AOQ Review 2-13: "Surprise"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Two, Episode 13: "Surprise"
(or "You were totally born today!")
Writer: Marti Noxon
Director: Michael Lange
So Marti Noxon is basically the sole writer for the series now, huh?
Buffy turns seventeen, and the show turns twenty-five. The birthday
(or pre-birthday? I'm a bit unclear) starts with an obvious dream
sequence with a few effective visuals/audibles: Joyce asking Buffy if
she's "ready" is nice, as is Angel's slow-motion crumble into
dust. And if you speak French (or read a translation) there's a nice
little in-joke there too. The unseen singer at the party apparently
doesn't notice that her band is in the middle of doing the score for
a porno. Then we wake up and start seeing bits and pieces of the dream
in different contexts, in a way that should cast a shadow of dread over
the whole show. At least it seems like it should, but it doesn't,
not really.
I think I'm going to feel like a failure as a writer here. The
simple fact is that "Surprise" is full of stuff that looks like it
should be effective, but just doesn't do it for me, and I'm not
entirely sure why. I think what it is that the dialogue is a little
more straightforward than it's been, a little less nuance and snap to
it. This is most obvious in the first Buffy/Angel scene right after
the dream. They seem to have gotten less interesting now that
they're together - don't you hate it when that happens? Except
that the two of them had some nice scenes in the "What's My Line"
episodes, so that's not the whole story. And we can't blame the
listed writers, since Noxon did WML too. My suspicion (pure
speculation) is that the difference is whether or not a certain
geek-revered figure is doing his famous uncredited rewrites.
Let's talk about two scenes that did work, and see if we can figure
out exactly what they're doing differently. The first, and possibly
most important, is Calendar's scene with Enyos. He arrives looking
like a menacing figure, greets her sinisterly... and they know each
other (I always like that trick). He cuts right to the chase, asking
about Angel, and we learn that there's a lot about Jenny that we
didn't suspect. This exchange tells us a few things. But it's
also interesting for what it leaves unanswered. Calendar is a mere
mortal (based on her crediting Angel for saving her life) and came here
to watch Angel. But did her research into the occult predate getting
involved here? And did she hit on Giles just to get close to him, or
is the attraction real? (I'm betting on the latter, but intend to,
you know, keep watching.) Is her barely-questioning acceptance of her
purpose genuine, or is she still conflicted about it?
This moment succeeds where the dream at the beginning only sorta does.
It colors the rest of the episode. Every time Calendar appears
afterward, we wonder whether she's setting her plan into motion to
separate Slayer from be-souled vampire. When she's acting mysterious
and driving them to the party, it's easy to speculate that she's
actually taking them into a trap. And whenever something bad happens,
the viewer wonders whether she was somehow responsible.
The other scene I liked was the initial exchange between Willow and Oz.
The setup is a nice little chat between friends that elicits more
BTVS-ish smiles than the rest of the episode combined (highlights:
"Wow...", "Fish of the day?", "Please; my boyfriend had a
bicentennial", "What if the talking thing becomes the awkward
silence thing?"). Then they kinda ask each other out. I continue to
like the way Willow's oddly at ease because of Oz putting an ironic
self-aware spin on everything ("it creates a comfort zone"). Since
Willow's my favorite character, I have to fight my inner "no
one's good enough for her!" inclination, but I do think this thing
with Oz could work nicely. Provided my now-discarded prediction from
the "Halloween" review doesn't re-emerge, anyway.
Okay, the dialogue explanation would make sense for why the latter
scene works, but not the former. Hmm. For whatever reason, the rest
of the show just feels flat. On an intellectual level, I feel like I
"should" care about Buffy's crappy birthday, but I don't. I
should feel sad at the possibility that Angel could so suddenly be
taken away from her, but I'm not really feeling it. (And it's not
"knowing" that the separation won't actually happen that causes
the indifference. Sure Boreanaz isn't leaving the show, but it
wouldn't be so unfeasible for ME to turn Angel into Helo from nu-BSG
for 6-8 weeks [i.e. give him one or two scenes per show on a separate
continent from everyone else].) The actual plot, concerning the Judge
(in honor of an old video game my brother used to play. he will
hereafter be referred to as "Da Judge"), isn't so special. Buffy
and Angel feel a real sense of jeopardy when they see him
reconstituted, but the viewer doesn't have much reason to feel the
same. Spike and Drusilla still don't do a huge deal for me, so I
don't care there either. (I wish Drusilla becoming less weak had
made her more interesting. Ah, well.) Spike does at least get a few
good lines mocking the classical "take me, not him/her" scene, and
Drusilla applauding when Da Judge kills the oft-abused book guy is an
okay moment. All in all, major stuff is going on, but "Surprise"
doesn't feel like a major episode. It's as if there was a great 44
minutes of BTVS that got a curse placed on it, removing its soul.
More on Da Judge: wasn't the show just crying out for another
silly-looking demon? (Hint: No.). Mrs. Quality notes that Buffy did
make contact with him when she kicked him, but that's easy to explain
away if you care enough - maybe only touch by his volition counts.
Or only skin-to-skin contact. Or something. Anyway, the falling stuff
almost certainly didn't kill him, so we can continue to not care in
the future.
The idea that vampires can't travel in airplanes, besides making
sense and everything, adds a nice old-style vibe. The idea of having
to stow away in a ship's hold... it's traditional.
Any particular reason everyone bends over backward to make sure that
Joyce "MUST not know" about Buffy, but no one really seems to
object when Oz is casually inducted into the club?
Going through with the pre-birthday spanking idea would've earned the
show a higher rating from me. (Okay, not really. Probably.)
Some guest stars (i.e. Marsters) are gaining "as [character]"
credits, others (i.e. Green) are losing them. I like the "as"
stuff, personally. It makes it easier to associate an actor's name
with a character, and as we saw in "When She Was Bad," it can
occasionally be used to mislead about who's going to be an important
long-term face to watch.
I haven't mentioned the ending and unexpected (to me, I didn't know
it was a two-parter) cliffhanger. My reaction to that can be summed up
in one word: huh? Anyway, time shall tell.
So...
One-sentence summary: It has the skeleton, but not the flesh.
AOQ rating: Decent
[Season Two so far:
1) "When She Was Bad" - Good
2) "Some Assembly Required" - Weak
3) "School Hard" - Decent
4) "Inca Mummy Girl" - Good
5) "Reptile Boy" - Decent
6) "Halloween" - Good
7) "Lie To Me" - Good
8) "The Dark Age" - Good
9) "What's My Line (Part One)" - Good
10) "What's My Line (Part Two)" - Good
11) "Ted" - Excellent
12) "Bad Eggs" - Bad
13) "Surprise" - Decent]
Arbitrar Of Quality
and such, probably later today.
-AOQ
Espen Schjønberg
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
Well, is it a spoiler to tell you what you didn't notice?
(Ok, you post now you only waits for the spell checking. I start from that.)
> Buffy turns seventeen, and the show turns twenty-five. The birthday
> (or pre-birthday? I'm a bit unclear) starts with an obvious dream
> sequence with a few effective visuals/audibles: Joyce asking Buffy if
> she's "ready" is nice, as is Angel's slow-motion crumble into
> dust. And if you speak French (or read a translation) there's a nice
> little in-joke there too. The unseen singer at the party apparently
> doesn't notice that her band is in the middle of doing the score for
> a porno. Then we wake up and start seeing bits and pieces of the dream
> in different contexts, in a way that should cast a shadow of dread over
> the whole show. At least it seems like it should, but it doesn't,
> not really.
OK, and how will that be on the rerun?
> I think I'm going to feel like a failure as a writer here. The
> simple fact is that "Surprise" is full of stuff that looks like it
> should be effective, but just doesn't do it for me, and I'm not
> entirely sure why. I think what it is that the dialogue is a little
> more straightforward than it's been, a little less nuance and snap to
> it. This is most obvious in the first Buffy/Angel scene right after
> the dream.
> They seem to have gotten less interesting now that
> they're together - don't you hate it when that happens?
Always.
> Every time Calendar appears
> afterward, we wonder whether she's setting her plan into motion to
> separate Slayer from be-souled vampire. When she's acting mysterious
> and driving them to the party, it's easy to speculate that she's
> actually taking them into a trap. And whenever something bad happens,
> the viewer wonders whether she was somehow responsible.
Hmmm. So, you have seen the next episode now..
It _really_ does sound like you already had when you wrote this...
But I will refrain from further comments down there...
> All in all, major stuff is going on, but "Surprise"
> doesn't feel like a major episode. It's as if there was a great 44
> minutes of BTVS that got a curse placed on it, removing its soul.
You don't say...
> More on Da Judge: wasn't the show just crying out for another
> silly-looking demon? (Hint: No.).
I am _with_ you.
> Mrs. Quality notes that Buffy did
> make contact with him when she kicked him, but that's easy to explain
> away if you care enough - maybe only touch by his volition counts.
> Or only skin-to-skin contact. Or something. Anyway, the falling stuff
> almost certainly didn't kill him, so we can continue to not care in
> the future.
Alos, she is The Slayer. One girl in all the world :-)
> The idea that vampires can't travel in airplanes, besides making
> sense and everything, adds a nice old-style vibe. The idea of having
> to stow away in a ship's hold... it's traditional.
>
> Any particular reason everyone bends over backward to make sure that
> Joyce "MUST not know" about Buffy, but no one really seems to
> object when Oz is casually inducted into the club?
He is "a kid". They decide they want him in..
It's the grown-ups who get protected from the awful truth in this show.
I like that.
> I haven't mentioned the ending and unexpected (to me, I didn't know
> it was a two-parter) cliffhanger. My reaction to that can be summed up
> in one word: huh? Anyway, time shall tell.
Yeah...
> One-sentence summary: It has the skeleton, but not the flesh.
You perhaps did not notice the flesh.
> AOQ rating: Decent
Yeah. Right...
You still mean that?
--
Espen
Espen Schjønberg
> On 18.02.2006 19:13, Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
>> (something]
What I did mean to say, is you have almost to many clairvoyant comments
in this review for me to actually being able to write reasonable about it.
--
Espen
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 13: "Surprise"
> (or "You were totally born today!")
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: Michael Lange
>
> So Marti Noxon is basically the sole writer for the series now, huh?
She's only got two more episodes this season. (Bar bs gurz vf cerggl
zhpu gur orfg bar fur'f jevggra. Gur bgure, sbe znal crbcyr, rcvgbzvmrf
rirelguvat gung jnf jebat nobhg Znegv Abkba.)
> AOQ rating: Decent
I'm pretty much on board with this review. The main thing to keep in
mind about 'Surprise' is that it is part I of a two parter, and so it's
mostly about setting stuff up, the pay-offs all come in the second part.
'Surprise' and 'Innocence' originally aired on two successive nights in
the US, Monday and Tuesday.
As for letting Oz into the club: it's pretty hard to keep him out, after
he notices the guy turning to dust. Joyce is still happily sailing on
that river in Egypt. I have always enjoyed his reaction to finding out
that vampires are real though: "Actually, it explains a *lot*," and his
stating the obvious "It looked like an arm" after Willow asked "What was
that?"
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
kenm47
I hope Innocence gets you to revisit your comments about Surprise,
because you're coming off as just way too cynical and jaded on this
one.
If you can't empathize with the main character, if SMG is not doing it
for you, I'm guessing you'll be wandering away from the Buffy-verse
sooner than later.
BTW, and if you're still avoiding spoilers do not listen to it, Joss
admits that Jenny as Janna is a development not planned at first, but
later developed.
No further comment at this time.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> The other scene I liked was the initial exchange between Willow and Oz.
> The setup is a nice little chat between friends that elicits more
> BTVS-ish smiles than the rest of the episode combined (highlights:
> "Wow...", "Fish of the day?", "Please; my boyfriend had a
> bicentennial", "What if the talking thing becomes the awkward
> silence thing?"). Then they kinda ask each other out. I continue to
> like the way Willow's oddly at ease because of Oz putting an ironic
> self-aware spin on everything ("it creates a comfort zone"). Since
> Willow's my favorite character, I have to fight my inner "no
> one's good enough for her!" inclination, but I do think this thing
> with Oz could work nicely. Provided my now-discarded prediction from
> the "Halloween" review doesn't re-emerge, anyway.
I think that this scene also marks the debut of Willow's hat, which I
thought looked adorable on her, but a lot of other people with no taste
think was really ugly.
kenm47
zhpu gur orfg bar fur'f jevggra. Gur bgure, sbe znal crbcyr, rcvgbzvmrf
rirelguvat gung jnf jebat nobhg Znegv Abkba.) "
OO&O naq VBURSL?
V'z n sna bs obgu, naq V qba'g guvax rvgure rcvgbzvmrf gur ubeebef,
VZB, bs F6 naq F7.
Ken (Brooklyn)
kenm47
dark blue or purple at times.
Ken (Brooklyn)
angelbuffy0
the second part. Even the WB only made us wait one night when they
originally aired. They aired Monday/Tuesday so we were not inflicted
with the wait....please do the same.
Don Sample
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
She had more than one, of similar style.
KenM47
>In article <1140289336.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Put me in the hat looked good school. I just couldn't tell if it was
>> dark blue or purple at times.
>>
>> Ken (Brooklyn)
>
>She had more than one, of similar style.
In that same scene with Oz?
Ken (Brooklyn)
John Briggs
That's hardly surprising - Jenny was introduced in S1. He only developed
the themes of S2 after S1 had been completed.
--
John Briggs
hopelessly devoted
> more straightforward than it's been, a little less nuance and snap to
> it. This is most obvious in the first Buffy/Angel scene right after
> the dream. They seem to have gotten less interesting now that
> they're together - don't you hate it when that happens?
One thing I always loved about this show was the lack of "b****s****t.
It was eventual and the fact that they didn't drag it out will come to
be a plus. You'll understand in time.
> But did her research into the occult predate getting
> involved here? And did she hit on Giles just to get close to him, or
> is the attraction real? (I'm betting on the latter, but intend to,
> you know, keep watching.) Is her barely-questioning acceptance of her
> purpose genuine, or is she still conflicted about it?
You'll eventually learn which quesitons are actual questions and which
are not. Will explain later.
> Then they kinda ask each other out. I continue to
> like the way Willow's oddly at ease because of Oz putting an ironic
> self-aware spin on everything ("it creates a comfort zone"). Since
> Willow's my favorite character, I have to fight my inner "no
> one's good enough for her!"
Willow, I have come to believe is the one true character that exists in
us all.
> For whatever reason, the rest
> of the show just feels flat.
No commet yet.
> On an intellectual level, I feel like I
> "should" care about Buffy's crappy birthday, but I don't. I
> should feel sad at the possibility that Angel could so suddenly be
> taken away from her, but I'm not really feeling it. (And it's not
> "knowing" that the separation won't actually happen that causes
> the indifference.
On a note, at the time the ep aired, there was no way of telling which
characters stayed or left. Because of the reality AtS, and no doubt,
some natural discussion, you already are of some spoilers. No comment.
At the time, I knew he wasn't going to leave, however the sexual
tension was, in a word, great.
> (I wish Drusilla becoming less weak had
> made her more interesting. Ah, well.)
Dru is.........
All in all, major stuff is going on, but "Surprise"
> doesn't feel like a major episode. It's as if there was a great 44
> minutes of BTVS that got a curse placed on it, removing its soul.
You peeked. At the time that the show aired, I still wasn't quite sure
that is what actually happened. It was a hunch, but intil the next ep,
I wasn't 100% sure. Big Cheater!
> More on Da Judge: wasn't the show just crying out for another
> silly-looking demon?
Silly, looking or not, I was shocked to find out how many times the guy
actually appeard on the show. Look Familiar?
> (Hint: No.). Mrs. Quality notes that Buffy did
> make contact with him when she kicked him, but that's easy to explain
> away if you care enough - maybe only touch by his volition counts.
That kind of bugged me too, but "artistic license".
> Any particular reason everyone bends over backward to make sure that
> Joyce "MUST not know" about Buffy, but no one really seems to
> object when Oz is casually inducted into the club?
No comment yet.
> Some guest stars (i.e. Marsters) are gaining "as [character]"
> credits, others (i.e. Green) are losing them. I like the "as"
> stuff, personally. It makes it easier to associate an actor's name
> with a character, and as we saw in "When She Was Bad," it can
> occasionally be used to mislead about who's going to be an important
> long-term face to watch.
More true than you know. Although I don't know if you are getting the
same effect here, long term, as when the season aired.
> 13) "Surprise" - Decent]
Marti Noxon in in exceptional form.
Don Sample
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Well, no. I thought you were referring to its future appearances.
Don Sample
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
He didn't even give her the first name of "Jenny" until season 2. (She
was only called "Ms Calendar" in dialogue in season 1, and the script
for IR--YJ called her "Nicki.")
Shuggie
>
> Buffy turns seventeen, and the show turns twenty-five. The birthday
> (or pre-birthday? I'm a bit unclear) starts with an obvious dream
> sequence with a few effective visuals/audibles: Joyce asking Buffy if
> she's "ready" is nice, as is Angel's slow-motion crumble into
> dust. And if you speak French (or read a translation) there's a nice
> little in-joke there too.
You caught that huh? I didn't spot that until I was watching with the
subtitles one time.
> The unseen singer at the party apparently
> doesn't notice that her band is in the middle of doing the score for
> a porno.
Heh. But no. This is probably another of those references that hasn't
aged well but that whole dream sequence is pretty much Twin-Peaks-lite.
It's clearly an homage (and so obviously so that I thought for a while
that Willow was talking backwards not French) which includes the
lighting, sets (there's a lot more red in the Bronze than usual) and the
music.
> Then we wake up and start seeing bits and pieces of the dream
> in different contexts, in a way that should cast a shadow of dread over
> the whole show. At least it seems like it should, but it doesn't,
> not really.
Dread no, anticipation yes. At least for me.
>
> I think I'm going to feel like a failure as a writer here. The
> simple fact is that "Surprise" is full of stuff that looks like it
> should be effective, but just doesn't do it for me, and I'm not
> entirely sure why. I think what it is that the dialogue is a little
> more straightforward than it's been, a little less nuance and snap to
> it. This is most obvious in the first Buffy/Angel scene right after
> the dream. They seem to have gotten less interesting now that
> they're together - don't you hate it when that happens?
If only there was some clever plot twist to spice it up a little.
>Except
> that the two of them had some nice scenes in the "What's My Line"
> episodes, so that's not the whole story. And we can't blame the
> listed writers, since Noxon did WML too. My suspicion (pure
> speculation) is that the difference is whether or not a certain
> geek-revered figure is doing his famous uncredited rewrites.
Surprise-Innocence was a pivotal double-ep for the show and I very much
suspect that Joss had a strong hand in making sure it was on track.
<snip>
> The other scene I liked was the initial exchange between Willow and Oz.
> The setup is a nice little chat between friends that elicits more
> BTVS-ish smiles than the rest of the episode combined (highlights:
> "Wow...", "Fish of the day?", "Please; my boyfriend had a
> bicentennial", "What if the talking thing becomes the awkward
> silence thing?"). Then they kinda ask each other out. I continue to
> like the way Willow's oddly at ease because of Oz putting an ironic
> self-aware spin on everything ("it creates a comfort zone"). Since
> Willow's my favorite character, I have to fight my inner "no
> one's good enough for her!" inclination, but I do think this thing
> with Oz could work nicely. Provided my now-discarded prediction from
> the "Halloween" review doesn't re-emerge, anyway.
>
I love the Willow-Oz scene ("I said 'date'").
> All in all, major stuff is going on, but "Surprise"
> doesn't feel like a major episode. It's as if there was a great 44
> minutes of BTVS that got a curse placed on it, removing its soul.
No the curse *returns* the soul remember? ;)
Perhaps it's because it's largely set-up. I still enjoy this ep though
and feel WML is flat.
>
> More on Da Judge: wasn't the show just crying out for another
> silly-looking demon? (Hint: No.). Mrs. Quality notes that Buffy did
> make contact with him when she kicked him, but that's easy to explain
> away if you care enough - maybe only touch by his volition counts.
> Or only skin-to-skin contact. Or something.
ROT13 for teeny tiny spoiler:
Gurer'f n yvar va Vaabprapr gung rkcynvaf vg. Ohssl sryg fvpx sbe n
zbzrag.
> Anyway, the falling stuff
> almost certainly didn't kill him, so we can continue to not care in
> the future.
>
> The idea that vampires can't travel in airplanes, besides making
> sense and everything, adds a nice old-style vibe. The idea of having
> to stow away in a ship's hold... it's traditional.
>
> Any particular reason everyone bends over backward to make sure that
> Joyce "MUST not know" about Buffy, but no one really seems to
> object when Oz is casually inducted into the club?
>
Well Oz was just there, hard to hide it from him.
I've always liked Oz's reaction because a) it's funny but b) it says a
lot about him as a character. He's not easily rattled but he is
observant.
> Going through with the pre-birthday spanking idea would've earned the
> show a higher rating from me. (Okay, not really. Probably.)
>
Shame on you. That's the porno-music speaking.
> Some guest stars (i.e. Marsters) are gaining "as [character]"
> credits, others (i.e. Green) are losing them. I like the "as"
> stuff, personally. It makes it easier to associate an actor's name
> with a character, and as we saw in "When She Was Bad," it can
> occasionally be used to mislead about who's going to be an important
> long-term face to watch.
>
True perhaps but there are complicated union rules about how actors get
creditted. It has to do with contracts and so on. Who gets the 'and' or
the 'as' or 'with' etc.
ROT13 for very vague information about future episodes concerning
credits.
Vg pna npghnyyl nssrpg gur fubj gbb. V pna guvax bs ng yrnfg n pbhcyr bs
rcvfbqrf jurer gur npgbe'f anzr ng gur ortvaavat bs gur fubj fcbvyg gur
fhecevfr erghea bs n erpheevat punenpgre. V pna guvax bs nabgure rcvfbqr
jurer gurl qryvorengryl zvavzvmrq na npgbe'f fperragvzr naq qvnybthr fb
gung gurl pbhyq bzvg fnvq npgbe sebz gur yrnqvat perqvgf. Naq oryvrir zr
gung jnf jryy jbegu vg.
> I haven't mentioned the ending and unexpected (to me, I didn't know
> it was a two-parter) cliffhanger. My reaction to that can be summed up
> in one word: huh? Anyway, time shall tell.
>
Whereas for me it was "oh I see..." but only because I'd seen episodes
from later in the season before I'd seen this and suddenly stuff was
making sense.
> AOQ rating: Decent
I suspect that's quite controversial. I gave it 4.5 which is perhaps
slightly too generous. But it is good.
--
Shuggie
Shuggie
> Put me in the hat looked good school. I just couldn't tell if it was
> dark blue or purple at times.
>
I liked the hat too. I'd have this big stupid grin on my face whenever I
saw her in it. "It's Willow, and she's wearing the hat!" I'd say to
myself.
:D
kenm47
That's one of the things I've enjoyed in this revisit, learning about
things I've missed all these years.
Thx,
Ken (Brooklyn)
Don Sample
"hopelessly devoted" <cry...@cinstall.com> wrote:
> > More on Da Judge: wasn't the show just crying out for another
> > silly-looking demon?
>
> Silly, looking or not, I was shocked to find out how many times the guy
> actually appeard on the show. Look Familiar?
Only twice. (well four times since both appearances were in two
parters.) He was Luke in WTTH/The Harvest.
>
> > (Hint: No.). Mrs. Quality notes that Buffy did
> > make contact with him when she kicked him, but that's easy to explain
> > away if you care enough - maybe only touch by his volition counts.
>
> That kind of bugged me too, but "artistic license".
It was her boot against his armoured chest. No skin contact. With
Dalton, the Judge put his bare hand on Dalton's chest, so there wasn't
as much of a barrier between them. Buffy still felt an effect.
John Briggs
Is that still in the final version of the IRYJ script? She doesn't have a
name in "Prophecy Girl".
--
John Briggs
Don Sample
shu...@gmail.com (Shuggie) wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Buffy turns seventeen, and the show turns twenty-five. The birthday
> > (or pre-birthday? I'm a bit unclear) starts with an obvious dream
> > sequence with a few effective visuals/audibles: Joyce asking Buffy if
> > she's "ready" is nice, as is Angel's slow-motion crumble into
> > dust. And if you speak French (or read a translation) there's a nice
> > little in-joke there too.
>
> You caught that huh? I didn't spot that until I was watching with the
> subtitles one time.
And there might be some foreshadowing for another upcoming episode in
that scene as well.
>
> > The unseen singer at the party apparently
> > doesn't notice that her band is in the middle of doing the score for
> > a porno.
>
> Heh. But no. This is probably another of those references that hasn't
> aged well but that whole dream sequence is pretty much Twin-Peaks-lite.
> It's clearly an homage (and so obviously so that I thought for a while
> that Willow was talking backwards not French) which includes the
> lighting, sets (there's a lot more red in the Bronze than usual) and the
> music.
The singer is a favourite of Joss's though. I think she's the only one
who makes multiple appearances in the Bronze.
> > Some guest stars (i.e. Marsters) are gaining "as [character]"
> > credits, others (i.e. Green) are losing them. I like the "as"
> > stuff, personally. It makes it easier to associate an actor's name
> > with a character, and as we saw in "When She Was Bad," it can
> > occasionally be used to mislead about who's going to be an important
> > long-term face to watch.
> >
>
> True perhaps but there are complicated union rules about how actors get
> creditted. It has to do with contracts and so on. Who gets the 'and' or
> the 'as' or 'with' etc.
Not so much union rules, as negotiated deals with the actors' agents.
Don Sample
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
As far as I know. Like I said, the only name given in dialogue was "Ms.
Calendar." "Nicki" only appears in the description of the character.
John Briggs
The story goes that they changed it because it got confusing on set - Nicky
Brendon kept getting confused with "Nicki" :-)
--
John Briggs
Shuggie
Sure but I thought - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that ASH's
return at the end of Two To Go had to be kept short otherwise SAG rules
meant he'd have to be creditted up front. I think ASH himself was happy
to waive the credit. At least that's the story I heard from somewhere.
Can anyone confirm or deny it?
drifter
Yes, it was talented, able to change it's color
at the drop of a hat.
One might even say it was "cunning."
Or perhaps not.
--
Kel
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
KenM47
Another blessed decision. I like the "Jenny/Janna" names.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Scythe Matters
As others have noted, it's always hard to respond to the first part of
obvious two-parters without spoiling stuff. And even though I've *just*
rewatched these episodes, the events blend in a little bit...so I'm
going to be more careful than usual, even though you've already seen the
followup.
> So Marti Noxon is basically the sole writer for the series now, huh?
No, but on her way to being the top writer (I mean that in a structural,
not qualitative sense) once Joss' current partner-in-crime moves on. As
you correctly discern, Joss' hands are on everything, especially in the
early seasons. It's not spoiling to tell you that another writer has
basically said that almost every time a fan comes to her with "hey,
great line," she has to admit that the line in question was a Joss
Whedon addition. I suspect that in later seasons, writers got a better
intuitive sense for "what Joss would write" and he did fewer actual
insertions, but that's only speculation. With enough experience with the
show, I think most people can identify obvious Whedonisms.
However, the key point is that Joss is still the #1 writer for the show.
At this stage, he hoards most of the important moments for himself...and
when he doesn't, he inserts the prologue and postlude for said moments
in others' episodes. Which means, I guess, that if you want to be really
anal about not spoiling yourself, you probably shouldn't pay attention
to who writes what until after you've seen the episode.
> And if you speak French (or read a translation) there's a nice
> little in-joke there too.
Yes, a cute moment.
> I think I'm going to feel like a failure as a writer here. The
> simple fact is that "Surprise" is full of stuff that looks like it
> should be effective, but just doesn't do it for me, and I'm not
> entirely sure why.
Fans sometimes talk about "Surprise" in hushed tones, but I think that's
less on the merits of the episode by itself, and more as a part of the
"Surprise"/"Innocence" pairing. One can't exist without the other.
Viewed as a standalone episode, it's a bit harder to get one's mind
around. (Everyone knew at the time that it was a two-parter because of
the promos dealing with the night change, and advantage you didn't have.)
In my opinion, you're seeing an important tree but missing the forest
when it comes to your "eh" reaction. The episode, for all its implied
import (Angel leaving, Jenny's secret life, a prophetic dream -- and you
should know by now that these are always linked to major stuff -- Oz
maybe oining the gang, Oz & Willow maybe getting together, an apparently
unkillable foe in addition to the resurrected Drusilla & Spike), keeps
everything a bit subdued. Even the climax (pun intended) of the episode
-- the implied consummation of Buffy & Angel's relationship -- is kept
offscreen. I think that's a deliberate choice.
What there is, is building tension of the waiting-for-catastrophe
kind...and I think the deliberate supression of peaks helps move that
along, though it appears to not have made much of an impression on you.
At the beginning, Buffy's wigged and everyone else is matter-of-fact,
trying to calm her. By the end, there's a fairly good sense of urgency
among the gang regarding The Judge, and of course Buffy's anxiety is
highest of all considering she knows he's operational, she barely
escaped death (as did Angel), and she's been through some fairly severe
emotional wrenches in this episode: extreme love, extreme loss, extreme
fear.
But we'll wait to discuss the rest of this thought, because it depends
on the next episode and its dynamics.
> They seem to have gotten less interesting now that
> they're together - don't you hate it when that happens?
Well, this:
Buffy: I like seeing you. The part at the end of the night where we say
good-bye... It's getting harder.
Angel: Yeah. It is.
...is a fairly saucy double entendre, and rather deliberately played so
by both actors. Though of course that doesn't necessarily make it
"interesting." Again, I think it's deliberate: they've eased into a
really comfortable zone as a couple. One can argue about whether or not
the later stages of a relationship are more exciting than the early
stages, but certainly the earlier stages are of more *dramatic*
interest. We've gotten through those, and now we're seeing the calmer
aftermath. It's right, in this case, and it's even necessary.
> Calendar is a mere
> mortal (based on her crediting Angel for saving her life) and came here
> to watch Angel. But did her research into the occult predate getting
> involved here? And did she hit on Giles just to get close to him, or
> is the attraction real? (I'm betting on the latter, but intend to,
> you know, keep watching.) Is her barely-questioning acceptance of her
> purpose genuine, or is she still conflicted about it?
All good questions. ;-)
> This moment succeeds where the dream at the beginning only sorta does.
> It colors the rest of the episode. Every time Calendar appears
> afterward, we wonder whether she's setting her plan into motion to
> separate Slayer from be-souled vampire. When she's acting mysterious
> and driving them to the party, it's easy to speculate that she's
> actually taking them into a trap. And whenever something bad happens,
> the viewer wonders whether she was somehow responsible.
I agree with this. I'd say, though, that it's worth thinking about what
I wrote above: the tension in the Buffy/Angel story is deliberately
dulled because everyone's initial reaction to her dream is fairly
matter-of-fact. It's out there, and no one seems to care all that much
except for Buffy...until much later, that is. Whereas the Jenny backplot
is suddenly thrown at the viewers, but no one else knows. There, the
tension is unresolved, and thus we feel it more strongly.
> The other scene I liked was the initial exchange between Willow and Oz.
Unsurprising. They have lots of good exchanges. Whether it was Joss or
everyone in concert, Willow/Oz conversations are almost always quotable.
I think that's partly because of their inherent dialogue styles (already
among the most interesting on the show) and how they interact, which
seems to be especially well.
> Since
> Willow's my favorite character, I have to fight my inner "no
> one's good enough for her!" inclination, but I do think this thing
> with Oz could work nicely.
In a commentary track you will not listen to, Joss makes it plain that
he is aware of this (and related) concerns.
> On an intellectual level, I feel like I
> "should" care about Buffy's crappy birthday, but I don't.
I think you're supposed to share Buffy's feeling there: she's been
freaking out but no one else has. Yet at every stage, she's been proven
right, and all her best moments (e.g. the party) have been overtaken by
onrushing events. No one has the time to care...about minimizing the
problems, and about ruining her birthday. Even Buffy doesn't, right now.
But in any case, I don't think "Buffy's lousy birthday" is the central
point of the episode. The penultimate scene (just before Angel hits the
alley) is.
> I should feel sad at the possibility that Angel could so suddenly be
> taken away from her, but I'm not really feeling it. (And it's not
> "knowing" that the separation won't actually happen that causes
> the indifference.
It's one of the key problems with series television that one *knows*
jeopardy is fleeting. Indeed, watching "Surprise" and knowing that
nothing bad will happen does lessen the dramatic tension. (You are in a
slightly different position here, however, in that you know something
about Angel's future -- he has a show named after him -- that no one at
the time did.) But it's absolutely true that there's just no way they'd
do anything permanent to Angel, and the viewer knows that while watching.
> The actual plot, concerning the Judge
> (in honor of an old video game my brother used to play. he will
> hereafter be referred to as "Da Judge"), isn't so special.
Tsk tsk. We've been through this before: "the plot" is not the plot. The
*character* is the plot. The Judge is the tool by which we achieve the
plot. He's the MacGuffin...a term that, if you don't know it already,
you need to go out and learn, because it's a fundamental part of the
Buffyverse. So he's an unkillable demon that will destroy all that is
good in the world...literally. A formidable foe, to be sure. But how
much time does the episode actually spend on him? Precious little in
comparison to his alleged power. We spend a _lot_ more time on
Buffy/Angel, and a little more time on this mysterious development with
Jenny. That, by itself, should tell you something.
> Spike and Drusilla still don't do a huge deal for me, so I
> don't care there either. (I wish Drusilla becoming less weak had
> made her more interesting. Ah, well.)
I liked Dru more than you did at the time, but Spike never really moved
me in his work up to this point. That said, one thing about Dru *is*
more interesting: you'll note that, already, she is pushing towards the
"bigger scheme" badness. The Master was bad-bad-badder-than-bad, we were
told, but as far as we saw his big plan was: rise, do violence, rinse,
repeat...and his rituals served those ends. The opening of the Hellmouth
(which was implied to be the real danger) was a consequence, not a
purpose. Spike had a view of a wider set of tools -- the assassins, for
example, or the ritual that healed Dru -- but he still appeared to
prefer mayhem both focused and unfocused. With Dru, however, you've
suddenly got grander plans, real "end of the world" type stuff.
This is or isn't more interesting, depending on your view, but what it
means for our show is that Buffy's solutions might no longer be just
about killing the bad guy (following some sage advice from Giles, of
course). She herself has to move beyond crush-kill-destory and into a
more nuanced and strategic view of the forces opposing her. That *is*
more interesting, whatever one thinks of Dru as a character.
> Drusilla applauding when Da Judge kills the oft-abused book guy
He never caught much of a break, did he?
> More on Da Judge: wasn't the show just crying out for another
> silly-looking demon? (Hint: No.)
Since you've seen "Innocence," I think you've found that our heroine
agrees with you, given what she calls him.
> Mrs. Quality notes that Buffy did
> make contact with him when she kicked him, but that's easy to explain
> away if you care enough - maybe only touch by his volition counts.
> Or only skin-to-skin contact. Or something.
You may have missed the audible sizzle when she did. It was clearly
meant to be more than mindless contact. And in any case, he was
self-admittedly weak at the time.
> Any particular reason everyone bends over backward to make sure that
> Joyce "MUST not know" about Buffy, but no one really seems to
> object when Oz is casually inducted into the club?
As Don said, I don't think they *wanted* to bring Oz into the club. But
at that point, it was pretty hard not to. The general rule about
protecting Buffy's identity is a conceit borrowed from superhero tales
galore, but to its credit the show doesn't do the old comic book (or
Star Trek) trick of technological/magical/superpowered memory wipes. And
note Xander's reaction, delivered matter-of-fact and vaguely irritated
that another's in on the secret:
Xander: Yep. Vampires are real. A lot of them live in Sunnydale.
(gestures between Willow and Oz) Willow will fill you in. (walks off)
You also didn't comment on yet another brick pulled from the wall of
Sunnydale-wide obliviousness that you've so often complained about. Oz
has clearly noticed the weirdness going on, though he hasn't put a
definite name to it.
> AOQ rating: Decent
I think it's at least as good as, and probably better than, a lot of
episodes you've rated "good," but I don't seriously object to the
rating, which you've justified fairly well.
kenm47
Thanks to him/her and all the other insights I've been reading here
during this AOQ redux.
Ken (Brooklyn)
BTR1701
shu...@gmail.com (Shuggie) wrote:
The distinction isn't length. It's whether the actor speaks or not. That
said, actors can negotiate a different placement in the credits in
return for compensation.
Eliza Dushku agreed to have her appearance in the ANGEL episode
"Judgment" credited at the end of the episode instead of up front with
the rest of the guest cast in order to preserve the surprise of her
character's appearance on screen.
Whoopi Goldberg did "Star Trek: Generations" with no credit at all,
despite her role being a major speaking part.
Espen Schjønberg
> Ba n abgr, ng gur gvzr gur rc nverq, gurer jnf ab jnl bs gryyvat juvpu
> punenpgref fgnlrq be yrsg. Orpnhfr bs gur ernyvgl NgF, naq ab qbhog,
> fbzr angheny qvfphffvba, lbh nyernql ner bs fbzr fcbvyref.
V cynaarq ba znxvat uvz oryvrir ngf npghnyyl jnf bs natryf yvsr orsber
ur sbhaq gur ohssfgre.
Ab arrq gb gryy uvz natry jvyy qrsvavgryl pbzr onpx sebz guvf? Bx,
cebonoyl ubcryrff, ohg fgvyy.
--
Espen
Terry
news:btr1702-AA8A37...@news.giganews.com:
> Eliza Dushku agreed to have her appearance in the ANGEL episode
> "Judgment" credited at the end of the episode instead of up front with
> the rest of the guest cast in order to preserve the surprise of her
> character's appearance on screen.
I just want to say I love when I can really be surprised by an actor's
appearance in a show. I'm a spoiler-phobe, so I tended to only know episode
titles during the show's run. While it was fun most of the time to see a
guest actor and say "oooh, Jenny's in this one." "Hey, wasn't that the girl
who played Chantarelle?" It's also great to have a character step out of
the shadows and knock your socks off.
Terry
Apteryx
news:1140286414.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
> okay moment. All in all, major stuff is going on, but "Surprise"
> doesn't feel like a major episode. It's as if there was a great 44
> minutes of BTVS that got a curse placed on it, removing its soul.
I don't think anyone familiar with the series can really comment on a review
of Surprise without spoilers for the 2nd part of this 2 part story.
Certainly I can't. The job of Surprise within the 2 part story is to set up
Innocence. How well it does it cannot determined without taking into account
the results in Innocence.
My suggestion for future 2 part stories is to write the review of the 1st
part before seeing that 2nd (so as to create a record of just how the 1st
part looks on its own, something now hard to achieve for those of familiar
with both parts) but to post it simultaneously with your review of the 2nd
part (with or without any comments you might want to make reevaluating the
1st part in the light of the 2nd)
But for me Surprise is the 10th best BtVS episode, and 4th best in Season 2.
--
Apteryx
William George Ferguson
> shu...@gmail.com (Shuggie) wrote:
>> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Buffy turns seventeen, and the show turns twenty-five. The birthday
>> > (or pre-birthday? I'm a bit unclear) starts with an obvious dream
>> > sequence with a few effective visuals/audibles: Joyce asking Buffy if
>> > she's "ready" is nice, as is Angel's slow-motion crumble into
>> > dust. And if you speak French (or read a translation) there's a nice
>> > little in-joke there too.
>>
>> You caught that huh? I didn't spot that until I was watching with the
>> subtitles one time.
Some nice people provided translations in the discussion immediately after
the airing, but I knew at least what the topic was from hearing L'Hippo
and pantalones.
By the way, I alway take that scene as an indicator that this is a
Slayerdream(tm), not just a dream. It was established back in WttH that
Buffy has revelatory 'true' dreams as part of the Slayer package (in her
opening Slayerdream(rm) in WttH she saw things from Prophecy Girl).
>And there might be some foreshadowing for another upcoming episode in
>that scene as well.
Sometimes a cigar is just a phallic signal.
>> > The unseen singer at the party apparently
>> > doesn't notice that her band is in the middle of doing the score for
>> > a porno.
[snip]
>The singer is a favourite of Joss's though. I think she's the only one
>who makes multiple appearances in the Bronze.
For these purposes you're excluding Four Star Mary, right?
There have been a handful of bands that have made multiple Bronze
appearances (Four Star Mary holding the record). You may be right about
individual singers, although I think that Cari Howe only performed twice.
I think her connection was more Clement & Murray than Whedon, her previous
appearance was in a Clement & Murray scored ep, and while Surprise is in a
Beck episode (and the start of the true run of Beck as "THE" Buffy
composer), the song she is singing in the Slayerdream(tm) is "Anything", a
Clement & Murray composition.
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
Carlos Moreno
>
> You perhaps did not notice the flesh.
>
>> AOQ rating: Decent
>
> Yeah. Right...
>
> You still mean that?
I'm going to go ahead under the assumption that AOQ's second
post does mean that he has already seen the second part at
this point -- AOQ, if you have not, please skip the rest of
this message.
I kind of agree and disagree with his point of view.
Disagree in that to me it is unthinkable to judge this one
(or WML, or Becoming, or any two-parter, for that matter)
alone -- it's like listening to the first half of a joke
and saying that it's not funny.
But then, I have to agree -- as an episode in itself, it is
rather unremarkable. As a whole, the two-parter is by far
the absolutely most spectacular thing we've seen at this
point of the series; I seriously doubt that there exists
a single person that does not agree with this. I'm
curious to see if AOQ's rate for Innocence is going to
be the expected "Extraordinary only because I don't have
any rating above that in my scale".
The thing is, and you probably already know this -- I
find that one of the most unforgivable things they ever
did during the show was the point at which they cut this
two-parter. It would seem like a mistake unforgivable
even for a beginner -- let alone for the absolute master,
Joss Whedon; WML part 1's ending gives value to that
episode; the whole episode does have some action that
makes it interesting; Orpbzvat cneg 1 vf na nfgbavfuvatyl
fcrpgnphyne rcvfbqr rira jura lbh whqtr vg nybar. Fnzr
sbe tenqhngvba qnl cneg V, fnzr sbe Guvf Lrne'f Tvey, rgp.
rgp. rgp. V oryvrir Fhecevfr vf gur jrnxrfg cneg V bs nyy
gur gjb-cnegref bs gur frevrf (ng yrnfg jura lbh whqtr gur
cneg V nf pbzcnerq gb gur gjb-cnegre nf n jubyr). Jr zvtug
jnag gb fgneg n frcnengr guernq vs jr zhfg qvfphff guvf.
but I have to agree that Surprise is rather weak; cheesyness
all around -- and if that wasn't enough, they leave a *gasp*,
*so suspenseful* (NOT!) "To Be Continued" at a point when
*nothing* is happenning -- and even more unforgivable:
when the most spectacular thing so far in the series is
five seconds away from happening. They could have left
Angelus showing up and killing/eating the prostitute in
the alley, and it would have had by far the biggest "what
the f**k?" factor so far in the series... *sigh*
Anyway, let's wait for AOQ's review of Innocence before
judging his level of mental sanity ;-)
Carlos
--
a2zmom
same time I think there's more meat here than you think.
One biggie that you missed - Dru is very much a dark mirror of Buffy
here. Both are having parties. Both see the future, although through
very distorted lenses as it were.
An totally unrelated, I always found the scene where Buffy goes to
Angel's apartment and wakes him up to be incredibly hot. The two of
them have incredible chemistry together and here it's easy to believe
that they can't keep their hands off of each other.
One Bit Shy
news:1140286414.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> Season Two, Episode 13: "Surprise"
> (or "You were totally born today!")
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: Michael Lange
<snip>
> And if you speak French (or read a translation) there's a nice
> little in-joke there too.
Thanks. I hadn't seen that before.
<snip>
>I think what it is that the dialogue is a little
> more straightforward than it's been, a little less nuance and snap to
> it.
Fair enough. There are good dialogue moments - some of which you note - but
on the whole it's not the strongest, IMO. I was a little alarmed at your
initial reaction, but that's a justification. And I guess I guess I can
forgive taking the plot as all portent without payoff when you didn't even
know it was a two parter until the end.
> This is most obvious in the first Buffy/Angel scene right after
> the dream.
I agree. (I wasn't too keen about the dialogue leading to Angel's departure
for the docks either.) There was an important idea being communicated -
Buffy kind of wants to stay and - you know - and a fairly clever line about
liking to see him at bed time. (Which serves as a nice lead in to the
Buffy/Willow conversation that always makes me giggle at Willow's
unrestrained eagerness for Buffy to "seize the day.") But this scene just
goes on and on with little to say.
<snip>
> Let's talk about two scenes that did work, and see if we can figure
> out exactly what they're doing differently. The first, and possibly
> most important, is Calendar's scene with Enyos. He arrives looking
> like a menacing figure, greets her sinisterly... and they know each
> other (I always like that trick). He cuts right to the chase, asking
> about Angel, and we learn that there's a lot about Jenny that we
> didn't suspect. This exchange tells us a few things. But it's
> also interesting for what it leaves unanswered. Calendar is a mere
> mortal (based on her crediting Angel for saving her life) and came here
> to watch Angel. But did her research into the occult predate getting
> involved here? And did she hit on Giles just to get close to him, or
> is the attraction real? (I'm betting on the latter, but intend to,
> you know, keep watching.) Is her barely-questioning acceptance of her
> purpose genuine, or is she still conflicted about it?
>
> This moment succeeds where the dream at the beginning only sorta does.
> It colors the rest of the episode. Every time Calendar appears
> afterward, we wonder whether she's setting her plan into motion to
> separate Slayer from be-souled vampire. When she's acting mysterious
> and driving them to the party, it's easy to speculate that she's
> actually taking them into a trap. And whenever something bad happens,
> the viewer wonders whether she was somehow responsible.
I really enjoyed this twist for Jenny when I first saw the episode. I
always liked her, but her role was feeling kind of like a fifth wheel to me.
And her uncle...at first I was sceptical about him, but when he started
laying into Jenny and the revelations start coming out... wow. When it was
over I could feel her throat tightening along with mine.
<snip>
> Since
> Willow's my favorite character, I have to fight my inner "no
> one's good enough for her!" inclination, but I do think this thing
> with Oz could work nicely.
LOL! Only I'm good enough for Willow, you know. heh-heh How many people
imagined something like that do you suppose? The moments with Oz are kind
of magical aren't they? And just a little while ago we were wondering if
anything was ever going to happen with them.
> Provided my now-discarded prediction from
> the "Halloween" review doesn't re-emerge, anyway.
Predictions are funny things. Even when you're right, your'e wrong. You
know? The only thing that matters is wondering. The trick is to wonder
about everything.
<snip>
> (I wish Drusilla becoming less weak had
> made her more interesting. Ah, well.)
Hmmm. Ok. She's not ill any more. She's active with strength and energy
now, so...
I'd suggest watching her physical performance again. Her movemnts, her
mannerisms, her expressions. I really enjoyed that in this episode - one of
the elements not at all flat for me. Like the scene where she torments her
minion for failing to deliver the Judge's arm. "Close your eyes. Make a
wish." With her eyes closed playing the birthday girl making a wish. And
then playing at poking out the guy's eyes with a gleeful tongue between
teeth grin. And then a flourish to end the torment, a pat on his head,
followed by an elegant arms out dance like move to Spike to sit on his lap.
It's difficult to do it justice in description. But the scene is more about
physical acting than it is dialogue. As is her dancing entrance into her
party. And the foot stomping, "Do it again! Do it again!" Pretty much
everything she does in this episode - even the smallest things - are infused
with a significant physical component that provides the power of the moment.
(I also love her vamp face. Really creepy.)
There's also a curious reversal of position with Drusilla here. Previously
it had been the healthy Spike caring for the ailing Dru. Now Spike's in the
wheel chair and Dru is in charge with her own ideas. ("My gatherings are
always perfect... I've got good games for everyone.") I'm not entirely
sure what significance to draw form that at this point, but I do observe
that Buffy does like to repeat old moments in a different way. (Another one
in this episode is Willow's, "Seize the day", which she got from Buffy in
Season 1. Questionable advice both times too.)
<snip>
> It's as if there was a great 44
> minutes of BTVS that got a curse placed on it, removing its soul.
mmmmmm
> More on Da Judge: wasn't the show just crying out for another
> silly-looking demon? (Hint: No.).
I think I'm the only one that actually kind of likes the way he looks.
Certainly a step up from the blob and eyeball in Bad Eggs. And I like his
voice and - um - personality? (Is there a better word?)
> Mrs. Quality notes that Buffy did
> make contact with him when she kicked him, but that's easy to explain
> away if you care enough - maybe only touch by his volition counts.
> Or only skin-to-skin contact. Or something.
<shrug> He said he wasn't at full strength.
<snip>
> Any particular reason everyone bends over backward to make sure that
> Joyce "MUST not know" about Buffy, but no one really seems to
> object when Oz is casually inducted into the club?
But. But. But. But! Didn't you get what Oz said?
Willow: I know it's hard to accept at first.
Oz: Actually, it explains a LOT!
Oz already knew stuff was happening. The implication is that lot's of
people do. There are huge cracks in the facade of looking the other way.
(The writers are fully aware of the issue. To a significant extent they're
stuck with it. Sort of like death following Jessica Fletcher around in
Murder, She Wrote. You'd kind of expect people to run the other direction
whenever she shows up. But the show doesn't work if people do that. Same
kind of issue here. But the writers still do something with it
periodically - like here. I think the moment is funny as hell.)
<snip>
> I haven't mentioned the ending and unexpected (to me, I didn't know
> it was a two-parter) cliffhanger. My reaction to that can be summed up
> in one word: huh?
Surprise!
(I didn't know it was a two parter when I first saw it either.)
<snip>
> AOQ rating: Decent
I think there's a lot to the plot - even standing alone - that makes it
better. But you justified your rating fairly. We'll see how the payoff
goes.
OBS
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> is the attraction real? (I'm betting on the latter, but intend to,
her legal concern is with angel only not watchers or slayers
her relation with those is personal
> I haven't mentioned the ending and unexpected (to me, I didn't know
> it was a two-parter) cliffhanger. My reaction to that can be summed up
> in one word: huh? Anyway, time shall tell.
the show went from monday 9pm after seventh heaven on surprise
to tuesday 8pm the next day with innocence
so this was two episodes on one week
and needed to pull viewers to the new time slot
it kept the tuesday 8pm after that to the end
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
John Briggs
>
> The singer is a favourite of Joss's though. I think she's the only
> one who makes multiple appearances in the Bronze.
I don't think that's it - I think the connection is with the series
composers.
--
John Briggs
hopelessly devoted
> return at the end of Two To Go had to be kept short otherwise SAG rules
> meant he'd have to be creditted up front. I think ASH himself was happy
> to waive the credit. At least that's the story I heard from somewhere.
> Can anyone confirm or deny it?
Can't confirm or deny completely, however, the "have to be creditted up
front" rule was in may cases when they wanted to keep the surprise
guest (hidden in the opening credits).
There was an interesting site that went into detail on exactly which
eps this occured. If I re-find it, will post.
hopelessly devoted
Scythe Matters wrote:
> > I should feel sad at the possibility that Angel could so suddenly be
> > taken away from her, but I'm not really feeling it. (And it's not
> > "knowing" that the separation won't actually happen that causes
> > the indifference.
Intersting, just realized. But more later.
hopelessly devoted
As I smile and laugh. Ahhh, the possibilities......
Lord Usher
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>> Note: "Innocence" review coming when I get around to spell-checking
>> and such, probably later today.
>>
>> -AOQ
>
> I hope Innocence gets you to revisit your comments about Surprise,
> because you're coming off as just way too cynical and jaded on this
> one.
>
> If you can't empathize with the main character, if SMG is not doing it
> for you, I'm guessing you'll be wandering away from the Buffy-verse
> sooner than later.
Bah. I thought then and I think now that "Surprise" is artless dreck,
basically an afterschool special with monsters, but that's never stopped me
from appreciating the series in its finer moments.
Oh, look, here comes one now. :)
--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
Arbitrar Of Quality
> All in all, major stuff is going on, but "Surprise"
> > doesn't feel like a major episode. It's as if there was a great 44
> > minutes of BTVS that got a curse placed on it, removing its soul.
>
> You peeked. At the time that the show aired, I still wasn't quite sure
> that is what actually happened. It was a hunch, but intil the next ep,
> I wasn't 100% sure. Big Cheater!
I don't get it. Given that a good portion of the episode (and the
series so far) is about the effects of a curse that gave someone a
soul, is it that hard to believe that I came up with that comment right
after watching "Surprise?" Because I did.
Besides, vg jnfa'g n ersrerapr gb gur ortvaavat bs "Vaabprapr," orpnhfr
gung'f nobhg erzbivat n phefr, abg cynpvat bar.
-AOQ
~I finally got to ROT-13~
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Which means, I guess, that if you want to be really
> anal about not spoiling yourself, you probably shouldn't pay attention
> to who writes what until after you've seen the episode.
Except that the writing credits are at the beginning of Act I of each
episode, as the creators intended (and as is true of almost every
hour-long drama in existence). I really don't see how that could
constitute any kind of spoiler.
> What there is, is building tension of the waiting-for-catastrophe
> kind...and I think the deliberate supression of peaks helps move that
> along, though it appears to not have made much of an impression on you.
> At the beginning, Buffy's wigged and everyone else is matter-of-fact,
> trying to calm her. By the end, there's a fairly good sense of urgency
> among the gang regarding The Judge, and of course Buffy's anxiety is
> highest of all considering she knows he's operational, she barely
> escaped death (as did Angel), and she's been through some fairly severe
> emotional wrenches in this episode: extreme love, extreme loss, extreme
> fear.
I think they were trying for that mounting
bad-things-are-about-to-happen vibe (especially with the Slayer-dream),
but didn't quite pull it off.
> Again, I think it's deliberate: they've eased into a
> really comfortable zone as a couple. One can argue about whether or not
> the later stages of a relationship are more exciting than the early
> stages, but certainly the earlier stages are of more *dramatic*
> interest. We've gotten through those, and now we're seeing the calmer
> aftermath. It's right, in this case, and it's even necessary.
I don't see this stage as "calmer," given that this episode and "Bad
Eggs" seemed to be trying to give us "intense passion." And what's
more exciting to a seventeen-year-old than having sex for the first
time?
Your point is interesting. I don't think the setup for a relationship
is any less interesting, inherently, than either the passionate early
stage or the comfortable later stages. I do think that most TV writers
are more interested in the former two than the latter one, and of
those, the first is easier to write _well_ than the second.
> As Don said, I don't think they *wanted* to bring Oz into the club. But
> at that point, it was pretty hard not to. The general rule about
> protecting Buffy's identity is a conceit borrowed from superhero tales
> galore, but to its credit the show doesn't do the old comic book (or
> Star Trek) trick of technological/magical/superpowered memory wipes. And
> note Xander's reaction, delivered matter-of-fact and vaguely irritated
> that another's in on the secret:
>
> Xander: Yep. Vampires are real. A lot of them live in Sunnydale.
> (gestures between Willow and Oz) Willow will fill you in. (walks off)
Granted, but you can't disagree that they try a lot harder to hide the
truth from some characters than others.
-AOQ
alphakitten
I wouldn't go that far, but I do find it a decidedly average affair. Of
course I was never one for the Bangel shippage, so that may have
something to do with it.
~Angel
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> Scythe Matters wrote:
>
> > As Don said, I don't think they *wanted* to bring Oz into the club. But
> > at that point, it was pretty hard not to. The general rule about
> > protecting Buffy's identity is a conceit borrowed from superhero tales
> > galore, but to its credit the show doesn't do the old comic book (or
> > Star Trek) trick of technological/magical/superpowered memory wipes. And
> > note Xander's reaction, delivered matter-of-fact and vaguely irritated
> > that another's in on the secret:
> >
> > Xander: Yep. Vampires are real. A lot of them live in Sunnydale.
> > (gestures between Willow and Oz) Willow will fill you in. (walks off)
>
> Granted, but you can't disagree that they try a lot harder to hide the
> truth from some characters than others.
>
> -AOQ
They hide from the parental units, because the parental units have power
over them, and are liable to try to exercise that power. Oz is just
another kid. He has no power over them.
George W Harris
wrote:
:> Calendar is a mere
:> mortal (based on her crediting Angel for saving her life) and came here
:> to watch Angel. But did her research into the occult predate getting
:> involved here? And did she hit on Giles just to get close to him, or
:> is the attraction real? (I'm betting on the latter, but intend to,
:> you know, keep watching.) Is her barely-questioning acceptance of her
:> purpose genuine, or is she still conflicted about it?
:
:All good questions. ;-)
The only correct way to phrase that would be:
"Guerr rkpryyrag dhrfgvbaf."
--
"The truths of mathematics describe a bright and clear universe,
exquisite and beautiful in its structure, in comparison with
which the physical world is turbid and confused."
-Eulogy for G.H.Hardy
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
John Briggs
No, you're missing the point - you're the one who doesn't need to use rot13
:-)
--
John Briggs
Michael Ikeda
news:NJNJf.64758$pf1.1...@weber.videotron.net:
(snipped)
> The thing is, and you probably already know this -- I
> find that one of the most unforgivable things they ever
> did during the show was the point at which they cut this
> two-parter. It would seem like a mistake unforgivable
> even for a beginner -- let alone for the absolute master,
> Joss Whedon; WML part 1's ending gives value to that
> episode; the whole episode does have some action that
> makes it interesting; Orpbzvat cneg 1 vf na nfgbavfuvatyl
> fcrpgnphyne rcvfbqr rira jura lbh whqtr vg nybar. Fnzr
> sbe tenqhngvba qnl cneg V, fnzr sbe Guvf Lrne'f Tvey, rgp.
> rgp. rgp. V oryvrir Fhecevfr vf gur jrnxrfg cneg V bs nyy
> gur gjb-cnegref bs gur frevrf (ng yrnfg jura lbh whqtr gur
> cneg V nf pbzcnerq gb gur gjb-cnegre nf n jubyr). Jr zvtug
> jnag gb fgneg n frcnengr guernq vs jr zhfg qvfphff guvf.
> but I have to agree that Surprise is rather weak; cheesyness
> all around -- and if that wasn't enough, they leave a *gasp*,
> *so suspenseful* (NOT!) "To Be Continued" at a point when
> *nothing* is happenning -- and even more unforgivable:
> when the most spectacular thing so far in the series is
> five seconds away from happening. They could have left
> Angelus showing up and killing/eating the prostitute in
> the alley, and it would have had by far the biggest "what
> the f**k?" factor so far in the series... *sigh*
>
I don't agree that "nothing" is happening at the breakpoint. It
seemed clear to me that SOMETHING is happening, and probably not
something good. I'd suspect that why the breakpoint was at that
exact moment. Just far enough to indicate that something bad was
happening, without giving any clues as to what it was.
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
Scythe Matters
> Except that the writing credits are at the beginning of Act I of each
> episode
I didn't say it was a perfect plan. ;-)
> I really don't see how that could constitute any kind of spoiler.
The only sense in which it does is this: "Written & directed by Joss
Whedon" usually means the episode is Important. Actually, after the
early days of the show, any Whedon credit or co-credit usually means
some sort of importance.
It's left as an exercise for the new viewer -- that'd be you ;-) -- to
determine how "Ted" fits into this rule.
> I think they were trying for that mounting
> bad-things-are-about-to-happen vibe (especially with the Slayer-dream),
> but didn't quite pull it off.
Viewed alone, I don't disagree. Viewed as the first half of a series, of
course, it's a little different. It depends on how you want to look at
it. I'm not saying one's right and one's not.
> I don't see this stage as "calmer," given that this episode and "Bad
> Eggs" seemed to be trying to give us "intense passion." And what's
> more exciting to a seventeen-year-old than having sex for the first
> time?
Well, we're building to that, and that's the not-calm part that finishes
the episode. But we've moved from "I really don't like him" to "when I
kiss you, I want to die" to morning smoochies, and at this stage Angel
is much less the mysterious guy who appears, warns and disappears and
more the comforting, Buffy-hugging boyfriend. It's supposed to be
passionate, sure, but it's also the most stable point their relationship
has so far reached.
Since you've seen "Innocence," of course, you know what this means. ;-)
> Your point is interesting. I don't think the setup for a relationship
> is any less interesting, inherently, than either the passionate early
> stage or the comfortable later stages. I do think that most TV writers
> are more interested in the former two than the latter one, and of
> those, the first is easier to write _well_ than the second.
Absolutely agreed.
> Granted, but you can't disagree that they try a lot harder to hide the
> truth from some characters than others.
Hmmm. Well, lots of people "know stuff" because Buffy's had to do the
Slayer thing where they can see it. Nothing to be done about that,
really. Other than Snyder and Joyce -- neither of whom, based on what
we've seen, are likely to be sympathetic or encouraging -- who else have
they tried really hard to hide it from?
Stephen Tempest
>Eliza Dushku agreed to have her appearance in the ANGEL episode
>"Judgment" credited at the end of the episode instead of up front with
>the rest of the guest cast in order to preserve the surprise of her
>character's appearance on screen.
Plus, as I recall, Juliet Landau's part in A2:09 'The Trial' was not
announced in the opening credits, to keep the sudden appearance of
Drusilla in the final scene of the episode a surprise. Instead, she
got a 'Special guest star' screen to herself before the main closing
credits sequence began.
Stephen
drifter
You don't want him to spoil himself, now, do you? He may accidentally
tell himself something he doesn't know yet.
--
Kel
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
Arbitrar Of Quality
Carlos Moreno wrote:
> The thing is, and you probably already know this -- I
> find that one of the most unforgivable things they ever
> did during the show was the point at which they cut this
> two-parter. It would seem like a mistake unforgivable
> even for a beginner -- let alone for the absolute master,
> Joss Whedon; WML part 1's ending gives value to that
> episode; the whole episode does have some action that
> makes it interesting;
[snip]
they leave a *gasp*,
> *so suspenseful* (NOT!) "To Be Continued" at a point when
> *nothing* is happenning -- and even more unforgivable:
> when the most spectacular thing so far in the series is
> five seconds away from happening. They could have left
> [beginning of "Innocence"], and it would have had by far the biggest "what
> the f**k?" factor so far in the series... *sigh*
Completely agreed. Some people have said that they like the vaguer
susense of the way Part I ends better, but seriously, folks, what makes
a better "holy shit, I need to make sure to watch again tomorrow"
cliffhanger:
1) After a fun night, Buffy drifts off to sleep with Angel beside her.
Shortly afterward, with no obvious buildup, he inexplicably starts
screaming and runs outside. To be continued...
2) The teaser of "Innocence." To be continued...
While it's theoretically concievable that some might say 1), they'd be
in the distinctest of distinct minorities.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
\
> >>
> >> -AOQ
> >> ~I finally got to ROT-13~
> >
> > No, you're missing the point - you're the one who doesn't need to use
> > rot13 :-)
>
> You don't want him to spoil himself, now, do you? He may accidentally
> tell himself something he doesn't know yet.
Well, what about David Sewell and anyone else who's watching for the
first time and hoping these threads are truly spoiler-free? Everyone
should experience the thing I'm trying not to mention for themselves.
-AOQ
KenM47
Could have just been the result of programming needs, and commercial
breaks. Not a perfect TV world, folks.
Personally, I was going to watch the second night if they had ended it
with Buffy and Angel in the water or whatever.
Ken (Brooklyn)
John Briggs
> breaks. Not a perfect TV world, folks.
No, it's intentional. Don't forget, they start with the commercial breaks,
and construct the script around them. The breaks are essential - that's why
there is a black screen on the DVDs. In the UK, the BBC edited out the
breaks when they showed the series...
--
John Briggs
kenm47
There's "intentionl" and then there's "intentional." I'm suggesting
they did lay it out, and were stuck with having to work around the
breaks. On storyboard and stop watch (however they timed it), they may
well have concluded the break point was fine with the needs to get in
the commercials and the station promos.
I'm opining. Your opinion is also an opinion. Show me a link to an
insider tells all on this that says you're right. Otherwise, I'll
accept that you have a particular view, which I can't say is correct
and neither can you.
Ken (Brooklyn)
One Bit Shy
news:1140370750.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I don't know that there's necessarily a right or wrong answer to this. But
I'd like to point out that the tease to the next show isn't the only issue
at hand. There's also the question of what you're left with at the end of
this episode. Buffy and Angel had just slept together. The chosen ending
indicates something big just happened - perhaps as a result - but you don't
know what and you are left pondering the huge romantic step they just took.
The proposed alternative leaps right past that to a season changing
consequence. Wouldn't that diminish the initial impact - the romantic
part - of them making love? I think the choice is pretty defensible. The
fact they made love is important too, and you want that to sink into
people's minds.
OBS
John Briggs
> they did lay it out, and were stuck with having to work around the
> breaks. On storyboard and stop watch (however they timed it), they may
> well have concluded the break point was fine with the needs to get in
> the commercials and the station promos.
>
> I'm opining. Your opinion is also an opinion. Show me a link to an
> insider tells all on this that says you're right. Otherwise, I'll
> accept that you have a particular view, which I can't say is correct
> and neither can you.
In "The Watcher's Guide, Volume 2", pp. 333-6, Jane Espenson describes the
process of 'breaking the story'. "The act breaks is where you start. At
the end of each act, which is going to be its emotional high point."
Actually, what we are arguing about here is whether a particular scene
belongs in the coda for one episode, or the teaser for the next. In S5
there is a documented example of the teaser for one episode being used in
the coda for the previous episode (it occurs in both episodes), but there is
not, I think, an example the other way around.
This particular scene is split between the end of the coda of "Surprise",
and the *end* of the teaser of "Innocence" - it is clearly deliberately
scripted that way.
--
John Briggs
Clairel
--Before "Prophecy Girl," Cordy didn't know anything, did she? And
that's because the gang went to great lengths to keep her from knowing.
Remember the season 1 episode in which they were talking about Buffy
having a relationship with a vampire? Cordy came walking up and Xander
went into this whole "umpire" riff. "I mean umpire, of course, umpire.
How could you love an umpire? Everybody hates them!" Cordy wasn't
even paying attention but Xander thought she was.
In some other season 1 episode, Buffy was embarrassed when she dropped
a stake out of her purse and Cordy saw it and thought she was weird.
Buffy also didn't want Owen to know about the existence of vampires and
so forth. And that was even before she knew he was a danger thrill
freak.
Everything about vampires and slayers was supposed to be a secret,
except for people in the inner circle.
Clairel
Don Sample
"Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote:
> --Before "Prophecy Girl," Cordy didn't know anything, did she? And
> that's because the gang went to great lengths to keep her from knowing.
She'd figured out that Buffy was the go-to-girl when things got weird,
back in OoM-OoS.
> Remember the season 1 episode in which they were talking about Buffy
> having a relationship with a vampire? Cordy came walking up and Xander
> went into this whole "umpire" riff. "I mean umpire, of course, umpire.
> How could you love an umpire? Everybody hates them!" Cordy wasn't
> even paying attention but Xander thought she was.
That wasn't about keeping vampires secret. That was about keeping her
from thinking he was a crazy person, 'cause only crazy people talk about
vampires like they're real.
Scythe Matters
> --Before "Prophecy Girl," Cordy didn't know anything, did she? And
> that's because the gang went to great lengths to keep her from knowing.
>
> Remember the season 1 episode in which they were talking about Buffy
> having a relationship with a vampire? Cordy came walking up and Xander
> went into this whole "umpire" riff. "I mean umpire, of course, umpire.
> How could you love an umpire? Everybody hates them!" Cordy wasn't
> even paying attention but Xander thought she was.
You have a strangely un-rigorous definition of "great lengths."
Here's an interaction from "Welcome to the Hellmouth," when Buffy almost
attacks Cordelia at The Bronze with a --
----
Buffy: (recognizing) Cordelia! (she lets go)
Cordelia: God! What is your childhood trauma?!
Her entourage appears in the restroom door behind her.
Buffy: Have you guys seen Willow? Did she come by here?
Cordelia: Why? Do you need to attack her with the stick? Jeez!
Buffy turns and goes.
----
And here's the interaction from "Out of Mind, Out of Sight" --
----
They've reached the library doors, and Buffy comes barging out. She
bumps into Mitch and drops her bag, spilling out its contents: a couple
of stakes, a couple of crosses, a mace and other stuff.
Cordelia: Uhhh! Behold, the weirdness!
Buffy: (looks up) You're probably wondering what I'm doing with this
stuff, huh?
Cordelia: Wow, I'm not!
Buffy: Uh, for history class. Mr. Giles has this, like, hobby of
collecting stuff... which he lent me... for show and tell. D-did I
mention it's for history class?
Harmony: She is always hanging with that creepy librarian in that
creepy library.
Cordelia and company continue down the hall.
----
These, coupled with wordplay from Xander, are by you "great lengths"?
You have an equally un-rigorous definition of "the gang," by the way.
Every core character has been involved in an ongoing conspiracy to hide
things from Joyce (naq guvf pber jvyy bayl rkcnaq nf jr svavfu bss guvf
frnfba). Buffy -- halfheartedly, and probably ineffectively if Cordelia
had actually cared -- and one short riff from Xander are not "the gang."
> Buffy also didn't want Owen to know about the existence of vampires and
> so forth. And that was even before she knew he was a danger thrill
> freak.
The original conversation was about not trying to hide the Slayer stuff
from Oz when he'd just seen her stake a vampire in front of him. Yes,
they tried to keep Owen from getting involved, and there was a lot of
silly running around at the morgue to accomplish this task, but when it
came down to it they didn't tell Owen some ridiculous story to cover up
what he had plainly seen with his own eyes. With Joyce, they've done
that more than once, naq jvyy ntnva.
> Everything about vampires and slayers was supposed to be a secret,
> except for people in the inner circle.
Well, no: everything about vampires and slayers was supposed to be a
secret, full stop.
Clairel
Scythe Matters wrote:
> Clairel wrote:
>
> > --Before "Prophecy Girl," Cordy didn't know anything, did she? And
> > that's because the gang went to great lengths to keep her from knowing.
> >
> > Remember the season 1 episode in which they were talking about Buffy
> > having a relationship with a vampire? Cordy came walking up and Xander
> > went into this whole "umpire" riff. "I mean umpire, of course, umpire.
> > How could you love an umpire? Everybody hates them!" Cordy wasn't
> > even paying attention but Xander thought she was.
>
> You have a strangely un-rigorous definition of "great lengths."
--To me, that whole silly, far-fetched "umpire" riff was great lengths.
It was very amusing, and I loved the writing in that scene, but it's a
huge effort for Xander to make just to keep Cordelia in the dark.
Clairel
Scythe Matters
> --To me, that whole silly, far-fetched "umpire" riff was great lengths.
> It was very amusing, and I loved the writing in that scene, but it's a
> huge effort for Xander to make just to keep Cordelia in the dark.
"Huge"???
Goodness.
George W Harris
wrote:
For Xander. He's not the sharpest stake in the backpack.
:
:Goodness.
--
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar." -Wash, 'Serenity'