FLM films - My Webpage

2003-09-18 07:56:52-07:00 - The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (himiko@animail.net)


OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) right. himiko

2003-09-18 10:27:15-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


himiko wrote: > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 0 > 9 > 8 > 7 > 6 > 5 > 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > right. Well, I for one am glad to see someone admitting that we were right to worry about this. If it turns out to be what you describe, I doubt I'll watch this season. If you enjoy it, well--enjoy it. I won't begrudge you, but I won't be watching.

2003-09-18 11:05:34-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (reldevik@usa.net)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 0 > 9 > 8 > 7 > 6 > 5 > 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > right. --Himiko, I would love it if this were so, but I don't believe it. You've been following spoilers for the first few episodes, right? So you're aware that as far as is known right now, there are only two episodes in which Spike has any more than trivial cameos. He's just not important enough in the other episodes to have the kind of stature you're talking about. So what if the promos indicate otherwise? Have we never seen misleading promos before? I don't know why promos should mean any more than posters to you. Clairel

2003-09-18 14:20:09-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 0 > 9 > 8 > 7 > 6 > 5 > 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > right. > > himiko Oh, dear GOD, man. First of all, considering the spoilers, they are NOT gonna be "buddies". We read of Angel and Spike snarking. Plus, we also read of Angel and the FG having a picnic. They are not buddies. The promo shows Spike and Angel from shots of "Darla". It also shows them from shots of "Conviction" and "Just Rewards". It is not the season as a whole. Yet ANOTHER thread like this.

2003-09-18 14:36:39-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 0 > 9 > 8 > 7 > 6 > 5 > 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > right. > > himiko So, uh, when do we officially change the acronym from AtS to A&StS? ;)

2003-09-18 15:21:52-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (himiko@animail.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309181005.88791cb@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > > > 1 > > 2 > > 3 > > 4 > > 5 > > 6 > > 7 > > 8 > > 9 > > 0 > > 9 > > 8 > > 7 > > 6 > > 5 > > 4 > > 3 > > 2 > > 1 > > > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > > right. > > --Himiko, I would love it if this were so, but I don't believe it. > You've been following spoilers for the first few episodes, right? So > you're aware that as far as is known right now, there are only two > episodes in which Spike has any more than trivial cameos. He's just > not important enough in the other episodes to have the kind of stature > you're talking about. > > So what if the promos indicate otherwise? Have we never seen > misleading promos before? I don't know why promos should mean any > more than posters to you. Promo decisions usually include producer input since actual footage is used and decisions need to be made not only about what clip to use, but about how the whole is spliced together and that sort of thing. Yeah, advertising is still the main aim, and I doubt the producer has final say, so the result can still be misleading, but it's a lot less likely. himiko

2003-09-18 15:29:38-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030918142810.18164.00001458@mb-m06.aol.com>... > >Subject: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) > >From: himiko@animail.net (himiko) > >Date: 9/18/2003 7:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time > >Message-id: <c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com> > > > >OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > > >1 > >2 > >3 > >4 > >5 > >6 > >7 > >8 > >9 > >0 > >9 > >8 > >7 > >6 > >5 > >4 > >3 > >2 > >1 > > > >I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > >serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > >season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > >added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > >rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > > >Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > >and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > >consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > >right. > > > > I find promos to be as misleading as any other advertisement. I think if > people are counting on Spike (along with Angel) being the focus of S5 based on > a promo, they may be disappointed. > > > Rose > Wesley/Spike in 2004! I, too, am not sure if Himiko has been considering the spoilers. The promo was indeed misleading if it gave it a sort of Buddy vibe to people when they said "brothers bounded by blood", but that's about it. Man, now people are gonna take the title of this thread and twist it, beat it, and turn it inside out!

2003-09-18 16:57:06+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (Chris Zabel <alephnull@earthlink.net>)


"himiko" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message news:c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com... > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 0 > 9 > 8 > 7 > 6 > 5 > 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > right. > > himiko It was either no Angel at all or Spike on Angel. I bet a lot of the same people would be saying things like "I could even tolerate Spike on the show if it meant getting renewed" if AtS had been cancelled.

2003-09-18 17:41:58-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote in message news:<3F69EAF3.4090403@pacifier.com>... > himiko wrote: > > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > > > 1 > > 2 > > 3 > > 4 > > 5 > > 6 > > 7 > > 8 > > 9 > > 0 > > 9 > > 8 > > 7 > > 6 > > 5 > > 4 > > 3 > > 2 > > 1 > > > Well, I for one am glad to see someone admitting that we were right to > worry about this. If it turns out to be what you describe, I doubt I'll > watch this season. If you enjoy it, well--enjoy it. I won't begrudge > you, but I won't be watching. I'll second that. I'm sick of this shafting of the other cast members by Spike. He comes to the show and all of a sudden the rest of the casts don't matter anymore. I'll probably watch ep 5, 6 and 7 if they turned out to be good but I refused to watch the rest of this brand-new - whatever this show is now called - if it continues its attempt to shove Spike down my throat while it makes no attempt to give other characters interesting and complex stories (either with or without Angel) and promote them.

2003-09-18 18:28:10+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >From: himiko@animail.net (himiko) >Date: 9/18/2003 7:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com> > >OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > >1 >2 >3 >4 >5 >6 >7 >8 >9 >0 >9 >8 >7 >6 >5 >4 >3 >2 >1 > >I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more >serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this >season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast >added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is >rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > >Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, >and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other >consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) >right. > I find promos to be as misleading as any other advertisement. I think if people are counting on Spike (along with Angel) being the focus of S5 based on a promo, they may be disappointed. Rose Wesley/Spike in 2004!

2003-09-18 19:09:58-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (ttyan2000@yahoo.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 0 > 9 > 8 > 7 > 6 > 5 > 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > right. > > himiko I'd kinda like to point out that the fact that they had to reach into the second episode to get almost all the footage for the promo for the "season premiere" would actually indicate the opposite. They're very eager to promote the addition of Spike to the cast since he's their "shiny new thing," the big attention-getter who's easy to promo without giving away too much about the show (how would you promote the new W&H premise or the shift towards more standalone episodes? those were the other new things about the show this year). But there's almost no Spike in the first episode, so they pulled footage from past episodes and the *second* episode to promote the first. To me, that's actually one of the biggest indicators that this emphasis on Spike in the marketing is much more of a promotional gimmick than any reflection of the show itself. Teenes

2003-09-18 19:20:49+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (sillyman@famous.com)


> >I find promos to be as misleading as any other advertisement. I think if >people are counting on Spike (along with Angel) being the focus of S5 based on >a promo, they may be disappointed. > > >Rose >Wesley/Spike in 2004! > > Yes, please, disappoint me. I know the guys upstairs are under a lot of pressure and I don't envy them the load, and I realize this is commercial television, but PLEASE, as much as you can, leave the creative process to the people who were hired to do it. Making the show into a buddy/cop thing with fangs probably won't draw in enough new viewers to save it, but it will alienate and drive away at least some of the current fan base. Audiences may love the familiar, but there is enough of the familiar on other shows, making the premise fit the rest of prime time will make it blend in, not stand out.

2003-09-18 23:05:04+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (mcg9063@aol.com)


What's the problem? With or without Spike, the show couldn't be as bad as last season. At least they are getting rid of Conner! I just wish the old Cordelia could come back. But the PTB did a great job of lousing up that character.

2003-09-19 02:24:19+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (sweick@aol.com)


igs622001@yahoo.com (Ian) wrote: > >So, uh, when do we officially change the acronym from AtS to A&StS? ;) > Please. It's AtSS (Angel: the Spike Show). Get it right! :-) Stephen Weick Spike Spike Spike Spike, Spike Spike Spike Spike, SPIKE! Oh wonderful Spike! "You could have Spike Spike Spike Angel Fred and Spike. There isn't much Spike there."

2003-09-19 05:05:52-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (wolviegrl@yahoo.com)


How disappointing. I've been staying away from any spoiler before hoping that somehow things will get better. Obviously I was wrong. It's a shame that this show end up like this after such a great year back in Season 4. What's the point for people who don't like Spike to stick around if this show is going to be turned into an all-Spike buffet 24/7? -------------------------- wolviegirl

2003-09-19 07:41:09-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309181641.301a62d2@posting.google.com>... > Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote in message news:<3F69EAF3.4090403@pacifier.com>... > > himiko wrote: > > > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > > > > > 1 > > > 2 > > > 3 > > > 4 > > > 5 > > > 6 > > > 7 > > > 8 > > > 9 > > > 0 > > > 9 > > > 8 > > > 7 > > > 6 > > > 5 > > > 4 > > > 3 > > > 2 > > > 1 > > > > > Well, I for one am glad to see someone admitting that we were right to > > worry about this. If it turns out to be what you describe, I doubt I'll > > watch this season. If you enjoy it, well--enjoy it. I won't begrudge > > you, but I won't be watching. > > I'll second that. I'm sick of this shafting of the other cast members > by Spike. It is NOT by "Spike". He is not real. > He comes to the show and all of a sudden the rest of the > casts don't matter anymore. I'll probably watch ep 5, 6 and 7 if > they turned out to be good but I refused to watch the rest of this > brand-new - whatever this show is now called - if it continues its > attempt to shove Spike down my throat while it makes no attempt to > give other characters interesting and complex stories (either with or > without Angel) and promote them.

2003-09-19 07:43:20-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


ttyan2000@yahoo.com (Teenes) wrote in message news:<6e63e337.0309181809.13aa05af@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > > > 1 > > 2 > > 3 > > 4 > > 5 > > 6 > > 7 > > 8 > > 9 > > 0 > > 9 > > 8 > > 7 > > 6 > > 5 > > 4 > > 3 > > 2 > > 1 > > > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > > right. > > > > himiko > > I'd kinda like to point out that the fact that they had to reach into > the second episode to get almost all the footage for the promo for the > "season premiere" would actually indicate the opposite. They're very > eager to promote the addition of Spike to the cast since he's their > "shiny new thing," the big attention-getter who's easy to promo > without giving away too much about the show (how would you promote the > new W&H premise or the shift towards more standalone episodes? those > were the other new things about the show this year). But there's > almost no Spike in the first episode, so they pulled footage from past > episodes and the *second* episode to promote the first. > > To me, that's actually one of the biggest indicators that this > emphasis on Spike in the marketing is much more of a promotional > gimmick than any reflection of the show itself. > > Teenes THANKYOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2003-09-19 09:19:35-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0309181320.159eca75@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > > > 1 > > 2 > > 3 > > 4 > > 5 > > 6 > > 7 > > 8 > > 9 > > 0 > > 9 > > 8 > > 7 > > 6 > > 5 > > 4 > > 3 > > 2 > > 1 > > > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > > right. > > > > himiko > > Oh, dear GOD, man. > > First of all, considering the spoilers, they are NOT gonna be > "buddies". We read of Angel and Spike snarking. Plus, we also read of > Angel and the FG having a picnic. They are not buddies. > > The promo shows Spike and Angel from shots of "Darla". It also shows > them from shots of "Conviction" and "Just Rewards". It is not the > season as a whole. > > Yet ANOTHER thread like this. That's very irresponsible of you, Himiko, posting a thread which Nirvana dislikes. Perhaps you should get him or her to vet them next time?

2003-09-19 10:48:01-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (gavalos@cctimes.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in > I'm sick of this shafting of the other cast members > by Spike. He comes to the show and all of a sudden the rest of the > casts don't matter anymore. I'll probably watch ep 5, 6 and 7 if > they turned out to be good but I refused to watch the rest of this > brand-new - whatever this show is now called - if it continues its > attempt to shove Spike down my throat while it makes no attempt to > give other characters interesting and complex stories (either with or > without Angel) and promote them. Lots of ifs, maybes, ands & becauses in there. But even taking all of the qualifiers into account, I (as someone who didn't care all that much, one way or the other about the character Spike, or all that much about any character not named Buffy Summers) have a challenge to you and Mark J. If this Spike situation really comes to pass in the way you dread, *really stop watching.* My call: Even if your stated conditions materialize, you won't stop watching. And you'll keep posting. And some fallback position will be developed, e.g.: 1. being a completist 2. watching to track the development of/story arc for, minor character A, B, C, D, E, etc. and ignoring everything else. 3. trying to see if it can actually get worse. 4. hoping against hope that things will become better. 5. just happened to have the TV on at that hour. Just a guess. Probably a good one, though. -George

2003-09-19 10:52:17-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (reldevik@usa.net)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309181421.a5e68d7@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309181005.88791cb@posting.google.com>... > > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > > > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > > > > > 1 > > > 2 > > > 3 > > > 4 > > > 5 > > > 6 > > > 7 > > > 8 > > > 9 > > > 0 > > > 9 > > > 8 > > > 7 > > > 6 > > > 5 > > > 4 > > > 3 > > > 2 > > > 1 > > > > > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > > > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > > > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > > > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > > > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > > > > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > > > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > > > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > > > right. > > > > --Himiko, I would love it if this were so, but I don't believe it. > > You've been following spoilers for the first few episodes, right? So > > you're aware that as far as is known right now, there are only two > > episodes in which Spike has any more than trivial cameos. He's just > > not important enough in the other episodes to have the kind of stature > > you're talking about. > > > > So what if the promos indicate otherwise? Have we never seen > > misleading promos before? I don't know why promos should mean any > > more than posters to you. > > Promo decisions usually include producer input since actual footage is > used and decisions need to be made not only about what clip to use, > but about how the whole is spliced together and that sort of thing. > Yeah, advertising is still the main aim, and I doubt the producer has > final say, so the result can still be misleading, but it's a lot less > likely. --Once again, though, Himiko, I must ask you: How does this square with the spoiler information we have so far? Really, I'd love to hear your answer to that question. Clairel

2003-09-19 11:26:59-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


wolviegrl@yahoo.com (wolviegirl) wrote in message news:<c6538ff6.0309190405.523de@posting.google.com>... > How disappointing. I've been staying away from any spoiler before > hoping that somehow things will get better. Obviously I was wrong. We know ABSOULUTLY NOTHING more than we did before. All this was just somthing that Himiko figured after seeing a freakin' promo that showed some of what we already read in the spoilers form "Conviction" (one shot) and from "Just Rewards". THAT'S ALL. Nothing we didn't already know. I don't know why this thread was created. It just seems to stir things up. > It's a shame that this show end up like this after such a great year > back in Season 4. "Like this" like what? > What's the point for people who don't like Spike to > stick around if this show is going to be turned into an all-Spike > buffet 24/7? Once more, with feeling, before this board becomes a whining buffet 24/7, all the stuff Himiko saw in the promo was stuff we already knew. So, unless you didn't read the spoilers, I don't know why you think it is gonna be an " all-Spike buffet 24/7". But, yes, Spike IS gonna be there. Not 24/7. Read the damn spoilers. Man, if somebody said that the sky was falling even when it wasn't then started a thread about it, people would be going nuts. This is ridiculous. Hey, I almost quoted an Aerosmith song! > -------------------------- > wolviegirl "I like to infiltrate the mechanics of a system by posing as one of them then slowing rot from the inside of the empire"-Kurt Cobain

2003-09-19 12:33:22-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


George Avalos wrote: > dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in > Lots of ifs, maybes, ands & becauses in there. But even taking all of > the qualifiers into account, I (as someone who didn't care all that > much, one way or the other about the character Spike, or all that much > about any character not named Buffy Summers) have a challenge to you > and Mark J. > > If this Spike situation really comes to pass in the way you dread, > *really stop watching.* > > My call: Even if your stated conditions materialize, you won't stop > watching. And you'll keep posting. And some fallback position will be > developed, e.g.: > > 1. being a completist Nah, never used that one. And I did stop watching Buffy. > 2. watching to track the development of/story arc for, minor character > A, B, C, D, E, etc. and ignoring everything else. Only up to a point (which Buffy passed--and I stopped watching). > 3. trying to see if it can actually get worse. I'll cop to this one. There can be a sick fascination in watching to see just how bad something can get. > 4. hoping against hope that things will become better. Nope. > 5. just happened to have the TV on at that hour. Nah, that's what DVD collections are for. > Just a guess. Probably a good one, though. You missed one, though. 6. Watching to see how awful the show has become so that I can rant about it in the newsgroup and say, "See--I told you so!"

2003-09-19 14:03:22+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >From: reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) >Date: 9/18/2003 2:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <1faed770.0309181005.88791cb@posting.google.com> > >himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message >news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... >> OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night >> >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >> 5 >> 6 >> 7 >> 8 >> 9 >> 0 >> 9 >> 8 >> 7 >> 6 >> 5 >> 4 >> 3 >> 2 >> 1 >> >> I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more >> serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this >> season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast >> added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is >> rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. >> >> Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, >> and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other >> consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) >> right. > >--Himiko, I would love it if this were so, but I don't believe it. >You've been following spoilers for the first few episodes, right? So >you're aware that as far as is known right now, there are only two >episodes in which Spike has any more than trivial cameos. He's just >not important enough in the other episodes to have the kind of stature >you're talking about. > >So what if the promos indicate otherwise? Have we never seen >misleading promos before? I don't know why promos should mean any >more than posters to you. > >Clairel > > > > > > I agree! Much as I would love the idea of a buddy show along the lines of The Sting, I really doubt the promos mean this. They probably are looking for a way to appeal to new fans. Sandra

2003-09-19 15:01:18-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (ttyan2000@yahoo.com)


wolviegrl@yahoo.com (wolviegirl) wrote in message news:<c6538ff6.0309190405.523de@posting.google.com>... > How disappointing. I've been staying away from any spoiler before > hoping that somehow things will get better. Obviously I was wrong. > It's a shame that this show end up like this after such a great year > back in Season 4. What's the point for people who don't like Spike to > stick around if this show is going to be turned into an all-Spike > buffet 24/7? > > > -------------------------- > wolviegirl Failing to understand the logic here. How does staying away from the spoilers make things get better? And if you haven't been reading the spoilers, how do you know you're wrong and that the show has been turned into an "all-Spike buffet 24/7"? How do you know what the show has "ended up like"? Promotional material means nothing about content. If it did, I'd advise you to not go to McDonald's for burgers anymore because they've obviously turned into an all-salad buffet 24/7 (all their promotional photos and commercials are about salads!). Well, you may not want to go to McDonald's for burgers anyway, but that's a whole other matter ;). As Rose said, the point for people who don't like Spike could be to tune in to watch the other 5 episodes so far which are not Spike-centric, or all the scenes in the Spike-centric episodes that are about the other characters.

2003-09-19 15:55:59-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (rshiflet@hotmail.com)


wolviegrl@yahoo.com (wolviegirl) wrote in message news:<c6538ff6.0309190405.523de@posting.google.com>... > How disappointing. I've been staying away from any spoiler before > hoping that somehow things will get better. Obviously I was wrong. > It's a shame that this show end up like this after such a great year > back in Season 4. What's the point for people who don't like Spike to > stick around if this show is going to be turned into an all-Spike > buffet 24/7? Probably for the same reason they watched season 4 when it was The Conner Show. Renee

2003-09-19 16:54:59+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >From: wolviegrl@yahoo.com (wolviegirl) >Date: 9/19/2003 5:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <c6538ff6.0309190405.523de@posting.google.com> > >How disappointing. I've been staying away from any spoiler before >hoping that somehow things will get better. Obviously I was wrong. >It's a shame that this show end up like this after such a great year >back in Season 4. What's the point for people who don't like Spike to >stick around if this show is going to be turned into an all-Spike >buffet 24/7? > For the five out of seven shows that will focus on other characters? Rose Wesley/Spike in 2004!

2003-09-19 17:15:08-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (himiko@animail.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309190952.3127ea04@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309181421.a5e68d7@posting.google.com>... > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309181005.88791cb@posting.google.com>... > > > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > > > > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > > > > > > > 1 > > > > 2 > > > > 3 > > > > 4 > > > > 5 > > > > 6 > > > > 7 > > > > 8 > > > > 9 > > > > 0 > > > > 9 > > > > 8 > > > > 7 > > > > 6 > > > > 5 > > > > 4 > > > > 3 > > > > 2 > > > > 1 > > > > > > > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > > > > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > > > > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > > > > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > > > > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > > > > > > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > > > > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > > > > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > > > > right. > > > > > > --Himiko, I would love it if this were so, but I don't believe it. > > > You've been following spoilers for the first few episodes, right? So > > > you're aware that as far as is known right now, there are only two > > > episodes in which Spike has any more than trivial cameos. He's just > > > not important enough in the other episodes to have the kind of stature > > > you're talking about. > > > > > > So what if the promos indicate otherwise? Have we never seen > > > misleading promos before? I don't know why promos should mean any > > > more than posters to you. > > > > Promo decisions usually include producer input since actual footage is > > used and decisions need to be made not only about what clip to use, > > but about how the whole is spliced together and that sort of thing. > > Yeah, advertising is still the main aim, and I doubt the producer has > > final say, so the result can still be misleading, but it's a lot less > > likely. > > --Once again, though, Himiko, I must ask you: How does this square > with the spoiler information we have so far? Really, I'd love to hear > your answer to that question. It doesn't unsquare with it. I've only seen summaries for 5 episodes so far, and sides for two more. I don't consider sides complete enough to say much. Ep. 1: Spike enters Angel's world Ep. 2: The basic relationship between Spike and Angel is established: a partnership with considerable friction. Ep. 3: Angel angsts over a sexy female werewolf, while Spike struggles with his hell fears and makes life miserable for everyone...two parallel stories it sounds like to me, only Angel gets most of the air time. Ep. 4: Angel, Spike, and Fred muddle it out as Angel tries to protect Fred from Spike who he still doesn't trust; this is resolved at the end as Spike proves himself a good guy. Ep. 5: Clearly a comedy episode in which everyone behaves like an idiot; probably not much evidence one way or another. Then we get Mexican wrestlers and Wes's father with little clue as to how Angel or Spike will connect up. I'm not suggesting that this proves ME has a buddy format in mind, but if I were moving in a co-lead on an established show, this is exactly the way I'd do it...slowly at first, establishing the new character and his relationship with the original lead, then extending his relationships with other characters. Taken in conjunction with the promos, I'm thinking they're going this route. himiko

2003-09-19 19:16:50-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (edstoday@aol.com)


rshiflet@hotmail.com (Renee) wrote in message news:<f6980f4e.0309191455.7078dba9@posting.google.com>... > wolviegrl@yahoo.com (wolviegirl) wrote in message news:<c6538ff6.0309190405.523de@posting.google.com>... > > How disappointing. I've been staying away from any spoiler before > > hoping that somehow things will get better. Obviously I was wrong. > > It's a shame that this show end up like this after such a great year > > back in Season 4. What's the point for people who don't like Spike to > > stick around if this show is going to be turned into an all-Spike > > buffet 24/7? > > > Probably for the same reason they watched season 4 when it was The Conner Show. > > Renee You know, I can't wait until the season begins so all of this anti-Spike chatter will stop. Angel has brought its fans a bunch of the most memorial characters you can ever hope to see on TV in one show. Wesley, Merle, Fred, Lorne, Cordy, Holtz, Connor, the list goes on. Buffy -- gave us a couple, and Spike was one. But we fans know most of what there is to know (or at least we think we do because of the way season 4 ended) about teh regular crew. In fact, Cordy is gone because we knew too much. But Spike is one character Ats can explore in a real adult way...not the juvenille approach BtVS took. He also is a vampire that the other Ats characters will get to know, and the differences between Angel and Spike make for good drama, action and comedy. Yet, I have no doubt that the show still belongs to its title character. I wouldn't want it any other way. But I am really looking forward to Spike joining the fold and upsetting the cart even more than Ats joining W&H.

2003-09-19 23:01:06-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


edstoday@aol.com (Denny) wrote in message news:<8cc5585e.0309191816.31ba460c@posting.google.com>... > You know, I can't wait until the season begins so all of this > anti-Spike chatter will stop. Don't hold your breath. Regardless of what ME does with Spike in AtS season 5, people will continue to praise or complain about him. I predict he will be the main AtS topic from here on out. > But Spike is one character Ats can explore in a real adult way...not the > juvenille approach BtVS took. I really hope you're right. All evidence to the contrary, I think ME is capable of doing something interesting with Spike this season. Whether they do or not, well, no doubt that will be a hotly debated topic. > Yet, I have no doubt that the show still belongs to its title character. Again, we'll see. BtVS was pretty much all about Spike the last season or so (IMO). Hopefully, ME will have learned from their mistakes.

2003-09-20 06:03:26-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (edstoday@aol.com)


> Again, we'll see. BtVS was pretty much all about Spike the last > season or so (IMO). Hopefully, ME will have learned from their > mistakes. Haters of S6 BtVS should go back and revisit those eps -- ME was pretty daring that year. They put the fair-haired girl (and boy) through the ringer and many fans still loved Spike no matter how he behaved. In fact, I enjoyed Buffy the character the most during that season, and Sarah did some of her best acting in my opinion. But as far as Ats is concerned -- I don't mean to sound sexist against women --especially since I am female -- but the BtVS ratings driver (no matter how slim they were) in the final two years of the show was the Spike story line. That's the only reason I tuned in...to see what was happening with Spike. Now, I love Ats completely. And in Season 4, Angel gave its viewers a complicated, stressful (yet basically outstanding) story arc (only one however). But you couldn't join Season 4 a Buffy/Angelverse novice and jump on the Angel's so gorgeous band wagon. If you tuned in after the first ep -- you had no clue what was happening. Yes, DB is a good looking man, but Season 4 wasn't about looks, it was about character and story. In America, those are two signs that a show is in danger of going off the air. In Season 5, ME will give us back our good looking men because they are not afraid to let them look as good as they can. (Angel, Spike, Wesley, Gunn and even Lorne -- all in one show, it's heaven on earth in the eye candy department!) But that's only a part of the fun and ME's formula for success. ATS will avoid the problems BtVS had in its final two seasons -- which I feel were basically story ideas and how to end it. Right now, ME is not thinking about how to end AtS, but what should happen next. That makes for a much more exciting day at work -- which means better story ideas. BtVS ran out of ideas for their characters, and would not do what they are doing with Angel -- have the guts to really mix it up and make it different by adding and subtracting key characters, and changing the format. Yet, we'll see if I am right...but if I were a betting gal, I'd make some nice bucks on this one.

2003-09-20 06:54:59-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (wolviegrl@yahoo.com)


rshiflet@hotmail.com (Renee) wrote in message news:<f6980f4e.0309191455.7078dba9@posting.google.com>... > Probably for the same reason they watched season 4 when it was The Conner Show. Except there wasn't just a Connor Show in S4. There was also an Angel show, a Cordelia show, a Wesley show, a Gunn/Fred show. Everyone in S4 got an equal amount of storyline and plot right from the early episodes. Compared this with season 5 where it's spike, spike, and more spike. ------------------- Wolviegirl

2003-09-20 08:25:09-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (galt_57@hotmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 0 > 9 > 8 > 7 > 6 > 5 > 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > right. It wasn't much to go on but it does seem Spike-centric. I don't really care. Everyone on the show seems creepy. Angel showed his creepy side, not with Angelus, but when Connor was a baby. They all creeped me out again with the way they fell for the W&H offer, seemingly without even a reasonable discussion. I hope they all suffer at W&H -- but I hope Spike keeps his shirt on. I am tired of seeing his bare little chicken breast.

2003-09-20 08:53:05+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


> >Just a guess. Probably a good one, though. > >-George You left out my excuse, being pathologically compulsive. ;p Rose Wesley/Spike in 2004!

2003-09-20 08:53:54+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


> >6. Watching to see how awful the show has become so that I can rant >about it in the newsgroup and say, "See--I told you so!" Yeah, that's an underestimated motivation. There's also, watching the show in order to preserve one's place in the newsgroup community. Rose Wesley/Spike in 2004!

2003-09-20 09:45:30-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


gavalos@cctimes.com (George Avalos) wrote in message news:<da6729e4.0309190948.20080610@posting.google.com>... > My call: Even if your stated conditions materialize, you won't stop > watching. And you'll keep posting. And some fallback position will be > developed, e.g.: > > 1. being a completist > 2. watching to track the development of/story arc for, minor character > A, B, C, D, E, etc. and ignoring everything else. > 3. trying to see if it can actually get worse. > 4. hoping against hope that things will become better. > 5. just happened to have the TV on at that hour. > > Just a guess. Probably a good one, though. Heh. That guess would have applied to me completely for BtVS. (Excluding point 5.) For me, the main thing was point 1. Fortunately, that doesn't apply to me for AtS, as I have no history with the show. If it's bad, I will stop watching.

2003-09-20 10:02:40-04:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 20 Sep 2003 06:03:26 -0700, edstoday@aol.com (Denny) wrote: >But as far as Ats is concerned -- I don't mean to sound sexist against >women --especially since I am female -- but the BtVS ratings driver >(no matter how slim they were) in the final two years of the show was >the Spike story line. The ratings actually dropped over the last two season of BTVS so if Spike was the "driver" he sure did take a wrong turn. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-09-20 10:24:07-04:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 20 Sep 2003 06:54:59 -0700, wolviegrl@yahoo.com (wolviegirl) wrote: >rshiflet@hotmail.com (Renee) wrote in message news:<f6980f4e.0309191455.7078dba9@posting.google.com>... > > >> Probably for the same reason they watched season 4 when it was The Conner Show. > >Except there wasn't just a Connor Show in S4. There was also an Angel >show, a Cordelia show, a Wesley show, a Gunn/Fred show. Everyone in >S4 got an equal amount of storyline and plot right from the early >episodes. Compared this with season 5 where it's spike, spike, and >more spike. As far as I was concerned, Faith, Wes/Lylah and Angel were about the only reasons to watch last season at all. Faith's return to Angel injected a huge amount of life in to last year's arc. I was hoping the writers would allow her character to do the same on Btvs but it didn't happen. With the exception of Willow, Wes is probably the character who has changed the most on either show though they're starting to overuse his current brooding man portrayal. Of all those left, his character is the one I could see being spun off in to his own series. He really is that "rogue-demon hunter" now. I never particularly cared for Gunn or Fred. Gunn was a better character when he was with his own gang, Fred mostly bores me. They totally ruined Cordy for me last season and never did bother to explain her story. By mid-season I was half expecting Cordy to turn around and be wearing a Snidely Whiplash mustache to twirl while she recited her Corny lines. Connor could have been turned in to something good but a quasi-incestuous relationship with Cordy wasn't it. And now we have Spike. I'm taking a wait and see attitude but i'm one of those who felt the writers infatuation with that character went a long way towards destroying the dynamic of BTVS. I always thought Spike would have been a better character on Angel after Buffy season 4. Angel always lent itself to being darker then Buffy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-09-20 11:59:32-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


edstoday@aol.com (Denny) wrote in message news:<8cc5585e.0309200503.37a23acc@posting.google.com>... > > Again, we'll see. BtVS was pretty much all about Spike the last > > season or so (IMO). Hopefully, ME will have learned from their > > mistakes. > > > Haters of S6 BtVS should go back and revisit those eps -- ME was > pretty daring that year. They put the fair-haired girl (and boy) > through the ringer and many fans still loved Spike no matter how he > behaved. In fact, I enjoyed Buffy the character the most during that > season, and Sarah did some of her best acting in my opinion. I agree with much of what you say. ME did take chances in season 6 and SMG did some first rate acting. But, IMO, the series suffered badly in middle / end. As for revisiting the episodes, no thanks. > But as far as Ats is concerned -- I don't mean to sound sexist against > women --especially since I am female -- but the BtVS ratings driver > (no matter how slim they were) in the final two years of the show was > the Spike story line. Any support for that assertion? If it was the ratings driver, I guess the fact that the rating suffered badly tells us something as well.

2003-09-20 12:30:27-04:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 20 Sep 2003 16:22:38 GMT, snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote: >>Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>Date: 9/20/2003 10:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time >>Message-id: <idnomvktic5arvpfmi06bpruso55gdppok@4ax.com> >> >>On 20 Sep 2003 06:03:26 -0700, edstoday@aol.com (Denny) wrote: >> >>>But as far as Ats is concerned -- I don't mean to sound sexist against >>>women --especially since I am female -- but the BtVS ratings driver >>>(no matter how slim they were) in the final two years of the show was >>>the Spike story line. >> >>The ratings actually dropped over the last two season of BTVS so if Spike >>was the "driver" he sure did take a wrong turn. >But didn't the ratings for ALL the UPN shows drop as much or more? Hey!. Come on. I think the writers infatuation with Spike hurt BTVS but let's not go that far. I don't think Spike was responsible for all the UPN shows going down the tubes. <G> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-09-20 12:42:20-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (rshiflet@hotmail.com)


wolviegrl@yahoo.com (wolviegirl) wrote in message news:<c6538ff6.0309200554.77ae0ee7@posting.google.com>... > rshiflet@hotmail.com (Renee) wrote in message news:<f6980f4e.0309191455.7078dba9@posting.google.com>... > > > > Probably for the same reason they watched season 4 when it was The Conner Show. > > Except there wasn't just a Connor Show in S4. There was also an Angel > show, a Cordelia show, a Wesley show, a Gunn/Fred show. Everyone in > S4 got an equal amount of storyline and plot right from the early > episodes. Compared this with season 5 where it's spike, spike, and > more spike. To people who didn't like Conner, it became the Conner show (just like people who don't like Spike will think season 5 is the Spike Show.) Since the new season hasn't even started yet, we don't know that Angel season 5 will be Spike, Spike, Spike. I'm not following spoilers this year, but even those are never as accurate as the actual showing. I've also found that promos are always misleading. Next May, we can compare the storylines of the two seasons. Renee

2003-09-20 15:05:53+10:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (Kas <tasha.yar@optushome.com.au>)


"himiko" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message news:c7902983.0309181421.a5e68d7@posting.google.com... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309181005.88791cb@posting.google.com>... > > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > > > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > > > > > 1 > > > 2 > > > 3 > > > 4 > > > 5 > > > 6 > > > 7 > > > 8 > > > 9 > > > 0 > > > 9 > > > 8 > > > 7 > > > 6 > > > 5 > > > 4 > > > 3 > > > 2 > > > 1 > > > > > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > > > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > > > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > > > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > > > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > > > > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > > > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > > > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > > > right. > > > > --Himiko, I would love it if this were so, but I don't believe it. > > You've been following spoilers for the first few episodes, right? So > > you're aware that as far as is known right now, there are only two > > episodes in which Spike has any more than trivial cameos. He's just > > not important enough in the other episodes to have the kind of stature > > you're talking about. > > > > So what if the promos indicate otherwise? Have we never seen > > misleading promos before? I don't know why promos should mean any > > more than posters to you. > > Promo decisions usually include producer input since actual footage is > used and decisions need to be made not only about what clip to use, > but about how the whole is spliced together and that sort of thing. > Yeah, advertising is still the main aim, and I doubt the producer has > final say, so the result can still be misleading, but it's a lot less > likely. > > himiko Promo's can also be *very* missleading.. Kind of like a promo that shows some main character in a show is going to die - and they do, for about two minutes before being resucitated, but all the promo will show/say is that the person is dead. So, Spike will be in it, to make it appear as if he will be in it constantly for all the Spike fans, they show only the Spike footage, to get their attention, then they watch right from the start of the season waiting to get a glimpse of the character they are looking for. It's very possible Spike fans will be dissapointed, especially if his air time is not as high as they expect it to be. Kas

2003-09-20 15:19:59-04:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <i30pmvkfasdfj6jnm99csf9msp0gk060lm@4ax.com>, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > On 20 Sep 2003 16:22:38 GMT, snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote: > > >>Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) > >>From: EGK me@privacy.net > >>Date: 9/20/2003 10:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time > >>Message-id: <idnomvktic5arvpfmi06bpruso55gdppok@4ax.com> > >> > >>On 20 Sep 2003 06:03:26 -0700, edstoday@aol.com (Denny) wrote: > >> > >>>But as far as Ats is concerned -- I don't mean to sound sexist against > >>>women --especially since I am female -- but the BtVS ratings driver > >>>(no matter how slim they were) in the final two years of the show was > >>>the Spike story line. > >> > >>The ratings actually dropped over the last two season of BTVS so if Spike > >>was the "driver" he sure did take a wrong turn. > > >But didn't the ratings for ALL the UPN shows drop as much or more? > > Hey!. Come on. I think the writers infatuation with Spike hurt BTVS but > let's not go that far. I don't think Spike was responsible for all the UPN > shows going down the tubes. <G> Well.... we can put it to a test this year. If the WB begins to produce shows that pander to the lowest common denominator and subsequently goes down the tubes maybe we've detected a pattern. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-09-20 15:33:06-05:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


EGK wrote: > On 20 Sep 2003 06:03:26 -0700, edstoday@aol.com (Denny) wrote: > >> But as far as Ats is concerned -- I don't mean to sound sexist >> against women --especially since I am female -- but the BtVS ratings >> driver (no matter how slim they were) in the final two years of the >> show was the Spike story line. > > The ratings actually dropped over the last two season of BTVS so if > Spike was the "driver" he sure did take a wrong turn. Yup it's not like anyone would ever quit watching over the crack whore Willow storyline, or because of an unlikeable abusive heroine, or lame stupid villains. Not one person would ever leave because of the show was over run with teenage girls sucking screentime, and a minor villain that got his own episode, took all the funny lines, and sucked up more screentime than any character. Nope the only reason anyone quit watching was because of Spike. Jul Do I really need to give a sarcasm warning?

2003-09-20 15:39:35-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (reldevik@usa.net)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309191615.1095d77b@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309190952.3127ea04@posting.google.com>... > > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309181421.a5e68d7@posting.google.com>... > > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309181005.88791cb@posting.google.com>... > > > > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > > > > > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > > > > > > > > > 1 > > > > > 2 > > > > > 3 > > > > > 4 > > > > > 5 > > > > > 6 > > > > > 7 > > > > > 8 > > > > > 9 > > > > > 0 > > > > > 9 > > > > > 8 > > > > > 7 > > > > > 6 > > > > > 5 > > > > > 4 > > > > > 3 > > > > > 2 > > > > > 1 > > > > > > > > > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > > > > > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > > > > > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > > > > > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > > > > > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > > > > > > > > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > > > > > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > > > > > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > > > > > right. > > > > > > > > --Himiko, I would love it if this were so, but I don't believe it. > > > > You've been following spoilers for the first few episodes, right? So > > > > you're aware that as far as is known right now, there are only two > > > > episodes in which Spike has any more than trivial cameos. He's just > > > > not important enough in the other episodes to have the kind of stature > > > > you're talking about. > > > > > > > > So what if the promos indicate otherwise? Have we never seen > > > > misleading promos before? I don't know why promos should mean any > > > > more than posters to you. > > > > > > Promo decisions usually include producer input since actual footage is > > > used and decisions need to be made not only about what clip to use, > > > but about how the whole is spliced together and that sort of thing. > > > Yeah, advertising is still the main aim, and I doubt the producer has > > > final say, so the result can still be misleading, but it's a lot less > > > likely. > > > > --Once again, though, Himiko, I must ask you: How does this square > > with the spoiler information we have so far? Really, I'd love to hear > > your answer to that question. > > It doesn't unsquare with it. I've only seen summaries for 5 episodes > so far, and sides for two more. I don't consider sides complete > enough to say much. > > Ep. 1: Spike enters Angel's world > > Ep. 2: The basic relationship between Spike and Angel is established: > a partnership with considerable friction. > > Ep. 3: Angel angsts over a sexy female werewolf, while Spike struggles > with his hell fears and makes life miserable for everyone...two > parallel stories it sounds like to me, only Angel gets most of the air > time. > > Ep. 4: Angel, Spike, and Fred muddle it out as Angel tries to protect > Fred from Spike who he still doesn't trust; this is resolved at the > end as Spike proves himself a good guy. > > Ep. 5: Clearly a comedy episode in which everyone behaves like an > idiot; probably not much evidence one way or another. > > Then we get Mexican wrestlers and Wes's father with little clue as to > how Angel or Spike will connect up. > > I'm not suggesting that this proves ME has a buddy format in mind, but > if I were moving in a co-lead on an established show, this is exactly > the way I'd do it...slowly at first, establishing the new character > and his relationship with the original lead, then extending his > relationships with other characters. Taken in conjunction with the > promos, I'm thinking they're going this route. --Well, thanks for elaborating, but I must say I do not find this at all convincing, and I think you're jumping to some very hasty conclusions. There's a chance you'll turn out to be right, granted; but I'll believe it when I see it. Clairel

2003-09-20 15:44:36-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (reldevik@usa.net)


"Kas" <tasha.yar@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<3f6be038$0$8565$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>... > "himiko" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message > news:c7902983.0309181421.a5e68d7@posting.google.com... > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message > news:<1faed770.0309181005.88791cb@posting.google.com>... > > > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message > news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > > > > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > > > > > > > 1 > > > > 2 > > > > 3 > > > > 4 > > > > 5 > > > > 6 > > > > 7 > > > > 8 > > > > 9 > > > > 0 > > > > 9 > > > > 8 > > > > 7 > > > > 6 > > > > 5 > > > > 4 > > > > 3 > > > > 2 > > > > 1 > > > > > > > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > > > > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > > > > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > > > > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > > > > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > > > > > > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > > > > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > > > > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > > > > right. > > > > > > --Himiko, I would love it if this were so, but I don't believe it. > > > You've been following spoilers for the first few episodes, right? So > > > you're aware that as far as is known right now, there are only two > > > episodes in which Spike has any more than trivial cameos. He's just > > > not important enough in the other episodes to have the kind of stature > > > you're talking about. > > > > > > So what if the promos indicate otherwise? Have we never seen > > > misleading promos before? I don't know why promos should mean any > > > more than posters to you. > > > > Promo decisions usually include producer input since actual footage is > > used and decisions need to be made not only about what clip to use, > > but about how the whole is spliced together and that sort of thing. > > Yeah, advertising is still the main aim, and I doubt the producer has > > final say, so the result can still be misleading, but it's a lot less > > likely. > > > > himiko > > Promo's can also be *very* missleading.. > Kind of like a promo that shows some main character in a show is going to > die - and they do, for about two minutes before being resucitated, but all > the promo will show/say is that the person is dead. > So, Spike will be in it, to make it appear as if he will be in it constantly > for all the Spike fans, they show only the Spike footage, to get their > attention, then they watch right from the start of the season waiting to get > a glimpse of the character they are looking for. > It's very possible Spike fans will be dissapointed, especially if his air > time is not as high as they expect it to be. --If I don't have inflated expectations in the first place, then I can't be disappointed. That's why I'm skeptical about claims that AtS this year will be a buddy show in which Spike and Angel get equal attention. In a way it'd be nice--for me, and Himiko, and other Spike fans--but this is the Angel show, and I'm bearing that in mind. I've seen the notorious "brotherhood stained in blood" promo by now, and to me it looks like a classic bait & switch gambit. Not that I mind if the "switch" is just the usual Angelocentric AtS drama, with everyone else in a supporting role and getting a modicum of time and attention. That's pretty much what I expect, and since I'm interested in all the characters (Lorne, Wes, Fred, Gunn) I *want* them all to get time and attention. Clairel

2003-09-20 16:22:38+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 9/20/2003 10:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <idnomvktic5arvpfmi06bpruso55gdppok@4ax.com> > >On 20 Sep 2003 06:03:26 -0700, edstoday@aol.com (Denny) wrote: > >>But as far as Ats is concerned -- I don't mean to sound sexist against >>women --especially since I am female -- but the BtVS ratings driver >>(no matter how slim they were) in the final two years of the show was >>the Spike story line. > >The ratings actually dropped over the last two season of BTVS so if Spike >was the "driver" he sure did take a wrong turn. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > > > > > > But didn't the ratings for ALL the UPN shows drop as much or more? Sandra

2003-09-20 16:54:47+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu>)


Kas <tasha.yar@optushome.com.au> wrote: : "himiko" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message : news:c7902983.0309181421.a5e68d7@posting.google.com... :> reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message : news:<1faed770.0309181005.88791cb@posting.google.com>... :> > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message : news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... :> > > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night :> > > :> > > 1 :> > > 2 :> > > 3 :> > > 4 :> > > 5 :> > > 6 :> > > 7 :> > > 8 :> > > 9 :> > > 0 :> > > 9 :> > > 8 :> > > 7 :> > > 6 :> > > 5 :> > > 4 :> > > 3 :> > > 2 :> > > 1 :> > > :> > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more :> > > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this :> > > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast :> > > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is :> > > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. :> > > :> > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, :> > > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other :> > > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) :> > > right. :> > :> > --Himiko, I would love it if this were so, but I don't believe it. :> > You've been following spoilers for the first few episodes, right? So :> > you're aware that as far as is known right now, there are only two :> > episodes in which Spike has any more than trivial cameos. He's just :> > not important enough in the other episodes to have the kind of stature :> > you're talking about. :> > :> > So what if the promos indicate otherwise? Have we never seen :> > misleading promos before? I don't know why promos should mean any :> > more than posters to you. :> :> Promo decisions usually include producer input since actual footage is :> used and decisions need to be made not only about what clip to use, :> but about how the whole is spliced together and that sort of thing. :> Yeah, advertising is still the main aim, and I doubt the producer has :> final say, so the result can still be misleading, but it's a lot less :> likely. :> :> himiko : Promo's can also be *very* missleading.. : Kind of like a promo that shows some main character in a show is going to : die - and they do, for about two minutes before being resucitated, but all : the promo will show/say is that the person is dead. : So, Spike will be in it, to make it appear as if he will be in it constantly : for all the Spike fans, they show only the Spike footage, to get their : attention, then they watch right from the start of the season waiting to get : a glimpse of the character they are looking for. : It's very possible Spike fans will be dissapointed, especially if his air : time is not as high as they expect it to be. Anyone who was even a moderate fan of UPN's Star Trek: Voyager as I was for its first few years can attest to how insanely mis-leading promos can be. UPN once intensely promoted that a main character was going to die in an upcoming episode. The "main character" turned out to be some low-ranking guy in engineering whose name no one knew and who had only been in a few episodes. UPNs promos for Voyager were out and out laughable.

2003-09-20 18:01:10-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


galt_57@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote in message news:<5591d176.0309200725.5e08595@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > > > 1 > > 2 > > 3 > > 4 > > 5 > > 6 > > 7 > > 8 > > 9 > > 0 > > 9 > > 8 > > 7 > > 6 > > 5 > > 4 > > 3 > > 2 > > 1 > > > but I hope > Spike keeps his shirt on. I am tired of seeing his bare little chicken > breast. *snerk* don't get your hopes up in regards to not seeing the little chicken breast. That's all I'll say.

2003-09-20 18:14:07+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >From: wolviegrl@yahoo.com (wolviegirl) >Date: 9/20/2003 6:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <c6538ff6.0309200554.77ae0ee7@posting.google.com> > >rshiflet@hotmail.com (Renee) wrote in message >news:<f6980f4e.0309191455.7078dba9@posting.google.com>... > > >> Probably for the same reason they watched season 4 when it was The Conner >Show. > >Except there wasn't just a Connor Show in S4. There was also an Angel >show, a Cordelia show, a Wesley show, a Gunn/Fred show. Everyone in >S4 got an equal amount of storyline and plot right from the early >episodes. Compared this with season 5 where it's spike, spike, and >more spike. > I guess you've read different spoilers than I have for eps 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Rose Wesley/Spike in 2004!

2003-09-20 18:49:11-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


gavalos@cctimes.com (George Avalos) wrote in message news:<da6729e4.0309190948.20080610@posting.google.com>... > My call: Even if your stated conditions materialize, you won't stop > watching. And you'll keep posting. And some fallback position will be > developed, e.g.: Heh. There's no correlation between not watching and posting. I survived BTVS S7 without watching more than 6 episodes of that season. I mostly relied on spoilers to see if an episode worth watching or not, then I snarked at TWoP. > 1. being a completist I'm no such creature. And I'm so relieved that I haven't bought any of Angel or BTVS DVDs. Imagine my disappointment if I had. > 2. watching to track the development of/story arc for, minor character That's what's spoilers are for. If it's so miniscule, then better pass it and have that movie night with friends. > 3. trying to see if it can actually get worse. I'm not a masochist. Been there, done that in S6. It wasn't fun. And once was enough. > 4. hoping against hope that things will become better. Again? No more of that now. > 5. just happened to have the TV on at that hour. I only have two shows I watch faithfully: Angel and Alias. Now, only Alias I'll attend faithfully every episode. I'll watch Angel on episode per episode basis just to be on the safe side. > Just a guess. Probably a good one, though. Way off the mark. Which is why you should never try to guess someone else's mind.

2003-09-21 04:14:25+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (sweick@aol.com)


alphakitten alphakittenx@netscape.net wrote: >You mean Stephen's sig is not an actual spoiler!? Damn! ;) No, my sig.'s about the problems in this newsgroup. The Wes thread turns into All About Spike. The Fred thread does. Everything becomes Spike. Yes, I do fear that ME will pander. That it will be Angel: The Spike Show. I hope that ME will do what they should do and abuse Spike royally. And totally piss Roaz off. :-) I'm expecting that just after they announce that Cordy will return for the final 12 episodes of the season. Namely, Roaz will not be pissed off. :-( Stephen Weick Spike Spike Spike Spike, Spike Spike Spike Spike, SPIKE! Oh wonderful Spike! "You could have Spike Spike Spike Angel Fred and Spike. There isn't much Spike there."

2003-09-21 04:20:09+10:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net>)


Rose wrote: >>Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >>From: wolviegrl@yahoo.com (wolviegirl) >>Date: 9/20/2003 6:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <c6538ff6.0309200554.77ae0ee7@posting.google.com> >> >>rshiflet@hotmail.com (Renee) wrote in message >>news:<f6980f4e.0309191455.7078dba9@posting.google.com>... >> >> >> >>> Probably for the same reason they watched season 4 when it was The Conner >> >>Show. >> >>Except there wasn't just a Connor Show in S4. There was also an Angel >>show, a Cordelia show, a Wesley show, a Gunn/Fred show. Everyone in >>S4 got an equal amount of storyline and plot right from the early >>episodes. Compared this with season 5 where it's spike, spike, and >>more spike. >> > > > I guess you've read different spoilers than I have for eps 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. > > > Rose > Wesley/Spike in 2004! You mean Stephen's sig is not an actual spoiler!? Damn! ;) ~Angel

2003-09-21 04:42:33+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (tsd@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu)


In article <20030921001425.19971.00001794@mb-m28.aol.com>, SWeick <sweick@aol.com> wrote: :alphakitten alphakittenx@netscape.net wrote: : :>You mean Stephen's sig is not an actual spoiler!? Damn! ;) : : :No, my sig.'s about the problems in this newsgroup. : :The Wes thread turns into All About Spike. :The Fred thread does. Everything becomes Spike. Yeah I kinda made note of that myself. Feels like I'm a pepple trying to redirect a rockslide. :Yes, I do fear that ME will pander. That it will be Angel: :The Spike Show. I hope that ME will do what they :should do and abuse Spike royally. That sounds very appealing. :) :And totally piss Roaz off. :-) : :I'm expecting that just after they announce that Cordy :will return for the final 12 episodes of the season. Even better! --

2003-09-21 10:53:21-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (edstoday@aol.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309201701.49533e2c@posting.google.com>... > galt_57@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote in message news:<5591d176.0309200725.5e08595@posting.google.com>... > > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > > > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > > > > > 1 > > > 2 > > > 3 > > > 4 > > > 5 > > > 6 > > > 7 > > > 8 > > > 9 > > > 0 > > > 9 > > > 8 > > > 7 > > > 6 > > > 5 > > > 4 > > > 3 > > > 2 > > > 1 > > > > > but I hope > > Spike keeps his shirt on. I am tired of seeing his bare little chicken > > breast. > > *snerk* don't get your hopes up in regards to not seeing the little > chicken breast. That's all I'll say. Folks, Spike is not the devil (just an evil blood sucking thing). Give the show a chance and understand the importance of marketing (a promo is short for promotion). You always promote the new toy to get folks to visit the store. The idea is for AtS to get more viewers so we can watch more seasons of Angel. Until this season starts, let's give Spike hating a rest. But I know you won't listen. However, I do enjoy reading these posts. It's great to read rabid paranoia loose and untamed.

2003-09-21 12:37:59-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com>)


On 21 Sep 2003 04:14:25 GMT, sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote: >alphakitten alphakittenx@netscape.net wrote: > >>You mean Stephen's sig is not an actual spoiler!? Damn! ;) > > >No, my sig.'s about the problems in this newsgroup. > >The Wes thread turns into All About Spike. >The Fred thread does. Everything becomes Spike. > >Yes, I do fear that ME will pander. That it will be Angel: >The Spike Show. I hope that ME will do what they >should do and abuse Spike royally. > >And totally piss Roaz off. :-) >I'm expecting that just after they announce that Cordy >will return for the final 12 episodes of the season. > >Namely, Roaz will not be pissed off. :-( Come on Stephen, Rose is perfectly capable of being pissed off with ME pandering to Spike fans. She wants well-written Spike, and all too often, pandered Spike is badly written Spike. And this being about an ME show, you should make your sig less Monty Python and more ME. May I suggest There could be more Spike. This could be Spikier.

2003-09-21 16:43:56+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (LunaLu <shadowland@this.time>)


> Daniel or Mark--hard to tell >> He comes to the show and all of a sudden the rest of the >> casts don't matter anymore. I'll probably watch ep 5, 6 and 7 if >> they turned out to be good but I refused to watch the rest of this >> brand-new - whatever this show is now called - if it continues its >> attempt to shove Spike down my throat while it makes no attempt to >> give other characters interesting and complex stories (either with or >> without Angel) and promote them. ========================== Has the show started yet? Wow! All this refusal to watch a show that Spike has already taken over and it hasn't even aired yet. People never cease to amaze me. All the WB is trying to do is get more viewers. Spike draws viewers. Ergo, advertise Spike as coming to LA. I really feel for JM. Such talent going to waste on a show that was about to be cancelled. I feel, if anything, they won't do him justice. His talents are endless. He can show more emotion, wisdom and integrity than most, (most, I say, not all) characters on both shows put together. And yet, he's always the outsider, the one that gets the shit, while the ruthlesss Angel, gets all the glory for being a sometimes good/often times bad (more like heartless) vampire. No bother telling me how bad Spike is... I've read it all. Never read it about Angel though. They like him as Angel, Angelus or that thrd personality that Darla pointed out. He's always justified by the blind mob. But that's the way of the world.. So be it. ~Luna

2003-09-21 17:02:13+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Tammy wrote: > >That sounds very appealing. :) Does it? That will mean Spike scenes and lots of Spike discussion here... Rose Wesley for Governor

2003-09-21 17:28:46-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<bkidid$21klm$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > EGK wrote: > > On 20 Sep 2003 06:03:26 -0700, edstoday@aol.com (Denny) wrote: > > > >> But as far as Ats is concerned -- I don't mean to sound sexist > >> against women --especially since I am female -- but the BtVS ratings > >> driver (no matter how slim they were) in the final two years of the > >> show was the Spike story line. > > > > The ratings actually dropped over the last two season of BTVS so if > > Spike was the "driver" he sure did take a wrong turn. > > Yup it's not like anyone would ever quit watching over the crack whore > Willow storyline, or because of an unlikeable abusive heroine, or lame > stupid villains. Not one person would ever leave because of the show was > over run with teenage girls sucking screentime, and a minor villain that > got his own episode, took all the funny lines, and sucked up more > screentime than any character. Nope the only reason anyone quit > watching was because of Spike. > Jul > Do I really need to give a sarcasm warning? Well, most of the posters were responding to the assertion that Spike was the ratings driver. That's the reason for the comments connecting him with the drop in ratings. FWIW, I agree with you that ME's misuse of Spike was not the only reason the show dropped so badly in quality the last season and a half or so. There were lots of reasons BtVS sucked badly towards the end. Spike was just one of them.

2003-09-21 18:14:55+10:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net>)


SWeick wrote: > alphakitten alphakittenx@netscape.net wrote: > > >>You mean Stephen's sig is not an actual spoiler!? Damn! ;) > > > > No, my sig.'s about the problems in this newsgroup. > > The Wes thread turns into All About Spike. > The Fred thread does. Everything becomes Spike. > > Yes, I do fear that ME will pander. That it will be Angel: > The Spike Show. I hope that ME will do what they > should do and abuse Spike royally. You think they should resurrect Sparmony!? ;) ~Angel

2003-09-21 19:07:34-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<idnomvktic5arvpfmi06bpruso55gdppok@4ax.com>... > On 20 Sep 2003 06:03:26 -0700, edstoday@aol.com (Denny) wrote: > > >But as far as Ats is concerned -- I don't mean to sound sexist against > >women --especially since I am female -- but the BtVS ratings driver > >(no matter how slim they were) in the final two years of the show was > >the Spike story line. > > The ratings actually dropped over the last two season of BTVS so if Spike > was the "driver" he sure did take a wrong turn. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) I am gonna have to disagree with Spike being what they were driving the show with. I mean, he was harldy on screen, he hardly had any lines. It was always about Buffy. He was just her lover and just...there.

2003-09-21 19:09:42-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<bkidid$21klm$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > EGK wrote: > > On 20 Sep 2003 06:03:26 -0700, edstoday@aol.com (Denny) wrote: > > > >> But as far as Ats is concerned -- I don't mean to sound sexist > >> against women --especially since I am female -- but the BtVS ratings > >> driver (no matter how slim they were) in the final two years of the > >> show was the Spike story line. > > > > The ratings actually dropped over the last two season of BTVS so if > > Spike was the "driver" he sure did take a wrong turn. > > Yup it's not like anyone would ever quit watching over the crack whore > Willow storyline, or because of an unlikeable abusive heroine, or lame > stupid villains. Not one person would ever leave because of the show was > over run with teenage girls sucking screentime, and a minor villain that > got his own episode, took all the funny lines, and sucked up more > screentime than any character. Nope the only reason anyone quit > watching was because of Spike. > Jul > Do I really need to give a sarcasm warning? THANKYOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2003-09-21 19:16:23-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote in message news:<20030921001425.19971.00001794@mb-m28.aol.com>... > alphakitten alphakittenx@netscape.net wrote: > > >You mean Stephen's sig is not an actual spoiler!? Damn! ;) > > > No, my sig.'s about the problems in this newsgroup. > > The Wes thread turns into All About Spike. > The Fred thread does. Everything becomes Spike. I NOTICED THAT ABOUT THIS NEWSGROUP, TOO!!!!!! Glad I'm not alone. But the wierd thing is, I am just so damned determained that I made notes of each time a thread that was not about Spike turned into being about him. And, I SWEAR ON MY LIFE, all 3 times I saw it happened, the person who brought up Spike did NOT even like him! > Stephen Weick > > Spike Spike Spike Spike, Spike Spike Spike Spike, > SPIKE! Oh wonderful Spike! > > "You could have Spike Spike Spike Angel Fred and Spike. > There isn't much Spike there."

2003-09-21 19:19:15-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


igs622001@yahoo.com (Ian) wrote in message news:<5aa58763.0309190819.2ee368af@posting.google.com>... > colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0309181320.159eca75@posting.google.com>... > > > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > > > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > > > > > 1 > > > 2 > > > 3 > > > 4 > > > 5 > > > 6 > > > 7 > > > 8 > > > 9 > > > 0 > > > 9 > > > 8 > > > 7 > > > 6 > > > 5 > > > 4 > > > 3 > > > 2 > > > 1 > > > > > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > > > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > > > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > > > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > > > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > > > > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > > > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > > > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > > > right. > > > > > > himiko > > > > Oh, dear GOD, man. > > > > First of all, considering the spoilers, they are NOT gonna be > > "buddies". We read of Angel and Spike snarking. Plus, we also read of > > Angel and the FG having a picnic. They are not buddies. > > > > The promo shows Spike and Angel from shots of "Darla". It also shows > > them from shots of "Conviction" and "Just Rewards". It is not the > > season as a whole. > > > > Yet ANOTHER thread like this. > > That's very irresponsible of you, Himiko, posting a thread which > Nirvana dislikes. Perhaps you should get him or her to vet them next > time? Oh, I guess you misunderstood me. I seriously couldn't give 2 sh**s what the htreads are about. I am just gonna comment on them when they are just assumptions based on things that we already know. ...and I am a she.

2003-09-21 22:54:57-04:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 21 Sep 2003 19:07:34 -0700, colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote: >EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<idnomvktic5arvpfmi06bpruso55gdppok@4ax.com>... >> On 20 Sep 2003 06:03:26 -0700, edstoday@aol.com (Denny) wrote: >> >> >But as far as Ats is concerned -- I don't mean to sound sexist against >> >women --especially since I am female -- but the BtVS ratings driver >> >(no matter how slim they were) in the final two years of the show was >> >the Spike story line. >> >> The ratings actually dropped over the last two season of BTVS so if Spike >> was the "driver" he sure did take a wrong turn. > I am gonna have to disagree with Spike being what they were driving >the show with. I mean, he was harldy on screen, he hardly had any >lines. It was always about Buffy. He was just her lover and >just...there. I never said Spike was driving the ratings. Yes, I think ME pandered to Spike fans but so do many of those who were pandered to. All I noted was that ratings were actually down not up. I also don't expect the ratings for Angel to change all that much with Spike as a regular. It may be a bump initially but I have a feeling most of the people who watched Buffy already watch Angel. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-09-22 05:28:58-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (kenm47@ix.netcom.com)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<b0psmv4ib7e4u2ueblqo68d6bujng19m5s@4ax.com>... > On 21 Sep 2003 19:07:34 -0700, colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) > wrote: > > >EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<idnomvktic5arvpfmi06bpruso55gdppok@4ax.com>... > >> On 20 Sep 2003 06:03:26 -0700, edstoday@aol.com (Denny) wrote: > >> > >> >But as far as Ats is concerned -- I don't mean to sound sexist against > >> >women --especially since I am female -- but the BtVS ratings driver > >> >(no matter how slim they were) in the final two years of the show was > >> >the Spike story line. > >> > >> The ratings actually dropped over the last two season of BTVS so if Spike > >> was the "driver" he sure did take a wrong turn. > > > I am gonna have to disagree with Spike being what they were driving > >the show with. I mean, he was harldy on screen, he hardly had any > >lines. It was always about Buffy. He was just her lover and > >just...there. > > I never said Spike was driving the ratings. Yes, I think ME pandered to > Spike fans but so do many of those who were pandered to. All I noted was > that ratings were actually down not up. I also don't expect the ratings for > Angel to change all that much with Spike as a regular. It may be a bump > initially but I have a feeling most of the people who watched Buffy already > watch Angel. > > > And seven years of aging immortal vampires is pushing suspension of disbelief a tad too. Is Angel supposed to look like he ate Connor and Jasmine? Just a question! You know, even Mary Tyler Moore stopped being cute after a while. Ken

2003-09-22 07:55:59+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >From: William George Ferguson wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com >Date: 9/21/2003 12:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <u2vrmv8dbptvs3udd68a14acqjo0c3c84v@4ax.com> > >On 21 Sep 2003 04:14:25 GMT, sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote: > >>alphakitten alphakittenx@netscape.net wrote: >> >>>You mean Stephen's sig is not an actual spoiler!? Damn! ;) >> >> >>No, my sig.'s about the problems in this newsgroup. >> >>The Wes thread turns into All About Spike. >>The Fred thread does. Everything becomes Spike. >> >>Yes, I do fear that ME will pander. That it will be Angel: >>The Spike Show. I hope that ME will do what they >>should do and abuse Spike royally. >> >>And totally piss Roaz off. :-) > >>I'm expecting that just after they announce that Cordy >>will return for the final 12 episodes of the season. >> >>Namely, Roaz will not be pissed off. :-( > >Come on Stephen, Rose is perfectly capable of being pissed off with >ME pandering to Spike fans. She wants well-written Spike, and all too >often, pandered Spike is badly written Spike. > A pandery (bed-humping) Spike scene not well written (tree humping)? Surely you (whiny teen stalker boy in Smashed) jest. Rose Wesley for Governor

2003-09-22 08:25:17-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


wolviegrl@yahoo.com (wolviegirl) wrote in message news:<c6538ff6.0309200554.77ae0ee7@posting.google.com>... > rshiflet@hotmail.com (Renee) wrote in message news:<f6980f4e.0309191455.7078dba9@posting.google.com>... > > > > Probably for the same reason they watched season 4 when it was The Conner Show. > > Except there wasn't just a Connor Show in S4. There was also an Angel > show, a Cordelia show, a Wesley show, a Gunn/Fred show. Everyone in > S4 got an equal amount of storyline and plot right from the early > episodes. I disagree with that. That was the season I did see. > Compared this with season 5 where it's spike, spike, and > more spike. Wow. So you realy haven't been reading spoilers. > ------------------- > Wolviegirl

2003-09-22 08:32:03-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<b0psmv4ib7e4u2ueblqo68d6bujng19m5s@4ax.com>... > On 21 Sep 2003 19:07:34 -0700, colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) > wrote: > > >EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<idnomvktic5arvpfmi06bpruso55gdppok@4ax.com>... > >> On 20 Sep 2003 06:03:26 -0700, edstoday@aol.com (Denny) wrote: > >> > >> >But as far as Ats is concerned -- I don't mean to sound sexist against > >> >women --especially since I am female -- but the BtVS ratings driver > >> >(no matter how slim they were) in the final two years of the show was > >> >the Spike story line. > >> > >> The ratings actually dropped over the last two season of BTVS so if Spike > >> was the "driver" he sure did take a wrong turn. > > > I am gonna have to disagree with Spike being what they were driving > >the show with. I mean, he was harldy on screen, he hardly had any > >lines. It was always about Buffy. He was just her lover and > >just...there. > > I never said Spike was driving the ratings. I tried to respond to the origional post, the one you responded to, but it wouldn't let me. > Yes, I think ME pandered to > Spike fans but so do many of those who were pandered to. I don't feel "pandered to" at all. I mean, I'm fine, but I don't feel pandered to. It was just all part of the story they were telling, just like the stuff they did with everyother character. > All I noted was > that ratings were actually down not up. I also don't expect the ratings for > Angel to change all that much with Spike as a regular. It may be a bump > initially but I have a feeling most of the people who watched Buffy already > watch Angel. Oh, I agree. But I am one of those who will watching now cause of Spike. I mean, I saw the last of season 4 and some earlier eps. of season 4, but I am now gonna watch because of Spike. There are many others that are gonna as well, but I agree with what you say. The ratings are not gonna shoot up. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > > email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-09-22 09:32:58-04:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <4c527512.0309220428.1f5d00b4@posting.google.com>, kenm47@ix.netcom.com (kenm47) wrote: > EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:<b0psmv4ib7e4u2ueblqo68d6bujng19m5s@4ax.com>... > > On 21 Sep 2003 19:07:34 -0700, colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) > > wrote: > > > > >EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > > >news:<idnomvktic5arvpfmi06bpruso55gdppok@4ax.com>... > > >> On 20 Sep 2003 06:03:26 -0700, edstoday@aol.com (Denny) wrote: > > >> > > >> >But as far as Ats is concerned -- I don't mean to sound sexist against > > >> >women --especially since I am female -- but the BtVS ratings driver > > >> >(no matter how slim they were) in the final two years of the show was > > >> >the Spike story line. > > >> > > >> The ratings actually dropped over the last two season of BTVS so if > > >> Spike > > >> was the "driver" he sure did take a wrong turn. > > > > > I am gonna have to disagree with Spike being what they were driving > > >the show with. I mean, he was harldy on screen, he hardly had any > > >lines. It was always about Buffy. He was just her lover and > > >just...there. > > > > I never said Spike was driving the ratings. Yes, I think ME pandered to > > Spike fans but so do many of those who were pandered to. All I noted was > > that ratings were actually down not up. I also don't expect the ratings > > for > > Angel to change all that much with Spike as a regular. It may be a bump > > initially but I have a feeling most of the people who watched Buffy already > > watch Angel. > > > > > > > And seven years of aging immortal vampires is pushing suspension of > disbelief a tad too. Is Angel supposed to look like he ate Connor and > Jasmine? Just a question! > > You know, even Mary Tyler Moore stopped being cute after a while. Good God, yes! JM is starting to get awfully long in the tooth... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-09-22 10:28:35-05:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


EGK wrote: > On 21 Sep 2003 19:07:34 -0700, colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) > wrote: > >> EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >> news:<idnomvktic5arvpfmi06bpruso55gdppok@4ax.com>... >>> On 20 Sep 2003 06:03:26 -0700, edstoday@aol.com (Denny) wrote: >>> >>>> But as far as Ats is concerned -- I don't mean to sound sexist >>>> against women --especially since I am female -- but the BtVS >>>> ratings driver (no matter how slim they were) in the final two >>>> years of the show was the Spike story line. >>> >>> The ratings actually dropped over the last two season of BTVS so if >>> Spike was the "driver" he sure did take a wrong turn. > >> I am gonna have to disagree with Spike being what they were driving >> the show with. I mean, he was harldy on screen, he hardly had any >> lines. It was always about Buffy. He was just her lover and >> just...there. > > I never said Spike was driving the ratings. Yes, I think ME pandered > to Spike fans but so do many of those who were pandered to. All I > noted was that ratings were actually down not up. I also don't > expect the ratings for Angel to change all that much with Spike as a > regular. It may be a bump initially but I have a feeling most of the > people who watched Buffy already watch Angel. Is that "pandered to" like the B/A contingent were pandered to with Angel showing up for some suck face and a "maybe someday". Is that like the Willow fans being pandered to by giving Willow another girlfriend so soon after she tried to destroy the world after the love of her life was murdered. How about the Andrew fans that were pandered to by giving murdering minor villain his own episode and stealing all the good lines from a regular character. The few crumbs the Spike fans got isn't much compared to the pandering the other characters fans got. Why single out Spike fans as being pandered to when the only character that wasn't pandered to was Xander? According to some article it says that only 25% of BtVS fans watched Ats. I know a lot of Spike fans on the groups I post to never watched Ats and are planning on watching it now that Spike's going to be on it. The only problem is after the first 5 episodes and he once again just becomes windowdressing those fans will get disgusted at the bait and switch and quit watching. I see ratings dropping somewhere around ep 6-7 when Spike goes back to his 3 minutes an episode. Jul

2003-09-22 10:38:22-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (kenm47@ix.netcom.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030922095956.14153.00001693@mb-m18.aol.com>... > DF wrote: > > > > > > >Good God, yes! JM is starting to get >awfully long in the tooth... > > Well for God's sake he is playing a vampire. He's supposed to get long in the > tooth. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. > > Anyway, there was a reason I kept saying they need to make Spike human. People > sneered at me. They laughed at me. They threw tomatoes. But still I think I > was right. However Spike gets brought back I think the aging process needs to > be taken into account. Somehow, they will have to deal with it with Angel too > because DB ain't gettin' any younger neither. > > > Rose Agreed. More shortsightedness on the part of JW et al. It would have been so much simpler/cleaner/better (IMO) if that shaman/demon had just turned him human and be done with it. Ken

2003-09-22 11:44:32-05:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


EGK wrote: > On 22 Sep 2003 08:32:03 -0700, colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) > wrote: > >> EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >> news:<b0psmv4ib7e4u2ueblqo68d6bujng19m5s@4ax.com>... > >>> Yes, I think ME pandered to >>> Spike fans but so do many of those who were pandered to. >> >> I don't feel "pandered to" at all. I mean, I'm fine, but I don't >> feel pandered to. It was just all part of the story they were >> telling, just like the stuff they did with everyother character. > > All I can say is that I don't know of any other characters on either > show who spent as much time with their shirts off as Spike. Heck, > even James Marsters reportedly got sick of that. That wasn't "pandering" to the Spike fans that was Marti living out her sick vampire fantasies. If they wanted to pander to the Spike fans they could have had the character shown a smidgen of respect for what he did in getting a soul and saving the world. The only fans that I saw pandered to when it came to Spike were the PC fans, and Marti. Jul

2003-09-22 12:04:29-04:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 22 Sep 2003 08:32:03 -0700, colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote: >EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<b0psmv4ib7e4u2ueblqo68d6bujng19m5s@4ax.com>... >> Yes, I think ME pandered to >> Spike fans but so do many of those who were pandered to. > > I don't feel "pandered to" at all. I mean, I'm fine, but I don't >feel pandered to. It was just all part of the story they were telling, >just like the stuff they did with everyother character. All I can say is that I don't know of any other characters on either show who spent as much time with their shirts off as Spike. Heck, even James Marsters reportedly got sick of that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-09-22 12:25:21-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (gavalos@cctimes.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309201749.642af0e2@posting.google.com>... > gavalos@cctimes.com (George Avalos) wrote in message news:<da6729e4.0309190948.20080610@posting.google.com>... > > > My call: Even if your stated conditions materialize, you won't stop > > watching. And you'll keep posting. And some fallback position will be > > developed, e.g.: > > Heh. There's no correlation between not watching and posting. I > survived BTVS S7 without watching more than 6 episodes of that season. > I mostly relied on spoilers to see if an episode worth watching or > not, then I snarked at TWoP. > > > 1. being a completist > > I'm no such creature. And I'm so relieved that I haven't bought any > of Angel or BTVS DVDs. Imagine my disappointment if I had. > > > 2. watching to track the development of/story arc for, minor character > > That's what's spoilers are for. If it's so miniscule, then better > pass it and have that movie night with friends. > > > 3. trying to see if it can actually get worse. > > I'm not a masochist. Been there, done that in S6. It wasn't fun. And > once was enough. > > > 4. hoping against hope that things will become better. > > Again? No more of that now. So you're saying things won't get better with 'Angel?' Then why would you... > > 5. just happened to have the TV on at that hour. > > I only have two shows I watch faithfully: Angel and Alias. Now, only > Alias I'll attend faithfully every episode. I'll watch Angel on > episode per episode basis just to be on the safe side. ... watch on an "episode per episode basis, just to be on the safe side."? Seems like the best approach, if you have abandoned hope things will get better, is to just stop watching. That seems to be more logical. > > Just a guess. Probably a good one, though. > > Way off the mark. Really? When I wondered whether you would stop watching, that's precisely what I meant. I gave up, for example, on ST:Voyager early in S2. That means I didn't watch any episode, not one, regardless of what they were saying about it on the Net. It was garbage, and I stopped. And stopping, in my case, didn't include watching "6 episodes in Season 7". It meant watching ZERO episodes from the termination point onward. That's what I'm talking about. If you're gonna quit... then quit. It's easy. >Which is why you should never try to guess someone else's mind. No need to guess. Judging from the overall responses, including yours, looks like it was a good call. You and the others who "vowed" to "stop watching" continue to post, and you continue to watch. I haven't seen anything in this thread to suggest otherwise. -George

2003-09-22 12:49:20-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030922095956.14153.00001693@mb-m18.aol.com>... > DF wrote: > > > > > > >Good God, yes! JM is starting to get >awfully long in the tooth... > > Well for God's sake he is playing a vampire. He's supposed to get long in the > tooth. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. > > Anyway, there was a reason I kept saying they need to make Spike human. People > sneered at me. They laughed at me. They threw tomatoes. But still I think I > was right. However Spike gets brought back I think the aging process needs to > be taken into account. Somehow, they will have to deal with it with Angel too > because DB ain't gettin' any younger neither. > > > Rose > Wesley for Governor They sneered, laughed, and threw tomatoes!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! You brighten up this place! Anyway, yeah, DB and JM are gonna age. I guess we are just so used to seeing them that it doesn't realy click. But yeah, neither are getting any younger. I mean, I won't sit here and beat the crap out of it as though this is Television Without Sanity, but they are aging. It happens.

2003-09-22 13:59:56+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


DF wrote: > > >Good God, yes! JM is starting to get >awfully long in the tooth... Well for God's sake he is playing a vampire. He's supposed to get long in the tooth. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Anyway, there was a reason I kept saying they need to make Spike human. People sneered at me. They laughed at me. They threw tomatoes. But still I think I was right. However Spike gets brought back I think the aging process needs to be taken into account. Somehow, they will have to deal with it with Angel too because DB ain't gettin' any younger neither. Rose Wesley for Governor

2003-09-22 14:25:46-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0309211819.250e5aff@posting.google.com>... > igs622001@yahoo.com (Ian) wrote in message news:<5aa58763.0309190819.2ee368af@posting.google.com>... > > colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0309181320.159eca75@posting.google.com>... > > > > > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > > > > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > > > > > > > 1 > > > > 2 > > > > 3 > > > > 4 > > > > 5 > > > > 6 > > > > 7 > > > > 8 > > > > 9 > > > > 0 > > > > 9 > > > > 8 > > > > 7 > > > > 6 > > > > 5 > > > > 4 > > > > 3 > > > > 2 > > > > 1 > > > > > > > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > > > > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > > > > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > > > > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > > > > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > > > > > > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > > > > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > > > > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > > > > right. > > > > > > > > himiko > > > > > > Oh, dear GOD, man. > > > > > > First of all, considering the spoilers, they are NOT gonna be > > > "buddies". We read of Angel and Spike snarking. Plus, we also read of > > > Angel and the FG having a picnic. They are not buddies. > > > > > > The promo shows Spike and Angel from shots of "Darla". It also shows > > > them from shots of "Conviction" and "Just Rewards". It is not the > > > season as a whole. > > > > > > Yet ANOTHER thread like this. > > > > That's very irresponsible of you, Himiko, posting a thread which > > Nirvana dislikes. Perhaps you should get him or her to vet them next > > time? > > Oh, I guess you misunderstood me. I seriously couldn't give 2 sh**s > what the htreads are about. I am just gonna comment on them when they > are just assumptions based on things that we already know. Nope. I didn't misunderstand you at all. > ...and I am a she. Ah. I see. *nods*

2003-09-22 15:38:36+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (sweick@aol.com)


kenm47@ix.netcom.com (kenm47) wrote: >And seven years of aging immortal vampires is pushing suspension of >disbelief a tad too. Immortal doesn't mean unchanging. "Kissing Toast" and the Master both changed into their forms after a period. Harmony mentioned how pig's blood was going to go straight to her hips. So it's obvious that MEverse vampires change, which includes the possibility of gaining weight. Spikes comments about how vampires cut off from blood begin to look like starvation victims is the other end of the spectrum. Is Angel supposed to look like he ate Connor and >Jasmine? Just a question! Mebby DB got pregnant in RL? :-P Stephen Weick Spike Spike Spike Spike, Spike Spike Spike Spike, SPIKE! Oh wonderful Spike! "You could have Spike Spike Spike Angel Fred and Spike. There isn't much Spike there."

2003-09-22 17:46:19+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (pence234@aol.comwhomp)


>>> >>>The ratings actually dropped over the last two season of BTVS so if Spike >>>was the "driver" he sure did take a wrong turn. When Buffy moved to UPN, it all but disappeared from many televisions. I know that my cable company puts UPN up with the infomercials and spanish language stuff! Ruined things. PB

2003-09-22 20:17:05-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


igs622001@yahoo.com (Ian) wrote in message news:<5aa58763.0309221325.50c69e33@posting.google.com>... > colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0309211819.250e5aff@posting.google.com>... > > > igs622001@yahoo.com (Ian) wrote in message news:<5aa58763.0309190819.2ee368af@posting.google.com>... > > > colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0309181320.159eca75@posting.google.com>... > > > > > > > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309180656.456d489b@posting.google.com>... > > > > > OK, very minor spoilers based on the promo that showed last night > > > > > > > > > > 1 > > > > > 2 > > > > > 3 > > > > > 4 > > > > > 5 > > > > > 6 > > > > > 7 > > > > > 8 > > > > > 9 > > > > > 0 > > > > > 9 > > > > > 8 > > > > > 7 > > > > > 6 > > > > > 5 > > > > > 4 > > > > > 3 > > > > > 2 > > > > > 1 > > > > > > > > > > I didn't dare believe it from the posters, but promos are rather more > > > > > serious. I think we're getting an Angel and Spike buddy show this > > > > > season: think the dark side of Starsky and Hutch with an ensemble cast > > > > > added on. I'm pretty pleased and excited by this possibility which is > > > > > rapidly becoming a probability, but I know a lot of folks aren't. > > > > > > > > > > Those that aren't were the main ones saying it was going to happen, > > > > > and they were probably right. Since they will likely have few other > > > > > consolations, I thought I'd mention that at least they were (probably) > > > > > right. > > > > > > > > > > himiko > > > > > > > > Oh, dear GOD, man. > > > > > > > > First of all, considering the spoilers, they are NOT gonna be > > > > "buddies". We read of Angel and Spike snarking. Plus, we also read of > > > > Angel and the FG having a picnic. They are not buddies. > > > > > > > > The promo shows Spike and Angel from shots of "Darla". It also shows > > > > them from shots of "Conviction" and "Just Rewards". It is not the > > > > season as a whole. > > > > > > > > Yet ANOTHER thread like this. > > > > > > That's very irresponsible of you, Himiko, posting a thread which > > > Nirvana dislikes. Perhaps you should get him or her to vet them next > > > time? > > > > Oh, I guess you misunderstood me. I seriously couldn't give 2 sh**s > > what the htreads are about. I am just gonna comment on them when they > > are just assumptions based on things that we already know. > > Nope. I didn't misunderstand you at all. Your post doesn't seem to reflect that, but okay then. > > ...and I am a she. > > Ah. I see. *nods* ...or AM I?

2003-09-23 02:01:09-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


gavalos@cctimes.com (George Avalos) wrote in message news:<da6729e4.0309221125.3446a755@posting.google.com>... > dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309201749.642af0e2@posting.google.com>... > > gavalos@cctimes.com (George Avalos) wrote in message news:<da6729e4.0309190948.20080610@posting.google.com>... > > > > > My call: Even if your stated conditions materialize, you won't stop > > > watching. And you'll keep posting. And some fallback position will be > > > developed, e.g.: > > > > Heh. There's no correlation between not watching and posting. I > > survived BTVS S7 without watching more than 6 episodes of that season. > > I mostly relied on spoilers to see if an episode worth watching or > > not, then I snarked at TWoP. > > > > > 1. being a completist > > > > I'm no such creature. And I'm so relieved that I haven't bought any > > of Angel or BTVS DVDs. Imagine my disappointment if I had. > > > > > 2. watching to track the development of/story arc for, minor character > > > > That's what's spoilers are for. If it's so miniscule, then better > > pass it and have that movie night with friends. > > > > > 3. trying to see if it can actually get worse. > > > > I'm not a masochist. Been there, done that in S6. It wasn't fun. And > > once was enough. > > > > > 4. hoping against hope that things will become better. > > > > Again? No more of that now. > > So you're saying things won't get better with 'Angel?' Then why would > you... > > > > 5. just happened to have the TV on at that hour. > > > > I only have two shows I watch faithfully: Angel and Alias. Now, only > > Alias I'll attend faithfully every episode. I'll watch Angel on > > episode per episode basis just to be on the safe side. > > ... watch on an "episode per episode basis, just to be on the safe > side."? Seems like the best approach, if you have abandoned hope > things will get better, is to just stop watching. That seems to be > more logical. Maybe I should clarify that by that I meant I was going to read spoilers and only watch the episode that I think is going to be interesting as opposed to watch every single one of them. Sorry if you confused that. Either way, it doesn't make any difference because I think you're right. I got tired from being worried about this show and TV shows are supposed to make me relax not stressed out. So your suggestion of not watching at all was a good one.

2003-09-23 02:30:00+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 9/22/2003 9:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <g97umvs6vg2vij4p1od4d8ol84u9j2317b@4ax.com> > >On 22 Sep 2003 08:32:03 -0700, colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) >wrote: > >>EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >news:<b0psmv4ib7e4u2ueblqo68d6bujng19m5s@4ax.com>... > >>> Yes, I think ME pandered to >>> Spike fans but so do many of those who were pandered to. >> >> I don't feel "pandered to" at all. I mean, I'm fine, but I don't >>feel pandered to. It was just all part of the story they were telling, >>just like the stuff they did with everyother character. > >All I can say is that I don't know of any other characters on either show >who spent as much time with their shirts off as Spike. Heck, even James >Marsters reportedly got sick of that. > It certainly seems so from what he said at conventions and in interviews. I got sick of it too. It's embarrassing watching a talented person get exploited for his body. It's one thing to see a body that's half naked for good reason and think, hey, nice body. It's another thing to have people waving that body in your face screaming "drool over this body! Drool over it now!"

2003-09-23 11:01:56+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >From: fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) >Date: 9/22/2003 9:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <20030922095956.14153.00001693@mb-m18.aol.com> > >DF wrote: > >> >> >>Good God, yes! JM is starting to get >awfully long in the tooth... > >Well for God's sake he is playing a vampire. He's supposed to get long in >the >tooth. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. > >Anyway, there was a reason I kept saying they need to make Spike human. >People >sneered at me. They laughed at me. They threw tomatoes. But still I think I >was right. However Spike gets brought back I think the aging process needs >to >be taken into account. Somehow, they will have to deal with it with Angel >too >because DB ain't gettin' any younger neither. > > >Rose >Wesley for Governor > > > > > > > > > > True; and physically Boreanaz has changed much more than Marsters has. He's gained considerable weight; and he looks very different than he did during the early days on BtVS. Sandra

2003-09-24 04:06:18+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (Linda <lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com>)


"Snds15" <snds15@cs.com> wrote in message news:20030923070156.24316.00000094@mb-m03.news.cs.com... > >Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) > >From: fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) > >Date: 9/22/2003 9:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time > >Message-id: <20030922095956.14153.00001693@mb-m18.aol.com> > > > >DF wrote: > > > >> > >> > >>Good God, yes! JM is starting to get >awfully long in the tooth... > > > >Well for God's sake he is playing a vampire. He's supposed to get long in > >the > >tooth. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. > > > >Anyway, there was a reason I kept saying they need to make Spike human. > >People > >sneered at me. They laughed at me. They threw tomatoes. But still I think I > >was right. However Spike gets brought back I think the aging process needs > >to > >be taken into account. Somehow, they will have to deal with it with Angel > >too > >because DB ain't gettin' any younger neither. > > > > > > True; and physically Boreanaz has changed much more than Marsters has. > He's gained considerable weight; and he looks very different than he did > during the early days on BtVS. Yes he's changed. He's also ten years younger than JM. Which means he's in the phase of going from young man to middle aged man. JM was already middle aged when he was cast in S2 of BtVS so he's not changing as much. Which will also happen to DB once he makes the transition. He's not gained considerable weight considering he was 24 when S1 of Buffy was shot and he was a starving actor. His weight has been steady with the exception of those episodes filmed immediately after the holidays. He has always slimmed down soon after. I'm not going to do any JM bashing. Just my honest opinion. JM is a skinny runt with a concave chest. Give me a man built like DB any day. -- Best Regards, Linda Mmmmmm.....Naked...Angel

2003-09-24 05:53:19-06:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (NOSPAMrobertocastillo@ameritech.net)


Rose wrote: > >From: "Linda" lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com > >Message-id: <_K8cb.11684$Ji7.135862@news.easynews.com> > > > > > >"Snds15" <snds15@cs.com> wrote in message > >news:20030923070156.24316.00000094@mb-m03.news.cs.com... > >> >Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) > >> >From: fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) > >> >Date: 9/22/2003 9:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time > >> >Message-id: <20030922095956.14153.00001693@mb-m18.aol.com> > >> True; and physically Boreanaz has changed much more than Marsters > >> has. > >> He's gained considerable weight; and he looks very different than he > >> did > >> during the early days on BtVS. > > > > > >Yes he's changed. He's also ten years younger than JM. Which means he's > >in > >the phase of going from young man to middle aged man. > JM was already middle > >aged when he was cast in S2 of BtVS so >he's not changing as much. > > Okay, Linda. Now the gloves come off. > > You can make fun of James. You can make fun of Spike. You can even > destroy > the reputations of my closest family members. > > But I'll be damned if I will sit here passively while you refer to 35 > year olds > as "middle aged." > That's right, with the average life expectancy in the U.S. hovering at around 72, nobody should be considered middle aged until they're at least 36. -- Does this .sig make my butt look big? Roberto Castillo robertocastillo@ameritech.net

2003-09-24 06:21:03+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >From: "Linda" lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com >Date: 9/23/2003 9:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <_K8cb.11684$Ji7.135862@news.easynews.com> > > >"Snds15" <snds15@cs.com> wrote in message >news:20030923070156.24316.00000094@mb-m03.news.cs.com... >> >Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >> >From: fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) >> >Date: 9/22/2003 9:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time >> >Message-id: <20030922095956.14153.00001693@mb-m18.aol.com> >> > >> >DF wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>Good God, yes! JM is starting to get >awfully long in the tooth... >> > >> >Well for God's sake he is playing a vampire. He's supposed to get long >in >> >the >> >tooth. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. >> > >> >Anyway, there was a reason I kept saying they need to make Spike human. >> >People >> >sneered at me. They laughed at me. They threw tomatoes. But still I >think I >> >was right. However Spike gets brought back I think the aging process >needs >> >to >> >be taken into account. Somehow, they will have to deal with it with >Angel >> >too >> >because DB ain't gettin' any younger neither. >> > >> > >> >> True; and physically Boreanaz has changed much more than Marsters has. >> He's gained considerable weight; and he looks very different than he did >> during the early days on BtVS. > > >Yes he's changed. He's also ten years younger than JM. Which means he's in >the phase of going from young man to middle aged man. JM was already middle >aged when he was cast in S2 of BtVS so >he's not changing as much. Okay, Linda. Now the gloves come off. You can make fun of James. You can make fun of Spike. You can even destroy the reputations of my closest family members. But I'll be damned if I will sit here passively while you refer to 35 year olds as "middle aged." It's war now, woman. War. Rose Wesley for Governor

2003-09-24 08:32:31-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030924022103.09541.00000054@mb-m25.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) > >From: "Linda" lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com > >Date: 9/23/2003 9:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time > >Message-id: <_K8cb.11684$Ji7.135862@news.easynews.com> > >Yes he's changed. He's also ten years younger than JM. Which means he's in > >the phase of going from young man to middle aged man. > JM was already middle > >aged when he was cast in S2 of BtVS so >he's not changing as much. > > Okay, Linda. Now the gloves come off. > > You can make fun of James. You can make fun of Spike. You can even destroy > the reputations of my closest family members. > > But I'll be damned if I will sit here passively while you refer to 35 year olds > as "middle aged." > > It's war now, woman. War. > > Rose CATFIGHT!!! ;)

2003-09-24 10:32:23-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030924095741.11382.00000136@mb-m05.aol.com>... > Robert wrote: > > > > >That's right, with the average life expectancy in the U.S. hovering at > >around 72, nobody should be considered middle aged until they're at least > >36. > > But practically speaking, that is not how people truly use the term > "middle-aged." Most people use it to describe those who are over 40 or 45 > (I've heard some use 50 as the benchmark) but who are not yet senior citizens. > Jeez, even back in the 19th Century, when the life expectancy was much shorter, > writer Charlotte Bronte referred to 35 as "not yet middle aged." > > As to your given age of 72 as average life expectancy, according to the World > Bank, life expectancy in the U.S. is 77. So even if we split that down the > middle, middle age doesn't start until age 38 1/2. :) > > > Rose > Wesley for Governor I always figured middle age was, like, 30 or 35 or something *ducks to dodge flying objects*. Just kidding! I figured it would be, like, 45 or something. I guess it just depends on the person themselves who IS that age.

2003-09-24 10:41:51-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


"Linda" <lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com> wrote in message news:<_K8cb.11684$Ji7.135862@news.easynews.com>... > "Snds15" <snds15@cs.com> wrote in message > news:20030923070156.24316.00000094@mb-m03.news.cs.com... > > >Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) > > >From: fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) > > >Date: 9/22/2003 9:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time > > >Message-id: <20030922095956.14153.00001693@mb-m18.aol.com> > > > > > >DF wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>Good God, yes! JM is starting to get >awfully long in the tooth... > > > > > >Well for God's sake he is playing a vampire. He's supposed to get long > in > > >the > > >tooth. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. > > > > > >Anyway, there was a reason I kept saying they need to make Spike human. > > >People > > >sneered at me. They laughed at me. They threw tomatoes. But still I > think I > > >was right. However Spike gets brought back I think the aging process > needs > > >to > > >be taken into account. Somehow, they will have to deal with it with > Angel > > >too > > >because DB ain't gettin' any younger neither. > > > > > > > > > > True; and physically Boreanaz has changed much more than Marsters has. > > He's gained considerable weight; and he looks very different than he did > > during the early days on BtVS. > > > Yes he's changed. He's also ten years younger than JM. David Boreanaz-born April 1969 James Marsters-born August 1962 = 0007 > Which means he's in > the phase of going from young man to middle aged man. JM was already middle > aged when he was cast in S2 of BtVS so he's not changing as much. Which will > also happen to DB once he makes the transition. He's not gained considerable > weight considering he was 24 when S1 of Buffy was shot and he was a starving > actor. His weight has been steady with the exception of those episodes > filmed immediately after the holidays. He has always slimmed down soon > after. > > I'm not going to do any JM bashing. Just my honest opinion. JM is a skinny > runt with a concave chest. Give me a man built like DB any day. JM had stomach problems in season 6. He talked about it at cons. DB, in my opinion, is fine. But I like JM as he is now more. But the truth is, I can't date either of them, unfortionatly, unless a 34 yearold or a 41 yearold would go for a 19 yearold.

2003-09-24 11:51:46-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (gavalos@cctimes.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in > Maybe I should clarify that by that I meant I was going to read > spoilers and only watch the episode that I think is going to be > interesting as opposed to watch every single one of them. Sorry if > you confused that. Either way, it doesn't make any difference because > I think you're right. I got tired from being worried about this show > and TV shows are supposed to make me relax not stressed out. So your > suggestion of not watching at all was a good one. Exactly. TV is supposed to be entertainment. I truly don't believe that it's supposed to be slow train wreck watching, unless that in itself is entertaining. That was my point about Voyager. With ST:DS9, I watched the first year and gave up until there was another major war with the Dominion or Jem Hadar, or somebody, around S4 or thereabouts. That war ended with a stupid Deus Ex Machina wherein Capt. Sisko, with a single ship, was facing about 2,000 enemy ships -- and some gods who operate the wormhole DS9 was guarding just made all the ships disappear. Ridiculous. So I stopped watching again until the May sweeps of the 7th and final season. And *that* ended in an absurd way. So I determined that with Voyager, once I gave up on it after S1, I wouldn't return no matter what. I watched Angel S1, then stopped for more than two years. The show got away from its "helping the hopeless" mission statement. If Angel was going to make amends, as noted in "Amends" (BTVS S3), it seems as if they should have stuck to the original approach to accomplish that credibly. I watched again in the latter stages of S4 since the Faith arc in Angel would lead into the final arc in BTVS. But what I saw of Angel S4 was a disappointment, since it was quite murky. Nothing really seemed to make sense in Angel S4 (I'm sure somebody will set me straight on this!). Still, it seems the evil goddess who appeared after the Angelus episodes was actually the culimination of some master plan wherein everything everybody did was simply moving the ball forward in the master plan. So didn't that make everybody a marionette from S1 onward? It seemed that explanation was shoe-horned in because of whatever the heck they did with Cordelia. Putting Angel & Co. in charge of Wolfram & Hart has possibilities, though. It does, however, have echoes of The Initiative in S4. It also has echoes of the Lord of the Rings. Specifically, like Buffy, Angel has the potential -- with all the pitfalls this entails -- to be in charge of a large bureaucracy that could be reorganized for good. And like LOTR, perhaps they will face the intriguing moral dilemma of attempting to use something inherently evil to carry out good deeds. Sauron's ring, of course, ultimately could only create new dark lords. W&H might only produce grief, and the Initiative only was able to produce more chaos. Maybe this is too hopeful an outlook for Angel S5. One thing's for sure, with the departure of BTVS, for the first time in a decade, since early 1993, there is no more must-see TV for me. (The only thing that comes close is 'The Wire' and '24.' 'Alias,' with its absurdities of last season, is finished. But it was a great 10-year run. Babylon 5 has come and gone, and was strong for four years and part of a 5th. The 'X-Files' became a joke in S6, but was brilliant for its first five seasons. BTVS, despite the uneven S4 and the gloomy S6, still finished strong in S7--but it's gone too. Appointment TV is dead. Long live Drop-in TV. It's probably better that way. -George

2003-09-24 12:49:29-05:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


Nirvana 1 wrote: > JM had stomach problems in season 6. He talked about it at cons. > DB, in my opinion, is fine. But I like JM as he is now more. But the > truth is, I can't date either of them, unfortionatly, unless a 34 > yearold or a 41 yearold would go for a 19 yearold. With JM's rep 19 would be just about right. Jul

2003-09-24 13:57:41+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Robert wrote: > >That's right, with the average life expectancy in the U.S. hovering at >around 72, nobody should be considered middle aged until they're at least >36. But practically speaking, that is not how people truly use the term "middle-aged." Most people use it to describe those who are over 40 or 45 (I've heard some use 50 as the benchmark) but who are not yet senior citizens. Jeez, even back in the 19th Century, when the life expectancy was much shorter, writer Charlotte Bronte referred to 35 as "not yet middle aged." As to your given age of 72 as average life expectancy, according to the World Bank, life expectancy in the U.S. is 77. So even if we split that down the middle, middle age doesn't start until age 38 1/2. :) Rose Wesley for Governor

2003-09-24 14:49:03-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0309221917.1f99a98a@posting.google.com>... > igs622001@yahoo.com (Ian) wrote in message news:<5aa58763.0309221325.50c69e33@posting.google.com>... > > > ...and I am a she. > > > > Ah. I see. *nods* > > ...or AM I? Er. You don't know?

2003-09-24 15:02:41+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (sweick@aol.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >"Linda" lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com wrote: >>Yes he's changed. He's also ten years younger than JM. Which means he's in >>the phase of going from young man to middle aged man. You know, they should bring back the wheelchair for Angel to push Spike around in, just to ease the burden on the old man. > JM was already middle >>aged when he was cast in S2 of BtVS so he's >>not changing as much. >Okay, Linda. Now the gloves come off. > <Kramer> Catfight! Cc-catfight!!</Kramer> >But I'll be damned if I will sit here passively while you refer to 35 year >olds >as "middle aged." True, it's more like: over the hill, washed up, has-been, all downhill from here, Serenity or Depends time, etc. Oh, and since she's saying her moisture maker is also becoming "middle age" she isn't being descriminatory. Stephen Weick Spike Spike Spike Spike, Spike Spike Spike Spike, SPIKE! Oh wonderful Spike! "You could have Spike Spike Spike Angel Fred and Spike. There isn't much Spike there."

2003-09-24 16:01:05-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (reldevik@usa.net)


colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0309240932.602968be@posting.google.com>... > fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030924095741.11382.00000136@mb-m05.aol.com>... > > Robert wrote: > > > > > > > >That's right, with the average life expectancy in the U.S. hovering at > > >around 72, nobody should be considered middle aged until they're at least > > >36. > > > > But practically speaking, that is not how people truly use the term > > "middle-aged." Most people use it to describe those who are over 40 or 45 > > (I've heard some use 50 as the benchmark) but who are not yet senior citizens. > > Jeez, even back in the 19th Century, when the life expectancy was much shorter, > > writer Charlotte Bronte referred to 35 as "not yet middle aged." > > > > As to your given age of 72 as average life expectancy, according to the World > > Bank, life expectancy in the U.S. is 77. So even if we split that down the > > middle, middle age doesn't start until age 38 1/2. :) > > > > > > Rose > > Wesley for Governor > > I always figured middle age was, like, 30 or 35 or something *ducks > to dodge flying objects*. Just kidding! I figured it would be, like, > 45 or something. I guess it just depends on the person themselves who > IS that age. --Oddly enough, "middle age" is something that seems to recede into the distance the farther one goes along the path of life. I can remember being in my teens, reading the last in the series of Lord Peter Wimsey mystery novels, and thinking that Lord Peter at age 45 had become way too old to be a romantic idol any longer. Now I'm older than 45 myself, and I violently disagree with my former judgment. Tempus fugit... Clairel

2003-09-24 20:02:47-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309241501.669b39ed@posting.google.com>... > colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0309240932.602968be@posting.google.com>... > > fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030924095741.11382.00000136@mb-m05.aol.com>... > > > Robert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >That's right, with the average life expectancy in the U.S. hovering at > > > >around 72, nobody should be considered middle aged until they're at least > > > >36. > > > > > > But practically speaking, that is not how people truly use the term > > > "middle-aged." Most people use it to describe those who are over 40 or 45 > > > (I've heard some use 50 as the benchmark) but who are not yet senior citizens. > > > Jeez, even back in the 19th Century, when the life expectancy was much shorter, > > > writer Charlotte Bronte referred to 35 as "not yet middle aged." > > > > > > As to your given age of 72 as average life expectancy, according to the World > > > Bank, life expectancy in the U.S. is 77. So even if we split that down the > > > middle, middle age doesn't start until age 38 1/2. :) > > > > > > > > > Rose > > > Wesley for Governor > > > > I always figured middle age was, like, 30 or 35 or something *ducks > > to dodge flying objects*. Just kidding! I figured it would be, like, > > 45 or something. I guess it just depends on the person themselves who > > IS that age. > > --Oddly enough, "middle age" is something that seems to recede into > the distance the farther one goes along the path of life. I can > remember being in my teens, reading the last in the series of Lord > Peter Wimsey mystery novels, and thinking that Lord Peter at age 45 > had become way too old to be a romantic idol any longer. Now I'm > older than 45 myself, and I violently disagree with my former > judgment. Tempus fugit... > > Clairel See, that is what I mean! My mom once said that she used to dread when she turned a certain age, how she cried at 25...and now she is 45 and she is going "Me?" as though things have changed.

2003-09-24 22:26:31-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030924195942.10961.00000092@mb-m12.news.cs.com>... > >Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) > >From: "Linda" lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com > >Date: 9/24/2003 12:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time > >Message-id: <_K8cb.11684$Ji7.135862@news.easynews.com> > > > > > > > > > >I'm not going to do any JM bashing. Just my honest opinion. JM is a skinny > >runt with a concave chest. Give me a man built like DB any day. > > > > > >-- > >Best Regards, > > > >Linda > > > >Mmmmmm.....Naked...Angel > > > > > > > No bashing from me either; but I find DB rather pudgy these days, with hardly > any neck and exaggerated forehead. > > I much prefer the lean look, like JM! > > Sandra They are just different kinds of guys.

2003-09-24 22:55:25-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (rshiflet@hotmail.com)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<bkslfe$5inar$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > Nirvana 1 wrote: > > > JM had stomach problems in season 6. He talked about it at cons. > > DB, in my opinion, is fine. But I like JM as he is now more. But the > > truth is, I can't date either of them, unfortionatly, unless a 34 > > yearold or a 41 yearold would go for a 19 yearold. > > With JM's rep 19 would be just about right. > Jul Do tell. I don't know anything about his dating habits. Does he only date girls half his age? Renee

2003-09-24 23:51:21-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (wolviegrl@yahoo.com)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030924195942.10961.00000092@mb-m12.news.cs.com>... > No bashing from me either; but I find DB rather pudgy these days, with hardly > any neck and exaggerated forehead. You called someone 'pudgy' as 'no bashing'? *insert eye-rolling moment here* > I much prefer the lean look, like JM! You mean like the one where he looks like he should go to AA (Anorexic Anonymous)? Not to mention a bit of nip and tuck around the face and hands will help smoothing away those wrinkles. *gasp* did I just bash JM? Oh well, at least I was honest about it. -------------------------------- wolviegirl

2003-09-24 23:59:42+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >From: "Linda" lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com >Date: 9/24/2003 12:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <_K8cb.11684$Ji7.135862@news.easynews.com> > > > >I'm not going to do any JM bashing. Just my honest opinion. JM is a skinny >runt with a concave chest. Give me a man built like DB any day. > > >-- >Best Regards, > >Linda > >Mmmmmm.....Naked...Angel > > > No bashing from me either; but I find DB rather pudgy these days, with hardly any neck and exaggerated forehead. I much prefer the lean look, like JM! Sandra

2003-09-25 04:40:18+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (Linda <lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030924022103.09541.00000054@mb-m25.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) > >From: "Linda" lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com > >Date: 9/23/2003 9:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time > >Message-id: <_K8cb.11684$Ji7.135862@news.easynews.com> > > > > > >"Snds15" <snds15@cs.com> wrote in message > >news:20030923070156.24316.00000094@mb-m03.news.cs.com... > >> >Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) > >> >From: fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) > >> >Date: 9/22/2003 9:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time > >> >Message-id: <20030922095956.14153.00001693@mb-m18.aol.com> > >> > > >> >DF wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>Good God, yes! JM is starting to get >awfully long in the tooth... > >> > > >> >Well for God's sake he is playing a vampire. He's supposed to get long > >in > >> >the > >> >tooth. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. > >> > > >> >Anyway, there was a reason I kept saying they need to make Spike human. > >> >People > >> >sneered at me. They laughed at me. They threw tomatoes. But still I > >think I > >> >was right. However Spike gets brought back I think the aging process > >needs > >> >to > >> >be taken into account. Somehow, they will have to deal with it with > >Angel > >> >too > >> >because DB ain't gettin' any younger neither. > >> > > >> > > >> > >> True; and physically Boreanaz has changed much more than Marsters has. > >> He's gained considerable weight; and he looks very different than he did > >> during the early days on BtVS. > > > > > >Yes he's changed. He's also ten years younger than JM. Which means he's in > >the phase of going from young man to middle aged man. > JM was already middle > >aged when he was cast in S2 of BtVS so >he's not changing as much. > > Okay, Linda. Now the gloves come off. You've finished dusting? > > You can make fun of James. You can make fun of Spike. I have never made fun of him. I'm completely serious. You can even destroy > the reputations of my closest family members. Huh? Where did this come from? > > But I'll be damned if I will sit here passively while you refer to 35 year olds > as "middle aged." > > It's war now, woman. War. Let me give you my view. You've got your fetus, infant, kid, teen, young man, middle aged man, mature man, and old man. That's my perception of the aging process. I'm older than DB but not enough to be his mother. In other words, JM's generation. Tony Head really looks good to me as well. Seeing as both JM and I can be considered old enough to be Grand-parents then yes - he's middle-aged. That's true for most people in their forties. In My Honest Opinion. (IMHO) -- Best Regards, Linda Lindsey - "How did you think this would end?" - The Trial

2003-09-25 05:15:29+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Collette wrote: > > JM had stomach problems in season 6. He talked about it at cons. > DB, in my opinion, is fine. But I like JM as he is now more. But the >truth is, I can't date either of them, unfortionatly, unless a 34 >yearold or a 41 yearold would go for a 19 yearold. James tends to date much younger women. He went out with Mercedes McNab a few years ago. I'll refrain from opining about that. I didn't know James had stomach problems in S6. I thought he deliberately lost weight so he'd be a "metaphor for hunger." He looked so much better in S7. Naturally thin is fine, but "deliberately-lost-too-much-weight" thin tends to not look so fine. I think the man with the best body in the history of BtVS was Nick Brendon back in S2. I lurve Spike for the cheekbones and the jacket more than for the pecs. Rose Wesley for Governor

2003-09-25 05:16:08+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Collette wrote: > > I always figured middle age was, like, 30 or 35 or something *ducks >to dodge flying objects*. That's it. Vengeance will be mine. Rose Wesley for Governor

2003-09-25 05:17:33+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


> >CATFIGHT!!! > > >;) > k-k-k-kaaaa-catfight! Rose Wesley for Governor

2003-09-25 05:20:55+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Linda wrote: > >> You can make fun of James. You can make fun of Spike. > >I have never made fun of him. I'm >completely serious. That was a general "you." Not a specific "you." It was also a joke, as was the "destroy the reps of my closest family members" line. I agree I think one can call a 40 year old middle aged (as I'm getting close to 40, I say that with great pain and agony) without being out of the ballpark although I've always thought of it starting at 45...in other words, around the time women start hitting menopause. But 35...man that's just too darned harsh. ;p Rose Wesley for Governor

2003-09-25 05:21:42+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Stephen wrote: > > >True, it's more like: over the hill, washed up, has-been, >all downhill from here, Serenity or >Depends time, etc. This isn't over, Stephen. Ohhh no. It isn't over. Rose Wesley for Governor

2003-09-25 09:06:43-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (reldevik@usa.net)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030925011529.16230.00000123@mb-m16.aol.com>... > Collette wrote: > > > > > JM had stomach problems in season 6. He talked about it at cons. > > DB, in my opinion, is fine. But I like JM as he is now more. But the > >truth is, I can't date either of them, unfortionatly, unless a 34 > >yearold or a 41 yearold would go for a 19 yearold. > > James tends to date much younger women. He went out with Mercedes McNab a few > years ago. I'll refrain from opining about that. --I thought what happened was that he told MM he was going to call her and ask her out on a date, but he never did, and she was disappointed. That's the story I heard. Clairel

2003-09-25 09:23:04-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


wolviegrl@yahoo.com (wolviegirl) wrote in message news:<c6538ff6.0309242251.1885adce@posting.google.com>... > snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030924195942.10961.00000092@mb-m12.news.cs.com>... > > > > No bashing from me either; but I find DB rather pudgy these days, with hardly > > any neck and exaggerated forehead. > > You called someone 'pudgy' as 'no bashing'? *insert eye-rolling > moment here* Ummmm...she was responding to Linda's post where she said something like that. > > I much prefer the lean look, like JM! > > You mean like the one where he looks like he should go to AA (Anorexic > Anonymous)? Oh, that is nice. Make fun of anorexic people! Also, be sure to touch on how JM was having stomach problems. > Not to mention a bit of nip and tuck around the face and > hands will help smoothing away those wrinkles. Well, when you hit a certain age, you get wrinkles in some way, both JM and DB have them. It is part of life. I think they are both still hot. I can only imagine you sitting there with one of those laser pens going across the body of people on tv. > *gasp* did I just > bash JM? Well, this is the internet. You can say anything about anybody. > Oh well, at least I was honest about it. Wouldn't have done you much to lie. Never does. > -------------------------------- > wolviegirl "I like to infiltrate the mechanics of a system by posing as one of them then slowly rot from the inside of the empire"-Kurt Cobain

2003-09-25 09:39:59-04:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <20030925074154.29910.00000122@mb-m13.news.cs.com>, snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote: > >Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) > >From: rshiflet@hotmail.com (Renee) > >Date: 9/25/2003 1:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time > >Message-id: <f6980f4e.0309242155.37ef90c7@posting.google.com> > > > >"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message > >news:<bkslfe$5inar$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > >> Nirvana 1 wrote: > >> > >> > JM had stomach problems in season 6. He talked about it at cons. > >> > DB, in my opinion, is fine. But I like JM as he is now more. But the > >> > truth is, I can't date either of them, unfortionatly, unless a 34 > >> > yearold or a 41 yearold would go for a 19 yearold. > >> > >> With JM's rep 19 would be just about right. > >> Jul > > > > Do tell. I don't know anything about his dating habits. Does he only > >date girls half his age? > > > >Renee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He had a long term relationship with Liz Stauber a couple of years ago; and > she is in her mid-thirties, so I would guess not. I thought JM was in his 50s... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snuggles, not Shuggie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-09-25 11:41:54+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >From: rshiflet@hotmail.com (Renee) >Date: 9/25/2003 1:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <f6980f4e.0309242155.37ef90c7@posting.google.com> > >"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message >news:<bkslfe$5inar$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... >> Nirvana 1 wrote: >> >> > JM had stomach problems in season 6. He talked about it at cons. >> > DB, in my opinion, is fine. But I like JM as he is now more. But the >> > truth is, I can't date either of them, unfortionatly, unless a 34 >> > yearold or a 41 yearold would go for a 19 yearold. >> >> With JM's rep 19 would be just about right. >> Jul > > Do tell. I don't know anything about his dating habits. Does he only >date girls half his age? > >Renee > > > > > > He had a long term relationship with Liz Stauber a couple of years ago; and she is in her mid-thirties, so I would guess not. Sandra

2003-09-25 11:45:09+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >From: wolviegrl@yahoo.com (wolviegirl) >Date: 9/25/2003 2:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <c6538ff6.0309242251.1885adce@posting.google.com> > >snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message >news:<20030924195942.10961.00000092@mb-m12.news.cs.com>... > > >> No bashing from me either; but I find DB rather pudgy these days, with >hardly >> any neck and exaggerated forehead. > >You called someone 'pudgy' as 'no bashing'? *insert eye-rolling >moment here* > >wolviegirl > > > Of Course it isn't bashing! Any more than calling JM "a skinny runt with a concave chest" could possibly be considered bashing! Sandra

2003-09-25 14:02:10-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<postmaster-15548A.09395825092003@corp.supernews.com>... > In article <20030925074154.29910.00000122@mb-m13.news.cs.com>, > snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote: > > > >Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) > > >From: rshiflet@hotmail.com (Renee) > > >Date: 9/25/2003 1:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time > > >Message-id: <f6980f4e.0309242155.37ef90c7@posting.google.com> > > > > > >"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message > > >news:<bkslfe$5inar$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > >> Nirvana 1 wrote: > > >> > > >> > JM had stomach problems in season 6. He talked about it at cons. > > >> > DB, in my opinion, is fine. But I like JM as he is now more. But the > > >> > truth is, I can't date either of them, unfortionatly, unless a 34 > > >> > yearold or a 41 yearold would go for a 19 yearold. > > >> > > >> With JM's rep 19 would be just about right. > > >> Jul > > > > > > Do tell. I don't know anything about his dating habits. Does he only > > >date girls half his age? > > > > > >Renee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He had a long term relationship with Liz Stauber a couple of years ago; and > > she is in her mid-thirties, so I would guess not. > > I thought JM was in his 50s... Well, I thought NB was in his 60s. I thought SMG was in her 90s. I thought AH was in her 70s. I thought MT was in her 30s. I thought DB was in his 80s. But most of all, I thought ASH was 12.

2003-09-25 14:04:11-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


rshiflet@hotmail.com (Renee) wrote in message news:<f6980f4e.0309242155.37ef90c7@posting.google.com>... > "Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<bkslfe$5inar$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > Nirvana 1 wrote: > > > > > JM had stomach problems in season 6. He talked about it at cons. > > > DB, in my opinion, is fine. But I like JM as he is now more. But the > > > truth is, I can't date either of them, unfortionatly, unless a 34 > > > yearold or a 41 yearold would go for a 19 yearold. > > > > With JM's rep 19 would be just about right. > > Jul > > Do tell. I don't know anything about his dating habits. Does he only > date girls half his age? > > Renee This may have been a reference to what a poster said in another thread suggesting that there was something going on between MT and JM as the reason why they stoped the Spike/Dawn interaction.

2003-09-25 15:33:17+10:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net>)


Nirvana 1 wrote: > snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030924195942.10961.00000092@mb-m12.news.cs.com>... > >>>Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >>>From: "Linda" lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com >>>Date: 9/24/2003 12:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <_K8cb.11684$Ji7.135862@news.easynews.com> >>> >>> >> >>>I'm not going to do any JM bashing. Just my honest opinion. JM is a skinny >>>runt with a concave chest. Give me a man built like DB any day. >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Best Regards, >>> >>>Linda >>> >>>Mmmmmm.....Naked...Angel >>> >>> >>> >> >>No bashing from me either; but I find DB rather pudgy these days, with hardly >>any neck and exaggerated forehead. >> >>I much prefer the lean look, like JM! >> >>Sandra > > > They are just different kinds of guys. Both extremley hot, different kinds of guys... ;) ~Angel

2003-09-25 19:10:15+10:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net>)


wolviegirl wrote: > snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030924195942.10961.00000092@mb-m12.news.cs.com>... > > > >>No bashing from me either; but I find DB rather pudgy these days, with hardly >>any neck and exaggerated forehead. > > > You called someone 'pudgy' as 'no bashing'? *insert eye-rolling > moment here* > Why yes, she did. In response to Linda's "No JM bashing from me, but he's a runt!" post. > >>I much prefer the lean look, like JM! > > > You mean like the one where he looks like he should go to AA (Anorexic > Anonymous)? Not to mention a bit of nip and tuck around the face and > hands will help smoothing away those wrinkles. *gasp* did I just > bash JM? Oh well, at least I was honest about it. > If you need to borrow my Midol, just ask. ~Angel

2003-09-26 06:35:15+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Collette wrote: > > This may have been a reference to what a poster said in another >thread suggesting that there was something going on between MT and JM >as the reason why they stoped the Spike/Dawn interaction. > Oh God, tell me it isn't so... Rose Wesley for Governor

2003-09-26 06:37:20+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Wolv wrote: > >You mean like the one where he looks like he should go to AA (Anorexic >Anonymous)? He must have gone last summer, because he was nicely fleshed out in S7, maybe even a few pounds to spare. >Not to mention a bit of nip and tuck around the face and >hands will help smoothing away those >wrinkles. I'd rather that David and James keep their wrinkles. Facelifts look stupid and so do bad toupees (which is actually a reference to Criminal Intent, not "Angel"). Rose Wesley for Governor

2003-09-26 06:38:41+00:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) >From: reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) >Date: 9/25/2003 9:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <1faed770.0309250806.64d561a2@posting.google.com> > >fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message >news:<20030925011529.16230.00000123@mb-m16.aol.com>... >> Collette wrote: >> >> > >> > JM had stomach problems in season 6. He talked about it at cons. >> > DB, in my opinion, is fine. But I like JM as he is now more. But the >> >truth is, I can't date either of them, unfortionatly, unless a 34 >> >yearold or a 41 yearold would go for a 19 yearold. >> >> James tends to date much younger women. He went out with Mercedes McNab a >few >> years ago. I'll refrain from opining about that. > >--I thought what happened was that he told MM he was going to call her >and ask her out on a date, but he never did, and she was disappointed. > That's the story I heard. > >Clairel > He went out with her and didn't call for a week and a half and so she wouldn't go out with him again. That's what I recall him saying. Rose Wesley for Governor

2003-09-26 09:46:15-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (reldevik@usa.net)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030926023841.08262.00000211@mb-m20.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) > >From: reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) > >Date: 9/25/2003 9:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time > >Message-id: <1faed770.0309250806.64d561a2@posting.google.com> > > > >fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message > >news:<20030925011529.16230.00000123@mb-m16.aol.com>... > >> Collette wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > JM had stomach problems in season 6. He talked about it at cons. > >> > DB, in my opinion, is fine. But I like JM as he is now more. But the > >> >truth is, I can't date either of them, unfortionatly, unless a 34 > >> >yearold or a 41 yearold would go for a 19 yearold. > >> > >> James tends to date much younger women. He went out with Mercedes McNab a > few > >> years ago. I'll refrain from opining about that. > > > >--I thought what happened was that he told MM he was going to call her > >and ask her out on a date, but he never did, and she was disappointed. > > That's the story I heard. > > > >Clairel > > > > He went out with her and didn't call for a week and a half and so she wouldn't > go out with him again. That's what I recall him saying. --Yes, now that you've jogged my memory, I do believe you're right about that. Clairel

2003-09-26 12:35:10-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030925011529.16230.00000123@mb-m16.aol.com>... > Collette wrote: > > > > > JM had stomach problems in season 6. He talked about it at cons. > > DB, in my opinion, is fine. But I like JM as he is now more. But the > >truth is, I can't date either of them, unfortionatly, unless a 34 > >yearold or a 41 yearold would go for a 19 yearold. > > > I didn't know James had stomach problems in S6. I thought he deliberately lost > weight so he'd be a "metaphor for hunger." He looked so much better in S7. > Naturally thin is fine, but "deliberately-lost-too-much-weight" thin tends to > not look so fine. > You are correct about that as well. But he also was getting over a BAD freakin' stamoch flu/problems in like mid season 6. It was also probably why he showed up late on the set for "Smashed". > Rose > Wesley for Governor

2003-09-26 12:37:29-07:00 - Re: The Spike-haters were right (spoilers) - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030926023720.08262.00000210@mb-m20.aol.com>... > Wolv wrote: > > > > >You mean like the one where he looks like he should go to AA (Anorexic > >Anonymous)? > > He must have gone last summer, because he was nicely fleshed out in S7, maybe > even a few pounds to spare. > > >Not to mention a bit of nip and tuck around the face and > >hands will help smoothing away those >wrinkles. > > I'd rather that David and James keep their wrinkles. Facelifts look stupid and > so do bad toupees (which is actually a reference to Criminal Intent, not > "Angel"). > > > > Rose > Wesley for Governor Indeed. I wouldn't want either of them to change at all. They are fine.