healthy
>at all. Why in the world would they want to show an inherently degrading
>thing in any other way?
Angel was a killer, and his sex with Buffy was shot as a thing of beauty
(although the aftermath wasn't).
On "Angel", Angel's sex with Darla actually *caused* him to have that big
epiphany and make so-called positive changes in his life (it also ruined Angel
as a character, but S2 did a lot of that).
So apparently it's only sex with a killer named Spike that is degrading.
him...@nospam.com
>
>I wonder if there are any who, like me, have lost interest in the chip
>issue pretty much entirely, now that Buffy is not protected against
>Spikely violence? Truly, what he would or would not do were the chip
>removed is not of paramount concern to me, because I'm interested in
>Spike as he relates to Buffy, her family and friends, not humans in
>general.
Well, to each their own, but I think you're missing a major source of Spikely
enjoyment here. No, not applying impossible moral standards to a wholey
mythical being as seems to be some people's only way of going beyond the
immediate relationships. But Spike's overall relationship to the world
around him. It's distinctly skewed and makes him the delightful character he
is. Also, how he treats that world is a factor in his relationships with
Buffy et al.
>I like Spike. The show appeals to me more when he's in it, evil, good
>or simply there.
Or better yet: good, evil, and simply there. His moral ambiguity is a welcome
change from the soul dissection and dogmatic pronouncements going on with
most of the other characters...not to mention many of the posters on this
board.
himiko
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
Tante Joan
>In article <uu2m5uc3jd4qtu50i...@4ax.com>, Tante Joan
><tant...@nettaxi.com> writes:
>>
>>I wonder if there are any who, like me, have lost interest in the chip
>>issue pretty much entirely, now that Buffy is not protected against
>>Spikely violence? Truly, what he would or would not do were the chip
>>removed is not of paramount concern to me, because I'm interested in
>>Spike as he relates to Buffy, her family and friends, not humans in
>>general.
>
>Well, to each their own, but I think you're missing a major source of Spikely
>enjoyment here. No, not applying impossible moral standards to a wholey
>mythical being as seems to be some people's only way of going beyond the
>immediate relationships. But Spike's overall relationship to the world
>around him. It's distinctly skewed and makes him the delightful character he
>is. Also, how he treats that world is a factor in his relationships with
>Buffy et al.
>
>>I like Spike. The show appeals to me more when he's in it, evil, good
>>or simply there.
>
>Or better yet: good, evil, and simply there. His moral ambiguity is a welcome
>change from the soul dissection and dogmatic pronouncements going on with
>most of the other characters...not to mention many of the posters on this
>board.
>
Well, upon reflection I think I'm closer to your view than true
indifference. I was just reacting to all the Spike-is-a-killer
business.
TJ
poldy
EGK <e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Yay, someone who gets it. Buffy is ashamed of her relationship with
> >Spike for a reason. It's *supposed* to be degrading to both of them.
>
> Lots of people get that. It's drowned out by the people who want to see
> Spike as a romantic anti-hero who can be swayed from his evil ways by the
> love of a good woman. Even most of the people who want that to happen know
> the story isn't going that way. They're just holding out hope it will.
>
The scene in Doublemeat Palace was different than the previous
depictions. Buffy seemed distracted, indifferent. But whether that had
to do with this Buffy-Spike arc or if she was preoccupied with the
weirdness of DP is not clear.
The previous scenes don't have to come across as negative. The one
where the house is crumbling around them could be described as
passionate, as her long-held resistance crumbles like the old building
around them. When she's invisible, she was playful with Spike, maybe
because she was messing with him as he tried to conceal her presence
from Zander.
DarkMagic
"Mrs. Poet" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
news:20020201031720...@mb-cj.aol.com...
> >Subject: Gratuitous sex scenes damage the series
> >From: donotspa...@mail.utexas.edu (Ed Cannon)
> >Date: 1/31/02 9:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <a3d84d$rmn$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
> >
>
>
> tasteful. Done wrong, they're about as entertaining to watch as people in
the
> act of taking a crap. There is nothing morally wrong with taking a crap,
and
> it can be a satisfying experience especially if you need to go real bad,
but
> that doesn't mean I want to see people do it.
Very, well said. And I couldn't agree more. I think the writer's
intentions are to make the sex scenes distasteful and Buffy's judgement
questionable. I think they've shown sufficient scenes to make that point.
The question is "Where do they go with this mess now?"
Shannon
>
him...@no-spam.com
<tant...@nettaxi.com> writes:
Yeah, those threads really kill the joy for me too...especially when I answer
them which really pisses me off. I try just not to read them but it's not
always clear which they are. And once I've opened them...well, there I am.
Rev. Cyohtee - O'kōhome Ehohatse
forth:
Just killfile Sueme like Breunning. I got tired of his rediculous crap
when he was trying to claim that sex with a 16 year old girl was
pedophilia and claimed that the Psychiatric definition of Pedophilia
was just hype and marketing crap by the Pshychiatric Community.
--
Cyo cyo...@ucan.foad.org
http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org
"Some of the colonists objected to having an anatomically correct android
running around without any clothes on" -- Juliana Soong (Inheritance)
silveragent
When Blucas left (for WHATEVER Reason) I can just imagine a writers
conference:
"Buffy NEEDS a Boyfriend character!"
"Who -- god knows whe've blown our casting budget!"
"I know -- lets have SPIKE be the boyfriend."
My main objections to Spike as boyfriend role are:
(1) It takes the cool edge off the character. Old Spike was FUNNY (His
anti Angel rant "Quickly! Away to the Angel-mobile!" is a classic) and
constantly tormented the characters once the chip was in (to Xander in
Hush "Oh Xander ... you don't really love me ..." [imitating Anya]).
With the boyfriend role that edge and nagging feeling that the
character was capable of ANYTHING (from undergoing torture to save
Dawn or the worst betrayal to ADAM) is now gone (for good sadly).
(2) Spike as boyfriend seems so "degrading" to the Buffy character
that it overly fascinates the writers and pushes other storylines and
characters off the screen.
EC, MT, NB are all ROCKING actors, just like Marsters, but you'd never
know it seeing most epis this season. I've re-watched some Season 5
tapes recently, and MY GOD!! EC and NB deliver the funny like no one
else; MT has got little gal bravery/pathos/brattiness down pat (it's
amazing how good her performances are for some one so young -- but
then Dushku was only one year older than MT is now when she debuted on
BtVS). Note -- at least the keep AH on the screen. But I don't like
her storyline either :<
(3) The boyfriend role (as a character) should be quiet, connective,
and reactive. This ain't a knock on JM -- the man can act period and
can do the "reacting" bit nearly as good as ASH. My big beef here is
that the Character of Spike is simply too LOUD and active; and
ultimately the show is all about BUFFY not her boyfriend. The
boyfriend role should just illustrate Buffy's character in a
reflective way and most definitely NOT be a central storyline. What
was cool about Riley (IMHO) was that he was challenged to deal with a
defacto "feminine" role (i.e. HE had to do the communicating and
relationship maintenance -- and did not handle it well). Buffy was
portrayed in that relationship as a classic "male" hero (sometimes
distant, un-communicative, hides "bad" news from friends and family).
This is a neat subversion of stereotypes and is exactly why Season 5
Buffy was SO COOL and my fave.
My fear here is there is no way to get that old cool Spike back, and
BtVS seems to be ... drifting dramatically this season with no solid
plan to draw the audience in some great adventure. Instead we get
sordid sex in an alley in a manner that just degrades a cherished
hero.
Oh Well, Cheers ALL.
ElfBard
> Wow. Now they're pornographers too? Seems like someone doesn't know the
> *actual* definition of pornography.
Yeah, pr0n's meant to be sexually exciting ;P
Mrs. Poet
>
>My fear here is there is no way to get that old cool Spike back, and
>BtVS seems to be ... drifting dramatically this season with no solid
>plan to draw the audience in some great >adventure.
I guess I'm the only who things even in undignified sex scenes, Spike is cooler
this season than when he was a cross between Dr. Smith and Eddie Haskell in S4.
Jeffdeham
> In article <rjll5uc4mu8d58s9g...@4ax.com>,
> EGK <e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >Yay, someone who gets it. Buffy is ashamed of her relationship with
> > >Spike for a reason. It's *supposed* to be degrading to both of them.
> The previous scenes don't have to come across as negative. The one
> where the house is crumbling around them could be described as
> passionate, as her long-held resistance crumbles like the old building
> around them. When she's invisible, she was playful with Spike, maybe
> because she was messing with him as he tried to conceal her presence
> from Zander.
I found those previous scenes to be sexy and erotic. Nicely done with
a little bit of humor thrown in.
The double meat sex scene looked like it was thrown in there as an
after thought. Oh yes we have to have that in there. Let's have them
do it out back. Not sexy or erotic at all.
In fact that whole double meat expisode was what I call a generic
Buffy at least for this season. Let's see, Buffy gets in a weird
place. People are disapearing and she finds body parts. Next is the
usual demon. Which of course dies in the end though Buffy didn't get
this one. Of course the generic Buffy/Spike sex scene is in there too.
Jeff
David M. Sueme
wrote:
>Wow. Now they're pornographers too? Seems like someone doesn't know the
>*actual* definition of pornography.
Exploitation of a minor's sexuality for commercial purposes?
Oh yeah - this is "Romeo and Juliet".
Tom Breton
> My own $0.02 --
>
> When Blucas left (for WHATEVER Reason) I can just imagine a writers
> conference:
>
> "Buffy NEEDS a Boyfriend character!"
> "Who -- god knows whe've blown our casting budget!"
> "I know -- lets have SPIKE be the boyfriend."
I suspect it was the opposite. They've been yearning to make
Buffy&Spike a couple since SB.
> My main objections to Spike as boyfriend role are:
>
> (1) It takes the cool edge off the character. Old Spike was FUNNY (His
> anti Angel rant "Quickly! Away to the Angel-mobile!" is a classic) and
> constantly tormented the characters once the chip was in (to Xander in
> Hush "Oh Xander ... you don't really love me ..." [imitating Anya]).
>
> With the boyfriend role that edge and nagging feeling that the
> character was capable of ANYTHING (from undergoing torture to save
> Dawn or the worst betrayal to ADAM) is now gone (for good sadly).
That's true. But it's been true since OOMM.
> (2) Spike as boyfriend seems so "degrading" to the Buffy character
> that it overly fascinates the writers and pushes other storylines and
> characters off the screen.
"Isn't that overfascination?" "No, it's just enuff fascination."
> EC, MT, NB are all ROCKING actors, just like Marsters, but you'd never
> know it seeing most epis this season. I've re-watched some Season 5
> tapes recently, and MY GOD!! EC and NB deliver the funny like no one
> else; MT has got little gal bravery/pathos/brattiness down pat (it's
> amazing how good her performances are for some one so young -- but
> then Dushku was only one year older than MT is now when she debuted on
> BtVS). Note -- at least the keep AH on the screen. But I don't like
> her storyline either :<
>
> (3) The boyfriend role (as a character) should be quiet, connective,
> and reactive.
IOW, arm-candy. Just what so many always complain about if a female
character shows any tendency towards. But we already got trophy Angel
and trophy Riley, not to mention Oz who barely even had lines.
Spike is exactly not that. Which IMO makes him far and away the best
boyfriend character for Buffy.
> My fear here is there is no way to get that old cool Spike back, and
> BtVS seems to be ... drifting dramatically this season with no solid
> plan to draw the audience in some great adventure.
Well, IMO S6 is doing well. Was doing *great* until "Wrecked" and
"Gone", but still doing well.
> Instead we get
> sordid sex in an alley in a manner that just degrades a cherished
> hero.
Then Spike&Buffy must've been doing something rite! }:)
--
Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
BTVS geek code, http://panix.com/~tehom/btvs-geek-code.html
1+ 2+++ 3- 4- 5- 6+++? W--- Bbot+++ F+ Dar++ J+? W&Moloch+++
B&S+++ XL+++ Cru--- Gav--- SR-! JM++ JW---- TM--- MN- DF--- JE+
Laz
>>arro...@yellow.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Sleeping with a killer, even a
>>killer who's in love with you, is a degrading experience and isn't healthy
>>at all. Why in the world would they want to show an inherently degrading
>>thing in any other way?
>
>Angel was a killer, and his sex with Buffy was shot as a thing of beauty
>(although the aftermath wasn't).
Angel wasn't a killer. Angelus was. If Buffy had had sex with him
while he was Angelus, then it would have been the same as having sex
with Spike is now. Spike showed just a few weeks ago that he's still
a killer, held in check only by the chip. And despite what several
people try to argue, Spike being restrained by the chip is not
remotely similar to Angel being "restrained" by a soul. It is more
like Angelus being restrained by handcuffs.
>So apparently it's only sex with a killer named Spike that is degrading.
Sex with Spike and sex with Angel are not comparable, for the above
reasons. Spike is evil. Angel is not. Buffy is the People's Warrior
Against Evil.
Yes, sex with Spike, as Spike is currently portrayed, is degrading to
the Buffy character. It comes very close to destroying the character,
in my opinion. Others (many others) agree.
If they just absolutely had to give all the Buffy/Spike shippers this
little hand job, then they should have put in a lot of effort toward
making Spike worthy of it *first*. The way they handled it, though,
makes me wonder if the female writers of the show actually resented
the virtue of the Buffy character and conspired to drag her down into
the gutter with them.
Hey, it's as good a theory as any.
--
"I remember one time? In band camp? I...I uh...I can't
remember my line!"
- Willow, in a bizarre alternate reality where she is
an actress known as Alyson Hannigan.
Laz
Sine
news:3c5c1909...@news.east.cox.net...
Right. That particular theory about the female writers is just about the
dumbest thing I've read on this ng.
Whether you choose to believe it or not, whether you choose to actually
follow where the show has led us or not, they have been moving Spike from
"black" to "gray" for a long time now. They've shown him to be very much in
love with Buffy, very protective of her and those she cares about. They
showed his devotion tested to the point of almost being tortured to death
but not giving up the information sought. His reasons for that were simple
and clear, he'd rather have died than contribute to Buffy losing Dawn and
the pain that would cause her. It was clear at the end of Intervention
that Buffy "got" that. It was clear by Weight of the World, that the
Scoobies "get" that. If you choose NOT to "get" that, it's your choice.
As for the current relationship between Buffy and Spike, that's Joss' way of
unsettling us, something he loves to do more than anything. Every other
show with two protagonists attracted to each other has taken a looooong time
examining the relationship (often till fans were so fed up they didn't even
care if the couple got together any more) before having the couple get
sexual. Joss is turning that formula on its ear by *slamming* us with the
sexual relationship long before the characters are actually ready to be a
couple, IF they're ever ready to be a couple. It's not pretty, but it's
real, and it has both of them reeling. Neither one ever thought it would
happen between them, but here they are, and now what?
Is Spike worthy of Buffy at this point? Hell no! He knows that better than
anyone, and he's grasping at anything he can to hold on to her, even the
illusion that she might have come back as a demon. Has he made a definitive
choice about not feeding on humans? Definitely not, as we saw in Smashed.
I'm not defending his actions, but I did see that scene as being about his
own identity questions. Is a vampire who doesn't feed on humans even a
vampire any more? The most telling element of that scene for me was his
total lack of joy or thrill at the prospect of feeding again. It was all
so matter of fact, as in "OK I'm an evil vampire, and evil vampires kill
people. I *can* do this again, so I *will* do this again, so here I go."
This is the same Spike who went totally nuts with enthusiasm when he found
out his chip didn't prevent him from killing demons in Doomed? I don't
think so.
His relationship with Buffy, Dawn and the Scoobies have changed him, in ways
even he doesn't fully understand yet. That change could continue toward
good, or not. That remains to be seen.
Buffy, on the other hand, is in a bad place, and she's hiding from the world
in her relationship with Spike. That's no good, and it certainly can't
last. In other words, they will both have to back up from each other at
some point and come to terms with who they are individually. Then they can
look at what, if anything, there might be in a relationship together.
That's the story ME are putting on the screen. You obviously don't like the
story. Fair enough. But from there to ascribing motives to the writers as
ridiculous as wanting to destroy the very characters they've created is just
... silly.
BTR1701
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 13:30:00 +0800, BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Wow. Now they're pornographers too? Seems like someone doesn't know the
> >*actual* definition of pornography.
>
> Exploitation of a minor's sexuality for commercial purposes?
>
> Oh yeah - this is "Romeo and Juliet".
Whether it's "Romeo and Juliet" or not you obviously *don't* know the
definition of pornography.
BTR1701
> Out of the ether BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> rose up and issued
> forth:
>
> >In article <3c5a4644$0$35574$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net>,
> >dsu...@core.com (David M. Sueme) wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:12:45 +0000 (UTC),
> >> donotspa...@mail.utexas.edu (Ed Cannon) wrote:
> >>
> >> >The gratuitous sex scenes damage the series. I've been watching
> >> >since the first episode, seeing how wildly things can vary and
> >> >what sidetracks the characters follow, and I cannot think of any
> >> >way that depicting sexual intercourse does anything but degrade
> >> >the characters and the series.
> >>
> >> And the Buffy "camera" is increasingly fascinated with Michelle
> >> Trachtenberg's breasts. BtVS - kiddy porn.
> >>
> >> Marti and Janie. Feminists. Pornographers. Hypocrites. Scum.
> >
> >Wow. Now they're pornographers too? Seems like someone doesn't know the
> >*actual* definition of pornography.
>
> Just killfile Sueme like Breunning. I got tired of his rediculous crap
> when he was trying to claim that sex with a 16 year old girl was
> pedophilia and claimed that the Psychiatric definition of Pedophilia
> was just hype and marketing crap by the Pshychiatric Community.
It's been amusing lately, watching him dress up his pedantic trashing of
Sarah Gellar in new and bizarre "theories" about the show's production.
Tom Breton
> On 01 Feb 2002 22:53:14 GMT, tvfan...@aol.comnospam (James) wrote:
>
> >>arro...@yellow.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Sleeping with a killer, even a
> >>killer who's in love with you, is a degrading experience and isn't healthy
> >>at all. Why in the world would they want to show an inherently degrading
> >>thing in any other way?
> >
> >Angel was a killer, and his sex with Buffy was shot as a thing of beauty
> >(although the aftermath wasn't).
>
> Angel wasn't a killer. Angelus was. If Buffy had had sex with him
> while he was Angelus, then it would have been the same as having sex
> with Spike is now.
> [Spike] is more
> like Angelus being restrained by handcuffs.
Let's not forget, Angelus was in Angel when he had sex with Buffy.
She did have sex with Angelus, just also with Angel at the same time.
rande...@aol.com
donotspa...@mail.utexas.edu (Ed Cannon) wrote:
>The gratuitous sex scenes damage the series. I've been watching
>since the first episode, seeing how wildly things can vary and
>what sidetracks the characters follow, and I cannot think of any
>way that depicting sexual intercourse does anything but degrade
>the characters and the series.
Why do Americans (some of them) believe that showing
graphic (gratuitous is always debatable) sex scenes
degrades characters?
-Rich
JVBGUY
>graphic (gratuitous is always debatable) sex scenes
>degrades characters?
>-Rich
>
I won't speak for all Americans, but I think it degrades these characters
because BTVS never needed explicit sex scenes before. Willow and Oz in a van,
a montage of Buffy and Angel in a bed, that was the kind of tasteful sex scenes
they used to have. Now we get Buffy and Spike grunting and boinking in an
alley, or Buffy giving invisible oral sex, and it just doesn't feel right to
me. It's pandering. When I watch the Sopranos, I don't want to see tasteful
sex montages, I want to see brutal, animal sex, because that is the style that
fits The Sopranos. But it is not the style that fits Buffy, or at least it
didn't used to be.
John B.
Laurel and Hardy Central (co-founder)
http://members.aol.com/lhcentral
Black and White Movies
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/black_and_white_movies
God Bless America
Nynorsk
Sine, I congratulate you. This is THE single most intelligent post I
have ever read on this newsgroup. It ought to be engraved in bronze
and prominently displayed somewhere (your part of the post, that is --
not the stuff you are replying to).
That sensitivity and discernment in viewers of a television series is
so rare is a sad thing. But you are a wonderful light in the
darkness. Thank you!
Nynorsk
> >Subject: Gratuitous sex scenes damage the series
> >From: donotspa...@mail.utexas.edu (Ed Cannon)
> >Date: 1/31/02 9:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <a3d84d$rmn$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
> >
> >since the first episode, seeing how wildly things can vary and
> >what sidetracks the characters follow, and I cannot think of any
> >way that depicting sexual intercourse does anything but degrade
> >the characters and the series.
>
> doesn't degrade the characters or the series. Unfortunately, depicting sex
> scenes effectively is not their strong suit. The only sex scene they ever did
> that I liked was Buffy and Angel in Innocence.
>
> They could have shown Spike and Buffy in the alley without depicting Spike's
> undulating hindquarters, for example. Showing them grab each other and get
> going, then focusing on their faces to communicate whatever the show wanted to
> about their state of mind at the time would have been far more tasteful and,
> imo, effective.
I looked carefully at the alley sex scene in DmP, and can verify that
Spike's hindquarters's, undulating or otherwise, made no appearance
on-camera. Something in the foreground -- a parked car or something
like that -- screened off the lower half of both Buffy's and Spike's
bodies. What you actually saw was Spike's back and head moving
rhythmically.
I do agree with you that it would have been nice to see Spike's face
and the expression on it. Was he closing his eyes in self-centered
ecstasy, or was he looking at Buffy, aware that she wasn't into it,
and concerned about that?
The most offensive thing about this scene for me was the look of
indifference on Buffy's face. I am offended at such lack of
appreciation from a girl who has an opportunity that thousands of
women on this side of the TV screen would kill to have! If there was
any chance that Spike could show an interest in my flabby middle-aged
self, I'd gladly jump through my TV screen into the Buffyverse and
work fast food forever, if I could be assured that Spike-shagging was
one of the perks on every break. :-)
Laz
>"Laz" <johnw...@deletethisword.cox.net> wrote in message
>news:3c5c1909...@news.east.cox.net...
>> Yes, sex with Spike, as Spike is currently portrayed, is degrading to
>> the Buffy character. It comes very close to destroying the character,
>> in my opinion. Others (many others) agree.
>>
>> If they just absolutely had to give all the Buffy/Spike shippers this
>> little hand job, then they should have put in a lot of effort toward
>> making Spike worthy of it *first*. The way they handled it, though,
>> makes me wonder if the female writers of the show actually resented
>> the virtue of the Buffy character and conspired to drag her down into
>> the gutter with them.
>>
>> Hey, it's as good a theory as any.
>>
>
>Right. That particular theory about the female writers is just about the
>dumbest thing I've read on this ng.
I'm guessing you haven't read some of the puns that get cross-posted
here.
>Whether you choose to believe it or not, whether you choose to actually
>follow where the show has led us or not, they have been moving Spike from
>"black" to "gray" for a long time now.
Not as long as all that. He spent, what, 127 years murdering whoever
he pleased? He took particular pleasure in murdering Slayers, right?
Someone once calculated that he has personally murdered more than
40,000 people, one at a time, assuming he only drinks from one per
night on average.
And now, 5 or 6 months ago, in Buffyverse time, he woke up in a sweat
from a nightmare that eventually led him to realize that he was
falling in love with Buffy.
Even if we only look at the time he's been on the show, he was still
purely evil for much longer than he's been partially good. He was
evil all of S2, all of S3, all of S4, and over half of S5. He's been
moving away from pure evil for less than half of S5 and less than half
of S6. That's not "a long time now" no matter how you look at it.
But that's not even relevant. If he's still evil, even if it's only
when he's pissed at Buffy, then it doesn't matter if he's been trying
to be a good boy for the last ten years. The fact that he hasn't made
it is the only thing that's relevant in his relationship with Buffy.
>They've shown him to be very much in
>love with Buffy, very protective of her and those she cares about. They
>showed his devotion tested to the point of almost being tortured to death
>but not giving up the information sought. His reasons for that were simple
>and clear, he'd rather have died than contribute to Buffy losing Dawn and
>the pain that would cause her. It was clear at the end of Intervention
>that Buffy "got" that. It was clear by Weight of the World, that the
>Scoobies "get" that. If you choose NOT to "get" that, it's your choice.
It's pretty hard not to get that. I didn't say anything that would
contradict any of that, since I agree with all of it.
>As for the current relationship between Buffy and Spike, that's Joss' way of
>unsettling us, something he loves to do more than anything. Every other
>show with two protagonists attracted to each other has taken a looooong time
>examining the relationship (often till fans were so fed up they didn't even
>care if the couple got together any more) before having the couple get
>sexual. Joss is turning that formula on its ear by *slamming* us with the
>sexual relationship long before the characters are actually ready to be a
>couple, IF they're ever ready to be a couple. It's not pretty, but it's
>real, and it has both of them reeling.
And if you choose to believe it's real, that's your choice. It seems
very unreal to me, very out of character for Buffy. Buffy is Joss'
creation, of course, and this is what he's decided to do with her, and
that's his choice.
I am perfectly free to think it's a bad choice, just as you are
obviously free to feel angered by someone who disagrees with his
choice.
>Neither one ever thought it would
>happen between them, but here they are, and now what?
>
>Is Spike worthy of Buffy at this point? Hell no! He knows that better than
>anyone, and he's grasping at anything he can to hold on to her, even the
>illusion that she might have come back as a demon. Has he made a definitive
>choice about not feeding on humans? Definitely not, as we saw in Smashed.
>I'm not defending his actions, but I did see that scene as being about his
>own identity questions. Is a vampire who doesn't feed on humans even a
>vampire any more? The most telling element of that scene for me was his
>total lack of joy or thrill at the prospect of feeding again. It was all
>so matter of fact, as in "OK I'm an evil vampire, and evil vampires kill
>people. I *can* do this again, so I *will* do this again, so here I go."
>This is the same Spike who went totally nuts with enthusiasm when he found
>out his chip didn't prevent him from killing demons in Doomed? I don't
>think so.
I agree. He is getting there. I've always enjoyed Spike, and he
moved me in his torture scene with Glory. Every since then, I've been
rooting for Spike to somehow find his way out of the dark.
He's getting there, but he's not there yet. And there's no guarantee
he'll ever get there and no indication as of yet that he even wants
to. The Buffy I came to know and love in S1-S5 would never have
jumped into the sack with a creature like that, no matter how hot his
tight little body looked.
I have nothing against Buffy/Spike. I just didn't want it to happen
while Spike was still evil. And if Spike is to remain evil, then I
didn't want it to happen at all. Why not? Because it destroys 5
years worth of character buildup.
>Buffy, on the other hand, is in a bad place, and she's hiding from the world
>in her relationship with Spike. That's no good, and it certainly can't
>last. In other words, they will both have to back up from each other at
>some point and come to terms with who they are individually. Then they can
>look at what, if anything, there might be in a relationship together.
>
>That's the story ME are putting on the screen. You obviously don't like the
>story. Fair enough. But from there to ascribing motives to the writers as
>ridiculous as wanting to destroy the very characters they've created is just
>... silly.
I have what might be bad news for you: I wasn't serious. In the
future, though, whenever I mention Spike, I promise to try to remember
to include smileys in strategic places for the benefit of the
humorless.
Mrs. Poet
>
>I am perfectly free to think it's a bad choice, just as you are
>obviously free to feel angered by someone who disagrees with his
>choice.
>
You don't think maybe Sine is angry about the derogatory comments made about
"hand jobs for S/B fans" and the female writers wanting to drag Buffy down into
the gutter?
Cyclone
"Violence good. Sex bad. Tree pretty."
But seriously, sometimes a more explicit depiction is called for; other
times, some restraint is the better thing. Same with violence: showing
Angelus graphically snap Jenny's neck, or the slow-motion massacre at the
end of "The Wish", were the correct way to do it, I think. On the flip
side, we didn't need to explictly see Adam eviscerate a small boy in the
woods, or see Glory massacre 20 Knights.
So far, I think they've maintained a good balance showing B/S. We've seen
enough that we have a pretty good idea of what's going on, which might be
difficult otherwise, seeing as Buffy has been unable to deal with their
relationship in any way other than sexually. But I don't think it's been as
graphic as some seem to think. This isn't HBO. We don't know exactly what
they did that Buffy found "perverse and degrading" between "Smashed" and
"Wrecked". We don't know precisely how Spike's crypt got trashed in "Gone".
We have a good idea, but it was left to our imagination.
EGK
>John wrote:
>
>>
>>I am perfectly free to think it's a bad choice, just as you are
>>obviously free to feel angered by someone who disagrees with his
>>choice.
>>
>
>You don't think maybe Sine is angry about the derogatory comments made about
>"hand jobs for S/B fans" and the female writers wanting to drag Buffy down into
>the gutter?
>
I agree she probably didn't take kindly to that comment. On the other hand,
Buffy certainly didn't mind Spike's handjobs which the writers went out of
their way to show. Whether that's dragging the show in to the gutter is up
to the individual viewers. You've mentioned that you didn't like the scenes
in the Alley of Spike just humping against her. Would you say that's
entering gutter (rather then alley) territory?
I don't know that there's any polite way to get those feelings across
without offending someone. Do you? I don't think you liked my choice of
the word "pandering" to describe some of those scenes for instance.
I'm personally more offended because I think the sex scenes are simply the
writers seeing what they can get away with. It offends me when I see what I
think is a badly written episode. I'd prefer they spent more time writing
good plots then sitting around discussing what new scene they're going to
write to test the censors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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)
silveragent
> > know it seeing most epis this season. I've re-watched some Season 5
> > tapes recently, and MY GOD!! EC and NB deliver the funny like no one
> > else; MT has got little gal bravery/pathos/brattiness down pat (it's
> > amazing how good her performances are for some one so young -- but
> > then Dushku was only one year older than MT is now when she debuted on
> > BtVS). Note -- at least the keep AH on the screen. But I don't like
> > her storyline either :<
> >
> > (3) The boyfriend role (as a character) should be quiet, connective,
> > and reactive.
>
> IOW, arm-candy. Just what so many always complain about if a female
> character shows any tendency towards. But we already got trophy Angel
> and trophy Riley, not to mention Oz who barely even had lines.
>
> Spike is exactly not that. Which IMO makes him far and away the best
> boyfriend character for Buffy.
Hmmm ... not sure I'd agree with you there given the amount of gals
posting about Spike.
Still, my main beef remains -- Spike as a character is LOUD, active,
and as unsubtle as a sledgehammer. With Spuffy ALL other storylines
get pushed off the screen as the show feels so much SMALLER than it
did every other season. Now with Giles gone especially the boyfriend
role should be "connective" to the other characters AND not be
anywhere close to Buffy in strength. That's definitely not Spike.
After all it's not the "Spike Show"
>
>
> > My fear here is there is no way to get that old cool Spike back, and
> > BtVS seems to be ... drifting dramatically this season with no solid
> > plan to draw the audience in some great adventure.
>
> Well, IMO S6 is doing well. Was doing *great* until "Wrecked" and
> "Gone", but still doing well.
>
> > Instead we get
> > sordid sex in an alley in a manner that just degrades a cherished
> > hero.
>
> Then Spike&Buffy must've been doing something rite! }:)
Yes, I suppose that's the point, idea being that Spuffy symbolizes all
that's wrong with current Buffy 2.0; perhaps Buffy 2.0 came back WRONG
b/c she's only slayer -- no human. The theme for this season seems to
be a struggle for maturity/humanity. My only beef is that when the
dust settles there will be no where for Spike to go if/when Buffy
regains her humanity.
I'd agree that individual Epis like Life Serial are cool; it seems the
show just lags out of energy whenever the trio are not around.
Cheers!
Ivytree
news:f78396ca.02020...@posting.google.com...snip
>
> The most offensive thing about this scene for me was the look of
> indifference on Buffy's face. I am offended at such lack of
> appreciation from a girl who has an opportunity that thousands of
> women on this side of the TV screen would kill to have! If there was
> any chance that Spike could show an interest in my flabby middle-aged
> self, I'd gladly jump through my TV screen into the Buffyverse and
> work fast food forever, if I could be assured that Spike-shagging was
> one of the perks on every break. :-)
>
For the record, when I saw that look on her face I just assumed she was
fantasizing they were together on a moonlit beach in Tahiti or something --
anywhere but there.
Isab...@webtv.net
<<Much fantastic, intelligent postage snipped>>
Sine, I love you, man. Word, on everything you said here--it's what I
think, but you're so much better at articulation.....
Isab...@webtv.net
the Buffy character. It comes very close to destroying the character, in
my opinion. Others (many others) agree.>>>
Many others disagree...hence, this newsgroup. :)
David M. Sueme
wrote:
>Whether it's "Romeo and Juliet" or not you obviously *don't* know the
>definition of pornography.
Enligten me, counsellor.
David M. Sueme
>Why do Americans (some of them) believe that showing
>graphic (gratuitous is always debatable) sex scenes
>degrades characters?
He said "gratuitous", not grapic. Debate him on his own terms or go
to AOL keyword "IRRELEVANT". You have no reason to believe that he
wouldn't endorse a "graphic" depiction of sexuality if it advanced a
story concept he found constructive.
Mrs. Poet
>From: EGK e...@hotmail.com
>Date: 2/2/02 6:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <k57p5ugdpm536ivr3...@4ax.com>
>
>On 03 Feb 2002 01:43:37 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (Mrs. Poet) wrote:
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I am perfectly free to think it's a bad choice, just as you are
>>>obviously free to feel angered by someone who disagrees with his
>>>choice.
>>>
>>
>>You don't think maybe Sine is angry about the derogatory comments made about
>>"hand jobs for S/B fans" and the female writers wanting to drag Buffy down
>into
>>the gutter?
>>
>
>I agree she probably didn't take kindly to that comment. On the other hand,
>Buffy certainly didn't mind Spike's handjobs which the writers went out of
>their way to show.
Buffy receiving a handjob from Spike is a far different matter from the fans
receiving handjobs from Whedon, Noxon, Fury, Espenson, DeKnight, Rebecca
whatshername and Greenberg.
> Whether that's dragging the show in to the gutter is up
>to the individual viewers. You've mentioned that you didn't like the scenes
>in the Alley of Spike just humping against her. Would you say that's
>entering gutter (rather then alley) territory?
I don't want to make judgments about the intentions of the poster in question
because I don't know what he was thinking when he typed it. It came off to me
as a bit genderist, but I am probably oversensitive.
I think BtVS has crossed the line of good taste this season and I've said or
implied it many times. However, I don't blame "the female writers" for this.
There are men on the writing staff too. One of them included a scene in his
script of Spike preparing a bed for himself and Buffy complete with handcuffs
and stun gun. If the stun gun business ain't in the gutter, I don't know what
is. Thank goodness it was excised from the script.
>I don't know that there's any polite way to get those feelings across
>without offending someone. Do you? I don't think you liked my choice of
>the word "pandering" to describe some of those scenes for instance.
>
>I'm personally more offended because I think the sex scenes are simply the
>writers seeing what they can get away with.
Noxon admitted this. I don't find that offensive so much as juvenile and
therefore sad. Writers in their thirties ought to have grown out of going for
shock value just cuz they can.
James
>Angel wasn't a killer. Angelus was. If Buffy had had sex with him
>while he was Angelus, then it would have been the same as having sex
>with Spike is now. Spike showed just a few weeks ago that he's still
>a killer, held in check only by the chip.
As Angel proved when he locked that wine cellar and never looked back.
>
>Sex with Spike and sex with Angel are not comparable, for the above
>reasons. Spike is evil. Angel is not. Buffy is the People's Warrior
>Against Evil.
I don't believe that Angel doesn't have his evil moments. He had a big one last
season, no matter how much it was glossed over at the end of that story arc.
>
>If they just absolutely had to give all the Buffy/Spike shippers this
>little hand job, then they should have put in a lot of effort toward
>making Spike worthy of it *first*. The way they handled it, though,
>makes me wonder if the female writers of the show actually resented
>the virtue of the Buffy character and conspired to drag her down into
>the gutter with them.
>
I think the Parker/Riley relationships were far more degrading and disgusting,
as they made Buffy at various times look like a moron with no self-esteem, a
pushover, and a bitchy, selfish fool unable to appreciate Real Love. At least
with B/S they have established that she knows she may be making a mistake.
EGK
>Buffy receiving a handjob from Spike is a far different matter from the fans
>receiving handjobs from Whedon, Noxon, Fury, Espenson, DeKnight, Rebecca
>whatshername and Greenberg.
Buffy's handjob from Spike could be seen as a metaphor for the ones the
writers are giving the fans I suppose. Kidding but only half. I changed
the subject because i was curious what your limits are as to what you see on
screen.
>> Whether that's dragging the show in to the gutter is up
>>to the individual viewers. You've mentioned that you didn't like the scenes
>>in the Alley of Spike just humping against her. Would you say that's
>>entering gutter (rather then alley) territory?
>
>I don't want to make judgments about the intentions of the poster in question
>because I don't know what he was thinking when he typed it. It came off to me
>as a bit genderist, but I am probably oversensitive.
Oh, I agree with you completely if it was a gender thing. I don't think the
female writers are doing anything that the males aren't also.
>I think BtVS has crossed the line of good taste this season and I've said or
>implied it many times. However, I don't blame "the female writers" for this.
>There are men on the writing staff too. One of them included a scene in his
>script of Spike preparing a bed for himself and Buffy complete with handcuffs
>and stun gun. If the stun gun business ain't in the gutter, I don't know what
>is. Thank goodness it was excised from the script.
May I ask where you saw that? Is it in the working script for an episode?
It would be interesting to know what things may not have passed the UPN
censors.
>>I don't know that there's any polite way to get those feelings across
>>without offending someone. Do you? I don't think you liked my choice of
>>the word "pandering" to describe some of those scenes for instance.
>>
>>I'm personally more offended because I think the sex scenes are simply the
>>writers seeing what they can get away with.
>
>Noxon admitted this. I don't find that offensive so much as juvenile and
>therefore sad. Writers in their thirties ought to have grown out of going for
>shock value just cuz they can.
I saw that about Noxon but she kind of poo-pooed it as if it was
inconsequential. I think it's been a real problem.
I didn't mean offensive as in disgusted or morally offensive. Insulting
would probably be a better word for how i feel. I'm insulted when I think
someone is pandering whether it's to me or anyone else. The Willow drug
metaphor is the same way. Sometimes i think the writers underestimate the
intelligence of their fans by a whole lot.
But then again, I subscribe to the belief of H. L. Mencken when he said
" no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American
people".
Daniel Armato
are part of a very big storyline this season. I don't want things like
that to be "left to the imagination". They are part of the story and I
want to see it all! Whether they are degrading Buffy as a character is
one thing and has more to do with your view on the story arc itself, as
opposed to the couple os seconds of grinding you areseeing on the
screen.
Arctos
>Is a vampire who doesn't feed on humans even a
>vampire any more?
The "animal blood" thing may have just started as a contrivance to explain how
Angel could go 100 years without killing, but it has a major impact on what
vampires are and how they behave.
Since they don't need human blood to live, their killing of humans cannot be
excused as something they have to do to survive, a simple case of them being
higher on the food chain than us. They kill because they like killing.
That's what makes them evil.
That also is where Spike's identity problem lies. He took great pride in
being The Big Bad, the worst of the worst, the ultimate killer. Take that
away, and what's left?
--
Riley: "There's definitely something off about her."
Graham: "Maybe she's Canadian."
- The Initiative
Wonton Lust http://home.att.net/~arctos1996/
ANIM8Rfsk
They may not need it to live, but might need it to thrive. Angel was in pretty
bad shape when he first saw Buffy. Granted he's better now, but he's had some
human blood along the way too.
*******
QWest Arizona service has deteriorated to the point where
criminal action should be taken against the company officers
Mrs. Poet
>Message-id: <d5nq5ucet9sbqmrpi...@4ax.com>
As I understand it, that scene was in Drew Greenberg's original script for
Smashed. It wasn't an issue of getting past the censors. The production staff
felt the scene totally did not belong in the script and it was stricken before
the ep was filmed. We found out about it because for some reason, UPN included
that scene in its summary of the episode, which is weird because it was never
even shot. Whoever did the summary for the website probably saw a copy of the
original script.
>>>I don't know that there's any polite way to get those feelings across
>>>without offending someone. Do you? I don't think you liked my choice of
>>>the word "pandering" to describe some of those scenes for instance.
>>>
>>>I'm personally more offended because I think the sex scenes are simply the
>>>writers seeing what they can get away with.
>>
>>Noxon admitted this. I don't find that offensive so much as juvenile and
>>therefore sad. Writers in their thirties ought to have grown out of going
>for
>>shock value just cuz they can.
>
>I saw that about Noxon but she kind of poo-pooed it as if it was
>inconsequential. I think it's been a real problem.
>I didn't mean offensive as in disgusted or morally offensive. Insulting
>would probably be a better word for how i feel. I'm insulted when I think
>someone is pandering whether it's to me or >anyone else.
From what Noxon said it doesn't seem so much like pandering, i.e. doing it
because the audience wants it, as it much as it seems like being naughty for
the fun of it.
>The Willow drug
>metaphor is the same way. Sometimes i think the writers underestimate the
>intelligence of their fans by a whole lot.
>
Some here have theorized that Marti Noxon has a different view of the show than
Joss Whedon does. She likes depressing storylines so from that standpoint
she's serious, but OTOH, the theory is that she figures this is just a fantasy
show. People have drawn this conclusion from certain lines in her episodes
which seem to compare the show to a cartoon, or something. Maybe someone else
here can remember the specifics. I don't know if I agree, but maybe they're
right.
I think Marti loves this show and the fans, and I also think she is a talented
writer and director (I loved the ep she directed.) However, her problem imo is
what George Bush the first would call "the vision thing." Her vision of the
show as a melodramatic soap opera lightened up by humor, sex and fantasy, does
not mesh with Joss' vision of the show as a funny and hopeful yet at the same
time, serious and profound metaphor for real life.
Marti is very, very talented and I am in awe of what she does well but when it
comes to THIS show, Joss is the creative genius. He should get back at the
helm if he wants this show to get back to the greatness of the past.
Sine
news:QnldPBU6gZjA13...@4ax.com...
>
> >Is a vampire who doesn't feed on humans even a
> >vampire any more?
I think that's what the scene with the woman in the alley in Smashed was
really all about. He talked about Buffy being confused about where she
fits in and protested that it doesn't mean he has to be confused too. The
lead in to the biting was in the nature of "This is who I am, this is what
I do, and I can do it again, so now I'm going to do it." What struck me
most about that scene was the complete lack of joy or fun in the idea, in
sharp contrast to his wild enthusiasm back when he first found out he could
still hurt demons in Doomed.
> Since they don't need human blood to live, their killing of humans cannot
be
> excused as something they have to do to survive, a simple case of them
being
> higher on the food chain than us. They kill because they like killing.
> That's what makes them evil.
>
> That also is where Spike's identity problem lies. He took great pride in
> being The Big Bad, the worst of the worst, the ultimate killer. Take that
> away, and what's left?
>
> --
He's still hanging on to that image of himself as the Big Bad. However, I'm
starting to think what appeals to him most about that is being the opposite
of wimpy William, i.e. being the Big Bad = being cool. I think Spike values
being "cool" above all.
Sine
news:20020202204337...@mb-mu.aol.com...
-----
Thanks Rose, that's exactly what it was that ticked me off.
(Haven't had time to do more than drop by and hit a post of two for the past
couple of days, so didn't see his reply and have lost touch with threads I
was once following. Thanks for the save. :-)
meredith
Arctos <arcto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Sine" <ja...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Is a vampire who doesn't feed on humans even a
> >vampire any more?
>
> The "animal blood" thing may have just started as a contrivance to explain how
> Angel could go 100 years without killing, but it has a major impact on what
> vampires are and how they behave.
>
> Since they don't need human blood to live, their killing of humans cannot be
> excused as something they have to do to survive, a simple case of them being
> higher on the food chain than us. They kill because they like killing.
> That's what makes them evil.
>
> That also is where Spike's identity problem lies. He took great pride in
> being The Big Bad, the worst of the worst, the ultimate killer. Take that
> away, and what's left?
>
Well, it was all kind of in his head, anyway. He was never the Big Bad
or the worst of the worst. He just liked to think of himself that way.
He was the baby of the group and Dru's caretaker.
So he's got two different identity problems. First is that he isn't the
Big Bad any more. The second is that he never was.
--
meredith
"If you want me to leave, you can put your hands
on my hot tight little body and make me." - Spike, IWMTLY
Ivytree
news:20020203134207...@mb-cg.aol.com...
> << Since they don't need human blood to live >>
>
> They may not need it to live, but might need it to thrive. Angel was in
pretty
> bad shape when he first saw Buffy. Granted he's better now, but he's had
some
> human blood along the way too.
>
But Angel was too dumb (and busy punishing himself) to just go buy blood at
a butcher shop, which as Whistler pointed out to him is readily available.
He was just surviving on the occasional rat.
Ivytree
Loving Buffy has really destroyed Spike already. Remember when he said, "Do
you think I like having you in here? Destroying everything that was me until
all that's left is you in a dead shell?"
He made the choice to serve Buffy's interests. That was the end of his Big
Badness. Right now he's trying to work it so that he can be a Big Bad and
still have Buffy -- because she's not human -- but it won't work.
His task for the rest of the series will be to construct a new persona,
again, and fill in the shell with something else, something not yet known.
Ivytree
news:msnomer-02D636...@virt-reader.news.rcn.net...
I really don't think that's true. Simply fulfilling 100 years worth of
Drusilla's bloody fantasies alone would probably involve much true badness.
Spike may not have been as bad as Angelus, but who is?
It's not doing Spike or JW's story any favors to try and pretend Spike
wasn't really evil to begin with. His journey towards *not* being bad isn't
so important if he never was bad.
Kate Collins
news:QnldPBU6gZjA13...@4ax.com:
>snip
>
> Since they don't need human blood to live, their killing of humans
> cannot be excused as something they have to do to survive, a simple
> case of them being higher on the food chain than us. They kill
> because they like killing. That's what makes them evil.
Whoa. I can exist without beef, pork, or chicken. Does the fact that I
eat meat make me LIKE killing things?
>
> That also is where Spike's identity problem lies. He took great pride
> in being The Big Bad, the worst of the worst, the ultimate killer.
> Take that away, and what's left?
>
> --
>
> Riley: "There's definitely something off about her."
> Graham: "Maybe she's Canadian."
> - The Initiative
>
> Wonton Lust http://home.att.net/~arctos1996/
--
-K-----
"I am Scylla, the Rock. At least on my good days."
Ebi
>Arctos <arcto...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:QnldPBU6gZjA13...@4ax.com:
>
>>snip
>>
>> Since they don't need human blood to live, their killing of humans
>> cannot be excused as something they have to do to survive, a simple
>> case of them being higher on the food chain than us. They kill
>> because they like killing. That's what makes them evil.
>
>Whoa. I can exist without beef, pork, or chicken. Does the fact that I
>eat meat make me LIKE killing things?
Yes. And evil. Possibly soulless. At the very least, semi-demonic.
Carnivorously yours,
Ebi
Green Thumb
>They could have shown Spike and Buffy in the alley without depicting Spike's
>undulating hindquarters, for example.
Wasn't most of the shot above waist-level? Not that we didn't see
undulating, but the hindquarters weren't in the picture. :)
Green Thumb
>Lots of us don't see him that way at all. I personally don't think he can
>be seen as anything in particular until he's off his leash created by the
>chip.
I think you'll have to wait till Episode 18 of this season then, and
possibly 19. We might get lucky and see it by 17, but I'm doubtful
on that one. Depends on what we see in 15.
meredith
"Ivytree" <lsan...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> "meredith" <msn...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:msnomer-02D636...@virt-reader.news.rcn.net...
> > In article <QnldPBU6gZjA13...@4ax.com>,
> > Arctos <arcto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Sine" <ja...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Is a vampire who doesn't feed on humans even a vampire any more?
> > >
> > > The "animal blood" thing may have just started as a contrivance
> > > to explain how Angel could go 100 years without killing, but it
> > > has a major impact on what vampires are and how they behave.
> > >
> > > Since they don't need human blood to live, their killing of
> > > humans cannot be excused as something they have to do to survive,
> > > a simple case of them being higher on the food chain than us.
> > > They kill because they like killing. That's what makes them evil.
> > >
> > > That also is where Spike's identity problem lies. He took great
> > > pride in being The Big Bad, the worst of the worst, the ultimate
> > > killer. Take that away, and what's left?
> > >
> > Well, it was all kind of in his head, anyway. He was never the Big
> > Bad or the worst of the worst. He just liked to think of himself
> > that way. He was the baby of the group and Dru's caretaker.
> >
> > So he's got two different identity problems. First is that he isn't
> > the Big Bad any more. The second is that he never was.
>
> I really don't think that's true. Simply fulfilling 100 years worth
> of Drusilla's bloody fantasies alone would probably involve much true
> badness. Spike may not have been as bad as Angelus, but who is?
>
> It's not doing Spike or JW's story any favors to try and pretend
> Spike wasn't really evil to begin with. His journey towards *not*
> being bad isn't so important if he never was bad.
>
I didn't say that he hadn't done plenty of evil things. Of course he
did! But he was never the "Big Bad" or the "worst of the worst" the way
he fancied himself either.
him...@no-spam.com
That's it. You can count it as 4 if you count episodes, but Smashed and
Wrecked were actually the same incident. This is hardly a wild overdose
gratuitious sex scenes.
And I don't even think any of them were gratuitous. The first established the
relationship, the second re-emphasized one major problem (that Buffy is using
Spike), and the third summed up the fact that just using Spike really wasn't
working for her.
himiko
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
Mark Jones
<krco...@alltel.net> did utter the following:
>Arctos <arcto...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:QnldPBU6gZjA13...@4ax.com:
>> Since they don't need human blood to live, their killing of humans
>> cannot be excused as something they have to do to survive, a simple
>> case of them being higher on the food chain than us. They kill
>> because they like killing. That's what makes them evil.
>
>Whoa. I can exist without beef, pork, or chicken. Does the fact that I
>eat meat make me LIKE killing things?
I don't think so, but then I also am an omnivore who enjoys eating
the dead, cooked flesh of cows, pigs and chickens.
I'm sure that the cows, pigs and chickens, if they were capable of
articulating their opinions, _would_ consider you an evil monster
who enjoys slaughtering their kind for your own depraved reasons.
They'd also feel justified in doing their best to annihilate those
horrific two-legged monsters with those awful, dextrous, gripping
_hand_ things they use to wield the cutting, tearing, burning
instruments of their destruction.
--
"If you're gonna shoot, shoot. Don't talk."
--Tuco, _The Good the Bad and the Ugly_
Ivytree
> In article <sbh78.6566$3E5.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Ivytree" <lsan...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So he's got two different identity problems. First is that he isn't
> > > the Big Bad any more. The second is that he never was.
> >
> > I really don't think that's true. Simply fulfilling 100 years worth
> > of Drusilla's bloody fantasies alone would probably involve much true
> > badness. Spike may not have been as bad as Angelus, but who is?
> >
> > It's not doing Spike or JW's story any favors to try and pretend
> > Spike wasn't really evil to begin with. His journey towards *not*
> > being bad isn't so important if he never was bad.
> >
> I didn't say that he hadn't done plenty of evil things. Of course he
> did! But he was never the "Big Bad" or the "worst of the worst" the way
> he fancied himself either.
> --
I really don't agree that his self-image was wrong. When Spike swept into
Sunnydale in School Hard, he had the confidence and the moves of a real Big
Bad. He took over the Annoying One's organization quickly and cleanly, and
settled in to be the Boss like he'd done it before.
He built his "Spike" persona for a lot of reasons, but one reason was to
compete with Angelus. He had contempt for Angelus' effete, over-stylized
killing methods, true, but as the junior of the group he also needed to
prove he was just as bad as the Old Man in his own way. Worse, if possible.
What I'm saying is, being "brought up" by two of the worst, Darla and
Angelus, Spike *had* to capable of being like them, or he wouldn't have
survived. Angelus was certainly none too fond of him. I think one of the
things Drusilla saw in William is that, in his pain and rage, he *was*
capable of it.
Ivytree
> Oh, for pity's sake. They have shown Spike and Buffy screwing 3 times.
> That's it. You can count it as 4 if you count episodes, but Smashed and
> Wrecked were actually the same incident. This is hardly a wild overdose
> gratuitious sex scenes.
>
> And I don't even think any of them were gratuitous. The first established
the
> relationship, the second re-emphasized one major problem (that Buffy is
using
> Spike), and the third summed up the fact that just using Spike really
wasn't
> working for her.
>
> himiko
>
Well put, Himiko. In a nutshell.
him...@no-spam.com
<lsan...@sprintmail.com> writes:
>> >
>> I didn't say that he hadn't done plenty of evil things. Of course he
>> did! But he was never the "Big Bad" or the "worst of the worst" the way
>> he fancied himself either.
Exactly. The issue here isn't what he's done which is probably plenty, but
who he is which is not really a big bad. He's not a self-starter, never has
been.
>> --
>
>
>I really don't agree that his self-image was wrong. When Spike swept into
>Sunnydale in School Hard, he had the confidence and the moves of a real Big
>Bad. He took over the Annoying One's organization quickly and cleanly, and
>settled in to be the Boss like he'd done it before.
Well, the Annoying One was a child and his minions, of necessity, a bunch of
superstitious morons. All it took was a little strategic snarling, beating
up a few troublemakers (Spike's always been a good fighter)...and Dru. It
was evident even then that most of "Spike's" minions feared Dru more than
him. They knew he would do only what she wanted. When she threatened them,
they might turn to him in the hope of mercy...or at least, sanity. They
hoped he would intercede, but no one expected him to over-rule her, not even
when she was sick.
And this was the height of Spike's big badness. He was in an unusual position
with Dru at the moment because of her illness. He had to take care of her,
take control, take responsibility, and stick to a plan for more than two
seconds at a time. As soon as Dru was well again, there was no doubt about
who was in charge...although that got a bit obscured by Spike's injuries.
When it came to fighting back against Angel, Spike took the roundabout route,
allying with Buffy. He knew he wasn't big bad enough to pull it off any
other way. And when Dru finally left him, he fell apart completely.
Spike has a habit of saying things about others that really apply to him. I
always had that feeling about what he told Harmony when she was strutting
about with her minions in tow acting like a big bad: "Let's face it," Spike
said, "It's adorable." I always got that feeling when Spike was in big bad
mode. It wasn't fully convincing, but it was utterly adorable.
millernate
> That's it. You can count it as 4 if you count episodes, but Smashed and
> Wrecked were actually the same incident. This is hardly a wild overdose
> gratuitious sex scenes.
>
> And I don't even think any of them were gratuitous. The first established the
> relationship, the second re-emphasized one major problem (that Buffy is using
> Spike), and the third summed up the fact that just using Spike really wasn't
> working for her.
>
> himiko
>
>
I don't particularly care for the sex scenes but I do have to admit
that they served a purpose. I it does serve a purpose in advancing
the plot. So whether I like it or not I have to admit that they are
part of the plot and don't detract from the show on those grounds (and
from what I recall the scene in DMP wasn't horrible or anything in
what it showed, of course I could have missed something).
Nathan
Mrs. Poet
>Date: 2/2/02 4:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3c5c81a2.8362334@news>
>
>On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:12:45 +0000 (UTC),
>donotspa...@mail.utexas.edu (Ed Cannon) wrote:
>
>>The gratuitous sex scenes damage the series. I've been watching
>>since the first episode, seeing how wildly things can vary and
>>what sidetracks the characters follow, and I cannot think of any
>>way that depicting sexual intercourse does anything but degrade
>>the characters and the series.
>Why do Americans (some of them) believe that showing
>graphic (gratuitous is always debatable) sex scenes
>degrades characters?
Why do some people in ANY country think that?
Green Thumb
>Whoa. I can exist without beef, pork, or chicken. Does the fact that I
>eat meat make me LIKE killing things?
Yes, and for that you should be killed. We'll regret it, but it must
be done.
MO & TB
> "Laz" <johnw...@deletethisword.cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3c5c1909...@news.east.cox.net...
> > On 01 Feb 2002 22:53:14 GMT, tvfan...@aol.comnospam (James) wrote:
> >
> > >>arro...@yellow.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
It is more
> > like Angelus being restrained by handcuffs.
> >
Yes! Now we're talking! Oh, sorry, momentary happy thought....
MO
Chris LeBron
>
> >Is a vampire who doesn't feed on humans even a
> >vampire any more?
>
> The "animal blood" thing may have just started as a contrivance to explain
how
> Angel could go 100 years without killing, but it has a major impact on
what
> vampires are and how they behave.
>
> Since they don't need human blood to live, their killing of humans cannot
be
> excused as something they have to do to survive, a simple case of them
being
> higher on the food chain than us. They kill because they like killing.
> That's what makes them evil.
I don't have to eat meat; I could be a vegan. I like steak and venison (dear
meat, for those who don't know), and just about every standard meat but
pork. In order to eat what I like to eat, I (indirectly) have to kill. Does
that make me evil?
> That also is where Spike's identity problem lies. He took great pride in
> being The Big Bad, the worst of the worst, the ultimate killer. Take that
> away, and what's left?
--
CL
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
-- James D. Nicoll
Kate Collins
@news2.nash1.tn.home.com:
I'm glad to know that at least there will be some remorse. I am certain
that remorse on your part will offset any resentment/discomfort on mine.
Kate Collins
@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net:
Bondage fantasies, much?
Ivytree
> In article <x4k78.6662$Hb6.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
Ivytree
> <lsan...@sprintmail.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> I didn't say that he hadn't done plenty of evil things. Of course he
> >> did! But he was never the "Big Bad" or the "worst of the worst" the way
> >> he fancied himself either.
>
> Exactly. The issue here isn't what he's done which is probably plenty,
but
> who he is which is not really a big bad. He's not a self-starter, never
has
> been.
> >> --
> >
> >
> >I really don't agree that his self-image was wrong. When Spike swept into
> >Sunnydale in School Hard, he had the confidence and the moves of a real
Big
> >Bad. He took over the Annoying One's organization quickly and cleanly,
and
> >settled in to be the Boss like he'd done it before.
>
> Well, the Annoying One was a child and his minions, of necessity, a bunch
of
> superstitious morons.
Well, true, but he was a prophesied child. And they're minions because
they're morons.
>All it took was a little strategic snarling, beating
> up a few troublemakers (Spike's always been a good fighter)
But you have to spot the troublemakers. That's what I mean when I say they'd
done this before. I can see the two of them swooping into an attractive
venue and taking over the local Big Bad's organization rather frequently
over the course of 100 years. And taking over for the local Big Bad makes
*you* the local Big Bad.
>...and Dru. It
> was evident even then that most of "Spike's" minions feared Dru more than
> him. They knew he would do only what she wanted. When she threatened
them,
> they might turn to him in the hope of mercy...or at least, sanity. They
> hoped he would intercede, but no one expected him to over-rule her, not
even
> when she was sick.
>
Absolutely. Spike was her creature, no question.
> And this was the height of Spike's big badness. He was in an unusual
position
> with Dru at the moment because of her illness. He had to take care of
her,
> take control, take responsibility, and stick to a plan for more than two
> seconds at a time. As soon as Dru was well again, there was no doubt
about
> who was in charge...although that got a bit obscured by Spike's injuries.
>
I don't know about that at all. Again, I can see the two of them ruling over
several little vamp kingdoms through the years, getting bored (or in too
much hot water), picking up and moving to the next place. That mob in Prague
were pretty mad about *something.*
> When it came to fighting back against Angel, Spike took the roundabout
route,
> allying with Buffy. He knew he wasn't big bad enough to pull it off any
> other way. And when Dru finally left him, he fell apart completely.
>
But he's never successfully stood up to the Old Man. Not when they all lived
together, not in Becoming, not in L.A.
Just because a guy's got family (and girlfriend) issues doesn't mean he
isn't evil!
> Spike has a habit of saying things about others that really apply to him.
I
> always had that feeling about what he told Harmony when she was strutting
> about with her minions in tow acting like a big bad: "Let's face it,"
Spike
> said, "It's adorable." I always got that feeling when Spike was in big
bad
> mode. It wasn't fully convincing, but it was utterly adorable.
>
> himiko
>
Well, I'm convinced. In fact, I'd like to see him be bigger and badder now.
Sunnydale's demon underground needs a Godfather, and Spike's the man.
Ivytree
news:u5s0p6b...@corp.supernews.com...
snip
> I don't have to eat meat; I could be a vegan. I like steak and venison
(dear
> meat, for those who don't know), and just about every standard meat but
> pork. In order to eat what I like to eat, I (indirectly) have to kill.
Does
> that make me evil?
>
Only if the cows, deer, chickens, turkeys, and lambs are making the rules.
Sine
> Well, I'm convinced. In fact, I'd like to see him be bigger and badder
now.
> Sunnydale's demon underground needs a Godfather, and Spike's the man.
>
Hmmmmmmm. Big Bad Spike could be fun.
I agree with you (as opposed to Himiko) about his past. I think Spike was
genuinely bad. The expression on his face in that gorgeous shot of the
Power-Four walking against the backdrop of the Boxer rebellion is what I
consider the definitive clue to Spike for the 100+ years we didn't see him.
We see that same confident guy walk in and take over in School Hard.
Definitely a bad ass.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>
>I didn't say that he hadn't done plenty of evil things. Of course he
>did! But he was never the "Big Bad" or the "worst of the worst" the way
>he fancied himself either.
he'd taken out 2 Slayers and it appears that Angel thought that Spike
was at least as good at HTH as he was.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@bigpond.com
Ivytree
> "Ivytree" <lsan...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:Ivo78.7258
>
> > Well, I'm convinced. In fact, I'd like to see him be bigger and badder
> now.
> > Sunnydale's demon underground needs a Godfather, and Spike's the man.
> >
>
> Hmmmmmmm. Big Bad Spike could be fun.
>
Only amongst the demon populace, you understand.
> I agree with you (as opposed to Himiko) about his past. I think Spike was
> genuinely bad. The expression on his face in that gorgeous shot of the
> Power-Four walking against the backdrop of the Boxer rebellion is what I
> consider the definitive clue to Spike for the 100+ years we didn't see
him.
> We see that same confident guy walk in and take over in School Hard.
> Definitely a bad ass.
>
>
Where's the drama in struggling to learn what goodness is if you were never
that bad to begin with?
Stephen Tempest
>Well, the Annoying One was a child
Or, the Annoying One was an incredibly ancient and powerful demon
inhabiting the body of a child...
>seconds at a time. As soon as Dru was well again, there was no doubt about
>who was in charge...although that got a bit obscured by Spike's injuries.
>
I don't think there's any doubt that Dru was more dangerous - Spike
struggled to kill his two Slayers, whereas Drusilla killed Kendra
without even breaking a sweat. (if vampires do sweat, that is). On
the other hand, I can't see her being focussed enough for long enough
to actually achieve anything without Spike or Angelus to do the
planning for her.
As for Spike, the guy was in a wheelchair for half of S2 - for someone
normally as physically active as him, of *course* that's going to
leave him depressed and ineffective. I think Angelus even had a line
in Becoming 2 on the lines of "Glad to see you back on form" when
Spike made a constructive suggestion.
Stephen
meredith
"Sine" <ja...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
A bad ass when it came to fighting, but not when it came to either
torture. His disdain for Angelus' behavior is very telling. He
recognized it as the act of a coward, and certain didn't sound like it
appealed to him at all.
What he liked/likes best is a challenge. Killing a slayer is a major
achievement for a vampire and killing two would make one's name for
sure. Fighting alongside Buffy and the Scoobies has probably given him
more challenges and more satisfying fighting than he ever had as an
unchipped demon. The one thing he's missing, for the most part, is
respect.
Some folks here have leaned hard on the fact that he went for the woman
in an alley when he thought he was unchipped as proof that he hadn't
changed. My guess is that if without Buffy's vicious rejection he would
have tested it out by picking a fight rather than going after a meal. As
someone (Sine?) pointed out, there was absolutely no joy in that scene,
just a badly bruised ego looking for an "I'll show her!" and a chance to
get his rocks back.
And, yes, if he had eaten her she would have been just as dead. I know,
I know. But if we're arguing whether he's changed, then we have to look
at motivations and pleasures. His joys have always come from fighting
challenging foes, respect from his peers and underlings, and pleasing
the woman he loves. He's got about 1 1/2 out of three now. Give him all
three and I don't see why he would want to revert.
Arctos
>Arctos <arcto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>snip
>>
>> Since they don't need human blood to live, their killing of humans
>> cannot be excused as something they have to do to survive, a simple
>> case of them being higher on the food chain than us. They kill
>> because they like killing. That's what makes them evil.
>
>Whoa. I can exist without beef, pork, or chicken. Does the fact that I
>eat meat make me LIKE killing things?
Umm ... are you _doing_ any killing of the things you eat? If not, then your
analogy doesn't work.
Green Thumb
<kod...@nethere.com> wrote:
>I don't have to eat meat; I could be a vegan. I like steak and venison (dear
>meat, for those who don't know), and just about every standard meat but
>pork. In order to eat what I like to eat, I (indirectly) have to kill. Does
>that make me evil?
Yes, and you're another one for the firing squad. Again, we're truly
sorry about it.
Green Thumb
wrote:
>Where's the drama in struggling to learn what goodness is if you were never
>that bad to begin with?
Because Spike wanted to be the bad guy, but to a certain degree he
really didn't measure up. That adds even more drama, because he
isn't abandoning what he was, but rather what he thought he should be.
Chris LeBron
My point is, from the vampire/demon perspective, the herd animals *are*
making the rules. According to the Jossverse history, demons were here
first. We are Johnny-Come-Latelys who decided we wouldn't be food. Now, as a
human, I like that idea. But vampires 'traded up the food chain'. Expecting
them to automatically deny the hunger becauses it offends you is naive.
They're hungry, you're here; ergo, you are what's for dinner.
Chris LeBron
> Kate Collins <krco...@alltel.net> wrote:
>
> >Arctos <arcto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>snip
> >>
> >> Since they don't need human blood to live, their killing of humans
> >> cannot be excused as something they have to do to survive, a simple
> >> case of them being higher on the food chain than us. They kill
> >> because they like killing. That's what makes them evil.
> >
> >Whoa. I can exist without beef, pork, or chicken. Does the fact that I
> >eat meat make me LIKE killing things?
>
> Umm ... are you _doing_ any killing of the things you eat? If not, then
your
> analogy doesn't work.
Ever gone fishing? Did you take home or release? In my family, we took home,
scaled, fileted, fried (or baked) and ate the little bastards. And we
enjoyed it.
Nowadays, I'd take home and turn them into sushi. But that's 'cause I live
in So Cal, and not the deep South. That, and I like sushi.
--
Kate Collins
news:nL5ePCqi4JN+EeEyumU5DBHQTYy=@4ax.com:
> Kate Collins <krco...@alltel.net> wrote:
>
>
> Umm ... are you _doing_ any killing of the things you eat? If not,
> then your analogy doesn't work.
>
> --
>
That's a cop-out. Even were I only a supermarket predator, my eating
habits causes the animal to be killed.
However, in my life, I have killed and dressed chickens and rabbits, helped
kill and dress hogs and deer, and helped transport beef to the abattoir's
to be slaughtered and dressed.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>In article <2dp78.6900$l37.6...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Sine" <ja...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Ivytree" <lsan...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:Ivo78.7258
>>
>> > Well, I'm convinced. In fact, I'd like to see him be bigger and
>> > badder now. Sunnydale's demon underground needs a Godfather, and
>> > Spike's the man.
>> >
>>
>> Hmmmmmmm. Big Bad Spike could be fun.
>>
>> I agree with you (as opposed to Himiko) about his past. I think
>> Spike was genuinely bad. The expression on his face in that
>> gorgeous shot of the Power-Four walking against the backdrop of the
>> Boxer rebellion is what I consider the definitive clue to Spike for
>> the 100+ years we didn't see him. We see that same confident guy walk
>> in and take over in School Hard. Definitely a bad ass.
>>
>A bad ass when it came to fighting, but not when it came to either
>torture.
Well it's certainly not his main thing.
>His disdain for Angelus' behavior is very telling. He
>recognized it as the act of a coward,
Yes, notice exactly how much it meant that he didn't like Dru that she
liked torturing things...
He found Angeluses obsession with destroying Buffy _then_ killing her
to be a bad thing, not because of the torture but because it missed
the point of killng her.
> and certain didn't sound like it
>appealed to him at all.
>
>What he liked/likes best is a challenge. Killing a slayer is a major
>achievement for a vampire and killing two would make one's name for
>sure. Fighting alongside Buffy and the Scoobies has probably given him
>more challenges and more satisfying fighting than he ever had as an
>unchipped demon. The one thing he's missing, for the most part, is
>respect.
>
>Some folks here have leaned hard on the fact that he went for the woman
>in an alley when he thought he was unchipped as proof that he hadn't
>changed. My guess is that if without Buffy's vicious rejection he would
>have tested it out by picking a fight rather than going after a meal.
Gee, that makes it fine.
Does a woman contradicting her husband justify him beating her to
death?
How is it different from Spike staking Harmony because she was
annoying him?
> As
>someone (Sine?) pointed out, there was absolutely no joy in that scene,
>just a badly bruised ego looking for an "I'll show her!" and a chance to
>get his rocks back.
So 2 years of pain can't have had him worried about it?
Not even counting the whole 'perfomance issues' metaphor raised way
back when he was first chipped.
>
>And, yes, if he had eaten her she would have been just as dead. I know,
>I know. But if we're arguing whether he's changed, then we have to look
>at motivations and pleasures. His joys have always come from fighting
>challenging foes, respect from his peers and underlings, and pleasing
>the woman he loves. He's got about 1 1/2 out of three now. Give him all
>three and I don't see why he would want to revert.
Because he still wants to see himself as a big bad?
Because if he's careful he can have the whole thing _and_ have nice
meals?
H. McDaniel
>"Arctos" <arcto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:QnldPBU6gZjA13...@4ax.com...
> > higher on the food chain than us. They kill because they like killing.
> > That's what makes them evil.
>
> I don't have to eat meat; I could be a vegan. I like steak and venison (dear
> meat, for those who don't know),
Dear meat. Are you addressing the food? BTW, I tried to stop eating meat
once. I lasted about two weeks before cravings for a homemade bacon and cheese
burger drove me to buy some lean beef and fry up a storm of tasty in the
kitchen. I guess that makes me evil ;) Is George Foreman a big bad then?
-McDaniel
H. McDaniel
What if Buffy had sex and nobody cared?
BTW, 5,000 years from now the historians poking through these old Usenet
messages will have a big laugh at how much interest there was in the life of
an inarticulate, fictional fast food worker with bad hair.
-McDaniel
Aethelrede
Well, Venison is dear meat, in that it is expensive. The license, the
gun, the trip into the woods, the cost of the whole thing makes it dear.
I go to the local speciality store and buy it at $5 a pound chopped, and
cheaper in sausages, from New Zealand farm Deer. But none of those Haunches
of venison, or those other mediaeval sounding huge chunks to be roasted in
front of a massive fire burning trees.
>>Is George Foreman a big bad then?
Go Ten Rounds with him and tell me about it. If you can still talk And
how old is he?
His grill seems pretty good to me: it works in a kitchen, doesn't need
stinking firelighter fluid, and you can't throw the fat and bones on the
coals to stink up the downwind neighbourhood.
I'd buy one, except I don't eat that much grilled meat.. But it does
fish too, so maybe I will at that.