AOQ Angel Review 5-1: "Conviction"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
ANGEL
Season Five, Episode 1: "Conviction"
(or "Sure you want to start the season this way? Not too late to back
out...")
Writer: Joss Whedon
Director: Joss Whedon
I keep wanting to call this one "Commitment" for some reason. Anyway,
like old times, the teaser of "Conviction" is a microcosm of the rest
of the show. Angel starts by doing a classic "City Of" alley rescue,
unconnected with the main story. He completes it despite it being too
damn dark to see much of anything, and then runs into a swarm of his
theoretical employees. There's material enough to come up with one
good, if silly, gag: "this is to confirm that you have been rescued by
Angel, C.E.O. and President of Wolfram & Hart..." and then the scene
just kinda continues, hammering home the point of how antithetical to
our heroes this operation is. So it's all about demonstrating the
difference between then and now, setting the stage, with precious
little time devoted to actually telling a tale with any worthwhile
content. And all of its messages and jokes get tired long before they
leave the screen. That's "Conviction" in a nutshell. What is it with
ATS and season premieres?
Our heroes are out of their element at the firm, a fact which we get
reminded of in repetitious detail. That's my biggest problem with the
show, that it feels the need to drag on the evil-firm type scenes long
after the humor has lapsed and the point has been made. So we've got
Hauser and his team of guys who talk in a monotone and refuse to let
Angel work alone or respect the spirit of his orders. We've got
levels of bean-counters and people scheduling meetings. Trust me, it
takes a hell of a lot longer to watch than it does to type. Other
than a few funny moments with the crew trying to get used to the
phones, the episode is all about W&H. Our heroes' job is mostly to
react to W&H in a disappointingly personality-free way.
A diverting exception comes with that exchange with "Spanky." It's
almost a throwaway, but it hits the right notes. You've got the comic
absurdity of some of the dialogue ("men have fine, firm asses" is the
most prominent "did I really just hear that?" spit-take moment of the
episode, followed by "my horns are falling asleep"). That's matched
with a nice bit of Angel as the one-liner delivering action hero - it
doesn't quite click at the climax when "Conviction" tries the same
thing again, but it works in this brief and to-the-point moment.
ATS could use some more chicks. This episode features the
reintroduction of Harmony, a character who'd just about run her course
and whom I thought the ME crew had showed some restraint in retiring.
Actually, now that it's been over two years, it still probably counts
as showing restraint. Most of her scenes made me smile, plus they
serve the purpose of constantly showing that the new W&H-whipped Angel
has a bona fide unsouled vampire in his employ. The ditziness seems
toned down compared to "Disharmony," which could be a good or bad
thing if it continues (and I assume we'll see plenty of her,
especially given the title of an upcoming episode. She even gets the
last line here!). On the plus side, it'll give her routine more
longevity if she's given room to be an actual character. On the minus
side, subdue her Harmony-ness too much and you turn a laugh into a
faint half-smile, and ATS is humorless enough as it is.
Not sure what Eve's role is in the totem pole relative to the
panther. I like her at first glance, although she's hindered by being
as low-key as everything else in the episode. As the new face of
negotiable evil, she seems as able to adapt to changing circumstances
as her firm has been throughout the series, and much more threatening
than chumps like the episode's proximate villain. I like the bit with
the apple, both for the getting the irony out of the way, and for
Angel's response - one of the few great examples of what can only be
described as "trash-eating."
Nominal A-story of this one involves a plot that couldn't have been
done in previous seasons, with our heroes forced to prevent a guy from
being convicted. That's not a good thing, because it's not a type of
story that suits _Angel_. The scene in which the gang rattle off _24_
scenarios as possible meanings of "the bomb" drives home the
dissonance. A bioterrorist attack on L.A. is good as a day-year's
obsession for our friends at CTU, but here it's a blah throwaway plot
for Team Angel to foil. At this point there are way too many broad
character types introduced in "Commitment," so Fries's first
appearance filled me with a thick, palpable apathy. He may have
satisfied our hero with his response to the pointed "it's strange, my
lack of incentive," but not me.
So, why try to "take out" a notoriously hard to kill enemy with a
bunch of guns that you know full well will only annoy him?
I commented to Mrs. Q. (who's with me again in watching for the
moment, but maybe only for a few shows... we'll see) that legal-ese
shouldn't be allowed to go on for more than a minute or so at a time.
We get that Gunn can force the judge into a mistrial, do we have to
see every second of it? Pretty painful scene. Otherwise, I think
the Gunn sequences go on too long before letting the viewer in on what
he's planning, but the results at least do show something of
significance happening in this episode. The lawyer infusion is an odd
choice for him - the writers have been confusing me for some time with
their depiction of this character, so no sea change in that regard.
He seemed like a source of corruptability in "Home," so is this just
the next step, or is there something more? That was rhetorical; we'll
have to see where it goes. On the more visual side, he looks a little
weird with hair now, but the suit definitely works for him, as seen
last year too.
This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
- "Right. What's that mean again?" "That people will believe
anything. Actually, in this place, feng shui will probably have
enormous significance. I'll align my furniture the wrong way and
suddenly catch fire or turn into a pudding."
- "You have reached ritual sacrifice. For goats, press one, or say
'goats'"
The last few seconds have the character that everyone knew was going
to show up, um, showing up. I assume the cheesy melodramatic chord on
"to be continued" was meant to be funny?
To crib once again from others' papers, One Bit Shy commented on
"Heartthrob" that "I'd probably rate it Weak, though an odd kind of
Weak in that I don't much care that it's not very good." That's where
I am with this one. "Heartthrob" at least had some real issues at the
core of it which tied into Angel's history and the nature of the
'verse's vampire mythology. This one has plenty of nothing, beyond
nudging a few playing pieces. It certainly goes down as far and away
the worst episode to be written and directed by JW in ME history. But
I don't really care that it's not good, because it ends with the
threat of the week over and the premise fully established. If the
stage is set, we can now leave this episode behind and have ourselves
a final season of the Buffyverse.
So...
One-sentence summary: Eh.
AOQ rating: Weak
[Season Five so far:
1) "Conviction" - Weak]
(Harmony) Watcher
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170123692.2...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> ANGEL
> Season Five, Episode 1: "Conviction"
> (or "Sure you want to start the season this way? Not too late to back
> out...")
> Writer: Joss Whedon
> Director: Joss Whedon
>
>
>
> ATS could use some more chicks. This episode features the
> reintroduction of Harmony, a character who'd just about run her course
> and whom I thought the ME crew had showed some restraint in retiring.
> Actually, now that it's been over two years, it still probably counts
> as showing restraint. Most of her scenes made me smile, plus they
> serve the purpose of constantly showing that the new W&H-whipped Angel
> has a bona fide unsouled vampire in his employ. The ditziness seems
> toned down compared to "Disharmony," which could be a good or bad
> thing if it continues (and I assume we'll see plenty of her,
> especially given the title of an upcoming episode. She even gets the
> last line here!). On the plus side, it'll give her routine more
> longevity if she's given room to be an actual character. On the minus
> side, subdue her Harmony-ness too much and you turn a laugh into a
> faint half-smile,
>
> and ATS is humorless enough as it is.
>
For me, just watching Whedon's vHarmony-schtick is priceless:
QUOTE (http://bdb.vrya.net/bdb/clip.php?clip=5326)
HARMONY: Hey! Boss.
ANGEL: You're my secretary?
HARMONY: Hello! Assistant.
ANGEL: Explain why I shouldn't kill you.
HARMONY: Secretary's fine.
ANGEL: No, it's not fine. Where is it fine? You've been working here?
HARMONY: Yeah-huh.
ANGEL: Why?
HARMONY: Well, duh! I'm a single undead gal trying to make it in the big
city. I have to start somewhere. And they're evil here, they don't judge.
They've got the necrotempered glass— no burning up. A great medical plan,
and who needs dental more than us?
ANGEL: This is surreal.
HARMONY: Now, before you go threatening to fire me—
ANGEL: I threatened to kill you.
UNQUOTE
vHarmony is the ultimate comic relief. I'd bet Wesley enjoyed watching Angel
being tortured by ditsiness as much as the audience. But don't let's
quibble.
> <rest snipped>
--
==Harmony Watcher==
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> out...")
in a sense theyre restarting the show
so this acts somewhat as the season and series opener
but with alot of backstory already in place
> ATS could use some more chicks. This episode features the
> reintroduction of Harmony, a character who'd just about run her course
> and whom I thought the ME crew had showed some restraint in retiring.
harmony shows that sometinmes becoming a demon makes you more moral than human
> Not sure what Eve's role is in the totem pole relative to the
> panther. I like her at first glance, although she's hindered by being
> as low-key as everything else in the episode. As the new face of
the banality of evil?
wrh have avoided appearing scary
their way is not to frighten people into evil
but to seduce them
> So, why try to "take out" a notoriously hard to kill enemy with a
> bunch of guns that you know full well will only annoy him?
we dont know if the swat team knew angel was a vampire
the holy water mightve been standard equipment
> significance happening in this episode. The lawyer infusion is an odd
> choice for him - the writers have been confusing me for some time with
> their depiction of this character, so no sea change in that regard.
gunn got what he wanted
a status upgrade
> The last few seconds have the character that everyone knew was going
> to show up, um, showing up. I assume the cheesy melodramatic chord on
> "to be continued" was meant to be funny?
i avoided all spoilers so i didnt know about blondy bear until he showed up
but harmony
ahh
you didnt like after all the dramatic responses to spike
that it was harmony that popped in and squealed blondy bear?
meow arf meow - they are performing horrible experiments in space
major grubert is watching you - beware the bakalite
impeach the bastard - the airtight garage has you neo
Ken from Chicago
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170123692.2...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> threads.
>
>
> ANGEL
> Season Five, Episode 1: "Conviction"
> (or "Sure you want to start the season this way? Not too late to back
> out...")
> Writer: Joss Whedon
> Director: Joss Whedon
>
> I keep wanting to call this one "Commitment" for some reason. Anyway,
> like old times, the teaser of "Conviction" is a microcosm of the rest
> of the show. Angel starts by doing a classic "City Of" alley rescue,
> unconnected with the main story. He completes it despite it being too
> damn dark to see much of anything, and then runs into a swarm of his
> theoretical employees. There's material enough to come up with one
> good, if silly, gag: "this is to confirm that you have been rescued by
> Angel, C.E.O. and President of Wolfram & Hart..." and then the scene
> just kinda continues, hammering home the point of how antithetical to
> our heroes this operation is. So it's all about demonstrating the
> difference between then and now, setting the stage, with precious
> little time devoted to actually telling a tale with any worthwhile
> content. And all of its messages and jokes get tired long before they
> leave the screen. That's "Conviction" in a nutshell. What is it with
> ATS and season premieres?
Classic symptom of "pilotitis", scenes going on way to long for fear the new
audience won't get it. S5 is pert near a brand new series for ANGEL.
> Our heroes are out of their element at the firm, a fact which we get
> reminded of in repetitious detail. That's my biggest problem with the
> show, that it feels the need to drag on the evil-firm type scenes long
> after the humor has lapsed and the point has been made. So we've got
> Hauser and his team of guys who talk in a monotone and refuse to let
> Angel work alone or respect the spirit of his orders. We've got
> levels of bean-counters and people scheduling meetings. Trust me, it
> takes a hell of a lot longer to watch than it does to type. Other
> than a few funny moments with the crew trying to get used to the
> phones, the episode is all about W&H. Our heroes' job is mostly to
> react to W&H in a disappointingly personality-free way.
Too many guest stars squeezing out the main stars.
> A diverting exception comes with that exchange with "Spanky." It's
> almost a throwaway, but it hits the right notes. You've got the comic
> absurdity of some of the dialogue ("men have fine, firm asses" is the
> most prominent "did I really just hear that?" spit-take moment of the
> episode, followed by "my horns are falling asleep"). That's matched
> with a nice bit of Angel as the one-liner delivering action hero - it
> doesn't quite click at the climax when "Conviction" tries the same
> thing again, but it works in this brief and to-the-point moment.
>
> ATS could use some more chicks. This episode features the
> reintroduction of Harmony, a character who'd just about run her course
BUFFY is a female-dominated show. ANGEL is a male-dominated show. It's a
ying yang deal.
> and whom I thought the ME crew had showed some restraint in retiring.
> Actually, now that it's been over two years, it still probably counts
> as showing restraint. Most of her scenes made me smile, plus they
> serve the purpose of constantly showing that the new W&H-whipped Angel
> has a bona fide unsouled vampire in his employ. The ditziness seems
> toned down compared to "Disharmony," which could be a good or bad
> thing if it continues (and I assume we'll see plenty of her,
> especially given the title of an upcoming episode. She even gets the
> last line here!). On the plus side, it'll give her routine more
> longevity if she's given room to be an actual character. On the minus
> side, subdue her Harmony-ness too much and you turn a laugh into a
> faint half-smile, and ATS is humorless enough as it is.
>
> Not sure what Eve's role is in the totem pole relative to the
> panther. I like her at first glance, although she's hindered by being
Substitute teacher to the inestimable Lilah Morgan. It's not Eve's fault,
nor the actress playing her. She has large high heels to fill--figuratively.
> as low-key as everything else in the episode. As the new face of
> negotiable evil, she seems as able to adapt to changing circumstances
> as her firm has been throughout the series, and much more threatening
> than chumps like the episode's proximate villain. I like the bit with
> the apple, both for the getting the irony out of the way, and for
> Angel's response - one of the few great examples of what can only be
> described as "trash-eating."
The worm turns. And there's bound to be a few snakes in the grass.
> Nominal A-story of this one involves a plot that couldn't have been
> done in previous seasons, with our heroes forced to prevent a guy from
> being convicted. That's not a good thing, because it's not a type of
> story that suits _Angel_. The scene in which the gang rattle off _24_
It's basically a legal version of "Billy", right down to an innocent being
held hostage. However instead of rescuing an evil guy from a hell dimension,
they have to rescue an evil guy from trial. AI would have been tasked to
steal a key piece of evidence or bump off a crucial witness.
> scenarios as possible meanings of "the bomb" drives home the
> dissonance. A bioterrorist attack on L.A. is good as a day-year's
> obsession for our friends at CTU, but here it's a blah throwaway plot
> for Team Angel to foil. At this point there are way too many broad
> character types introduced in "Commitment," so Fries's first
> appearance filled me with a thick, palpable apathy. He may have
> satisfied our hero with his response to the pointed "it's strange, my
> lack of incentive," but not me.
>
> So, why try to "take out" a notoriously hard to kill enemy with a
> bunch of guns that you know full well will only annoy him?
What? In the classroom?
> I commented to Mrs. Q. (who's with me again in watching for the
> moment, but maybe only for a few shows... we'll see) that legal-ese
> shouldn't be allowed to go on for more than a minute or so at a time.
> We get that Gunn can force the judge into a mistrial, do we have to
> see every second of it? Pretty painful scene. Otherwise, I think
> the Gunn sequences go on too long before letting the viewer in on what
> he's planning, but the results at least do show something of
> significance happening in this episode. The lawyer infusion is an odd
> choice for him - the writers have been confusing me for some time with
> their depiction of this character, so no sea change in that regard.
> He seemed like a source of corruptability in "Home," so is this just
> the next step, or is there something more? That was rhetorical; we'll
> have to see where it goes. On the more visual side, he looks a little
> weird with hair now, but the suit definitely works for him, as seen
> last year too.
Obviously they are setting up future episodes of LAW & ORDER: SPECIAL ANGEL
UNIT.
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - "Right. What's that mean again?" "That people will believe
> anything. Actually, in this place, feng shui will probably have
> enormous significance. I'll align my furniture the wrong way and
> suddenly catch fire or turn into a pudding."
> - "You have reached ritual sacrifice. For goats, press one, or say
> 'goats'"
>
>
> The last few seconds have the character that everyone knew was going
> to show up, um, showing up. I assume the cheesy melodramatic chord on
> "to be continued" was meant to be funny?
I think it was the last line that was meant to be funny.
> To crib once again from others' papers, One Bit Shy commented on
> "Heartthrob" that "I'd probably rate it Weak, though an odd kind of
> Weak in that I don't much care that it's not very good." That's where
> I am with this one. "Heartthrob" at least had some real issues at the
> core of it which tied into Angel's history and the nature of the
> 'verse's vampire mythology. This one has plenty of nothing, beyond
> nudging a few playing pieces. It certainly goes down as far and away
> the worst episode to be written and directed by JW in ME history. But
> I don't really care that it's not good, because it ends with the
> threat of the week over and the premise fully established. If the
> stage is set, we can now leave this episode behind and have ourselves
> a final season of the Buffyverse.
>
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Eh.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
>
> [Season Five so far:
> 1) "Conviction" - Weak]
Sometimes radical changes to a series, akin to a new series, suffers a bit
as TPTB get used to it, like new shoes, but after an episode or so, things
start humming along. That's common with the "pilotitis".
-- Ken from Chicago
Elisi
On Jan 30, 2:21 am, "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
> ANGEL
> Season Five, Episode 1: "Conviction"
> (or "Sure you want to start the season this way? Not too late to back
> out...")
> Writer: Joss Whedon
> Director: Joss Whedon
>
> I keep wanting to call this one "Commitment" for some reason. Anyway,
> like old times, the teaser of "Conviction" is a microcosm of the rest
> of the show. Angel starts by doing a classic "City Of" alley rescue,
> unconnected with the main story. He completes it despite it being too
> damn dark to see much of anything, and then runs into a swarm of his
> theoretical employees. There's material enough to come up with one
> good, if silly, gag: "this is to confirm that you have been rescued by
> Angel, C.E.O. and President of Wolfram & Hart..." and then the scene
> just kinda continues, hammering home the point of how antithetical to
> our heroes this operation is. So it's all about demonstrating the
> difference between then and now, setting the stage, with precious
> little time devoted to actually telling a tale with any worthwhile
> content. And all of its messages and jokes get tired long before they
> leave the screen. That's "Conviction" in a nutshell. What is it with
> ATS and season premieres?
It's a wonderful start! You're a very strange man! I'd easily rate it
good... it doesn't have the emotional impact of 'Deep Down', but
otherwise it's all top-notch stuff. *Hugely* entertaining!
> Our heroes are out of their element at the firm, a fact which we get
> reminded of in repetitious detail. Our heroes' job is mostly to
> react to W&H in a disappointingly personality-free way.
That's because they don't know who they are anymore... And there are
*so* many details - like Lorne's ratings when he hears the employees
sing, or the fact that there's otter in Angel's blood, or that brain
upgrades come with Gilbert and Sullican as standard - tons and tons of
little things to delight in.
> A diverting exception comes with that exchange with "Spanky." It's
> almost a throwaway, but it hits the right notes. You've got the comic
> absurdity of some of the dialogue ("men have fine, firm asses" is the
> most prominent "did I really just hear that?" spit-take moment of the
> episode, followed by "my horns are falling asleep"). That's matched
> with a nice bit of Angel as the one-liner delivering action hero - it
> doesn't quite click at the climax when "Conviction" tries the same
> thing again, but it works in this brief and to-the-point moment.
Angel: "I have no problems spanking men!"
....And a million fangirls died and went to heaven, where they - after
worshipping The Mighty Joss - proceeded to write lots and lots of
slashy porn.
Dear God what a line! Sub-text rapidly becomimng text...
(Incidentally, AtS is often referred to as 'My poor dead gay show' in
certain parts of the fandom. I'm sure you can see why.)
Oh! Also:
Hauser: "You pathetic little fairy!"
Angel: "I'm not little!"
Heeeeeeee! What is it about Angel bringing the gay?
> ATS could use some more chicks. This episode features the
> reintroduction of Harmony, a character who'd just about run her course
> and whom I thought the ME crew had showed some restraint in retiring.
*loves Harmony*
"They're evil here, they don't judge!"
> Not sure what Eve's role is in the totem pole relative to the
> panther. I like her at first glance, although she's hindered by being
> as low-key as everything else in the episode. As the new face of
> negotiable evil, she seems as able to adapt to changing circumstances
> as her firm has been throughout the series, and much more threatening
> than chumps like the episode's proximate villain. I like the bit with
> the apple, both for the getting the irony out of the way, and for
> Angel's response - one of the few great examples of what can only be
> described as "trash-eating."
Eve is... a disputed character. But she's worth sticking with.
> Nominal A-story of this one involves a plot that couldn't have been
> done in previous seasons, with our heroes forced to prevent a guy from
> being convicted. That's not a good thing, because it's not a type of
> story that suits _Angel_.
Exactly! Which is why it is good. And they greyness can begin to seep
in...
> So, why try to "take out" a notoriously hard to kill enemy with a
> bunch of guns that you know full well will only annoy him?
Do you mean the scene at the school?
> We get that Gunn can force the judge into a mistrial, do we have to
> see every second of it? Pretty painful scene.
Aw come on, most of us enjoyed it... or at least we enjoyed his new
look too much to be bothered by the legalese! Gunn pretty! :)
> He seemed like a source of corruptability in "Home," so is this just
> the next step, or is there something more? That was rhetorical; we'll
> have to see where it goes.
Gunn's arc is GOOOOOOOD! One of my favourite this year.
Anyway, you failed to mention the scene that always leaves me reeling
(and is one reason I love the episode so much):
HAUSER: That's exactly what you are. You're minuscule. A dust mote on
the shelf of that great institution. Now, you think I'm just a trigger-
happy jerk who follows orders, but I am something you will never be.
I'm pure. I believe in evil. You and your friends, you're conflicted.
You're confused. We're not. That is why you are gonna lose, because we
possess the most powerful thing in the world... conviction.
ANGEL: There is one thing more powerful than conviction. Just one.
Mercy.
Angel kicks Hauser in the chest, forcing the shotgun to point at
Hauser's head. A gunshot sounds, and Hauser and his gun fall to the
floor. A bloody splatter covers the wall where Hauser's head used to
be.
AGENT: What happened to mercy?
ANGEL: You just saw the last of it.
Just damn! That was cold. No second chance, so trying to save this
guy... just brutal murder. Not so heroic anymore... you see it ties
back to 'Blind Date':
Angel: "No, it's not my fault. - I-I didn't cause it, and I can't
fix it. I can't do anything about it. - Well, she's guilty. - She's
guilty and- and they let her go. She murdered a man right in front of
me and I can't even testify to that fact in a court of law."
Cordy: "Well, maybe in night court you could..."
Angel: "It's their court room, not mine."
Cordy: "Whose?"
Angel: "Their rules, their game."
Cordy: "Oh, you mean the Wolfram and Hart types."
Angel shakes his head: "I have no place in their world at all."
Wesley: "Angel."
Angel: "How am I expected to do battle if I can't even get into the
ring?"
Wesley: "You have a place, Angel. Our battle will be fought
elsewhere."
Angel: "It's still their world, Wesley. Structured for power - not
truth. - It's their system, and it's one that works. - It works
because - there is no guilt - there is no torment, no consequences.
- It's pure. - I remember what that was like. - Sometimes I miss
that clarity."
Notice the repetition of the word 'pure'! There's even a mention of
Holland Manners in this episode, and none of that is coincidence.
'Blind Date' was all about Manners testing Lindsey... and in the end
Lindsey chose W&H. Remember Lee being killed? Please compare Holland
Manners then and the Angel we now have. Not so very different are
they? Killing employees if they refuse to fall in line... W&H don't
want Angel dead, they want him dark. And what do you know? I think
they're getting there!
This is a _good_ episode! Look underneath.
> One-sentence summary: Eh.
They are *falling* - and Badass!Angel is back (seriously - could you
ever see Buffy come to terms with what he does now? Not that I mind -
he's *so* cool when he's bad!)
> AOQ rating: Weak
Good. At least. Does a very good job showing all the greyness they
have to deal with and sets up future events beautifully.
Apteryx
news:1170123692.2...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> reintroduction of Harmony, a character who'd just about run her course
> and whom I thought the ME crew had showed some restraint in retiring.
> Actually, now that it's been over two years, it still probably counts
> as showing restraint. Most of her scenes made me smile, plus they
> serve the purpose of constantly showing that the new W&H-whipped Angel
> has a bona fide unsouled vampire in his employ. The ditziness seems
> toned down compared to "Disharmony," which could be a good or bad
> thing if it continues (and I assume we'll see plenty of her,
> especially given the title of an upcoming episode. She even gets the
> last line here!). On the plus side, it'll give her routine more
> longevity if she's given room to be an actual character. On the minus
> side, subdue her Harmony-ness too much and you turn a laugh into a
> faint half-smile, and ATS is humorless enough as it is.
There's not much doubt which way they are leaning at this point -
"Secretary's fine"
> Nominal A-story of this one involves a plot that couldn't have been
> done in previous seasons, with our heroes forced to prevent a guy from
> being convicted.
The plot's irrelevant. They had to have one, or people would have
complained, but it doesn't matter. What this episode is about is AI entering
by the deep and thorny way, with the sign that says "Abandon hope all ye who
enter here" and playing with all the stuff inside.
> So, why try to "take out" a notoriously hard to kill enemy with a
> bunch of guns that you know full well will only annoy him?
Villains not getting any brighter.
> I commented to Mrs. Q. (who's with me again in watching for the
> moment, but maybe only for a few shows... we'll see) that legal-ese
> shouldn't be allowed to go on for more than a minute or so at a time.
> We get that Gunn can force the judge into a mistrial, do we have to
> see every second of it?
Yeah we do. We need to see that Gunn has become a genuine hotshot lawyer (or
at least Whedon's imperssion of one).
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Eh.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
Definetely Good for me. Not a strong Good, but no doubt about it. It is all
the characters misgivings (all except Gunn, and maybe Lorne) as they come
face to face with evil that makes it for me. Basically the first half of the
season has pretty much nothing to do with what makes this season the best
season of AtS, but this is one of the better episodes of that first half.
Overall it's my 29th favourite AtS epidode, 11th best in season 5
--
Apteryx
Rob
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qKmdnfZnm6J_bCPY...@comcast.com...
> Obviously they are setting up future episodes of LAW & ORDER: SPECIAL
> ANGEL UNIT.
Law and Order is a dry, poorly written show with little characterization
that has been on the air for over a dozen seasons with only one plot
slightly rewritten every week. ME shows are hip with a heavy focus on the
characters, witty dialogue, and pretty people. It's more like ANGEL MCBEAL.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
wrote:
which show had the evil lawyers?
Ken from Chicago
"Rob" <robe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JOCvh.6986$4W5....@newsfe10.phx...
Fred's almost slender enough.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-1F862...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
McBeal.
-- Ken from Chicago
Elisi
> For me, just watching Whedon's vHarmony-schtick is priceless:
Same here!
> vHarmony is the ultimate comic relief. I'd bet Wesley enjoyed watching Angel
> being tortured by ditsiness as much as the audience. But don't let's
> quibble.
WESLEY
Well, I thought a familiar face would be just the thing in a place
like this.
ANGEL
(shakes his head)
You turned evil a lot faster than I thought you would.
Truly excellent... because how long before they *do* turn evil?
Elisi
On Jan 30, 7:39 am, "Apteryx" <apte...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > Nominal A-story of this one involves a plot that couldn't have been
> > done in previous seasons, with our heroes forced to prevent a guy from
> > being convicted.
>The plot's irrelevant. They had to have one, or people would have
> complained, but it doesn't matter. What this episode is about is AI entering
> by the deep and thorny way, with the sign that says "Abandon hope all ye who
> enter here" and playing with all the stuff inside.
The plot is a very obvious shout-out to 'Blind Date' (Lindsey's
'crisis of faith'). And - as you say - this time they're on the wrong
side. The side that kills children... Of course they're trying to
change that, but... Lindsey once warned Angel:
Lindsey: "The key to Wolfram and Hart: don't let them make you play
their game. - You gotta make them play yours."
Angel quietly: "Thanks. I'll keep that in mind."
'Dead End'
But Angel is playing their game now...
Clairel
--Well, I would have probably given it a "Decent," but essentially I'm
in agreement with you on this one. The scene you singled out as
especially amusing, the Spanky scene, is my own favorite scene too. I
also liked Eve from the beginning, as you seem to; be prepared for
furious controversy on this score, as she is strangely and widely
hated on this newsgroup. (Some of the most vociferous Eve-haters have
gone away, though.)
I have a much higher tolerance for Harmony than you do, but I'm glad
you weren't violently opposed to her re-introduction. I think I can
promise you that she'll be handled well this season, with her
Harmonyness intact but with some deepening and new facets.
Did you notice the long continuous take after the main credits, as
Joss's camera follows Our Heroes walking through the W&H building and
talking about their situation? It's a real tour de force, like
something out of Hitchcock's "Rope." Technically very difficult for
the actors and film crew.
So you were spoiled for Spike's presence in season 5, eh? Was that
from advertising publicity, or what? And what else do you know in
advance about season 5, AOQ? I think it's right that you tell us up
front, as you told us about knowing of Connor before. For example,
what do you think right now about Spike's apparent incorporeality--
lunging *into* Angel's desk, etc.?
What do you think will occur with Spike and Harmony on the same show?
Clairel
Ken from Chicago
"Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170150780....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Give it a few episodes.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1170172940....@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> --Well, I would have probably given it a "Decent," but essentially I'm
> in agreement with you on this one. The scene you singled out as
> especially amusing, the Spanky scene, is my own favorite scene too. I
> also liked Eve from the beginning, as you seem to; be prepared for
> furious controversy on this score, as she is strangely and widely
> hated on this newsgroup. (Some of the most vociferous Eve-haters have
> gone away, though.)
>
> I have a much higher tolerance for Harmony than you do, but I'm glad
> you weren't violently opposed to her re-introduction. I think I can
> promise you that she'll be handled well this season, with her
> Harmonyness intact but with some deepening and new facets.
>
> Did you notice the long continuous take after the main credits, as
> Joss's camera follows Our Heroes walking through the W&H building and
> talking about their situation? It's a real tour de force, like
> something out of Hitchcock's "Rope." Technically very difficult for
> the actors and film crew.
>
> So you were spoiled for Spike's presence in season 5, eh? Was that
> from advertising publicity, or what? And what else do you know in
> advance about season 5, AOQ? I think it's right that you tell us up
> front, as you told us about knowing of Connor before. For example,
> what do you think right now about Spike's apparent incorporeality--
> lunging *into* Angel's desk, etc.?
>
> What do you think will occur with Spike and Harmony on the same show?
>
> Clairel
>
I think Arb has seen or knows the entire season 5 but is simply following
his ground rules about limiting / encrypting comments about future
episodes--as evidenced by his own encrypted comments about s5 during his
reviews of s4.
-- Ken from Chicago
Clairel
On Jan 30, 10:19 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "Clairel" <relde...@usa.net> wrote in messagenews:1170172940....@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> > --Well, I would have probably given it a "Decent," but essentially I'm
> > in agreement with you on this one. The scene you singled out as
> > especially amusing, the Spanky scene, is my own favorite scene too. I
> > also liked Eve from the beginning, as you seem to; be prepared for
> > furious controversy on this score, as she is strangely and widely
> > hated on this newsgroup. (Some of the most vociferous Eve-haters have
> > gone away, though.)
>
> > I have a much higher tolerance for Harmony than you do, but I'm glad
> > you weren't violently opposed to her re-introduction. I think I can
> > promise you that she'll be handled well this season, with her
> > Harmonyness intact but with some deepening and new facets.
>
> > Did you notice the long continuous take after the main credits, as
> > Joss's camera follows Our Heroes walking through the W&H building and
> > talking about their situation? It's a real tour de force, like
> > something out of Hitchcock's "Rope." Technically very difficult for
> > the actors and film crew.
>
> > So you were spoiled for Spike's presence in season 5, eh? Was that
> > from advertising publicity, or what? And what else do you know in
> > advance about season 5, AOQ? I think it's right that you tell us up
> > front, as you told us about knowing of Connor before. For example,
> > what do you think right now about Spike's apparent incorporeality--
> > lunging *into* Angel's desk, etc.?
>
> > What do you think will occur with Spike and Harmony on the same show?
>
> > ClairelI think Arb has seen or knows the entire season 5 but is simply following
> his ground rules about limiting / encrypting comments about future
> episodes--as evidenced by his own encrypted comments about s5 during his
> reviews of s4.
--Huh?
Clairel
Stephen Tempest
>Our heroes are out of their element at the firm, a fact which we get
>reminded of in repetitious detail.
My biggest complaint about the first part of season five... sorry, one
of my *two* complaints about the first part of season five...well
actually, one of *several* complaints I have about the first part of
season five...or rather, among the complaints I have about the first
part of season five is:
...that they go overboard with the whole "re-launching the show and
going to a more episodic format to attract new viewers" thing. They
have to keep on reminding us that Team Angel has taken over an evil
law firm - and in case you forget, they'll remind you again in the
next scene. And the next. And probably in the next half-dozen episodes
as well. Often using the same dialogue each time, just in case you
missed the last time and are still confused what's going on.
>ATS could use some more chicks. This episode features the
>reintroduction of Harmony, a character who'd just about run her course
>and whom I thought the ME crew had showed some restraint in retiring.
>Actually, now that it's been over two years, it still probably counts
>as showing restraint.
Harmony was one of the characters I never really cared about one way
or the other before S5, but I think they managed to do some good
things with her.
>I like the bit with
>the apple, both for the getting the irony out of the way, and for
>Angel's response - one of the few great examples of what can only be
>described as "trash-eating."
Best scene of the episode in my eyes - although for some reason I can
never remember if it happens in A5.01 or A4.22.
>Nominal A-story of this one involves a plot that couldn't have been
>done in previous seasons, with our heroes forced to prevent a guy from
>being convicted. That's not a good thing, because it's not a type of
>story that suits _Angel_.
Is it really the identity of the villain and the type of threat they
pose that defines 'Angel'? Or is the real concern what sort of price
our heroes have to pay to win their battles, and whether they can
triumph without turning into what they oppose?
>We get that Gunn can force the judge into a mistrial, do we have to
>see every second of it? Pretty painful scene. Otherwise, I think
>the Gunn sequences go on too long before letting the viewer in on what
>he's planning, but the results at least do show something of
>significance happening in this episode. The lawyer infusion is an odd
>choice for him - the writers have been confusing me for some time with
>their depiction of this character, so no sea change in that regard.
Hmm. I enjoyed Gunn's scene, and the reveal of what the inducement
they offered him last season actually was. I suspect it was a matter
of "not wanting to be just the muscle" rather than a specific desire
to become a lawyer that motivated him - if Team Angel had been offered
control of an evil hospital instead of an evil law firm, Gunn would
probably have become their top surgeon.
>The last few seconds have the character that everyone knew was going
>to show up, um, showing up.
You mean Buffy? :) (At least in flashback, and note the cunning way
they avoid having to pay Sarah Michelle Gellar to appear on the show
by re-using existing footage instead of filming a new scene)
No thoughts on the relationship between Fred and Knox?
Stephen
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
> ANGEL
> Season Five, Episode 1: "Conviction"
> (or "Sure you want to start the season this way? Not too late to back
> out...")
> Writer: Joss Whedon
> Director: Joss Whedon
.
> of the show. Angel starts by doing a classic "City Of" alley rescue,
> unconnected with the main story. He completes it despite it being too
> damn dark to see much of anything, and then runs into a swarm of his
> theoretical employees. There's material enough to come up with one
> good, if silly, gag: "this is to confirm that you have been rescued by
> Angel, C.E.O. and President of Wolfram & Hart..." and then the scene
> just kinda continues, hammering home the point of how antithetical to
> our heroes this operation is.
IMO the time they take here is what allows the gag/season setup to work.
The Wolfram & Hart team don't just appear, they drag Angel deeper and
deeper into a pit of embarrassment and discomfort. It's not just a static
image, it's a progression. They really need ... what is it, maybe a
minute and a half from when Hauser first appears? ... to make it work.
Also, this scene goes beyond showing us Angel as a fish out of water. We
see here that the staff of W&H have their own momentum and agendas, and
won't be easily changed even by their new CEO and President.
The first scene after the credits starts off with one of Joss's best long
single takes, eclipsing the one from Anne and rivalling the one he later
does at the beginning of the movie _Serenity_. Wes is the most central
figure in this one, tying together the different sections, yet if you
watch carefully you'll notice that you almost never see the left side of
his face. According to Joss's commentary track, Alexis Denisof had
actually developed Bell's Palsy, paralyzing the facial muscles on his left
side. (That old excuse!) But you can still see that the scar Wesley
picked up in Sleep Tight has vanished. The new Wesley is sort of a blend
of season 2 and season 4, less grim, with shorter stubble and a less tough
wardrobe, but mature and pratfall-free. Meanwhile, Gunn has become a
long-haired hippie freak, and Lorne is clearly blossoming, but none of the
other characters have changed outwardly as much as Wes has. Gunn and to
some extent Fred change over the course of the episode, while Angel's
changes remain entirely hidden from the outside observer.
> A diverting exception comes with that exchange with "Spanky." It's
Here, at least, I agree with you completely. I was also amused by the way
Lorne perked up when Angel got Spanky's address; he apparently thought
it was an Our Gang reference too.
> ATS could use some more chicks. This episode features the
> reintroduction of Harmony, a character who'd just about run her course
> and whom I thought the ME crew had showed some restraint in retiring.
She's quite amusing. "I'm incredibly sycophantic -- if that means what
that guy said...." It's unclear how much depth they can ever give her
character. But having Harmony gives ME the chance to use her for all
their simple comic relief needs and avoid using any of the main cast
members for that purpose. Will they take advantage of this opportunity?
> Not sure what Eve's role is in the totem pole relative to the
> panther. I like her at first glance, although she's hindered by being
> as low-key as everything else in the episode.
I don't know exactly where she is on the totem pole, but it's surely a
lower position than the big cat's. Eve and the panther serve two
different roles. She's an everyday guide and representative of the Senior
Partners (liaison isn't really the best term), appointed to help Angel
"find his way." That means her job is make sure he keeps the firm
running, but *not* to help him communicate with the SPs. The big cat is a
power in its own right and a direct contact to the SPs, but he's only
consulted rarely and at some risk.
The nominal A-storyline, the Monstrous Human of the Week, is pretty
simple, lightweight, and slightly contrived, but I don't have any major
problems with it. It serves mainly to start off the season with exactly
the sort of moral compromise Angel and friends can expect to deal with at
W&H. (And take heart from this: now that they've done it once and gotten
it out of the way, there's no need to do it with every single weekly
villain.) I liked Wesley's not at all desperate plan B in the courtroom.
And I *love* Fred's rant to her underlings in the lab. The best part of
that scene comes at the end, when Knox sees her through the office window,
and instead of her dropping the anger and looking frightened, she glares
and gestures at him like "Well? Didn't you hear me? Get back to work!"
Her steel backbone is showing again.
> So, why try to "take out" a notoriously hard to kill enemy with a
> bunch of guns that you know full well will only annoy him?
Simple: they planned to shoot Angel up enough to incapacitate him or at
least slow him down, at which point they'd stake him.
> We get that Gunn can force the judge into a mistrial, do we have to
> see every second of it?
I'm afraid so, yes. We have to see that Charles Gunn, Super-Attorney is
the real deal, confident, smooth and legally deadly. "Your honor, I move
for a mistrial." "Okay" wouldn't do the job. For the audience to truly
believe it, it has to be demonstrated in action. Fortunately for me, I
didn't find it painful at all, and I have a low tolerance for courtroom
scenes. (One of the greatest things about HBO's series The Wire is that
season 1 ends with a negotiated plea bargain, rather than a dramatic
trial.) At least we don't see the whole meeting in the judge's chambers;
*that* might have been going too far.
> - "You have reached ritual sacrifice. For goats, press one, or say
> 'goats'"
I've heard that that was Joss's voice, but I can't tell myself. Can
anyone confirm?
At the end of the fight scene, Angel's response to Hauser's conviction
rings a little bit hollow, probably on purpose. (I'm referring to his
verbal response, not the shotgun blast.) The mercy part is also a bit
incoherent -- "It's more powerful than conviction, and hey, you won't see
me using it anymore." Same thing with his words to the gang in the last
scene. It's all a bit like his telling Lilah "this is how it's going to
work" in Home at the very moment he's giving in -- the tough guy attitude
is intended to cover up a lot of uncertainty.
Before the final summary, here are some other random bits I liked:
-The mystic doctor's cheesy waiting room and 1950s mad scientist lab coat.
-Fred's Dixie Chicks poster. Conviction was, of course, filmed around the
time when those Chicks were being practically hounded off the face of the
earth after one said she was "ashamed" of President Bush. I've never
really listened to their music, but the band certainly had my sympathy
back in 2003!
-Angel to Wes: "You turned evil a lot faster than I thought you would."
-Angel: "Nice to meet you." Keel: "I've heard, uh, things."
-"You think I give a ferret's anus about your new regime here?"
-The drops of blood continuing to hit the ground for several seconds after
Angel blows Hauser's head off. I was surprised the network let them get
away with the level of gore there.
-Lorne's employee evaluation session.
> I am with this one. "Heartthrob" at least had some real issues at the
> core of it which tied into Angel's history and the nature of the
> 'verse's vampire mythology. This one has plenty of nothing, beyond
> nudging a few playing pieces.
Conviction's mission is to set up the new and different W&H-era Angel.
In this episode Joss didn't have time to delve into deeper issues, and
didn't *want* to spend time on anything that involved too much looking
back. (I'm not saying you have to like it, just pointing out that
Conviction's goals are very different from Heartthrob's.)
> It certainly goes down as far and away
> the worst episode to be written and directed by JW in ME history.
I might go with The Freshman instead. But anyway, calling something the
worst episode written and directed by Joss Whedon sounds like praising
with faint damnation to me.
> AOQ rating: Weak
No way. It does necessary duties as painlessly as possible, and while the
main plot was lightweight and forgettable, there were no actively bad
parts for me. A high Decent or lowish Good in my book.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
Wouter Valentijn
> In article <JOCvh.6986$4W5....@newsfe10.phx>, "Rob"
> <robe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:qKmdnfZnm6J_bCPY...@comcast.com...
>>> Obviously they are setting up future episodes of LAW & ORDER:
>>> SPECIAL ANGEL UNIT.
>>
>> Law and Order is a dry, poorly written show with little
>> characterization that has been on the air for over a dozen seasons
>> with only one plot slightly rewritten every week. ME shows are hip
>> with a heavy focus on the characters, witty dialogue, and pretty
>> people. It's more like ANGEL MCBEAL.
>
> which show had the evil lawyers?
>
There are lawyers that are not evil?
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
http://www.nksf.scifics.com/Nom20062007.html
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"
Order given by David Farragut at the Battle of Mobile Bay
Ken from Chicago
"Stephen Tempest" <ste...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0g4vr2p3jop6hv4n4...@4ax.com...
They work outside of The System--often against same--to help the Helpless.
At W&H they are part of The System.
>>We get that Gunn can force the judge into a mistrial, do we have to
>>see every second of it? Pretty painful scene. Otherwise, I think
>>the Gunn sequences go on too long before letting the viewer in on what
>>he's planning, but the results at least do show something of
>>significance happening in this episode. The lawyer infusion is an odd
>>choice for him - the writers have been confusing me for some time with
>>their depiction of this character, so no sea change in that regard.
>
> Hmm. I enjoyed Gunn's scene, and the reveal of what the inducement
> they offered him last season actually was. I suspect it was a matter
> of "not wanting to be just the muscle" rather than a specific desire
> to become a lawyer that motivated him - if Team Angel had been offered
> control of an evil hospital instead of an evil law firm, Gunn would
> probably have become their top surgeon.
Mmmm, evil docs.
>>The last few seconds have the character that everyone knew was going
>>to show up, um, showing up.
>
> You mean Buffy? :) (At least in flashback, and note the cunning way
> they avoid having to pay Sarah Michelle Gellar to appear on the show
> by re-using existing footage instead of filming a new scene)
>
>
> No thoughts on the relationship between Fred and Knox?
Boring. Hollow. Empty. Plastic. Superficial. Shallow. Yawn.
Now if it had been Fred and Willow, or Willow with a multi-million dollar
lab, that would have been fun to watch.
>
> Stephen
Eve was not in Season 4. She had the misfortune of playing substitute
teacher to Lilah.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote in message
news:45bfaa62$0$326$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
>> In article <JOCvh.6986$4W5....@newsfe10.phx>, "Rob"
>> <robe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:qKmdnfZnm6J_bCPY...@comcast.com...
>>>> Obviously they are setting up future episodes of LAW & ORDER:
>>>> SPECIAL ANGEL UNIT.
>>>
>>> Law and Order is a dry, poorly written show with little
>>> characterization that has been on the air for over a dozen seasons
>>> with only one plot slightly rewritten every week. ME shows are hip
>>> with a heavy focus on the characters, witty dialogue, and pretty
>>> people. It's more like ANGEL MCBEAL.
>>
>> which show had the evil lawyers?
>>
>
> There are lawyers that are not evil?
Two kinds: The poor and the ex-.
> --
> Wouter Valentijn
>
> www.wouter.cc
> www.nksf.nl
> http://www.nksf.scifics.com/Nom20062007.html
> www.zeppodunsel.nl
> liam=mail
>
> "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"
>
> Order given by David Farragut at the Battle of Mobile Bay
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Arb has seen season 5 or knows of it, but he is following his own ground
rules about not commenting beyond the current episodes. However he himself
has commented on future episodes, even on Season 5, during his reviews of
Season 4 episodes of ANGEL.
-- Ken from Chicago
Stephen Tempest
>That's because they don't know who they are anymore... And there are
>*so* many details - like Lorne's ratings when he hears the employees
>sing,
For those lacking the patience to freezeframe or the motivation to
look at Screencap Paradise:
Wolfram & Hart Employee Evaluation Session 2D
Ratings:
Okay
On the bubble
Evil
To be fired
Yikes!
Note that being evil isn't enough to get you fired...
Stephen
Michael Ikeda
Actually, Buffy doesn't show up.
At least not in this episode. Whether or not she shows up in a
future episode could technically be considered a spoiler...
--
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
Wouter Valentijn
> "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote in message
> news:45bfaa62$0$326$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
>>> In article <JOCvh.6986$4W5....@newsfe10.phx>, "Rob"
>>> <robe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:qKmdnfZnm6J_bCPY...@comcast.com...
>>>>> Obviously they are setting up future episodes of LAW & ORDER:
>>>>> SPECIAL ANGEL UNIT.
>>>>
>>>> Law and Order is a dry, poorly written show with little
>>>> characterization that has been on the air for over a dozen seasons
>>>> with only one plot slightly rewritten every week. ME shows are hip
>>>> with a heavy focus on the characters, witty dialogue, and pretty
>>>> people. It's more like ANGEL MCBEAL.
>>>
>>> which show had the evil lawyers?
>>>
>>
>> There are lawyers that are not evil?
>
> Two kinds: The poor and the ex-.
>
I asume the poor are soon to be ex-.
One Bit Shy
news:1170123692.2...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> ANGEL
> Season Five, Episode 1: "Conviction"
> (or "Sure you want to start the season this way? Not too late to back
> out...")
Oh, but it is. Have you already forgotten that the season started with
Home?
> I keep wanting to call this one "Commitment" for some reason. Anyway,
> like old times, the teaser of "Conviction" is a microcosm of the rest
> of the show. Angel starts by doing a classic "City Of" alley rescue,
> unconnected with the main story. He completes it despite it being too
> damn dark to see much of anything,
Maybe you need to dim your lights more. I think the action is pretty good.
Short and sharp.
> and then runs into a swarm of his
> theoretical employees. There's material enough to come up with one
> good, if silly, gag: "this is to confirm that you have been rescued by
> Angel, C.E.O. and President of Wolfram & Hart..." and then the scene
> just kinda continues, hammering home the point of how antithetical to
> our heroes this operation is. So it's all about demonstrating the
> difference between then and now, setting the stage, with precious
> little time devoted to actually telling a tale with any worthwhile
> content. And all of its messages and jokes get tired long before they
> leave the screen. That's "Conviction" in a nutshell. What is it with
> ATS and season premieres?
You seem to be reacting to this as a series of external gags. The scene
isn't just showing a contrast. The main point is how Angel is trapped by
the new order - overwhelmed, bewildered. The scene's focus is Angel's
mostly non-verbal reaction to it. (Classic Boreanaz) And the punchline, to
the extent there is one, is his extremely weak protest that he helps the
helpless, which nobody hears, because, of course, it's no longer true.
Angel even gets assigned some of the blame for the earlier vampire attack
when it's revealed that the vampire worked for one of Angel's new clients.
Or to put it another way. Angel may be CEO, but he's not in control.
I think the scene is very effective.
As for extending your criticism to the whole episode, well... I'm of two
minds there. Lets get snarky for a minute and go to mind #1...
This is kind of what you get when you steal all of the surprise and half the
fun out of a big change like this by already having shoved it into an
overblown promotional tease of little substance. Conviction has to strain
for entertainment because the low hanging fruit had already been plucked by
Home. But Conviction still had to be made because Home was a few galaxies
away from adequately filling out the premise. The struggles of this episode
serve to confirm my negative reaction to the W&H part of Home.
But mind #2 is still entertained by this episode. I find it far more
amusing than you give it credit for. And it is well seeded with nuggets of
ideas worth exploring. The story of the evil client is pretty pedestrian,
but that is mitigated by its relative unimportance to the episode's true
story of AI being co-opted. In that story, the evil client is just one
illustration of the effect.
Sort of crossing both minds is one of my favorite lines of the episode.
Fred: What, because we're crusaders against evil and now the law firm that
represents most of the evil in the world has given us its L.A. branch to run
however we want, probably in an attempt to corrupt, divide, or destroy us,
and we all said yes in, like, 3 minutes?
Where Joss pretty much openly admits that the Home scenes were empty
nonsense, but - get over it. Which I'm down with. I appreciate the
admission and am quite ready to get over it. Especially since Fred's
delivery is very funny, and continues with a very amusing sequence
eventually leading to Fred heading to her new office all chummy and touchy
with "Knoxy". Joss is very good at this sort of thing. Happy chatter
fraught with portent.
> Our heroes are out of their element at the firm, a fact which we get
> reminded of in repetitious detail. That's my biggest problem with the
> show, that it feels the need to drag on the evil-firm type scenes long
> after the humor has lapsed and the point has been made. So we've got
> Hauser and his team of guys who talk in a monotone and refuse to let
> Angel work alone or respect the spirit of his orders. We've got
> levels of bean-counters and people scheduling meetings. Trust me, it
> takes a hell of a lot longer to watch than it does to type. Other
> than a few funny moments with the crew trying to get used to the
> phones, the episode is all about W&H. Our heroes' job is mostly to
> react to W&H in a disappointingly personality-free way.
I can't agree with you there. First there's the fairly obvious focus on
Gunn, which is very much about his developing character and personality.
I'll come back to that later.
I don't think you even mention Fred, but a couple of important threads are
pushed concerning her. First is thrusting her into a leadership position,
which she first is uncomfortable with, but then embraces almost naturally as
she re-focuses Knox and delivers her work the problem mantra to the team.
She is being offered the opportunity to be more than she was every bit as
much as Gunn is - only she didn't know that she wanted it in the way Gunn
did.
So she slips into the role almost unaware of what's happening to her own
mental state, which leads to the second element - the seduction of dear
Winifred. Angel and Gunn are both in their ways taking knowing chances -
acting boldly. Fred was just going along, and seems pretty clearly
unprepared for and largely unaware of the way she is being drawn in. Most
all of the Knox scenes seem to be about that, while Knox himself, of course,
has been transparently chosen to exploit Fred's personality.
Angel is already lashing out in his stubborn direct action way, while
slipping into the mode of doubt being a distraction. The no mercy death
scene is quite a kick-off to his first week on the job. And considering all
of the times we've watched W&H sacrifice its own employees, this suggests
that Angel might be a natural W&H executive. (I also loved how he gushed
over the classic cars.)
What's happening with Wesley may not be as obvious, but I think is
especially reflective of his character. He has two standout moments for me.
First when he watches Knox lead Fred to his office. There's the obvious
continued yearning for Fred to motivate him, but more important is just
watching and thinking. There are more implications to Fred's behavior than
just having a new suitor. Wesley would surely also observe Fred being drawn
into the W&H fold. Then there's the terrific moment with Gunn, when Wesley
is revealed to have been standing outside listening to Gunn speak with Eve.
Wesley very quietly asking what Eve meant by her last remark. Wesley is
reserving judgment while he observes. And thinks. What will come of that
remains to be seen, but for now it comes across to me as very cool. And
very Wesley.
> A diverting exception comes with that exchange with "Spanky." It's
> almost a throwaway, but it hits the right notes. You've got the comic
> absurdity of some of the dialogue ("men have fine, firm asses" is the
> most prominent "did I really just hear that?" spit-take moment of the
> episode, followed by "my horns are falling asleep"). That's matched
> with a nice bit of Angel as the one-liner delivering action hero - it
> doesn't quite click at the climax when "Conviction" tries the same
> thing again, but it works in this brief and to-the-point moment.
Everybody seems to rave about the Spanky scene. I like it OK, but it's not
all that special to me. Putting the innuendo aside, the main thing I get
out of the scene is Angel announcing he's the real tough guy around here.
> ATS could use some more chicks. This episode features the
> reintroduction of Harmony, a character who'd just about run her course
> and whom I thought the ME crew had showed some restraint in retiring.
> Actually, now that it's been over two years, it still probably counts
> as showing restraint. Most of her scenes made me smile, plus they
> serve the purpose of constantly showing that the new W&H-whipped Angel
> has a bona fide unsouled vampire in his employ. The ditziness seems
> toned down compared to "Disharmony," which could be a good or bad
> thing if it continues (and I assume we'll see plenty of her,
> especially given the title of an upcoming episode. She even gets the
> last line here!). On the plus side, it'll give her routine more
> longevity if she's given room to be an actual character. On the minus
> side, subdue her Harmony-ness too much and you turn a laugh into a
> faint half-smile, and ATS is humorless enough as it is.
Um. OK. Seemed pretty straight Harmony to me. I like her. She makes me
laugh.
> Not sure what Eve's role is in the totem pole relative to the
> panther. I like her at first glance, although she's hindered by being
> as low-key as everything else in the episode. As the new face of
> negotiable evil, she seems as able to adapt to changing circumstances
> as her firm has been throughout the series, and much more threatening
> than chumps like the episode's proximate villain.
One would hope so since she'll presumably be around longer than one episode.
Eve's look and manner reminds me a lot of a young businesswoman's style that
I've seen fairly often - even worked with. (Although obviously not in the
context of a demon law firm. The ones I knew were much nicer at heart.)
It's a look and manner that - well - I'm a sucker for. So, of course, I
immediately fell for her and thought she was terrific.
It's probably a bit early to infer to much about her, but she does get in a
few good scenes. The best may be when she scopes out Gunn. That's really
more Gunn's scene, where maybe for the first time, the show puts really good
use to his street gang background by showing how far Gunn has left it behind
as he describes it in the worst terms possible. "...living on the street,
eating garbage and watching my buddies get picked off one by one." Yet it
also brings out a little street posturing as Gunn cannot allow even the
suggestion of him backing down.
Eve does her part quite nicely, goading Gunn into that posture, so that he
is well primed for his makeover.
> I like the bit with
> the apple, both for the getting the irony out of the way, and for
> Angel's response - one of the few great examples of what can only be
> described as "trash-eating."
But, AOQ, you did get, didn't you, that whatever Angel's attitude was, he
did eat the apple. Just like Adam. On symbolic terms, Eve won that
encounter. Not Angel.
> Nominal A-story of this one involves a plot that couldn't have been
> done in previous seasons, with our heroes forced to prevent a guy from
> being convicted. That's not a good thing, because it's not a type of
> story that suits _Angel_.
"This is the catch-I'm explaining the catch so you don't have to stand
around wondering what it is."
If Angel is going to run W&H, then having to help the bad guys pretty much
has to be part of the deal.
(God, I love that line and her delivery of it.)
> The scene in which the gang rattle off _24_
> scenarios as possible meanings of "the bomb" drives home the
> dissonance. A bioterrorist attack on L.A. is good as a day-year's
> obsession for our friends at CTU, but here it's a blah throwaway plot
> for Team Angel to foil. At this point there are way too many broad
> character types introduced in "Commitment," so Fries's first
> appearance filled me with a thick, palpable apathy. He may have
> satisfied our hero with his response to the pointed "it's strange, my
> lack of incentive," but not me.
This is definitely a weak element of the show. In terms of the show's
theme, it's inconsequential. Its function is to demonstrate Eve's "catch",
which it does fine. But the episode would still be much better if more care
(and a better idea) had gone into this sub-plot.
> So, why try to "take out" a notoriously hard to kill enemy with a
> bunch of guns that you know full well will only annoy him?
That's the other notable weak spot IMO. An extension of the seeming lack of
interest in the bio-bomb plot. The script doesn't come alive again until
the no mercy ending - which speaks to the broader story of W&H co-opting
Angel and friends.
Also note, that the ending is also the source of the episode's title -
"Conviction". I know that any speech passionately extolling the virtues of
evil has a believability problem, but it's supposed to be important. The
idea is that unyielding belief - fanaticism - is indeed a dangerous force,
since it knows no restraint. Not even the restraint of self interest. So
you get a little idea of something else Angel is up against. But is that a
threat from within W&H? Or a vulnerability within himself?
> I commented to Mrs. Q. (who's with me again in watching for the
> moment, but maybe only for a few shows... we'll see) that legal-ese
> shouldn't be allowed to go on for more than a minute or so at a time.
> We get that Gunn can force the judge into a mistrial, do we have to
> see every second of it?
Others have explained why the answer has to be yes. I'll just lend my
support to that answer.
> Pretty painful scene. Otherwise, I think
> the Gunn sequences go on too long before letting the viewer in on what
> he's planning, but the results at least do show something of
> significance happening in this episode. The lawyer infusion is an odd
> choice for him - the writers have been confusing me for some time with
> their depiction of this character, so no sea change in that regard.
One last trip back to Players. We've previously seen how that presaged
Gunn's desire for something more, and the ease with which he could be
manipulated into grasping for it. Now we see how it also presaged the form
it would take - smooth talker and snappy dresser.
When you get around to re-watching the Buffyverse from the start, one thing
to look out for is foreshadowing that's a lot more than just foreshadowing -
actual rehersals of whole plot lines. The first example will be the whole
WTTH/Harvest story line.
> He seemed like a source of corruptability in "Home," so is this just
> the next step, or is there something more? That was rhetorical; we'll
> have to see where it goes. On the more visual side, he looks a little
> weird with hair now, but the suit definitely works for him, as seen
> last year too.
Yes, we'll have to see. There's no reason to believe you have the whole
story now.
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - "Right. What's that mean again?" "That people will believe
> anything. Actually, in this place, feng shui will probably have
> enormous significance. I'll align my furniture the wrong way and
> suddenly catch fire or turn into a pudding."
> - "You have reached ritual sacrifice. For goats, press one, or say
> 'goats'"
"All I got stuck in my head was the law. And for some reason, a messload of
Gilbert and Sullivan."
The line's amusing enough as is, but I confess that I can't get Data out of
my head when I hear it.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/videoview?id=7778
> The last few seconds have the character that everyone knew was going
> to show up, um, showing up. I assume the cheesy melodramatic chord on
> "to be continued" was meant to be funny?
Not really. "Blondie Bear?" was supposed to be funny. The music just
supported the joke.
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Eh.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
This gets a low Good from me - just a tad above Decent. I'm quite
entertained by it, but it has a couple weak elements, and the whole concept
is sapped by the half story aired at the end of the previous season.
OBS
MBangel10 (Melissa)
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> Season Five, Episode 1: "Conviction"
> (or "Sure you want to start the season this way? Not too late to back
> out...")
> Director: Joss Whedon
>
>
> I commented to Mrs. Q. (who's with me again in watching for the
> moment, but maybe only for a few shows... we'll see) that legal-ese
> shouldn't be allowed to go on for more than a minute or so at a time.
<snip>
Hopefully S5 will keep her entertained and she'll continue to watch.
Honestly, it's my favorite season of ATS, and the first episode is just
setting up the show for all those Buffy fans (and lowly stragglers) that
never watched Angel and are now just tuning in. It helped me a lot since
I didn't watch most of 3 and only part of 4, so I took this opener as
what it was, a reintroduction to the show.
By the way, this makes me want to pop in Conviction (since S5 is the
only Angel DVD I own), so I'm off to watch it now...
>
> - "You have reached ritual sacrifice. For goats, press one, or say
> 'goats'"
I actually had a friend record that on my answering machine when this
first came out. It was funny for about a day...
>
>
> The last few seconds have the character that everyone knew was going
> to show up, um, showing up. I assume the cheesy melodramatic chord on
> "to be continued" was meant to be funny?
>
<snip>
Awe, c'mon... the "blondie bear" bit was pretty funny
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Eh.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
>
> [Season Five so far:
> 1) "Conviction" - Weak]
I'd give it a decent just for the newbies at the time...
Clairel
wrote:
> "Clairel" <relde...@usa.net> wrote in message
--Really? What's your proof for this contention?
Clairel
Arbitrar Of Quality
> So you were spoiled for Spike's presence in season 5, eh? Was that
> from advertising publicity, or what? And what else do you know in
> advance about season 5, AOQ? I think it's right that you tell us up
> front, as you told us about knowing of Connor before.
I've known that Spike would be part of S5 for a long time (there are
encoded comments about it in the "Chosen" and other reviews), since
something like S2. Sadly, all one has to do to get spoiled about that
is to notice the DVD box art while scrolling across almost any
Buffyverse web page.
As for other spoilers, well, okay. (No idea what Ken is talking about
below, BTW.) More than are ideal, for sure. I know of two old
recurring guest stars who show up again in some capacity (and record
DVD commentaries). I know the names of one or two important
characters who haven't been introduced yet, but nothing about them.
Sadly, I've been spoiled about gur ernccrnenapr naq qrngu bs n pregnva
zrzore bs gur bevtvany pnfg, and which episode this happens in. And
I'm... I guess half-spoiled about the conclusion of the series in that
I think I read once how it ends, but looked away before I could be
sure.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
anges <mair_fh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > So, why try to "take out" a notoriously hard to kill enemy with a
> > bunch of guns that you know full well will only annoy him?
>
> we dont know if the swat team knew angel was a vampire
> the holy water mightve been standard equipment
The guy giving them the orders knew.
> > The last few seconds have the character that everyone knew was going
> > to show up, um, showing up. I assume the cheesy melodramatic chord on
> > "to be continued" was meant to be funny?
>
> i avoided all spoilers so i didnt know about blondy bear until he showed up
Am I the only one who notices the credits or something?
-AOQ
Mike Zeares
wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1170123692.2...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
> > reintroduction of Harmony, a character who'd just about run her course
> > and whom I thought the ME crew had showed some restraint in retiring.
>
>
> being tortured by ditsiness as much as the audience. But don't let's
> quibble.
Argh! I missed the posting of the review yesterday, so I didn't get
to give the first reply all full of "Harmony, yay!" So I'll just say
it now: Harmony, yay! For me, there was no part of her scenes that
wasn't fun. I'm talking ear-to-ear grin every time she opened her
mouth. And also when she did that little hip wiggle. The fact that
Mercedess is drop-dead gorgeous might have played a slight role in my
enjoyment.
I started a character thread for her on Television Without Pity, in
which I stated that I wanted two things from the writers with Harmony:
1. That she not be allowed any growth whatsoever.
2. That her scenes be kept short and fairly infrequent.
I think I also said something about wanting to see her desk all
decorated with unicorns, but that part of the thread has been purged.
Anyway, the point was, even in my HarmYay! haze, I recognized that a
little Harmony goes a long, long way.
-- Mike Zeares
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Angel: "I have no problems spanking men!"
>
> ....And a million fangirls died and went to heaven, where they - after
> worshipping The Mighty Joss - proceeded to write lots and lots of
> slashy porn.
>
> Dear God what a line! Sub-text rapidly becomimng text...
> (Incidentally, AtS is often referred to as 'My poor dead gay show' in
> certain parts of the fandom. I'm sure you can see why.)
>
> Oh! Also:
>
> Hauser: "You pathetic little fairy!"
> Angel: "I'm not little!"
>
> Heeeeeeee! What is it about Angel bringing the gay?
So far he's been all about the pussy, though, if you don't mind a
little crude talk. There are times when Angel's old-world upbringing
(despite his lifestyle as Liam) makes him get uptight or weirded out
by modern life, but I see him as so relaxed and secure in his
masculinity that he's not threatened at all by The Gay (and contrast
to how he reacts when people assume or suggest that he's impotent).
Remember in one of the only good parts of "Expecting" when he sees
chicks thinking that a guy is gay is all right, because it "adds
mystery?"
> Eve is... a disputed character. But she's worth sticking with.
Was this intense dislike that people supposedly have for her an
instant thing, or what? What do people think is wrong with her here,
other than being a creature of pure evil (and who isn't, nowadays)?
> Anyway, you failed to mention the scene that always leaves me reeling
> (and is one reason I love the episode so much):
[Shrug.] My first impression was that this was just standard Chuck
Norris stuff.,
> Just damn! That was cold. No second chance, so trying to save this
> guy... just brutal murder. Not so heroic anymore... you see it ties
> back to 'Blind Date':
>
> Angel: "It's still their world, Wesley. Structured for power - not
> truth. - It's their system, and it's one that works. - It works
> because - there is no guilt - there is no torment, no consequences.
> - It's pure. - I remember what that was like. - Sometimes I miss
> that clarity."
>
> Notice the repetition of the word 'pure'! There's even a mention of
> Holland Manners in this episode, and none of that is coincidence.
> 'Blind Date' was all about Manners testing Lindsey... and in the end
> Lindsey chose W&H. Remember Lee being killed? Please compare Holland
> Manners then and the Angel we now have. Not so very different are
> they? Killing employees if they refuse to fall in line... W&H don't
> want Angel dead, they want him dark. And what do you know? I think
> they're getting there!
>
> This is a _good_ episode! Look underneath.
I like the premis of that connection, but I'm not really seeing it on
screen. Holland was all about "enlightened" self-interest, knowing
when to be morally lenient for one's own good. Angel's doing the
opposite at the end, coping with the compromise he sees around him by
trying to pretend he's in a world of absolutes. When he's in Cursader
Mode, people like Hauser are pure evil and can never be forgiven.
Meet mister roundhouse kick.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
wrote:
> My biggest complaint about the first part of season five... sorry, one
> of my *two* complaints about the first part of season five...well
> actually, one of *several* complaints I have about the first part of
> season five...or rather, among the complaints I have about the first
> part of season five is:
Among your complaints are such diverse elments as...
> ...that they go overboard with the whole "re-launching the show and
> going to a more episodic format to attract new viewers" thing. They
> have to keep on reminding us that Team Angel has taken over an evil
> law firm - and in case you forget, they'll remind you again in the
> next scene. And the next. And probably in the next half-dozen episodes
> as well. Often using the same dialogue each time, just in case you
> missed the last time and are still confused what's going on.
No comment on whether the other early episodes follow that trend what
with not having gotten to them yet, but I'm amused by the way you put
it. Very true.
> Hmm. I enjoyed Gunn's scene, and the reveal of what the inducement
> they offered him last season actually was. I suspect it was a matter
> of "not wanting to be just the muscle" rather than a specific desire
> to become a lawyer that motivated him - if Team Angel had been offered
> control of an evil hospital instead of an evil law firm, Gunn would
> probably have become their top surgeon.
I'm a little confused as to whether W&H's biggest players are by
necessity courtroom-style lawyers. They're a law firm and they're an
evil portal, so...
> >The last few seconds have the character that everyone knew was going
> >to show up, um, showing up.
>
> You mean Buffy? :)
No, that's next episode (watched but not reviewed yet... not such a
horrific spoiler that it'd start with a "Chosen" recap, though).
> No thoughts on the relationship between Fred and Knox?
None.
-AOQ
Mel
Apteryx wrote:
>
>
> Definetely Good for me. Not a strong Good, but no doubt about it. It is all
> the characters misgivings (all except Gunn, and maybe Lorne) as they come
> face to face with evil that makes it for me. Basically the first half of the
> season has pretty much nothing to do with what makes this season the best
> season of AtS, but this is one of the better episodes of that first half.
> Overall it's my 29th favourite AtS epidode, 11th best in season 5
>
>
I think my favorite scene is Fred finding the boss within and telling
her people to "focus."
AOQ likes Eve??? Huh.
Mel
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 1:22 am, "Elisi" <elis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Eve is... a disputed character. But she's worth sticking with.
>
> Was this intense dislike that people supposedly have for her an
> instant thing, or what? What do people think is wrong with her here,
> other than being a creature of pure evil (and who isn't, nowadays)?
I think a lot of people didn't like her because she wasn't Lilah.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Mel
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
>
>>Eve is... a disputed character. But she's worth sticking with.
>
>
> Was this intense dislike that people supposedly have for her an
> instant thing, or what? What do people think is wrong with her here,
> other than being a creature of pure evil (and who isn't, nowadays)?
>
>
Hmm, I'm not getting Elisi's posts for some reason. But, you asked about
Eve...
For me, it's the actress. Her voice sounds like that of a young girl
rather than a woman in a powerful position. Both her voice and presence
lack authority, so while she's playing the part of a major player, she
just doesn't feel like one.
Let's just say, she's no Lilah.
Mel
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
i am usually doing something else and dont watch credits
meow arf meow - they are performing horrible experiments in space
major grubert is watching you - beware the bakalite
impeach the bastard - the airtight garage has you neo
Eric Hunter
> On Jan 30, 1:22 am, "Elisi" <elis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Eve is... a disputed character. But she's worth sticking with.
>
> Was this intense dislike that people supposedly have for her an
> instant thing, or what? What do people think is wrong with her here,
> other than being a creature of pure evil (and who isn't, nowadays)?
Her "smirkyness", which seemed to be her defining
characteristic, even in 5.01 rapidly seemed to
become her entire personality.
>> Anyway, you failed to mention the scene that always leaves me reeling
>> (and is one reason I love the episode so much):
>
> [Shrug.] My first impression was that this was just standard Chuck
> Norris stuff.,
>
>> Just damn! That was cold. No second chance, so trying to save this
>> guy... just brutal murder. Not so heroic anymore...
> Angel's doing the opposite at the end, coping with the
> compromise he sees around him by trying to pretend
> he's in a world of absolutes. When he's in Crusader
> Mode, people like Hauser are pure evil and can never
> be forgiven. Meet mister roundhouse kick.
Hmm, that wasn't what I saw in that scene. I saw, "You
are supposed to be working for me, but you've made it
clear that you have no respect for my authority, so,
'You're Fired!'" This was their third encounter, and
Hauser was clearly never going to take orders from Angel,
so Angel dealt with it.
Eric.
--
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Stephen Tempest <ste...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >That's because they don't know who they are anymore... And there are
> >*so* many details - like Lorne's ratings when he hears the employees
> >sing,
>
> For those lacking the patience to freezeframe or the motivation to
> look at Screencap Paradise:
its just a dvd
it doesnt have freez
oh wait
(theres some good stuff on screens and such that flashes by
buts worth stepping through)
Arbitrar Of Quality
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> The first scene after the credits starts off with one of Joss's best long
> single takes, eclipsing the one from Anne and rivalling the one he later
> does at the beginning of the movie _Serenity_. Wes is the most central
> figure in this one, tying together the different sections, yet if you
> watch carefully you'll notice that you almost never see the left side of
> his face. According to Joss's commentary track, Alexis Denisof had
> actually developed Bell's Palsy, paralyzing the facial muscles on his left
> side. (That old excuse!) But you can still see that the scar Wesley
> picked up in Sleep Tight has vanished. The new Wesley is sort of a blend
> of season 2 and season 4, less grim, with shorter stubble and a less tough
> wardrobe, but mature and pratfall-free.
Sucks for him. I assume he recovered or got it more controlled or
something? I tend not to notice little changes like the loss of the
scar, but yhat's somewhat disappointng for me, since I don't like
undoing past development. Once you've seen S4 Wesley, it's hard to
see going back as anything but a watering down. The Dawn precedent
had me hoping that reality rewrites would continue to somehow leave
everything exactly the same except for the one individual.
Admittedly, it's harder on a fragile Universe to take someone away
than it is to nsert them.
> > We get that Gunn can force the judge into a mistrial, do we have to
> > see every second of it?
>
> I'm afraid so, yes. We have to see that Charles Gunn, Super-Attorney is
> the real deal, confident, smooth and legally deadly. "Your honor, I move
> for a mistrial." "Okay" wouldn't do the job. For the audience to truly
> believe it, it has to be demonstrated in action.
The polar extremes are not the only options.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> The first scene after the credits starts off with one of Joss's best long
> single takes, eclipsing the one from Anne and rivalling the one he later
> does at the beginning of the movie _Serenity_. Wes is the most central
> figure in this one, tying together the different sections, yet if you
> watch carefully you'll notice that you almost never see the left side of
> his face. According to Joss's commentary track, Alexis Denisof had
> actually developed Bell's Palsy, paralyzing the facial muscles on his left
> side. (That old excuse!) But you can still see that the scar Wesley
> picked up in Sleep Tight has vanished. The new Wesley is sort of a blend
> of season 2 and season 4, less grim, with shorter stubble and a less tough
> wardrobe, but mature and pratfall-free.
Sucks for him. I assume he recovered or got it more controlled or
something? I tend not to notice little changes like the loss of the
scar, but yhat's somewhat disappointng for me, since I don't like
undoing past development. Once you've seen S4 Wesley, it's hard to
see going back as anything but a watering down. The Dawn precedent
had me hoping that reality rewrites would continue to somehow leave
everything exactly the same except for the one individual.
Admittedly, it's harder on a fragile Universe to take someone away
than it is to nsert them.
> > We get that Gunn can force the judge into a mistrial, do we have to
> > see every second of it?
>
> I'm afraid so, yes. We have to see that Charles Gunn, Super-Attorney is
> the real deal, confident, smooth and legally deadly. "Your honor, I move
> for a mistrial." "Okay" wouldn't do the job. For the audience to truly
> believe it, it has to be demonstrated in action.
The polar extremes are not the only options.
-AOQ
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
>
> > The first scene after the credits starts off with one of Joss's best long
> > single takes, eclipsing the one from Anne and rivalling the one he later
> > does at the beginning of the movie _Serenity_. Wes is the most central
> > figure in this one, tying together the different sections, yet if you
> > watch carefully you'll notice that you almost never see the left side of
> > his face. According to Joss's commentary track, Alexis Denisof had
> > actually developed Bell's Palsy, paralyzing the facial muscles on his left
> > side. (That old excuse!) But you can still see that the scar Wesley
> > picked up in Sleep Tight has vanished. The new Wesley is sort of a blend
> > of season 2 and season 4, less grim, with shorter stubble and a less tough
> > wardrobe, but mature and pratfall-free.
>
> Sucks for him. I assume he recovered or got it more controlled or
> something? I tend not to notice little changes like the loss of the
> scar, but yhat's somewhat disappointng for me, since I don't like
> undoing past development. Once you've seen S4 Wesley, it's hard to
why would wesley have a scar?
Arbitrar Of Quality
I think that's the point. Lilah was an older woman, thoroughly human
but morally bankrupt, and a consummate pro. Eve seems meant to be
more of an abiguous bit of contrast, someone who looks and sounds
young and demure but who could be something working some serious evil
mojo and wearing a human mask. More than meets the eye. Doesn't mean
it has to work for you, but I don;t think "authority" is really what
they're trying for.
> Let's just say, she's no Lilah.
There can be only one.
-AOQ
Mark Jones
> Nominal A-story of this one involves a plot that couldn't have been
> done in previous seasons, with our heroes forced to prevent a guy from
> being convicted. That's not a good thing, because it's not a type of
> It's basically a legal version of "Billy", right down to an innocent
> being held hostage. However instead of rescuing an evil guy from a hell
> dimension, they have to rescue an evil guy from trial. AI would have
> been tasked to steal a key piece of evidence or bump off a crucial
> witness.
And I would have liked the scene in Angel's office with Thug Boy, if it
had gone like this:
Thug Boy announces that if he doesn't get what he wants, he says the magic
word and everybody dies.
Angel says, "Don't threaten us."
Thug Boy threatens them. Angel CUTS HIS HEAD OFF and tells the corpse, "I
_told_ you not to threaten us."
W&H lawyer starts having a conniption. "You can't do that!"
Angel: "Sure I can. He never said he had a dead man switch."
Lawyer: "But he's our client!"
Angel: "What part of 'I'm in charge of an evil law firm' do you not
understand? You hire an evil law firm, you take your chances."
Lawyer: "But...he's due in court this afternoon."
Angel: "You're his evil lawyer. Take care of it."
A season in which Angel took over W&H and made it clear from Day One that
his reign would not go as they'd planned would have been one I was happy
to watch. Alas, it was not to be.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
he also didnt say what he had had for breakfast
does that mean he didnt have any?
Don Sample
<mair_fheal-0C10D...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > Angel: "Sure I can. He never said he had a dead man switch."
>
> he also didnt say what he had had for breakfast
> does that mean he didnt have any?
Generally, if you've got a dead man switch, you *tell* people you've got
a dead man switch. A dead man switch that you haven't told anyone about
doesn't help keep you alive.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article
> <mair_fheal-0C10D...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Angel: "Sure I can. He never said he had a dead man switch."
> >
> > he also didnt say what he had had for breakfast
> > does that mean he didnt have any?
>
> Generally, if you've got a dead man switch, you *tell* people you've got
> a dead man switch. A dead man switch that you haven't told anyone about
> doesn't help keep you alive.
generally people cannot kill everyone in la by saying one magic word
Dwayne Johnson
external gags. The scene isn't just showing a contrast. The main point
is how Angel is trapped by the new order - overwhelmed,
this was the Wolf Ram and Hart switching tactics... bog them down with
the workload. (think of it like somebody giving you a pet grizzly bear
"hey wow cool a grizzly bear!! but... at some point it will eat you.)
Mark Jones
> In article
> <mair_fheal-0C10D...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Angel: "Sure I can. He never said he had a dead man switch."
> >
> > he also didnt say what he had had for breakfast does that mean he didnt
> > have any?
>
> Generally, if you've got a dead man switch, you *tell* people you've got a
> dead man switch. A dead man switch that you haven't told anyone about
> doesn't help keep you alive.
As Dr. Strangelove put it, "The idea of the doomsday machine is to instill
in the enemy the _fear_ to attack. But the point is lost if you don't tell
anyone about it. Why didn't you TELL anyone?"
(Harmony) Watcher
"Mike Zeares" <mze...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1170203905....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
commandeered for her?
--
==Harmony Watcher
(Harmony) Watcher
"Mark Jones" <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:gemini.jcpwzd007...@pacifier.com...
For me, Liam wasn't exactly a model citizen before he was sired by Darla
from what little we saw of him in flashbacks. Angel was literally a Jekyll
and Hyde combo with Jekyll having more control most of the time.
Angel also had his own set of internal problems he was not able to get over.
Losing Buffy, losing Doyle, losing Darla a second time, losing Conner
(metaphorically, perhaps), and losing Cordy. At the end of the day, the
question for me was "how much longer will he be able to hold it all
together"? To me, Angel joining W&H is direct confirmation to me that he had
lost his compass.
The $2 question for me at this juncture is whether this will be a downward
slippery path for Angel and his cronies.
--
==Harmony Watcher==
Ken from Chicago
But you can't solve everyone problem with violence. Plus the guy probably
would have a dead man's switch installed.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
news:mair_fheal-0C10D...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
Wait, does this mean the guy DOES use the bathroom?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-8F165D...@news.giganews.com...
He probably didn't worry about his lawyer killing their top-paying
client--especially not by former goody-two-shoes.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Does Angel even have a sword in his office?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1170200418.9...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 2:33 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> "Clairel" <relde...@usa.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1170175343....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 30, 10:19 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Clairel" <relde...@usa.net> wrote in
>> >> messagenews:1170172940....@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> > --Well, I would have probably given it a "Decent," but essentially
>> >> > I'm
>> >> > in agreement with you on this one. The scene you singled out as
>> >> > especially amusing, the Spanky scene, is my own favorite scene too.
>> >> > I
>> >> > also liked Eve from the beginning, as you seem to; be prepared for
>> >> > furious controversy on this score, as she is strangely and widely
>> >> > hated on this newsgroup. (Some of the most vociferous Eve-haters
>> >> > have
>> >> > gone away, though.)
>>
>> >> > I have a much higher tolerance for Harmony than you do, but I'm glad
>> >> > you weren't violently opposed to her re-introduction. I think I can
>> >> > promise you that she'll be handled well this season, with her
>> >> > Harmonyness intact but with some deepening and new facets.
>>
>> >> > Did you notice the long continuous take after the main credits, as
>> >> > Joss's camera follows Our Heroes walking through the W&H building
>> >> > and
>> >> > talking about their situation? It's a real tour de force, like
>> >> > something out of Hitchcock's "Rope." Technically very difficult for
>> >> > the actors and film crew.
>>
>> >> > So you were spoiled for Spike's presence in season 5, eh? Was that
>> >> > from advertising publicity, or what? And what else do you know in
>> >> > advance about season 5, AOQ? I think it's right that you tell us up
>> >> > front, as you told us about knowing of Connor before. For example,
>> >> > what do you think right now about Spike's apparent incorporeality--
>> >> > lunging *into* Angel's desk, etc.?
>>
>> >> > What do you think will occur with Spike and Harmony on the same
>> >> > show?
>>
>> >> > ClairelI think Arb has seen or knows the entire season 5 but is
>> >> > simply
>> >> > following
>> >> his ground rules about limiting / encrypting comments about future
>> >> episodes--as evidenced by his own encrypted comments about s5 during
>> >> his
>> >> reviews of s4.
>>
>> > --Huh?
>>
>> > Clairel
>>
>> Arb has seen season 5 or knows of it, but he is following his own ground
>> rules about not commenting beyond the current episodes. However he
>> himself
>> has commented on future episodes, even on Season 5, during his reviews of
>> Season 4 episodes of ANGEL.
>
> --Really? What's your proof for this contention?
>
> Clairel
>
Look at Arb's own analyses for season 4 episodes where he HIMSELF includes
encrypted comments.
-- Ken from Chicago
Elisi
wrote:
> On Jan 30, 1:22 am, "Elisi" <elis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Angel: "I have no problems spanking men!"
>
> > ....And a million fangirls died and went to heaven, where they - after
"> > worshipping The Mighty Joss - proceeded to write lots and lots of
> > slashy porn.
>
> > Dear God what a line! Sub-text rapidly becomimng text...
> > (Incidentally, AtS is often referred to as 'My poor dead gay show' in
> > certain parts of the fandom. I'm sure you can see why.)
>
> > Oh! Also:
>
> > Hauser: "You pathetic little fairy!"
> > Angel: "I'm not little!"
>
> > Heeeeeeee! What is it about Angel bringing the gay?
>
> So far he's been all about the pussy, though, if you don't mind a
> little crude talk. There are times when Angel's old-world upbringing
> (despite his lifestyle as Liam) makes him get uptight or weirded out
> by modern life, but I see him as so relaxed and secure in his
> masculinity that he's not threatened at all by The Gay (and contrast
> to how he reacts when people assume or suggest that he's impotent).
> Remember in one of the only good parts of "Expecting" when he sees
> chicks thinking that a guy is gay is all right, because it "adds
> mystery?"
Oh yes, Angel is a very manly man, but... *tapes mouth shut*
> > Eve is... a disputed character. But she's worth sticking with.
>
> Was this intense dislike that people supposedly have for her an
> instant thing, or what? What do people think is wrong with her here,
> other than being a creature of pure evil (and who isn't, nowadays)?
She wasn't Lilah. Notice though that she is small and blonde(ish) and
pretty. And Angel *does* have a type...
> > Anyway, you failed to mention the scene that always leaves me reeling
> > (and is one reason I love the episode so much):
>
> [Shrug.] My first impression was that this was just standard Chuck
> Norris stuff.,
As OBS put it:
"The no mercy death
scene is quite a kick-off to his first week on the job. And
considering all
of the times we've watched W&H sacrifice its own employees, this
suggests
that Angel might be a natural W&H executive."
When W&H sack people they use actual sacks... Angel fired Hauser using
a fire-arm! Was it necessary to kill him? As I said, imagine what
Buffy would say. And remember that apart from his 'war' in S2, he's
let an astonishing number of W&H employees live - like Lilah and
Lindsey f.ex. Hauser could perfectly well have been handed over to the
police, but no. Angel murders him, with apparently no scruples. It's
ruthless and calculating - very much like the old Watcher's Council
(thanks Stephen!). Is the way to defeat W&H becoming as ruthless as
them? Buffy won over The Council by doing things *her* way, remember.
Angel is playing W&H's game now, letting them set the rules. That is
not good.
Hmmmm... But is it Angel's job to be judge, jury and executioner?
Anyway, can't really say more without spoiling you. Just trust me when
I say that it sets up the season very well - in ways that you can't
see now.
Ken from Chicago
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170201663.8...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 10:02 am, "Clairel" <relde...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> So you were spoiled for Spike's presence in season 5, eh? Was that
>> from advertising publicity, or what? And what else do you know in
>> advance about season 5, AOQ? I think it's right that you tell us up
>> front, as you told us about knowing of Connor before.
>
> encoded comments about it in the "Chosen" and other reviews), since
> something like S2. Sadly, all one has to do to get spoiled about that
> is to notice the DVD box art while scrolling across almost any
> Buffyverse web page.
>
> As for other spoilers, well, okay. (No idea what Ken is talking about
> below, BTW.) More than are ideal, for sure. I know of two old
> recurring guest stars who show up again in some capacity (and record
> DVD commentaries). I know the names of one or two important
> characters who haven't been introduced yet, but nothing about them.
> Sadly, I've been spoiled about gur ernccrnenapr naq qrngu bs n pregnva
> zrzore bs gur bevtvany pnfg, and which episode this happens in. And
> I'm... I guess half-spoiled about the conclusion of the series in that
> I think I read once how it ends, but looked away before I could be
> sure.
>
> -AOQ
>
See? Told ya.
Kinda.
-- Ken from Chicago
Wes <3254176>
<tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>
>
>ANGEL
>Season Five, Episode 1: "Conviction"
>(or "Sure you want to start the season this way? Not too late to back
>out...")
>Writer: Joss Whedon
>Director: Joss Whedon
>
>Nominal A-story of this one involves a plot that couldn't have been
>done in previous seasons, with our heroes forced to prevent a guy from
>being convicted. That's not a good thing, because it's not a type of
>story that suits _Angel_. The scene in which the gang rattle off _24_
>scenarios as possible meanings of "the bomb" drives home the
>dissonance. A bioterrorist attack on L.A. is good as a day-year's
>obsession for our friends at CTU, but here it's a blah throwaway plot
>for Team Angel to foil. At this point there are way too many broad
>character types introduced in "Commitment," so Fries's first
>appearance filled me with a thick, palpable apathy. He may have
>satisfied our hero with his response to the pointed "it's strange, my
>lack of incentive," but not me.
>
I think Fries makes an interesting mirror for Angel. What Angel did
and what Fries is doing involve their sons, which got Angel's
attention, but it's the process they went through which echo each
other.
Both their actions - Fries threatening to kill everyone in LA to get
what he wanted, and Angel having his friends (and others) minds
altered and signing on at W&H to get what he wanted - show a strong
disregard for anyone else.
As for Hauser, he's appearantly dead but there's no reason to think he
was the only one at W&H who felt that way about that glorious
institution.
>So, why try to "take out" a notoriously hard to kill enemy with a
>bunch of guns that you know full well will only annoy him?
>
They went there to kill some kids and a few teachers. Taking out the
boss was a (bad) spur-of-the-moment decision.
>
>
>To crib once again from others' papers, One Bit Shy commented on
>"Heartthrob" that "I'd probably rate it Weak, though an odd kind of
>Weak in that I don't much care that it's not very good." That's where
>I am with this one. "Heartthrob" at least had some real issues at the
>core of it which tied into Angel's history and the nature of the
>'verse's vampire mythology. This one has plenty of nothing, beyond
>nudging a few playing pieces. It certainly goes down as far and away
>the worst episode to be written and directed by JW in ME history. But
>I don't really care that it's not good, because it ends with the
>threat of the week over and the premise fully established. If the
>stage is set, we can now leave this episode behind and have ourselves
>a final season of the Buffyverse.
>
>
Agreed that there's a good deal in this one about getting accustomed
to life at W&H and introducing (or re-introducing) some characters but
there's movement here too. A high Decent from me.
>So...
>
>One-sentence summary: Eh.
>
>AOQ rating: Weak
>
>[Season Five so far:
>1) "Conviction" - Weak]
Espen Schjønberg
>>>> Angel: "Sure I can. He never said he had a dead man switch."
> As Dr. Strangelove put it, "The idea of the doomsday machine is to instill
> in the enemy the _fear_ to attack. But the point is lost if you don't tell
> anyone about it. Why didn't you TELL anyone?"
I assume Angel has seen Dr. Strangelove.
--
Espen
Rowan Hawthorn
> In article
> <mair_fheal-0C10D...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Angel: "Sure I can. He never said he had a dead man switch."
>> he also didnt say what he had had for breakfast
>> does that mean he didnt have any?
>
> Generally, if you've got a dead man switch, you *tell* people you've got
> a dead man switch. A dead man switch that you haven't told anyone about
> doesn't help keep you alive.
>
True. But it *can* set up a bitch of a posthumous payback...
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> I think I read once how it ends, but looked away before I could be
> sure.
theres no place like home
theres no place like home
theres no place like home
theres no place like home
theres no place like home
theres no place like home
theres no place like home
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
he has a bunch of weapons on the wall behind the desk
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
which guy? loki? bartleby?
Sam
>
> Am I the only one who notices the credits or something?
>
> -AOQ
You may have been asking this rhetorically, but I know that I have a
tendency to completely tune out the credits that play at the beginning
of shows and just watch the action onscreen, so I actually am
surprised by some of that sort of thing.
--Sam
Mark Jones
You can't solve EVERY problem with violence. But you can solve MANY of
them with violence. Gunn, Angel, Wesley, Fred, et al solved a hell of a
lot of problems with violence. Why should this be different.
Plus, he didn't mention a deadman switch, which kind of obviates the
point of having one. It's an acceptable risk.
Ken from Chicago
You don't get to be one of the top-paying clients at Wolfram & Hart WITHOUT
having a dead man's switch or some similar insurance. You don't muck about
with your higher level evil muckity mucks with working that out. You'd be
stupid--and dead--not to.
-- Ken from Chicago
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> point of having one. It's an acceptable risk.
i have a very different idea of acceptable
even if they smuggle him out of the country to rebozos yacht
its still better than letting him kill everyone in the los angeles basin
Arbitrar Of Quality
> And I would have liked the scene in Angel's office with Thug Boy, if it
> had gone like this:
>
> Thug Boy announces that if he doesn't get what he wants, he says the magic
> word and everybody dies.
>
> Angel says, "Don't threaten us."
>
> Thug Boy threatens them. Angel CUTS HIS HEAD OFF and tells the corpse, "I
> _told_ you not to threaten us."
>
> W&H lawyer starts having a conniption. "You can't do that!"
>
> Angel: "Sure I can. He never said he had a dead man switch."
>
> Lawyer: "But he's our client!"
>
> Angel: "What part of 'I'm in charge of an evil law firm' do you not
> understand? You hire an evil law firm, you take your chances."
>
> Lawyer: "But...he's due in court this afternoon."
>
> Angel: "You're his evil lawyer. Take care of it."
>
> A season in which Angel took over W&H and made it clear from Day One that
> his reign would not go as they'd planned would have been one I was happy
> to watch. Alas, it was not to be.
That's not the kind of story they want to tell, it seems, but I
enjoyed reading that. The dialogue even sounds like an ATS scene.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
That's not the kind of story they want to tell, apparently, but I
Mark Jones
Which is why the guy is dead now (in this story). He was stupid as well
as evil.
Clairel
> Mel wrote:
> > Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> > >>Eve is... a disputed character. But she's worth sticking with.
>
> > > Was this intense dislike that people supposedly have for her an
> > > instant thing, or what? What do people think is wrong with her here,
> > > other than being a creature of pure evil (and who isn't, nowadays)?
>
> > Eve...
>
> > For me, it's the actress. Her voice sounds like that of a young girl
> > rather than a woman in a powerful position. Both her voice and presence
> > lack authority, so while she's playing the part of a major player, she
> > just doesn't feel like one.
>
> I think that's the point. Lilah was an older woman, thoroughly human
> but morally bankrupt, and a consummate pro. Eve seems meant to be
> more of an abiguous bit of contrast, someone who looks and sounds
> young and demure but who could be something working some serious evil
> mojo and wearing a human mask. More than meets the eye. Doesn't mean
> it has to work for you, but I don;t think "authority" is really what
> they're trying for.
--Ah, AOQ, I'm so glad you really get Eve. The girlish and non-
sinister demeanor is just as it's supposed to be. I don't know why
more viewers don't realize that.
> > Let's just say, she's no Lilah.
>
> There can be only one.
--And that's as it should be. The fans who wanted Eve to be Lilah II
were misguided.
Clairel
Clairel
> On Jan 30, 10:02 am, "Clairel" <relde...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > So you were spoiled for Spike's presence in season 5, eh? Was that
> > from advertising publicity, or what? And what else do you know in
> > advance about season 5, AOQ? I think it's right that you tell us up
> > front, as you told us about knowing of Connor before.
>
> I've known that Spike would be part of S5 for a long time (there are
> encoded comments about it in the "Chosen" and other reviews), since
> something like S2. Sadly, all one has to do to get spoiled about that
> is to notice the DVD box art while scrolling across almost any
> Buffyverse web page.
>
> As for other spoilers, well, okay. (No idea what Ken is talking about
> below, BTW.) More than are ideal, for sure. I know of two old
> recurring guest stars who show up again in some capacity (and record
> DVD commentaries). I know the names of one or two important
> characters who haven't been introduced yet, but nothing about them.
> Sadly, I've been spoiled about gur ernccrnenapr naq qrngu bs n pregnva
> zrzore bs gur bevtvany pnfg, and which episode this happens in.
--Darn, that's too bad. Ohg qb lbh xabj ubj uvf qrngu pbzrf nobhg,
naq jub vf vaibyirq? (V ubcr abg.)
When a Big Reveal moment of something you shouldn't know comes along,
I hope you'll take into account how super-cool it would've been and
should've been if you didn't have an inkling.
Clairel
Clairel
> chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> > The first scene after the credits starts off with one of Joss's best long
> > single takes, eclipsing the one from Anne and rivalling the one he later
> > does at the beginning of the movie _Serenity_.
--AOQ, since I mentioned Joss's long continuous take and asked what
you thought of it, and now this post mentions the same thing, couldn't
you comment? Please.
Clairel
Ken from Chicago
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
<snip>
>> You don't get to be one of the top-paying clients at Wolfram & Hart
>> WITHOUT having a dead man's switch or some similar insurance. You don't
>> muck about with your higher level evil muckity mucks with working that
>> out. You'd be stupid--and dead--not to.
>
> Which is why the guy is dead now (in this story). He was stupid as well as
> evil.
He's not dead. He survived, waiting for his trial to be renewed--an even
longer wait now that Wolfram & Hart's LA branch blew up.
-- Ken from Chicago
Michael Ikeda
news:1170284088.0...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 30, 6:01 pm, "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 10:02 am, "Clairel" <relde...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> As for other spoilers, well, okay. (No idea what Ken is
>> talking about below, BTW.) More than are ideal, for sure. I
>> know of two old recurring guest stars who show up again in some
>> capacity (and record DVD commentaries). I know the names of
>> one or two important characters who haven't been introduced
>> yet, but nothing about them. Sadly, I've been spoiled about
>> gur ernccrnenapr naq qrngu bs n pregnva zrzore bs gur bevtvany
>> pnfg, and which episode this happens in.
>
> --Darn, that's too bad. Ohg qb lbh xabj ubj uvf qrngu pbzrf
> nobhg, naq jub vf vaibyirq? (V ubcr abg.)
V nffhzr ur'f gnyxvat nobhg pbeqryvn, fvapr jrfyrl jnf abg npghnyyl n
zrzore bs gur bevtvany pnfg.
--
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
Mel
Clairel wrote:
> On Jan 30, 9:39 pm, "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Mel wrote:
>>
>>>Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>>
>>>>>Eve is... a disputed character. But she's worth sticking with.
>>
>>>>Was this intense dislike that people supposedly have for her an
>>>>instant thing, or what? What do people think is wrong with her here,
>>>>other than being a creature of pure evil (and who isn't, nowadays)?
>>
>>>Hmm, I'm not getting Elisi's posts for some reason. But, you asked about
>>> Eve...
>>
>>>For me, it's the actress. Her voice sounds like that of a young girl
>>>rather than a woman in a powerful position. Both her voice and presence
>>>lack authority, so while she's playing the part of a major player, she
>>>just doesn't feel like one.
>>
>>I think that's the point. Lilah was an older woman, thoroughly human
>>but morally bankrupt, and a consummate pro. Eve seems meant to be
>>more of an abiguous bit of contrast, someone who looks and sounds
>>young and demure but who could be something working some serious evil
>>mojo and wearing a human mask. More than meets the eye. Doesn't mean
>>it has to work for you, but I don;t think "authority" is really what
>>they're trying for.
>
>
> --Ah, AOQ, I'm so glad you really get Eve. The girlish and non-
> sinister demeanor is just as it's supposed to be. I don't know why
> more viewers don't realize that.
It may be intentional, but she's still annoying. Her voice is grating.
Mel
Scythe Matters
to watch this season, I'm not sure that the first five are the way to
win her back. But hey, her call.
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> There's material enough to come up with one
> good, if silly, gag
There's plenty of good gags there. Need I point out to you that you have
absolutely no...well, never mind. ;-)
First question of many I'll ask herein: why is Angel patrolling like
this, alone in the dark? What drives him to do so? For as we know, he's
not in the same mental or psychological place that everyone else is.
I think it's because he has done almost nothing but fail, over and over.
He's lost so much, and gained so little. But the one thing that he
always felt he had was the ability to help...one person at a time,
perhaps, but help nonetheless. And he's patrolling in this fashion to
escape his past -- recent and otherwise -- but also to cling to that one
source of unquestioned worth in his life. And then, W&H takes even that
away from him. No satisfaction to be had there. So what's left? (That's
the second question.)
> So we've got
> Hauser and his team of guys who talk in a monotone and refuse to let
> Angel work alone or respect the spirit of his orders.
The early episode(s) have to have Hauser and his analogues. We need to
see Angel fighting the big, obvious internal threats. We need to see the
forces aligned against him. Because to buy into the premise, we'll need
to see him defeating these forces...and then the drama that follows will
come from what we didn't see. The *real* forces.
At least, we hope it will. In the interim, big obvious threats are
almost destined to be less interesting than the other kind.
> Our heroes' job is mostly to
> react to W&H in a disappointingly personality-free way.
I don't see that at all. I see their personalities definitely on display
in everything they do.
> ATS could use some more chicks.
Well, some of us pine for the return of the original chick. But since
that seems to be off the table, at least for now...
Cast bloat is always a danger. (Ref. BtVS, season seven.) Not only
because it crowds the drama, but because it's an admission that the
writers are out of ideas for the former core cast.
> This episode features the
> reintroduction of Harmony, a character who'd just about run her course
> and whom I thought the ME crew had showed some restraint in retiring.
Oh, you have no idea. They haven't even started to explore the
brilliance that is Harmony. Hey, maybe she can get a soul! It's what all
the cool vampires are doing.
Another question along those lines: Angel has a soul, and so does
Blondie Bear (at least, he did before now). What's Harmony got? I don't
see too many vampires working for W&H (in fact, the old firm worked to
keep them out), and that's probably because they're *unreliably* evil.
So how could Harmony be a trustworthy assistant? Just because she's
borderline incompetent as a vampire?
> She even gets the last line here!
And a great one it is.
> Not sure what Eve's role is in the totem pole relative to the
> panther.
Well, that's a good question, isn't it? Why are there two links to the
Senior Partners? Why would they need two?
> I like the bit with
> the apple, both for the getting the irony out of the way, and for
> Angel's response - one of the few great examples of what can only be
> described as "trash-eating."
As stated elsewhere, the key isn't the irony or the joke, the key is
that Angel takes a big chomp o'temptation. The whole miserable scenario
is laid out for him, and he bites. Why? Because he doesn't have anything
else.
BUFFY
You can't beat evil by doing evil.
> So, why try to "take out" a notoriously hard to kill enemy with a
> bunch of guns that you know full well will only annoy him?
The guns weren't for him. But in any case, guns can certainly
incapacitate a vampire. They can't kill him (well, I suppose
theoretically they could if they severed the head), but if bad guys
anywhere were half-decent shots, I doubt Angel would be actionheroing
his way out of this one.
> I commented to Mrs. Q. (who's with me again in watching for the
> moment, but maybe only for a few shows... we'll see)
Bring her back for "The Cautionary Tale" or better yet "Lineage." But
maybe she'll enjoy the next few.
> We get that Gunn can force the judge into a mistrial, do we have to
> see every second of it?
Yes. For all the reasons described by others.
> The lawyer infusion is an odd
> choice for him - the writers have been confusing me for some time with
> their depiction of this character, so no sea change in that regard.
> He seemed like a source of corruptability in "Home," so is this just
> the next step, or is there something more?
What I was trying to get to at the end of last season was that he was
already corruptible long before "Home." Certainly he was corruptible in
his distant past. He was corrupted again when he joined Angel, according
to his old gang. He was corrupted again defending Fred against the dual
"threats" of Wesley and the professor. He was corrupted again by Gwen.
"Home" was just the next logical step.
There are three things going on here. One is the obvious: he abandons
the muscle to become the brains. It's his interpretation of where he's
failing to matter in his "old" life; he's a pawn buffeted by greater
forces because they're cleverer than him. That's a very problematic
belief, but I think it's the obvious motivation for his change.
Second, there's the choice of profession. None of them are lawyers, but
they're running a law firm. Gunn goes from being the person with the
least to offer to the person with the most to offer in one quick step.
The progression that gets him there is all in the dialog:
GUNN
Lived my whole life in L.A., now I find out there are mountains. A
brother should be told.
---
GUNN
Man, do I look like I belong here? You got the mystical creds at least.
I just hit stuff. I mean, even if this works, and we can turn this place
around, use it to do some good, it's gonna be a long, long while before
any of us gets anywhere near comfortable here.
---
EVE
Lot simpler fighting vamps on the street, wasn't it? Tricked-out pickup,
loyal gang, just you and the pointy wood against the living dead.
GUNN
This gonna be a thing with you, jumping out at people, or do you just
not have an office of your own?
EVE
I'm just wondering if you're ready for the next step.
GUNN
Or if maybe I'd like to go back to living on the street, eating garbage
and watching my buddies get picked off one by one? Yeah, that was the life.
EVE
So you're not backing out?
GUNN
You don't know me or you wouldn't ask that question.
EVE
I can see why the senior partners chose you.
---
(Note that phrase. "Chose you." That just can't be good.)
---
WESLEY
Without asking us?
GUNN
Mother, may I?
FRED
Without telling us?
GUNN
'Cause I knew you guys would freak. Look, it's me here. They didn't evil
me up. All I got stuck in my head was the law.
ANGEL
How can you possibly know they didn't do anything else?
GUNN
'Cause I saw the man in the white room. He does a lot of scary things,
but lying ain't one of them.
EVE
You needed a lawyer to get by here. Charles had the most unused
potential. I would also point out that he did just save the day, without
ever resorting to violence. (to Angel) How'd you do?
---
...but it's also all set up by the previous seasons, too.
And the third: who has always been the brains of the operation? Wesley.
Who did the girl Gunn loved always turn to when things were desperate?
Wesley. I don't think that Gunn is actively trying to supersede Wesley,
but I think his position vis-à-vis Wesley, especially since the end of
the third season, is one of the motivations behind his choice here.
Note that he also doesn't see it as anything fundamental:
GUNN
Tailor. Guess I'm not dressed for success.
So is this change as insignificant as new hair and a new suit? From my
perspective, if Gunn thinks this way about his change, he's already
started down a dark, dark path.
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
A lot of them, as with any Whedon-written show that's not "The Body":
FRED
What, because we're crusaders against evil and now the law firm that
represents most of the evil in the world has given us its L.A. branch to
run however we want, probably in an attempt to corrupt, divide, or
destroy us, and we all said yes in, like, 3 minutes?
WESLEY
Your run-on sentences have got a lot less pointless.
FRED
Oh, that's so sweet. And a tad condescending.
---
LORNE
Yeah, that carpet's great because I want our clients to become dizzy and
vomit.
---
LORNE
Hmm, well, this is interesting. Apparently old Joe Kennedy tried to get
out of his deal with the firm.
ANGEL
That explains a lot.
LORNE
Yeah, but George, Senior — he read the fine print.
---
HARMONY
Don't let's quibble. Before anything, just think — I'm strong, I'm
quick, I'm incredibly sycophantic — if that means what that guy said —
and I type like a superhero...if there was a superhero whose power was
typing.
---
CINDY
There once was a woman who loved a man
He was the one that she took poison for
They say that nobody ever loved as much as she
But me, I love you more
---
LORNE
The defense is drawing it out, but the judge is making merry sport of
them, and, well, now the jury's looking at Fries like he's O.J...
without the commanding performance in "Towering Inferno."
---
I'm also interested in where the various characters are, in terms of
their acceptance of their new roles. Gunn we've covered. Angel is
desperate. Fred shows more open skepticism than anyone, and if there's a
person who's likely to decide that she can't be a part of this anymore,
it'd be her. (But then, there's that Knoxy enticement....) Lorne seems
to be chugging along with his usual ambiguity.
And then there's Wesley. We just don't know what people do and don't
remember -- we know they're aware of Cordy's coma, but not of Connor, so
we're forced to wonder how they remember the last two seasons playing
out -- and we don't know how that affects our characters' self-images.
Did Wesley still betray Angel in some fashion, or was that eliminated as
well? In most respects, he seems to be much the same character we saw at
the end of last season. So how did he get there, in his own mind? And
just as importantly, how does his relationship with Angel now work?
ANGEL
You turned evil a lot faster than I thought you would.
WESLEY
Nonsense.
Does Wesley know what's behind that line of Angel's? It's an incredibly
loaded thing to say. How will it affect their relationship, going forward?
Also, I note that the final nail in the forgettyitis coffin is pounded
flush by this episode:
KEEL
Well, we can't dance around this one. We're not in a position to have
anyone killed. Not that we would. And the jury's, uh, tamper-proof.
Literally. I think one of the D.A.'s shamans has conjured a mystical
shield around them.
So here's the ultimate answer: Giles was wrong, back in "The Harvest."
The mystical and the demonic are perhaps not openly discussed, but
they're not secrets. It's just that for some reason, people feel the
need to pretend otherwise.
I also have some comments about the amulet, but since you've moved on to
the next episode, let's move them there.
> It certainly goes down as far and away
> the worst episode to be written and directed by JW in ME history.
On the upside, one of the best is still to come.
> AOQ rating: Weak
Decent for me. I think the funny parts are quite funny, and the seasonal
setup works well. The downgrade comes from the Fries/Hauser plot.
Scythe Matters
> When you get around to re-watching the Buffyverse from the start, one thing
> to look out for is foreshadowing that's a lot more than just foreshadowing -
> actual rehersals of whole plot lines. The first example will be the whole
> WTTH/Harvest story line.
Yes, absolutely. It's why I've always maintained that the show can't be
fully appreciated on the first run. It can be enjoyed, certainly, but
there's just so much more to it. I guess that's why I'm subtext boy. ;-)
Clairel
> "Clairel" <relde...@usa.net> wrote innews:1170284088.0...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 6:01 pm, "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Jan 30, 10:02 am, "Clairel" <relde...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >> As for other spoilers, well, okay. (No idea what Ken is
> >> talking about below, BTW.) More than are ideal, for sure. I
> >> know of two old recurring guest stars who show up again in some
> >> capacity (and record DVD commentaries). I know the names of
> >> one or two important characters who haven't been introduced
> >> yet, but nothing about them. Sadly, I've been spoiled about
> >> gur ernccrnenapr naq qrngu bs n pregnva zrzore bs gur bevtvany
> >> pnfg, and which episode this happens in.
>
> > --Darn, that's too bad. Ohg qb lbh xabj ubj uvf qrngu pbzrf
> > nobhg, naq jub vf vaibyirq? (V ubcr abg.)
>
> V nffhzr ur'f gnyxvat nobhg pbeqryvn, fvapr jrfyrl jnf abg npghnyyl n
> zrzore bs gur bevtvany pnfg.
--(AOQ, don't read this) V nffhzrq ur jnf gnyxvat nobhg Yvaqfrl,
gubhtu lbh znl or evtug nobhg Pbeqryvn. V sbetbg nyy nobhg ure pbzvat
onpx. Gb zr, Yvaqfrl'f erghea gb YN jnf gur "Ovt Erirny."
Clairel
Arbitrar Of Quality
> >> Arb has seen season 5 or knows of it, but he is following his own ground
> >> rules about not commenting beyond the current episodes. However he
> >> himself
> >> has commented on future episodes, even on Season 5, during his reviews of
> >> Season 4 episodes of ANGEL.
>
> > --Really? What's your proof for this contention?
>
> > Clairel
>
> Look at Arb's own analyses for season 4 episodes where he HIMSELF includes
> encrypted comments.
Mostly about BTVS.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
There are certain things that different viewers have a blind spot to.
Some might not notice the credits, some tune out fight scenes, etc.
Well, one of the things that I'm almost totally oblivious to is
directoral things like that, unless they're very flourishy (which
usually means distracting). So I would not have noticed that it was a
single take without people pointing it out.
As far as the content goes, mostly seemed like standard clunky
exposition to me, as is so common for season premieres. Recaps are
necessary to some extent, but tricky to work in naturally. "As we
both know, but want to remind the audience, we took over an evil law
firm recently and have qualms about it..."
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
Google Groups's new interface sucks. Copiously. Responding to a post
long enough to require a "read more" tab takes about five clicks, and
its habit of only sending replies to one NG rather than all (unless
one remembers to take care of that for every post) will make the
discussions pretty incoherent from the a.t.a side.
On Jan 31, 10:11 pm, Scythe Matters <s...@spam.spam> wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> First question of many I'll ask herein: why is Angel patrolling like
> this, alone in the dark? What drives him to do so? For as we know, he's
> not in the same mental or psychological place that everyone else is.
>
> I think it's because he has done almost nothing but fail, over and over.
> He's lost so much, and gained so little. But the one thing that he
> always felt he had was the ability to help...one person at a time,
> perhaps, but help nonetheless. And he's patrolling in this fashion to
> escape his past -- recent and otherwise -- but also to cling to that one
> source of unquestioned worth in his life. And then, W&H takes even that
> away from him. No satisfaction to be had there. So what's left? (That's
> the second question.)
Makes sense. I'd say doing the concrete one-at-a-time rescues, the
endless fight against the harsh and cruel world, is something he
retreats to when he's bogged down with the big stuff. Comfort
Slaying.
> > So we've got
>
> > Hauser and his team of guys who talk in a monotone and refuse to let
> > Angel work alone or respect the spirit of his orders.
>
> The early episode(s) have to have Hauser and his analogues. We need to
> see Angel fighting the big, obvious internal threats. We need to see the
> forces aligned against him. Because to buy into the premise, we'll need
> to see him defeating these forces...and then the drama that follows will
> come from what we didn't see. The *real* forces.
>
> At least, we hope it will. In the interim, big obvious threats are
> almost destined to be less interesting than the other kind.
I'm going to pass on the prospect another discussion about whether or
not showing really, really boring stuff is okay if it's for the
series's supposed greater good.
> > Not sure what Eve's role is in the totem pole relative to the
> > panther.
>
> Well, that's a good question, isn't it? Why are there two links to the
> Senior Partners? Why would they need two?
Well, one answer coming from other responders is that the panther is a
direct, volatile conduit while Eve (like her predecessors in Special
Projects) is more of a mid-level manager.
> > The lawyer infusion is an odd
> > choice for him - the writers have been confusing me for some time with
> > their depiction of this character, so no sea change in that regard.
> > He seemed like a source of corruptability in "Home," so is this just
> > the next step, or is there something more?
>
> What I was trying to get to at the end of last season was that he was
> already corruptible long before "Home." Certainly he was corruptible in
> his distant past. He was corrupted again when he joined Angel, according
> to his old gang. He was corrupted again defending Fred against the dual
> "threats" of Wesley and the professor. He was corrupted again by Gwen.
> "Home" was just the next logical step.
> There are three things going on here. One is the obvious: he abandons
> the muscle to become the brains. It's his interpretation of where he's
> failing to matter in his "old" life; he's a pawn buffeted by greater
> forces because they're cleverer than him. That's a very problematic
> belief, but I think it's the obvious motivation for his change.
My problem is that I just haven't been convinced yet that it makes any
sense for him to think this way. The objection to the "muscle" thing
kind of came out of nowhere in "Players."
> Second, there's the choice of profession. None of them are lawyers, but
> they're running a law firm. Gunn goes from being the person with the
> least to offer to the person with the most to offer in one quick step.
That, on the other hand, kinda works as a general motivation.
Sometime I'll watch the series again and see if the character's early
transformations (as the writers struggled to get a handle on him, in
my perception) make any more sense keeping in mind the desire to be a
bigger player and make a bigger impact on the world.
> And then there's Wesley. We just don't know what people do and don't
> remember -- we know they're aware of Cordy's coma, but not of Connor, so
> we're forced to wonder how they remember the last two seasons playing
> out -- and we don't know how that affects our characters' self-images.
> Did Wesley still betray Angel in some fashion, or was that eliminated as
> well? In most respects, he seems to be much the same character we saw at
> the end of last season. So how did he get there, in his own mind? And
> just as importantly, how does his relationship with Angel now work?
It's unclear whether the show is interested in addressing that at
all. What's most important to me is that, whatever hand-waving is
involved, we don't undo character development. I imagine that
softening Wes, even back to S2/early 3 levels (I know he was never
fundamentally cuddly or anything), would be a serious mistake, so that
worries me.
> Also, I note that the final nail in the forgettyitis coffin is pounded
> flush by this episode:
>
> KEEL
> Well, we can't dance around this one. We're not in a position to have
> anyone killed. Not that we would. And the jury's, uh, tamper-proof.
> Literally. I think one of the D.A.'s shamans has conjured a mystical
> shield around them.
>
> So here's the ultimate answer: Giles was wrong, back in "The Harvest."
> The mystical and the demonic are perhaps not openly discussed, but
> they're not secrets. It's just that for some reason, people feel the
> need to pretend otherwise.
Sadly, selective universal feigning is pretty stupid too, although
better than the selective forgetting. For the thousandth time, it
made more sense when it was specifically a Sunnydale thing. ATS has
actually been building a world where it's not universal anymore, and
more people are open about their awareness of the supernatural, since
it just works better for me. Although in retrospect it does seem
silly that in the early seasons the LAPD were apparently the only
people in LA totally unaware that there was something beneath the
surface.
-AOQ
Scythe Matters
> On a note totally unrelated to anything else, I'd like to say that
> Google Groups's new interface sucks.
Boy, does it ever. I took one look at it and ran, screaming. Thankfully,
I don't use it to post.
And yes, it has completely hashed the a.t.a discussions.
> I'm going to pass on the prospect another discussion about whether or
> not showing really, really boring stuff is okay if it's for the
> series's supposed greater good.
I'm not really defending it as interesting. Merely pointing out that
even if they did something good here, it'd be less interesting than the
deeper, more complex stories they'll eventually get to.
> Well, one answer coming from other responders is that the panther is a
> direct, volatile conduit while Eve (like her predecessors in Special
> Projects) is more of a mid-level manager.
It's a good answer, but the mid-level managers didn't have access to the
SP (in general). The upper-level managers (and the occasional
mid-manager that contacted a SP) took their orders directly from the SP,
which always made me wonder what the purpose of the conduit was. For me,
pre-supposing the utility and role of Eve makes the conduit pointless,
and vice-versa. I'm hoping for a better answer as things go on.
> My problem is that I just haven't been convinced yet that it makes any
> sense for him to think this way. The objection to the "muscle" thing
> kind of came out of nowhere in "Players."
I don't think it did, but (especially after that last epistle) I have no
time to go back and justify it. But even if it did, that's how a long
time ago, and certainly the motivation was building all last season,
which should be sufficient for what we see in "Home" and again here.
> Sometime I'll watch the series again and see if the character's early
> transformations (as the writers struggled to get a handle on him, in
> my perception) make any more sense keeping in mind the desire to be a
> bigger player and make a bigger impact on the world.
Going back to your B1, B2 and B3 reviews, you'll be doing a lot of that
(watching to see if things were set up the way we claim they were, but
you claimed was not obvious enough). ;-)
I agree that Gunn was a character they struggled with for a long while.
But if you think about it, that fits. Because they're certainly not
struggling with him now. And that parallels his path: a struggle for
identity before, firm conviction (there's that word again) now.
> It's unclear whether the show is interested in addressing that at
> all. What's most important to me is that, whatever hand-waving is
> involved, we don't undo character development. I imagine that
> softening Wes, even back to S2/early 3 levels (I know he was never
> fundamentally cuddly or anything), would be a serious mistake, so that
> worries me.
It's hard to dethread development from motivation, though. If Wesley
didn't steal Connor, if his throat wasn't slashed by Justine, if Angel
didn't threaten to kill him, if he wasn't shunned by the group, if
there's no Wesley/Lilah, if, if (all events that proceed from the theft
of Connor), then what are his motivations for a character that we want
to see as consistent? The simple answer is that the reality shift not
try to answer these questions with an onscreen backstory rewrite,
because that would just get ugly, and there's almost no chance they'd
succeed. But they still have to address it. Hopefully, they'll find a
creative way to do so.
In other words, I share your worry.
> Sadly, selective universal feigning is pretty stupid too, although
> better than the selective forgetting. For the thousandth time, it
> made more sense when it was specifically a Sunnydale thing. ATS has
> actually been building a world where it's not universal anymore, and
> more people are open about their awareness of the supernatural, since
> it just works better for me. Although in retrospect it does seem
> silly that in the early seasons the LAPD were apparently the only
> people in LA totally unaware that there was something beneath the
> surface.
The Sunnydale Police, at least under Wilkins, weren't unaware at the
top...just at the ground level. I think you could assume it's the same
in LA.
As for the rest: I think I've said this before, but my preferred fanwank
is that there's a low-level...I dunno, spell or something...that keeps
people from openly discussing these sorts of activities. Because if they
were out in the open, obviously you'd have open warfare, or at least
open panic. So the forces of badness keep the population subdued, though
not necessarily unaware. The times we see the "spell" broken
("Gingerbread," for example, or "Empty Places," or in another way great
swaths of last season), they're usually the result of powerful demonic
or magical energy, which is required to break the "spell." And
sufficiently self-interested parties can protect themselves (for
instance, there's a blanket of protection over and around the Slayer and
the Watchers, and another one is created by the L.A. DA's shamans, etc.)
It's not an iron-clad fanwank, but it works for me as long as I don't
poke too hard at the core of it.
Ken from Chicago
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170366688....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On a note totally unrelated to anything else, I'd like to say that
> Google Groups's new interface sucks. Copiously. Responding to a post
> long enough to require a "read more" tab takes about five clicks, and
> its habit of only sending replies to one NG rather than all (unless
> one remembers to take care of that for every post) will make the
> discussions pretty incoherent from the a.t.a side.
<snip>
Use Outlook Express.
> Sadly, selective universal feigning is pretty stupid too, although
> better than the selective forgetting. For the thousandth time, it
> made more sense when it was specifically a Sunnydale thing. ATS has
> actually been building a world where it's not universal anymore, and
> more people are open about their awareness of the supernatural, since
> it just works better for me. Although in retrospect it does seem
> silly that in the early seasons the LAPD were apparently the only
> people in LA totally unaware that there was something beneath the
> surface.
>
> -AOQ
LAPD are just as ignorant as Sunnydalites' police:
What happens "out there", stays "out there"--and most importantly "off the
books".
THAT was Lochsley's crime. It's like pilots spotting UFOs. Spot them, talk
about them with colleagues, family and friends, but don't make "official"
reports.
-- Ken from Chicago
William George Ferguson
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1170366688....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> On a note totally unrelated to anything else, I'd like to say that
>> Google Groups's new interface sucks. Copiously. Responding to a post
>> long enough to require a "read more" tab takes about five clicks, and
>> its habit of only sending replies to one NG rather than all (unless
>> one remembers to take care of that for every post) will make the
>> discussions pretty incoherent from the a.t.a side.
>
><snip>
>
>Use Outlook Express.
Do you have a magic way of reading Google Groups through Outlook Express?
Otherwise, what you're really telling him is 'go get another news
provider'. (which isn't a bad recommendation, but sometimes it simply isn't
practical, since there are vanishingly few free news servers nowadays, and
more and more internet providers are not automatically providing free
usenet service with their subscription)
--
... and my sister is a vampire slayer, her best friend is a witch who
went bonkers and tried to destroy the world, um, I actually used to be
a little ball of energy until about two years ago when some monks
changed the past and made me Buffy's sister and for some reason, a big
klepto. My best friends are Leticia Jones, who moved to San Diego
because this town is evil, and a floppy eared demon named Clem.
(Dawn's fantasy of her intro speech in "Lessons", from the shooting script)
Ken from Chicago
"William George Ferguson" <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ftr4s2h7kmgou12d1...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 16:45:08 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1170366688....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>> On a note totally unrelated to anything else, I'd like to say that
>>> Google Groups's new interface sucks. Copiously. Responding to a post
>>> long enough to require a "read more" tab takes about five clicks, and
>>> its habit of only sending replies to one NG rather than all (unless
>>> one remembers to take care of that for every post) will make the
>>> discussions pretty incoherent from the a.t.a side.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Use Outlook Express.
>
> Do you have a magic way of reading Google Groups through Outlook Express?
> Otherwise, what you're really telling him is 'go get another news
> provider'. (which isn't a bad recommendation, but sometimes it simply
> isn't
> practical, since there are vanishingly few free news servers nowadays, and
> more and more internet providers are not automatically providing free
> usenet service with their subscription)
Lunch != Free.
-- C++ Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170361939.4...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Wes: "Fred?"
Fred: "Even after several months, I still get lost trying to find the
bathroom."
Lorne: "Hey, sweetikins, why don't you have your lab whip up a GPS for ya?
After all you're in charge."
Gunn: "What our Director of Entertainment means is that we're all in charge.
You get lost going to the bathroom, have them move the bathroom to you.
Them's the perks of ownership."
Wes: "Yes, ownership of the evil law firm representing the most of the most
evil in the world--at least in this dimension."
Angel (stepping out from an elevator): "That's FORMERLY evil law firm.
That's the reason for accepting ownership. Now did someone call a staff
meeting of my top directors without notifying me?"
Eve (opening the door to Angel's office--from inside--inviting everyone in
to sit down): "Yes and no. I called the meeting, but you were sent a memo."
Harmony: "Yeah, I sent it to yesterday, boss."
Angel: "Harmony?! What are you doing here?"
Harmony: "Duh, I'm your new admin. It's right there in the memo."
Angel: "I didn't see a memo,"
Harmony: "Hello, on your computer."
Wes, Gunn, Fred & Lorne barely suppress grins while looking pointedly away
from Angel at the mention of Angel and high technology.
Angel: "Oh."
-- Ken from Chicago
George W Harris
<swap...@atomic.net> wrote:
:>So, why try to "take out" a notoriously hard to kill enemy with a
:>bunch of guns that you know full well will only annoy him?
:>
:They went there to kill some kids and a few teachers. Taking out the
:boss was a (bad) spur-of-the-moment decision.
Although the knife we saw one of them draw had a wooden blade.
--
"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'
Ken from Chicago
"Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1170284088.0...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Is that you, Whistler?
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Size of the reveal doesn't matter.
Ken from Chicago
Sounds like someone's legal rights are being violated. You should see
someone about that.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
People who wanted Lilah--the original--were not.
-- Ken from Chicago (who tries to imagine how good S5 could have been with
Lilah tempting both Angel and Wes and even Lorne--look how easily he fell
for celebs--meanwhile Fred and Gunn are staring daggers and if they had
revived Cordy, she could have joined in the dagger-eyes, a nice 3 vs 3 split
... dissension in the ranks ... tasty ... with Spike looking on with
bemusement)
George W Harris
:> I like the premis of that connection, but I'm not really seeing it on
:> screen. Holland was all about "enlightened" self-interest, knowing
:> when to be morally lenient for one's own good. Angel's doing the
:> opposite at the end, coping with the compromise he sees around him by
:> trying to pretend he's in a world of absolutes. When he's in Cursader
:> Mode, people like Hauser are pure evil and can never be forgiven.
:> Meet mister roundhouse kick.
:>
:> -AOQ
:
:Hmmmm... But is it Angel's job to be judge, jury and executioner?
Remember in the very first scene after the credits,
the two kids were talking about the comic book "The
Punisher". That wasn't a random choice.
"He kills everyone."
--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like
prunes than rhubarb does" -Groucho Marx
Elisi
> :Hmmmm... But is it Angel's job to be judge, jury and executioner?
>
> Remember in the very first scene after the credits,
> the two kids were talking about the comic book "The
> Punisher". That wasn't a random choice.
>
> "He kills everyone."
Oooooh! Good catch! Thank you. :)