FLM films - My Webpage

2003-11-12 23:14:05-06:00 - And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Zombie Elvis <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net>)


Spoilers It's been a while since I've done a proper review of an Angel episode. I figure the least I could do was post some thoughts. I think we just met the guy who was selling Wesley his gadgets last year. As disgusted as she is about it, Fred is right -- there's just something about a little girl with a big gun. It was good to see Wesley bust out and go all John Woo on the bad guys. But get with the times Wes, it's now considered poor manners not to share your guns with your lady. Did the cyborg ninjas remind anybody else about last week's mention of El Diablo Robotico? And they don't show up until after Number 5 dies. Coincidence? Is that a story arc I see developing? We have the Connor mind wipe mentioned again this week and the cyberninjas (or their bosses) look to be players later on. Let's see they do and don't remember: Definitely Forgotten: Connor Maybe Forgotten: Cordy going evil, Cordy's pregnancy Definitely Remembered: Cordy's coma, Lilah's death, Angelus, Jasmine Probably Remembered: The Beast Spike was hilarious at times but sometimes that humor was forced. Angel was consistently funny in a more subtle manner. It must be very comforting for Wesley to know that if he ever kills one of his parents for real that he has so many people that he can go to and talk about it. It looks like Wesley has lost Fred -- again. -- "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/

2003-11-13 00:20:50-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


"DarynJones" <d@jones.com> wrote in news:pPEsb.33807$xI2.691170 @news20.bellglobal.com: > > "Zombie Elvis" <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote > in message news:ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com... >> >> Spoilers >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Definitely Remembered: Cordy's coma, Lilah's death, Angelus, Jasmine >> > > Sorry, when was it referenced that someone other than Angel (and Eve) > remembers bringing Angelus back last season? Wes remembers cutting Lilah's head off. Which he only did because he thought Angelus had bitten/sired her. -- Lord Usher "I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."

2003-11-13 00:40:48-05:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (DarynJones <d@jones.com>)


"Zombie Elvis" <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com... > > Spoilers > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been a while since I've done a proper review of an Angel episode. > I figure the least I could do was post some thoughts. > > > I think we just met the guy who was selling Wesley his gadgets last > year. > > As disgusted as she is about it, Fred is right -- there's just > something about a little girl with a big gun. > > It was good to see Wesley bust out and go all John Woo on the bad > guys. But get with the times Wes, it's now considered poor manners not > to share your guns with your lady. > > Did the cyborg ninjas remind anybody else about last week's mention of > El Diablo Robotico? And they don't show up until after Number 5 dies. > Coincidence? > > Is that a story arc I see developing? We have the Connor mind wipe > mentioned again this week and the cyberninjas (or their bosses) look > to be players later on. Let's see they do and don't remember: > > Definitely Forgotten: Connor > > Maybe Forgotten: Cordy going evil, Cordy's pregnancy > > Definitely Remembered: Cordy's coma, Lilah's death, Angelus, Jasmine > Sorry, when was it referenced that someone other than Angel (and Eve) remembers bringing Angelus back last season?

2003-11-13 01:20:27-05:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org>)


In article <ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com>, Zombie Elvis <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote: > I think we just met the guy who was selling Wesley his gadgets last > year. The guy did say as much, yes: "You do this after I sold you those folding blades last year?" or somesuch. ----j7y -- ************************************************************************** jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913 "There is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There >>> j7y@liws.org <<< is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There is no invert liws to reply via email spoon." "SPOON!" -- The Tick vs. Neo

2003-11-13 01:22:47-05:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com>, Zombie Elvis <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote: > Spoilers > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been a while since I've done a proper review of an Angel episode. > I figure the least I could do was post some thoughts. > > > I think we just met the guy who was selling Wesley his gadgets last > year. > > As disgusted as she is about it, Fred is right -- there's just > something about a little girl with a big gun. > > It was good to see Wesley bust out and go all John Woo on the bad > guys. But get with the times Wes, it's now considered poor manners not > to share your guns with your lady. > > Did the cyborg ninjas remind anybody else about last week's mention of > El Diablo Robotico? And they don't show up until after Number 5 dies. > Coincidence? > > Is that a story arc I see developing? We have the Connor mind wipe > mentioned again this week and the cyberninjas (or their bosses) look > to be players later on. Let's see they do and don't remember: > > Definitely Forgotten: Connor > > Maybe Forgotten: Cordy going evil, Cordy's pregnancy > > It looks like Wesley has lost Fred -- again. I think everybody still remembers Cordy going evil and giving birth to Jasmine but not who the father was. Heck, they probably just chalk it up to immaculate conception. And I don't know about Wes lossing Fred. The fact that Wes was willing to sacrifice his father for her seemed to touch her more than disgust her. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snuggles, not Shuggie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-11-13 02:33:41-05:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (DarynJones <d@jones.com>)


"Lord Usher" <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns94322C7D43AAhouseofusher@216.40.28.74... > "DarynJones" <d@jones.com> wrote in news:pPEsb.33807$xI2.691170 > @news20.bellglobal.com: > > > > > "Zombie Elvis" <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote > > in message news:ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com... > >> > >> Spoilers > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Definitely Remembered: Cordy's coma, Lilah's death, Angelus, Jasmine > >> > > > > Sorry, when was it referenced that someone other than Angel (and Eve) > > remembers bringing Angelus back last season? > > Wes remembers cutting Lilah's head off. Which he only did because he > thought Angelus had bitten/sired her. > Hmmm well that's open to debate. We really don't know what's going on with this mind wipe. Yes one could say that since he remembers cutting her head off he must remember why he originally did so. But then you could also say that yes he does remember cutting her head off, but for other reasons.

2003-11-13 02:54:20-05:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <itGsb.36642$xI2.705974@news20.bellglobal.com>, "DarynJones" <d@jones.com> wrote: > "Lord Usher" <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns94322C7D43AAhouseofusher@216.40.28.74... > > "DarynJones" <d@jones.com> wrote in news:pPEsb.33807$xI2.691170 > > @news20.bellglobal.com: > > > > > > > > "Zombie Elvis" <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote > > > in message news:ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com... > > >> > > >> Spoilers > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Definitely Remembered: Cordy's coma, Lilah's death, Angelus, Jasmine > > >> > > > > > > Sorry, when was it referenced that someone other than Angel (and Eve) > > > remembers bringing Angelus back last season? > > > > Wes remembers cutting Lilah's head off. Which he only did because he > > thought Angelus had bitten/sired her. > > > > Hmmm well that's open to debate. We really don't know what's going on with > this mind wipe. Yes one could say that since he remembers cutting her head > off he must remember why he originally did so. But then you could also say > that yes he does remember cutting her head off, but for other reasons. Actually all we know is that his last relationship ended with Wesley chopping her up into little bits. Since Wesley only chopped Lilah's head off (just two big bits) maybe he's remembering some other relationship. :) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-11-13 05:13:28-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (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: Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net> wrote in <postmaster-6FBA62.01224713112003@corp.supernews.com>: > In article <ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com>, > Zombie Elvis <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > Spoilers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It looks like Wesley has lost Fred -- again. > > And I don't know about Wes lossing Fred. The fact that Wes was willing > to sacrifice his father for her seemed to touch her more than disgust > her. That may be true but the implication is that her relationship with Knox is beginning to develop and it looked to me like Wesley was quietly accepting of it in this episode. On the bright side, the odds are very high that Knox will either be revealed as evil or kill or both before we're through, so Wesley might get a third chance at blowing it with Fred. -- "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/

2003-11-13 05:16:54-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (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: Zombie Elvis <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote in <ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com>: > > Spoilers > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been a while since I've done a proper review of an Angel episode. > I figure the least I could do was post some thoughts. > Replying to my own post. I noticed that Eve was still, as far as we can tell, trapped in the elevator at the end of the episode (or at least until all the commotion with the cyber ninjas died down). So I got this image of an empty Wolfram & Hart building where Eve's voice could just barely be heard coming from the elevator saying, "will somebody please let me out of here." -- "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/

2003-11-13 05:26:20+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Rowan Hawthorn <nobody@nowhere.com>)


"Zombie Elvis" <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com... > > Spoilers > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been a while since I've done a proper review of an Angel episode. > I figure the least I could do was post some thoughts. > > > I think we just met the guy who was selling Wesley his gadgets last > year. > > As disgusted as she is about it, Fred is right -- there's just > something about a little girl with a big gun. > > It was good to see Wesley bust out and go all John Woo on the bad > guys. I thought it was more like Antonio Band-aid, or whatever his name is. Especially loved that crossed-arms stance - with the left-hand pistol held where the red-hot ejecting shell would pop him right between the eyes if he had to fire it. -- Rowan Hawthorn

2003-11-13 05:49:16+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (blanche@atlas.csd.net)


> It was good to see Wesley bust out and go all John Woo on the bad > guys. Definitely John Woo. Guaranteed sequence in every episode & version of "Once a Thief"..

2003-11-13 07:15:34-08:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (stonewar@alltel.net)


Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<postmaster-6FBA62.01224713112003@corp.supernews.com>... > In article <ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com>, > Zombie Elvis <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > Spoilers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been a while since I've done a proper review of an Angel episode. > > I figure the least I could do was post some thoughts. > > > > > > I think we just met the guy who was selling Wesley his gadgets last > > year. > > > > As disgusted as she is about it, Fred is right -- there's just > > something about a little girl with a big gun. > > > > It was good to see Wesley bust out and go all John Woo on the bad > > guys. But get with the times Wes, it's now considered poor manners not > > to share your guns with your lady. > > > > Did the cyborg ninjas remind anybody else about last week's mention of > > El Diablo Robotico? And they don't show up until after Number 5 dies. > > Coincidence? > > > > Is that a story arc I see developing? We have the Connor mind wipe > > mentioned again this week and the cyberninjas (or their bosses) look > > to be players later on. Let's see they do and don't remember: > > > > Definitely Forgotten: Connor > > > > Maybe Forgotten: Cordy going evil, Cordy's pregnancy > > > > It looks like Wesley has lost Fred -- again. > > I think everybody still remembers Cordy going evil and giving birth to > Jasmine but not who the father was. Heck, they probably just chalk it up > to immaculate conception. > > And I don't know about Wes lossing Fred. The fact that Wes was willing > to sacrifice his father for her seemed to touch her more than disgust > her. I think the difference here Gunn and Wesley's situations would be remorse. Wesley puked and was beating himself up over killing his supposed father, while Gunn never apologised for his actions and didn't seem to regret the murder he committed in her name (plus I bet she was a little pissed at him stealing her thunder).

2003-11-13 07:51:14-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net>)


"Harold Groot" <quester@infionline.net> wrote in message news:3fb384f6.33383531@news.west.earthlink.net... > On 13 Nov 2003 00:20:50 -0600, Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > >"DarynJones" <d@jones.com> wrote in news:pPEsb.33807$xI2.691170 > >@news20.bellglobal.com: > > > >> > >> "Zombie Elvis" <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote > >> in message news:ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com... > >>> > >>> Spoilers > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Definitely Remembered: Cordy's coma, Lilah's death, Angelus, Jasmine > >>> > >> > >> Sorry, when was it referenced that someone other than Angel (and Eve) > >> remembers bringing Angelus back last season? > > > >Wes remembers cutting Lilah's head off. Which he only did because he > >thought Angelus had bitten/sired her. > > We know he remembers cutting up the last girl he was with. We don't > know if he remembers Lilah or has some false memory in her place. As > you mention, the decapitation took place because of a fear that > Angelus had sired her - but that is NOT what Wesley says. He says the > cutting up took place because of the involvement of a higher power. > So we know that what he remembers is not exactly the same as what we > know to have happened (unless you believe that Wesley thinks of > Angel/Angelus as a higher power). Cor-Jasmine might qualify as a higher power. which.. oh my is exactly what happened in the show. > The question is, how BIG was the change? They are being very cautious > about not giving names, they don't want us to know at this point. At > this point, as far as I'm concerned the Definitely Remembered section > only contains Cordy's coma, and we have no idea if the REASON they > remember for the coma has anything to do with the Jasmine story. > > Been saying since before season started, minimalist mind wipe till we are shown other gaps.... conner story changed.... possibly different name and herritage. But until developed further easier to assume all happened in thier memories similar to what was shown.

2003-11-13 08:15:12-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


quester@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote in news:3fb384f6.33383531 @news.west.earthlink.net: >>Wes remembers cutting Lilah's head off. Which he only did because he >>thought Angelus had bitten/sired her. > > We know he remembers cutting up the last girl he was with. We don't > know if he remembers Lilah or has some false memory in her place. As > you mention, the decapitation took place because of a fear that > Angelus had sired her - but that is NOT what Wesley says. He says the > cutting up took place because of the involvement of a higher power. Yeah, which is exactly what happened for real, too. Jasmine-in-Cordy stabbed Lilah in the neck, making them think Angelus had done it, so Wesley had to cut her head off. I suppose you could argue that maybe Wesley is referring to some other event or some other girlfriend that he now remembers, which happen to conform exactly to what happened between him and Lilah, but that doesn't exactly get past Occam's Razor. His memories match the actual event, so the simplest assumption is that he still remembers it. -- Lord Usher "I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."

2003-11-13 08:37:34-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net>)


"Lord Usher" <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns943253913AE67houseofusher@216.40.28.71... > quester@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote in news:3fb384f6.33383531 > @news.west.earthlink.net: > > >>Wes remembers cutting Lilah's head off. Which he only did because he > >>thought Angelus had bitten/sired her. > > > > We know he remembers cutting up the last girl he was with. We don't > > know if he remembers Lilah or has some false memory in her place. As > > you mention, the decapitation took place because of a fear that > > Angelus had sired her - but that is NOT what Wesley says. He says the > > cutting up took place because of the involvement of a higher power. > > Yeah, which is exactly what happened for real, too. Jasmine-in-Cordy > stabbed Lilah in the neck, making them think Angelus had done it, so Wesley > had to cut her head off. > > I suppose you could argue that maybe Wesley is referring to some other > event or some other girlfriend that he now remembers, which happen to > conform exactly to what happened between him and Lilah, but that doesn't > exactly get past Occam's Razor. His memories match the actual event, so the > simplest assumption is that he still remembers it. > Some people just aren't happy unless they needlessly complicate things. Nice to meet another adherent to Occam's Razor. John

2003-11-13 09:48:02-08:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


Zombie Elvis wrote: >>And I don't know about Wes lossing Fred. The fact that Wes was willing >>to sacrifice his father for her seemed to touch her more than disgust >>her. > > > That may be true but the implication is that her relationship with > Knox is beginning to develop and it looked to me like Wesley was > quietly accepting of it in this episode. On the bright side, the odds > are very high that Knox will either be revealed as evil or kill or > both before we're through, so Wesley might get a third chance at > blowing it with Fred. Doing this may have been the final nail in the coffin of Wesley's hopes for winning Fred. The last man to kill another human being on Fred's behalf was Gunn, when he killed her prof and threw him into the dimensional portal. And that act drove a wedge between them. I suspect Fred is more than a little horrified that Wesley _could_ kill his father, however troubled their relationship might have been, and even in defense of Fred's life. Fred may _be_ ruthless (and I liked it that she intended to exile the prof to Pylea for revenge), but my impression is that she doesn't like ruthlessness in her boyfriends.

2003-11-13 10:12:28-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in news:20031113095446.25899.00000115@mb-m05.aol.com: > Zombie Elvis DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net wrote: > >>Spoilers >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Maybe Forgotten: Cordy going evil, Cordy's pregnancy > > > Nitpick on your critique of the mindwipe. > > Cordy never went evil. Cordy was never down here last season. Er... You're not usually one for fanwanks, Stephen, so I gotta ask -- did you miss the part where it was clearly established that Cordy *was* "down here" last season, in body if not in spirit? That was the *whole point* of Jasmine assuming her into the heavens -- so she could hitch a ride back down when Cordy returned. (It was also established that Cordy was really Cordy up till the end of "Spin the Bottle," because that's when Our Heroes' spell woke Jasmine up.) -- Lord Usher "I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."

2003-11-13 11:10:52-08:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


Darwin Fish wrote: > In article <vr7gujnf3bd12f@corp.supernews.com>, >>Doing this may have been the final nail in the coffin of Wesley's hopes >>for winning Fred. The last man to kill another human being on Fred's >>behalf was Gunn, when he killed her prof and threw him into the >>dimensional portal. And that act drove a wedge between them. > > > World of difference... Gunn murdered Fred's professor, Wesley used > deadly force to save Fred's life. They both killed another human being very deliberately (Wesley's final shot into the prone and presumably no longer threatening daddybot was quite plain). > Wes acted in self-defence while Gunn's > actions were premeditated.... No, Wes didn't act in self-defense. He was prepared to let his father shoot him, holding the plot device over the side of the building so that it would drop and be destroyed if daddybot shot him. It was the threat to Fred that prompted him to shoot his 'father'. > he could have tried to reason with Fred > and convince her that the professor's life had value, he could have used > force to stop her but he didn't. Gunn took the easy route while Wes made > the hard choice... And neither of them hesitated to kill someone in order to "protect" Fred (you may remember how outraged Fred was earlier in the episode at the thought that Wesley felt that he _needed_ to protect her). Fred survived five years alone in Pylea. She's survived numerous battles with Angel & Company since. Yeah, she's been hurt--nearly killed, even--but so has everyone else. Fred _wanted_ revenge on the professor. Fred may well have believed she could have defended herself from Roger, or escaped his threat on her own. She may have been correct, too. But in both cases, the man who loves her didn't let her act--he took action himself, pre-empting her, "protecting" her. I don't believe there's nearly as much difference--especially in Fred's eyes--as you'd like think.

2003-11-13 12:37:37+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Ken from Chicago <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Zombie Elvis" <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com... > > Spoilers > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been a while since I've done a proper review of an Angel episode. > I figure the least I could do was post some thoughts. > > > I think we just met the guy who was selling Wesley his gadgets last > year. > > As disgusted as she is about it, Fred is right -- there's just > something about a little girl with a big gun. WIC are way hot. > It was good to see Wesley bust out and go all John Woo on the bad > guys. But get with the times Wes, it's now considered poor manners not > to share your guns with your lady. Hey, it's the bleeding 21st century, she should be packing her own heat (no pun intended). > Did the cyborg ninjas remind anybody else about last week's mention of > El Diablo Robotico? And they don't show up until after Number 5 dies. > Coincidence? No, silly. These are HUMAN/robot hybrids. They were talking about DEVIL/robot hybrds. Totally diff. > Is that a story arc I see developing? We have the Connor mind wipe > mentioned again this week and the cyberninjas (or their bosses) look > to be players later on. Let's see they do and don't remember: > > Definitely Forgotten: Connor > > Maybe Forgotten: Cordy going evil, Cordy's pregnancy > > Definitely Remembered: Cordy's coma, Lilah's death, Angelus, Jasmine > > Probably Remembered: The Beast > > Spike was hilarious at times but sometimes that humor was forced. > Angel was consistently funny in a more subtle manner. One thing sadder than tears of clown is when good character forced to be too clownish (BUFFY's 'Xander' and 'Anya' and ALIAS' "Marshall", I'm looking at you). > It must be very comforting for Wesley to know that if he ever kills > one of his parents for real that he has so many people that he can go > to and talk about it. You do NOT want to hear Harmony's tale. > It looks like Wesley has lost Fred -- again. KNOOOOOOOOX! Sheesh was that lame. In a big ole deep heart to heart chat, Fred up and leaves? She couldn't say "No, me and Wes need to finish something" or at least "No, I've got a car."? > -- > "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/ -- Ken from Chicago P.S. WIC = Women In Charge = waaaaay hot.

2003-11-13 12:39:13-05:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


Stonewar wrote: > Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:<postmaster-6FBA62.01224713112003@corp.supernews.com>... > > In article <ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com>, > > Zombie Elvis <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> > > wrote: > > > > > Spoilers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been a while since I've done a proper review of an Angel > > > episode. I figure the least I could do was post some thoughts. > > > > > > > > > I think we just met the guy who was selling Wesley his gadgets > > > last year. > > > > > > As disgusted as she is about it, Fred is right -- there's just > > > something about a little girl with a big gun. > > > > > > It was good to see Wesley bust out and go all John Woo on the bad > > > guys. But get with the times Wes, it's now considered poor > > > manners not to share your guns with your lady. > > > > > > Did the cyborg ninjas remind anybody else about last week's > > > mention of El Diablo Robotico? And they don't show up until after > > > Number 5 dies. Coincidence? > > > > > > Is that a story arc I see developing? We have the Connor mind wipe > > > mentioned again this week and the cyberninjas (or their bosses) > > > look to be players later on. Let's see they do and don't remember: > > > > > > Definitely Forgotten: Connor > > > > > > Maybe Forgotten: Cordy going evil, Cordy's pregnancy > > > > > > It looks like Wesley has lost Fred -- again. > > > > I think everybody still remembers Cordy going evil and giving birth > > to Jasmine but not who the father was. Heck, they probably just > > chalk it up to immaculate conception. > > > > And I don't know about Wes lossing Fred. The fact that Wes was > > willing to sacrifice his father for her seemed to touch her more > > than disgust her. > > I think the difference here Gunn and Wesley's situations would be > remorse. Wesley puked and was beating himself up over killing his > supposed father, while Gunn never apologised for his actions and > didn't seem to regret the murder he committed in her name (plus I bet > she was a little pissed at him stealing her thunder). I never got the impression that she was upset he murdered someone, that would be fairly silly, considering she was planning on murdering that exact person. She was upset because Gunn 'protected' her. The exact same reason, BTW, she got upset in this episode, with first Wesley running off with two guns, and then with Wesley saying that he should have protected her. Sometimes everyone, even the viewing audience, forgets that while she seems like a kooky little girl, she did spend five years as an escaped slave. She's probably cold-blooded (aka, not in the heat of battle) killed more 'people' (okay, demons, but whatever) than Wesley *and* Gunn put together, simply to keep them from finding her. Fred's the kind of person where if you threaten her, you'll wake up dead one day. -- Remove the hostname part directly after the @ to respond.

2003-11-13 12:58:35-05:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <vr7gujnf3bd12f@corp.supernews.com>, Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > Zombie Elvis wrote: > > >>And I don't know about Wes lossing Fred. The fact that Wes was willing > >>to sacrifice his father for her seemed to touch her more than disgust > >>her. > > > > > > That may be true but the implication is that her relationship with > > Knox is beginning to develop and it looked to me like Wesley was > > quietly accepting of it in this episode. On the bright side, the odds > > are very high that Knox will either be revealed as evil or kill or > > both before we're through, so Wesley might get a third chance at > > blowing it with Fred. > > Doing this may have been the final nail in the coffin of Wesley's hopes > for winning Fred. The last man to kill another human being on Fred's > behalf was Gunn, when he killed her prof and threw him into the > dimensional portal. And that act drove a wedge between them. World of difference... Gunn murdered Fred's professor, Wesley used deadly force to save Fred's life. Wes acted in self-defence while Gunn's actions were premeditated.... he could have tried to reason with Fred and convince her that the professor's life had value, he could have used force to stop her but he didn't. Gunn took the easy route while Wes made the hard choice... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-11-13 13:35:28+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (quester@infionline.net)


On 13 Nov 2003 00:20:50 -0600, Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote: >"DarynJones" <d@jones.com> wrote in news:pPEsb.33807$xI2.691170 >@news20.bellglobal.com: > >> >> "Zombie Elvis" <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote >> in message news:ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com... >>> >>> Spoilers >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Definitely Remembered: Cordy's coma, Lilah's death, Angelus, Jasmine >>> >> >> Sorry, when was it referenced that someone other than Angel (and Eve) >> remembers bringing Angelus back last season? > >Wes remembers cutting Lilah's head off. Which he only did because he >thought Angelus had bitten/sired her. We know he remembers cutting up the last girl he was with. We don't know if he remembers Lilah or has some false memory in her place. As you mention, the decapitation took place because of a fear that Angelus had sired her - but that is NOT what Wesley says. He says the cutting up took place because of the involvement of a higher power. So we know that what he remembers is not exactly the same as what we know to have happened (unless you believe that Wesley thinks of Angel/Angelus as a higher power). The question is, how BIG was the change? They are being very cautious about not giving names, they don't want us to know at this point. At this point, as far as I'm concerned the Definitely Remembered section only contains Cordy's coma, and we have no idea if the REASON they remember for the coma has anything to do with the Jasmine story.

2003-11-13 14:35:09-05:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <vr7lpte13qdaba@corp.supernews.com>, Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > Darwin Fish wrote: > > In article <vr7gujnf3bd12f@corp.supernews.com>, > > >>Doing this may have been the final nail in the coffin of Wesley's hopes > >>for winning Fred. The last man to kill another human being on Fred's > >>behalf was Gunn, when he killed her prof and threw him into the > >>dimensional portal. And that act drove a wedge between them. > > > > > > World of difference... Gunn murdered Fred's professor, Wesley used > > deadly force to save Fred's life. > > They both killed another human being very deliberately (Wesley's final > shot into the prone and presumably no longer threatening daddybot was > quite plain). > > > Wes acted in self-defence while Gunn's > > actions were premeditated.... > > No, Wes didn't act in self-defense. He was prepared to let his father > shoot him, holding the plot device over the side of the building so that > it would drop and be destroyed if daddybot shot him. It was the threat > to Fred that prompted him to shoot his 'father'. Killing to save the life of another is considered self-defense or in some countries, like the US I think, justifiable homicide. > > > he could have tried to reason with Fred > > and convince her that the professor's life had value, he could have used > > force to stop her but he didn't. Gunn took the easy route while Wes made > > the hard choice... > > And neither of them hesitated to kill someone in order to "protect" Fred > (you may remember how outraged Fred was earlier in the episode at the > thought that Wesley felt that he _needed_ to protect her). Fred > survived five years alone in Pylea. She's survived numerous battles > with Angel & Company since. Yeah, she's been hurt--nearly killed, > even--but so has everyone else. Fred wasn't in danger from the professor, it was quite the other way around. What was Gunn protecting Fred from? He wasn't trying to protect Fred but instead his image of Fred... that's more likely what pissed the girl off. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snuggles, not Shuggie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-11-13 14:54:46+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


Zombie Elvis DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net wrote: >Spoilers > > > > > > > > > > > >Maybe Forgotten: Cordy going evil, Cordy's pregnancy Nitpick on your critique of the mindwipe. Cordy never went evil. Cordy was never down here last season. Well, unless the ME boys want to botch her arc once again. Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-11-13 15:34:14+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Pyxi <drusilla@ameritech.net.nospam>)


Okay, delurking here for a moment... That would actually be cool! If only Angel remembered Cordy going evil, imagine the reaction from the gang when she woke up and Angel automatically thought she was evil and everyone else was just happy. Screwing with the mindwipe, or what? It would be awesome if they used the Cordy arc (I am hoping she comes back for more than one ep, obviously) to deal with the mindwipe. -- Zen Hugs, Pyxi ***** "I laugh in the face of danger... then I hide until it goes away." --Xander Harris "SWeick" <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote in message news:20031113095446.25899.00000115@mb-m05.aol.com... > Zombie Elvis DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net wrote: > > >Spoilers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Maybe Forgotten: Cordy going evil, Cordy's pregnancy > > > Nitpick on your critique of the mindwipe. > > Cordy never went evil. Cordy was never down here last season. > > Well, unless the ME boys want to botch her arc once again. > > > > Stephen Weick > > > > > > > > > > (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-11-13 15:39:50-05:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (DarynJones <d@jones.com>)


"Lord Usher" <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns943253913AE67houseofusher@216.40.28.71... > quester@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote in news:3fb384f6.33383531 > @news.west.earthlink.net: > > >>Wes remembers cutting Lilah's head off. Which he only did because he > >>thought Angelus had bitten/sired her. > > > > We know he remembers cutting up the last girl he was with. We don't > > know if he remembers Lilah or has some false memory in her place. As > > you mention, the decapitation took place because of a fear that > > Angelus had sired her - but that is NOT what Wesley says. He says the > > cutting up took place because of the involvement of a higher power. > > Yeah, which is exactly what happened for real, too. Jasmine-in-Cordy > stabbed Lilah in the neck, making them think Angelus had done it, so Wesley > had to cut her head off. > > I suppose you could argue that maybe Wesley is referring to some other > event or some other girlfriend that he now remembers, which happen to > conform exactly to what happened between him and Lilah, but that doesn't > exactly get past Occam's Razor. His memories match the actual event, so the > simplest assumption is that he still remembers it. > But he only chopped Lilahs head off. He told his father that he chopped his last girlfriend into pieces. Doesn't really conform exactly to what happened between him and Lilah.

2003-11-13 16:32:06-08:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Alicat <isalicat@ev1.net>)


On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:39:50 -0500, "DarynJones" <d@jones.com> wrote: > >"Lord Usher" <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:Xns943253913AE67houseofusher@216.40.28.71... >> quester@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote in news:3fb384f6.33383531 >> @news.west.earthlink.net: >> >> >>Wes remembers cutting Lilah's head off. Which he only did because he >> >>thought Angelus had bitten/sired her. >> > >> > We know he remembers cutting up the last girl he was with. We don't >> > know if he remembers Lilah or has some false memory in her place. As >> > you mention, the decapitation took place because of a fear that >> > Angelus had sired her - but that is NOT what Wesley says. He says the >> > cutting up took place because of the involvement of a higher power. >> >> Yeah, which is exactly what happened for real, too. Jasmine-in-Cordy >> stabbed Lilah in the neck, making them think Angelus had done it, so >Wesley >> had to cut her head off. >> >> I suppose you could argue that maybe Wesley is referring to some other >> event or some other girlfriend that he now remembers, which happen to >> conform exactly to what happened between him and Lilah, but that doesn't >> exactly get past Occam's Razor. His memories match the actual event, so >the >> simplest assumption is that he still remembers it. >> > >But he only chopped Lilahs head off. He told his father that he chopped his >last girlfriend into pieces. Doesn't really conform exactly to what >happened between him and Lilah. > > Maybe *thats* what happened to Justine (isn't that her name? The girl Wes was keeping in the closet?).... adios, alicat >

2003-11-13 17:07:03-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net>)


Gun twarted the nefarious plot of Fred to take revenge on the professor. Wes twarted the nefarious plot of Cuber-Roger to use fred as a hostage. Big difference in Freds eyes. Also Roger was a Robot so fred doesn't have the guilt of being party to a murder on her.

2003-11-13 17:10:06-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net>)


"DarynJones" <d@jones.com> wrote in message news:a_Rsb.42447$xI2.814253@news20.bellglobal.com... > > "Lord Usher" <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns943253913AE67houseofusher@216.40.28.71... > > quester@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote in news:3fb384f6.33383531 > > @news.west.earthlink.net: > > > > >>Wes remembers cutting Lilah's head off. Which he only did because he > > >>thought Angelus had bitten/sired her. > > > > > > We know he remembers cutting up the last girl he was with. We don't > > > know if he remembers Lilah or has some false memory in her place. As > > > you mention, the decapitation took place because of a fear that > > > Angelus had sired her - but that is NOT what Wesley says. He says the > > > cutting up took place because of the involvement of a higher power. > > > > Yeah, which is exactly what happened for real, too. Jasmine-in-Cordy > > stabbed Lilah in the neck, making them think Angelus had done it, so > Wesley > > had to cut her head off. > > > > I suppose you could argue that maybe Wesley is referring to some other > > event or some other girlfriend that he now remembers, which happen to > > conform exactly to what happened between him and Lilah, but that doesn't > > exactly get past Occam's Razor. His memories match the actual event, so > the > > simplest assumption is that he still remembers it. > > > > But he only chopped Lilahs head off. He told his father that he chopped his > last girlfriend into pieces. Doesn't really conform exactly to what > happened between him and Lilah. > I'd have to rewatch for exact wording... 2 Pieces = Pieces and definately a moment of personal horror. Even if he said little pieces, little is a relative term and allowable (they are smaller than they should be... i.e. one piece unchopped). Now if he'd said Dozens of little pieces I'd want to know why.

2003-11-13 19:51:10+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


Lord Usher lord_usher@hotmail.com wrote: >sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in >news:20031113095446.25899.00000115@mb-m05.aol.com: > >> Zombie Elvis DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net wrote: >> >>>Spoilers >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Maybe Forgotten: Cordy going evil, Cordy's pregnancy >> >> >> Nitpick on your critique of the mindwipe. >> >> Cordy never went evil. Cordy was never down here last season. > >Er... You're not usually one for fanwanks, Stephen, Fanwanking is needed when the so called professional writers are so incompetent in the execution of an arc that they cause the unemployment of *two* actors by their talents. > so I gotta ask -- >did you miss the part where it was clearly established that Cordy *was* >"down here" last season, in body if not in spirit? Terry was right, there are people who believe this. Then again, you were the only person I remember in my newsgroup poll who thought it was Cordy in Cordy/Connor. That it could ever be in character for Cordy to do that. "Inside Out" didn't show it was Cordy. Actually it made you think it clearly wasn't. "See, this is the nefarious meat of it, pal. You die never knowing what really happened to the woman you love. Gotta respect the classics." Not seeing him telling the truth later. Then again, the writing of "Inside Out" was such bad fanwanking itself that it's clear that ME never had a clue on what it was doing with the Cordelia arc. That was the *whole >point* of Jasmine assuming her into the heavens -- so she could hitch a >ride back down when Cordy returned. You mean the Cordyless Cordemon. >(It was also established that Cordy was really Cordy up till the end of >"Spin the Bottle," Cordy was a slut in High School? Since when? because that's when Our Heroes' spell woke Jasmine >up.) No, it woke up the Cordemon's memory banks and why it was here. But if this isn't enough to scream "Stay the hell away from ME, Charisma!", nothing much does. Yeah, I'm gonna stick with the possible intent of the writers that got Charisma fired by their incompetence in executing her arc. I'll go with what makes a little sense, that Cordy was never down here, but trapped, mind, spirit, and soul, up on high while the demon took her body down for a ride with Connor. Cause it's better than what the shit for brains writers might have meant, if they actually meant it. Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-11-13 20:55:00+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (aej17DELETEME@comcast.net)


SWeick <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote: > Then again, the writing of "Inside Out" was such bad fanwanking itself > that it's clear that ME never had a clue on what it was doing with > the Cordelia arc. And that's the bottom line. There have been all sorts of attempts at explanations. None of them completely make sense. And that's because the writers didn't have any idea what they were doing, so how can the audience understand it? The Cordelia/Cordelius crap was the lowpoint for ME, and that's saying something. That's when I became convinced that they just gave up caring. -- AE Jabbour "I mean, I may have ripped off Vertigo, The Shining, James Elroy, James M. Cain, Barton Fink, Rebel Without a Cause, Vertigo, Psycho, Kiss Me Deadly, Double Indemnity and The Hudsucker Proxy - but I'm certainly no plagiarist!" Tim Minear, alt.tv.angel, 10.05.2000

2003-11-13 22:55:08-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net>)


"Alicat" <isalicat@ev1.net> wrote in message news:qi88rv4eg19ogf8hpib310djl2fn8a03ak@4ax.com... > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:39:50 -0500, "DarynJones" <d@jones.com> wrote: > > > > >"Lord Usher" <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:Xns943253913AE67houseofusher@216.40.28.71... > >> quester@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote in news:3fb384f6.33383531 > >> @news.west.earthlink.net: > >> > >> >>Wes remembers cutting Lilah's head off. Which he only did because he > >> >>thought Angelus had bitten/sired her. > >> > > >> > We know he remembers cutting up the last girl he was with. We don't > >> > know if he remembers Lilah or has some false memory in her place. As > >> > you mention, the decapitation took place because of a fear that > >> > Angelus had sired her - but that is NOT what Wesley says. He says the > >> > cutting up took place because of the involvement of a higher power. > >> > >> Yeah, which is exactly what happened for real, too. Jasmine-in-Cordy > >> stabbed Lilah in the neck, making them think Angelus had done it, so > >Wesley > >> had to cut her head off. > >> > >> I suppose you could argue that maybe Wesley is referring to some other > >> event or some other girlfriend that he now remembers, which happen to > >> conform exactly to what happened between him and Lilah, but that doesn't > >> exactly get past Occam's Razor. His memories match the actual event, so > >the > >> simplest assumption is that he still remembers it. > >> > > > >But he only chopped Lilahs head off. He told his father that he chopped his > >last girlfriend into pieces. Doesn't really conform exactly to what > >happened between him and Lilah. > > > > > Maybe *thats* what happened to Justine (isn't that her name? The girl > Wes was keeping in the closet?).... > Wes threw the key to the handcuffs to her on the pier, and drove off with Angel in the premiere of season 4.

2003-11-14 00:13:03-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (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: "Thirsty Viking" <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net> wrote in <l46dnTlfL4IKwimiRVn-hA@comcast.com>: > > "Alicat" <isalicat@ev1.net> wrote in message > news:qi88rv4eg19ogf8hpib310djl2fn8a03ak@4ax.com... > > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:39:50 -0500, "DarynJones" <d@jones.com> wrote: > > > > >But he only chopped Lilahs head off. He told his father that he chopped > his > > >last girlfriend into pieces. Doesn't really conform exactly to what > > >happened between him and Lilah. > > > > > > > > Maybe *thats* what happened to Justine (isn't that her name? The girl > > Wes was keeping in the closet?).... > > > Wes threw the key to the handcuffs to her on the pier, and drove off > with Angel in the premiere of season 4. > But would he have had to do that in a Connorless world? Without Connor, who would have stuffed Angel into his cage and dropped him into the drink? A random pair of Holtz's follower? Maybe. Maybe not. -- "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/

2003-11-14 00:31:08+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > "Zombie Elvis" <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote in > message news:ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com... > > > > Spoilers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been a while since I've done a proper review of an Angel episode. > > I figure the least I could do was post some thoughts. > > > > > > I think we just met the guy who was selling Wesley his gadgets last > > year. > > > > As disgusted as she is about it, Fred is right -- there's just > > something about a little girl with a big gun. > > > > It was good to see Wesley bust out and go all John Woo on the bad > > guys. > > I thought it was more like Antonio Band-aid, or whatever his name is. > Especially loved that crossed-arms stance - with the left-hand pistol held > where the red-hot ejecting shell would pop him right between the eyes if he > had to fire it. Would it have? He held it on it's side. We see brass ejecting vertically when he dives sideways, so the way he held it, the case would've ejected downwards. -- 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)

2003-11-14 00:42:37+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Rowan Hawthorn <nobody@nowhere.com>)


"David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3FB4224B.1F4A90A5@blueyonder.co.uk... > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > "Zombie Elvis" <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote in > > message news:ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com... > > > > > > Spoilers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been a while since I've done a proper review of an Angel episode. > > > I figure the least I could do was post some thoughts. > > > > > > > > > I think we just met the guy who was selling Wesley his gadgets last > > > year. > > > > > > As disgusted as she is about it, Fred is right -- there's just > > > something about a little girl with a big gun. > > > > > > It was good to see Wesley bust out and go all John Woo on the bad > > > guys. > > > > I thought it was more like Antonio Band-aid, or whatever his name is. > > Especially loved that crossed-arms stance - with the left-hand pistol held > > where the red-hot ejecting shell would pop him right between the eyes if he > > had to fire it. > > Would it have? He held it on it's side. We see brass ejecting > vertically when he dives sideways, so the way he held it, the case > would've ejected downwards. Damn. Now I'm gonna have to watch that scene again - maybe it was the *right_hand* pistol that was being held so the ejection port was pointed at his face. Back to the VCR... -- Rowan Hawthorn

2003-11-14 00:58:52+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:3FB4224B.1F4A90A5@blueyonder.co.uk... > > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > > > "Zombie Elvis" <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote > in > > > message news:ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com... > > > > > > > > Spoilers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been a while since I've done a proper review of an Angel episode. > > > > I figure the least I could do was post some thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we just met the guy who was selling Wesley his gadgets last > > > > year. > > > > > > > > As disgusted as she is about it, Fred is right -- there's just > > > > something about a little girl with a big gun. > > > > > > > > It was good to see Wesley bust out and go all John Woo on the bad > > > > guys. > > > > > > I thought it was more like Antonio Band-aid, or whatever his name is. > > > Especially loved that crossed-arms stance - with the left-hand pistol > held > > > where the red-hot ejecting shell would pop him right between the eyes if > he > > > had to fire it. > > > > Would it have? He held it on it's side. We see brass ejecting > > vertically when he dives sideways, so the way he held it, the case > > would've ejected downwards. > > Damn. Now I'm gonna have to watch that scene again - maybe it was the > *right_hand* pistol that was being held so the ejection port was pointed at > his face. Back to the VCR... He wasn't looking down the sight but he was pointing it forwards. Whether the left wrist should be over or under the right wrist to brace it is too advanced a question for me. I mean, sure, I can see that the two gun thing is silly, but if you had something more sensible in your left hand that you didn't want to drop (flashlight?) you might do something like that. Hmm. Now that I think of the left hand gun might have buggered up his right forearm if he'd shot it, what with the slide recoiling backwards... now I have to rewatch it too. -- 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)

2003-11-14 03:08:13+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Rowan Hawthorn <nobody@nowhere.com>)


"David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3FB428CC.3A08BB0@blueyonder.co.uk... > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:3FB4224B.1F4A90A5@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > > > > > I thought it was more like Antonio Band-aid, or whatever his name is. > > > > Especially loved that crossed-arms stance - with the left-hand pistol > > held > > > > where the red-hot ejecting shell would pop him right between the eyes if > > he > > > > had to fire it. > > > > > > Would it have? He held it on it's side. We see brass ejecting > > > vertically when he dives sideways, so the way he held it, the case > > > would've ejected downwards. > > > > Damn. Now I'm gonna have to watch that scene again - maybe it was the > > *right_hand* pistol that was being held so the ejection port was pointed at > > his face. Back to the VCR... > > He wasn't looking down the sight but he was pointing it forwards. Exactly. If he were looking down the sight, it wouldn't be a problem - the shell should eject up and back, and should clear the shooter (except for a few crappy models I've seen that will invatiably drop the damn thing down your collar...) > Whether the left wrist should be over or under the right wrist to > brace it is too advanced a question for me. I mean, sure, I can > see that the two gun thing is silly, but if you had something more > sensible in your left hand that you didn't want to drop > (flashlight?) you might do something like that. If you're not holding anything else in the off hand, it should grip the shooting hand if you use a two-hand hold. The shooting hand placed across the off-hand wrist is an old style of shooting that works well for steadying the hand to aim, but it doesn't do anything to brace against recoil. There is a similar hold that is used with a flashlight in the left hand. I rarely handle two pistols at once, but I'd simply hold them to left and right at about waist level - easy to snap a shot off in either direction that way. > > Hmm. Now that I think of the left hand gun might have buggered up > his right forearm if he'd shot it, what with the slide recoiling > backwards... now I have to rewatch it too. Heh...love the little nagging details... :-) I just went back and rewatched. In the first scene, he has the left-hand gun held flat, with the ejection port down, which would clear him OK. There's a cutaway and in the next sequence it's turned up somewhat, and pointed far enough sideways that the port is directed more or less at his right shoulder. The right-hand gun is held rolled slightly left, leaving the port pointed where an ejected shell would angle back and either narrowly miss his head or smack him dead on. The slide action on the left-hand gun probably shouldn't be a problem, as it was held far enough away from his right forearm that it should clear, as long as he could control the backward movement of the gun itself - which, admittedly, not everyone does well. -- Rowan Hawthorn

2003-11-14 09:35:26-05:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


Snuggles wrote: > In article <vr7lpte13qdaba@corp.supernews.com>, > Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > > > Darwin Fish wrote: > > > In article <vr7gujnf3bd12f@corp.supernews.com>, > > > > > > Doing this may have been the final nail in the coffin of > > > > Wesley's hopes for winning Fred. The last man to kill another > > > > human being on Fred's behalf was Gunn, when he killed her prof > > > > and threw him into the dimensional portal. And that act drove > > > > a wedge between them. > > > > > > > > > World of difference... Gunn murdered Fred's professor, Wesley > > > used deadly force to save Fred's life. > > > > They both killed another human being very deliberately (Wesley's > > final shot into the prone and presumably no longer threatening > > daddybot was quite plain). > > > > > Wes acted in self-defence while Gunn's > > > actions were premeditated.... > > > > No, Wes didn't act in self-defense. He was prepared to let his > > father shoot him, holding the plot device over the side of the > > building so that it would drop and be destroyed if daddybot shot > > him. It was the threat to Fred that prompted him to shoot his > > 'father'. > > Killing to save the life of another is considered self-defense or in > some countries, like the US I think, justifiable homicide. The legal status doesn't really matter, but, yes, it's legal almost anywhere to shot someone holding a gun on someone else. > > > he could have tried to reason with Fred > > > and convince her that the professor's life had value, he could > > > have used force to stop her but he didn't. Gunn took the easy > > > route while Wes made the hard choice... > > > > And neither of them hesitated to kill someone in order to "protect" > > Fred (you may remember how outraged Fred was earlier in the episode > > at the thought that Wesley felt that he needed to protect her). > > Fred survived five years alone in Pylea. She's survived numerous > > battles with Angel & Company since. Yeah, she's been hurt--nearly > > killed, even--but so has everyone else. > > Fred wasn't in danger from the professor, it was quite the other way > around. What was Gunn protecting Fred from? He wasn't trying to > protect Fred but instead his image of Fred... that's more likely what > pissed the girl off. That's exactly what I'm saying. Wesley shot someone who was holding a gun on Fred. Unless you're a jerk, you thank a person who did that and move on. Gunn killed someone to *keep her from killing someone*. It wasn't noble, no lives were saved, the only thing saved was Fred 'dirtying her hands' or whatever. And, like I said, that shows a serious misconception of Fred. Fred's probably killed *humans* before, over in Pylea. She'll do whatever's needed. -- Remove the hostname part directly after the @ to respond.

2003-11-14 11:13:51+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Dan Milburn <danielmilburn@hotmail.com>)


Ken from Chicago wrote: > "Zombie Elvis" <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net> wrote in > message news:ha16rv8md7ur3c9jhblfrf3927u86eeqis@4ax.com... > >>Spoilers >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>It looks like Wesley has lost Fred -- again. > > > KNOOOOOOOOX! Sheesh was that lame. In a big ole deep heart to heart chat, > Fred up and leaves? She couldn't say "No, me and Wes need to finish > something" or at least "No, I've got a car."? Um, she did say something like that. It was Wes who said she should go. Dan

2003-11-14 14:36:14-05:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <1068820532.679580@cache6.usenetserver.com>, "David Cheatham" <david@tg.creeknet.com> wrote: > Snuggles wrote: > > > In article <vr7lpte13qdaba@corp.supernews.com>, > > Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > > > > > Darwin Fish wrote: > > > > In article <vr7gujnf3bd12f@corp.supernews.com>, > > > > > > > > Doing this may have been the final nail in the coffin of > > > > > Wesley's hopes for winning Fred. The last man to kill another > > > > > human being on Fred's behalf was Gunn, when he killed her prof > > > > > and threw him into the dimensional portal. And that act drove > > > > > a wedge between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > World of difference... Gunn murdered Fred's professor, Wesley > > > > used deadly force to save Fred's life. > > > > > > They both killed another human being very deliberately (Wesley's > > > final shot into the prone and presumably no longer threatening > > > daddybot was quite plain). > > > > > > > Wes acted in self-defence while Gunn's > > > > actions were premeditated.... > > > > > > No, Wes didn't act in self-defense. He was prepared to let his > > > father shoot him, holding the plot device over the side of the > > > building so that it would drop and be destroyed if daddybot shot > > > him. It was the threat to Fred that prompted him to shoot his > > > 'father'. > > > > Killing to save the life of another is considered self-defense or in > > some countries, like the US I think, justifiable homicide. > > The legal status doesn't really matter, but, yes, it's legal almost > anywhere to shot someone holding a gun on someone else. > > > > > he could have tried to reason with Fred > > > > and convince her that the professor's life had value, he could > > > > have used force to stop her but he didn't. Gunn took the easy > > > > route while Wes made the hard choice... > > > > > > And neither of them hesitated to kill someone in order to "protect" > > > Fred (you may remember how outraged Fred was earlier in the episode > > > at the thought that Wesley felt that he needed to protect her). > > > Fred survived five years alone in Pylea. She's survived numerous > > > battles with Angel & Company since. Yeah, she's been hurt--nearly > > > killed, even--but so has everyone else. > > > > Fred wasn't in danger from the professor, it was quite the other way > > around. What was Gunn protecting Fred from? He wasn't trying to > > protect Fred but instead his image of Fred... that's more likely what > > pissed the girl off. > > That's exactly what I'm saying. Wesley shot someone who was holding a > gun on Fred. Unless you're a jerk, you thank a person who did that and > move on. > > Gunn killed someone to *keep her from killing someone*. It wasn't > noble, no lives were saved, the only thing saved was Fred 'dirtying her > hands' or whatever. > > And, like I said, that shows a serious misconception of Fred. Fred's > probably killed *humans* before, over in Pylea. She'll do whatever's > needed. Right.... which proves my point that the actions of Wes and Gunn are more different than they are alike. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snuggles, not Shuggie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-11-14 19:57:03+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > [on Wesley's guns... this being the "shallow" thread] > > If you're not holding anything else in the off hand, it should grip the > shooting hand if you use a two-hand hold. The shooting hand placed across > the off-hand wrist is an old style of shooting that works well for steadying > the hand to aim, but it doesn't do anything to brace against recoil. There > is a similar hold that is used with a flashlight in the left hand. I rarely > handle two pistols at once, but I'd simply hold them to left and right at > about waist level - easy to snap a shot off in either direction that way. [...] > I just went back and rewatched. In the first scene, he has the left-hand > gun held flat, with the ejection port down, which would clear him OK. > There's a cutaway and in the next sequence it's turned up somewhat, and > pointed far enough sideways that the port is directed more or less at his > right shoulder. The right-hand gun is held rolled slightly left, leaving > the port pointed where an ejected shell would angle back and either narrowly > miss his head or smack him dead on. The slide action on the left-hand gun > probably shouldn't be a problem, as it was held far enough away from his > right forearm that it should clear, as long as he could control the backward > movement of the gun itself - which, admittedly, not everyone does well. Heh. Wesley's left hand is pointing to the right, which is exactly the direction that the ninja attacks him from, immediately disarming him. Even on the show his grip was somewhat purposeless. You might think that with his awesome resources and cold, efficient demeanour he'd've gotten hold of a left-handed pistol to use in his left hand. Or he could have brought revolvers. People may ascribe the whole two-fisted gun-fu shtick to the Chinese, but a pistol in each hand is a Western cliche. -- 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)

2003-11-14 20:21:13+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Rowan Hawthorn <nobody@nowhere.com>)


"David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3FB5338F.56290BD0@blueyonder.co.uk... > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > [on Wesley's guns... this being the "shallow" thread] > > > > If you're not holding anything else in the off hand, it should grip the > > shooting hand if you use a two-hand hold. The shooting hand placed across > > the off-hand wrist is an old style of shooting that works well for steadying > > the hand to aim, but it doesn't do anything to brace against recoil. There > > is a similar hold that is used with a flashlight in the left hand. I rarely > > handle two pistols at once, but I'd simply hold them to left and right at > > about waist level - easy to snap a shot off in either direction that way. > [...] > > I just went back and rewatched. In the first scene, he has the left-hand > > gun held flat, with the ejection port down, which would clear him OK. > > There's a cutaway and in the next sequence it's turned up somewhat, and > > pointed far enough sideways that the port is directed more or less at his > > right shoulder. The right-hand gun is held rolled slightly left, leaving > > the port pointed where an ejected shell would angle back and either narrowly > > miss his head or smack him dead on. The slide action on the left-hand gun > > probably shouldn't be a problem, as it was held far enough away from his > > right forearm that it should clear, as long as he could control the backward > > movement of the gun itself - which, admittedly, not everyone does well. > > Heh. Wesley's left hand is pointing to the right, which is exactly > the direction that the ninja attacks him from, immediately > disarming him. <snicker> Can you say, "Oh, shit!" boys and girls? Even on the show his grip was somewhat purposeless. > You might think that with his awesome resources and cold, > efficient demeanour he'd've gotten hold of a left-handed pistol to > use in his left hand. > > Or he could have brought revolvers. Yeah, but then that drastically reduces the capacity for the ol' spray-and-pray technique. People might have to fall back on actually - gasp! - *learning how to hit what they're shooting at.* (Sorry. Not very subtle sarcasm there, was it?) People may ascribe the whole > two-fisted gun-fu shtick to the Chinese, but a pistol in each hand > is a Western cliche. Yep, although in reality, they were rarely used that way. The second (and in the case of some bad'uns like Jesse James, the third, fourth, etc) pistol was usually held in reserve for when the first ran empty. Anybody needs more than twelve shots should probably take up a safer occupation, anyway... -- Rowan Hawthorn

2003-11-14 21:08:45-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net>)


"Rowan Hawthorn" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:F5gtb.24209$Te.170399@news.easynews.com... > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:3FB5646E.9DF6920D@blueyonder.co.uk... > > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > > news:3FB5338F.56290BD0@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > > > > > > [on Wesley's guns... this being the "shallow" thread] > > [...] > > > > Did we ever see Wesley miss a shot? > > > > Well, to be honest, I only started watching Angel this season, so I haven't > a clue other than this scene. But then let's face it: when the SFX guys are > responsible for your hits and misses, you could fire *behind* you and still > hit the target. The theory behind spray-and-pray is still to simply throw > as much lead in the air as possible and hope you hit something before the > other guy (who's probably doing the same thing) gets lucky - "lucky" being > the operative word there. That and also to make the other guy duck and spoil his aim. > > Sure, but pistols have been sold and carried in pairs since the > > sixteenth century as the weapon of cavalrymen and, you know, > > pirates and that. Dueling sets you mean? where your opponent chose one and then you faced off?

2003-11-14 22:01:20-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net>)


"Rowan Hawthorn" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:E3htb.967729$Id.143159@news.easynews.com... > > "Thirsty Viking" <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net> wrote in message > news:2rWdnTf9CsJ6CiiiRVn-tg@comcast.com... > > > > "Rowan Hawthorn" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message > > news:F5gtb.24209$Te.170399@news.easynews.com... > > > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > > news:3FB5646E.9DF6920D@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > > news:3FB5338F.56290BD0@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > > > > > > > > > > [on Wesley's guns... this being the "shallow" thread] > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Did we ever see Wesley miss a shot? > > > > > > > > > > Well, to be honest, I only started watching Angel this season, so I > > haven't > > > a clue other than this scene. But then let's face it: when the SFX guys > > are > > > responsible for your hits and misses, you could fire *behind* you and > > still > > > hit the target. The theory behind spray-and-pray is still to simply > throw > > > as much lead in the air as possible and hope you hit something before > the > > > other guy (who's probably doing the same thing) gets lucky - "lucky" > being > > > the operative word there. > > > > That and also to make the other guy duck and spoil his aim. > > > > Right. Of course, if you're counting on that, he's liable to just wait till > you run out of ammo (which you *will* quickly) then pick you off... But if you can take cover... clips reload quickly... Not a bad stategy if you get caught in the open. If no more clips then a decent way to shoot off 1/2 the ammo or so till you get to better position. If its the movies and your the good guy you probably hit them. > > > > Sure, but pistols have been sold and carried in pairs since the > > > > sixteenth century as the weapon of cavalrymen and, you know, > > > > pirates and that. > > > > Dueling sets you mean? where your opponent chose one and > > then you faced off? > > There were those, too, but mounted soldiers often carried one, two, or more > pairs of "horse pistols" - called that because the holsters were actually > carried by the *horse,* not the rider. > Not disputing that. But then again it was a long time before more than officers had pistols. Since officers were "gentlemen" dueling wasn't out of the question. Again matched sets would serve double duty... worked well. Many of the first mounted enlisted soldiers with firearms were riflemen who only used the horses to move to the battlefield then fought afoot (Dragoons I believe was the term in the American Revolutionary war era) Also many officers of infantry units rode horses and would have the pistols. See matched sets above... I don't claim to be an expert on the development of calvary carrying pistols, I'm sure there are periods in time where what each of us has said were true, and I have no idea of the exact timeline.

2003-11-14 23:09:10-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net>)


"David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3FB5AC36.1071491C@blueyonder.co.uk... > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:3FB5646E.9DF6920D@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > news:3FB5338F.56290BD0@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > > > > > > > > [on Wesley's guns... this being the "shallow" thread] > > > [...] > > > > > Or he could have brought revolvers. > > > > > > > > Yeah, but then that drastically reduces the capacity for the ol' > > > > spray-and-pray technique. People might have to fall back on actually - > > > > gasp! - *learning how to hit what they're shooting at.* (Sorry. Not very > > > > subtle sarcasm there, was it?) > > > > > > Did we ever see Wesley miss a shot? > > > > > > > Well, to be honest, I only started watching Angel this season, so I haven't > > a clue other than this scene. But then let's face it: when the SFX guys are > > responsible for your hits and misses, you could fire *behind* you and still > > hit the target. The theory behind spray-and-pray is still to simply throw > > as much lead in the air as possible and hope you hit something before the > > other guy (who's probably doing the same thing) gets lucky - "lucky" being > > the operative word there. > > Machinegunners kill more people than riflemen. Artillery gets even > more. Machine gunners can kill more... doesn't always work that way. Machinegunners are generally the prime target of other people on the battlefield. Certainly in WW1 with Trench warfare your statements were true. Today Machine gunners have a very short life expectancy in ground combat against well trained units. Obviously having the shooter inside a tank, hellicopter, or flying gunship improves the survivability. Artillery has to be used to be effective... we have lost the will to use it on units hiding in a city. > I've missed most of season one. Wesley mostly shoots things that > aren't hurt by being shot, like last years apocalyptic beast. He > does IIRC once, while himself wheelchair-bound from a gunshot > wound (a zombie cop issue), messily blow the head off a demon with > a shotgun. I've never seen him reload, he just grabs another > weapon. Wesley shoots Chip or Skip or whoever in the head through the little hole in the broken horn... Hell of a shot that one.

2003-11-14 23:25:34+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:3FB5338F.56290BD0@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > > [on Wesley's guns... this being the "shallow" thread] [...] > > Or he could have brought revolvers. > > Yeah, but then that drastically reduces the capacity for the ol' > spray-and-pray technique. People might have to fall back on actually - > gasp! - *learning how to hit what they're shooting at.* (Sorry. Not very > subtle sarcasm there, was it?) Did we ever see Wesley miss a shot? ...and those were Ol' Slabsides, government model .45"s. Even I know they only carry seven shots each. > People may ascribe the whole > > two-fisted gun-fu shtick to the Chinese, but a pistol in each hand > > is a Western cliche. > > Yep, although in reality, they were rarely used that way. The second (and > in the case of some bad'uns like Jesse James, the third, fourth, etc) pistol > was usually held in reserve for when the first ran empty. Anybody needs > more than twelve shots should probably take up a safer occupation, anyway... Sure, but pistols have been sold and carried in pairs since the sixteenth century as the weapon of cavalrymen and, you know, pirates and that. I wonder when the first fictional one-in-each-hand pistoleer was written? I guess that for a long time fictional heroes would've had a pistol in one hand and a sword in the other. -- 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)

2003-11-15 02:22:29+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Rowan Hawthorn <nobody@nowhere.com>)


"David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3FB5646E.9DF6920D@blueyonder.co.uk... > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:3FB5338F.56290BD0@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > > > > [on Wesley's guns... this being the "shallow" thread] > [...] > > > Or he could have brought revolvers. > > > > Yeah, but then that drastically reduces the capacity for the ol' > > spray-and-pray technique. People might have to fall back on actually - > > gasp! - *learning how to hit what they're shooting at.* (Sorry. Not very > > subtle sarcasm there, was it?) > > Did we ever see Wesley miss a shot? > Well, to be honest, I only started watching Angel this season, so I haven't a clue other than this scene. But then let's face it: when the SFX guys are responsible for your hits and misses, you could fire *behind* you and still hit the target. The theory behind spray-and-pray is still to simply throw as much lead in the air as possible and hope you hit something before the other guy (who's probably doing the same thing) gets lucky - "lucky" being the operative word there. > ...and those were Ol' Slabsides, government model .45"s. Even I > know they only carry seven shots each. > Yes, they appeared to be, and yes, they do - except for the ones like my Colt Commander, which holds eight in the magazine (plus one in the chamber) and some of the near-identical copies which can carry up to twelve or more because of modified grip frames. > > People may ascribe the whole > > > two-fisted gun-fu shtick to the Chinese, but a pistol in each hand > > > is a Western cliche. > > > > Yep, although in reality, they were rarely used that way. The second (and > > in the case of some bad'uns like Jesse James, the third, fourth, etc) pistol > > was usually held in reserve for when the first ran empty. Anybody needs > > more than twelve shots should probably take up a safer occupation, anyway... > > Sure, but pistols have been sold and carried in pairs since the > sixteenth century as the weapon of cavalrymen and, you know, > pirates and that. Of course - and for the same reason. Flintlocks were even less convenient to load than Civil War-era cap-and-ball revolvers. Plus, most of them were single-shots. Wasn't it Blackbeard who was reputed to carry like eight of'em tucked into his sash? > > I wonder when the first fictional one-in-each-hand pistoleer was > written? I guess that for a long time fictional heroes would've > had a pistol in one hand and a sword in the other. Pretty much, since the pistol was never really used much as a *primary* weapon until the guerilla fighters of the post-Civil War. Which is why military holsters of the day were designed for the gun to be drawn with the off hand - the strong hand was intended for the sabre. Pistols were used mainly as last-ditch, point-blank weapons until people other than duelists discovered that, dammit, you *can, too* hit a target with'em! I would guess that the "two-gun kids" came out of the Old West with the first cheap paperbacks. Possibly due to the authors' lack of familiarity with the realities of "packing iron," they may have seen a few guys wearing double rigs and just assumed that they were used like that. And, there could have *been* a few who did. It's not really that hard if you practice. I shoot about as well left-handed as I do right-handed, I just can't *handle* the gun as well. -- Rowan Hawthorn

2003-11-15 03:28:36+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Rowan Hawthorn <nobody@nowhere.com>)


"Thirsty Viking" <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net> wrote in message news:2rWdnTf9CsJ6CiiiRVn-tg@comcast.com... > > "Rowan Hawthorn" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:F5gtb.24209$Te.170399@news.easynews.com... > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:3FB5646E.9DF6920D@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > news:3FB5338F.56290BD0@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > > > > > > > > [on Wesley's guns... this being the "shallow" thread] > > > [...] > > > > > > Did we ever see Wesley miss a shot? > > > > > > > Well, to be honest, I only started watching Angel this season, so I > haven't > > a clue other than this scene. But then let's face it: when the SFX guys > are > > responsible for your hits and misses, you could fire *behind* you and > still > > hit the target. The theory behind spray-and-pray is still to simply throw > > as much lead in the air as possible and hope you hit something before the > > other guy (who's probably doing the same thing) gets lucky - "lucky" being > > the operative word there. > > That and also to make the other guy duck and spoil his aim. > Right. Of course, if you're counting on that, he's liable to just wait till you run out of ammo (which you *will* quickly) then pick you off... > > > Sure, but pistols have been sold and carried in pairs since the > > > sixteenth century as the weapon of cavalrymen and, you know, > > > pirates and that. > > Dueling sets you mean? where your opponent chose one and > then you faced off? There were those, too, but mounted soldiers often carried one, two, or more pairs of "horse pistols" - called that because the holsters were actually carried by the *horse,* not the rider. -- Rowan Hawthorn

2003-11-15 04:31:55+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:3FB5646E.9DF6920D@blueyonder.co.uk... > > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > > news:3FB5338F.56290BD0@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > > > > > > [on Wesley's guns... this being the "shallow" thread] > > [...] > > > > Or he could have brought revolvers. > > > > > > Yeah, but then that drastically reduces the capacity for the ol' > > > spray-and-pray technique. People might have to fall back on actually - > > > gasp! - *learning how to hit what they're shooting at.* (Sorry. Not very > > > subtle sarcasm there, was it?) > > > > Did we ever see Wesley miss a shot? > > > > Well, to be honest, I only started watching Angel this season, so I haven't > a clue other than this scene. But then let's face it: when the SFX guys are > responsible for your hits and misses, you could fire *behind* you and still > hit the target. The theory behind spray-and-pray is still to simply throw > as much lead in the air as possible and hope you hit something before the > other guy (who's probably doing the same thing) gets lucky - "lucky" being > the operative word there. Machinegunners kill more people than riflemen. Artillery gets even more. I've missed most of season one. Wesley mostly shoots things that aren't hurt by being shot, like last years apocalyptic beast. He does IIRC once, while himself wheelchair-bound from a gunshot wound (a zombie cop issue), messily blow the head off a demon with a shotgun. I've never seen him reload, he just grabs another weapon. > > ...and those were Ol' Slabsides, government model .45"s. Even I > > know they only carry seven shots each. > > > > Yes, they appeared to be, and yes, they do - except for the ones like my > Colt Commander, which holds eight in the magazine (plus one in the chamber) > and some of the near-identical copies which can carry up to twelve or more > because of modified grip frames. > > > > People may ascribe the whole > > > > two-fisted gun-fu shtick to the Chinese, but a pistol in each hand > > > > is a Western cliche. > > > > > > Yep, although in reality, they were rarely used that way. The second (and > > > in the case of some bad'uns like Jesse James, the third, fourth, etc) pistol > > > was usually held in reserve for when the first ran empty. Anybody needs > > > more than twelve shots should probably take up a safer occupation, anyway... > > > > Sure, but pistols have been sold and carried in pairs since the > > sixteenth century as the weapon of cavalrymen and, you know, > > pirates and that. > > Of course - and for the same reason. Flintlocks were even less convenient > to load than Civil War-era cap-and-ball revolvers. Plus, most of them were > single-shots. Wasn't it Blackbeard who was reputed to carry like eight > of'em tucked into his sash? That was a pretty normal thing to do for well-equipped cavalry. > > I wonder when the first fictional one-in-each-hand pistoleer was > > written? I guess that for a long time fictional heroes would've > > had a pistol in one hand and a sword in the other. > > Pretty much, since the pistol was never really used much as a *primary* > weapon until the guerilla fighters of the post-Civil War. Which is why > military holsters of the day were designed for the gun to be drawn with the > off hand - the strong hand was intended for the sabre. Pistols were used > mainly as last-ditch, point-blank weapons until people other than duelists > discovered that, dammit, you *can, too* hit a target with'em! I don't know that I agree with this. In general, the pistol came into fashion as a replacement for the lance. Lances were heavy, demanded skill, were used once in the charge and discarded for a sword. I've read several accounts of medieval battles where a knightly army was left impotently throwing maces and swords into the ranks of footmen they dared not charge into. English Civil War cavalry would've trained to "caracole", to ride forward, shoot, and retire reloading in rank and file, one rank replacing the next. All the while they pinned the infantry in place by threatening to charge home, forcing the pikemen to block the musketeers line of fire. That was the theory, though they pretty much just fought other cavalry on the flanks of the battle. I saw two accounts of a Civil War battle from the journals of opposing gentleman troopers who recognised and fought each other personally. One discharged a pistol into contact with the other's helmet. > I would guess > that the "two-gun kids" came out of the Old West with the first cheap > paperbacks. [...] Ah, Ned Buntline Specials, et al.. -- 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)

2003-11-15 09:26:10+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Rowan Hawthorn <nobody@nowhere.com>)


<Doing a lot of snippage for space here...> "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3FB5AC36.1071491C@blueyonder.co.uk... > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:3FB5646E.9DF6920D@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > > > > Did we ever see Wesley miss a shot? > > > > > > > Well, to be honest, I only started watching Angel this season, so I haven't > > a clue other than this scene. But then let's face it: when the SFX guys are > > responsible for your hits and misses, you could fire *behind* you and still > > hit the target. The theory behind spray-and-pray is still to simply throw > > as much lead in the air as possible and hope you hit something before the > > other guy (who's probably doing the same thing) gets lucky - "lucky" being > > the operative word there. > > Machinegunners kill more people than riflemen. Artillery gets even > more. Yep, but machinegunners (*not* referring to SMGs here) aren't limited to a maximum of sixteen to thirty rounds, and artillery is comparing apples and oranges. Or rather, single projectiles and high explosives... > > I've missed most of season one. Wesley mostly shoots things that > aren't hurt by being shot, like last years apocalyptic beast. He > does IIRC once, while himself wheelchair-bound from a gunshot > wound (a zombie cop issue), messily blow the head off a demon with > a shotgun. I've never seen him reload, he just grabs another > weapon. > > > > > > > Sure, but pistols have been sold and carried in pairs since the > > > sixteenth century as the weapon of cavalrymen and, you know, > > > pirates and that. > > > > Of course - and for the same reason. Flintlocks were even less convenient > > to load than Civil War-era cap-and-ball revolvers. Plus, most of them were > > single-shots. Wasn't it Blackbeard who was reputed to carry like eight > > of'em tucked into his sash? > > That was a pretty normal thing to do for well-equipped cavalry. > > > > I wonder when the first fictional one-in-each-hand pistoleer was > > > written? I guess that for a long time fictional heroes would've > > > had a pistol in one hand and a sword in the other. > > > > Pretty much, since the pistol was never really used much as a *primary* > > weapon until the guerilla fighters of the post-Civil War. Which is why > > military holsters of the day were designed for the gun to be drawn with the > > off hand - the strong hand was intended for the sabre. Pistols were used > > mainly as last-ditch, point-blank weapons until people other than duelists > > discovered that, dammit, you *can, too* hit a target with'em! > > I don't know that I agree with this. In general, the pistol came > into fashion as a replacement for the lance. Well, the "hand-cannon," anyway. But for all practical purposes, it doesn't really class as a pistol. And many of the early firearms used a shooting stick to hold the muzzle up so the shooter could aim it (like that did much good, since they were mostly smoothbores at the time...) Lances were heavy, > demanded skill, were used once in the charge and discarded for a > sword. I've read several accounts of medieval battles where a > knightly army was left impotently throwing maces and swords into > the ranks of footmen they dared not charge into. > > English Civil War cavalry would've trained to "caracole", to ride > forward, shoot, and retire reloading in rank and file, one rank > replacing the next. All the while they pinned the infantry in > place by threatening to charge home, forcing the pikemen to block > the musketeers line of fire. > > That was the theory, though they pretty much just fought other > cavalry on the flanks of the battle. I saw two accounts of a Civil > War battle from the journals of opposing gentleman troopers who > recognised and fought each other personally. One discharged a > pistol into contact with the other's helmet. > Uh, huh - close-in, point-blank weaponry. > > I would guess > > that the "two-gun kids" came out of the Old West with the first cheap > > paperbacks. > [...] > > Ah, Ned Buntline Specials, et al.. > Exactly. Written with an eye for dramatic effect more than any kind of accuracy. -- Rowan Hawthorn

2003-11-15 13:34:19-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in news:20031113145110.25862.00000149@mb-m05.aol.com: >> so I gotta ask -- did you miss the part where it was clearly >> established that Cordy *was* "down here" last season, in body if not >> in spirit? > > Terry was right, there are people who believe this. Uh... sure. And I don't see any particular reason not to believe it. Is there some reason to favor a "Cordy wasn't really down here" fanwank over the "Cordy was down here but possessed" explanation provided by the series, despite the fact that they are functionally identical? > "Inside Out" didn't show it was Cordy. Actually it made you > think it clearly wasn't. > > "See, this is the nefarious meat of it, pal. You die never knowing > what really happened to the woman you love. Gotta respect > the classics." > > Not seeing him telling the truth later. Why not? That was the whole point of the sequence. Skips says he won't tell the truth, but then Angel kicks the crap out of him, drags him home to the gang, and *forces* him to tell the truth. > I'll go with what makes a little sense, that Cordy was never down > here, but trapped, mind, spirit, and soul, up on high while the demon > took her body down for a ride with Connor. > > Cause it's better than what the shit for brains writers might have > meant, if they actually meant it. I don't get this. I really don't. Because, honestly, there's enough crazy-ass gobbledygook swinging in season 4; why introduce *more* to establish a distinction that's not actually a difference?

2003-11-16 00:57:33-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers - (Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net>)


"Norman Pfyster" <norman_pfyster@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:SyEtb.2625$Rk5.2238@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "SWeick" <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote in message > news:20031115231626.06226.00001564@mb-m19.aol.com... > > > > >Is there some reason to favor a "Cordy wasn't really down here" fanwank > > >over the "Cordy was down here but possessed" explanation provided by the > > >series, despite the fact that they are functionally identical? > > > > > > Cause the one destroys the meaning of the series, the other can > > be made to work for both Cordy, as an arc and a character, and AtS > > as a thematic series. > > In both instances, the key point is that it wasn't Cordelia. Explain how the > mechanism that it wasn't Cordelia makes one bit of difference. Still looked like it was cordy with amnesia before "spin the bottle" unfortunately. Though this can be debated ad nauseum. > > > Terry mentioned what I'll call the DuPree Dilemma. You can have > > Cordy. You can have AtS. You can't have both. (Joss, if you can > > believe a word from that liar, seems to agree. Or is using it as a > > excuse to punish, which is my thought.) > > I liked the character, but she isn't that vital to the show that one could > say she is the equivalent of the show. No more than Xander or Willow were to > Buffy. Personally I was so sick of the good guy is now the Big bad that it almost drove me off. I didn't like it the second time (willow) > > Or to put it this way, the Cordelia Chase storyarc is just another > > ME Drug metaphor. This time the drug being doing good. > > > > A self centered bitch has the visions forced on her. She begins > > to do good. It begins to feel great. Really great. It seems to > > fill those empty parts of her. Except it's actually killing her. > > The more she does, the more it destroys her. She finally goes > > on the ultimate high, crashes down, loses her mind, changes > > personality totally, and finally goes brain dead. All from doing good. > > > > Moral of the Cordelia Chase arc: Don't do good. > > Or: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Or: sometimes doing good > means sacrificing yourself. Neither maxim is a commandment not to do good. > > A fair interpretation of the story of Angel is that trying to redeem himself > has only made him miserable. It's a trope that recurs consistently > throughout the series. Would you say that the moral of Angel is: Don't try > to redeem yourself? Hey, in that case, the Cordelia Chase arc fits in > perfectly with the moral of Angel's story. Or it is easier to be wantonly evil for 100 years than to try to make up for it. Work your but off for 7 years and you still have 93 years of evil. Unfortunately saving 5 people will not undo killing 1, that 1 is still dead. The guilt is still there.

2003-11-16 01:23:05-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers - (Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net>)


"SWeick" <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote in message news:20031116014512.12166.00000261@mb-m26.aol.com... > "Norman Pfyster" norman_pfyster@earthlink.net wrote: > > >In both instances, the key point is that it wasn't Cordelia. > > > The original statement I corrected said that Cordy went bad, BTW. > > LU has argued that Cordy was partially there at some time during > the arc. Where and when it was her and when it wasn't is left to > the reader to wonder "Huh?" The obvious area would be pre spin the bottle when she had amnesia... that she aparently harbored Jasmine inside at that time is of little consequence as Jasmine was shown to be inactive until the memory spell. This leaves cordelia/conner sympathy bone durring the fake Apoc (which *sucked* IMO). In short it was believeable as being in charachter for a cordelia without memory. And the single largest turn off toward the charachter for me... A charachter I liked a lot before Couplet, and thought was recovering before she "went to heaven". So I agree, keeping Cordelia in the show would have been hard... on me anyway ... Cause I was truly sick of her by the time inside out rolled around and my level of forgiveness was/is low. Willow was brought back full of angst and self doubt and was slowly reintegrated back into the team where she could play a major role in the finally. Given that we are led to believe that Codelias visions were little more that the excuse to make her 1/2 demon to allow conner to be born... she 1 should have lost her visionity now 2 Have no reason to still be hanging out helping AI 3 Have little place in "Wolfram and Hart" (a fasion division?) Now she might be of use to illustrate a corrupted AI by rejecting them when she wakes up, but then I see her leaving for something else... maybe GrooSlug is still fighting evil.

2003-11-16 01:43:19-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in news:20031115231626.06226.00001564@mb-m19.aol.com: >>Is there some reason to favor a "Cordy wasn't really down here" >>fanwank over the "Cordy was down here but possessed" explanation >>provided by the series, despite the fact that they are functionally >>identical? > > Cause the one destroys the meaning of the series, the other can > be made to work for both Cordy, as an arc and a character, and AtS > as a thematic series. I see. Those are the, uh... the *only* two possibilities? (Usher looks around to make sure he hasn't accidentally transported himself into the bizarro world.) Alrighty, then... > Or to put it this way, the Cordelia Chase storyarc is just another > ME Drug metaphor. This time the drug being doing good. > > A self centered bitch has the visions forced on her. She begins > to do good. It begins to feel great. Really great. It seems to > fill those empty parts of her. Except it's actually killing her. > The more she does, the more it destroys her. She finally goes > on the ultimate high, crashes down, loses her mind, changes > personality totally, and finally goes brain dead. All from doing > good. > > Jasmine was her Rack, her dealer, who uses her body like a whore. > Then discards her empty shell. > > Moral of the Cordelia Chase arc: Don't do good. Wow. And I thought the "Angel is just in it for the gratitude!" interpretations were nuts. But *this*... Wow. 1. Your analogy strips "doing good" of its inherent value by inappropraitely associating it with something (i.e., drug use) that has no generative impact. Cordelia didn't lock herself in a bathroom and shoot "goodness" into her arm. She *helped people*. She saved their lives, saved their souls. Regardless of what happened to *her*, that is undeniably and inescapably a *good thing*. But you're suggesting that all these people's lives and welfare mean nothing because they didn't lead Cordelia to a shiny reward. Didn't Our Heroes move beyond that POV by "Epiphany"? Each act is its own reward, and all? Ringin' any bells? 2. You are assigning negative weight to Cordy's actions unfairly, when as far as we know the blame should rest on *Jasmine*. If you go around handing out sandwiches to the homeless, and someone sneaks around behind you and kills each homeless person you hand a sandwich to, does that mean it was wrong for you to feed the hungry? Or does it just mean that it was wrong for that other guy to fucking *murder* them? The same exact principle should be at work here. The world didn't suffer because Cordy did a good thing; it suffered because Jasmine did an evil thing. And that no more suggests that Cordy shouldn't have embraced her mission than Angel's failure to redeem human!Darla means that he should never have tried to redeem her. > But by all means, have it that Cordy was a sap. An egotistical bitch > who got suckered by a PTB and a demon. How about that she was a good woman who was deceived? Who did the right thing for the right reasons, but was outmatched by a couple Higher Beings doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons? But, gosh, no -- the show can't bear that! Good people must always triumph! The evildoers' plans must always fail! Otherwise there's no point in depicting the struggle! Spare me. -- Lord Usher "I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."

2003-11-16 04:16:24+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


In article <bp0r34$1jrvtp$2@ID-137314.news.uni-berlin.de>, aej17DELETEME@comcast.net (A.E. Jabbour) writes: >SWeick <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote: > >> Then again, the writing of "Inside Out" was such bad fanwanking itself >> that it's clear that ME never had a clue on what it was doing with >> the Cordelia arc. > >And that's the bottom line. There have been all sorts of attempts >at explanations. None of them completely make sense. As Terry said, it's an ink blot. Some, like LU, are going to see a perfectly obvious pattern. Except there isn't. Others are going to see an mess. Which it turned out to be. And that's >because the writers didn't have any idea what they were doing, so >how can the audience understand it? Given the pregnancy, the change in runners (Greenwalt to whathisname from Freakylinks to Bell to Joss/Minear overseeing Bell) I can get the hows of the mess. That doesn't make it any less of a mess, or excuse the mess. >The Cordelia/Cordelius crap was the lowpoint for ME, and that's >saying something. That's when I became convinced that they just >gave up caring. Or they kept digging when they found themselves in a hole instead of just stopping. Oh well. Not expecting Cordelia to surface anytime soon anywho. Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-11-16 04:16:26+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


In article <Xns94348995F416Fhouseofusher@216.40.28.70>, Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> writes: >sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in >news:20031113145110.25862.00000149@mb-m05.aol.com: > >>> so I gotta ask -- did you miss the part where it was clearly >>> established that Cordy *was* "down here" last season, in body if not >>> in spirit? >> >> Terry was right, there are people who believe this. > >Uh... sure. And I don't see any particular reason not to believe it. Fine. >Is there some reason to favor a "Cordy wasn't really down here" fanwank >over the "Cordy was down here but possessed" explanation provided by the >series, despite the fact that they are functionally identical? Cause the one destroys the meaning of the series, the other can be made to work for both Cordy, as an arc and a character, and AtS as a thematic series. Terry mentioned what I'll call the DuPree Dilemma. You can have Cordy. You can have AtS. You can't have both. (Joss, if you can believe a word from that liar, seems to agree. Or is using it as a excuse to punish, which is my thought.) Or to put it this way, the Cordelia Chase storyarc is just another ME Drug metaphor. This time the drug being doing good. A self centered bitch has the visions forced on her. She begins to do good. It begins to feel great. Really great. It seems to fill those empty parts of her. Except it's actually killing her. The more she does, the more it destroys her. She finally goes on the ultimate high, crashes down, loses her mind, changes personality totally, and finally goes brain dead. All from doing good. Jasmine was her Rack, her dealer, who uses her body like a whore. Then discards her empty shell. Moral of the Cordelia Chase arc: Don't do good. AtS is about why we should do good. Thus you can't have both. Except if you fanwank a bit to fix it. >> "Inside Out" didn't show it was Cordy. Actually it made you >> think it clearly wasn't. >> >> "See, this is the nefarious meat of it, pal. You die never knowing >> what really happened to the woman you love. Gotta respect >> the classics." >> >> Not seeing him telling the truth later. > >Why not? That was the whole point of the sequence. Skips says he won't >tell the truth, but then Angel kicks the crap out of him, drags him home >to the gang, and *forces* him to tell the truth. Skip's interest would be to say whatever would benefit his Master the most, which is to gain whatever advantage he could against Angel killing "Cordelia" till his Master was freed. But fine. Skip was truthful. There in no more Cordelia arc, QED. >> I'll go with what makes a little sense, that Cordy was never down >> here, but trapped, mind, spirit, and soul, up on high while the demon >> took her body down for a ride with Connor. >> >> Cause it's better than what the shit for brains writers might have >> meant, if they actually meant it. > >I don't get this. I really don't. Because, honestly, there's enough >crazy-ass gobbledygook Which is what I'm trying to fix. swinging in season 4; why introduce *more* to >establish a distinction that's not actually a difference? Except there is. If Cordy was along for the ride, the drug metaphor holds. Moral: Don't do good. Cordy is not along for the ride, but instead went higher, actually was able to do more good, for the sake of goodness, but with great sacrifices, then you can salvage it. That TPTB might manipulate, but they manipulate because as Jasmine proved that their direct interference would do more harm than anything else, you can keep TPTB on the side of the angels too. (And the side of the devils, cause they believe in free will.) TPTB weren't fools and knew what Jasmine was up to, but they selected Cordy because she was proven to be one not to abuse her powers when they were given. That she actually was worthy. And the neat thing is you have the cost Cordy had to bear. >From the evidence of many, many past episodes, we already know that a >person in the Buffyverse can be possessed by the spirit of another >individual, so that in effect her mind, spirit, and soul remains trapped >inside her own body while someone else pulls the strings. That's what >we're told has happened to Cordelia, and the Cordemon behaves in a way >that's consistent with such a possessed being. What possessed being has no memory of itself? Anywho, it ain't that it's consistent with anything. Nothing is like Cordelius. (The name I chose for a reason. Just like Angelus isn't Liam, Cordelius wasn't Cordy. Liam was dead. Cordy wasn't there.) She was a vessel for a living god. >So what's the point in assuming, "Oh, it must work differently than they >say; her mind, spirit, and soul must be floating around in the Higher >Realms somewhere"? How does that make more sense, or paint Cordelia in a >better light? It means that deciding to do good isn't wrong. There are rewards, as well as costs. But by all means, have it that Cordy was a sap. An egotistical bitch who got suckered by a PTB and a demon. That'll make for a swell arc. Maybe she can brood, feel sorry for herself, and start screwing Spike, cause that made for a great story previously. But don't worry. ME will go with your vision. And no Cordy arc ever again worth watching. You win. Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-11-16 04:47:34+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers - (aej17DELETEME@comcast.net)


SWeick <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote: > In article <bp0r34$1jrvtp$2@ID-137314.news.uni-berlin.de>, > aej17DELETEME@comcast.net (A.E. Jabbour) writes: > >>SWeick <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote: >> >>> Then again, the writing of "Inside Out" was such bad fanwanking itself >>> that it's clear that ME never had a clue on what it was doing with >>> the Cordelia arc. >> >>And that's the bottom line. There have been all sorts of attempts >>at explanations. None of them completely make sense. > > > As Terry said, it's an ink blot. Some, like LU, are going > to see a perfectly obvious pattern. Except there isn't. > > Others are going to see an mess. Which it turned out to be. Yep. That's a good analogy, actually. It's just so damned sad. >>And that's >>because the writers didn't have any idea what they were doing, so >>how can the audience understand it? > > > Given the pregnancy, the change in runners (Greenwalt to whathisname > from Freakylinks to Bell to Joss/Minear overseeing Bell) I can get the > hows of the mess. That doesn't make it any less of a mess, or excuse > the mess. Exactly. And I think the evidence of a complete lack of cohesiveness in the storytelling has been there for a long time. It seems as though they are making *some* attempt to correct that this year, but with the mindwipe ... Also, it seems that one of the methods they are using to make things cohere is having a lot of scenes in hallways and behind deks and with people sitting on couches. I'm not overly excited with that method, to be honest. >>The Cordelia/Cordelius crap was the lowpoint for ME, and that's >>saying something. That's when I became convinced that they just >>gave up caring. > > > Or they kept digging when they found themselves in a hole instead of > just stopping. > > Oh well. > > Not expecting Cordelia to surface anytime soon anywho. > > > > Stephen Weick Yeah, I'm not either. I will never forgive ME for "Birthday." Never. -- AE Jabbour "I mean, I may have ripped off Vertigo, The Shining, James Ellroy, James M. Cain, Barton Fink, Rebel Without a Cause, Vertigo, Psycho, Kiss Me Deadly, Double Indemnity and The Hudsucker Proxy - but I'm certainly no plagiarist!" Tim Minear, alt.tv.angel, 10.05.2000

2003-11-16 06:12:02+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers - (Norman Pfyster <norman_pfyster@earthlink.net>)


"SWeick" <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote in message news:20031115231626.06226.00001564@mb-m19.aol.com... > > >Is there some reason to favor a "Cordy wasn't really down here" fanwank > >over the "Cordy was down here but possessed" explanation provided by the > >series, despite the fact that they are functionally identical? > > > Cause the one destroys the meaning of the series, the other can > be made to work for both Cordy, as an arc and a character, and AtS > as a thematic series. In both instances, the key point is that it wasn't Cordelia. Explain how the mechanism that it wasn't Cordelia makes one bit of difference. > Terry mentioned what I'll call the DuPree Dilemma. You can have > Cordy. You can have AtS. You can't have both. (Joss, if you can > believe a word from that liar, seems to agree. Or is using it as a > excuse to punish, which is my thought.) I liked the character, but she isn't that vital to the show that one could say she is the equivalent of the show. No more than Xander or Willow were to Buffy. > Or to put it this way, the Cordelia Chase storyarc is just another > ME Drug metaphor. This time the drug being doing good. > > A self centered bitch has the visions forced on her. She begins > to do good. It begins to feel great. Really great. It seems to > fill those empty parts of her. Except it's actually killing her. > The more she does, the more it destroys her. She finally goes > on the ultimate high, crashes down, loses her mind, changes > personality totally, and finally goes brain dead. All from doing good. > > Moral of the Cordelia Chase arc: Don't do good. Or: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Or: sometimes doing good means sacrificing yourself. Neither maxim is a commandment not to do good. A fair interpretation of the story of Angel is that trying to redeem himself has only made him miserable. It's a trope that recurs consistently throughout the series. Would you say that the moral of Angel is: Don't try to redeem yourself? Hey, in that case, the Cordelia Chase arc fits in perfectly with the moral of Angel's story.

2003-11-16 06:45:12+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


"Norman Pfyster" norman_pfyster@earthlink.net wrote: >In both instances, the key point is that it wasn't Cordelia. The original statement I corrected said that Cordy went bad, BTW. LU has argued that Cordy was partially there at some time during the arc. Where and when it was her and when it wasn't is left to the reader to wonder "Huh?" Explain how the >mechanism that it wasn't Cordelia makes one bit of difference. So you actually didn't bother reading anything I wrote? Oh well. At least you snipped your answer. >> Terry mentioned what I'll call the DuPree Dilemma. You can have >> Cordy. You can have AtS. You can't have both. (Joss, if you can >> believe a word from that liar, seems to agree. Or is using it as a >> excuse to punish, which is my thought.) > >I liked the character, but she isn't that vital to the show that one could >say she is the equivalent of the show. You really don't get it. You can have AtS without Cordelia, as stated above. You can't have both. Or at least without some adjustments. >> Or to put it this way, the Cordelia Chase storyarc is just another >> ME Drug metaphor. This time the drug being doing good. >> >> A self centered bitch has the visions forced on her. She begins >> to do good. It begins to feel great. Really great. It seems to >> fill those empty parts of her. Except it's actually killing her. >> The more she does, the more it destroys her. She finally goes >> on the ultimate high, crashes down, loses her mind, changes >> personality totally, and finally goes brain dead. All from doing good. >> >> Moral of the Cordelia Chase arc: Don't do good. > >Or: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Which undermines the series. There is no redemption. Doing good sends you to hell. Why bother? Oh, cause we should do good anyhow? Suckers. Or: sometimes doing good >means sacrificing yourself. Which has nothing to do with anything, but hey, par for the course. > Neither maxim is a commandment not to do good. Yet that Cordelia arc clearly is, because every action Cordy takes was to do good. It all turns out evil. Too bad you never watch the show AtS. It was pretty good in its time. >A fair interpretation of the story of Angel is that trying to redeem himself >has only made him miserable. It's a trope that recurs consistently >throughout the series. Would you say that the moral of Angel is: Don't try >to redeem yourself? Actually, yes. Minear's double epiphany was a problem. Their solution was worse. See, doing good cause you're supposed to makes no actual sense. Cause if all doing good results in is what Cordy, Angel, Wes, et al. have gotten, Lilah was better off with evil. And the world is no better for their good. You clearly can't show it. Lord knows the show can't. > Hey, in that case, the Cordelia Chase arc fits in >perfectly with the moral of Angel's story. Don't do good. You're a sap otherwise. I agree. Micky DuPree was right. The series is done now. ME's version of Revenge of the Cybermen last episode included. Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-11-17 01:50:25+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers - (Norman Pfyster <norman_pfyster@earthlink.net>)


"SWeick" <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote in message news:20031116014512.12166.00000261@mb-m26.aol.com... > "Norman Pfyster" norman_pfyster@earthlink.net wrote: > > >I liked the character, but she isn't that vital to the show that one could > >say she is the equivalent of the show. > > > You really don't get it. You can have AtS without Cordelia, as > stated above. You can't have both. Or at least without some > adjustments. I'm suggesting that the adjustment that needs to be made is your understanding of the series, not your understanding of Cordelia. > >> Moral of the Cordelia Chase arc: Don't do good. > > > >Or: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. > > > Which undermines the series. There is no redemption. Doing good > sends you to hell. Why bother? Unlike you, I don't find that a rhetorical question. Perhaps the writers don't either. > Oh, cause we should do good anyhow? Suckers. > > > Or: sometimes doing good > >means sacrificing yourself. > > > Which has nothing to do with anything, but hey, par for the course. It goes right to your comment that doing good without a personal reward is for suckers. > Too bad you never watch the show AtS. It was pretty good in its > time. You know, I've tried to be reasonable, but I have to say, fuck you. I've been watching Buffy and Angel since their first seasons. Just because I've come to different conclusions about the moral of the story doesn't mean I'm clueless. > Don't do good. You're a sap otherwise. > > I agree. Micky DuPree was right. The series is done now. In my interpretation of "Home" last year, I incorporated the Conner plot into Micky's theory that Angel is metaphor for a recovering alcoholic. Not that I entirely agree with her thesis, but it's not hard to spin the non-redemption theme onto the impossibility of an alcoholic to undo the damage his/her alcoholism caused.

2003-11-17 06:22:32+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


In article <Xns9435111096760houseofusher@216.40.28.74>, Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> writes: >sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in >news:20031115231626.06226.00001564@mb-m19.aol.com: > >>>Is there some reason to favor a "Cordy wasn't really down here" >>>fanwank over the "Cordy was down here but possessed" explanation >>>provided by the series, despite the fact that they are functionally >>>identical? >> >> Cause the one destroys the meaning of the series, the other can >> be made to work for both Cordy, as an arc and a character, and AtS >> as a thematic series. > >I see. > >Those are the, uh... the *only* two possibilities? Oh no. They can write what I expect them to now, just ignore the damage they have done or are doing and insist things are grand. I fully expect her appearance on the 100th episode to be exactly as you are saying. Oh hell, I fully expect that they'll have Cordy in a coma. Harmony has to fill her craving for human blood and decided to just take a sip out of Cordy, but drains her, killing Cordy and giving the visions to Harmony. Thus becoming the total replacement for Cordelia in ME's eyes. But that's my low expectations. You ask why of the two are there real differences, I've given it. >(Usher looks around to make sure he hasn't accidentally transported >himself into the bizarro world.) Smarmy remarks. Acting like a jerk. Ignoring other people's points. Nope, you're in alt.tv.angel as it now has become. >Alrighty, then... And so we go... >> Or to put it this way, the Cordelia Chase storyarc is just another >> ME Drug metaphor. This time the drug being doing good. >> >> A self centered bitch has the visions forced on her. She begins >> to do good. It begins to feel great. Really great. It seems to >> fill those empty parts of her. Except it's actually killing her. >> The more she does, the more it destroys her. She finally goes >> on the ultimate high, crashes down, loses her mind, changes >> personality totally, and finally goes brain dead. All from doing >> good. >> >> Jasmine was her Rack, her dealer, who uses her body like a whore. >> Then discards her empty shell. >> >> Moral of the Cordelia Chase arc: Don't do good. > >Wow. And I thought the "Angel is just in it for the gratitude!" >interpretations were nuts. But *this*... Wow. I think you said to Shawn "I love you too" when he couldn't believe your overwhelming love and devotion to a good, but nothing all that great, episode. Irony much? The fact is that it fits the ME drug metaphor, just like Angel as a recovering addict and Willow as a magic drug user. You fail to refute the analogy BTW with story facts, but your personal biases. >1. Your analogy strips "doing good" of its inherent value by >inappropraitely associating it with something (i.e., drug use) that has >no generative impact. Cordelia didn't lock herself in a bathroom and >shoot "goodness" into her arm. She *helped people*. Cordelia: "It's hard to explain. I'm telling you. It's like - I don't know. I had these air pockets inside of me, and the work I'm doing, uh, we're doing, it's-it's like the pockets keep getting filled and I'm becoming me..." - _Disharmony_ She did it to make herself feel good. People are addicted to sex, to exercise, to work, and in her instance to "doing good". I'm sorry if you hate the meaning, but it fits. Oh, I'm sure Micky Dupree, Terry, and others could come up with a better example of the problem than I'm doing, but you'd ignore them too, so what's the diff. She saved their >lives, saved their souls. Regardless of what happened to *her*, that is >undeniably and inescapably a *good thing*. No, that's an accidental byproduct. Just as those addicted to work make productive byproducts until that addiction causes personal destruction. If drug addicts gave the world a useful byproduct to their destruction it wouldn't make their addiction any less damaging. An example being artists whose drug damages supposedly made them great. Sadly, probably only made them dead. >But you're suggesting that all these people's lives and welfare mean >nothing because they didn't lead Cordelia to a shiny reward. Didn't Our >Heroes move beyond that POV by "Epiphany"? Each act is its own reward, >and all? Ringin' any bells? _Epiphany_ was undercut by TPTB allowing Angel access into Kate's apartment. There is a plan then. We found out later what it was. That problem isn't that there isn't a reward, but that all the people we see on the program doing good are doing terrible personally. They are all total and complete disasters. Besides them being murderers, rapists, kidnappers, etc. Why should people do good, based on this show? Cause you're supposed to? Everyone to their abilities? Doesn't work. Should it be for the shiny reward? Not totally, but if it gives you a totally crappy life, to be screwed at every turn, to have personal lives that are a disaster, then sorry, you're a sap to do good based on this show. In real life you do good to help others, with the assumption that by helping others you're helping the world and that allows you to live in a better world than one if you didn't help. There are external benefits, as well as internal ones. Maybe no shiny reward, but there is something in it for the person doing good. Otherwise doing good would be a suckers game. The MEverse is just as crappy now as it was before Angel decided the sight of a 14 YO hottie made him want to "make a difference". That was Holland Manner's elevator ride point. And it hurt cause it was true. >2. You are assigning negative weight to Cordy's actions unfairly, when >as far as we know the blame should rest on *Jasmine*. Jasmine was an EET. She was the fault, but again, it was Cordy who fell into her trap. Why? Because Cordy was addicted to "doing good". Otherwise, in what way should Cordy have felt that she of all people should have ascended? Cordy: "But I know it's right. I know somehow it's all gonna be alright." - Tomorrow. If you go around >handing out sandwiches to the homeless, and someone sneaks around behind >you and kills each homeless person you hand a sandwich to, does that >mean it was wrong for you to feed the hungry? If you're drawing the hungry homeless to a place that they are being killed after you feed them, shouldn't you notice it? If you ignore it because you like the feeling of feeding the homeless, but really don't care what happens to them afterwards, are you actually doing good? Not to go into parables of giving fish and teaching to fish, but yours is a poor analogy of doing good. Or does it just mean that >it was wrong for that other guy to fucking *murder* them? LU, you're losing it. You can't admit there's a valid point being made by the Micky DuPrees of the world. You can't admit that the metaphor I pointed out has validity. Instead you go to obscenity and really lousy analogies. If you are to believe _Inside Out_, which you insist on, then Cordy was a sucker. She was tricked into ascending. How? By playing on her ego, her need to "do good". They played on this in _Birthday_. They played on this in _Tomorrow_. She was played like a do gooder addict. Not me saying this. Your honest demon Skip said this (or agreed with Wesley on this). >The same exact principle should be at work here. The world didn't suffer >because Cordy did a good thing; it suffered because Jasmine did an evil >thing. And that no more suggests that Cordy shouldn't have embraced her >mission than Angel's failure to redeem human!Darla means that he should >never have tried to redeem her. But the story told is that by Cordy wanting to do more good that allowed Jasmine the chance. If Cordy had just left the visions with Angel, the Jasmine wouldn't have risen. She insisted on taking them and becoming part demon. If Cordy had the self awareness of knowing she had no business ascending, Jasmine wouldn't have risen. She accepted the bogus setup of ascending. Supposedly once up there, she got bored and decided to descend. Jasmine came along for the ride. (That's according to the show and how you described it). Whose fault is it for Jasmine to be able to hitch a ride? This isn't Buffy being pulled from Heeeaaa-ven and a spirit went along for the ride, but someone choosing to go and then choosing to leave once bored. Cordy has to have responsibility. She made those choices. >> But by all means, have it that Cordy was a sap. An egotistical bitch >> who got suckered by a PTB and a demon. > >How about that she was a good woman who was deceived? Who did the right >thing for the right reasons, but was outmatched by a couple Higher >Beings doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons? You can't cheat an honest man with a crooked game. And to believe _Inside Out_, their rigging game depended totally on playing to Cordelia's flaws. I'm sure they're gonna have Angel say exactly that to Cordy before she leaves for whatever lame excuse ME can come up with to write the character out, but it'll ring false because she wasn't deceived, she was played. They used her by her own failing. Her need to do good instead of doing good because it would improve the world. >But, gosh, no -- the show can't bear that! Good people must always >triumph! The evildoers' plans must always fail! Otherwise there's no >point in depicting the struggle! Of course you don't get it. Neither does ME. But Micky did. Her statements have turned out to be true. You OTOH tell us how great and powerful a episode that rated only fair by most and expect us to realize your brilliance. Wonder which one I should believe? Hey, I argued against Micky's statements. But I was wrong. Joss wanted to show that at a point good could be evil and gave us that doing good is evil. Instead of trying to fix the screwup, he'll keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. Oh well. I now understand how _She_ got by him. He doesn't get when he contradicts his own message, or muddles it up. Be it ego or not being that talented, he just won't get it. Oh well. >Spare me. Oh don't worry. The 100th episode will be around soon enough and your wish will be fulfilled. Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-11-17 10:39:09-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote in news:20031117012232.21642.00002378@mb-m01.aol.com: >>(Usher looks around to make sure he hasn't accidentally transported >>himself into the bizarro world.) > > Smarmy remarks. Acting like a jerk. Ignoring other > people's points. Nope, you're in alt.tv.angel as it now > has become. Come on, man -- don't pretend to the moral high ground here. Not after "fine," "you win," and all your other barely disguised expressions of comtempt for my opinion, as if I'm some Uncle Tom who's deluded himself into finding moments of quality in what is *obviously* an awful, awful show. > The fact is that it fits the ME drug metaphor, just like Angel > as a recovering addict and Willow as a magic drug user. > > You fail to refute the analogy BTW with story facts, but your > personal biases. What does that mean, though? "It fits the ME drug metaphor"? Sure, in the sense that it does nothing to directly contradict said opinion. But lack of evidence against does not constitute evidence for. The reason I haven't refuted your analogy is because there's nothing to refute. >>1. Your analogy strips "doing good" of its inherent value by >>inappropraitely associating it with something (i.e., drug use) that >>has no generative impact. Cordelia didn't lock herself in a bathroom >>and shoot "goodness" into her arm. She *helped people*. > > Cordelia: "It's hard to explain. I'm telling you. It's like - I > don't know. I had these air pockets inside of me, and the work I'm > doing, uh, we're doing, it's-it's like the pockets keep getting filled > and I'm becoming me..." - _Disharmony_ > > She did it to make herself feel good. People are addicted to sex, > to exercise, to work, and in her instance to "doing good". You're arguing from consequences again -- confusing *result* within *intent*. Yes, Cordy says that her good work has filled a void inside of her; but she's *never* said that she chooses to do good in order to fill that void. It's a delightful side-effect, nothing more, and I don't think you can provide me with evidence from the text to suggest otherwise. >>She saved their lives, saved their souls. Regardless of what happened >>to *her*, that is undeniably and inescapably a *good thing*. > > No, that's an accidental byproduct. Just as those addicted to work > make productive byproducts until that addiction causes personal > destruction. And your evidence is...? Because I can provide a buncha quotes to indicate that Cordy thinks the saving lives thing is the most important aspect of her work. And, y'know, on some level you must believe my interpretation is a possibility, or you wouldn't be arguing that Cordy could still be saved through your Detached Spirit Retcon. If there's real evidence of this drug addiction metaphor, independent of what happened to Cordy in the Higher Realms, then *your retcon wouldn't change anything*. And yet here you are quoting lines from years before Cordy's ascension, as evidence that she's really a goodaholic. You can't have it both ways. >>But you're suggesting that all these people's lives and welfare mean >>nothing because they didn't lead Cordelia to a shiny reward. Didn't >>Our Heroes move beyond that POV by "Epiphany"? Each act is its own >>reward, and all? Ringin' any bells? > > _Epiphany_ was undercut by TPTB allowing Angel access into Kate's > apartment. There is a plan then. We found out later what it was. No, that's not at all contradictory. If you're doing good for its own sake, and not because of some bigger plan, it doesn't matter whether there's a bigger plan or not. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't; doesn't change why you're doing it. > That problem isn't that there isn't a reward, but that all the people > we see on the program doing good are doing terrible personally. > They are all total and complete disasters. Besides them being > murderers, rapists, kidnappers, etc. > > Why should people do good, based on this show? Cause you're supposed > to? Everyone to their abilities? Doesn't work. How about, because many, many other people live better lives as a result? Because you're helping *them*, regardless of what you must suffer? > Should it be for the shiny reward? Not totally, but if it gives you > a totally crappy life, to be screwed at every turn, to have personal > lives that are a disaster, then sorry, you're a sap to do good based > on this show. Or, y'know, you're a hero, selflessly giving up personal happiness to further the happiness of others. I really don't understand why Cordy's fate, of all things, has provoked this "good is for suckers" reaction. She of all Our Heroes had a pretty good life. As the "Disharmony" quote indicates, she was genuinely happy to be fighting evil, to be doing good. Yes, she ultimately fell to some horrible evil force -- but, jeez, isn't that how most who fight the Good Fight go in the end? All they can ask for is to do good and not be too miserable in the time they have, and Cordy did and wasn't. > The MEverse is just as crappy now as it was before Angel decided > the sight of a 14 YO hottie made him want to "make a difference". > > That was Holland Manner's elevator ride point. And it hurt cause > it was true. And he got over it not because it wasn't true, but because it *didn't matter*. Because Angel realized that he wasn't doing good for his own benefit anyway. So why shouldn't Cordy? >>2. You are assigning negative weight to Cordy's actions unfairly, when >>as far as we know the blame should rest on *Jasmine*. > > Jasmine was an EET. She was the fault, but again, it was Cordy > who fell into her trap. Why? Because Cordy was addicted to > "doing good". Otherwise, in what way should Cordy have felt that > she of all people should have ascended? Um... because a Higher Being told her so? Because she had been doing good for a long time? Because she possessed a unique gift that she could reasonably believe would be helpful on the Higher Planes? Again, I am mystified by your either/or attitude. There are many, many other reasons why Cordy could've wanted to ascend, and "good addiction" is probably the least plausible among them. >>If you go around handing out sandwiches to the homeless, and someone >>sneaks around behind you and kills each homeless person you hand a >>sandwich to, does that mean it was wrong for you to feed the hungry? > > If you're drawing the hungry homeless to a place that they are being > killed after you feed them, shouldn't you notice it? Not if some smart, powerful evildoer is deliberately manipulating you so that you don't! Why is it so hard for you accept the possibility that Cordy was simply deceived? Why must it point to some gross failing on her part, instead of on the part of the deceiver? Smacks of blaming the victim to me. >>Or does it just mean that it was wrong for that other guy to fucking >>*murder* them? > > LU, you're losing it. Right back atcha, Stephen. Your (understandable) disappointment in the series has spun your critical sense right out of whack. > You can't admit there's a valid point being made by the Micky DuPrees > of the world. Appeal to authority? If Micky has an argument to make, let her make it. If she made a point in the past that backs you up, quote it to me now. But don't try to hang your argument on her and expect me to accept it on the strength of her reputation. That's bad, bad rhetoric. > You can't admit that the metaphor I pointed out has validity. Because it doesn't. Because it's an example of the all-too-typical strategy plaguing a.t.a nowadays, wherein one creates a far-fetched interpretation out of whole cloth and then insists that it must be true because nothing in the series directly contradicts it -- no matter that nothing in the series privileges it over any other far-fetched argument. >>The same exact principle should be at work here. The world didn't >>suffer because Cordy did a good thing; it suffered because Jasmine did >>an evil thing. And that no more suggests that Cordy shouldn't have >>embraced her mission than Angel's failure to redeem human!Darla means >>that he should never have tried to redeem her. > > But the story told is that by Cordy wanting to do more good that > allowed Jasmine the chance. If Cordy had just left the visions with > Angel, the Jasmine wouldn't have risen. And Angel would've continued to suffer horribly. Which means that Cordy did right by taking the visions from him. > If Cordy had the self awareness of knowing she had no business > ascending, Jasmine wouldn't have risen. How could she possibly have known that? When a shiny Higher Being comes down and tells you it's time to ascend into Heaven, who are you to disagree? And, yes, maybe there is an element of ego involved -- Cordy believing that she deserved to ascend because of her good deeds. But that's not a sign of addiction; it's a sign of *humanity*. She didn't have to be a goodaholic to want to believe Skip was telling the truth. She just had to be a flawed human being in an extraordinary circumstance. > She accepted the bogus setup of ascending. Supposedly once up there, > she got bored and decided to descend. Jasmine came along for the > ride. (That's according to the show and how you described it). Whose > fault is it for Jasmine to be able to hitch a ride? This isn't Buffy > being pulled from Heeeaaa-ven and a spirit went along for the ride, > but someone choosing to go and then choosing to leave once bored. > Cordy has to have responsibility. She made those choices. And *someone else exploited those choices*. Making it *their* fault, not hers. Haven't you ever seen one of those movies or TV shows or books or whatever where the good guys are looking for some artifact to keep out of the hands of the bad guys, only in the end it turns out that they're being played by the bad guys to get the artifact for them? The good guys' intentions are pure and genuine, and the bad guys *exploit* those intentions for their own nefarious purposes. Does that mean the good guys weren't *really* good? Of course not. The same principle applies in this case. >>> But by all means, have it that Cordy was a sap. An egotistical >>> bitch who got suckered by a PTB and a demon. >> >>How about that she was a good woman who was deceived? Who did the >>right thing for the right reasons, but was outmatched by a couple >>Higher Beings doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons? > > You can't cheat an honest man with a crooked game. Pithy, but inaccurate. And blaming the victim, again. > And to believe _Inside Out_, their rigging game depended totally on > playing to Cordelia's flaws. Well, of course they did. That's how you deceive someone. But it doesn't therefore follow that her flaws constitute the whole of her being, or that she was never motivated by anything *but* her flaws. >>But, gosh, no -- the show can't bear that! Good people must always >>triumph! The evildoers' plans must always fail! Otherwise there's no >>point in depicting the struggle! > > Of course you don't get it. Neither does ME. But Micky did. Her > statements have turned out to be true. You OTOH tell us how great > and powerful a episode that rated only fair by most and expect us > to realize your brilliance. Jesus H. Christ, man, get over yourself. I don't give a shit how brilliant you think I am. You know why I argue my points? *Because I believe in them*. If that means I don't get to be in the Cool Angel-Haters Gang anymore, so be it. -- Lord Usher "I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."

2003-11-19 03:55:07+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > <Doing a lot of snippage for space here...> > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:3FB5AC36.1071491C@blueyonder.co.uk... > > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > > news:3FB5646E.9DF6920D@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > > > > > > Did we ever see Wesley miss a shot? > > > > > > > > > > Well, to be honest, I only started watching Angel this season, so I haven't > > > a clue other than this scene. But then let's face it: when the SFX guys are > > > responsible for your hits and misses, you could fire *behind* you and still > > > hit the target. The theory behind spray-and-pray is still to simply throw > > > as much lead in the air as possible and hope you hit something before the > > > other guy (who's probably doing the same thing) gets lucky - "lucky" being > > > the operative word there. > > > > Machinegunners kill more people than riflemen. Artillery gets even > > more. > > Yep, but machinegunners (*not* referring to SMGs here) aren't limited to a > maximum of sixteen to thirty rounds, and artillery is comparing apples and > oranges. Or rather, single projectiles and high explosives... I could argue the toss here but it was just a cheap shot I couldn't resist. FWIW, Wesley shoots "Dad" nine times and the slide isn't held back like an empty pistol. > > I've missed most of season one. Wesley mostly shoots things that > > aren't hurt by being shot, like last years apocalyptic beast. He > > does IIRC once, while himself wheelchair-bound from a gunshot > > wound (a zombie cop issue), messily blow the head off a demon with > > a shotgun. I've never seen him reload, he just grabs another > > weapon. > > > > > > Sure, but pistols have been sold and carried in pairs since the > > > > sixteenth century as the weapon of cavalrymen and, you know, > > > > pirates and that. > > > > > > Of course - and for the same reason. Flintlocks were even less convenient > > > to load than Civil War-era cap-and-ball revolvers. Plus, most of them were > > > single-shots. Wasn't it Blackbeard who was reputed to carry like eight > > > of'em tucked into his sash? > > > > That was a pretty normal thing to do for well-equipped cavalry. > > > > > > I wonder when the first fictional one-in-each-hand pistoleer was > > > > written? I guess that for a long time fictional heroes would've > > > > had a pistol in one hand and a sword in the other. > > > > > > Pretty much, since the pistol was never really used much as a *primary* > > > weapon until the guerilla fighters of the post-Civil War. Which is why > > > military holsters of the day were designed for the gun to be drawn with the > > > off hand - the strong hand was intended for the sabre. Pistols were used > > > mainly as last-ditch, point-blank weapons until people other than duelists > > > discovered that, dammit, you *can, too* hit a target with'em! > > > > I don't know that I agree with this. In general, the pistol came > > into fashion as a replacement for the lance. > > Well, the "hand-cannon," anyway. But for all practical purposes, it doesn't > really class as a pistol. And many of the early firearms used a shooting > stick to hold the muzzle up so the shooter could aim it (like that did much > good, since they were mostly smoothbores at the time...) I mean the wheellock pistols of the sixteenth century. Less reliable than a matchlock, but no burning match cord to fumble with on a horse. The long matchlock muskets with rests were a later development than the pistol and were mixed with pikes to keep the cavalry from getting in amongst them. Some enterprising nations gave the musketeers long-handled axes to use as the rests. > > Lances were heavy, > > demanded skill, were used once in the charge and discarded for a > > sword. I've read several accounts of medieval battles where a > > knightly army was left impotently throwing maces and swords into > > the ranks of footmen they dared not charge into. > > > > English Civil War cavalry would've trained to "caracole", to ride > > forward, shoot, and retire reloading in rank and file, one rank > > replacing the next. All the while they pinned the infantry in > > place by threatening to charge home, forcing the pikemen to block > > the musketeers line of fire. > > > > That was the theory, though they pretty much just fought other > > cavalry on the flanks of the battle. I saw two accounts of a Civil > > War battle from the journals of opposing gentleman troopers who > > recognised and fought each other personally. One discharged a > > pistol into contact with the other's helmet. > > Uh, huh - close-in, point-blank weaponry. Cavalry only need short-range weapons. They have a mobility advantage. Charging with a pistol is like a game of chicken. Shoot early and you likely miss, maybe you could draw another pistol or at least draw a sword or sabre. Shoot later and you will hit, but risk already having been shot. Winning a game of chicken demands that you convince your enemy that you are somewhat more suicidal than they are, and carrying a lance instead of pistols is quite a statement of intent. Throw in some pistol-proof armour... it's all fun. -- 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)

2003-11-19 03:55:24+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


Thirsty Viking wrote: > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:3FB5AC36.1071491C@blueyonder.co.uk... [...] > > Machinegunners kill more people than riflemen. Artillery gets even > > more. > > Machine gunners can kill more... doesn't always work that way. > Machinegunners are generally the prime target of other people > on the battlefield. Certainly in WW1 with Trench warfare your > statements were true. Today Machine gunners have a very short > life expectancy in ground combat against well trained units. > Obviously having the shooter inside a tank, hellicopter, or > flying gunship improves the survivability. Modern Infantry is almost entirely organised around machineguns. For example, a US army mechanised infantry squad is split into two fire teams, each with an M249 machinegun. One man shoots the gun. Another assists with the gun. The team leader tells the gunner where to shoot and spots new targets. This may leave a fourth man free to shoot a grenade launcher (and between them they have anti-tank weapons of the sort used in S3 BtVS on the judge). > Artillery has to be used to be effective... we have lost the will to use > it on units hiding in a city. Good. War is "the continuation of policy by other means". The policy is important. > > I've missed most of season one. Wesley mostly shoots things that > > aren't hurt by being shot, like last years apocalyptic beast. He > > does IIRC once, while himself wheelchair-bound from a gunshot > > wound (a zombie cop issue), messily blow the head off a demon with > > a shotgun. I've never seen him reload, he just grabs another > > weapon. > > Wesley shoots Chip or Skip or whoever in the head through the > little hole in the broken horn... Hell of a shot that one. Thank you. I'd forgotten that. -- 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)

2003-11-19 04:00:29+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


Thirsty Viking wrote: > > "Rowan Hawthorn" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:E3htb.967729$Id.143159@news.easynews.com... [...] > > There were those, too, but mounted soldiers often carried one, two, or more > > pairs of "horse pistols" - called that because the holsters were actually > > carried by the *horse,* not the rider. > > > Not disputing that. But then again it was a long time before more > than officers had pistols. Really, no. Ordinary troopers (such as German "reiters") have carried pistols since there were pistols to carry, specifically meaning wheellock pistols of the sixteenth century. Some of these troopers might be gentlemen, but of a lower status than people with much more armour and a lance. And cheaper to pay. A one-handed firearm was the ideal cavalry weapon. It could replace the lance and be used while charging to "joust", a game of chicken (how late do you shoot?). It could replace the short-range missile weapons used by light cavalry that approached its enemy, hurled missiles or loosed arrows and retreated with superior mobility until it's enemy was scattered and broken (although much light cavalry of the time preferred to shoot at the halt from a safer distance with a longer firearm). -- 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)

2003-11-19 06:36:33+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Rowan Hawthorn <nobody@nowhere.com>)


"David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3FBAE99B.835D1662@blueyonder.co.uk... > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > <Doing a lot of snippage for space here...> > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:3FB5AC36.1071491C@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > news:3FB5646E.9DF6920D@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > > > > > > > > Did we ever see Wesley miss a shot? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, to be honest, I only started watching Angel this season, so I haven't > > > > a clue other than this scene. But then let's face it: when the SFX guys are > > > > responsible for your hits and misses, you could fire *behind* you and still > > > > hit the target. The theory behind spray-and-pray is still to simply throw > > > > as much lead in the air as possible and hope you hit something before the > > > > other guy (who's probably doing the same thing) gets lucky - "lucky" being > > > > the operative word there. > > > > > > Machinegunners kill more people than riflemen. Artillery gets even > > > more. > > > > Yep, but machinegunners (*not* referring to SMGs here) aren't limited to a > > maximum of sixteen to thirty rounds, and artillery is comparing apples and > > oranges. Or rather, single projectiles and high explosives... > > I could argue the toss here but it was just a cheap shot I > couldn't resist. > > FWIW, Wesley shoots "Dad" nine times and the slide isn't held back > like an empty pistol. And that's a fairly common technical screwup on TV. Like an empty pistol *with* the slide locked back going "click...click..." > > Charging with a pistol is like a game of chicken. Shoot early and > you likely miss, maybe you could draw another pistol or at least > draw a sword or sabre. Shoot later and you will hit, but risk > already having been shot. Winning a game of chicken demands that > you convince your enemy that you are somewhat more suicidal than > they are, and carrying a lance instead of pistols is quite a > statement of intent. Throw in some pistol-proof armour... it's all > fun. Especially for the spectators. Popcorn, anyone...? -- Rowan Hawthorn

2003-11-20 04:29:09-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net>)


"David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3FBAE9AD.15E406A0@blueyonder.co.uk... > Thirsty Viking wrote: > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:3FB5AC36.1071491C@blueyonder.co.uk... > [...] > > > Machinegunners kill more people than riflemen. Artillery gets even > > > more. > > > > Machine gunners can kill more... doesn't always work that way. > > Machinegunners are generally the prime target of other people > > on the battlefield. Certainly in WW1 with Trench warfare your > > statements were true. Today Machine gunners have a very short > > life expectancy in ground combat against well trained units. > > Obviously having the shooter inside a tank, hellicopter, or > > flying gunship improves the survivability. > > Modern Infantry is almost entirely organised around machineguns. > For example, a US army mechanised infantry squad is split into two > fire teams, each with an M249 machinegun. One man shoots the gun. > Another assists with the gun. The team leader tells the gunner > where to shoot and spots new targets. This may leave a fourth man > free to shoot a grenade launcher (and between them they have > anti-tank weapons of the sort used in S3 BtVS on the judge). Again it all depends what you are up against... I specified well trained units.. perhapse I should have been more specific. It is of little consequence... the US army never faced off against circa 1986 soviet union forces. (thank God) This is when they taught young officers (including me) about the expected life expectancy of a MG in combat.... Not combat against lackey states, but first line troops. I admit this is mostly theory, but i belive it had some grounding from OPFOR excersizes. Basicly the theory was that from the time the MG opened fire you had less than a minute to win the battle (destroy the enemy unit) or lose the MG if it hadn't been relocated. > > Artillery has to be used to be effective... we have lost the will to use > > it on units hiding in a city. > > Good. War is "the continuation of policy by other means". The > policy is important. is and isn't.. but we have returned to tikrit now with more firepower. I'm sure we are trying to be surgical in its use.... we now view things like Shermans march to the sea as hideous was crimes. > > > I've missed most of season one. Wesley mostly shoots things that > > > aren't hurt by being shot, like last years apocalyptic beast. He > > > does IIRC once, while himself wheelchair-bound from a gunshot > > > wound (a zombie cop issue), messily blow the head off a demon with > > > a shotgun. I've never seen him reload, he just grabs another > > > weapon. > > > > Wesley shoots Chip or Skip or whoever in the head through the > > little hole in the broken horn... Hell of a shot that one. > > Thank you. I'd forgotten that. For the most part you were correct. Most demons seem to justify the view of Buffy in reguards to guns...

2003-11-25 04:20:28+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:3FBAE99B.835D1662@blueyonder.co.uk... [...] > > FWIW, Wesley shoots "Dad" nine times and the slide isn't held back > > like an empty pistol. > > And that's a fairly common technical screwup on TV. Like an empty pistol > *with* the slide locked back going "click...click..." I guess that's another cinematic cliche that goea back to (double-action) revolvers. -- 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)

2003-11-25 04:46:07+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Rowan Hawthorn <nobody@nowhere.com>)


"David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3FC2D885.A7EF09C4@blueyonder.co.uk... > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:3FBAE99B.835D1662@blueyonder.co.uk... > > [...] > > > FWIW, Wesley shoots "Dad" nine times and the slide isn't held back > > > like an empty pistol. > > > > And that's a fairly common technical screwup on TV. Like an empty pistol > > *with* the slide locked back going "click...click..." > > I guess that's another cinematic cliche that goea back to > (double-action) revolvers. You know, I hadn't thought of that, but that may be where it came from. Of course, you'd think most of the technical people who work on films would *know* better, but so much for thinking. It irritates me almost as much as novelists who consistently have someone "put off the safety" on their .38 revolver, despite the number of writers' guides available to help an author avoid such technical errors. It's not like that's some deep, dark secret that would be difficult to research. -- Rowan Hawthorn

2003-11-29 14:24:08-06:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (dmpahl <dmpahl@isd.net>)


The standard issue 9 millimeter pistols used by California police has a 15 bullet magazine. Since he only shot nine times he would still have ammunition in the magazine and the slide wouldn't be held back. "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3FC2D885.A7EF09C4@blueyonder.co.uk... > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:3FBAE99B.835D1662@blueyonder.co.uk... > > [...] > > > FWIW, Wesley shoots "Dad" nine times and the slide isn't held back > > > like an empty pistol. > > > > And that's a fairly common technical screwup on TV. Like an empty pistol > > *with* the slide locked back going "click...click..." > > I guess that's another cinematic cliche that goea back to > (double-action) revolvers. > > -- > 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)

2003-11-30 00:22:21+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


dmpahl wrote: > > The standard issue 9 millimeter pistols used by California police has a 15 > bullet magazine. Since he only shot nine times he would still have > ammunition in the magazine and the slide wouldn't be held back. ...had he had that model of pistol, which I take to be the same 15-shot 9mmm Beretta pistol used by the US military (or by "Neo" Anderson in the Matrix films). Beretta pistols have a distinctive look. Wesley has a different model of pistol, one with the distinctive look of the old 45 calibre pistols used by the US military from before WW1 until after Vietnam ("Old Slabsides"). Rowan says his similar pistol would hold nine shots, others would hold twelve or more. I'm just saying, for what it's worth, I counted nine shots and a visibly non-empty gun. It's only a screw-up if the script say "he empties his gun", or if his particular model of gun shouldn't oughta have that many shots in it. -- 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)

2003-11-30 00:57:01+00:00 - Re: And the Father of the Year is... -- Shallow Thoughts on "Lineage" (Spoilers) - (Rowan Hawthorn <nobody@nowhere.com>)


"David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3FC9383E.4EE5CEC6@blueyonder.co.uk... > dmpahl wrote: > > > > The standard issue 9 millimeter pistols used by California police has a 15 > > bullet magazine. Since he only shot nine times he would still have > > ammunition in the magazine and the slide wouldn't be held back. > > ...had he had that model of pistol, which I take to be the same > 15-shot 9mmm Beretta pistol used by the US military (or by "Neo" > Anderson in the Matrix films). Beretta pistols have a distinctive > look. Wesley has a different model of pistol, one with the > distinctive look of the old 45 calibre pistols used by the US > military from before WW1 until after Vietnam ("Old Slabsides"). > > Rowan says his similar pistol would hold nine shots, others would > hold twelve or more. And just to clarify, cause I'm not sure but what I may have been a bit ambiguous: the ones that hold 12+ are not actually Colts, unless they've been modified with a custom frame or an extended magazine (or, unless Colt snuck a new model past me - which is possible.) There are several companies that make pistols based on the Colt 1911 that range from virtually identical stock models to extreme customs that look like something out of Star Wars. A few of these look at first glance just like the Colt, but have thicker grip frames, holding a staggered magazine which holds several more rounds than the standard. -- Rowan Hawthorn