FLM films - My Webpage

2004-05-21 16:55:28+00:00 - Ambiguous ending means... - (poldy <poldy@kfu.com>)


it's not a real finale at all. Angel and the rest are going to go on fighting. There will be more arch villains, more end of the worlds, etc. BTW, if Angel and humans like Gunn can take out these demons with swords and fire or whatever, why wouldn't modern military weapons be as effective? Some bombs spewing shrapnel all over can eviscerate demons way more effectively than swords. Why wouldn't flame throwers have killed vamps and ubervamps in Sunnydale? Why wouldn't large munitions have had the same efficacy as decapitation and the like?

2004-05-21 20:20:02-05:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (Jay G <Jay@tmbg.org>)


poldy <poldy@kfu.com> wrote: > it's not a real finale at all. > > Angel and the rest are going to go on fighting. There will be more > arch villains, more end of the worlds, etc. > > BTW, if Angel and humans like Gunn can take out these demons with > swords and fire or whatever, why wouldn't modern military weapons > be as effective? > > Some bombs spewing shrapnel all over can eviscerate demons way more > effectively than swords. > > Why wouldn't flame throwers have killed vamps and ubervamps in > Sunnydale? > > Why wouldn't large munitions have had the same efficacy as > decapitation and the like? Well..... 1) Angel and Buffy and crews didn't usually have the resources to get these type of weapons. 2) The demons and such typically were not in groups, which means most of those type of weapons would not be the best choice. 3) Collateral damage. -Jay

2004-05-21 20:43:49+00:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (Thank You Black Jesus <blackjesus@nospan.sorrysucka>)


"poldy" <poldy@kfu.com> wrote in message news:poldy-BF815F.09552821052004@netnews.comcast.net... > it's not a real finale at all. > > Angel and the rest are going to go on fighting. There will be more arch > villains, more end of the worlds, etc. > > BTW, if Angel and humans like Gunn can take out these demons with swords > and fire or whatever, why wouldn't modern military weapons be as > effective? > > Some bombs spewing shrapnel all over can eviscerate demons way more > effectively than swords. > > Why wouldn't flame throwers have killed vamps and ubervamps in Sunnydale? > > Why wouldn't large munitions have had the same efficacy as decapitation > and the like? Because that would make "sense," thus shattering the very premise of the shows.

2004-05-23 02:07:54-04:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <poldy-F66E6F.20213822052004@netnews.comcast.net>, poldy <poldy@kfu.com> wrote: > In article <c8mk9b$erp$3@blue.rahul.net>, > arromdee@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote: > > > In article <10atahlfl839i5a@corp.supernews.com>, Jay G <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote: > > >1) Angel and Buffy and crews didn't usually have the resources to > > >get these type of weapons. > > >2) The demons and such typically were not in groups, which means > > >most of those type of weapons would not be the best choice. > > >3) Collateral damage. > > > > I may point out that Buffy a) had a rocket launcher in the basement which > > she was glad to take out for a comedic moment, just not to use against > > demons, 2) Riley basically gave Buffy a blank check with respect to > > assistance, and 3) Angel, at W&H, certainly did have the resources. > > > > And as I pointed out, Angel could at least wear a plate over his heart. > > Not every modern technological device has the problems that bombs do. > > > > And the *villains* didn't seem to get those weapons either, and your > > objections don't apply to villains. > > What about the massacre in the Initiative when all those demons escaped > from their cages? They had no time routing trained military guys. That was because the Initiative was trying to use the demons instead of simply killing them, which they were very good at. The Initiative storyline did more damage to the Buffy mythos than anything else because it proved just how archaic and inefficient Buffy was. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004-05-23 03:21:38+00:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (poldy <poldy@kfu.com>)


In article <c8mk9b$erp$3@blue.rahul.net>, arromdee@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote: > In article <10atahlfl839i5a@corp.supernews.com>, Jay G <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote: > >1) Angel and Buffy and crews didn't usually have the resources to > >get these type of weapons. > >2) The demons and such typically were not in groups, which means > >most of those type of weapons would not be the best choice. > >3) Collateral damage. > > I may point out that Buffy a) had a rocket launcher in the basement which > she was glad to take out for a comedic moment, just not to use against > demons, 2) Riley basically gave Buffy a blank check with respect to > assistance, and 3) Angel, at W&H, certainly did have the resources. > > And as I pointed out, Angel could at least wear a plate over his heart. > Not every modern technological device has the problems that bombs do. > > And the *villains* didn't seem to get those weapons either, and your > objections don't apply to villains. What about the massacre in the Initiative when all those demons escaped from their cages? They had no time routing trained military guys.

2004-05-23 08:59:29-07:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (himiko@animail.net)


Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:<a-BB860A.02075323052004@corp.supernews.com>... > > What about the massacre in the Initiative when all those demons escaped > > from their cages? They had no time routing trained military guys. > > That was because the Initiative was trying to use the demons instead of > simply killing them, which they were very good at. The Initiative > storyline did more damage to the Buffy mythos than anything else because > it proved just how archaic and inefficient Buffy was. Huh? Riley, one the Initiative's best operatives, was positively wowwed by Buffy's body/dust count. One of the main points about the Initiative was that it showed why you don't fight demons that way. Because it doesn't work. It corrupts almost immediately and winds up gathering together and strengthening the enemy. (Do I see a parallel to our current situation in Iraq? Yes I do.) The kinds of battles fought in the Buffyverse are not the kind of battles you can win with military force or even with weapons. They are battles where trust, kindness, love, and commitment are the real high tech. Only when those are in place do the weapons do any good at all; they're back-up at best. And this isn't pure fantasy or some pie-in-the-sky, wishy-washy, feel-good crap; it's a serious statement on how the world works. You may not agree with it or like it, but it's been ME's message and mythos for 8 years. himiko

2004-05-23 14:08:28-04:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (Snuggles <submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff@spam.spamcop.net>)


In article <phj1b0t1d3huulignqat09gkb4pku45l25@4ax.com>, st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 23 May 2004 02:07:54 -0400, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote: > > >In article <poldy-F66E6F.20213822052004@netnews.comcast.net>, > > poldy <poldy@kfu.com> wrote: > > > >> In article <c8mk9b$erp$3@blue.rahul.net>, > >> arromdee@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote: > >> > >> > In article <10atahlfl839i5a@corp.supernews.com>, Jay G <Jay@tmbg.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > >1) Angel and Buffy and crews didn't usually have the resources to > >> > >get these type of weapons. > >> > >2) The demons and such typically were not in groups, which means > >> > >most of those type of weapons would not be the best choice. > >> > >3) Collateral damage. > >> > > >> > I may point out that Buffy a) had a rocket launcher in the basement > >> > which > >> > she was glad to take out for a comedic moment, just not to use against > >> > demons, 2) Riley basically gave Buffy a blank check with respect to > >> > assistance, and 3) Angel, at W&H, certainly did have the resources. > >> > > >> > And as I pointed out, Angel could at least wear a plate over his heart. > >> > Not every modern technological device has the problems that bombs do. > >> > > >> > And the *villains* didn't seem to get those weapons either, and your > >> > objections don't apply to villains. > >> > >> What about the massacre in the Initiative when all those demons escaped > >> from their cages? They had no time routing trained military guys. > > > >That was because the Initiative was trying to use the demons instead of > >simply killing them, which they were very good at. The Initiative > >storyline did more damage to the Buffy mythos than anything else because > >it proved just how archaic and inefficient Buffy was. > > Right because bigger weapons always solve your problems quicker. > > Yeah, thats what the show was about. Dude, that's why the Initiative storyline was damaging because it showed that bigger weapons could solve the Buffyverse problems quicker and easier than Buffy's slay one at a time method. At least when Buffy used the rocket launcher on the Judge and the bomb against the Mayor she was the one in control. However, the Initiative showed that anybody with a good stockpile could clean up Sunnydale better than the Slayer. In terms of the metaphor of the show it basically said that childhood problems are meaningless and only seem important when your a kid and you should let the adults take care of the monsters. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snuggles, not Shuggie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004-05-23 14:11:43-04:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (Snuggles <submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff@spam.spamcop.net>)


In article <c7902983.0405230759.4765e18c@posting.google.com>, himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote: > Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote in message > news:<a-BB860A.02075323052004@corp.supernews.com>... > > > > What about the massacre in the Initiative when all those demons escaped > > > from their cages? They had no time routing trained military guys. > > > > That was because the Initiative was trying to use the demons instead of > > simply killing them, which they were very good at. The Initiative > > storyline did more damage to the Buffy mythos than anything else because > > it proved just how archaic and inefficient Buffy was. > > Huh? Riley, one the Initiative's best operatives, was positively > wowwed by Buffy's body/dust count. One of the main points about the > Initiative was that it showed why you don't fight demons that way. > Because it doesn't work. It corrupts almost immediately and winds up > gathering together and strengthening the enemy. (Do I see a parallel > to our current situation in Iraq? Yes I do.) > > The kinds of battles fought in the Buffyverse are not the kind of > battles you can win with military force or even with weapons. They > are battles where trust, kindness, love, and commitment are the real > high tech. Only when those are in place do the weapons do any good at > all; they're back-up at best. > > And this isn't pure fantasy or some pie-in-the-sky, wishy-washy, > feel-good crap; it's a serious statement on how the world works. You > may not agree with it or like it, but it's been ME's message and > mythos for 8 years. However, the reason I dislike the Initiative storyline was that it was working for them. Good, bad, it does not matter as long as you have the firepower to back your message up. Might makes right and power is the only thing that counts. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snuggles, not Shuggie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004-05-23 15:52:18-07:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (himiko@animail.net)


Snuggles <submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff@spam.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff-BC02E5.14114323052004@corp.supernews.com>... > > However, the reason I dislike the Initiative storyline was that it was > working for them. Good, bad, it does not matter as long as you have the > firepower to back your message up. Might makes right and power is the > only thing that counts. But the Initiative story arc showed precisely the opposite. It didn't work. It backfired and ultimately had to be destroyed. Might did not make right; it made two wrongs, and in the end it was the love and trust the Scoobs shared that restored order. Power can make right in the Buffyverse, but not that kind of power, not the power to threaten or kill or otherwise control others involuntarily. The power to build, create, love, and share, the kind of power Buffy and Willow exercised at the end and throughout the show, can make right. But not the power to threaten, kill, and destroy. That mostly just destroys itself. The Initiative certainly did. Of course, some new monster fighting force did emerge; whatever paramilitary claptrap Riley was with in AYW has clearly replaced the Initiative. That's what Angel was talking about when he admitted that taking out the BT wouldn't be a final solution. There is no final solution to this kind of power. If you try to create one, you just become the new problem...as Lindsey inevitably would have. And yet, as Angel pointed out, demons once ruled the earth and now they don't. So maybe it's not quite as hopeless as it looks. himiko

2004-05-23 22:46:25-04:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <16j2b0dle2eko5chc96ls289q6187vu9s3@4ax.com>, st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 23 May 2004 21:31:41 +0000 (UTC), arromdee@violet.rahul.net > (Ken Arromdee) wrote: > > >The things that happen on the show need to make sense regardless of the theme > >of the show. > > Which they did. > You must have missed season 7. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004-05-24 10:07:28-04:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <2er2b057729gecbf631ng3gvq62lpi8htv@4ax.com>, st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 23 May 2004 22:46:25 -0400, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote: > > >In article <16j2b0dle2eko5chc96ls289q6187vu9s3@4ax.com>, > > st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 23 May 2004 21:31:41 +0000 (UTC), arromdee@violet.rahul.net > >> (Ken Arromdee) wrote: > >> > >> >The things that happen on the show need to make sense regardless of the > >> >theme > >> >of the show. > >> > >> Which they did. > >> > > > >You must have missed season 7. > > Please detail what parts didn't make sense to you and I will endeavor > to explain. Some of it wasn't done as well as I could have hoped, some > of it was badly executed, but I found most of it pretty > straightforward in terms of 'making sense'. Its not my favorite > season, but its still better than most of the crap on tv, and by a > full ten yards. 1) What was the disruption in the Slayer line that allowed the First Evil to act? 2) What caused it? 3) If it was caused by Buffy being brought back by the Scooby gang why didn't Buffy's first death cause the disruption? It was that death that split the Slayer line in two? 4) Everybody on the show (the Mayor, Buffy, Giles and the potentials) thought that Buffy's death would activate a new Slayer... so how come they never went looking for the Third Slayer that would have been activated by Buffy's second death? 5) Why was the First Evil killing potentials? If new potentials are always being born there's no way he/she/it could kill them all. If the disruption in the Slayer line stopped the creation of new potentials how did Willow's spell fix things? By making all potentials into Slayers we'd still be faced with the problem of no new potentials? 6) If the existance of 2 Slayers distrupted the Slayer line enough to allow the First Evil to act wouldn't the existance of hundreds (thousands?) of Slayers make the First Evil even more powerful? 7) Why isn't the First Evil leading another army out of the Hellmouth under Cleveland? 8) Where in Hell did that Seal of Dagron come from? It never covered the Hellmouth before.... More to come.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004-05-25 01:32:30+00:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (ebailey140@aol.com)


>From: Darwin Fish a@a.edu >Date: 5/24/2004 9:07 AM Central Standard Time >Message-id: <a-15B7C7.10072724052004@corp.supernews.com> > >In article <2er2b057729gecbf631ng3gvq62lpi8htv@4ax.com>, > st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 23 May 2004 22:46:25 -0400, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote: >> >> >In article <16j2b0dle2eko5chc96ls289q6187vu9s3@4ax.com>, >> > st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 23 May 2004 21:31:41 +0000 (UTC), arromdee@violet.rahul.net >> >> (Ken Arromdee) wrote: >> >> >> >> >The things that happen on the show need to make sense regardless of the > >> >> >theme >> >> >of the show. >> >> >> >> Which they did. >> >> >> > >> >You must have missed season 7. >> >> Please detail what parts didn't make sense to you and I will endeavor >> to explain. Some of it wasn't done as well as I could have hoped, some >> of it was badly executed, but I found most of it pretty >> straightforward in terms of 'making sense'. Its not my favorite >> season, but its still better than most of the crap on tv, and by a >> full ten yards. > >1) What was the disruption in the Slayer line that allowed the First >Evil to act? >2) What caused it? >3) If it was caused by Buffy being brought back by the Scooby gang why >didn't Buffy's first death cause the disruption? It was that death that >split the Slayer line in two? The First's implication was that first death was what did it, as that was what was threw the Slayer line off. She went on to say she had a hand in everything that happened to Buffy ever since. >4) Everybody on the show (the Mayor, Buffy, Giles and the potentials) >thought that Buffy's death would activate a new Slayer... so how come >they never went looking for the Third Slayer that would have been >activated by Buffy's second death? They were mistaken. The line was thrown off when Kendra was activated, but Buffy survived. Buffy was an anomaly, giving the First the room she needed (and why she was wanting to take out every Slayer and Potential EXCEPT Buffy). The Potentials talked about there being one other active Slayer (Faith) and were wondering how that happened, which implied that there wasn't this mythical third Slayer. >5) Why was the First Evil killing potentials? If new potentials are >always being born there's no way he/she/it could kill them all. If the >disruption in the Slayer line stopped the creation of new potentials how >did Willow's spell fix things? By making all potentials into Slayers >we'd still be faced with the problem of no new potentials? Once she'd eliminated all the living Potentials post merger with Buffy, she presumably would take steps to keep all that power WITH Buffy. >6) If the existance of 2 Slayers distrupted the Slayer line enough to >allow the First Evil to act wouldn't the existance of hundreds >(thousands?) of Slayers make the First Evil even more powerful? She wanted all that power in a single body, the one she wanted to merge with, the person she wanted to be. >7) Why isn't the First Evil leading another army out of the Hellmouth >under Cleveland? Well, Evil is never completely gone. But, the First's big apocalyptic plan didn't work out. She'll have to rebuild, and it'll be a lot harder to go back to her original plan. >8) Where in Hell did that Seal of Dagron come from? It never covered the >Hellmouth before.... We never saw exactly where things emerged from the Hellmouth. All we knew was it was deep underground, under the school. E

2004-05-26 02:00:25-04:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <c918r4$bui$1@blue.rahul.net>, arromdee@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote: > In article <4up7b0tos1er7c1o9vqo0j790pvl9j1lv1@4ax.com>, > st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>>7) Why isn't the First Evil leading another army out of the Hellmouth > >>>>under Cleveland? > >>>Because with an army of slayers, it wouldn't stand a chance. > >> > >>Slayers don't have the ability to teleport. And they're a lot easier to get > >>rid of if you do it seriously and use such tactics as bombs, or haunting the > >>police. > > > >And they could communicate in Klingon so no one would know what they > >are saying.... > > > >Why do I get the feeling your middle name is Andrew.... :) > > I think using bombs is an obvious enough tactic that you don't need to be an > Andrew to think it makes any sense. In fact the First Evil decided to use a bomb once, which makes you wonder why it didn't decide to use them more often or take advantage of other modern weapons. Once you open up the window to such possibilities its the responsibility of the writers to address these concerns.... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004-05-26 13:13:02-05:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (Zombie Elvis <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net>)


It was a time of great turmoil. The strong preyed on the weak, dogs and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness: Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote in <a-15B7C7.10072724052004@corp.supernews.com>: > 1) What was the disruption in the Slayer line that allowed the First > Evil to act? > 2) What caused it? > 3) If it was caused by Buffy being brought back by the Scooby gang why > didn't Buffy's first death cause the disruption? It was that death that > split the Slayer line in two? The First showed up after Buffy's first death and Buffy's second death and resurrection only made things worse. Beljoxa's Eye claimed that Buffy's continued existence made the magicks that created the slayer unstable giving The First a chance to end the whole good vs evil fight once and for all. > 4) Everybody on the show (the Mayor, Buffy, Giles and the potentials) > thought that Buffy's death would activate a new Slayer... so how come > they never went looking for the Third Slayer that would have been > activated by Buffy's second death? That would have been the CoW's job. They had a whole year to find a new slayer after Buffy's death before The First eliminated them. So it's fair to assume that the mythical third slayer either doesn't exist or was activated in a region of the world so remote that no one ever found her. Either scenario implies that something has gone deeply wrong with the slayer selection process. > 5) Why was the First Evil killing potentials? If new potentials are > always being born there's no way he/she/it could kill them all. If the > disruption in the Slayer line stopped the creation of new potentials how > did Willow's spell fix things? By making all potentials into Slayers > we'd still be faced with the problem of no new potentials? If one thing was made clear in season seven, it's that for The First's plan to work, it had to eliminate the slayer line. The youngest potential we saw activated was the little leaguer in "Chosen" who looked to be ten to twelve years old. Any girls called at a younger age would probably be useless is battling The First. As st wrote elsewhere in the thread, it shouldn't be too different for The First to kill a nine month old slayer. By activating all the potentials, Willow changed the rules by insuring that the Slayer line couldn't be eliminated according to The First's plan. > 6) If the existance of 2 Slayers distrupted the Slayer line enough to > allow the First Evil to act wouldn't the existance of hundreds > (thousands?) of Slayers make the First Evil even more powerful? By making all potentials in Slayers, Buffy made it much more difficult for The First to eliminate the slayer line simply because it's a lot more difficult for it to kill a slayer that it is for it to kill a potential. > 7) Why isn't the First Evil leading another army out of the Hellmouth > under Cleveland? Presumably it takes time to raise an army of the size that we saw in "Chosen." For that matter, The First never led its original army out of the Sunnydale Hellmouth. Buffy attacked before it was ready as evidenced by the fact that the it was bringing out Turo-khans slowly one at time and the fact that the Turo-khans in "Chosen" were nowhere near as tough as the first one that was raised. > 8) Where in Hell did that Seal of Dagron come from? It never covered the > Hellmouth before.... Danzalthar or something like that. The seal appears to have been created by the First's Bringers as a way to concentrate the power of the Hellmouth and raise The First's ubervamp army. -- "Screw destiny! Destiny's just another word for inevitable. And nothing's inevitable if you stand up, look it in the eye and say, 'You're evitable.'" -- Winifred Burkle Roberto Castillo robertocastillo@ameritech.net http://www.freewebs.com/robertocastillo/

2004-05-29 03:00:13+00:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (doomarchvile@cs.comnojunk)


>I may point out that Buffy a) had a rocket launcher in the basement which >she was glad to take out for a comedic moment Did she have any rockets? The launcher isn't very effective without 'em.

2004-05-29 07:08:13+00:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (ebailey140@aol.com)


>means... >From: doomarchvile@cs.comnojunk (Willows Stalker) >Date: 5/28/2004 10:00 PM Central Standard Time >Message-id: <20040528230013.17756.00000307@mb-m03.news.cs.com> > > >>I may point out that Buffy a) had a rocket launcher in the basement which >>she was glad to take out for a comedic moment > >Did she have any rockets? The launcher isn't very effective without 'em. She must have, since she was intending to use it. E

2004-05-29 10:29:12+00:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (doomarchvile@cs.comnojunk)


In article <20040524213230.26979.00001795@mb-m12.aol.com>, ebailey140@aol.com (EBailey140) writes: >>8) Where in Hell did that Seal of Dagron come from? It never covered the >>Hellmouth before.... >We never saw exactly where things emerged from the Hellmouth. All we knew >was >it was deep underground, under the school. The Hellmouth used to open into the original high school's library.

2004-05-29 14:36:28+00:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (ebailey140@aol.com)


>From: doomarchvile@cs.comnojunk (Willows Stalker) >Date: 5/29/2004 5:29 AM Central Standard Time >Message-id: <20040529062912.23857.00000214@mb-m18.news.cs.com> > >In article <20040524213230.26979.00001795@mb-m12.aol.com>, ebailey140@aol.com >(EBailey140) writes: > >>>8) Where in Hell did that Seal of Dagron come from? It never covered the >>>Hellmouth before.... > >>We never saw exactly where things emerged from the Hellmouth. All we knew >>was >>it was deep underground, under the school. > >The Hellmouth used to open into the original high school's library. Somewhere under it, actually. It was somewhere pretty far underground. The library just happened to be on the surface. E

2004-05-30 17:36:16+00:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (Reginald Bautista <rbautista@kc.rr.com>)


Sometimes it's hard to keep straight who wrote what... Someone wrote: > >The Hellmouth used to open into the original high school's library. Someone else wrote: > Somewhere under it, actually. It was somewhere pretty far underground. The > library just happened to be on the surface. In the episode "The Zeppo," isn't it implied that the bomb that Xander manages to keep from exploding is below the library? And yet somehow the tentacled demon-thing still manages to emerge directly into the library. I think the point at which something emerges from the hellmouth, whether directly into the library without going through the intervening basement, or through a seal, or whereever, is based on what they need for the plot to work. This wouldn't be the first show to leave something like this ambiguous, and to give answers that seem mutually contradictory. Maybe Whedon has an answer for why it seems inconsistant and just never had a good place to drop that answer into an episode. Maybe he *did* put it in an episode and it had to be cut for time. Or maybe his answer is just "it's the Hellmouth, it's mystical and it's not always going to work the same way every time." No matter which is the answer, unfortunately no work of drama or literature is perfect, and as imperfections go, this one is easy to dismiss (if you choose to call it an imperfection). It really doesn't hurt the storyline. Most people aren't nit-picky enough to care, and of those that are, it doesn't much diminish their enjoyment of the show. And as far as what some people think are imperfections, really, there is no accounting for taste. Some people think "The Body" is one of the best episodes ever. Some people think "The Body" sucked. Different people react differently. I recently read a review online of the first season in which the reviewer said that "Teacher's Pet" was one of the strongest episodes of the season. Personally, I think that "Teacher's Pet" is the worst episode of the series ever (although "I Robot, You Jane" is a close second). So does "The Body" contain imperfections? Does "Teacher's Pet?" Or is it just a matter of taste? Reggie

2004-05-30 18:53:07+00:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com>)


"Reginald Bautista" <rbautista@kc.rr.com> wrote in message news:kYouc.66883$oQ6.3298@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com... > > And as far as what some people think are imperfections, really, there is no > accounting for taste. Some people think "The Body" is one of the best > episodes ever. Some people think "The Body" sucked. Different people react > differently. I recently read a review online of the first season in which > the reviewer said that "Teacher's Pet" was one of the strongest episodes of > the season. Personally, I think that "Teacher's Pet" is the worst episode > of the series ever (although "I Robot, You Jane" is a close second). So > does "The Body" contain imperfections? Does "Teacher's Pet?" Or is it just > a matter of taste? Both. As you mentioned earlier, there is no work of fiction that doesn't have its share of imperfections - nothing is perfect. Whether or not those imperfections are important enough to ruin the work or are of no importance at all is simply a matter of taste (as evidenced by the number of readers who seem to think that those so-called "adult westerns" are the greatest thing ever, despite them being churned out by a stable full of hacks who make the pulp writers of the 30s look like Shakespeare.) -- Rowan Hawthorn "I love mankind, it's people I can't stand." - Linus Van Pelt

2004-05-30 22:37:49+00:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (Growltiger <growltiger@never.invalid>)


Previously in alt.tv.angel, "Reginald Bautista" <rbautista@kc.rr.com> wrote: [deletion] >And as far as what some people think are imperfections, really, there is no >accounting for taste. Some people think "The Body" is one of the best >episodes ever. Some people think "The Body" sucked. Different people react >differently. I recently read a review online of the first season in which >the reviewer said that "Teacher's Pet" was one of the strongest episodes of >the season. Personally, I think that "Teacher's Pet" is the worst episode >of the series ever (although "I Robot, You Jane" is a close second). So >does "The Body" contain imperfections? Does "Teacher's Pet?" Or is it just >a matter of taste? > >Reggie > Whatever imperfections "The Body" may have, its visceral emotional power overcome them. And that may be due to the fact that I could relate to the character's circumstances. And although my first thoughts of "I Robot, You Jane" were that it was the flotsam and jetsam of a freshman series, on reviewing it I found that its ending clearly defined the direction that the characters would have to accept regarding love and relationships. (They were all doomed.) --- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2004-05-30 23:16:44+00:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (unboundi@aol.com)


>From: "Reginald Bautista" rbautista@kc.rr.com > >And as far as what some people think are imperfections, really, there is no >accounting for taste. Some people think "The Body" is one of the best >episodes ever. Some people think "The Body" sucked. Different people react >differently. I recently read a review online of the first season in which >the reviewer said that "Teacher's Pet" was one of the strongest episodes of >the season. Personally, I think that "Teacher's Pet" is the worst episode >of the series ever (although "I Robot, You Jane" is a close second). > > > Even worse than the pathetic Dracula episode? That's the "Buffy" lowpoint as far as I'm concerned. Unbound I Check out my book about The X-Files at http://www.trafford.com/robots/02-0625.html

2004-05-31 00:10:38+00:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


st wrote: > > On 29 May 2004 07:08:13 GMT, ebailey140@aol.com (EBailey140) wrote: > > >>means... > >>From: doomarchvile@cs.comnojunk (Willows Stalker) > >>Date: 5/28/2004 10:00 PM Central Standard Time > >>Message-id: <20040528230013.17756.00000307@mb-m03.news.cs.com> > >> > >> > >>>I may point out that Buffy a) had a rocket launcher in the basement which > >>>she was glad to take out for a comedic moment > >> > >>Did she have any rockets? The launcher isn't very effective without 'em. > > > >She must have, since she was intending to use it. > > Sounds like a leap in logic. Buffy was shown how to fire it. We don't > know she was shown how to reload it, or that it needed reloading. Not > being an expert she might have assumed it was a six shooter. :) The weapon was disposable: shoot once and throw it away. -- David Brewer "The mentally disturbed do not employ the Theory of Scientific Parsimony: the most simple theory to explain a given set of facts." - P.K.Dick (from VALIS)

2004-06-01 04:10:25+00:00 - Re: Ambiguous ending means... - (James Craine <JamesCraine@Hotmail.com>)


himiko wrote: > Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:<a-BB860A.02075323052004@corp.supernews.com>... > > >>>What about the massacre in the Initiative when all those demons escaped >>>from their cages? They had no time routing trained military guys. >> >>That was because the Initiative was trying to use the demons instead of >>simply killing them, which they were very good at. The Initiative >>storyline did more damage to the Buffy mythos than anything else because >>it proved just how archaic and inefficient Buffy was. > > > Huh? Riley, one the Initiative's best operatives, was positively > wowwed by Buffy's body/dust count. One of the main points about the > Initiative was that it showed why you don't fight demons that way. > Because it doesn't work. It corrupts almost immediately and winds up > gathering together and strengthening the enemy. (Do I see a parallel > to our current situation in Iraq? Yes I do.) > > The kinds of battles fought in the Buffyverse are not the kind of > battles you can win with military force or even with weapons. They > are battles where trust, kindness, love, and commitment are the real > high tech. Only when those are in place do the weapons do any good at > all; they're back-up at best. > > And this isn't pure fantasy or some pie-in-the-sky, wishy-washy, > feel-good crap; it's a serious statement on how the world works. You > may not agree with it or like it, but it's been ME's message and > mythos for 8 years. > > himiko The French tried that too. Stopping machine guns and, tanks with "Ela'n" and "Esprit de Corps". It didn't work too well. They were over-run in weeks. Twice.