FLM films - My Webpage

2003-10-02 10:17:12-05:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPOILERS FOR CONVICTION S5.1) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in news:20031002104039.05841.00000158@mb-m10.aol.com: > Conviction - Ep 1 Season 5 (SPOILERS) > > W > a > s > > T > h > a > t > > R > e > t > c > o > n > > R > e > a > l > l > y > > N > e > c > e > s > s > a > r > y > ? > [snip] > Harmony is an evil vampire. She just an incompetent evil vampire. > Harmony was an evil person, just on a very petty and small > scale. Harmony is not a good selection to play Anya-lite in > your scripts, as Anya was made Cordy-lite in S4-7 BtVS, because > unlike Anya and Cordy, there's nothing there. > > In retconning that Harmony, of all creatures, can make the > moral distinction that feeding off humans is wrong was dumb. Do you really think that's what we're supposed to believe? That she realized drinking human blood was wrong? Based on what? Now, I'm not sure what we *were* supposed to believe, whether she swore off the human stuff because she knew her new bosses wouldn't like it, or whether she was just lying so Angel wouldn't kill her, or what, but I would hesitate to assume the most outrageous posssibility -- especially since the big joke with Harmony throughout the rest of the episode is that her first reaction is always the selfish and amoral one... -- Lord Usher "I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."

2003-10-02 10:51:36-07:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPOILERS FOR CONVICTION S5.1) - (William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com>)


On 02 Oct 2003 14:40:39 GMT, sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote: >Conviction - Ep 1 Season 5 (SPOILERS) > >W >a >s > >T >h >a >t > >R >e >t >c >o >n > >R >e >a >l >l >y > >N >e >c >e >s >s >a >r >y >? > >Now the problems. Let's start with a big one, Harmony. [snip-criticizing the role/writing isn't dissing the actor] >Harmony is an evil vampire. She just an incompetent evil vampire. >Harmony was an evil person, just on a very petty and small >scale. Harmony is not a good selection to play Anya-lite in >your scripts, as Anya was made Cordy-lite in S4-7 BtVS, because >unlike Anya and Cordy, there's nothing there. > >In retconning that Harmony, of all creatures, can make the >moral distinction that feeding off humans is wrong was dumb. >Buffy the Serial Killer? Yep, I guess. We never saw Harm make a moral distinction (in this or any other episode, going back to The Harvest). Harm telling Angel that she was no longer feeding off humans was her long-established strong sense of self-preservation going into overdrive (I thought that was made pretty clear in the conversation). I've heard that MM is signed for 17 episodes. If they use her about this amount in the other episodes, that's okay, and I think that's what's going to happen. I don't think she's going to be a story-arc, I think she's just going to be background comic relief. >Even worse is the use of leaves little growth. There doesn't need to be. She isn't Lindsey, she's Merle [snip more] >And to prove Joss is too a "LIBERAL!!!", we get the Iraqi subtext. > >See violence, and big military action, is wrong. It was words, >by Gunn, that saved the day. See, all you need is to delay and >give time to find the mystical WMD, not take action against the >people. Sure, he'll still do evil, and the weapon will be held >inside his child, but hey, he'll act less evil while the >world's eyes are on him. I'm thinking you're completely misreading this. Gunn getting the sleazeball off was not really presented as a good thing. The only thing that Gunn accomplished was saving the life (for the moment) of the sleazeball's kid. Angel had learned where the weapon was (in the kid), Fred and her crew had learned what the weapon was, and Angel had 'contained' the weapon, getting the kid into isolation. If the sleazeball had said the magic word, the kid would have been killed but the virus wouldn't have been released into the general population (because they already had the kid in isolated containment by that time). The person who told them, and us, that Gunn with his words saved the day, while Angel with his action/violence failed, was Eve. Are you proposing that she is the voice of truth and reason? -- You've reached the Tittles. We can't come to the phone right now If you want to leave a message for Christine, Press 1 For Bentley, Press 2 Or to speak to, or worship, Master Tarfall, Underlord of Pain, Press 3

2003-10-02 12:12:33-07:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPOILERS FOR CONVICTION S5.1) - (himiko@animail.net)


sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in message news:<20031002104039.05841.00000158@mb-m10.aol.com>... > Conviction - Ep 1 Season 5 (SPOILERS) > > W > a > s > > T > h > a > t > > R > e > t > c > o > n > > R > e > a > l > l > y > > N > e > c > e > s > s > a > r > y > ? > > > And to prove Joss is too a "LIBERAL!!!", we get the Iraqi subtext. > > See violence, and big military action, is wrong. It was words, > by Gunn, that saved the day. See, all you need is to delay and > give time to find the mystical WMD, not take action against the > people. Sure, he'll still do evil, and the weapon will be held > inside his child, but hey, he'll act less evil while the > world's eyes are on him. > > I guess that W&H is now the metaphor for America. Maker of > those WMD. Actually, I was thinking W&H is the WB and AI is ME...but this works too. Sadly well. > > And a word about how this newsgroup now sucks. > > Use to be that when I got back from a job, watched the tape > of Angel made while I was out, I could expect to go onto the > newsgroup and read at least four or five reviews. In depth, > well thought out ones. The next morning, a few more. And > by the weekend, there would be a ton of reviews. > > This was especially true of the season premiere. > > Last night as of 2 AM EST, none. As of 9 AM EST, two, and > only one I'd considered well thought out. > > As depressing as the decline in AtS has been, the decline > in the newsgroup is even worse. > Bye-bye then. himiko

2003-10-02 14:20:41-07:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPOILERS FOR CONVICTION S5.1) - (William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com>)


On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:50:38 GMT, "Clem Clambake" <Clem_Clambake@excite.coma> wrote: >"William George Ferguson" <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote in message >news:junonv4f9qmv1v761h0152hhcb5i2u9kon@4ax.com... >> On 02 Oct 2003 14:40:39 GMT, sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote: >> The only thing >> that Gunn accomplished was saving the life (for the moment) of the >> sleazeball's kid. > >Uhhh... and the rest of California. Since by that point they had the kid in isolation containment, the rest of California wasn't in immediate danger. -- You've reached the Tittles. We can't come to the phone right now If you want to leave a message for Christine, Press 1 For Bentley, Press 2 Or to speak to, or worship, Master Tarfall, Underlord of Pain, Press 3

2003-10-02 14:40:39+00:00 - This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPOILERS FOR CONVICTION S5.1) - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


Conviction - Ep 1 Season 5 (SPOILERS) W a s T h a t R e t c o n R e a l l y N e c e s s a r y ? Kinda a blah by the numbers checklist episode to start off the season. Introduce news digs, check. Restate over and over again why and how they were there, check. Introduct all characters, check. Do something with Gunn, check. Get your against American policy in Iraq subtext in, check. Plot was straightforward. Evil dude will kill everyone with deadly germs if W&H don't get him off in court. Nothing surprising, and amazingly lame. But the plot was well beside the point. Basically a by the numbers type story similar to The Freshman in so so written episodes by Joss. It's almost a "Angel, Texas Ranger" episode. Now the problems. Let's start with a big one, Harmony. Again, to those five year olds running around this newsgroup, when I criticize a character I am not being critical of the actor. MM is a beautiful woman and a talented actress. She has done drama and comedy successfully on TV. She has done the role of Harmony in the past with great success. I would think my support of Marc Blucas while saying the character of Riley was boring in S4 would be enough, but too many never had bothered to check if I bash actors but instead twist what I've written. (Only one time did I and I retracted, with AH in Triangle. It was the script/direction moreso.) Harmony is an evil vampire. She just an incompetent evil vampire. Harmony was an evil person, just on a very petty and small scale. Harmony is not a good selection to play Anya-lite in your scripts, as Anya was made Cordy-lite in S4-7 BtVS, because unlike Anya and Cordy, there's nothing there. In retconning that Harmony, of all creatures, can make the moral distinction that feeding off humans is wrong was dumb. Buffy the Serial Killer? Yep, I guess. Even worse is the use of leaves little growth. There wasn't much difference between human Harmony and vamp Harmony cause there really wasn't much of a soul to make a difference. There is no interesting backstory to Harmony cause we've seen Harmony's backstory. There's no there there. She isn't as interesting as Cordelia because Harmony is an empty vessel while Cordelia was a person trapping themself in a role while the inner person screamed for growth. Cordy had layers. Harmony has none. With the rumor that she's going to be in the vast majority of episodes, you are left with a character who should not be able to grow. She should be the exact same at the beginning as the end. Yet I'm sure ME is planning a character arc with someone who has no character. That is going to be terrible. Tim Minear, you are so written out. See, Angel never killed Connor. Connor's just been mindwiped, like the rest. So Angel's bringing down the knife didn't mean a thing. There is no irony in Home anymore. And to prove Joss is too a "LIBERAL!!!", we get the Iraqi subtext. See violence, and big military action, is wrong. It was words, by Gunn, that saved the day. See, all you need is to delay and give time to find the mystical WMD, not take action against the people. Sure, he'll still do evil, and the weapon will be held inside his child, but hey, he'll act less evil while the world's eyes are on him. I guess that W&H is now the metaphor for America. Maker of those WMD. As I said before, at least it wasn't as bad as _The Hulk_ was in hammering subtext home. And the Dixie Chicks are sexy. But other than that, and undercutting that you have to actually *fight* evil as AtS and BtVS original mantra, not much to be said in that retcon. ME is going to try to make the lines between good and evil blurry yet still write a compelling storyling. I'm betting against it working cause they've never shown me that ability on any consistent level. So expect some not so impressive showing. And a ton more Spike. Oh joy. And a word about how this newsgroup now sucks. Use to be that when I got back from a job, watched the tape of Angel made while I was out, I could expect to go onto the newsgroup and read at least four or five reviews. In depth, well thought out ones. The next morning, a few more. And by the weekend, there would be a ton of reviews. This was especially true of the season premiere. Last night as of 2 AM EST, none. As of 9 AM EST, two, and only one I'd considered well thought out. As depressing as the decline in AtS has been, the decline in the newsgroup is even worse. Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-10-02 16:30:59+00:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPOILERS FOR CONVICTION S5.1) - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


Lord Usher lord_usher@hotmail.com wrote: >sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in >news:20031002104039.05841.00000158@mb-m10.aol.com: > >> Conviction - Ep 1 Season 5 (SPOILERS) >> >> W >> a >> s >> >> T >> h >> a >> t >> >> R >> e >> t >> c >> o >> n >> >> R >> e >> a >> l >> l >> y >> >> N >> e >> c >> e >> s >> s >> a >> r >> y >> ? >> > >[snip] > >> Harmony is an evil vampire. She just an incompetent evil vampire. >> Harmony was an evil person, just on a very petty and small >> scale. Harmony is not a good selection to play Anya-lite in >> your scripts, as Anya was made Cordy-lite in S4-7 BtVS, because >> unlike Anya and Cordy, there's nothing there. >> >> In retconning that Harmony, of all creatures, can make the >> moral distinction that feeding off humans is wrong was dumb. > >Do you really think that's what we're supposed to believe? That she >realized drinking human blood was wrong? Based on what? Based on the fact that any other answer makes our heroes complete and utter idiots? Of course, not staking her in Disharmony did that. This just adds to their idiocy. Until proven otherwise, and each of her selfish responses had a opposite PC response afterwards, not before, we have to take her at her word. We have no evidence that she is drinking human blood anymore. And it does look like she might have gained a little on the hips. :-) >Now, I'm not sure what we *were* supposed to believe, whether she swore >off the human stuff because she knew her new bosses wouldn't like it, or >whether she was just lying so Angel wouldn't kill her, or what, but I >would hesitate to assume the most outrageous posssibility You mean the only one that makes the story work at all? Cause if she's out killing and drinking, as vampires do, she's evil and should have been staked on sight. Hell, just for the evil she's done, she should be. Except for writer's fiat, of course. Gee, getting Spike on now makes all the sense in the world. -- especially >since the big joke with Harmony throughout the rest of the episode is >that her first reaction is always the selfish and amoral one... You mean like Cordy or Anya use to do? But LU, can you think of a use of Harmony on the vast majority of this season's episodes with her killing and drinking human blood? Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-10-02 19:08:15-05:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPOILERS FOR CONVICTION S5.1) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in news:20031002123059.08072.00000132@mb-m11.aol.com: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Until proven otherwise, and each of her selfish responses > had a opposite PC response afterwards, not before, we have to > take her at her word. We have no evidence that she is drinking > human blood anymore. Well, you can take the word of a soulless demon if you want to, but that's neither here nor there. So what if she is abstaining from human blood? My question remains: why would you assume that she's doing it *because of moral compunction*? >>Now, I'm not sure what we *were* supposed to believe, whether she >>swore off the human stuff because she knew her new bosses wouldn't >>like it, or whether she was just lying so Angel wouldn't kill her, >>or what, but I would hesitate to assume the most outrageous >>posssibility > > > You mean the only one that makes the story work at all? > > Cause if she's out killing and drinking, as vampires do, she's evil > and should have been staked on sight. First, I didn't say she's necessarily killing and drinking and lying about it. I also offered the possibility that she's abstaining to kiss up to the new boss. Second, even if she is still gettin' with the killin' (and I'd honestly prefer that we learn that she *is*) did you miss the part where "Our Heroes must allow the run-of-the-mill EETs to do their unspeakable deeds for the sake of the larger mission" is the new premise of the show? -- Lord Usher "I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."

2003-10-02 19:16:58+00:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPOILERS FOR CONVICTION S5.1) - (AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net>)


William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote: > There doesn't need to be. [Harmony] isn't Lindsey, she's Merle With the main difference being that Merle was actually funny. -- AE Jabbour "Now do you know what we've become?" "Enemies." "Oh no. Much worse: now we're soulmates." Darla and Lindsey, _Darla_

2003-10-02 19:50:38+00:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPOILERS FOR CONVICTION S5.1) - (Clem Clambake <Clem_Clambake@excite.coma>)


"William George Ferguson" <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:junonv4f9qmv1v761h0152hhcb5i2u9kon@4ax.com... > On 02 Oct 2003 14:40:39 GMT, sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote: > The only thing > that Gunn accomplished was saving the life (for the moment) of the > sleazeball's kid. Uhhh... and the rest of California.

2003-10-02 19:58:53-04:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPOILERS FOR CONVICTION S5.1) - ("Jason E. Vines" <jayvines@gwu.edu>)


"SWeick" <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote in message news:20031002104039.05841.00000158@mb-m10.aol.com... > Conviction - Ep 1 Season 5 (SPOILERS) > > W > a > s > > T > h > a > t > > R > e > t > c > o > n > > R > e > a > l > l > y > > N > e > c > e > s > s > a > r > y > ? > > Kinda a blah by the numbers checklist episode to start off > the season. Introduce news digs, check. Restate over and > over again why and how they were there, check. Introduct > all characters, check. Do something with Gunn, check. > Get your against American policy in Iraq subtext in, check. > > Plot was straightforward. Evil dude will kill everyone with > deadly germs if W&H don't get him off in court. Nothing surprising, > and amazingly lame. But the plot was well beside the point. > > Basically a by the numbers type story similar to The Freshman > in so so written episodes by Joss. It's almost a "Angel, > Texas Ranger" episode. > > Now the problems. Let's start with a big one, Harmony. > > Again, to those five year olds running around this newsgroup, > when I criticize a character I am not being critical of the > actor. MM is a beautiful woman and a talented actress. She > has done drama and comedy successfully on TV. She has done > the role of Harmony in the past with great success. > > I would think my support of Marc Blucas while saying the > character of Riley was boring in S4 would be enough, but too > many never had bothered to check if I bash actors but instead > twist what I've written. (Only one time did I and I retracted, > with AH in Triangle. It was the script/direction moreso.) > > Harmony is an evil vampire. She just an incompetent evil vampire. > Harmony was an evil person, just on a very petty and small > scale. Harmony is not a good selection to play Anya-lite in > your scripts, as Anya was made Cordy-lite in S4-7 BtVS, because > unlike Anya and Cordy, there's nothing there. > > In retconning that Harmony, of all creatures, can make the > moral distinction that feeding off humans is wrong was dumb. > Buffy the Serial Killer? Yep, I guess. > > Even worse is the use of leaves little growth. There wasn't > much difference between human Harmony and vamp Harmony cause > there really wasn't much of a soul to make a difference. There > is no interesting backstory to Harmony cause we've seen Harmony's > backstory. There's no there there. She isn't as interesting > as Cordelia because Harmony is an empty vessel while Cordelia > was a person trapping themself in a role while the inner person > screamed for growth. Cordy had layers. Harmony has none. > > With the rumor that she's going to be in the vast majority of > episodes, you are left with a character who should not be > able to grow. She should be the exact same at the beginning > as the end. Yet I'm sure ME is planning a character arc with > someone who has no character. That is going to be terrible. > > Tim Minear, you are so written out. See, Angel never killed > Connor. Connor's just been mindwiped, like the rest. So Angel's > bringing down the knife didn't mean a thing. There is no irony > in Home anymore. > > And to prove Joss is too a "LIBERAL!!!", we get the Iraqi subtext. > > See violence, and big military action, is wrong. It was words, > by Gunn, that saved the day. See, all you need is to delay and > give time to find the mystical WMD, not take action against the > people. Sure, he'll still do evil, and the weapon will be held > inside his child, but hey, he'll act less evil while the > world's eyes are on him. > > I guess that W&H is now the metaphor for America. Maker of > those WMD. > > As I said before, at least it wasn't as bad as _The Hulk_ was > in hammering subtext home. And the Dixie Chicks are sexy. > > But other than that, and undercutting that you have to actually > *fight* evil as AtS and BtVS original mantra, not much to be said > in that retcon. > > ME is going to try to make the lines between good and evil blurry > yet still write a compelling storyling. I'm betting against it > working cause they've never shown me that ability on any consistent > level. So expect some not so impressive showing. > > And a ton more Spike. Oh joy. > > And a word about how this newsgroup now sucks. > > Use to be that when I got back from a job, watched the tape > of Angel made while I was out, I could expect to go onto the > newsgroup and read at least four or five reviews. In depth, > well thought out ones. The next morning, a few more. And > by the weekend, there would be a ton of reviews. > > This was especially true of the season premiere. > > Last night as of 2 AM EST, none. As of 9 AM EST, two, and > only one I'd considered well thought out. > > As depressing as the decline in AtS has been, the decline > in the newsgroup is even worse. > > > Stephen Weick > > > > > > > > > > (Hey, what are you looking down here for?) What the hell are you talking about? Angel is great, the best it's ever been.

2003-10-02 22:32:30+00:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPO - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


In article <junonv4f9qmv1v761h0152hhcb5i2u9kon@4ax.com>, William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> writes: >On 02 Oct 2003 14:40:39 GMT, sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote: > >>Conviction - Ep 1 Season 5 (SPOILERS) >> >>W >>a >>s >> >>T >>h >>a >>t >> >>R >>e >>t >>c >>o >>n >> >>R >>e >>a >>l >>l >>y >> >>N >>e >>c >>e >>s >>s >>a >>r >>y >>? >> >>Now the problems. Let's start with a big one, Harmony. > >[snip-criticizing the role/writing isn't dissing the actor] I hope I don't have to rewrite it again if I dare criticize Spike. >>Harmony is an evil vampire. She just an incompetent evil vampire. >>Harmony was an evil person, just on a very petty and small >>scale. Harmony is not a good selection to play Anya-lite in >>your scripts, as Anya was made Cordy-lite in S4-7 BtVS, because >>unlike Anya and Cordy, there's nothing there. >> >>In retconning that Harmony, of all creatures, can make the >>moral distinction that feeding off humans is wrong was dumb. >>Buffy the Serial Killer? Yep, I guess. > >We never saw Harm make a moral distinction (in this or any other episode, >going back to The Harvest). Harm telling Angel that she was no longer >feeding off humans was her long-established strong sense of >self-preservation going into overdrive (I thought that was made pretty >clear in the conversation). No, rewatching it showed her as being "well of course I don't drink human blood anymore" than "ah, no, I don't drink human blood anymore, not me, nope not a drop", IMO. And if it is true that she was drinking human blood and thus feeding off humans, then why is she still around? Is this going to be S4 Spike all over again? They could write an interesting backstory to explain it, but it would almost completely contradict with what they've written in the past, thus changing the continuity to fit their current needs. Or they can make the AI group look like a bigger group of morons than S4 BtVS did with Spike. Either way, the writers have a major screwup going on. >I've heard that MM is signed for 17 episodes. If they use her about this >amount in the other episodes, that's okay, and I think that's what's >going to happen. I don't think she's going to be a story-arc, I think >she's just going to be background comic relief. ME does sitcom. Great. Look, if they're going to do that, I want a ton of nekkid Harmony. Have Harm to a strip tease to annoy the hell out of SpecterSpike. Have Harm get into a naughty relationship with Knox. Have Harm wearing tighter and more revealing clothing. Hell, have Harm discover her lesbian side and make Willow coming over even more fun. (Cordy's subtext reading in Disharmony is similar cover that VampWillow was. :-) >>Even worse is the use of leaves little growth. > >There doesn't need to be. She isn't Lindsey, she's Merle Merle was on seven episodes over two seasons. Harmony is more like Lindsey (20+ over two seasons) and thus should have something of an arc. Being stupid vamp secretary is lame use of any character. Can you list any character having 17 appearances in an ME production that didn't have a character arc of some note? >[snip more] > >>And to prove Joss is too a "LIBERAL!!!", we get the Iraqi subtext. I'm envious of the guy who though that the show should be renamed The West Fang and be done with it. It didn't click with me, to my utter shame, where Joss was stealing it from. Shame shame shame on me. >>See violence, and big military action, is wrong. It was words, >>by Gunn, that saved the day. See, all you need is to delay and >>give time to find the mystical WMD, not take action against the >>people. Sure, he'll still do evil, and the weapon will be held >>inside his child, but hey, he'll act less evil while the >>world's eyes are on him. > >I'm thinking you're completely misreading this. Always possible with subtext, though I wouldn't be Fred's Dixie Chicks poster on it. Gunn getting the >sleazeball off was not really presented as a good thing. The only thing >that Gunn accomplished was saving the life (for the moment) of the >sleazeball's kid. And California, but the point was that the military action would have killed off many "collateral damage" kids. Words and a selective nonviolent action was all that was needed. Of course how the hell Angel would be able to get the kids out with just a say so is never explained, but that would get in the way of saying "Bad military! Bad Bad!" Angel had learned where the weapon was (in the kid), >Fred and her crew had learned what the weapon was, and Angel had >'contained' the weapon, getting the kid into isolation. If the >sleazeball had said the magic word, the kid would have been killed but >the virus wouldn't have been released into the general population >(because they already had the kid in isolated containment by that time). Again, this is external to the military action. They acquired a target of a WMD and were going to take it out at the cost of civilians. Joss had all the mystical powers to use in destroying California. His selection was on purpose. >The person who told them, and us, that Gunn with his words saved the day, >while Angel with his action/violence failed, was Eve. Are you proposing >that she is the voice of truth and reason? Ignoring that the "evil" ones typically are with ME's writing style, the subtext agrees with that. Punisher was mentioned, not in how he punishes evildoers but on how he killed people. Angel's hitting of Fries was shown as a bad idea by Wesley, who is generally reasonable and truthful. Angel's showing of "mercy" isn't shown as good. The teaser was to show that this isn't your father's Angel. It's more complex in theory. The question still will be the execution. As far as the subtext here, it was reasonably done. Didn't get anvilishious, too heavy handed, though the speach by the head military guy was damn close, and not as insulting to those that disagree as many. Too bad the story wasn't all that. Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-10-02 23:28:09+00:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPOILERS FOR CONVICTION S5.1) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <20031002104039.05841.00000158@mb-m10.aol.com>, sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote: > And to prove Joss is too a "LIBERAL!!!", we get the Iraqi subtext. And Fred conspicuously hanging a Dixie Chicks poster in her office. > And a ton more Spike. Oh joy. I already mentioned elsewhere that I guess we should at least be grateful that they gave us one episode without Poochie this season. sigh...

2003-10-02 23:29:49+00:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPOILERS FOR CONVICTION S5.1) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <dh5pnv80p9i4667d2uihpdsfg5i981vi8h@4ax.com>, William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:50:38 GMT, "Clem Clambake" > <Clem_Clambake@excite.coma> wrote: > >"William George Ferguson" <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote in message > >news:junonv4f9qmv1v761h0152hhcb5i2u9kon@4ax.com... > >> On 02 Oct 2003 14:40:39 GMT, sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote: > >> The only thing > >> that Gunn accomplished was saving the life (for the moment) of the > >> sleazeball's kid. > > > >Uhhh... and the rest of California. > > Since by that point they had the kid in isolation containment, the rest > of California wasn't in immediate danger. Why is it that they kept referring to killing everyone in California? If this was some kind of wildfire-spreading disease, why would it stop at the California border?

2003-10-03 01:50:39+00:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(S... - (schlitzdrinker@aol.comekingdom)


In article <20031002104039.05841.00000158@mb-m10.aol.com>, sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) writes: >As depressing as the decline in AtS has been, the decline >in the newsgroup is even worse. So I've heard. That's why I started posting here, to add some class to this sorry forum. Can you detect the overall rise in quality already? Your pal, Barney On one plane, the very great writers and the popular romancers always meet. They use all of themselves, helplessly, unselectively. They are above the primness and taste of declining to give themselves away. --- V S Pritchett

2003-10-03 04:10:29+00:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPO - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


In article <vnpeu2d54dirb8@corp.supernews.com>, "Jason E. Vines" <jayvines@gwu.edu> writes: > What the hell are you talking about? > > Angel is great, the best it's ever been. Well gee, I guess you're right. You've really persuaded me with that brill analysis. How could I ever have been so wrong? Guy, at least try to get with the conversation. But I give credit for at least not top posting. But you lose it all for repeating the whole friggin post though. Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-10-03 04:10:30+00:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(S.. - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


In article <20031002215039.15923.00001048@mb-m12.aol.com>, schlitzdrinker@aol.comekingdom (Barney) writes: >In article <20031002104039.05841.00000158@mb-m10.aol.com>, >sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) writes: > >>As depressing as the decline in AtS has been, the decline >>in the newsgroup is even worse. > >So I've heard. That's why I started posting here, to add some class to this >sorry forum. Can you detect the overall rise in quality already? Only in alcohol content. (But a quality rise in the alcohol content! :-) Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-10-03 04:10:31+00:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPO - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


In article <Xns9408C28CD371houseofusher@216.40.28.72>, Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> writes: >sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in >news:20031002123059.08072.00000132@mb-m11.aol.com: > >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >> Until proven otherwise, and each of her selfish responses >> had a opposite PC response afterwards, not before, we have to >> take her at her word. We have no evidence that she is drinking >> human blood anymore. > >Well, you can take the word of a soulless demon if you want to, but >that's neither here nor there. Yeah, cause Spike as a soulless demon never told the truth. :-) >So what if she is abstaining from human blood? My question remains: why >would you assume that she's doing it *because of moral compunction*? Cause I can see no other reason to, especially with how she acted in saying it was off the reservation. Is there a potentially practical reason? Best fanwank I heard was that with so many Slayers about, it would be good to keep a low profile. Even still, that's out of character for Harmony, who isn't bright enough to get practical, and of vampires, who almost always think with their teeth. >>>Now, I'm not sure what we *were* supposed to believe, whether she >>>swore off the human stuff because she knew her new bosses wouldn't >>>like it, or whether she was just lying so Angel wouldn't kill her, >>>or what, but I would hesitate to assume the most outrageous >>>posssibility >> >> >> You mean the only one that makes the story work at all? >> >> Cause if she's out killing and drinking, as vampires do, she's evil >> and should have been staked on sight. > >First, I didn't say she's necessarily killing and drinking and lying >about it. OK. I also offered the possibility that she's abstaining to kiss >up to the new boss. Perhaps now, but initially I see no reason that if she wasn't already abstaining in not staking her. Hell, why should an abstaining vampire not be staked? It's not like she's sworn off killing and drinking forever, just as long as she's working for him. Unless chipped or resouled, I have trouble with the logic of not staking vampires. No, I see no reasonable logic to Harmony not being staked other than the writers insist on having a Anya-lite character. Of course Anya was a Cordy-lite, so we're down a few derivatives, and it shows. >Second, even if she is still gettin' with the killin' (and I'd honestly >prefer that we learn that she *is*) did you miss the part where "Our >Heroes must allow the run-of-the-mill EETs to do their unspeakable deeds >for the sake of the larger mission" is the new premise of the show? Harmony isn't an important being. Nobody would care if Angel staked her. The big EETs are just as likely to kill Harmony for being annoying. Moreso, actually. Angel killed that vampire in the alley, so I guess no EET is going to trust him, especially with all the photos and signatures and stuff W&H did there, right? Right? :-) LU, you do see the argument is untenable? (I have a feeling you know it and are using us to get that point across.) Big EETs have no concern about little EET. They might for their henchman EET, or midlevel EET that help them out. Harmony fits in none of those catagories. It's one thing to let a small time petty thief alone to get the big boys, it's another to allow a hitman to keep working so you can get them. Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-10-03 08:19:41-07:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPO - (tnab76@yahoo.com)


> Of course how the hell Angel would be able to get the kids out with just > a say so is never explained, but that would get in the way of saying > "Bad military! Bad Bad!" Fifteen years ago, all it took was the words "bomb threat" to empty out my middle school. Given today's climate, I think it would be incredibly easy to get everyone out of an LA classroom. Kenny

2003-10-03 10:41:18-05:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPO - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in news:20031003001031.02537.00000840@mb-m23.aol.com: > In article <Xns9408C28CD371houseofusher@216.40.28.72>, Lord Usher > <lord_usher@hotmail.com> writes: > >>sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in >>news:20031002123059.08072.00000132@mb-m11.aol.com: >> >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>. >>> Until proven otherwise, and each of her selfish responses >>> had a opposite PC response afterwards, not before, we have to >>> take her at her word. We have no evidence that she is drinking >>> human blood anymore. >> >>Well, you can take the word of a soulless demon if you want to, but >>that's neither here nor there. > > > Yeah, cause Spike as a soulless demon never told the truth. :-) Sure he did. He also lied. He also told the truth and then changed his mind about it later. So I'm not sure why one would just assume that Harmony was being truthful. Maybe she was, but I wouldn't put any money on it. >>So what if she is abstaining from human blood? My question remains: >>why would you assume that she's doing it *because of moral >>compunction*? > > Cause I can see no other reason to, especially with how she acted > in saying it was off the reservation. Is there a potentially > practical reason? She's kissing up to the new boss so she can stay in her cushy job? She's decided that human blood is too fattening? She ate a couple of bad humans recently and it turned her off them for a while? Silly suggestions, I know. But no sillier than the idea that she's spontaneously developed a good-aligned conscience. Anyway, the bottom line is this. I've always said that there were just two rules on which the integrity of the Buffyverse depends: 1. EETs are incapable of moral principle. 2. EETs cannot meaningfully be deterred from evil acts on nonprincipled grounds. As far as I can tell, rule #1 still applies. As for rule #2, I think ANGEL has reinvented itself in a way that it doesn't necessarily have to apply to their new situation. In the past, whenever I've mentioned rule #2, others have objected that EETs should be able to refrain from evil for the same reason that sociopaths do in the real world -- because they're afraid of the punishment or disapproval of society. And my response has always been that. in the Buffyverse, social institutions "are either so corrupt that they gladly harbor and serve evildoers, or so wilfully blind that they let true evil walk away rather than admit that it exists," thus rendering them incapable of encouraging the nonprincipled rejection of evil. Well, now Our Heroes are in charge of one of L.A.'s major social institutions. And that means they're now in a position to discourage evil on nonprincipled grounds. Meaning rule #2 doesn't necessarily apply anymore. And this change comes without destroying the mythological foundations of the Buffyverse, because it arises from a *new situation* that none of Our Heroes has ever been in before, nor could ever have hoped to be in, and because it only applies to evildoers who fall under the influence of Our Heroes' new reforms. In other situations in which institutional reforms is impossible -- including Our Heroes' pasts -- the slaying of EETs is still the only way to stop them from doing evil. >>Second, even if she is still gettin' with the killin' (and I'd >>honestly prefer that we learn that she *is*) did you miss the part >>where "Our Heroes must allow the run-of-the-mill EETs to do their >>unspeakable deeds for the sake of the larger mission" is the new >>premise of the show? > > Harmony isn't an important being. Nobody would care if Angel staked > her. The big EETs are just as likely to kill Harmony for being > annoying. But there's a difference between killing Harmony because she's annoying and killing her because she's evil. If word gets around that Angel's killing his evil employees, even if they're competent workers who keep their heads down and do what they're told, how long before half the staff gets really nervous and quits? > Angel killed that vampire in the alley, so I guess no EET is going to > trust him, especially with all the photos and signatures and stuff W&H > did there, right? Right? :-) You mean, the scene in which the lawyer specifically mentioned that killing a client's henchvamp was a bad idea, and excused it only because he's new and didn't know any better? Angel doesn't have that excuse with Harmony. He's had Eve explain the rules to him. He knows Harmony's an employee. And he knows she's incredibly sycophantic and thus unlikely to plot against him. (Unlike Hauser, who was ordering his men to shoot the boss -- a recognizable no-no even among the Lawful Evil crowd.) Now, don't misunderstand me just because I'm giving ME the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying that they won't eventually screw this up. If they keep Harmony around for comic relief, and never remind us that she's an EET with no moral problem with killing people, I will get annoyed very fast, and join on you on the other side of the fence before long... -- Lord Usher "I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."

2003-10-03 16:24:41-07:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPO - (david@creeknet.com)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94096C9B912A5houseofusher@216.40.28.70>... > >> > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > Well, now Our Heroes are in charge of one of L.A.'s major social > institutions. > > And that means they're now in a position to discourage evil on > nonprincipled grounds. Meaning rule #2 doesn't necessarily apply > anymore. > > And this change comes without destroying the mythological foundations of > the Buffyverse, because it arises from a *new situation* that none of > Our Heroes has ever been in before, nor could ever have hoped to be in, > and because it only applies to evildoers who fall under the influence of > Our Heroes' new reforms. > > In other situations in which institutional reforms is impossible -- > including Our Heroes' pasts -- the slaying of EETs is still the only way > to stop them from doing evil. I return from my self-imposed newsgroup exile to comment on this. This is exactly right. What's more, I've been saying the same thing about other things...like killing demons in Lorne's bar, or Angel killing the demon who bought Gunn's soul. You can just immediately kill all the EETs, but you will end up with no lines of communication with evil. Evil will simply start staying away from you, even when you explicitly try to find it. Which makes stopping it incredibly hard. It would be rather like a cop trying to solve a prostitute's murder, and while he's at it he arrests all pimps, prostitutes, and drug dealers he can find. It might clear out the pimps, prostitutes, and drug dealers for a bit, but it sure as hell isn't going to help solve the murder. For another example, think Buffy and Willy's bar. She didn't kill demons there, because she wouldn't be allowed back in if she did. If you lie to them and stake them, you can never have a truce to defeat a more theatening enemy. If you kill them after making a contract with them, you'll never be able to purchase the magical apocalypse-stopper doodad from them. If you stake an employee, you'll be in a hell of a lot of trouble when you try to hire any demon...and just try running an evil law firm without demons. And they've *already* stopped a major problem by their presense. Sure, the old W&H could have dealt with that guy trying to kill everyone, W&H doesn't want California to be wiped out either, but we got a taste of *their* solution, and it involved a lot of dead people. (OTOH, the old W&H would have killed the *client* after disarming the bomb, and gotten rid of any future problems also.) You can argue the *ethics* of breaking your word to a 'bad guy', but there are *practical* issues with being known as an oath-breaker. The show(s), until this point, tended to ignore any issues, like when they let Spike live at the end of Buffy S4. (Which I argued they should have.) I hope they actually show AI doing something that causes the evil community to lose some confidence in them, so what Eve said is shown to be true, because it really is. (If they wanted to be funny, they could have W&H go up against an AI clone, and force AI to pretend to fight them while secretly rooting for them.)

2003-10-03 17:40:02+00:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPO - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


tnab76@yahoo.com (Kenny Abernathy) wrote: >> Of course how the hell Angel would be able to get the kids out with just >> a say so is never explained, but that would get in the way of saying >> "Bad military! Bad Bad!" > >Fifteen years ago, all it took was the words "bomb threat" to empty >out my middle school. Given today's climate, I think it would be >incredibly easy to get everyone out of an LA classroom. The problem is that Angel couldn't have gotten Fries kid. He'd be a danger still to all of California if not quaranteened. Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-10-03 18:01:25+00:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPO - ("Michael C." <mcsuper5@usol.com>)


On 3 Oct 2003 10:41:18 -0500, Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote: > sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in > news:20031003001031.02537.00000840@mb-m23.aol.com: > > > In article <Xns9408C28CD371houseofusher@216.40.28.72>, Lord Usher > > <lord_usher@hotmail.com> writes: > > > >>sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in > >>news:20031002123059.08072.00000132@mb-m11.aol.com: > >> > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>. > >>> Until proven otherwise, and each of her selfish responses > >>> had a opposite PC response afterwards, not before, we have to > >>> take her at her word. We have no evidence that she is drinking > >>> human blood anymore. > >> > >>Well, you can take the word of a soulless demon if you want to, but > >>that's neither here nor there. > > > > > > Yeah, cause Spike as a soulless demon never told the truth. :-) > > Sure he did. He also lied. He also told the truth and then changed his > mind about it later. > > So I'm not sure why one would just assume that Harmony was being > truthful. Maybe she was, but I wouldn't put any money on it. > > >>So what if she is abstaining from human blood? My question remains: > >>why would you assume that she's doing it *because of moral > >>compunction*? > > > > Cause I can see no other reason to, especially with how she acted > > in saying it was off the reservation. Is there a potentially > > practical reason? > > She's kissing up to the new boss so she can stay in her cushy job? > > She's decided that human blood is too fattening? > > She ate a couple of bad humans recently and it turned her off them for a > while? The silly vamp probably misses Cordy. Acceptance is the only thing she cares about, though she doesn't seem to care who she is accepted by. She might have only stopped drinking human blood yesterday, or she might have stopped earlier because she knows getting caught by Buffy or Angel AGAIN could be hazardous to her health. > > Silly suggestions, I know. But no sillier than the idea that she's > spontaneously developed a good-aligned conscience. > > Anyway, the bottom line is this. I've always said that there were just > two rules on which the integrity of the Buffyverse depends: > > 1. EETs are incapable of moral principle. > 2. EETs cannot meaningfully be deterred from evil acts on nonprincipled > grounds. > > As far as I can tell, rule #1 still applies. As for rule #2, I think > ANGEL has reinvented itself in a way that it doesn't necessarily have to > apply to their new situation. > > In the past, whenever I've mentioned rule #2, others have objected that > EETs should be able to refrain from evil for the same reason that > sociopaths do in the real world -- because they're afraid of the > punishment or disapproval of society. > > And my response has always been that. in the Buffyverse, social > institutions "are either so corrupt that they gladly harbor and serve > evildoers, or so wilfully blind that they let true evil walk away rather > than admit that it exists," thus rendering them incapable of encouraging > the nonprincipled rejection of evil. Hey, you forgot incompetent. > > Well, now Our Heroes are in charge of one of L.A.'s major social > institutions. > > And that means they're now in a position to discourage evil on > nonprincipled grounds. Meaning rule #2 doesn't necessarily apply > anymore. > > And this change comes without destroying the mythological foundations of > the Buffyverse, because it arises from a *new situation* that none of > Our Heroes has ever been in before, nor could ever have hoped to be in, > and because it only applies to evildoers who fall under the influence of > Our Heroes' new reforms. > > In other situations in which institutional reforms is impossible -- > including Our Heroes' pasts -- the slaying of EETs is still the only way > to stop them from doing evil. > > >>Second, even if she is still gettin' with the killin' (and I'd > >>honestly prefer that we learn that she *is*) did you miss the part > >>where "Our Heroes must allow the run-of-the-mill EETs to do their > >>unspeakable deeds for the sake of the larger mission" is the new > >>premise of the show? > > > > Harmony isn't an important being. Nobody would care if Angel staked > > her. The big EETs are just as likely to kill Harmony for being > > annoying. > > But there's a difference between killing Harmony because she's annoying > and killing her because she's evil. If word gets around that Angel's > killing his evil employees, even if they're competent workers who keep > their heads down and do what they're told, how long before half the > staff gets really nervous and quits? Might be they can't quit, although that doesn't mean they can't kill the boss and take over, like we saw Lilah do. > > > Angel killed that vampire in the alley, so I guess no EET is going to > > trust him, especially with all the photos and signatures and stuff W&H > > did there, right? Right? :-) > > You mean, the scene in which the lawyer specifically mentioned that > killing a client's henchvamp was a bad idea, and excused it only because > he's new and didn't know any better? > > Angel doesn't have that excuse with Harmony. He's had Eve explain the > rules to him. He knows Harmony's an employee. And he knows she's > incredibly sycophantic and thus unlikely to plot against him. (Unlike > Hauser, who was ordering his men to shoot the boss -- a recognizable > no-no even among the Lawful Evil crowd.) In W&H that seems like a perfectly reasonable way to get ahead. It is however inadvisable to fail. > > Now, don't misunderstand me just because I'm giving ME the benefit of > the doubt. I'm not saying that they won't eventually screw this up. If > they keep Harmony around for comic relief, and never remind us that > she's an EET with no moral problem with killing people, I will get > annoyed very fast, and join on you on the other side of the fence before > long... > Harmony is after her comfort and acceptance, she's probably used to dieting, though it appears she fell off her diet for a while. If someone slits their wrist in front of her she'll drink with no qualms, but she'd pass up an opportunity for fear of rejection if caught. I doubt she ever had morals to start with, for those that followed Buffy you know that Harmony wasn't much different before she was vamped. Michael C. -- mcsuper5@usol.com http://mcsuper5.freeshell.org/ Registered Linux User #303915 http://counter.li.org/

2003-10-03 18:12:22+00:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPO - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


Lord Usher lord_usher@hotmail.com wrote: >sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in >news:20031003001031.02537.00000840@mb-m23.aol.com: > >> In article <Xns9408C28CD371houseofusher@216.40.28.72>, Lord Usher >> <lord_usher@hotmail.com> writes: >> >>>sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in >>>news:20031002123059.08072.00000132@mb-m11.aol.com: >>> >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>So what if she is abstaining from human blood? My question remains: >>>why would you assume that she's doing it *because of moral >>>compunction*? >> >> Cause I can see no other reason to, especially with how she acted >> in saying it was off the reservation. Is there a potentially >> practical reason? > >She's kissing up to the new boss so she can stay in her cushy job? > >She's decided that human blood is too fattening? > >She ate a couple of bad humans recently and it turned her off them for a >while? > >Silly suggestions, I know. But no sillier than the idea that she's >spontaneously developed a good-aligned conscience. The problem the is in the concept of Harmony being there in the first place. Cause none of these choices make a lick of sense. >1. EETs are incapable of moral principle. >2. EETs cannot meaningfully be deterred from evil acts on nonprincipled > grounds. > >As far as I can tell, rule #1 still applies. As for rule #2, I think >ANGEL has reinvented itself in a way that it doesn't necessarily have to >apply to their new situation. Thus a retcon. >In other situations in which institutional reforms is impossible -- >including Our Heroes' pasts -- the slaying of EETs is still the only way >to stop them from doing evil. So basically our heros killed because of their weaknesses, not because the EETs needed killing. Gee, that makes them look good. Butchering monsters the lot of AI, and those murdering weaklings on BtVS too. I thought you liked morality LU. >>>Second, even if she is still gettin' with the killin' (and I'd >>>honestly prefer that we learn that she *is*) did you miss the part >>>where "Our Heroes must allow the run-of-the-mill EETs to do their >>>unspeakable deeds for the sake of the larger mission" is the new >>>premise of the show? >> >> Harmony isn't an important being. Nobody would care if Angel staked >> her. The big EETs are just as likely to kill Harmony for being >> annoying. > >But there's a difference between killing Harmony because she's annoying >and killing her because she's evil. If word gets around that Angel's >killing his evil employees, even if they're competent workers who keep >their heads down and do what they're told, how long before half the >staff gets really nervous and quits? And thus Lorne's list? As long as there's money and power to be gotten at W&H, they'll have no problems getting workers. And the staff getting nervous? Occupational hazard working for W&H. >> Angel killed that vampire in the alley, so I guess no EET is going to >> trust him, especially with all the photos and signatures and stuff W&H >> did there, right? Right? :-) > >You mean, the scene in which the lawyer specifically mentioned that >killing a client's henchvamp was a bad idea, and excused it only because >he's new and didn't know any better? And Harmony's not a henchvamp. She's an employee. And let us look at what happen to W&H employees: Lee Mercer: Head blown off. Lilah: "They should be. I dug up everything I could find on the last seventy-five year review. It's all in there. Makes the Christmas purge of sixty-eight look like fun old times. Nearly half of mid-management was sacked. And Lindsey, they use actual sacks." -Reprise Bradley Scott - Spare body parts. Linwood - Head literally on the chopping block. All Angel would have to say is how incompetent Harmony is. Seeing that her coworkers already know this, not seeing the problem. >Angel doesn't have that excuse with Harmony. He's had Eve explain the >rules to him. He knows Harmony's an employee. And he knows she's >incredibly sycophantic and thus unlikely to plot against him. Cause the show's about Angel gaining power and using people. Oh joy. >Now, don't misunderstand me just because I'm giving ME the benefit of >the doubt. I see no reason after the past couple of seasons of BtVS and season and a half of Angel to give them one iota of doubt when it comes to something as stupid as leaving Harmony alive. But this five minute argument is over. Have the last word. Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-10-03 20:19:45-04:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPO - ("Jason E. Vines" <jayvines@gwu.edu>)


"SWeick" <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote in message news:20031003001029.02537.00000837@mb-m23.aol.com... > In article <vnpeu2d54dirb8@corp.supernews.com>, "Jason E. Vines" > <jayvines@gwu.edu> writes: > > > > What the hell are you talking about? > > > > Angel is great, the best it's ever been. > > Well gee, I guess you're right. You've really persuaded me with > that brill analysis. How could I ever have been so wrong? The objective wasn't to persuade you, but to offer my own opinion. Therefore, a long, droning post wasn't necessary. > Guy, at least try to get with the conversation. Why should I try to "get with" the Angel bashing, when I enjoy the show? > But you lose it all for repeating the whole friggin post though. I weep, I truly do.

2003-10-04 02:17:51-04:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPO - ("Jason E. Vines" <jayvines@gwu.edu>)


"SWeick" <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote in message news:20031004003344.10366.00000221@mb-m14.aol.com... > "Jason E. Vines" jayvines@gwu.edu wrote: > > >"SWeick" <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote in message > >news:20031003001029.02537.00000837@mb-m23.aol.com... > >> In article <vnpeu2d54dirb8@corp.supernews.com>, "Jason E. Vines" > >> <jayvines@gwu.edu> writes: > >> > >> > >> > What the hell are you talking about? > >> > > >> > Angel is great, the best it's ever been. > >> > >> Well gee, I guess you're right. You've really persuaded me with > >> that brill analysis. How could I ever have been so wrong? > > > > The objective wasn't to persuade you, but to offer my own opinion. > > > So you included everything in my original post? > > God, you are one hell of an idiot. Personal attacks because I disagree with your opinion about Angel? I hardly think that's necessary. > >Therefore, a long, droning post wasn't necessary. > > > >> Guy, at least try to get with the conversation. > > > > Why should I try to "get with" the Angel bashing, when I enjoy the show? > > > Cause if you want to disprove something, you argue how the > person's point is wrong. I've already said I had no wish to "disprove" your opinion, so I fail to see why you continue to belabor this point. > You can then continue to argue, discontinue to argue, but > at least you showed you had a friggin point in posting. > > At this point anyone reading would conclude you don't have > any position, cause you haven't given anything other than > "Well, I like it." And doing so on an *Angel* newsgroup makes me a horrible human being because...? > >> But you lose it all for repeating the whole friggin post though. > > > > I weep, I truly do. > > > I weep that that is what we're getting from .edu posters. Someone is awfully defensive about opposing perspectives. That isn't healthy. > Oh, and for being an idiot and not getting nettiquette... What netiquette did I violate? I didn't use all caps, I didn't top post, I didn't troll, and I didn't SPAM. I did quote a post to which I was responding; is that no longer allowed? *You*, though, violated normal etiquette by insulting me without provocation, but I get the feeling you're the sort who thinks rules only apply to others, never to you. > **PLONK** > > (realize he's now the only person on a.t.a that is in my killfile. > Yep, Tim Bruening and Apiro have been set free!) The gods themselves do tremble.

2003-10-04 04:33:44+00:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPO - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


"Jason E. Vines" jayvines@gwu.edu wrote: >"SWeick" <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote in message >news:20031003001029.02537.00000837@mb-m23.aol.com... >> In article <vnpeu2d54dirb8@corp.supernews.com>, "Jason E. Vines" >> <jayvines@gwu.edu> writes: >> >> >> > What the hell are you talking about? >> > >> > Angel is great, the best it's ever been. >> >> Well gee, I guess you're right. You've really persuaded me with >> that brill analysis. How could I ever have been so wrong? > > The objective wasn't to persuade you, but to offer my own opinion. So you included everything in my original post? God, you are one hell of an idiot. >Therefore, a long, droning post wasn't necessary. > >> Guy, at least try to get with the conversation. > > Why should I try to "get with" the Angel bashing, when I enjoy the show? Cause if you want to disprove something, you argue how the person's point is wrong. You can then continue to argue, discontinue to argue, but at least you showed you had a friggin point in posting. At this point anyone reading would conclude you don't have any position, cause you haven't given anything other than "Well, I like it." >> But you lose it all for repeating the whole friggin post though. > > I weep, I truly do. I weep that that is what we're getting from .edu posters. Oh, and for being an idiot and not getting nettiquette... **PLONK** (realize he's now the only person on a.t.a that is in my killfile. Yep, Tim Bruening and Apiro have been set free!) Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-10-05 00:41:13+00:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPOILERS FOR CONVICTION S5.1) - (sbennie@aol.com)


If you're looking at "a delaying action to eliminate the client's WMD" equals the tactics the US should have taken in Iraq, it's an interesting theory. As propaganda, it's a little dicier. Arguably the parallel fits the plot. But Gunn's solution came across as a minor victory at best for the Angel crew, so if Joss intended it as a prescription for appropriate action, it's rather more lukewarmly applied than it might have been.Joss wouldn't have pointed out the flaws himself. Rather than having W&H represent America, I think a stronger case can be made that Angel and his crew represented America, and W&H the methods available to America. Angel was making the choices here, not W&H. Angel referred to W&H as a waapon that they needed to learn how to wield. If W&H was meant to represent "America", I'd expect a more human metaphor. It's an examination of whether good people can use an evil instrument to do good things. Frankly that sounds more interesting and more relevant conflict to me than Angel exploring his fatherhood issues with a whiny teenage superhuman. At least (in terms of potential) this season should leave last one in the dust. And if the NG isn't flooded with messages on the heavy-handedness of the message (as it was with "Billy"), it may be because people didn't see ME as being particularly heavy handed this time, Dixie Chicks aside. Ultimately, if the US action in Iraq has caused Joss to reexamine ME's approach to how their character's solve problems, well, major world events *do* that sort of thing to writers, and it's silly to expect writers to try to live in a vacuum and keep their work there. There was a retcon that bothered me, though it was much more minor. Where was the Los Angeles District Attorney's shaman was when Kate needed him/her? Scott Bennie

2003-10-05 01:35:34+00:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPOILERS FOR CONVICTION S5.1) - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


sbennie@aol.com (Sbennie) wrote: >If you're looking at "a delaying action to eliminate the client's WMD" equals >the tactics the US should have taken in Iraq, it's an interesting theory. As >propaganda, it's a little dicier. Perhaps. But I think it a fair read. So did the gentleman who got The West Wing vibe that I totally missed. >Arguably the parallel fits the plot. But Gunn's solution came across as a >minor >victory at best for the Angel crew, so if Joss intended it as a prescription >for appropriate action, it's rather more lukewarmly applied than it might >have >been.Joss wouldn't have pointed out the flaws himself. Not seeing where the flaws are. To avoid the evil collateral damage, you accept the evil that the controller of WMD might do in a minor way, while keeping him under the legal gun. That was Angel's point about Fries having to lay low. Wonder now if his middle name happened to be French. :-) >Rather than having W&H represent America, I think a stronger case can be made >that Angel and his crew represented America, and W&H the methods available to >America. No, cause W&H made the WMD, as per Fred's rant went. The criticism by the left is that GHWB gave those WMD. Now this is subtext, and thus up for interpretation, but it looks more like W&H == America than W&H == methods. Angel was making the choices here, not W&H. Angel referred to W&H as >a >waapon that they needed to learn how to wield. If W&H was meant to represent >"America", I'd expect a more human metaphor. Depending on the writer, no you wouldn't. But what's more human than a bunch of people seeking money and power at whatever cost to themselves and others as a very negative metaphor for America? Many see us that way, and Joss might be one of them. Remember Joss is the guy who gave us all the negative metaphors for religion. Joss is very negative against all institutions. >It's an examination of whether good people can use an evil instrument to do >good things. Frankly that sounds more interesting and more relevant conflict >to >me than Angel exploring his fatherhood About the same. It's done better in actual text. Using very little of the wide range of metaphors available to them on stuff hard to write into text isn't a good sign. Granted, Micky DuPree argued this point a couple seasons back, especially about Connor not being like a son but Angel's actual son. I think now she had a very good point. That was the flaw with Connor, and it's a similar flaw here too. Granted, again, they didn't bash you over the head with it, so it's a much better subtextual use. >At least (in terms of potential) this season should leave last one in the >dust. After S4-7 BtVS and S3.5-4 of Angel, I'm not one holding much hope. But maybe they can surprise me. >And if the NG isn't flooded with messages on the heavy-handedness of the >message (as it was with "Billy"), it may be because people didn't see ME as >being particularly heavy handed this time, Dixie Chicks aside. Well, the Dixie Chicks were a bit of an anvil, but indirect enough so only to graze the head. A Texas gal like Fred might just be a fan. To requote me: "As I said before, at least it wasn't as bad as _The Hulk_ was in hammering subtext home. And the Dixie Chicks are sexy." >Ultimately, if the US action in Iraq has caused Joss to reexamine ME's >approach >to how their character's solve problems, well, major world events *do* that >sort of thing to writers, and it's silly to expect writers to try to live in >a >vacuum and keep their work there. No, I don't expect it. I'd question the accuracy of it, but that's opinion. Sadly, I didn't read much into ME's writings on 9/11. Maybe that just didn't register with the writers and Joss. >There was a retcon that bothered me, though it was much more minor. Where was >the Los Angeles District Attorney's shaman was when Kate needed him/her? ME sucks with magic. See: Willow Rosenberg. Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-10-09 00:20:12-05:00 - Re: This is the way we retcon the show, retcon the show, retcon the show...(SPO - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in news:20031003141222.13183.00000290@mb-m24.aol.com: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >>1. EETs are incapable of moral principle. >>2. EETs cannot meaningfully be deterred from evil acts on >> nonprincipled grounds. >> >>As far as I can tell, rule #1 still applies. As for rule #2, I think >>ANGEL has reinvented itself in a way that it doesn't necessarily have >>to apply to their new situation. > > Thus a retcon. I'm assuming that, for whatever reason, you responded to my post as you read through it, and didn't bother to go back and change anything once you got to the end. Because I explain just a little lower down why, IMHO, this *isn't* a retcon. >>In other situations in which institutional reforms is impossible -- >>including Our Heroes' pasts -- the slaying of EETs is still the only >>way to stop them from doing evil. > > So basically our heros killed because of their weaknesses, not > because the EETs needed killing. Yeah, right -- the "weakness" of not being in charge of the Buffyverse's major social institutions. How monstrous of them not to say to themselves, "Well, I could slay this vampire now and thus prevent the inevitable deaths of innocent people, but maybe some day years from now a dark power will mysteriously decide to give me control of an evil law firm, so maybe I should let him live"! ?? This isn't like realizing that soulless vampires can spontaneously develop moral concern for any of the various reasons that Redemptionists have suggested over the years. We're not talking about a forseeable property of reality, or even a duplicable circumstance. This is an monumental *fluke*, an unprecedented reversal at which Our Heroes continue to marvel. (Indeed, it is a reversal that only came about because Our Heroes were so successful at slayin' evil the old way.) And, remember, I'm not saying rule #1 has been negated. Even now, the EETs only have the potential to refrain from evil for selfish reasons that have nothing to do with moral uprightness. So it's *still* not like they're killing potentially good and decent people. >>But there's a difference between killing Harmony because she's >>annoying and killing her because she's evil. If word gets around that >>Angel's killing his evil employees, even if they're competent workers >>who keep their heads down and do what they're told, how long before >>half the staff gets really nervous and quits? > > And thus Lorne's list? On which "evil" and "to be fired" are two different checkboxes. > As long as there's money and power to be gotten at W&H, they'll > have no problems getting workers. They will if they use "Is he/she evil?" as a litmus test. How easy would it be to convince non-evil folks to sign up for the law firm from hell? And would Our Heroes even want to risk the souls of decent people by offering them these jobs? They're not even sure they'll be able to hang onto their *own* souls in this place! > And Harmony's not a henchvamp. She's an employee. > > And let us look at what happen to W&H employees: [snip list] > All Angel would have to say is how incompetent Harmony > is. Seeing that her coworkers already know this, not seeing the > problem. But, see, that was the whole point of Harmony's plea for her life -- she was insisting that she *wasn't* incompetent. Or plotting against her bosses. And, if she wasn't, Angel's on pretty shaky ground if he kills her. Listen, I'm not saying this was the most tightly written explanatory scene Joss has ever written. But it comes down to this: if we accept the premise that Our Heroes are now required to let evildoers get away with things in order to keep making a difference at W&H -- and that is the premise we were offered, Harmony or no Harmony -- Miss Kendall seems like exactly the kind of evildoer that Our Heroes *are* going to let get away with things. The small-time killer, not particularly motivated, who callously hunts humans but can easily be distracted from her prey by small shiny objects... If that's not the kind of demon activity that gets a blind eye for now, then what the hell are Our Heroes talking about when they fret about the moral compromises they have to make? Letting loose- skinned demons eat kittens? Oooh, what a scary moral quandary. -- Lord Usher "I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."