FLM films - My Webpage

2003-08-11 21:43:23-07:00 - A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (reldevik@usa.net)


S P O I L E R S P A C E On another thread I said it appeared to me that a whole summer hasn't passed for the characters, and that the fifth season picks up only a few days after "Home." I was right. It's specifically stated in episode 5.2 that the destruction of Sunnydale was only 19 days ago. Another point: Spike isn't exactly "tied" to Angel. Spike is tied to Wolfram & Hart, because the amulet belongs to Wolfram & Hart. Spike, in his incorporeal state, has mobility within Los Angeles. But if he tries to go beyond the city limits he gets "bounced" back to the W&H building. There are times when he leaves Angel's presence and goes roaming around. But he can only go so far. When Spike asks about Buffy, he is told that Buffy is currently in Europe. One interesting thing is that all the LA characters seem to know that Spike saved the world by sacrificing his life, but at first only Angel knows that Spike has a soul. Those who saw "Chosen" will of course remember that in that episode Buffy told Angel that Spike had a soul. But Angel has never mentioned that information to any of the others. They've all been filled in on how the world was saved, but they thought the world was saved by a soulless vampire. They're surprised when they're finally told that Spike too has a soul. If you've read other spoilers for this episode then you'll know that when Angel opens the envelope and the amulet falls out, Spike emerges burning and screaming--at first. The reason for this is now known: it's because his death was being replayed in reverse. First he's dust, then he's burning (painfully), then he's whole and no longer burning. He appears as he did before he started getting all messed up in "Chosen"--the classic Spike look, in other words. But he is incorporeal. Harmony is among the characters who come running in to Angel's office to see what's happening. She assumes, in her typical ditzy way, that Spike is there to resume his relationship with her. Of course he isn't. But this sounds like it'll be a very funny scenelet between the two of them. Spike, angry about his sudden involuntary appearance in Angel's office, first finds out he's incorporeal by taking a swing at Angel, and not connecting. The momentum leaves his wispy phantasmal form standing *in* Angel's desk, which wasn't exactly what he expected. Fred does scientific tests, though, and determines that Spike's not exactly a ghost. He isn't ectoplasmic. And she can sense his brainwaves with scientific apparatus (which apparently you can't do with true ectoplasmic ghosts). Near the end of the episode, in a private conversation with Fred, Spike confides to her that there are moments when he feels as if he's straddling a chasm that's widening beneath him, and he's about to fall down into Hell. I think this has something to do with the random "blink-outs" that sometimes occur when Spike sort of fades out of existence. These are different from him being "bounced back" from the LA city limits, because these "blink outs" are occurring right inside Angel's office, for no known reason. But Spike feels that some force is trying to drag him down into Hell. Fred wants to help Spike. These are all the new details I can think of right now. If they seem Spikecentric, it's because it is a very Spikecentric episode. And most of the details about other aspects of the episode (Hainsley and his nasty scheme, etc.) are already known and posted. Clairel

2003-08-12 11:31:31+01:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Tafka <tafkaNOSPAM@boltfree.nospam.net>)


I want names, I want places, I want dates. reldevik@usa.net (Clairel). alt.tv.angel. 11 Aug 2003 21:43:23 -0700: [cut] Very interesting, thanks. I've posted a copy asis to umta for those who don't read ata but are awaiting S5 quite badly. Dammit, October 1st is so far away. -Tafka- Gandalf put on his fly purple velvet hat and stood. "Then let's get up out this biz-natch!"

2003-08-12 12:10:39-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (reldevik@usa.net)


"Tim Cunnings" <timken@internode.on.net.spam> wrote in message news:<3f38d5a4$1@duster.adelaide.on.net>... > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > news:1faed770.0308112043.e237e69@posting.google.com... > > S > > > > P > > > > O > > > > I > > > > L > > > > E > > > > R > > > > S > > > > P > > > > A > > > > C > > > > E > > > > On another thread I said it appeared to me that a whole summer hasn't > > passed for the characters, and that the fifth season picks up only a > > few days after "Home." I was right. It's specifically stated in > > episode 5.2 that the destruction of Sunnydale was only 19 days ago. > > So episode 5.1 is somewhere before that?, as in less than 19 days after > Sunnydale. Just curious, do you know how long between episode 1 and 2? I > wonder this, because I recall one of the complaints Joss said he was going > to address (and I assume it was The WB that wanted this changed) was that > episodes would become more spaced once again, less serial. I suppose its to > be expected that at least the first few shows be tighter together until they > address the changes made to the show. Just hope they don't all end up being > a really long couple weeks like season 4 (which I did like by the way) --Well, the non-serial nature of AtS this fall isn't apparent from episodes 5.1 and 5.2. Episode 5.1 ends with Spike appearing in Angel's office, and episode 5.2 picks up from the same point, with Spike standing in Angel's office and everybody rushing in to see what the heck is going on. Just before they all rush in, however, there's a flashback to the destruction of Sunnydale, with the caption "19 days ago." I think what's meant by stand-alone episodes is, basically, MOTW episodes, or Bad Guy Of The Week episodes. In that sense 5.1 and 5.2 are two distinct stories. In 5.1, Angel has to deal with the problem of Fries, Keel, and Hauser. In 5.2, the baddy is Hainsley with his nasty scheme. In 5.3, the baddy is someone else with yet another evil scheme. So on that level, you have stand-alone plots. But ongoing developments with the regular cast--developments such as Spike appearing, Fred trying to help him, etc.--those seem to make the show a sort of serial, at least on one level. > > Another point: Spike isn't exactly "tied" to Angel. Spike is tied to > > Wolfram & Hart, because the amulet belongs to Wolfram & Hart. Spike, > > in his incorporeal state, has mobility within Los Angeles. But if he > > tries to go beyond the city limits he gets "bounced" back to the W&H > > building. > > Hmmm, I wonder if there is some motivation behind W&H giving Angel the > amulet in the first place? Other than the fact that he and W&H are supposed > to have buddied up, is it possible they intended for Angel to wear the > amulet knowing full well what would happen to the vamp who wore it, so that > they might indeed 'capture' him in the same way Spike's been bound. --I forgot to mention that Angel, when talking to Wes, wonders exactly that. After all, Angel had been planning to wear the amulet and fight by Buffy's side. And presumably W&H expected him to do so. > Otherwise could they have been planning to catch Spike all along! Maybe I am > looking for a W&H conspiracy where there is none... --I don't think W&H knew anything whatsoever about Spike. He's the wild card in the deck. But I think it's quite probable they were conspiring against *Angel.* Angel certainly is suspicious of that. Another important thing I forgot to mention is that when Spike learns about Angel's deal with W&H, he warns them that they've made a devil's bargain. He says they've descended into the belly of the beast trying to destroy it from the inside, but they can't and instead they're being digested by it. I like this metaphor and I think it's an excellent description of what is happening to Angel and the others. > > > There are times when he leaves Angel's presence and goes roaming > > around. But he can only go so far. > > > > When Spike asks about Buffy, he is told that Buffy is currently in > > Europe. > > She didn't waste time leaving the country! Returned with Giles perhaps to > help rebuild the council? > > > > One interesting thing is that all the LA characters seem to know that > > Spike saved the world by sacrificing his life, but at first only Angel > > knows that Spike has a soul. Those who saw "Chosen" will of course > > remember that in that episode Buffy told Angel that Spike had a soul. > > But Angel has never mentioned that information to any of the others. > > They've all been filled in on how the world was saved, but they > > thought the world was saved by a soulless vampire. They're surprised > > when they're finally told that Spike too has a soul. > > Curious. Sounds a little muddy, and I suspect its going to have to be seen > to be understood. I got your general run down, but missed the backstory > methinks. > > > If you've read other spoilers for this episode then you'll know that > > when Angel opens the envelope and the amulet falls out, Spike emerges > > burning and screaming--at first. The reason for this is now known: > > it's because his death was being replayed in reverse. First he's > > dust, then he's burning (painfully), then he's whole and no longer > > burning. He appears as he did before he started getting all messed up > > in "Chosen"--the classic Spike look, in other words. But he is > > incorporeal. > > Am I wrong, or was Spike NOT screaming in pain when being consumed, been a > while since I watched it, so I can't recall. Don't know why but I just seem > to remember him being rather 'calm' while it all happened. Did he have the > duster on? Damn, another detail I can't seem to remember from the eariler > episode. Continuity wise I suppose he should have exactly the same cloths he > was wearing in Chosen, and thus not change at all for that matter on Angel, > at least until he gets form again. > > > Harmony is among the characters who come running in to Angel's office > > to see what's happening. She assumes, in her typical ditzy way, that > > Spike is there to resume his relationship with her. Of course he > > isn't. But this sounds like it'll be a very funny scenelet between > > the two of them. > > Yeah, I don't know about this. I have warmed somewhat to having Spike on the > show, but Harmony still doesn't sit right. I just kinda feel Spike is too > far past his Harmony thing. Having him interact with Harmony kind of brings > back memories of old spike, the one who was still evil, rather reckless, and > at times rather stupid in the way he kept going back for royal kickings of > his ass. > > > Spike, angry about his sudden involuntary appearance in Angel's > > office, first finds out he's incorporeal by taking a swing at Angel, > > and not connecting. The momentum leaves his wispy phantasmal form > > standing *in* Angel's desk, which wasn't exactly what he expected. > > > > Fred does scientific tests, though, and determines that Spike's not > > exactly a ghost. He isn't ectoplasmic. And she can sense his > > brainwaves with scientific apparatus (which apparently you can't do > > with true ectoplasmic ghosts). > > Kind of an 'out of phase' Star Trek type deal perhaps? Clearly is leading up > to how they intend to make Spike 'Wholly Souly' (TM) again. > > > Near the end of the episode, in a private conversation with Fred, > > Spike confides to her that there are moments when he feels as if he's > > straddling a chasm that's widening beneath him, and he's about to fall > > down into Hell. I think this has something to do with the random > > "blink-outs" that sometimes occur when Spike sort of fades out of > > existence. These are different from him being "bounced back" from the > > LA city limits, because these "blink outs" are occurring right inside > > Angel's office, for no known reason. But Spike feels that some force > > is trying to drag him down into Hell. Fred wants to help Spike. > > Me thinks that Fred and Spike could be being set up as a couple here. Fred > is probably the exact type of person William would have fallen for, > intelligent, somewhat shy etc. I can actually see this relationship working > rather well. Fred seems like she wants to clamp onto someone else, and I > don't think Wes would work now, after all the bad feeling it created between > Gunn and Wes. Oh dear, what am I saying! I dunno, seems logical Spike fall > for someone, Fred is kinda like Cecily (only nice) > > Tim Cunnings

2003-08-12 19:48:14-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (reldevik@usa.net)


Replying to this post earlier, I accidentally hit the send button without replying to everything I intended -- see below for more: "Tim Cunnings" <timken@internode.on.net.spam> wrote in message news:<3f38d5a4$1@duster.adelaide.on.net>... > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > news:1faed770.0308112043.e237e69@posting.google.com... > > S > > > > P > > > > O > > > > I > > > > L > > > > E > > > > R > > > > S > > > > P > > > > A > > > > C > > > > E > > > > On another thread I said it appeared to me that a whole summer hasn't > > passed for the characters, and that the fifth season picks up only a > > few days after "Home." I was right. It's specifically stated in > > episode 5.2 that the destruction of Sunnydale was only 19 days ago. > > So episode 5.1 is somewhere before that?, as in less than 19 days after > Sunnydale. Just curious, do you know how long between episode 1 and 2? I > wonder this, because I recall one of the complaints Joss said he was going > to address (and I assume it was The WB that wanted this changed) was that > episodes would become more spaced once again, less serial. I suppose its to > be expected that at least the first few shows be tighter together until they > address the changes made to the show. Just hope they don't all end up being > a really long couple weeks like season 4 (which I did like by the way) > > > Another point: Spike isn't exactly "tied" to Angel. Spike is tied to > > Wolfram & Hart, because the amulet belongs to Wolfram & Hart. Spike, > > in his incorporeal state, has mobility within Los Angeles. But if he > > tries to go beyond the city limits he gets "bounced" back to the W&H > > building. > > Hmmm, I wonder if there is some motivation behind W&H giving Angel the > amulet in the first place? Other than the fact that he and W&H are supposed > to have buddied up, is it possible they intended for Angel to wear the > amulet knowing full well what would happen to the vamp who wore it, so that > they might indeed 'capture' him in the same way Spike's been bound. > Otherwise could they have been planning to catch Spike all along! Maybe I am > looking for a W&H conspiracy where there is none... > > > > > There are times when he leaves Angel's presence and goes roaming > > around. But he can only go so far. > > > > When Spike asks about Buffy, he is told that Buffy is currently in > > Europe. > > She didn't waste time leaving the country! Returned with Giles perhaps to > help rebuild the council? > > > > One interesting thing is that all the LA characters seem to know that > > Spike saved the world by sacrificing his life, but at first only Angel > > knows that Spike has a soul. Those who saw "Chosen" will of course > > remember that in that episode Buffy told Angel that Spike had a soul. > > But Angel has never mentioned that information to any of the others. > > They've all been filled in on how the world was saved, but they > > thought the world was saved by a soulless vampire. They're surprised > > when they're finally told that Spike too has a soul. > > Curious. Sounds a little muddy, and I suspect its going to have to be seen > to be understood. I got your general run down, but missed the backstory > methinks. > > > If you've read other spoilers for this episode then you'll know that > > when Angel opens the envelope and the amulet falls out, Spike emerges > > burning and screaming--at first. The reason for this is now known: > > it's because his death was being replayed in reverse. First he's > > dust, then he's burning (painfully), then he's whole and no longer > > burning. He appears as he did before he started getting all messed up > > in "Chosen"--the classic Spike look, in other words. But he is > > incorporeal. > > Am I wrong, or was Spike NOT screaming in pain when being consumed, been a > while since I watched it, so I can't recall. Don't know why but I just seem > to remember him being rather 'calm' while it all happened. --Yes, he was calm and brave when he was dying. But that's because he knew what was happening and he was braced for it. After he died, I don't think he expected to regain consciousness in an office building, burning yet again. I think it was the *renewed* burning that made Spike scream. He wasn't braced to take the pain the second time. Did he have the > duster on? --Of course. Which means he now has a phantasmic duster, just as he has a phantasmic teeshirt and jeans. I'm looking forward to him solidifying so he can change his wardrobe! Damn, another detail I can't seem to remember from the eariler > episode. Continuity wise I suppose he should have exactly the same cloths he > was wearing in Chosen, and thus not change at all for that matter on Angel, > at least until he gets form again. > > > Harmony is among the characters who come running in to Angel's office > > to see what's happening. She assumes, in her typical ditzy way, that > > Spike is there to resume his relationship with her. Of course he > > isn't. But this sounds like it'll be a very funny scenelet between > > the two of them. > > Yeah, I don't know about this. I have warmed somewhat to having Spike on the > show, but Harmony still doesn't sit right. I just kinda feel Spike is too > far past his Harmony thing. Having him interact with Harmony kind of brings > back memories of old spike, the one who was still evil, rather reckless, and > at times rather stupid in the way he kept going back for royal kickings of > his ass. --Well, yes, the incongruity is going to be part of the fun. Harmony never knew Spike as a good, heroic person. She's stunned when she finds out Spike actually had a relationship with Buffy. (Remember, the last thing Harmony knew is that Spike had Buffy chained up in his crypt, and Buffy was majorly pissed off at him.) Of course Spike has left that stage behind, and of course Harmony's presence won't "sit right"--that's kind of the point. > > Spike, angry about his sudden involuntary appearance in Angel's > > office, first finds out he's incorporeal by taking a swing at Angel, > > and not connecting. The momentum leaves his wispy phantasmal form > > standing *in* Angel's desk, which wasn't exactly what he expected. > > > > Fred does scientific tests, though, and determines that Spike's not > > exactly a ghost. He isn't ectoplasmic. And she can sense his > > brainwaves with scientific apparatus (which apparently you can't do > > with true ectoplasmic ghosts). > > Kind of an 'out of phase' Star Trek type deal perhaps? Clearly is leading up > to how they intend to make Spike 'Wholly Souly' (TM) again. --Yes, that's what everyone is saying. > > Near the end of the episode, in a private conversation with Fred, > > Spike confides to her that there are moments when he feels as if he's > > straddling a chasm that's widening beneath him, and he's about to fall > > down into Hell. I think this has something to do with the random > > "blink-outs" that sometimes occur when Spike sort of fades out of > > existence. These are different from him being "bounced back" from the > > LA city limits, because these "blink outs" are occurring right inside > > Angel's office, for no known reason. But Spike feels that some force > > is trying to drag him down into Hell. Fred wants to help Spike. > > Me thinks that Fred and Spike could be being set up as a couple here. Fred > is probably the exact type of person William would have fallen for, > intelligent, somewhat shy etc. I can actually see this relationship working > rather well. Fred seems like she wants to clamp onto someone else, and I > don't think Wes would work now, after all the bad feeling it created between > Gunn and Wes. Oh dear, what am I saying! I dunno, seems logical Spike fall > for someone, Fred is kinda like Cecily (only nice) --My take on that is that I can see Fred/Spike eventually...but not too soon, I hope. Spike needs to take some time to get Buffy out of his system. Remember, for him no time has passed at all between his deeply emotional goodby to Buffy and his appearance in Angel's office. In fact, Spike wants to go see Buffy right away, till he's told she's in Europe. Just because he believes she doesn't love him doesn't mean there's not a deep attachment there. It should take Spike a while to fall in love with someone else. But Fred is sweet, kind, intelligent and attractive; it could be good, in a few months. Clairel

2003-08-12 21:25:13+09:30 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Tim Cunnings <timken@internode.on.net.spam>)


"Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message news:1faed770.0308112043.e237e69@posting.google.com... > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > S > > P > > A > > C > > E > > On another thread I said it appeared to me that a whole summer hasn't > passed for the characters, and that the fifth season picks up only a > few days after "Home." I was right. It's specifically stated in > episode 5.2 that the destruction of Sunnydale was only 19 days ago. So episode 5.1 is somewhere before that?, as in less than 19 days after Sunnydale. Just curious, do you know how long between episode 1 and 2? I wonder this, because I recall one of the complaints Joss said he was going to address (and I assume it was The WB that wanted this changed) was that episodes would become more spaced once again, less serial. I suppose its to be expected that at least the first few shows be tighter together until they address the changes made to the show. Just hope they don't all end up being a really long couple weeks like season 4 (which I did like by the way) > Another point: Spike isn't exactly "tied" to Angel. Spike is tied to > Wolfram & Hart, because the amulet belongs to Wolfram & Hart. Spike, > in his incorporeal state, has mobility within Los Angeles. But if he > tries to go beyond the city limits he gets "bounced" back to the W&H > building. Hmmm, I wonder if there is some motivation behind W&H giving Angel the amulet in the first place? Other than the fact that he and W&H are supposed to have buddied up, is it possible they intended for Angel to wear the amulet knowing full well what would happen to the vamp who wore it, so that they might indeed 'capture' him in the same way Spike's been bound. Otherwise could they have been planning to catch Spike all along! Maybe I am looking for a W&H conspiracy where there is none... > There are times when he leaves Angel's presence and goes roaming > around. But he can only go so far. > > When Spike asks about Buffy, he is told that Buffy is currently in > Europe. She didn't waste time leaving the country! Returned with Giles perhaps to help rebuild the council? > One interesting thing is that all the LA characters seem to know that > Spike saved the world by sacrificing his life, but at first only Angel > knows that Spike has a soul. Those who saw "Chosen" will of course > remember that in that episode Buffy told Angel that Spike had a soul. > But Angel has never mentioned that information to any of the others. > They've all been filled in on how the world was saved, but they > thought the world was saved by a soulless vampire. They're surprised > when they're finally told that Spike too has a soul. Curious. Sounds a little muddy, and I suspect its going to have to be seen to be understood. I got your general run down, but missed the backstory methinks. > If you've read other spoilers for this episode then you'll know that > when Angel opens the envelope and the amulet falls out, Spike emerges > burning and screaming--at first. The reason for this is now known: > it's because his death was being replayed in reverse. First he's > dust, then he's burning (painfully), then he's whole and no longer > burning. He appears as he did before he started getting all messed up > in "Chosen"--the classic Spike look, in other words. But he is > incorporeal. Am I wrong, or was Spike NOT screaming in pain when being consumed, been a while since I watched it, so I can't recall. Don't know why but I just seem to remember him being rather 'calm' while it all happened. Did he have the duster on? Damn, another detail I can't seem to remember from the eariler episode. Continuity wise I suppose he should have exactly the same cloths he was wearing in Chosen, and thus not change at all for that matter on Angel, at least until he gets form again. > Harmony is among the characters who come running in to Angel's office > to see what's happening. She assumes, in her typical ditzy way, that > Spike is there to resume his relationship with her. Of course he > isn't. But this sounds like it'll be a very funny scenelet between > the two of them. Yeah, I don't know about this. I have warmed somewhat to having Spike on the show, but Harmony still doesn't sit right. I just kinda feel Spike is too far past his Harmony thing. Having him interact with Harmony kind of brings back memories of old spike, the one who was still evil, rather reckless, and at times rather stupid in the way he kept going back for royal kickings of his ass. > Spike, angry about his sudden involuntary appearance in Angel's > office, first finds out he's incorporeal by taking a swing at Angel, > and not connecting. The momentum leaves his wispy phantasmal form > standing *in* Angel's desk, which wasn't exactly what he expected. > > Fred does scientific tests, though, and determines that Spike's not > exactly a ghost. He isn't ectoplasmic. And she can sense his > brainwaves with scientific apparatus (which apparently you can't do > with true ectoplasmic ghosts). Kind of an 'out of phase' Star Trek type deal perhaps? Clearly is leading up to how they intend to make Spike 'Wholly Souly' (TM) again. > Near the end of the episode, in a private conversation with Fred, > Spike confides to her that there are moments when he feels as if he's > straddling a chasm that's widening beneath him, and he's about to fall > down into Hell. I think this has something to do with the random > "blink-outs" that sometimes occur when Spike sort of fades out of > existence. These are different from him being "bounced back" from the > LA city limits, because these "blink outs" are occurring right inside > Angel's office, for no known reason. But Spike feels that some force > is trying to drag him down into Hell. Fred wants to help Spike. Me thinks that Fred and Spike could be being set up as a couple here. Fred is probably the exact type of person William would have fallen for, intelligent, somewhat shy etc. I can actually see this relationship working rather well. Fred seems like she wants to clamp onto someone else, and I don't think Wes would work now, after all the bad feeling it created between Gunn and Wes. Oh dear, what am I saying! I dunno, seems logical Spike fall for someone, Fred is kinda like Cecily (only nice) Tim Cunnings

2003-08-13 06:50:54+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <3f38d5a4$1@duster.adelaide.on.net>, timken@internode.on.net.spam says... > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > news:1faed770.0308112043.e237e69@posting.google.com... > > S > > > > P > > > > O > > > > I > > > > L > > > > E > > > > R > > > > S > > > > P > > > > A > > > > C > > > > E > > > > On another thread I said it appeared to me that a whole summer hasn't > > passed for the characters, and that the fifth season picks up only a > > few days after "Home." I was right. It's specifically stated in > > episode 5.2 that the destruction of Sunnydale was only 19 days ago. > > So episode 5.1 is somewhere before that?, as in less than 19 days after > Sunnydale. Just curious, do you know how long between episode 1 and 2? I > wonder this, because I recall one of the complaints Joss said he was going > to address (and I assume it was The WB that wanted this changed) was that > episodes would become more spaced once again, less serial. I suppose its to > be expected that at least the first few shows be tighter together until they > address the changes made to the show. Just hope they don't all end up being > a really long couple weeks like season 4 (which I did like by the way) ---- I would say from the spoilers 5.1 starts 16 or 17 days after. 5.1 seemed to have a two day feel. > > > Another point: Spike isn't exactly "tied" to Angel. Spike is tied to > > Wolfram & Hart, because the amulet belongs to Wolfram & Hart. Spike, > > in his incorporeal state, has mobility within Los Angeles. But if he > > tries to go beyond the city limits he gets "bounced" back to the W&H > > building. > > Hmmm, I wonder if there is some motivation behind W&H giving Angel the > amulet in the first place? Other than the fact that he and W&H are supposed > to have buddied up, is it possible they intended for Angel to wear the > amulet knowing full well what would happen to the vamp who wore it, so that > they might indeed 'capture' him in the same way Spike's been bound. > Otherwise could they have been planning to catch Spike all along! Maybe I am > looking for a W&H conspiracy where there is none... ---- I'm willing to bet that they hoped Angel would wear it. Even better, a Slayer. Spike was I wild card I assume. As to conspiracies; this is opposite of the real world. Conspiracies are to be assumed. With W&H it is a given. Their whole firm is a conspiracy. > > > There are times when he leaves Angel's presence and goes roaming > > around. But he can only go so far. > > > > When Spike asks about Buffy, he is told that Buffy is currently in > > Europe. > > She didn't waste time leaving the country! Returned with Giles perhaps to > help rebuild the council? ---- Make sense. Maybe along with Wood and Faith. > > > One interesting thing is that all the LA characters seem to know that > > Spike saved the world by sacrificing his life, but at first only Angel > > knows that Spike has a soul. Those who saw "Chosen" will of course > > remember that in that episode Buffy told Angel that Spike had a soul. > > But Angel has never mentioned that information to any of the others. > > They've all been filled in on how the world was saved, but they > > thought the world was saved by a soulless vampire. They're surprised > > when they're finally told that Spike too has a soul. > > Curious. Sounds a little muddy, and I suspect its going to have to be seen > to be understood. I got your general run down, but missed the backstory > methinks. ---

2003-08-13 11:30:05-05:00 - Conspiracies - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


"Hunter" <buffhunter@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:MPG.19a3aa16e2e5c22989b36@news.earthlink.net... > As to conspiracies; this is > opposite of the real world. Conspiracies are to be assumed. With W&H > it is a given. Their whole firm is a conspiracy. LOL Conspiracies riddle everyday life... not always the ones some assume. Or often to the level of the movie conspiracy theory. But surely the bombing of the World Trade Center was a conspiracy by at least 15 members of Al-Queda who were on the planes. But ulterior motives are QUITE plentiful. These occur in everyday lives, in buisness, in criminal activity, in our government.

2003-08-13 17:56:12+00:00 - Re: Conspiracies - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <WOadncRaiuxP-qeiU-KYuQ@comcast.com>, johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com says... > "Hunter" <buffhunter@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.19a3aa16e2e5c22989b36@news.earthlink.net... > > > As to conspiracies; this is > > opposite of the real world. Conspiracies are to be assumed. With W&H > > it is a given. Their whole firm is a conspiracy. > > LOL Conspiracies riddle everyday life... not always the > ones some assume. Or often to the level of the movie > conspiracy theory. But surely the bombing of the World > Trade Center was a conspiracy by at least 15 members > of Al-Queda who were on the planes. > > But ulterior motives are QUITE plentiful. These occur > in everyday lives, in buisness, in criminal activity, in our > government. > > > ---- <grin> I know what you mean. I did not intend to sound so naive, what I ment was it can be automatically assumed that W&H has evil motives and conspiracies for everything. You cannot ever give the benefit of the doubt to W&H. My remark about that being the opposite of real life is my opinion that people reach for conspiracy theories too easily. Not that there is not a reason for this, we have had Watergate and COINTELPRO in this country but because those things happened doesn't mean that the CIA had a hand in the Kennedy assinations and Oswald was a dupe or the CIA created the crack epidemic or AIDS as the old KGB and a lot of leftist groups would have you believe; or that the Clintons had several people killed including Vince Foster in 1993 like some knee-jerk right wing Clinton Haters would say; Or that British Prime Minister Antony Blair had a certain weapons expert bumped off reacently as some lunatics are wispering. Lazy thinking. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2003-08-13 19:53:35-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308121110.1cc5a85@posting.google.com>... > "Tim Cunnings" <timken@internode.on.net.spam> wrote in message news:<3f38d5a4$1@duster.adelaide.on.net>... > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > news:1faed770.0308112043.e237e69@posting.google.com... > > > S > > > > > > P > > > > > > O > > > > > > I > > > > > > L > > > > > > E > > > > > > R > > > > > > S > > > > > > P > > > > > > A > > > > > > C > > > > > > E > > > > --Well, the non-serial nature of AtS this fall isn't apparent from > episodes 5.1 and 5.2. Episode 5.1 ends with Spike appearing in > Angel's office, and episode 5.2 picks up from the same point, with > Spike standing in Angel's office and everybody rushing in to see what > the heck is going on. Just before they all rush in, however, there's > a flashback to the destruction of Sunnydale, with the caption "19 days > ago." > > I think what's meant by stand-alone episodes is, basically, MOTW > episodes, or Bad Guy Of The Week episodes. In that sense 5.1 and 5.2 > are two distinct stories. In 5.1, Angel has to deal with the problem > of Fries, Keel, and Hauser. In 5.2, the baddy is Hainsley with his > nasty scheme. In 5.3, the baddy is someone else with yet another evil > scheme. So on that level, you have stand-alone plots. But ongoing > developments with the regular cast--developments such as Spike > appearing, Fred trying to help him, etc.--those seem to make the show > a sort of serial, at least on one level. I do hope it's nothing worse than MOTW, but it doesn't seem to me that this will solve the ratings "problem" caused by new viewers complaining that they don't know what's going on. Sure, they might accept the MOTW plot for an episode or two, but eventually they would start to run up against some major story arc stuff from not one but two shows. This is especially true if ME does develop the "it wasn't supposed to be Spike but Angel who got trapped in the amulet" theme which it's starting to sound like they are. What is a new viewer supposed to make of Angel musing about this possibility? How is a new viewer supposed to understand how critical that change of champions might be? > > > > > > > When Spike asks about Buffy, he is told that Buffy is currently in > > > Europe. > > > > She didn't waste time leaving the country! Returned with Giles perhaps to > > help rebuild the council? > Or to Spain to be with daddums? > > > > Am I wrong, or was Spike NOT screaming in pain when being consumed, been a > > while since I watched it, so I can't recall. Don't know why but I just seem > > to remember him being rather 'calm' while it all happened. Nah. He was yelling. Personally, I thought it was more in ecstacy than pain, but I suspect the two were pretty interchangeable at that point. Also, I seem to recall reading somewhere that he comments on feeling the burning and the organs exploding as he died. > > > Fred does scientific tests, though, and determines that Spike's not > > > exactly a ghost. He isn't ectoplasmic. And she can sense his > > > brainwaves with scientific apparatus (which apparently you can't do > > > with true ectoplasmic ghosts). > > > > Kind of an 'out of phase' Star Trek type deal perhaps? Clearly is leading up > > to how they intend to make Spike 'Wholly Souly' (TM) again. I'm a bit disappointed by that. It's a legitimate enough way to bring Spike back given the Buffyverse, but I was hoping we'd get a bit more insight into the ghost state or the afterlife generally or something like that. Now, it turns out it's just a spell of some sort. > > > > Me thinks that Fred and Spike could be being set up as a couple here. Fred > > is probably the exact type of person William would have fallen for, > > intelligent, somewhat shy etc. I can actually see this relationship working > > rather well. Fred seems like she wants to clamp onto someone else, and I > > don't think Wes would work now, after all the bad feeling it created between > > Gunn and Wes. Oh dear, what am I saying! I dunno, seems logical Spike fall > > for someone, Fred is kinda like Cecily (only nice) > > Huh? I could see F/S as very possible couple, but mostly because he's never been involved with anyone like her before: educated, open, and relatively well-balanced. But Fred is nothing like Cecily who was a pretentious little snob, at least from the little we saw of her;Fred makes her own rules and doesn't much care what others think. Fred is also not crazy like Dru or neurotic like Buffy. We aren't sure what Fred's previous romantic history is except for the crush on Angel and then Gunn...but she does seem to like her men a bit rough around the edges. himiko

2003-08-13 22:28:52-05:00 - Spoiler: Spike in BtVS 7:22 - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


> > > > S > > > > > > > > P > > > > > > > > O > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > L > > > > > > > > E > > > > > > > > R > > > > > > > > S > > > > > > > > P > > > > > > > > A > > > > > > > > C > > > > > > > > E > > > > > > > Am I wrong, or was Spike NOT screaming in pain when being consumed, been a > > > while since I watched it, so I can't recall. Don't know why but I just seem > > > to remember him being rather 'calm' while it all happened. > > Nah. He was yelling. Personally, I thought it was more in ecstacy > than pain, but I suspect the two were pretty interchangeable at that > point. Also, I seem to recall reading somewhere that he comments on > feeling the burning and the organs exploding as he died. It sounded to me like a cross between a grunt in pain and a laugh Sort of like he was in agony and laughing at the situation he'd put himself in. Or at being a stupid git and not beating feet when buffy asked him to. Really tough to say, but it seemed to have a heroic spitting in Deaths eye quality to me. But it was definately not screaming or yelling. was more restrained and subdued than that. Perhaps even one of those I had to laugh, otherwise i would have cried sort of things.

2003-08-14 00:43:27-05:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in news:1faed770.0308121110.1cc5a85@posting.google.com: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Hmmm, I wonder if there is some motivation behind W&H giving Angel >> the amulet in the first place? Other than the fact that he and W&H >> are supposed to have buddied up, is it possible they intended for >> Angel to wear the amulet knowing full well what would happen to the >> vamp who wore it, so that they might indeed 'capture' him in the same >> way Spike's been bound. > > --I forgot to mention that Angel, when talking to Wes, wonders exactly > that. After all, Angel had been planning to wear the amulet and fight > by Buffy's side. And presumably W&H expected him to do so. I'm starting to wonder about that, actually... In the past, W&H's MO has been to present their "special projects" with a situation in which they find it really difficult to do the right thing -- with the expectation that *they would fail to do it* and thereby be corrupted. They put Bethany Chaulk in a position in which she had to resist mightily the urge to kill her abusive father; they brought Darla back as a dying human in the hopes of compelling Angel to re-sire her; they forced Angel to confront the re-vamped Darla knowing that he would find it impossible to grant her eternal rest. So I wonder -- did W&H give Angel that amulet in the hopes that he'd "do the right thing," stand with Buffy in the Hellmouth, and get ghostified for his trouble? Or did they give it to him hoping, once again, that he'd do the *wrong* thing -- that he'd *refuse to use it*? I wonder if what happened with Spike is pretty much what W&H was hoping would happen. Not to zap Angel into the netherworld for choosing the path of a champion -- but to provide an example to Angel to further his corruption: "See, aren't you glad you didn't try to use the amulet? See what trying to be a hero will get you?" -- Lord Usher "I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."

2003-08-14 10:04:33-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (reldevik@usa.net)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030814090701.16575.00000374@mb-m25.news.cs.com>... > >--My take on that is that I can see Fred/Spike eventually...but not > >too soon, I hope. Spike needs to take some time to get Buffy out of > >his system. Remember, for him no time has passed at all between his > >deeply emotional goodby to Buffy and his appearance in Angel's office. > > In fact, Spike wants to go see Buffy right away, till he's told she's > >in Europe. Just because he believes she doesn't love him doesn't mean > >there's not a deep attachment there. It should take Spike a while to > >fall in love with someone else. But Fred is sweet, kind, intelligent > >and attractive; it could be good, in a few months. > > > >Clairel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope not! > I like Fred; but if Fred takes him, that means we'll eventually end up with > B/A, which is really the last thing I want to happen! > > Everything about the B/A romance just annoys me. > I still want Spuffy. --Ideally I too would still like S/B. But the crucial thing isn't what I would like or what you would like, but rather what ME and the WB would like. If they're not willing to go with S/B, then after a few months I could be happy with S/F. The other thing you have to remember is that S/F is something we could watch on screen for a long string of episodes. But S/B, if it happens at all, is going to happen in the course of two or three episodes in which Sarah Michelle Gellar guest stars on AtS--and then what? She and Spike go riding off together into the sunset? Which do you really want more, Spike leaving somewhere with Buffy and no longer being on AtS, or Spike with another woman and still on AtS? Clairel Clairel Clairel

2003-08-14 10:07:32-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (reldevik@usa.net)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93D76E954A70houseofusher@216.40.28.71>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > news:1faed770.0308121110.1cc5a85@posting.google.com: > > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > >> Hmmm, I wonder if there is some motivation behind W&H giving Angel > >> the amulet in the first place? Other than the fact that he and W&H > >> are supposed to have buddied up, is it possible they intended for > >> Angel to wear the amulet knowing full well what would happen to the > >> vamp who wore it, so that they might indeed 'capture' him in the same > >> way Spike's been bound. > > > > --I forgot to mention that Angel, when talking to Wes, wonders exactly > > that. After all, Angel had been planning to wear the amulet and fight > > by Buffy's side. And presumably W&H expected him to do so. > > I'm starting to wonder about that, actually... > > In the past, W&H's MO has been to present their "special projects" with > a situation in which they find it really difficult to do the right thing > -- with the expectation that *they would fail to do it* and thereby be > corrupted. They put Bethany Chaulk in a position in which she had to > resist mightily the urge to kill her abusive father; they brought Darla > back as a dying human in the hopes of compelling Angel to re-sire her; > they forced Angel to confront the re-vamped Darla knowing that he would > find it impossible to grant her eternal rest. > > So I wonder -- did W&H give Angel that amulet in the hopes that he'd "do > the right thing," stand with Buffy in the Hellmouth, and get ghostified > for his trouble? Or did they give it to him hoping, once again, that > he'd do the *wrong* thing -- that he'd *refuse to use it*? > > I wonder if what happened with Spike is pretty much what W&H was hoping > would happen. Not to zap Angel into the netherworld for choosing the > path of a champion -- but to provide an example to Angel to further his > corruption: "See, aren't you glad you didn't try to use the amulet? See > what trying to be a hero will get you?" --That's a very interesting idea, LU. But it would mean that W&H were able to predict that Buffy would turn down Angel's offer that he should use the amulet and fight at her side. How could they predict that? Are you saying that it was a win-win situation for W&H either way, and that although they might have preferred it if someone else had worn the amulet, the possibility of Angel wearing the amulet was yet another of their contingency plans that they would have been okay with? Clairel

2003-08-14 13:07:01+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>--My take on that is that I can see Fred/Spike eventually...but not >too soon, I hope. Spike needs to take some time to get Buffy out of >his system. Remember, for him no time has passed at all between his >deeply emotional goodby to Buffy and his appearance in Angel's office. > In fact, Spike wants to go see Buffy right away, till he's told she's >in Europe. Just because he believes she doesn't love him doesn't mean >there's not a deep attachment there. It should take Spike a while to >fall in love with someone else. But Fred is sweet, kind, intelligent >and attractive; it could be good, in a few months. > >Clairel > > > > > > I hope not! I like Fred; but if Fred takes him, that means we'll eventually end up with B/A, which is really the last thing I want to happen! Everything about the B/A romance just annoys me. I still want Spuffy. Sandra

2003-08-15 01:26:32-07:00 - Re: Spoiler: Spike in BtVS 7:22 - (luvthistle1@yahoo.com)


"Thirsty Viking" <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com> wrote in message news:<4dmdnbjQwL9znKaiU-KYvA@comcast.com>... > > > > > S > > > > > > > > > > P > > > > > > > > > > O > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > L > > > > > > > > > > E > > > > > > > > > > R > > > > > > > > > > S > > > > > > > > > > P > > > > > > > > > > A > > > > > > > > > > C > > > > > > > > > > E > > > > > > > > > > Am I wrong, or was Spike NOT screaming in pain when being consumed, > been a > > > > while since I watched it, so I can't recall. Don't know why but I just > seem > > > > to remember him being rather 'calm' while it all happened. > > > > Nah. He was yelling. Personally, I thought it was more in ecstacy > > than pain, but I suspect the two were pretty interchangeable at that > > point. Also, I seem to recall reading somewhere that he comments on > > feeling the burning and the organs exploding as he died. > > It sounded to me like a cross between a grunt in pain and a laugh > Sort of like he was in agony and laughing at the situation he'd put > himself in. Or at being a stupid git and not beating feet when buffy > asked him to. Really tough to say, but it seemed to have a heroic > spitting in Deaths eye quality to me. But it was definately not > screaming or yelling. was more restrained and subdued than that. > > Perhaps even one of those I had to laugh, otherwise i would have > cried sort of things. it was really weird, because I do not recall him screaming, it was more of a laugh. what do he mean, he want to find out how it ends? Sign luvthistle1 owner of Spike's permanent cave http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Spikespermanentcave/

2003-08-15 07:42:32-07:00 - A twist on Lord Usher's amulet theory - (reldevik@usa.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308140907.26b1e81d@posting.google.com>... > Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93D76E954A70houseofusher@216.40.28.71>... > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > > news:1faed770.0308121110.1cc5a85@posting.google.com: > > > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > >> Hmmm, I wonder if there is some motivation behind W&H giving Angel > > >> the amulet in the first place? Other than the fact that he and W&H > > >> are supposed to have buddied up, is it possible they intended for > > >> Angel to wear the amulet knowing full well what would happen to the > > >> vamp who wore it, so that they might indeed 'capture' him in the same > > >> way Spike's been bound. > > > > > > --I forgot to mention that Angel, when talking to Wes, wonders exactly > > > that. After all, Angel had been planning to wear the amulet and fight > > > by Buffy's side. And presumably W&H expected him to do so. > > > > I'm starting to wonder about that, actually... > > > > In the past, W&H's MO has been to present their "special projects" with > > a situation in which they find it really difficult to do the right thing > > -- with the expectation that *they would fail to do it* and thereby be > > corrupted. They put Bethany Chaulk in a position in which she had to > > resist mightily the urge to kill her abusive father; they brought Darla > > back as a dying human in the hopes of compelling Angel to re-sire her; > > they forced Angel to confront the re-vamped Darla knowing that he would > > find it impossible to grant her eternal rest. > > > > So I wonder -- did W&H give Angel that amulet in the hopes that he'd "do > > the right thing," stand with Buffy in the Hellmouth, and get ghostified > > for his trouble? Or did they give it to him hoping, once again, that > > he'd do the *wrong* thing -- that he'd *refuse to use it*? > > > > I wonder if what happened with Spike is pretty much what W&H was hoping > > would happen. Not to zap Angel into the netherworld for choosing the > > path of a champion -- but to provide an example to Angel to further his > > corruption: "See, aren't you glad you didn't try to use the amulet? See > > what trying to be a hero will get you?" > > --That's a very interesting idea, LU. But it would mean that W&H were > able to predict that Buffy would turn down Angel's offer that he > should use the amulet and fight at her side. How could they predict > that? > > Are you saying that it was a win-win situation for W&H either way, and > that although they might have preferred it if someone else had worn > the amulet, the possibility of Angel wearing the amulet was yet > another of their contingency plans that they would have been okay > with? Messages Messages Help Reply | Forward | View Source | Unwrap Lines | Delete Message 184186 of 184186 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index Msg # From: "reldevik" <reldevik@u...> Date: Fri Aug 15, 2003 9:34 am Subject: Re: (spoilers) interesting NG theory about W&H and amulet I was so intrigued with the idea expounded by LU in the above quotation that I laid it out, along with my questions to him about it, to some other people who don't participate on the NG. I'm going to post the most significant responses as I receive them, but first here's one that dovetails with an idea of my own that's a twist on LU's theory: (The person writing inside pointed brackets here is someone I'll call B:) > There's also the point that the description of the amulet and the general > situation screamed "Shanshu! Get your red hot shanshu here!" Let us not > forget that W&H had the scroll before Angel did, and presumably they know > about the prophecy. They could have tailored their report on the amulet to > hint that wearing it would give Angel what he supposedly wants. They > didn't count on him not wanting it as hard as all that, and certainly not > on Buffy having a ringer. (And this was my response to B--what do you think of this, LU?): --Okay, since you mentioned how the amulet seems like a route to shanshu, I'm going to bring in a new twist on the NG theory that I came up with last night. Remember that the NG theory kind of depends on W&H somehow knowing, or guessing, that someone other than Angel would wear the amulet. Possibly--in this theory--W&H have even been keeping tabs on Spike and they know all about him. What if W&H deliberately came up with something--the amulet--that *did* blatantly scream "Shanshu!"? And what if they knew Spike would end up wearing the amulet, having his essence trapped in it, and eventually getting solidified as a human being, because of the cleansing and purifying power of the amulet? (I'm assuming this is what will happen to Spike after a cetain period of ghostliness.) And what if W&H counted on Angel getting to know all this? What if that's why they sent the amulet back to Angel in an envelope? Wouldn't Angel end up really bitter and cynical because he's thinking that "his" shanshu was grabbed by another vampire? (Of course it needn't be the actual shanshu prophecied in the Scrolls of Aberjian-- what happened to Spike with the amulet could just be something that W&H engineered to *look* like the actual prophecied shanshu.) This might give W&H the evil, nasty, yet soulful Angel they've always wanted for their own purposes. And if it didn't work out that way because Angel *did* end up wearing the amulet himself, well, I suppose that's a contingency plan that could also have had some sort of advantages for W&H. But as someone somewhere pointed out, W&H does employ psychics and prognosticators, so they actually could know a vampire other than Angel would end up wearing the amulet. I'm liking this idea better and better all the time. Clairel

2003-08-15 10:15:38-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030815065054.29503.00000018@mb-m21.news.cs.com>... > Spike going off into the sunset with Buffy! > > Because I believe all shows have a shelf-life; and I give Angel one or perhaps > two more seasons, tops. > Since we already get Spike for this entire season, I would like to see him > reunited with Buffy and off with her at the end of it. Oh, thank you. So once you got what you aim for, it doesn't matter to just leave the show in the ditch, is it? And tell me again why should a supporting character gets a better deal than the main character whose story I've been interested in right from the start? Not to mention that the show started with Buffy and Angel story, so ending it with Buffy and Spike is way too similar to 'Dawson Creek' for its own good. > That will give Angel a final season to wrap up the loose ends *maybe Frangel*? Geez, thanks. Hey, I've got a better idea! Instead of Fred, why don't we just give Angel any random female character of the week while Spike gets the titular title character of the parent show? And you guys wonder why some people are apprehensive about Spike coming to the show. > Just my personal wishlist; probably unlikely to happen! Oh please, you're clearly hoping for it by saying it's probably unlikely to happen. It's a typical reverse psychology wishlist.

2003-08-15 10:50:54+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


> >Which do you really want more, Spike leaving somewhere with Buffy and >no longer being on AtS, or Spike with another woman and still on AtS? > >Clairel > Honestly? Spike going off into the sunset with Buffy! Because I believe all shows have a shelf-life; and I give Angel one or perhaps two more seasons, tops. Since we already get Spike for this entire season, I would like to see him reunited with Buffy and off with her at the end of it. That will give Angel a final season to wrap up the loose ends *maybe Frangel*? Just my personal wishlist; probably unlikely to happen! Sandra

2003-08-15 13:44:03-07:00 - Re: A twist on Lord Usher's amulet theory - (reldevik@usa.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308150642.2487cdd5@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308140907.26b1e81d@posting.google.com>... > > Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93D76E954A70houseofusher@216.40.28.71>... > > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > > > news:1faed770.0308121110.1cc5a85@posting.google.com: > > > > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > >> Hmmm, I wonder if there is some motivation behind W&H giving Angel > > > >> the amulet in the first place? Other than the fact that he and W&H > > > >> are supposed to have buddied up, is it possible they intended for > > > >> Angel to wear the amulet knowing full well what would happen to the > > > >> vamp who wore it, so that they might indeed 'capture' him in the same > > > >> way Spike's been bound. > > > > > > > > --I forgot to mention that Angel, when talking to Wes, wonders exactly > > > > that. After all, Angel had been planning to wear the amulet and fight > > > > by Buffy's side. And presumably W&H expected him to do so. > > > > > > I'm starting to wonder about that, actually... > > > > > > In the past, W&H's MO has been to present their "special projects" with > > > a situation in which they find it really difficult to do the right thing > > > -- with the expectation that *they would fail to do it* and thereby be > > > corrupted. They put Bethany Chaulk in a position in which she had to > > > resist mightily the urge to kill her abusive father; they brought Darla > > > back as a dying human in the hopes of compelling Angel to re-sire her; > > > they forced Angel to confront the re-vamped Darla knowing that he would > > > find it impossible to grant her eternal rest. > > > > > > So I wonder -- did W&H give Angel that amulet in the hopes that he'd "do > > > the right thing," stand with Buffy in the Hellmouth, and get ghostified > > > for his trouble? Or did they give it to him hoping, once again, that > > > he'd do the *wrong* thing -- that he'd *refuse to use it*? > > > > > > I wonder if what happened with Spike is pretty much what W&H was hoping > > > would happen. Not to zap Angel into the netherworld for choosing the > > > path of a champion -- but to provide an example to Angel to further his > > > corruption: "See, aren't you glad you didn't try to use the amulet? See > > > what trying to be a hero will get you?" > > > > --That's a very interesting idea, LU. But it would mean that W&H were > > able to predict that Buffy would turn down Angel's offer that he > > should use the amulet and fight at her side. How could they predict > > that? > > > > Are you saying that it was a win-win situation for W&H either way, and > > that although they might have preferred it if someone else had worn > > the amulet, the possibility of Angel wearing the amulet was yet > > another of their contingency plans that they would have been okay > > with? > Messages Messages Help > > Reply | Forward | View Source | Unwrap Lines | Delete > > > > > Message 184186 of 184186 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message > Index Msg # > > From: "reldevik" <reldevik@u...> > Date: Fri Aug 15, 2003 9:34 am > Subject: Re: (spoilers) interesting NG theory about W&H and amulet > > I was so intrigued with the idea expounded by LU in the above > quotation that I laid it out, along with my questions to him about it, > to some other people who don't participate on the NG. I'm going to > post the most significant responses as I receive them, but first > here's one that dovetails with an idea of my own that's a twist on > LU's theory: > > (The person writing inside pointed brackets here is someone I'll call > B:) > > There's also the point that the description of the amulet and the > general > > situation screamed "Shanshu! Get your red hot shanshu here!" Let > us not > > forget that W&H had the scroll before Angel did, and presumably > they know > > about the prophecy. They could have tailored their report on the > amulet to > > hint that wearing it would give Angel what he supposedly wants. > They > > didn't count on him not wanting it as hard as all that, and > certainly not > > on Buffy having a ringer. > > (And this was my response to B--what do you think of this, LU?): > --Okay, since you mentioned how the amulet seems like a route to > shanshu, I'm going to bring in a new twist on the NG theory that I > came up with last night. > > Remember that the NG theory kind of depends on W&H somehow knowing, > or guessing, that someone other than Angel would wear the amulet. > Possibly--in this theory--W&H have even been keeping tabs on Spike > and they know all about him. > > What if W&H deliberately came up with something--the amulet--that > *did* blatantly scream "Shanshu!"? And what if they knew Spike would > end up wearing > the amulet, having his essence trapped in it, and eventually getting > solidified as a human being, because of the cleansing and purifying > power of the amulet? (I'm assuming this is what will happen to Spike > after a cetain period of ghostliness.) And what if W&H counted on > Angel getting to know all this? What if that's why they sent the > amulet back to Angel in an envelope? > > Wouldn't Angel end up really bitter and cynical because he's thinking > that "his" shanshu was grabbed by another vampire? (Of course it > needn't be the actual shanshu prophecied in the Scrolls of Aberjian-- > what happened to Spike with the amulet could just be something that > W&H engineered to *look* like the actual prophecied shanshu.) This > might give W&H the evil, nasty, yet soulful Angel they've always > wanted for their own purposes. > > And if it didn't work out that way because Angel *did* end up wearing > the amulet himself, well, I suppose that's a contingency plan that > could also have had some sort of advantages for W&H. But as someone > somewhere pointed out, W&H does employ psychics and prognosticators, > so they actually could know a vampire other than Angel would end up > wearing the amulet. > > I'm liking this idea better and better all the time. > > Clairel Here's one response that made a lot of sense, from someone I'll call H: I think it was a win-win-win situation for W&H. If Angel uses the amulet, he's trapped inside, giving W&H free reign. If the Gang manage to free him somehow, he'll end up human (presumably--I don't know if that's what will ultimately happen), and therefore no longer a champion. If someone else uses it, they'll be trapped inside; angst for Angel if it was Buffy (ultimately stripped of her Slayer powers, maybe?), or angst for Angel if it's Spike, who gets to be the hero and in a position to win Buffy's heart. No matter what happens, Angel is in some sort of anguish, and ever that much closer to turning 'dark', like they want him to be. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Clairel

2003-08-15 13:53:46-07:00 - Re: A twist on Lord Usher's amulet theory - (reldevik@usa.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308150642.2487cdd5@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308140907.26b1e81d@posting.google.com>... > > Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93D76E954A70houseofusher@216.40.28.71>... > > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > > > news:1faed770.0308121110.1cc5a85@posting.google.com: > > > > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > >> Hmmm, I wonder if there is some motivation behind W&H giving Angel > > > >> the amulet in the first place? Other than the fact that he and W&H > > > >> are supposed to have buddied up, is it possible they intended for > > > >> Angel to wear the amulet knowing full well what would happen to the > > > >> vamp who wore it, so that they might indeed 'capture' him in the same > > > >> way Spike's been bound. > > > > > > > > --I forgot to mention that Angel, when talking to Wes, wonders exactly > > > > that. After all, Angel had been planning to wear the amulet and fight > > > > by Buffy's side. And presumably W&H expected him to do so. > > > > > > I'm starting to wonder about that, actually... > > > > > > In the past, W&H's MO has been to present their "special projects" with > > > a situation in which they find it really difficult to do the right thing > > > -- with the expectation that *they would fail to do it* and thereby be > > > corrupted. They put Bethany Chaulk in a position in which she had to > > > resist mightily the urge to kill her abusive father; they brought Darla > > > back as a dying human in the hopes of compelling Angel to re-sire her; > > > they forced Angel to confront the re-vamped Darla knowing that he would > > > find it impossible to grant her eternal rest. > > > > > > So I wonder -- did W&H give Angel that amulet in the hopes that he'd "do > > > the right thing," stand with Buffy in the Hellmouth, and get ghostified > > > for his trouble? Or did they give it to him hoping, once again, that > > > he'd do the *wrong* thing -- that he'd *refuse to use it*? > > > > > > I wonder if what happened with Spike is pretty much what W&H was hoping > > > would happen. Not to zap Angel into the netherworld for choosing the > > > path of a champion -- but to provide an example to Angel to further his > > > corruption: "See, aren't you glad you didn't try to use the amulet? See > > > what trying to be a hero will get you?" > > > > --That's a very interesting idea, LU. But it would mean that W&H were > > able to predict that Buffy would turn down Angel's offer that he > > should use the amulet and fight at her side. How could they predict > > that? > > > > Are you saying that it was a win-win situation for W&H either way, and > > that although they might have preferred it if someone else had worn > > the amulet, the possibility of Angel wearing the amulet was yet > > another of their contingency plans that they would have been okay > > with? > Messages Messages Help > > Reply | Forward | View Source | Unwrap Lines | Delete > > > > > Message 184186 of 184186 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message > Index Msg # > > From: "reldevik" <reldevik@u...> > Date: Fri Aug 15, 2003 9:34 am > Subject: Re: (spoilers) interesting NG theory about W&H and amulet > > I was so intrigued with the idea expounded by LU in the above > quotation that I laid it out, along with my questions to him about it, > to some other people who don't participate on the NG. I'm going to > post the most significant responses as I receive them, but first > here's one that dovetails with an idea of my own that's a twist on > LU's theory: > > (The person writing inside pointed brackets here is someone I'll call > B:) > > There's also the point that the description of the amulet and the > general > > situation screamed "Shanshu! Get your red hot shanshu here!" Let > us not > > forget that W&H had the scroll before Angel did, and presumably > they know > > about the prophecy. They could have tailored their report on the > amulet to > > hint that wearing it would give Angel what he supposedly wants. > They > > didn't count on him not wanting it as hard as all that, and > certainly not > > on Buffy having a ringer. > > (And this was my response to B--what do you think of this, LU?): > --Okay, since you mentioned how the amulet seems like a route to > shanshu, I'm going to bring in a new twist on the NG theory that I > came up with last night. > > Remember that the NG theory kind of depends on W&H somehow knowing, > or guessing, that someone other than Angel would wear the amulet. > Possibly--in this theory--W&H have even been keeping tabs on Spike > and they know all about him. > > What if W&H deliberately came up with something--the amulet--that > *did* blatantly scream "Shanshu!"? And what if they knew Spike would > end up wearing > the amulet, having his essence trapped in it, and eventually getting > solidified as a human being, because of the cleansing and purifying > power of the amulet? (I'm assuming this is what will happen to Spike > after a cetain period of ghostliness.) And what if W&H counted on > Angel getting to know all this? What if that's why they sent the > amulet back to Angel in an envelope? > > Wouldn't Angel end up really bitter and cynical because he's thinking > that "his" shanshu was grabbed by another vampire? (Of course it > needn't be the actual shanshu prophecied in the Scrolls of Aberjian-- > what happened to Spike with the amulet could just be something that > W&H engineered to *look* like the actual prophecied shanshu.) This > might give W&H the evil, nasty, yet soulful Angel they've always > wanted for their own purposes. > > And if it didn't work out that way because Angel *did* end up wearing > the amulet himself, well, I suppose that's a contingency plan that > could also have had some sort of advantages for W&H. But as someone > somewhere pointed out, W&H does employ psychics and prognosticators, > so they actually could know a vampire other than Angel would end up > wearing the amulet. > > I'm liking this idea better and better all the time. > > Clairel And here's a response from someone I'll call "C": I think you've got a point that W&H couldn't possibly have predicted that Buffy was going to send Angel away. I think that they may have figured on either Buffy (if Angel gave her the amulet and left) or Angel (if, in a fit of heroism or despair, he wore it himself) ending up in the amulet. If it's Angel, they've got him. If it's Buffy, they've got leverage on him. It is a win-win situation. Instead, they get Spike, whom Angel's not fond of, and whom they can't use. Poor, poor W&H... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Of course I myself see a way in which they *can* use Spike. And in the beginning LU suggested a different way they can use Spike (by exhibiting him to Angel as a demonstration of how heroes just come to bad ends, thus increasing Angel's despair). But I liked C's comments on how it could be a win-win situation if W&H thought Buffy and Angel were the only two candidates to wear the amulet. What's hardest to determine right now, I think, is how much W&H knew about Spike. Clairel

2003-08-15 13:57:55-07:00 - Re: A twist on Lord Usher's amulet theory - (reldevik@usa.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308150642.2487cdd5@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308140907.26b1e81d@posting.google.com>... > > Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93D76E954A70houseofusher@216.40.28.71>... > > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > > > news:1faed770.0308121110.1cc5a85@posting.google.com: > > > > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > >> Hmmm, I wonder if there is some motivation behind W&H giving Angel > > > >> the amulet in the first place? Other than the fact that he and W&H > > > >> are supposed to have buddied up, is it possible they intended for > > > >> Angel to wear the amulet knowing full well what would happen to the > > > >> vamp who wore it, so that they might indeed 'capture' him in the same > > > >> way Spike's been bound. > > > > > > > > --I forgot to mention that Angel, when talking to Wes, wonders exactly > > > > that. After all, Angel had been planning to wear the amulet and fight > > > > by Buffy's side. And presumably W&H expected him to do so. > > > > > > I'm starting to wonder about that, actually... > > > > > > In the past, W&H's MO has been to present their "special projects" with > > > a situation in which they find it really difficult to do the right thing > > > -- with the expectation that *they would fail to do it* and thereby be > > > corrupted. They put Bethany Chaulk in a position in which she had to > > > resist mightily the urge to kill her abusive father; they brought Darla > > > back as a dying human in the hopes of compelling Angel to re-sire her; > > > they forced Angel to confront the re-vamped Darla knowing that he would > > > find it impossible to grant her eternal rest. > > > > > > So I wonder -- did W&H give Angel that amulet in the hopes that he'd "do > > > the right thing," stand with Buffy in the Hellmouth, and get ghostified > > > for his trouble? Or did they give it to him hoping, once again, that > > > he'd do the *wrong* thing -- that he'd *refuse to use it*? > > > > > > I wonder if what happened with Spike is pretty much what W&H was hoping > > > would happen. Not to zap Angel into the netherworld for choosing the > > > path of a champion -- but to provide an example to Angel to further his > > > corruption: "See, aren't you glad you didn't try to use the amulet? See > > > what trying to be a hero will get you?" > > > > --That's a very interesting idea, LU. But it would mean that W&H were > > able to predict that Buffy would turn down Angel's offer that he > > should use the amulet and fight at her side. How could they predict > > that? > > > > Are you saying that it was a win-win situation for W&H either way, and > > that although they might have preferred it if someone else had worn > > the amulet, the possibility of Angel wearing the amulet was yet > > another of their contingency plans that they would have been okay > > with? > Messages Messages Help > > Reply | Forward | View Source | Unwrap Lines | Delete > > > > > Message 184186 of 184186 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message > Index Msg # > > From: "reldevik" <reldevik@u...> > Date: Fri Aug 15, 2003 9:34 am > Subject: Re: (spoilers) interesting NG theory about W&H and amulet > > I was so intrigued with the idea expounded by LU in the above > quotation that I laid it out, along with my questions to him about it, > to some other people who don't participate on the NG. I'm going to > post the most significant responses as I receive them, but first > here's one that dovetails with an idea of my own that's a twist on > LU's theory: > > (The person writing inside pointed brackets here is someone I'll call > B:) > > There's also the point that the description of the amulet and the > general > > situation screamed "Shanshu! Get your red hot shanshu here!" Let > us not > > forget that W&H had the scroll before Angel did, and presumably > they know > > about the prophecy. They could have tailored their report on the > amulet to > > hint that wearing it would give Angel what he supposedly wants. > They > > didn't count on him not wanting it as hard as all that, and > certainly not > > on Buffy having a ringer. > > (And this was my response to B--what do you think of this, LU?): > --Okay, since you mentioned how the amulet seems like a route to > shanshu, I'm going to bring in a new twist on the NG theory that I > came up with last night. > > Remember that the NG theory kind of depends on W&H somehow knowing, > or guessing, that someone other than Angel would wear the amulet. > Possibly--in this theory--W&H have even been keeping tabs on Spike > and they know all about him. > > What if W&H deliberately came up with something--the amulet--that > *did* blatantly scream "Shanshu!"? And what if they knew Spike would > end up wearing > the amulet, having his essence trapped in it, and eventually getting > solidified as a human being, because of the cleansing and purifying > power of the amulet? (I'm assuming this is what will happen to Spike > after a cetain period of ghostliness.) And what if W&H counted on > Angel getting to know all this? What if that's why they sent the > amulet back to Angel in an envelope? > > Wouldn't Angel end up really bitter and cynical because he's thinking > that "his" shanshu was grabbed by another vampire? (Of course it > needn't be the actual shanshu prophecied in the Scrolls of Aberjian-- > what happened to Spike with the amulet could just be something that > W&H engineered to *look* like the actual prophecied shanshu.) This > might give W&H the evil, nasty, yet soulful Angel they've always > wanted for their own purposes. > > And if it didn't work out that way because Angel *did* end up wearing > the amulet himself, well, I suppose that's a contingency plan that > could also have had some sort of advantages for W&H. But as someone > somewhere pointed out, W&H does employ psychics and prognosticators, > so they actually could know a vampire other than Angel would end up > wearing the amulet. > > I'm liking this idea better and better all the time. > > Clairel And yet another perspective from someone I'll call "N"--good points, I think: Somehow I think if W&H had intended the amulet for Buffy they'd have tinkered with the advice they offered with it. Instead of using the more-than-human but with a soul tag-line I think they'd have out and out said a slayer. Of course then there was always the potential Faith would wear it but she'd probably have a similar impact on Angel as Buffy would if caught in the 'sucked into Hell' predicament. I just felt that the way it was worded made it fairly obvious that it was intended for Angel unless W&H already knew all about Spike. Personally I prefer to think Spike was again not on the radar for them and is thus as big a surprise to the bosses at W&H as this ghost business is to Spike. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Clairel

2003-08-15 15:00:08-07:00 - Re: A twist on Lord Usher's amulet theory - (William George Ferguson <william.george.ferguson@domail.maricopa.edu>)


On 15 Aug 2003 13:53:46 -0700, reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote: [talking about W&H's possible motives in giving Angel the Champion's Amulet] >What's hardest to determine right now, I think, is how much W&H knew >about Spike. It would be very hard for them to know as much as they have shown they knew about Darla and Drusilla without knowing a fair amount about Spike. Of course, that was past knowledge, but then they gave Angel that folder about the situation in Sunnydale. It would almost have to summarize the major players, and Spike had been a major player in the the latest activities of The First. -- You've reached the Tittles. We can't come to the phone right now If you want to leave a message for Christine, Press 1 For Bentley, Press 2 Or to speak to, or worship, Master Tarfall, Underlord of Pain, Press 3

2003-08-15 15:28:07-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (reldevik@usa.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308150915.a9f12c2@posting.google.com>... > snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030815065054.29503.00000018@mb-m21.news.cs.com>... > > > Spike going off into the sunset with Buffy! > > > > Because I believe all shows have a shelf-life; and I give Angel one or perhaps > > two more seasons, tops. > > Since we already get Spike for this entire season, I would like to see him > > reunited with Buffy and off with her at the end of it. > > Oh, thank you. So once you got what you aim for, it doesn't matter to > just leave the show in the ditch, is it? --Why would that be "leaving the show in the ditch," Daniel? Don't you think AtS would be better off without Spike anyway? Why should you be offended if he stays for one year and then leaves? And tell me again why should > a supporting character gets a better deal than the main character > whose story I've been interested in right from the start? Not to > mention that the show started with Buffy and Angel story, so ending it > with Buffy and Spike is way too similar to 'Dawson Creek' for its own > good. > > > That will give Angel a final season to wrap up the loose ends *maybe Frangel*? > > Geez, thanks. Hey, I've got a better idea! Instead of Fred, why > don't we just give Angel any random female character of the week while > Spike gets the titular title character of the parent show? And you > guys wonder why some people are apprehensive about Spike coming to the > show. --Oh. I'm beginning to get it, Daniel. Buffy, to you, is some sort of trophy to be handed to the most "deserving" character. Thus Buffy ending up with anyone other than Angel is an affront to Angel. Jeez louise. Can't you conceive of Angel getting interested in some other woman, or at least letting go of his yearning for Buffy? She did warn him it would be "years, if ever," meaning she might never want to get together with Angel. It's not as if Angel has some sort of God-given *right* to be awarded Buffy as a trophy. Nor does Spike, of course. But there are some viewers who enjoy watching Buffy and Spike interact romantically. It's not a trophy mentality; just a sentimental preference for a certain romantic pairing. You don't have to take it as a slap in the face to Angel. I'm sure that if any such thing happens between Buffy and Spike in the future, Angel as the title character of the show will have other interesting things going on with him. Maybe those things will include feelings of romantic disappointment over Buffy choosing someone else--but then again maybe not. It's really nothing to get angry about (especially since it's just one person expressing her wishes for what should happen, not a known plan of the ME writers). > > Just my personal wishlist; probably unlikely to happen! > > Oh please, you're clearly hoping for it by saying it's probably > unlikely to happen. It's a typical reverse psychology wishlist. --Maybe so, Daniel, but how does that harm you, exactly? Don't you think you're taking this all a little bit too personally? Different viewers can want different things. How does Sandy's statement of her personal wishes do you any harm? Clairel

2003-08-15 22:31:42+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 8/15/2003 1:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0308150915.a9f12c2@posting.google.com> > >snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message >news:<20030815065054.29503.00000018@mb-m21.news.cs.com>... > >> Spike going off into the sunset with Buffy! >> >> Because I believe all shows have a shelf-life; and I give Angel one or >perhaps >> two more seasons, tops. >> Since we already get Spike for this entire season, I would like to see him >> reunited with Buffy and off with her at the end of it. > >Oh, thank you. So once you got what you aim for, it doesn't matter to >just leave the show in the ditch, is it? > Why would the show be left in the ditch if Spike left at the end of the season? I thought you were one of the fans who was reluctant to see him join the cast at all? >And tell me again why should >a supporting character gets a better deal than the main character >whose story I've been interested in right from the start? Not to >mention that the show started with Buffy and Angel story, so ending it >with Buffy and Spike is way too similar to 'Dawson Creek' for its own >good.> Well, there it is...Angel is the character whose story YOU have been interested in. But Spike is the one I am interested in; and if only one of us can get our wish, then I hope it's me! (Nothing personal though). >Geez, thanks. Hey, I've got a better idea! Instead of Fred, why >don't we just give Angel any random female character of the week while >Spike gets the titular title character of the parent show? Okay. >Oh please, you're clearly hoping for it by saying it's probably >unlikely to happen. It's a typical reverse psychology wishlist. > > > > > > Well yes, I admit I am hoping for it to happen. That's why I called it my personal wishlist! Sandra

2003-08-16 03:47:48-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308151428.477510d2@posting.google.com>... > --Why would that be "leaving the show in the ditch," Daniel? Don't > you think AtS would be better off without Spike anyway? Why should > you be offended if he stays for one year and then leaves? Who said anything about being offended? Oh right, no one. Just you and your imaginary friend. I simply said that I have no desire of seeing Spike robbing Angel of everything that he deserves of (friends, lovers, etc) and then leaves the show (well, this part I won't mind) happy while Angel is in wreck. If he wants to leave the show, by all means but not when it is done at the expense of Angel. And if twisting these sentence into me being offended gets you off, then by all means do so. > --Oh. I'm beginning to get it, Daniel. Now, Clairel, have you gotten the 'guess what other people think' desease that some Spike fans got? > Buffy, to you, is some sort > of trophy to be handed to the most "deserving" character. Clairel, you're the one who's saying this not me. Obviously you do get infected by that desease I speak in the above. > Thus Buffy > ending up with anyone other than Angel is an affront to Angel. Please let me know where I said that? I wouldn't mind Buffy ended up with Riley, Xander, or some other guy other than Angel as long as it is not Spike. > Jeez > louise. Can't you conceive of Angel getting interested in some other > woman, or at least letting go of his yearning for Buffy? She did warn > him it would be "years, if ever," meaning she might never want to get > together with Angel. It's not as if Angel has some sort of God-given > *right* to be awarded Buffy as a trophy. Again, you're the one who assume that I want Buffy to be awarded to Angel as a trophy. I simply don't want Angel to suffer even more than he already has. > Nor does Spike, of course. > But there are some viewers who enjoy watching Buffy and Spike interact > romantically. It's not a trophy mentality; just a sentimental > preference for a certain romantic pairing. And hey, I have a sentimental preference for Buffy and Angel. Why do you have to accuse me of having a trophy mentality. Oh that's right, I forget that vilifiying other people is your MO. > It's really nothing to get angry about (especially since it's > just one person expressing her wishes for what should happen, not a > known plan of the ME writers). Hey, you say it yourself that everyone is entitled to their opinion. That was my opinion, you don't have to take it as a slap to your own opinion. > --Maybe so, Daniel, but how does that harm you, exactly? Don't you > think you're taking this all a little bit too personally? Different > viewers can want different things. How does Sandy's statement of her > personal wishes do you any harm? And Clairel, that's exactly how I view things. Who said Sandy's statement did me any harm? I simply respond to her statement. If you don't like what I said, you can ignore it. But I have as much right to say what I want to say as you or Sandy.

2003-08-16 03:53:45-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030815183142.06821.00000642@mb-m03.news.cs.com>... > Why would the show be left in the ditch if Spike left at the end of the season? > I thought you were one of the fans who was reluctant to see him join the cast > at all? See above. Have no problem with him leaving the show as long as it's not done at Angel's expense. > Well, there it is...Angel is the character whose story YOU have been interested > in. But Spike is the one I am interested in; and if only one of us can get > our wish, then I hope it's me! (Nothing personal though). Reality check no.1: The show is called "Angel" not "Angel and Spike" despite what WB may want to make you think. Reality check no.2: The main character gets dumped for a supporting character story by a girl has been done before. Copying other people's show is not really attractive. > Well yes, I admit I am hoping for it to happen. > That's why I called it my personal wishlist! See, it's not difficult isn't it to be upfront and honest?

2003-08-16 07:22:56-07:00 - Re: A twist on Lord Usher's amulet theory - (reldevik@usa.net)


William George Ferguson <william.george.ferguson@domail.maricopa.edu> wrote in message news:<fnlqjvsad2eq2r8k09jk0jpkrifbav23qk@4ax.com>... > On 15 Aug 2003 13:53:46 -0700, reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote: > [talking about W&H's possible motives in giving Angel the Champion's > Amulet] > >What's hardest to determine right now, I think, is how much W&H knew > >about Spike. > > It would be very hard for them to know as much as they have shown they > knew about Darla and Drusilla without knowing a fair amount about Spike. > > Of course, that was past knowledge, but then they gave Angel that folder > about the situation in Sunnydale. It would almost have to summarize the > major players, and Spike had been a major player in the the latest > activities of The First. --That's a good point. Of course when I wrote the above, I was referring to Spike's situation in spring of 2003, not to his past with Drusilla. His past of soullessness and evilness, though it's certainly something W&H would know about, is pretty irrelevant to how W&H could make use of Spike's 2003 status as the world's second vampire with a soul--if in fact they know about it. I said you had a good point, and I meant it, but I still wonder if W&H really know a lot about Spike's soulful status and his activities in combatting the FE. Maybe they only know the FE has arisen again and is making trouble for Buffy in Sunnydale--not the actual details. Maybe the file they gave Angel was all about the FE's past, its nature and origins, etc. Hard to say for sure right now. Clairel

2003-08-16 11:29:19-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308160253.47095c1d@posting.google.com>... > snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030815183142.06821.00000642@mb-m03.news.cs.com>... > > Well, there it is...Angel is the character whose story YOU have been interested > > in. But Spike is the one I am interested in; and if only one of us can get > > our wish, then I hope it's me! (Nothing personal though). > > Reality check no.1: The show is called "Angel" not "Angel and Spike" > despite what WB may want to make you think. > Angel being the main, titular character means that all storylines will, in one way or another, revolve around him. It does NOT mean that he'll get a happy ending or that all viewers have an obligation to like him best (witness the many fans whose favourite character is Wes) and/or root for his story to have a happy ending above all others. Just because BtVS didn't end tragically (and one could argue that that's because it didn't really "end" at all; "Chosen" was positively screaming "we're holding out for spin-offs and sequel movies" IMO), it doesn't mean AtS can't or won't. Alternately, it could be said that ending up with Buffy wouldn't be a happy ending for Angel and that what he really needs is to let go of her and what she represents for him (and vice-versa), which happens to be my opinion. > Reality check no.2: The main character gets dumped for a supporting > character story by a girl has been done before. Copying other > people's show is not really attractive. What, and "main character gets the girl and everything else he's ever wanted" stories are the epitome of original, innovative writing? Dude, EVERYTHING's been done before!

2003-08-16 20:05:12-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308160253.47095c1d@posting.google.com>... > > Reality check no.2: The main character gets dumped for a supporting > character story by a girl has been done before. Copying other > people's show is not really attractive. Oh, my god! Another show already did it? Well, then it's totally out. So, let's let the lead get the girl...because that's *never* been done before on any show. <sarcasm mode here> himiko

2003-08-16 22:48:34+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 8/16/2003 6:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0308160253.47095c1d@posting.google.com> > >Reality check no.1: The show is called "Angel" not "Angel and Spike" >despite what WB may want to make you think. > But that doesn't mean that ONLY Angel gets to have an interesting storyline. JW has said in the past that he considers it more of an ensemble show; and I feel he'll be less of a focus this season than he has been in the past. >Reality check no.2: The main character gets dumped for a supporting >character story by a girl has been done before. Copying other >people's show is not really attractive.> Well, suppose Buffy ends up with her first love? Doesn't that copy plenty of other shows that have been done previously? > > >See, it's not difficult isn't it to be upfront and honest?>> Not at all. Why, do you find it so? Sandra

2003-08-17 06:22:20-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0308161029.48c827f6@posting.google.com>... > Angel being the main, titular character means that all storylines > will, in one way or another, revolve around him. It does NOT mean that > he'll get a happy ending or that all viewers have an obligation to > like him best (witness the many fans whose favourite character is Wes) Did you somehow missed the word "I" when I said 'I have no desire of seeing.....' > and/or root for his story to have a happy ending above all others. > Just because BtVS didn't end tragically (and one could argue that > that's because it didn't really "end" at all; "Chosen" was positively > screaming "we're holding out for spin-offs and sequel movies" IMO), it > doesn't mean AtS can't or won't. I'm all for tragic ending. But not when it's clearly obvious that it's done to service a more popular character such as Spike to the point that they'll trash the main character like they did with Buffy (who doesn't have a tragic ending but her personality is damaged due to all of the bad characterisation given to her so that people can sympathise with Spike). > What, and "main character gets the girl and everything else he's ever > wanted" stories are the epitome of original, innovative writing? Dude, > EVERYTHING's been done before! In a vampire stories? I doubt it. The last time I remember, "Forever Knight" ends tragically.

2003-08-17 06:34:23-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030816184834.28348.00000073@mb-m18.news.cs.com>... > But that doesn't mean that ONLY Angel gets to have an interesting storyline. JW has said in the past that he considers it more of an ensemble show; Duh! I know that. And by that token, Spike isn't the only one who gets to have an interesting story either. > and I > feel he'll be less of a focus this season than he has been in the past. Why is that? Because Spike is in town now? > Well, suppose Buffy ends up with her > first love? Doesn't that copy plenty of other shows that have been done > previously? Mentioned one show where the main character ends up with his/her first love because I can't recall any. On top of that, I also can't recall a vampire stories that ends happily. Especially where the titular vampire character gets to have it all: the girl, the friends, and his human form.

2003-08-17 06:37:23-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308161905.874c301@posting.google.com>... > Oh, my god! Another show already did it? Well, then it's totally > out. So, let's let the lead get the girl...because that's *never* > been done before on any show. <sarcasm mode here> Oh my God! All of the vampire shows that I've seen never ends with the main character either dead or stay as vampire! All vampire shows always end with the titular vampire character obtaining all that he's been trying to achieve: his human form, the girl, the friends,etc. <sarcasm mode here>

2003-08-17 12:03:47-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308170537.6755ca79@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308161905.874c301@posting.google.com>... > > > Oh, my god! Another show already did it? Well, then it's totally > > out. So, let's let the lead get the girl...because that's *never* > > been done before on any show. <sarcasm mode here> > > Oh my God! All of the vampire shows that I've seen never ends with > the main character either dead or stay as vampire! All vampire shows > always end with the titular vampire character obtaining all that he's > been trying to achieve: his human form, the girl, the friends,etc. > <sarcasm mode here> So, it was another TV show with a vampire lead (not just title character) where the supporting character got the girl? himiko (who always favors comparing apples with other apples and not with kiwi fruits or mangos)

2003-08-17 12:57:37-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308170522.53ce2d31@posting.google.com>... > mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0308161029.48c827f6@posting.google.com>... > > > Angel being the main, titular character means that all storylines > > will, in one way or another, revolve around him. It does NOT mean that > > he'll get a happy ending or that all viewers have an obligation to > > like him best (witness the many fans whose favourite character is Wes) > > Did you somehow missed the word "I" when I said 'I have no desire of > seeing.....' You responded to another poster's assertion that (s)he preferred Spike to Angel with the "reality check" that it was Angel's show, not Spike's. The implication is that, this being Angel's show, it is wrong or misguided to root for/favour a different character. > I'm all for tragic ending. But not when it's clearly obvious that > it's done to service a more popular character such as Spike to the > point that they'll trash the main character like they did with Buffy > (who doesn't have a tragic ending but her personality is damaged due > to all of the bad characterisation given to her so that people can > sympathise with Spike). How is that "clearly obvious"? You're simply assuming that that's the case, when it could very well be that the writers are telling exactly the story they want to tell (which, unfortunately, is not the story you want to see), with both Buffy and Angel, and Spike is merely the device used to get those two where ME wants them. > > What, and "main character gets the girl and everything else he's ever > > wanted" stories are the epitome of original, innovative writing? Dude, > > EVERYTHING's been done before! > > In a vampire stories? I doubt it. The last time I remember, "Forever > Knight" ends tragically. Oh, I'm sorry, were your comments restricted to vampire stories? So, in what vampire story exactly did we get that tedious, overused, "secondary character steals the girl from protagonist" plot? ;) Look, I agree somewhat that an all-out tragic ending to Angel's story might not exactly be original (although I guess it would all depend on the hows and whys of it). But it would hardly be more of an unrealistic clich� than a typical Hollywood fairly-tale ending wherein the hero gets the girl - his true love, his soulmate (gah!) - and his shanshu (aka absolution) and they live happily ever after. Angel being a vampire makes it all more fairy-tale-ish, not less. More importantly, this is not an either/or situation. Angel can have a non-tragic ending without getting the girl OR the shanshu, which I would find a lot more believable and meaningful.

2003-08-17 18:45:34-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (reldevik@usa.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308160247.684173c5@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308151428.477510d2@posting.google.com>... > > > > --Why would that be "leaving the show in the ditch," Daniel? Don't > > you think AtS would be better off without Spike anyway? Why should > > you be offended if he stays for one year and then leaves? > > Who said anything about being offended? --Just because you don't use the word "offended" doesn't mean your post didn't have an offended tone to it. Are you really denying that it did? Don't you realize how the tone of your writing appears in others' eyes? Oh right, no one. Just you > and your imaginary friend. I simply said that I have no desire of > seeing Spike robbing Angel of everything that he deserves of (friends, > lovers, etc) and then leaves the show (well, this part I won't mind) > happy while Angel is in wreck. If he wants to leave the show, by all > means but not when it is done at the expense of Angel. And if > twisting these sentence into me being offended gets you off, then by > all means do so. > > > --Oh. I'm beginning to get it, Daniel. > > Now, Clairel, have you gotten the 'guess what other people think' > desease that some Spike fans got? --I'm just trying to figure out where your anger is coming from, since Sandy is just talking about what she would like to see, not about what the ME writers are actually going to do. If I've figured it wrongly, then please do explain what the basis of your anger at Sandy is. > > Buffy, to you, is some sort > > of trophy to be handed to the most "deserving" character. > > Clairel, you're the one who's saying this not me. Obviously you do > get infected by that desease I speak in the above. > > > Thus Buffy > > ending up with anyone other than Angel is an affront to Angel. > > Please let me know where I said that? I wouldn't mind Buffy ended up > with Riley, Xander, or some other guy other than Angel as long as it > is not Spike. > > > Jeez > > louise. Can't you conceive of Angel getting interested in some other > > woman, or at least letting go of his yearning for Buffy? She did warn > > him it would be "years, if ever," meaning she might never want to get > > together with Angel. It's not as if Angel has some sort of God-given > > *right* to be awarded Buffy as a trophy. > > Again, you're the one who assume that I want Buffy to be awarded to > Angel as a trophy. I simply don't want Angel to suffer even more than > he already has. --And Buffy ending up with some guy other than Spike or Angel wouldn't make Angel suffer? Why do you figure that? I guess you must be imagining Angel rooting his love for Buffy out of his heart, then. But if you're imagining Angel rooting his love for Buffy out of his heart, then why would her ending up with Spike make Angel suffer? No--reason it out logically, and what it comes down to is just that you object to Buffy ending up with Spike. Period. There's a personal animus against Spike there, and it's so blatant it's actually funny. > > Nor does Spike, of course. > > But there are some viewers who enjoy watching Buffy and Spike interact > > romantically. It's not a trophy mentality; just a sentimental > > preference for a certain romantic pairing. > > And hey, I have a sentimental preference for Buffy and Angel. Why do > you have to accuse me of having a trophy mentality. Oh that's right, > I forget that vilifiying other people is your MO. > > > It's really nothing to get angry about (especially since it's > > just one person expressing her wishes for what should happen, not a > > known plan of the ME writers). > > Hey, you say it yourself that everyone is entitled to their opinion. > That was my opinion, you don't have to take it as a slap to your own > opinion. --I don't take it as a slap to my own opinion. I do, however, take it as an unnecessarily angry response to Sandy's pleasant and harmless post. > > --Maybe so, Daniel, but how does that harm you, exactly? Don't you > > think you're taking this all a little bit too personally? Different > > viewers can want different things. How does Sandy's statement of her > > personal wishes do you any harm? > > And Clairel, that's exactly how I view things. Who said Sandy's > statement did me any harm? I simply respond to her statement. If you > don't like what I said, you can ignore it. But I have as much right to > say what I want to say as you or Sandy. --The difference is that Sandy was just happily and cheerfully talking about her wishes for the new season. And unless Sandy has a direct pipeline to the ME writers' ear and some way to make them do what she wants, her wishes can't possibly harm you. Yet you reacted angrily to Sandy's post, as it it were somehow harming you. If you're honest, Daniel, you can't possibly claim that your post was just a happy and cheerful expression of your wishes in the same way Sandy's was of hers. The fact is that you were lashing out angrily when no one else was angry. I just wonder why viewers with wishes different from yours can make you angry, when the only people whose ideas for the season can *really* have an impact on you are the ME writers themselves. Do you think Sandy's post was like a letter to Santa Claus or something--a letter that Santa (read: ME) will actually receive and act on? Why don't you just write your own "letter to Santa" and stop reacting like a scalded cat to every posted wish-list that differs from your own? Clairel

2003-08-18 01:21:08-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308171745.5b199d6d@posting.google.com>... > --Just because you don't use the word "offended" doesn't mean your > post didn't have an offended tone to it. Are you really denying that > it did? Don't you realize how the tone of your writing appears in > others' eyes? Well, it's not my fault that you're fragile and sensitive to the point that you're interpreting everything that you read. > But if you're imagining Angel rooting his love for Buffy out of his > heart, then why would her ending up with Spike make Angel suffer? Clairel, have you been watching the show for the past couple of years? It's because they both broke up so that Buffy can have normal chance in life with normal boyfriend. Spike wasn't exactly a normal boyfriend was he? So all of that sacrifice that Angel made was for naught. > No--reason it out logically, and what it comes down to is just that > you object to Buffy ending up with Spike. Period. There's a personal > animus against Spike there, and it's so blatant it's actually funny. What's funny is you consistently trying to guess what I'm trying to say without much luck. That's why you should never assume that you know what I or other people think. > --The difference is that Sandy was just happily and cheerfully talking > about her wishes for the new season. And I was just giving opinion on what I think. > Why don't you just write your own "letter to Santa" and stop > reacting like a scalded cat to every posted wish-list that differs > from your own? *sigh* Clairel, if you can't stand the idea of a person disagreeing with another person's post, then you probably shouldn't be on the usenet. Because disagreement between posters are going to happen a lot and not just from me. Are you going to respond to every single people who disagree with someone else's message with what you have written above?

2003-08-18 02:44:11-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0308171157.505726f@posting.google.com>... > You responded to another poster's assertion that (s)he preferred Spike > to Angel with the "reality check" that it was Angel's show, not > Spike's. The implication is that, this being Angel's show, it is wrong > or misguided to root for/favour a different character. Nope. That's your interpretation of what I said. By all means root for him. What t I have no wish to see is for the show to be once again overwhelmed by Spike. In other words, I have no wish to see the show to focus on him more than on Angel. Because that's what happened at the end of BTVS. Buffy's sharing of her power with all of the potentials got washed out and forgotten because at the end of the day it's not her effort that wins the battle but that of the deus ex machina object that Spike wears. > How is that "clearly obvious"? Because after S5, things/situations that normally have 2 equal side POV is now skewed heavily towards sympathy for Spike. > You're simply assuming that that's the > case, when it could very well be that the writers are telling exactly > the story they want to tell (which, unfortunately, is not the story > you want to see), Well, duh! That's what my original argument is all about. The fact that the writers intentionally tell a story that skewed heavily towards Spike. > Oh, I'm sorry, were your comments restricted to vampire stories? So, > in what vampire story exactly did we get that tedious, overused, > "secondary character steals the girl from protagonist" plot? ;) Well, there's Angel to begin with. Or were you not present during the entire Angel/Cordy/Connor thing? Then there's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" where Dracula himself lost Wilheminna to Jonathan. There's "Interview with the vampire" where the secondary character does not exactly steals the girl but rather a 'family' member. Lestat lost Claudia to Louis. Then there's multitude anime titles if you're into them. > But it would hardly be more of an > unrealistic clich� than a typical Hollywood fairly-tale ending wherein > the hero gets the girl - his true love, his soulmate (gah!) - and his > shanshu (aka absolution) and they live happily ever after. Angel being > a vampire makes it all more fairy-tale-ish, not less. I agree that the main character ends up with the love of his life is a Hollywood cliche. However, Angel being a vampire actually makes it a bit more interesting if it ends happily since as I said before, most vampire stories never ends happily. Having said that, I actually don't mind a tragic ending as long as it is one that is shocking/unpredicatable/nasty rather than sad and depressing. > More importantly, this is not an either/or situation. Angel can have a > non-tragic ending without getting the girl OR the shanshu, which I > would find a lot more believable and meaningful. Well, I know one or two typical 'happy but not happy' ending one: Angel and Spike remains as vampire and end Casablanca way. God, if I have a nickel everytime I see this type of ending. Here's another: Angel dies but reincarnated as someone else's child, a real human being this time. This one is kind of popular in Japanese animation stories. If there's something that is worse than a good ending or a bad ending, that would be a half-assed ending like the ones I mentioned above. Where the writers try not to make it too good or too bad and try to please everyone. That's what I felt happened in Chosen. They try too hard to please the B/A and B/S camp and at the end of the day ended up making everyone unhappy.

2003-08-18 11:55:35-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (reldevik@usa.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308180021.15b070dd@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308171745.5b199d6d@posting.google.com>... > > > --Just because you don't use the word "offended" doesn't mean your > > post didn't have an offended tone to it. Are you really denying that > > it did? Don't you realize how the tone of your writing appears in > > others' eyes? > > Well, it's not my fault that you're fragile and sensitive to the point > that you're interpreting everything that you read. --Me? Fragile and sensitive? Heh. In any case it was your tone to Sandy that I was objecting to. > > But if you're imagining Angel rooting his love for Buffy out of his > > heart, then why would her ending up with Spike make Angel suffer? > > Clairel, have you been watching the show for the past couple of years? > It's because they both broke up so that Buffy can have normal chance > in life with normal boyfriend. Spike wasn't exactly a normal > boyfriend was he? So all of that sacrifice that Angel made was for > naught. --What if Spike should be transformed so that he's no longer a vampire? (I kind of agree that human + vampire = a relationship with problems, but I was envisioning a Spike-turned-human.) > > No--reason it out logically, and what it comes down to is just that > > you object to Buffy ending up with Spike. Period. There's a personal > > animus against Spike there, and it's so blatant it's actually funny. > > What's funny is you consistently trying to guess what I'm trying to > say without much luck. That's why you should never assume that you > know what I or other people think. > > > --The difference is that Sandy was just happily and cheerfully talking > > about her wishes for the new season. > > And I was just giving opinion on what I think. > > > Why don't you just write your own "letter to Santa" and stop > > reacting like a scalded cat to every posted wish-list that differs > > from your own? > > *sigh* Clairel, if you can't stand the idea of a person disagreeing > with another person's post, then you probably shouldn't be on the > usenet. Because disagreement between posters are going to happen a > lot and not just from me. Are you going to respond to every single > people who disagree with someone else's message with what you have > written above? --Disagreement is one thing. But seething fury is another. Especially when it's so unprovoked. You could be making your points in much nicer ways. Except for Silveragent on the ASSB, I don't know of anyone who seems to be in such a perpetual state of fury as you are. (And I don't think "Silveragent" is a nom de plume that you use elsewhere, because his writing style is very different from yours.) I just can't help wondering why the subject of Spike gets you so egregiously riled up. There are other people who post about their apprehensions vis-a-vis Spike's presence on AtS in a calm, explanatory style that actually communicates something to me. Furious rants, though, just leave me mystified as to where all the passion and anger are coming from. Clairel

2003-08-18 12:32:13+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 8/17/2003 9:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0308170534.6e5f2e1@posting.google.com> > >snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message >news:<20030816184834.28348.00000073@mb-m18.news.cs.com>... > >> But that doesn't mean that ONLY Angel gets to have an interesting >storyline. JW has said in the past that he considers it more of an ensemble >show; > >Duh! I know that. And by that token, Spike isn't the only one who >gets to have an interesting story either. > Nor will he. If you've been reading spoilers, then you know some of the things planned for the other characters. >> and I >> feel he'll be less of a focus this season than he has been in the past. > >Why is that? Because Spike is in town now? > That's part of it, but not entirely. As I said, I think all of the others will have more to do this season. >> Well, suppose Buffy ends up with her >> first love? Doesn't that copy plenty of other shows that have been done >> previously? > >Mentioned one show where the main character ends up with his/her first >love because I can't recall any. On top of that, I also can't recall >a vampire stories that ends happily. Especially where the titular >vampire character gets to have it all: the girl, the friends, and his >human form. > > LOTR, for one. That is the example everyone is discussing; and despite a few distractions along the way, Aragorn ends up with his first love. I'm not really that familiar with other vampire stories. I know you mentioned that Lestat loses Claudia to Louis; but she was hardly a love interest, was she? Nor do we know how Lestat's story ends, since Anne Rice hasn't yet ended it. As for Dracula, he can't end- at least not definitively. (If Bram Stoker had lived in our era, he'd been an entire series by now). But in movies, he needs to be brought back, again and again, simply because the public doesn't want an ending in his case. So, in that sense I would say that he IS one vampire whose story (not ended, but concluded) happily- since he is never really gone for long! LOL! Sandra

2003-08-19 03:33:50+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Linda <lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com>)


"Daniel Garten" <dxgarten@ignmail.com> wrote in message news:49cf8df3.0308180021.15b070dd@posting.google.com... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308171745.5b199d6d@posting.google.com>... > > > --Just because you don't use the word "offended" doesn't mean your > > post didn't have an offended tone to it. Are you really denying that > > it did? Don't you realize how the tone of your writing appears in > > others' eyes? > > Well, it's not my fault that you're fragile and sensitive to the point > that you're interpreting everything that you read. > > > But if you're imagining Angel rooting his love for Buffy out of his > > heart, then why would her ending up with Spike make Angel suffer? > > Clairel, have you been watching the show for the past couple of years? > It's because they both broke up so that Buffy can have normal chance > in life with normal boyfriend. Spike wasn't exactly a normal > boyfriend was he? So all of that sacrifice that Angel made was for > naught. > > > No--reason it out logically, and what it comes down to is just that > > you object to Buffy ending up with Spike. Period. There's a personal > > animus against Spike there, and it's so blatant it's actually funny. > > What's funny is you consistently trying to guess what I'm trying to > say without much luck. That's why you should never assume that you > know what I or other people think. > > > --The difference is that Sandy was just happily and cheerfully talking > > about her wishes for the new season. > > And I was just giving opinion on what I think. > > > Why don't you just write your own "letter to Santa" and stop > > reacting like a scalded cat to every posted wish-list that differs > > from your own? > > *sigh* Clairel, if you can't stand the idea of a person disagreeing > with another person's post, then you probably shouldn't be on the > usenet. Because disagreement between posters are going to happen a > lot and not just from me. Are you going to respond to every single > people who disagree with someone else's message with what you have > written above? Dan, give it up. I no longer will respond to *any* of Clairel's posts. She is very intolerant of anyone's who disagrees with her. She's only here because of Spike or she would have been posting here for the last four years like we have to discuss this wonderful show. Oh and she pointed out to me that she's an academic so she knows more than the rest of us. -- Best regards, Linda Just waiting for the new season

2003-08-19 03:42:23-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308181055.23218ad7@posting.google.com>... > --Me? Fragile and sensitive? Heh. In any case it was your tone to > Sandy that I was objecting to. Well, obviously you're sensitive enough to the point that my response to someone else's post (ie. as opposed to yours) is enough to warrant your wrath. > --What if Spike should be transformed so that he's no longer a > vampire? (I kind of agree that human + vampire = a relationship with > problems, but I was envisioning a Spike-turned-human.) My guess is we'll have an outcry bigger than the river of nile and I will be the last person you'll have to worry about. > --Disagreement is one thing. But seething fury is another. > Especially when it's so unprovoked. You could be making your points > in much nicer ways. I think in comparison to some others from your camp (you know who), I'm comparatively polite and don't resort to name-calling. But I am sorry if I offend you. > Except for Silveragent on the ASSB, I don't know of anyone who seems > to be in such a perpetual state of fury as you are. Who's Silveragent and ASSB? Is that a B/A group or something? LOL, I'm not exactly a B/A-er although given a choice between Buffy ending up with her........uhm......and Angel, I know my choice. And you think I'm in a perpetual state of fury? LOL. You obviously haven't met some pissed off Cordelia fans. > I just can't help > wondering why the subject of Spike gets you so egregiously riled up. i don't get which part of my posts haven't made that clear. Oh well, since you have kindly asked and all. Let's start with the fact that I don't like the character. Top that with my fear that what happened to Buffy, Xander and Willow back in S7 (being made to look bad, shafted to the background, given lame storyline) is going to happen to my favourite character (Angel, Wes, and Fred) now that Spike joins the show. I have no desire of seeing him robbing the roles/stories/positions that my favourite characters have within the show. The clincher will have to be his fans talking about him day/night with no regards to the storyline of other characters, even to the point where a thread about other characters (ie. Wes) is purposedly turned into a Spike thread. > There are other people who post about their apprehensions vis-a-vis > Spike's presence on AtS in a calm, explanatory style that actually > communicates something to me. Furious rants, though, just leave me > mystified as to where all the passion and anger are coming from. You do realise we're still on a break period right? If you think what I've said thus far fall under 'furious rants', you'll be surprised once all of the posters of this newsgroup returns here when the show started. My 'furious rants', as you aptly puts it, will sound like a mere whisper by comparison. That I can guarantee you as much, especially if everything that some of us who dislike Spike dreaded turned out to be true.

2003-08-19 04:08:01-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030818083213.28058.00000220@mb-m29.news.cs.com>... > Nor will he. If you've been reading spoilers, then you know some of the things > planned for the other characters. Well, then please do tell me what sort of interesting story they have for Wes, Fred, and Lorne planned this season. Because so far from 3 episodes, I have gotten zero, zilch, nothing for them. Not even a one episode story, let alone an arc that goes beyond one episode (like Spike's being a ghost issue). > That's part of it, but not entirely. As I said, I think all of the others will > have more to do this season. I don't have premonition ability nor am I capable of reading tarot cards. What I have is 3 episodes spoilers where nothing has been said about some of the characters that I'm interested in. > LOTR, for one. That is the example everyone is discussing; and despite a few > distractions along the way, Aragorn ends up with his first love. Since when LOTR becomes a vampire show? > I'm not really that familiar with other vampire stories. I know you mentioned > that Lestat loses Claudia to Louis; but she was hardly a love interest, was > she? Well I did mentioned that Lestat lost Claudia as a 'family' to Louis. But the end result is still the same. The vampiric main character lost something that he considers important in his life. > Nor do we know how Lestat's story ends, since Anne Rice hasn't yet ended it. Exactly. And therefore the end of each book such as the end of "Interview with the Vampire", can be considered as a seperate endings for Lestat at this point in time. A different chapter of his life each time the book ends. > As for Dracula, he can't end- at least not definitively. (If Bram Stoker had > lived in our era, he'd been an entire series by now). But in movies, he needs > to be brought back, again and again, simply because the public doesn't want an > ending in his case. So, in that sense I would say that he IS one vampire whose > story (not ended, but concluded) happily- since he is never really gone for > long! LOL! Well, I'm kind of discounting the ridiculousness of the fact that there are different permutations of Dracula stories. I stick with the original book or that version which Francis Ford Coppola tries to closely portray in his film. Plus, we're not talking about sequel and the never ending milking of a popular character in films. We're talking about the fate of a vampiric character at the end of his story.

2003-08-19 04:13:37-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308171103.19ff987b@posting.google.com>... > himiko (who always favors comparing apples with other apples and not > with kiwi fruits or mangos) Well, aren't you glad that I asked you to compare Angel's situation to other vampire stories then?

2003-08-19 09:53:37-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (reldevik@usa.net)


"Linda" <lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com> wrote in message news:<yUg0b.11525$YP.1234@news.easynews.com>... > "Daniel Garten" <dxgarten@ignmail.com> wrote in message > news:49cf8df3.0308180021.15b070dd@posting.google.com... > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message > news:<1faed770.0308171745.5b199d6d@posting.google.com>... > > > > > --Just because you don't use the word "offended" doesn't mean your > > > post didn't have an offended tone to it. Are you really denying that > > > it did? Don't you realize how the tone of your writing appears in > > > others' eyes? > > > > Well, it's not my fault that you're fragile and sensitive to the point > > that you're interpreting everything that you read. > > > > > But if you're imagining Angel rooting his love for Buffy out of his > > > heart, then why would her ending up with Spike make Angel suffer? > > > > Clairel, have you been watching the show for the past couple of years? > > It's because they both broke up so that Buffy can have normal chance > > in life with normal boyfriend. Spike wasn't exactly a normal > > boyfriend was he? So all of that sacrifice that Angel made was for > > naught. > > > > > No--reason it out logically, and what it comes down to is just that > > > you object to Buffy ending up with Spike. Period. There's a personal > > > animus against Spike there, and it's so blatant it's actually funny. > > > > What's funny is you consistently trying to guess what I'm trying to > > say without much luck. That's why you should never assume that you > > know what I or other people think. > > > > > --The difference is that Sandy was just happily and cheerfully talking > > > about her wishes for the new season. > > > > And I was just giving opinion on what I think. > > > > > Why don't you just write your own "letter to Santa" and stop > > > reacting like a scalded cat to every posted wish-list that differs > > > from your own? > > > > *sigh* Clairel, if you can't stand the idea of a person disagreeing > > with another person's post, then you probably shouldn't be on the > > usenet. Because disagreement between posters are going to happen a > > lot and not just from me. Are you going to respond to every single > > people who disagree with someone else's message with what you have > > written above? > > Dan, give it up. I no longer will respond to *any* of Clairel's posts. She > is very intolerant of anyone's who disagrees with her. She's only here > because of Spike or she would have been posting here for the last four years > like we have to discuss this wonderful show. --Right, because everyone in the world has always been aware of the existence of Usenet discussion groups since their very inception. And if a person wasn't aware of it--if that person, say, wasn't in the habit of using computers much--that really says something about the person's enjoyment of a TV show. In fact I only became aware of Usenet's existence at the very end of 2000. AtS began in 1999. Therefore I couldn't have been discussing Angel on Usenet since the show first began. Had I known of the existence of alt.tv.angel and alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer when I first began watching these shows, I undoubtedly would have wanted to take part in discussion from the very beginning, or at least lurk. But I was not aware of the discussion groups' existence till later. Still, if you will do a google search with the word "Clairel" you will find posts by me on alt.tv.angel going back more than a year--posts on many different aspects of AtS. Obviously there was little reason to post about Spike on alt.tv.angel until the recent news of his joining the AtS cast, but in fact there were many other things that I was, and am, interested in discussing vis-a-vis the Angel show and its characters. Wes, Lorne, Fred, Gunn and Lilah are all great favorites of mine. Oh and she pointed out to me > that she's an academic so she knows more than the rest of us. --I don't remember how or why that came up, but obviously an academic is supposed to have expertise in whatever his or her particular field is. My field isn't television studies, however. My field is ancient and medieval languages, literature, mythology and folklore. Did that come up somehow in discussion here? I remember that on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer this past spring, when Spike had to decipher that odd Latin inscription written in Greek letters on the wall of the Gilroy mission, I did post about that. I thought it was pretty neat that Spike knew classical languages so well, and I thought I had something of interest to offer by transcribing and translating the wall inscription. Is that something for you to be upset about? I certainly don't claim to be an expert in all fields. As is evident from what I wrote above, I'm pretty backward when it comes to computers, for instance. And if I am in any way an "expert" on ME television shows it's not a result of academic research, it's just a result of watching these shows with great enthusiasm, attention, and interest for the past seven years, as anyone might do. (For example: you, Linda, might have watched "Chosen" more attentively and realized that Buffy was indeed begging Spike to leave with her and save his life at the end. George Avalos and I both corrected your misapprehension about that, and for some reason that seems to stick in your craw. But neither George nor I was speaking as an academic on that occasion; we were simply speaking as BtVS viewers who pay close attention. I don't understand why you couldn't graciously accept a factual correction by fellow viewers.) Therefore I fail to see how my academic work is even an issue here. Clairel

2003-08-19 13:10:29-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308190313.2ebc6819@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308171103.19ff987b@posting.google.com>... > > > himiko (who always favors comparing apples with other apples and not > > with kiwi fruits or mangos) > > Well, aren't you glad that I asked you to compare Angel's situation to > other vampire stories then? No. Because the comparison was to other TV shows in which the lead loses the girl to a supporting character. You seemed to feel that since this had been done once (unlike the lead getting the girl which never happens), it shouldn't be done again. The comparison was not to other vampire stories, nor was it to movies. himiko

2003-08-19 22:35:13-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308180144.6c9d2d66@posting.google.com>... > mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0308171157.505726f@posting.google.com>... > > How is that "clearly obvious"? > Because after S5, things/situations that normally have 2 equal side > POV is now skewed heavily towards sympathy for Spike. Ah, THAT kind of "clearly obvious"! ;) Got an example? > > > You're simply assuming that that's the > > case, when it could very well be that the writers are telling exactly > > the story they want to tell (which, unfortunately, is not the story > > you want to see), > > Well, duh! That's what my original argument is all about. The fact > that the writers intentionally tell a story that skewed heavily > towards Spike. I know that's how you see it. But that's not what *I* said at all, if you'll read the full quote again. My point was that, far from "trashing" Buffy in order to garner sympathy for Spike, they used him to take Buffy to the dark places they wanted to take her. See the paradigm shift there? In your version, ME's intent was to make Spike look good; in mine, it was to explore the shadowy underpinnings of Buffy's slayerness and the effect it's had on her. Neither of us can know for certain what the writers were really about. We're both just attributing motives based on our expectations and feelings about the story. > > Well, there's Angel to begin with. Or were you not present during the > entire Angel/Cordy/Connor thing? Of course not. No one who likes Spike ever watched "Angel" before the news of JM's joining the cast, didn't you know that? ;) Seriously - that doesn't count. Cordelia was evil/possessed/manipulated by an evil agency at the time and had all kinds of ulterior motives. There was no real choice between the two men involved. > Then there's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" > where Dracula himself lost Wilheminna to Jonathan. Dude, Dracula was evil! EVIL evil, not S6 Spike "I think I'll go talk myself into biting this chick 'cause she looks kinda' like Buffy and I'm really pissed at her for saying I'm still evil so I'll SHOW her evil. Hah!" evil. Can't possibly expect him to get the girl and the happy ending! Especially in a Victorian novel. > There's "Interview > with the vampire" where the secondary character does not exactly > steals the girl but rather a 'family' member. Lestat lost Claudia to > Louis. Lestat lost Claudia because she found out that he was the one who turned her and condemned her to eternity in a child's body. She didn't so much choose Louis as talk him into killing Lestat for her. It was about vengeance, not love. > Then there's multitude anime titles if you're into them. Got me there. I don't know from anime. As for counterexamples, we need look no further than the Jossverse: Angel ALREADY got the girl. Repeatedly. He just didn't KEEP her. He got her in S2 and then he up and went evil on her and forced her to send him to hell. He got her again in S3 and then decided to leave her for her own good, because she needed to have a normal life with a human guy. He got her yet again in IWRY when he fuckin' WAS a human guy she could have a normal life with, whereupon he promptly decided that he was a liability and what she really needed was for him to be a vampire who could fight by her side in future apocalypses, but not share her life because for that she needed the kind of normal, human guy who would be a liability (how twisted is that, I ask you?!). He could've had her in Forever when she was all "can you stay (heh) forever?" but, no, he had to go set Darla on fire or something. Only in Chosen were the tables finally turned: he was the clingy one and she was the one to send him away. I'm very fond of Angel, really I am, but it was about damn time! > I agree that the main character ends up with the love of his life is a > Hollywood cliche. However, Angel being a vampire actually makes it a > bit more interesting if it ends happily since as I said before, most > vampire stories never ends happily. Let me put this another way: tacking a lame clich� ending onto a story written in a genre that doesn't normally lend itself to that particular type of clich� ending is not going to make the clich� less clich�. It's going to make it lamer. Say you've got a Cinderella-type fluffy romance and you decide to end it in a classic tragic bloodbath (e.g. rejected suitor goes psycho at the wedding, pulls out a semi-automatic and mows everyone down). Is that refreshingly original? Or is it absurd and laughable? There are reasons why vampire stories tend not to end with fairy-tale happily-ever-afters. Besides, if it's a vampire story ending happily that you're really after, why can't it be Spike's? He's a vamp too, so him getting the girl would be just as original as Angel getting her, no? ;) > If there's something that is worse than a good ending or a > bad ending, that would be a half-assed ending like the ones I > mentioned above. Where the writers try not to make it too good or too > bad and try to please everyone. That's what I felt happened in > Chosen. They try too hard to please the B/A and B/S camp and at the > end of the day ended up making everyone unhappy. There's nothing inherently wrong with an ambiguous ending. It's only bad if the writers don't manage to pull it off organically and believably. That said, I agree that Chosen didn't quite work. Largely, IMO, because the story preceding it had already been too ambiguous, in too many ways, for too long.

2003-08-19 22:55:31+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 8/19/2003 7:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0308190308.7ab141f7@posting.google.com> > >Well, then please do tell me what sort of interesting story they have >for Wes, Fred, and Lorne planned this season. Because so far from 3 >episodes, I have gotten zero, zilch, nothing for them. Not even a one >episode story, let alone an arc that goes beyond one episode (like >Spike's being a ghost issue). I think Fred's storyline will connect with Spike's, since the spoilers suggest.... / / / / / that Fred will focus on finding a way to make him corporeal- the sooner the better. Other spoilers have said that she will react to having money and status for the first time in her life and will go a little wild. Wesley may have a leadership clash with Angel; since there are hints of this in the first three episodes. The question of who's the boss? may cause conflicts. Yes. not a great deal of information- but as much as we have for Spike, imo. I don't know anything about Lorne. > >Since when LOTR becomes a vampire show? > I didn't realize you were limiting the discussion to vampire shows, since the example you used of the title character losing the girl to a secondary character refers to Dawson's Creek. Or am I mistaken about that? > I'm kind of discounting the ridiculousness of the fact that >there are different permutations of Dracula stories. I stick with the >original book or that version which Francis Ford Coppola tries to >closely portray in his film. Plus, we're not talking about sequel and >the never ending milking of a popular character in films. We're >talking about the fate of a vampiric character at the end of his >story. > > > > > > Ok, in the book Dracula does get staked. What I don't see is why Angel should get a choice of those two fates (Killed, or getting everything he wants). There's plenty of other options. I'm not really sure where you are going with this; if you're saying Angel should get a happy ending because vampire characters always lose out in the end, isn't the same thing true of Spike? Sandra

2003-08-20 03:06:23-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0308192135.5e40b609@posting.google.com>... > Got an example? "Lies My Parent Told Me". Rather than keeping Buffy as a fair and non-bias party in the Giles vs Spike issue, they chose to trash Giles and made him look like an asshole whose opinion is not needed anymore (which they tried to salvage in the last episode but the damage is already done) by having Buffy slamming a door in front of him. When Buffy and Giles had an argument about Angel back in S3, no one chose to made anyone look bad. What they had was simply two people who have different opinion. I can see why Buffy was right/wrong and I can see why Giles was right/wrong. Not this time. And this time there isn't even a thirdway figure like Willow who try to intervene/give an alternate/different POV. > I know that's how you see it. But that's not what *I* said at all, if > you'll read the full quote again. My point was that, far from > "trashing" Buffy in order to garner sympathy for Spike, they used him > to take Buffy to the dark places they wanted to take her. And what would that be? Is the main title character being called a 'bitch' and generally disliked by many fans because she's not nice enough to Spike is your idea of dark places they wanted to take her? They intentionally trashed her along with Xander and Giles by making it as if Spike couldn't defend himself when they are being rude/sarcastic to him. > Of course not. No one who likes Spike ever watched "Angel" before the > news of JM's joining the cast, didn't you know that? ;) Well, judging by the fact how some people can't even tell how certain events in Angel went, I am not surprised by that fact. > Seriously - > that doesn't count. Cordelia was evil/possessed/manipulated by an evil > agency at the time and had all kinds of ulterior motives. There was no > real choice between the two men involved. Fine. Angel/Buffy/Spike triangle in "Chosen" then. Obviously Buffy chose to give the amulet to Spike than letting Angel using it himself. And I seriously don't believe her 'second front' excuse. > Dude, Dracula was evil! EVIL evil, not S6 Spike "I think I'll go talk > myself into biting this chick 'cause she looks kinda' like Buffy and > I'm really pissed at her for saying I'm still evil so I'll SHOW her > evil. Hah!" evil. Can't possibly expect him to get the girl and the > happy ending! Especially in a Victorian novel. I'm not surprised that your POV of Dracula is that seen from BTVS. In the original novel by Bram Stoker, Dracula isn't simply evil but merely a creature of circumstances of hatred. He was denied of his love and chose to spite on humanity and God. > Lestat lost Claudia because she found out that he was the one who > turned her and condemned her to eternity in a child's body. She didn't > so much choose Louis as talk him into killing Lestat for her. It was > about vengeance, not love. Is this the same book I read? Claudia is depicted to have more affection for Louis than she ever had for Lestat even prior to finding out that Lestat was the one who turned her. > As for counterexamples, we need look no further than the Jossverse: > Angel ALREADY got the girl. Repeatedly. He just didn't KEEP her. He > got her in S2 and then he up and went evil on her and forced her to > send him to hell. He got her again in S3 and then decided to leave her > for her own good, because she needed to have a normal life with a > human guy. He got her yet again in IWRY when he fuckin' WAS a human > guy she could have a normal life with, whereupon he promptly decided > that he was a liability and what she really needed was for him to be a > vampire who could fight by her side in future apocalypses, but not > share her life because for that she needed the kind of normal, human > guy who would be a liability (how twisted is that, I ask you?!) Well, look at your own post and tell me if the writers didn't actually backpedalling on their own story even though it's ridiculous. It's not the characters who make these choices. They are not alive. They can only do things that the writers made them. Seeing how ridiculous and inconsistent Angel's choice/decision were, I don't consider it that it's a part of his character but rather because the writers decided that they'll use any device to keep them apart regardless of how silly and contrived it may be. . He > could've had her in Forever when she was all "can you stay (heh) > forever?" but, no, he had to go set Darla on fire or something. WTF? Setting Darla on fire after "Forever"? Are you watching the same show as I did? Angel had to go back to LA because he had just been reunited with his friends and didn't want to risk their wrath after trying to make amends to them. And again, seriously, do you really think Angel can stay with Buffy? He has his own show to lead, for God's sake. Of course the writers have to make excuses so he can leave. >Only > in Chosen were the tables finally turned: he was the clingy one and > she was the one to send him away. I'm very fond of Angel, really I am, > but it was about damn time! There's nothing different about "Chosen" from "Becoming part 2", "Graduation day part 2", "I will remember you", and "Forever". They are episodes which are designed to keep those two apart regardless how ridiculous the motives are because the two have different shows to lead. > Let me put this another way: tacking a lame clich� ending onto a story > written in a genre that doesn't normally lend itself to that > particular type of clich� ending is not going to make the clich� less > clich�. It's going to make it lamer. Heh. That's your opinion, not an absolute truth. And milleage varies. Who said that all good happily ever after ending is cliche? If you say that then you can also say that every sad ending is also a cliche because it's been done before. > Say you've got a Cinderella-type fluffy romance and you decide to end > it in a classic tragic bloodbath (e.g. rejected suitor goes psycho at > the wedding, pulls out a semi-automatic and mows everyone down). Is > that refreshingly original? Or is it absurd and laughable? Actually, I've seen that a lot in Hong Kong films. And just because you have never seen it before and think it is absurd, doesn't mean that it is. Done carefully, it can be very powerful and absolutely not laughable. Obviously, there needs to be a hint of darkness throughout the film or it wouldn't make sense. > There are > reasons why vampire stories tend not to end with fairy-tale > happily-ever-afters. Well, in reverse to the story I mentioned above, "Angel" is not an exactly an all-out depressing stories. In fact, in season 1, it has a rather heartwarming basic plot of Angel's need for a family in the form of his relationship with Cordy and Wes. It was good and nice to see a 'family' forming from 3 people who are not blood related. Seeing how the original premise wasn't even that dark and disturbing, I don't see why it's an absurd idea for the show to end quite happily. > Besides, if it's a vampire story ending happily that you're really > after, why can't it be Spike's? He's a vamp too, so him getting the > girl would be just as original as Angel getting her, no? ;) First thing first, the last time I checked, Spike is not a vampire, he's a ghost. Then I'll go back to my original thread that this show is called "Angel". It is his story that many people, myself included have followed for the past 4 years. Now all of a sudden you tell me that I must like this new vamp who is probably going to get his Shanshu? You'll have as much luck convincing Sydney/Vaugh (of "Alias") shippers that Vaughn's new wife is not a beyotch and a half. Imagine if you're watching a "Spike" show and suddenly Angel comes into town and before you know it, instead of Spike who got the girl, the friends, and the happiness, it's this new guy called Angel who got it all. > There's nothing inherently wrong with an ambiguous ending. It's only > bad if the writers don't manage to pull it off organically and > believably. That said, I agree that Chosen didn't quite work. Largely, > IMO, because the story preceding it had already been too ambiguous, in > too many ways, for too long. You call "Chosen" an ambiguous ending? Hoookay.....

2003-08-20 03:23:38-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030819185531.08076.00000754@mb-m06.news.cs.com>... > I think Fred's storyline will connect with Spike's, Well, ain't that a surprise....except not. Poochie, indeed (thanks Earl Allison!) > since the spoilers > suggest.... > / > > > / > > > / > > > / > > > / > > > that Fred will focus on finding a way to make him corporeal- the sooner the > better. > > Other spoilers have said that she will react to having money and status for the > first time in her life and will go a little wild. A foiler, I think. Nothing from the first 3 episodes suggests this. > Wesley may have a leadership clash with Angel; since there are hints of this > in the first three episodes. The question of who's the boss? may cause > conflicts. Doesn't look like it from where I'm standing. Hell I don't even know what Wes' arc is going to be from the past 3 episodes. Hmmm I wonder why is that? Maybe because.....*gasps* they haven't given him anything to do? > Yes. not a great deal of information- but as much as we have for Spike, imo. Spike's already got an arc: that of him trying to be corporeal and being helped by Fred. In fact, that's why his story is called an arc, because it extends for more than one episode. Even though he got a large chunk of apperance in episode 2, his story still carries over to episode 3. > I didn't realize you were limiting the discussion to vampire shows, since the > example you used of the title character losing the girl to a secondary > character refers to Dawson's Creek. I mentioned that as an example of a recent show that happens to reside on the same network and where the secondary character got the girl. > Ok, in the book Dracula does get staked. Exactly. That was such a happy ending! > I'm not really sure where you are going with this; if you're saying Angel > should get a happy ending because vampire characters always lose out in the > end, isn't the same thing true of Spike? To begin with, Spike is not even vampire anymore. If he manage to become corporeal, he's most likely become a human right away. Surely, the writers aren't going to miss an opportunity to make Angel grieve even more that one by one all that he holds dear (loved ones, kids, shanshu, what's next? best friends?) are taken away from him. Second of all, even if Spike's a vampire, the fact that he already died once make it obvious that he's not even going to die again so that already guarantees him a one way ticket to happiness. Angel, OTOH, is the main character whose story I have followed for the last...gee....4 years on his own show, so obviously my feelings is biased towards him (as well as other characters like Wes, Gunn, etc) getting a better deal than Spike who has just arrived. So you're telling me I should root for a character that has just arrived on the show, who may take the very thing that could have gone to my favourite characters?

2003-08-20 03:29:28-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308191210.2a6af264@posting.google.com>... > No. Because the comparison was to other TV shows in which the lead > loses the girl to a supporting character. Huh? I mentioned Dawson Creek as a passing comment because it was the recent show that people probably still remembers what the ending was like. I didn't know there was any crime of mentioning it However, when it comes to the actual argument for Angel, you can't ignore the fact that he's a vampire in a vampir shows, that's why I mentioned other examples. You seemed to feel that > since this had been done once (unlike the lead getting the girl which > never happens), it shouldn't be done again. The comparison was not to > other vampire stories, nor was it to movies. Well now Himiko, I've made it to other vampire stories, that should make you happy.

2003-08-20 10:57:15-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308200229.299457cb@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308191210.2a6af264@posting.google.com>... > > > No. Because the comparison was to other TV shows in which the lead > > loses the girl to a supporting character. > > Huh? I mentioned Dawson Creek as a passing comment because it was the > recent show that people probably still remembers what the ending was > like. I didn't know there was any crime of mentioning it However, > when it comes to the actual argument for Angel, you can't ignore the > fact that he's a vampire in a vampir shows, that's why I mentioned > other examples. > > You seemed to feel that > > since this had been done once (unlike the lead getting the girl which > > never happens), it shouldn't be done again. The comparison was not to > > other vampire stories, nor was it to movies. > > Well now Himiko, I've made it to other vampire stories, that should > make you happy. Yes, except that if you want the vampire to get the girl and a happy ending because that would be a twist, it works just as well with Spike as with Angel. himiko

2003-08-20 22:58:35-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030820203653.21160.00000271@mb-m13.news.cs.com>... > You have, as yet, no reason to suppose Spike will take anything from Angel- or > from any of the other characters. Well, so far I know the writers have taken 2 episodes to focus on him plus 1 episode that continues his arc. While other characters like Angel and Wes haven't got any single story let alone an interesting arc that goes beyond an episode. > The spoilers we have so far don't reflect this at all. Since this season is more MOTW type of episode, the majority of the plot will have been revealed in the sides. And judging by the sides, Wes, Gunn, and Lorne have been shafted to the background while Spike got 2 episodes devoted on him already. > Of course you should root for your favorite character; I know I will! > > But does it really have to be an either/or thing? Not really, but at the moment, I haven't seen any fair dealing when it comes to other characters.

2003-08-21 00:36:53+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 8/20/2003 6:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0308200223.7e6c417@posting.google.com> > Angel, OTOH, is the >main character whose story I have followed for the last...gee....4 >years on his own show, so obviously my feelings is biased towards him >(as well as other characters like Wes, Gunn, etc) getting a better >deal than Spike who has just arrived. So you're telling me I should >root for a character that has just arrived on the show, who may take >the very thing that could have gone to my favourite characters? > > > > > > You have, as yet, no reason to suppose Spike will take anything from Angel- or from any of the other characters. The spoilers we have so far don't reflect this at all. Of course you should root for your favorite character; I know I will! But does it really have to be an either/or thing? Sandra

2003-08-21 12:34:20+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 8/21/2003 1:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0308202158.384ecc44@posting.google.com> > >Well, so far I know the writers have taken 2 episodes to focus on him >plus 1 episode that continues his arc. While other characters like >Angel and Wes haven't got any single story let alone an interesting >arc that goes beyond an episode. > We only have some sides so far; Nowhere have I seen an entire script. And I believe they are setting up an arc for Angel- his gradual corruption by W&H. As for Wes, I was wondering if the reason he doesn't seem that active in the first few scripts might be because he is planning his wedding to Aly Hannigan, and perhaps needs some time to take a honeymoon? That would account for a somewhat light presence in the beginning without bringing in sinister motives! I've heard the wedding will take place in Oct., and I'd be surprised if he doesn't get a lot more screentime afterwards. > >Since this season is more MOTW type of episode, the majority of the >plot will have been revealed in the sides. And judging by the sides, >Wes, Gunn, and Lorne have been shafted to the background while Spike >got 2 episodes devoted on him already. > Since ME is hoping Marsters' fanbase will follow him to his new show, I'm not surprised if he gets a bit more time at first. But I wouldn't call that taking over; since in the other two episodes he doesn't seem to have much to do. >> Of course you should root for your favorite character; I know I will! >> >> But does it really have to be an either/or thing? > >Not really, but at the moment, I haven't seen any fair dealing when it >comes to other characters. > > > > > > What would you consider fair dealing? For every character to have an equal number of lines? Lorne didn't have that much to do last season, either. (Neither did Gunn, really). But Wes did. This season Gunn gets the big storyarc. I figure it will all balance in the long term. Sandra

2003-08-22 02:36:21-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030821083420.06903.00000879@mb-m03.news.cs.com>... > We only have some sides so far; Nowhere have I seen an entire script. And I > believe they are setting up an arc for Angel- his gradual corruption by W&H. Sandra, this season is more MOTW. The chance is, the majority of the storyline's meat is in the sides. Plus all of those sides have a good glimpse of all sections of an episode: opener, act 1, act 2, act 3, closing. > As for Wes, I was wondering if the reason he doesn't seem that active in the > first few scripts might be because he is planning his wedding to Aly Hannigan, > and perhaps needs some time to take a honeymoon? That would account for a > somewhat light presence in the beginning without bringing in sinister motives! > I've heard the wedding will take place in Oct.,x AD doesn't get married to AH until Dec when it's a break time. So there's no excuse there. > and I'd be surprised if he > doesn't get a lot more screentime afterwards. And myself and other viewers will be fuming with anger. > Since ME is hoping Marsters' fanbase will follow him to his new show, I'm not > surprised if he gets a bit more time at first. But I wouldn't call that taking > over; since in the other two episodes he doesn't seem to have much to do. Oh, that makes it fine to give him 2 Spike-centric episode while others haven't got anything to do either in the other 2 episodes? Ep. 1 deals with Angel, episode 2 Spike, episode 3 Fred/Spike plus largely Nina. Ep. 4, Spike again. Does making JM's fanbase mean sacrifing the 3+ million viewers who have stucked with the show from its conception regardless where the show is placed on the WB? > What would you consider fair dealing? > For every character to have an equal number of lines? No. For each character to not get a character-centric episode again before other characters got it. For other characters to not get shafted into the background on each and every episode so that the newcomer can strut his stuff. > This season Gunn gets the big storyarc. > I figure it will all balance in the long term. Yes, because barely there for the season opener where he gets jacked into various machine is what I call a big storyarc. Heck, Gunn hasn't even got his Gunn-centric episode yet while Spike already got 2. See the problem? As far as it will balance in the long term. I do recall that at the end of BTVS, Xander and Willow never got anything much to do or having any interesting storyline.

2003-08-22 02:39:53-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308200957.487561e6@posting.google.com>... > Yes, except that if you want the vampire to get the girl and a happy > ending because that would be a twist, it works just as well with Spike > as with Angel. Himiko, we were talking about the main title character vampire. The last time I check, Spike is not the main title character.

2003-08-22 09:36:34-05:00 - Re: Spoiler: Spike in BtVS 7:22 - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


"luvthistle1" <luvthistle1@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f856e762.0308150026.41f2c43a@posting.google.com... > "Thirsty Viking" <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com> wrote in message news:<4dmdnbjQwL9znKaiU-KYvA@comcast.com>... > > > > > > S > > > > > > > > > > > > P > > > > > > > > > > > > O > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > L > > > > > > > > > > > > E > > > > > > > > > > > > R > > > > > > > > > > > > S > > > > > > > > > > > > P > > > > > > > > > > > > A > > > > > > > > > > > > C > > > > > > > > > > > > E > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I wrong, or was Spike NOT screaming in pain when being consumed, > > been a > > > > > while since I watched it, so I can't recall. Don't know why but I just > > seem > > > > > to remember him being rather 'calm' while it all happened. > > > > > > Nah. He was yelling. Personally, I thought it was more in ecstacy > > > than pain, but I suspect the two were pretty interchangeable at that > > > point. Also, I seem to recall reading somewhere that he comments on > > > feeling the burning and the organs exploding as he died. > > > > It sounded to me like a cross between a grunt in pain and a laugh > > Sort of like he was in agony and laughing at the situation he'd put > > himself in. Or at being a stupid git and not beating feet when buffy > > asked him to. Really tough to say, but it seemed to have a heroic > > spitting in Deaths eye quality to me. But it was definately not > > screaming or yelling. was more restrained and subdued than that. > > > > Perhaps even one of those I had to laugh, otherwise i would have > > cried sort of things. > > > it was really weird, because I do not recall him screaming, it was > more of a laugh. what do he mean, he want to find out how it ends? Well, could be he was talking about what the amulet would do, OR he was wondering how he would be judged

2003-08-22 12:39:57-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308220139.291b286@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308200957.487561e6@posting.google.com>... > > > Yes, except that if you want the vampire to get the girl and a happy > > ending because that would be a twist, it works just as well with Spike > > as with Angel. > > Himiko, we were talking about the main title character vampire. The > last time I check, Spike is not the main title character. No. He's a supporting character and also a vampire. If you want to argue that they shouldn't let Spike get the girl because DC also let a supporting character (but not a vampire) get the girl, then you also have to allow that this is a one time shot, and that letting the lead character get the girl is more the norm on TV shows. If you want to go the vampire route, then you have to deal with the fact that both Spike and Angel are vamps so letting either one of them get the girl would be a nice twist. The comparisons just don't line up. And I'm not even going to get into the difference between movies and TV series. BTW, that by main title character, I assume you mean the lead character and/or the heroic protagonist. The lead is not necessarily the title character or vice versa. Dracula, for example, is not really the lead character of movies that bear his name; the lead there is whoever hunts him down. That person is the lead because we see the story through his eyes. Dracula is the title character and the lead villain, but not the heroic lead or the protagonist. One of the oddities of AtS is that it is a vampire show in which the title vampire is also the heroic lead. The only other case of this that I can recall is FK which ended with almost everyone dead...as AtS may also do. But that is the only valid example I can think of that you could use for comparison. And any remotely happy ending would be different from FK. In general, authors try to avoid non-human leads. They are just too difficult for people to identify with as heroes or protagonists. Even in novels where the author can tell the reader exactly what the non-human is thinking and feeling, this is a problem. In drama, where non-humanity must be expressed only through spoken words and seen actions (plus actor's input) it's very difficult. For this reason, AtS has extremely strong human supporting characters (through whose eyes we more than often see the action unfold) and a lot of flashbacks and dream sequences. Even so, it's a problem. I feel I know everyone on that show better than Angel despite knowing less about their actual lives; but they're human like me, so a lot gets taken for granted. Angel is not human like me, so nothing gets taken for granted and he remains rather mysterious; I know what has happened to him and what he has done, but I'm not sure I know how he feels about it...or even want to know. E.G. in Somnabulist when he talked about his dreams of killing and said they weren't nightmares because he enjoyed them...nice shudder moment, but not good for instant empathy. That's partly a matter of personality, of course. I feel I know Spike a whole lot better...but then, Spike's problem as a vampire is his excessive humanity. Always has been. Spike talks a lot more too and is far more open about his feelings. And ME may well be planning to use him as a bridge between Angel and the human members of the cast...and thereby between the non-human lead and us. A good idea if they can pull it off. himiko

2003-08-22 12:51:08-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308220139.291b286@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308200957.487561e6@posting.google.com>... > > > Yes, except that if you want the vampire to get the girl and a happy > > ending because that would be a twist, it works just as well with Spike > > as with Angel. > > Himiko, we were talking about the main title character vampire. The > last time I check, Spike is not the main title character. No. We were talking about a plot twist in which a supporting character gets the girl instead of the lead. You cited Dawnson's Creek as a been there, done that type objection. I and several others noted that letting the lead character get the girl is even more been there and done that. Title characters did not come into it at all...although both Angel and Dawson are title characters so I suppose you could argue that it's there by implication. But title lead characters also nearly always get the girl which is why the DC ending was a nice twist. Then you dragged Dracula movies into it. I don't know why. Dracula is the title character of his movies, but not the lead. The leads are the guys who hunt him. He's the lead villain...which neither Spike nor Angel are at the moment so that comparison doesn't hold. And there's never been a Dracula TV series so that also falls apart. The only show I can think of that really can be used as comparison is FK...and there, nobody got the girl...although the supporting character vampire was the only one who survived as I recall (possibly inaccurately as it's been a while). himiko

2003-08-23 04:11:30-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308221151.44858373@posting.google.com>... > I and several others > noted that letting the lead character get the girl is even more been > there and done that. And that's why I pointed out even further that not in the vampire type of shows/stories like Angel > Title characters did not come into it at all...although both Angel and > Dawson are title characters so I suppose you could argue that it's > there by implication. But title lead characters also nearly always > get the girl which is why the DC ending was a nice twist. Maybe it was for DC but definitely not if it's applied to a vampire-type of shows/stories. Which part of that you failed to understand? > Then you dragged Dracula movies into it. I don't know why. Dracula > is the title character of his movies, but not the lead. The leads are > the guys who hunt him. He's the lead villain...which neither Spike > nor Angel are at the moment so that comparison doesn't hold. And > there's never been a Dracula TV series so that also falls apart. Of course Dracula fits into it since I'm talking about Vampire shows/stories. And while most Dracula movies only present the POV of the good guys where Dracula is made into the bad guys, the original novel doesn't present him that way. It presents both POV that of Dracula and the good guys. Plus, whether or not the character is a good guy is irrelevant. Vampirism is some type of condemnation and in all vampire stories, no vampires ever get out of it. > The only show I can think of that really can be used as comparison is > FK...and there, nobody got the girl...although the supporting > character vampire was the only one who survived as I recall (possibly > inaccurately as it's been a while). Yes, Lucien LaCroix. And guess what? It's another bleached blond too! What a coincidence! And please don't tell me you don't even notice the similarity in character between Nick and Angel, Don to Wes, Lacroix with Spike (complete with the duster and the lack of self loathing), Janette to Dru, Natalie to Buffy, etc. This is one of the reasons of why I was adamant of Spike's addition to the show. I don't want FK storylines to be repeated on "Angel". There is a big chance now that "Angel" will end up telling similar story to FK, especially if they turn the show into the Angel and Spike show like FK did with Nick and Lacroix.

2003-08-23 04:22:58-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308221139.2a133ba8@posting.google.com>... > One of the oddities of AtS is that it is a vampire show in which the > title vampire is also the heroic lead. The only other case of this > that I can recall is FK which ended with almost everyone dead...as AtS > may also do. But that is the only valid example I can think of that > you could use for comparison. And any remotely happy ending would be > different from FK. Not if another bleached blonde vampire gets to be the only one who gets to enjoy life at the end. And as I mentioned in the other reply, by adding Spike into "Angel" casts, they already making the show look quite similar to FK. There's a danger of them telling the same story that FK already told if they continue to play up the Angel and Spike story instead of allowing them to develop their own individual story. > Even so, it's a problem. I feel I know everyone on that show better > than Angel despite knowing less about their actual lives; but they're > human like me, so a lot gets taken for granted. Angel is not human > like me, so nothing gets taken for granted and he remains rather > mysterious; I know what has happened to him and what he has done, but > I'm not sure I know how he feels about it...or even want to know. > E.G. in Somnabulist when he talked about his dreams of killing and > said they weren't nightmares because he enjoyed them...nice shudder > moment, but not good for instant empathy. I think that's your problem. You're trying too hard to connect a fictional show to real life situation as opposed to enjoy it on its own merit. That's why you couldn't enjoy Alias because you can't imagine yourself sympathising with the characters while you don't really need to sympathise with the characters to enjoy a well done story. That's my opinion anyway. I like the fact that Angel is not a flat out goodie. I feel empathy and sympathy for him because of his attempt to do good. Anyone who puts such an effort to do good impressed me a lot. > That's partly a matter of personality, of course. I feel I know Spike > a whole lot better...but then, Spike's problem as a vampire is his > excessive humanity. Always has been. Spike talks a lot more too and > is far more open about his feelings. Yes, that's why he has so many friends back at Sunnydale. > And ME may well be planning to > use him as a bridge between Angel and the human members of the > cast...and thereby between the non-human lead and us. A good idea if > they can pull it off. May I remind you that Angel is the one who has 4 friends while Spike has none (although it looks like they're trying to develop Fred to become his friend). Oh right, I forgot that you don't consider Wes, Gunn, Fred, and Lorne as Angel friend! Besides, why should Spike be the one who connects the human characters to Angel while Angel is obviously already feel more comfortable talking to Wes, for example, as indicated in early sides? Wouldn't it make more sense for the humans to try to reconcile the two vampires who have different POV in life?

2003-08-24 09:58:05-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308200206.341ba318@posting.google.com>... > mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0308192135.5e40b609@posting.google.com>... > > > Got an example? > > "Lies My Parent Told Me". Rather than keeping Buffy as a fair and > non-bias party in the Giles vs Spike issue, they chose to trash Giles > and made him look like an asshole whose opinion is not needed anymore > (which they tried to salvage in the last episode but the damage is > already done) by having Buffy slamming a door in front of him. Why would Buffy slamming the door in Giles' face mean that she was completely right and he was a useless asshole? I mean, you complain that she was unfair and biased (which I agree she was to some extent) but then you seem to think that we're supposed to adopt her POV with respect to Giles. WTF? Also, it would've been ridiculous to keep Buffy as "a fair and non-bias [sic] party in the Giles vs Spike issues." She had some strong, albeit undefined, feelings for Spike, which were obviously affecting her judgement. Just as Giles' feelings for her and his opinion of Spike were obviously affecting his. Just as Wood's complicated feelings about his mother and her death were obviously affecting his. That's what that episode was all about! No one was completely right or completely wrong, they were all biased by their pasts and their emotions, all while telling themselves they were doing the objectively "right thing" (except for Spike. He never claims to be objective or tries to rationalize and justify his actions, which is a big part of why he's my favourite character). > When > Buffy and Giles had an argument about Angel back in S3, no one chose > to made anyone look bad. What they had was simply two people who have > different opinion. I can see why Buffy was right/wrong and I can see > why Giles was right/wrong. Not this time. And this time there isn't > even a thirdway figure like Willow who try to intervene/give an > alternate/different POV. Since I clearly see why both Buffy and Giles were "right/wrong" in LMPTM (see above), I can't understand why you would choose to interpret these scenes in a way that obviously upsets you. I see this all the time and it boggles my mind: Spike haters think he took over the show; Spike fans think he was ignored, marginalized and mistreated; Spike haters bitch that Buffy was All About Spike; Spike fans bitch that Spike was All About Buffy; etc., etc. It's completely insane. > > My point was that, far from > > "trashing" Buffy in order to garner sympathy for Spike, they used him > > to take Buffy to the dark places they wanted to take her. > > And what would that be? Is the main title character being called a > 'bitch' and generally disliked by many fans because she's not nice > enough to Spike is your idea of dark places they wanted to take her? Is it the story itself you've a problem with or the way some people perceive it? Personally, I think they've made Buffy into a very complicated, flawed, morally ambiguous and, ergo, fascinating and controversial character. Which is all good. I'm not interested in unequivocally good, righteous, heroic and likeable protagonists. Nor do I think that a character whose vocation is to kill sentient, sapient beings - however evil or dangerous or in need of killing they may be - should be seen as such an uncomplicated hero. So, yes, I'm happy with where they've taken her (and, for the record, do not think she's a "bitch" - neurotic and self-involved, maybe, but not a "bitch"), although I would've preferred a less open-ended, err, ending to her story. > They intentionally trashed her along with Xander and Giles by making > it as if Spike couldn't defend himself when they are being > rude/sarcastic to him. Huh? Do you mean when he was insane? 'Cause I've no idea what you're talking about. > > Of course not. No one who likes Spike ever watched "Angel" before the > > news of JM's joining the cast, didn't you know that? ;) > > Well, judging by the fact how some people can't even tell how certain > events in Angel went, I am not surprised by that fact. You're kinda' predictable, y'know that? ;) > > Fine. Angel/Buffy/Spike triangle in "Chosen" then. Obviously Buffy > chose to give the amulet to Spike than letting Angel using it himself. > And I seriously don't believe her 'second front' excuse. Wait, I thought ME ruined the ending with all the half-assed pandering to both B/S and B/A shippers. Now you think Buffy actually chose Spike over Angel? > I'm not surprised that your POV of Dracula is that seen from BTVS. In > the original novel by Bram Stoker, Dracula isn't simply evil but > merely a creature of circumstances of hatred. He was denied of his > love and chose to spite on humanity and God. Heh. That last sentence sounds a lot like William's backstory in FFL. Gotta love accidental irony like that. ;) As for "Dracula," yes, my stance is the same there as it is in the Buffyverse. Metaphorically speaking, vampires in both fictional 'verses stand for dangerous emanations from the unconscious which, we're told by the heroes, must be killed, i.e. repressed (the focus is on sexual urges in "Dracula," unsurprising for a Victorian novel). On the literal level, vampires in both 'verses are bloodsucking, homicidal monsters. Just because Dracula comes equipped with a sob story and all the Romantic, vampire mystique claptrap that the Jossverse mercifully lacks (and routinely mocks), we should root for him to get the girl and the happy? Sorry, all things considered, I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. > Is this the same book I read? No, I would guess not. > Claudia is depicted to have more > affection for Louis than she ever had for Lestat even prior to finding > out that Lestat was the one who turned her. Whatever. The point was, this was hardly a "girl chooses to love and be with secondary character over main character" scenario. > Well, look at your own post and tell me if the writers didn't actually > backpedalling on their own story even though it's ridiculous. It's > not the characters who make these choices. They are not alive. They > can only do things that the writers made them. Seeing how ridiculous > and inconsistent Angel's choice/decision were, I don't consider it > that it's a part of his character but rather because the writers > decided that they'll use any device to keep them apart regardless of > how silly and contrived it may be. "Backpedalling"? "Inconsistent"? My examples evince a behavioural pattern, displayed over many years. Angel has very *consistently* been portrayed as having Severe Issues around emotionally connecting with people, with his own (vulnerable) humanity, not least through the choices he made vis-�-vis Buffy. That's how his character has always been written, whatever the meta-narrative reasons behind it. Or do you mean that his stated motives were inconsistent and more or less contrived? They mostly were, I agree. But that's because they weren't his real motives. Only how he was trying to justify his decisions to both Buffy and himself. > WTF? Setting Darla on fire after "Forever"? Are you watching the > same show as I did? Angel had to go back to LA because he had just > been reunited with his friends and didn't want to risk their wrath > after trying to make amends to them. And again, seriously, do you > really think Angel can stay with Buffy? He has his own show to lead, > for God's sake. Of course the writers have to make excuses so he can > leave. Dude, I was being flippant! "Had to go set Darla on fire" sounded snappier than "had to go save the gang from Harmony" or "had to go help his lawyer boyfriend with his evil hand issues" or whatever episode of "Angel" it was that actually aired after Forever (and before you go take this as further proof that I never watched "Angel" before the news of Spike's arrival, I DO know that Lindsey wasn't really Angel's boyfriend except in my perverted little mind. And possibly Lindsey's). And are you arguing that Angel had good reasons to walk away from Buffy (and I think he did have *some* valid - albeit not insurmountable - concerns, generally speaking, "my friends'll be pissed off if I decide to spend some time with the bereaved love of my life in her time of need" NOT being one of them. Not that it was ever in any way suggested that this was his motivation for leaving in Forever) or that it was all completely contrived because the writers needed to keep them away from each other? Please make up your mind. > There's nothing different about "Chosen" from "Becoming part 2", > "Graduation day part 2", "I will remember you", and "Forever". Yes, there is. This time, it was Buffy who decided that Angel had to leave. That being my point. > Heh. That's your opinion, not an absolute truth. As is everything that comes out of my mouth. Or fingers. > And milleage > varies. Who said that all good happily ever after ending is cliche? > If you say that then you can also say that every sad ending is also a > cliche because it's been done before. a) Happily ever after (for the lead) endings are clich� these days because they're such a hackneyed staple of American entertainment. That's what a clich� is: something that's painfully commonplace. I remember being (pleasantly) shocked at some Julia Roberts romantic comedy when she *didn't* get the guy. It was completely unexpected. b) You were the one who claimed that a "secondary character gets the girl" scenario should be avoided because it had been "done before." To which I and others replied that "main character gets the girl" has been "done before" a helluva lot more often etc., etc. Now, all of a sudden, you have no trouble with been-done-before stories. Sheesh. > Actually, I've seen that a lot in Hong Kong films. Really?! Fluffy romances which end in bloodshed? I'm almost curious. > And just because > you have never seen it before and think it is absurd, doesn't mean > that it is. Done carefully, it can be very powerful and absolutely > not laughable. Obviously, there needs to be a hint of darkness > throughout the film or it wouldn't make sense. That last sentence being the key here. If I perceived AtS or the B/A story as having fairy-tale overtones (which I suppose many B/A shippers do), I might not find a fairy-tale happy ending quite so objectionable. However, I do not. Therefore, such an ending would strike me as a contrived, meaningless clich�. Conversely, I might be OK with it were Buffy to show up for at least the last few episodes, and give herself and Angel a chance to really get to know each other and re-built their relationship on much more solid ground than the adolescent, star-crossed twu wuv at first sight nonsense it's currently based on. But that's not gonna happen. > Well, in reverse to the story I mentioned above, "Angel" is not an > exactly an all-out depressing stories. In fact, in season 1, it has a > rather heartwarming basic plot of Angel's need for a family in the > form of his relationship with Cordy and Wes. It was good and nice to > see a 'family' forming from 3 people who are not blood related. Who said "Angel" was all-out depressing? There's an awful lot of ground between fluffy fairy-tale and tragedy and, yes, I think that's where "Angel" mostly resides (albeit closer to the tragic side than BtVS). And what its ending should reflect. > Seeing how the original premise wasn't even that dark and disturbing, > I don't see why it's an absurd idea for the show to end quite happily. I've no problem with the show ending *somewhat* happily. I've already stated that several times. I just have a problem with Angel and Buffy walking off into the sunset to live happily ever after. > First thing first, the last time I checked, Spike is not a vampire, > he's a ghost. Not for long, presumably. Besides, if Angel gets the shanshu, will you then argue that he shouldn't get the girl because he's not a vampire anymore, so it wouldn't be "original"? > Then I'll go back to my original thread that this show > is called "Angel". It is his story that many people, myself included > have followed for the past 4 years. Now all of a sudden you tell me > that I must like this new vamp who is probably going to get his > Shanshu? I'm telling you no such thing. I would never presume to tell anyone who or what to like and root for. It is you who are doing that, with all the pointing out that this show is called "Angel." I'm simply telling you why, after having followed this show called "Angel" for the past 4 years, I don't feel the same way you do. > Imagine if you're watching a "Spike" show and suddenly Angel comes > into town and before you know it, instead of Spike who got the girl, > the friends, and the happiness, it's this new guy called Angel who got > it all. <Shrug> I couldn't care less whether Spike gets the girl or not and I actively do NOT want him to become human and all... Absolved. Sure, it pains me when characters I care about are suffering, but I LIKE vicarious pain. It's not important to me that they're happy or getting what they want (heh, I guess I'm with JW on "giving people what they need, not what they want"). What's important to me is character growth (which usually happens through suffering) and a good, meaningful, believable story. Which B/A4EVA! wouldn't be, IMO. > You call "Chosen" an ambiguous ending? Hoookay..... Ambiguous - (adj.) that can mean two or more different things; vaguely expressed; obscure; equivocal. You tell me how "Chosen" was NOT ambiguous and what you meant by: > If there's something that is worse than a good ending or a > bad ending, that would be a half-assed ending like the ones I > mentioned above. Where the writers try not to make it too good or too > bad and try to please everyone. That's what I felt happened in > Chosen. They try too hard to please the B/A and B/S camp and at the > end of the day ended up making everyone unhappy. 'Cause I think "half-assed" is just ambiguity that one disapproves of.

2003-08-24 11:27:06-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030824083000.01725.00000409@mb-m22.news.cs.com>... > > > >I think that's your problem. You're trying too hard to connect a > >fictional show to real life situation as opposed to enjoy it on its > >own merit. > > It's my problem as well, then. > I just can't bring myself to care about Angel or what happens to him. I have > no emotional investment with the character. And this is the point...with Alias too. If I don't care about the people the plot is happening to, then I don't care how good the plot is. Fortunately, AtS does have great characters. I'm already heavily invested in Wes, and sufficiently intrigued by Lorne, Gunn, and Fred to want to see how their stories play out. I was also heavily invested in Cordy, and intrigued by Connor, but they seem to be a thing of the past. > > > >> That's partly a matter of personality, of course. I feel I know Spike > >> a whole lot better...but then, Spike's problem as a vampire is his > >> excessive humanity. Always has been. Spike talks a lot more too and > >> is far more open about his feelings. > > >May I remind you that Angel is the one who has 4 friends while Spike > >has none (although it looks like they're trying to develop Fred to > >become his friend). Wouldn't it make more sense for the > >humans to try to reconcile the two vampires who have different POV in > >life? Also a good possibility. I could see the whole crowd taking a good look at Spike, liking him, and seeing Angel's reservations as simply holding a grudge over something over a century old. They might be right too...or Angel might be right to mistrust Spike, but I think the former is more likely. > > > Well, none of the others know Spike (possibly Wesley met him in the past but I > don't think anyone else did). A big plus. Spike screwed up badly in Sunnydale. Now he's beginning a new unlife in a new town with people who may know about his bad behavior in theory (or not!), but never saw it in full form. It's his version of going away to college or the military or just a new town. He's still a vampire, of course, and a ghost besides, but he's also still the same Spike he was in S7. I suspect that without the emotional baggage of, say, actually having seen him kill one of their teachers, or try to date-kill them in a dorm room, or try to betray them to Adam, the AI crowd will decide he's a pretty nice guy. > > Angel has issues with almost everyone except Fred; so who's to say whether > Spike might not be a means of bridging the gap? Agreed. I think he fits very nicely into the current situation at AI. himiko

2003-08-24 12:30:00+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 8/23/2003 7:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0308230322.26cf9e1a@posting.google.com> > >himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message >news:<c7902983.0308221139.2a133ba8@posting.google.com>... > >> Even so, it's a problem. I feel I know everyone on that show better >> than Angel despite knowing less about their actual lives; but they're >> human like me, so a lot gets taken for granted. Angel is not human >> like me, so nothing gets taken for granted and he remains rather >> mysterious; I know what has happened to him and what he has done, but >> I'm not sure I know how he feels about it...or even want to know. >> E.G. in Somnabulist when he talked about his dreams of killing and >> said they weren't nightmares because he enjoyed them...nice shudder >> moment, but not good for instant empathy. > >I think that's your problem. You're trying too hard to connect a >fictional show to real life situation as opposed to enjoy it on its >own merit. It's my problem as well, then. I just can't bring myself to care about Angel or what happens to him. I have no emotional investment with the character. >> That's partly a matter of personality, of course. I feel I know Spike >> a whole lot better...but then, Spike's problem as a vampire is his >> excessive humanity. Always has been. Spike talks a lot more too and >> is far more open about his feelings. > I feel the same way; I've always been able to relate to Spike, moreso than any other character. >Yes, that's why he has so many friends back at Sunnydale. > Does he actually have fewer friends than Angel does? Giles tried to kill Spike, but then he once wanted to kill Angel. Xander hates Spike, but probably not as much as he hates Angel. >May I remind you that Angel is the one who has 4 friends while Spike >has none (although it looks like they're trying to develop Fred to >become his friend). Wouldn't it make more sense for the >humans to try to reconcile the two vampires who have different POV in >life? > > > > > > Well, none of the others know Spike (possibly Wesley met him in the past but I don't think anyone else did). Angel has issues with almost everyone except Fred; so who's to say whether Spike might not be a means of bridging the gap? Sandra

2003-08-24 15:15:12-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308230311.e4151f6@posting.google.com>... > > Maybe it was for DC but definitely not if it's applied to a > vampire-type of shows/stories. Which part of that you failed to > understand? Which part did you? You have to compare apples and apples. None of your comparisons line up. You fix one part and the other goes out of kilter. This is my last attempt to explain one of the most elementary principles of making comparisons: AtS and DC are apples and oranges. Both are TV shows, but one is a fantasy action-adventure series aimed primarily at adults, while the other is a soapy drama aimed at teens. One has vampires and the other doesn't. AtS and Dracula movies are apples and kiwi fruits. Both are fantasy action adventures, yes. Both have vampires. But in one, the vampire is a heroic lead, while in the other, the vampire is the villain. Also, one is an on-going TV series with the whole range of seasonal arc and continuity issues, while the others are a loosely connected bunch of films made by different people with different casts over a period of at least 50 years. Come to think of it, this is more of an apples and yoyos comparison: both are round. > Of course Dracula fits into it since I'm talking about Vampire > shows/stories. And while most Dracula movies only present the POV of > the good guys where Dracula is made into the bad guys, the original > novel doesn't present him that way. It presents both POV that of > Dracula and the good guys. ?????????????????????????????? You must have read some other original novel. I referred to the Bram Stoker one. > Plus, whether or not the character is a > good guy is irrelevant. Vampirism is some type of condemnation and in > all vampire stories, no vampires ever get out of it. Sure they do. They get staked. Or they find salvation by saving the world from a scientifically created Ubie as that very old vampire does in Barbara Hambly's "Those Who Hunt the Night." Or they whine about it a lot while looking sexy like the Anne Rice vamps. Or they get cured like Barnabas Collins in Dark Shadows...although that didn't last. Or they go to court with ACLU backing, win, and then settle down to enjoy their unlife in non-evil but also non-human ways. Or they shanshu. > > > The only show I can think of that really can be used as comparison is > > FK...and there, nobody got the girl...although the supporting > > character vampire was the only one who survived as I recall (possibly > > inaccurately as it's been a while). > > Yes, Lucien LaCroix. And guess what? It's another bleached blond too! I think he was more white-haired, but yes. However, he didn't get the girl, any of the girls. > What a coincidence! And please don't tell me you don't even notice > the similarity in character between Nick and Angel, Definitely. > Don to Wes, I suppose, if you really stretch the point and ignore most of Wes's character development which has been much better than Don's. I'd compare Wes to Natalie, myself...or even Schanke. > Lacroix with Spike (complete with the duster and the lack of self > loathing), Rot. The look is there if you stretch your imagination, but not the story. Spike does correspond a bit to Vachon, right down to the fact that the Vachon/Tracy relationship echoed the Nick/Natalie relationship a bit the way S/B echoed B/A...right down to the fanboy screaming. > Janette to Dru, OK, but Dru only got one episode in which to try to bring her reforming lover back to the dark side, never even considered trying to restore her humanity, and certainly never got it together enough to run a successful club. > Natalie to Buffy, etc. Still trying to see Natalie as Buffy. Well, they're both female and involved with a vampire...or two. > This is one of the > reasons of why I was adamant adamantly for or against? I'm guessing against, but you really need to say. > of Spike's addition to the show. I don't > want FK storylines to be repeated on "Angel". There is a big chance > now that "Angel" will end up telling similar story to FK, especially > if they turn the show into the Angel and Spike show like FK did with > Nick and Lacroix. They should only be so successful. Nick and LaCroix rocked, despite the fact that neither vampire was as charismatic as either Angel or Spike. Problem is, both Spike and Angel are now more or less goodish. LaCroix never was. Different story entirely. Just having two vampires on one show does not make it a repeat. BTW, you do know that the minute AtS aired and we saw a vampire detective, the fanboys began bewailing the FK imitation, don't you? Even more so when Kate appeared. Well, it wasn't FK redux then, and I doubt it will be now. himiko

2003-08-24 19:05:13-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030824083000.01725.00000409@mb-m22.news.cs.com>... > It's my problem as well, then. > I just can't bring myself to care about Angel or what happens to him. I have > no emotional investment with the character. It looks like it. You're watching a show where you have no interest whatsoever in the lead. Which must be rather painful for you since the lead does get a lot of screen time and character development dedicated to him. > I feel the same way; I've always been able to relate to Spike, moreso than any > other character. And I can't relate to him. So the point? > >Yes, that's why he has so many friends back at Sunnydale. > > > Does he actually have fewer friends than Angel does? Giles tried to kill > Spike, but then he once wanted to kill Angel. Xander hates Spike, but probably > not as much as he hates Angel. You're speculating whether or not Giles and Xander hates Angel more than Spike. Giles, however, did say that at least Angel is capable of making the right decision. And on what base do you think that Xander hates Angel more than Spike? Angel wasn't the one who was sleeping with his ex GF, for example. > Angel has issues with almost everyone except Fred; so who's to say whether > Spike might not be a means of bridging the gap? Uhm, anyone who likes consistency in their storyline? The last time I checked Angel was very capable of bridging the gap between himself and his friends. He was capable of reaching out to Wes when he wants to get his friendship back and he did get Wes back as a friend. He was capable of convincing Fred that she's as strong as he is when she doubted herself, etc. Plus Angel himself has issues with Spike that is bigger than he has with any of his friends. And at least Angel sees his friends as his equals not as his competitor. And since I'm not keen to see Angel being made to look bad by bashing Spike over and over again, I hope that the two are kept seperate whenever possible. I have no desire to see the lead of the show being made to look bad all over again just like Buffy was in S6-7. Plus I've had enough of Spike sharing screentime of the lead character most of the time while other characters only get minimal or don't get a chance to share screentime with that said lead character.

2003-08-24 19:09:42-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308241027.12bc4fcb@posting.google.com>... > > Angel has issues with almost everyone except Fred; so who's to say whether > > Spike might not be a means of bridging the gap? > > Agreed. I think he fits very nicely into the current situation at AI. What current situation at AI?

2003-08-24 19:27:58-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308241415.30eec60b@posting.google.com>... > AtS and DC are apples and oranges. Both are TV shows, but one is a > fantasy action-adventure series aimed primarily at adults, while the > other is a soapy drama aimed at teens. One has vampires and the other > doesn't. They, however, share the theme of the lead character looking for something important in his life. Just because you can't get past the labels, doesn't mean they don't have similarity. > AtS and Dracula movies are apples and kiwi fruits. Both are fantasy > action adventures, yes. Both have vampires. But in one, the vampire > is a heroic lead, while in the other, the vampire is the villain. > Also, one is an on-going TV series with the whole range of seasonal > arc and continuity issues, while the others are a loosely connected > bunch of films made by different people with different casts over a > period of at least 50 years. Come to think of it, this is more of an > apples and yoyos comparison: both are round. This is even more ridiculous. I wasn't talking about Dracula in different bunch of films but rather the original story of Dracula, which doesn't exactly paint Dracula as villain but rather as someone who's bitter in life and avowed revenge to God and humanity. Sounds almost similar to Angel if he had chosen the wrong path. Or maybe he already did that when he was Angelus. Again, I'm not talking about the form (TV series vs movies) but rather the theme of the stories. > Sure they do. They get staked. You call that a salvation? Considering they had committed many sins, one must wonder if they ever find peace even after they got staked. > I think he was more white-haired, but yes. However, he didn't get the > girl, any of the girls. I didn't just mention the girls. I mention his lack of remorse and his enjoyment of being vampire, something Spike revels in. > > Don to Wes, > > I suppose, if you really stretch the point and ignore most of Wes's > character development which has been much better than Don's. I'd > compare Wes to Natalie, myself...or even Schanke. I don't think even in his darkest moment Wes was that suicidal. Buffy, OTOH....well, you know how S6 went. And some people who had a depression can become depressed again. Plus, I doubt Wes will want to become a vampire. > > Lacroix with Spike (complete with the duster and the lack of self > > loathing), > > Rot. The look is there if you stretch your imagination, but not the > story. Spike does correspond a bit to Vachon, right down to the fact > that the Vachon/Tracy relationship echoed the Nick/Natalie > relationship a bit the way S/B echoed B/A...right down to the fanboy > screaming. You just don't like the fact that they (LaCroix and Spike) do lack remorse of their past misdeed. Plus, there's their enjoyment of being vampire. Something that Spike mentions repeatedly back seasons ago. > > Janette to Dru, > > OK, but Dru only got one episode in which to try to bring her > reforming lover back to the dark side, never even considered trying to > restore her humanity, and certainly never got it together enough to > run a successful club. Does everything have to be dead on similar for you to notice the similarity? In other words, it takes anvils for you to actually be able to do compare and contrast. > > Natalie to Buffy, etc. > > Still trying to see Natalie as Buffy. Well, they're both female and > involved with a vampire...or two. Have you forgotten the most important part of their arcs? Suicidal thoughts? Bouts of major depression? > Problem is, both Spike and Angel are now more or less goodish. > LaCroix never was. Different story entirely. Just having two > vampires on one show does not make it a repeat. They have the danger of making it a repeat if they end up doing the same type of stories of how the two vampires deal with their vampire nature. Unless they took an entirely different approach towards it, one where one of them is not a vampire anymore by halfway of this season. > BTW, you do know that the minute AtS aired and we saw a vampire > detective, the fanboys began bewailing the FK imitation, don't you? There you go. And that was before there were similar characters on the show.

2003-08-25 12:53:52-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308241809.4fbdbb8f@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308241027.12bc4fcb@posting.google.com>... > > > > Angel has issues with almost everyone except Fred; so who's to say whether > > > Spike might not be a means of bridging the gap? > > > > Agreed. I think he fits very nicely into the current situation at AI. > > What current situation at AI? Spoiler Space: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Oh, the one where they've taken over a business they know to be evil and are surrounded by people they can't trust at a time when they themselves are still fairly divided by old mistrusts and newly unshared memories. Also, they're living(?) in a building inhabited by the ghosts of past W&H employees; I wonder if that's the result of the perpetuity clause? And they're dealing with any number of spells and other magical crap they don't understand. Spike comes from outside the group. He doesn't carry the same emotional baggage with them that they do with each other, and his presence will force new alliances and relationships. He may or may not have his memories intact; I'd love to hear him blurt out "Whatever happened to that son you used to have? or just "I even heard you had a son; where do these rumors come from?" We know he can contact the spirit world, and I'm guessing that his understanding and control of this dimension will increase. He may be able to be invisible and spy on people: a valuable trait at W&H. And then there's the whole amulet plot point. If Spike is unliving what was supposed to happen to Angel, then it becomes important to see that play out. Unless, of course, that amulet was tuned only to Angel and having Spike in there instead has screwed everything up. himiko

2003-08-25 13:38:31+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 8/24/2003 10:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0308241805.723d5dd4@posting.google.com> > > >It looks like it. You're watching a show where you have no interest >whatsoever in the lead. Which must be rather painful for you since >the lead does get a lot of screen time and character development >dedicated to him. Not at all; it's not like I hate Angel or anything. To me he's basically a device to advance the story, but my interest is in other characters, like Wes and Fred. (And of course, Spike in the future). >> >You're speculating whether or not Giles and Xander hates Angel more >than Spike. Giles, however, did say that at least Angel is capable of >making the right decision. > And is what Giles thinks the 'right' decision always best? He felt Spike should leave, though he was well-aware that was not what Buffy wanted. But what if he had? Does that mean we'd be watching Ghost Angel this season? And on what base do you think that Xander >hates Angel more than Spike? Angel wasn't the one who was sleeping >with his ex GF, for example. > No, but remember Xander's judgment of Angel when he fed on Buffy? Utter contempt! I don't think he ever displayed that level of disgust with Spike. At least he did have some neutral or even friendly moments with Spike- which he never did with Angel. > The last time I >checked Angel was very capable of bridging the gap between himself and >his friends. He was capable of reaching out to Wes when he wants to >get his friendship back and he did get Wes back as a friend. Did he? True, they are back to working together, but I don't think their issues are entirely resolved. They never really talked about Wes' betrayal and Angel's abandonment- not to mention Angel's attempt to suffocate Wes. And until they do, I think there's a lot of mistrust and hostility still beneath the surface. > Plus I've had enough of >Spike sharing screentime of the lead character most of the time while >other characters only get minimal or don't get a chance to share >screentime with that said lead character. > > You say that because you don't like Spike and can't relate to him; but for those of us who do, we tend to feel Spike gets shortchanged when it comes to screentime! Despite all the protests about him taking over BtVS, in terms of actual screentime Spike was FIFTH, behind Buffy, Willow, Dawn, and Xander. That's not a lot. Sandra

2003-08-25 15:23:46-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (reldevik@usa.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308241805.723d5dd4@posting.google.com>... > snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030824083000.01725.00000409@mb-m22.news.cs.com>... > > > It's my problem as well, then. > > I just can't bring myself to care about Angel or what happens to him. I have > > no emotional investment with the character. > > It looks like it. You're watching a show where you have no interest > whatsoever in the lead. Which must be rather painful for you since > the lead does get a lot of screen time and character development > dedicated to him. > > > I feel the same way; I've always been able to relate to Spike, moreso than any > > other character. > > And I can't relate to him. So the point? > > > > >Yes, that's why he has so many friends back at Sunnydale. > > > > > Does he actually have fewer friends than Angel does? Giles tried to kill > > Spike, but then he once wanted to kill Angel. Xander hates Spike, but probably > > not as much as he hates Angel. > > You're speculating whether or not Giles and Xander hates Angel more > than Spike. Giles, however, did say that at least Angel is capable of > making the right decision. And on what base do you think that Xander > hates Angel more than Spike? Angel wasn't the one who was sleeping > with his ex GF, for example. --Spike, however, was the one who saved Xander's eyesight in "Dirty Girls." Spike noticed what Caleb was doing to Xander and rushed to the rescue, knocking Caleb away before Caleb could get to Xander's other eye. Even before that, Xander had allowed Spike to stay at his apartment--grudgingly, yes; I know Xander "reviled the plan"--but he still took Spike in when Spike was in trouble. I doubt if Angel ever had an invite to Xander's apartment. Remember Angel in Enemies, knocking Xander to the pavement because "That guy just bugs me"? Okay, it was also part of Angel's fake Angelus act to fool Faith. But the relish with which Angel took a petty revenge on Xander was also evident. Xander had been sniping at Angel for years, and I don't blame Angel for being annoyed. But it must be said that Angel was more petty than Spike was in season 7 once his chip was removed. Before that, Spike couldn't have hit Xander. After the chip removal, he was capable of hitting or otherwise harming Xander, but he passed on all such opportunities. Despite Xander's anger at Spike in "Entropy," "Seeing Red," and "Villains," it seems to me that Xander's hatred of Angel runs a lot deeper and has a lot more real fire in it. All of the things Spike did that Xander didn't like were done when Spike was soulless, and Xander realizes that things changed when Spike got his soul restored. A lot of the things Angel did that Xander didn't like were done when Angel had a soul. (I mean Angel dating Buffy, Angel taking up Buffy's romantic interest, Angel feeding on Buffy.) Since 1997 Xander has nursed a grudge over the way Angel got ahead of him as a romantic rival for Buffy's affection. By the time Buffy got involved with Spike and Xander found out about it, Xander was no longer actively vying for Buffy's affection--though Xander did have some residual romantic feeling for her that he knew he was never going to act on and, more importantly, he had some idealistic notions about Buffy that were shattered when he found out about her and Spike. That lead to Xander's anger over the situation, in the ridiculously overblown scene ion "Seeing Red" in which he bursts through a closed bathroom door to confront what he *thinks* is going to be a naked Buffy-Spike clinch! (Xander thought Spike was there with Buffy.) Anger that flares brightest also burns out soonest, and Xander seems to have gotten over his anger at Spike in a way he never quite got over his anger at Angel, which had been simmering for a long time and never really came to a head. Clairel

2003-08-25 15:32:48-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (reldevik@usa.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308241827.2d96239@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308241415.30eec60b@posting.google.com>... > > > AtS and DC are apples and oranges. Both are TV shows, but one is a > > fantasy action-adventure series aimed primarily at adults, while the > > other is a soapy drama aimed at teens. One has vampires and the other > > doesn't. > > They, however, share the theme of the lead character looking for > something important in his life. Just because you can't get past the > labels, doesn't mean they don't have similarity. > > > AtS and Dracula movies are apples and kiwi fruits. Both are fantasy > > action adventures, yes. Both have vampires. But in one, the vampire > > is a heroic lead, while in the other, the vampire is the villain. > > Also, one is an on-going TV series with the whole range of seasonal > > arc and continuity issues, while the others are a loosely connected > > bunch of films made by different people with different casts over a > > period of at least 50 years. Come to think of it, this is more of an > > apples and yoyos comparison: both are round. > > This is even more ridiculous. I wasn't talking about Dracula in > different bunch of films but rather the original story of Dracula, > which doesn't exactly paint Dracula as villain but rather as someone > who's bitter in life and avowed revenge to God and humanity. Sounds > almost similar to Angel if he had chosen the wrong path. Or maybe he > already did that when he was Angelus. Again, I'm not talking about > the form (TV series vs movies) but rather the theme of the stories. > > > Sure they do. They get staked. > > You call that a salvation? Considering they had committed many sins, > one must wonder if they ever find peace even after they got staked. > > > I think he was more white-haired, but yes. However, he didn't get the > > girl, any of the girls. > > I didn't just mention the girls. I mention his lack of remorse and > his enjoyment of being vampire, something Spike revels in. > > > > Don to Wes, > > > > I suppose, if you really stretch the point and ignore most of Wes's > > character development which has been much better than Don's. I'd > > compare Wes to Natalie, myself...or even Schanke. > > I don't think even in his darkest moment Wes was that suicidal. > Buffy, OTOH....well, you know how S6 went. And some people who had a > depression can become depressed again. Plus, I doubt Wes will want to > become a vampire. > > > > Lacroix with Spike (complete with the duster and the lack of self > > > loathing), > > > > Rot. The look is there if you stretch your imagination, but not the > > story. Spike does correspond a bit to Vachon, right down to the fact > > that the Vachon/Tracy relationship echoed the Nick/Natalie > > relationship a bit the way S/B echoed B/A...right down to the fanboy > > screaming. > > You just don't like the fact that they (LaCroix and Spike) do lack > remorse of their past misdeed. Plus, there's their enjoyment of being > vampire. Something that Spike mentions repeatedly back seasons ago. > > > > Janette to Dru, > > > > OK, but Dru only got one episode in which to try to bring her > > reforming lover back to the dark side, never even considered trying to > > restore her humanity, and certainly never got it together enough to > > run a successful club. > > Does everything have to be dead on similar for you to notice the > similarity? In other words, it takes anvils for you to actually be > able to do compare and contrast. > > > > Natalie to Buffy, etc. > > > > Still trying to see Natalie as Buffy. Well, they're both female and > > involved with a vampire...or two. > > Have you forgotten the most important part of their arcs? Suicidal > thoughts? Bouts of major depression? > > > Problem is, both Spike and Angel are now more or less goodish. > > LaCroix never was. Different story entirely. Just having two > > vampires on one show does not make it a repeat. > > They have the danger of making it a repeat if they end up doing the > same type of stories of how the two vampires deal with their vampire > nature. Unless they took an entirely different approach towards it, > one where one of them is not a vampire anymore by halfway of this > season. > > > BTW, you do know that the minute AtS aired and we saw a vampire > > detective, the fanboys began bewailing the FK imitation, don't you? > > There you go. And that was before there were similar characters on > the show. --You know what? Other than the Nick/Angel comparison, I don't see the validity of any of these other comparisons at all. Janette is one of the sanest, most hard-headed characters I've ever seen. Only similarity between her and Dru is that they're both brunettes. Natalie has no similarity to Buffy. LaCroix has no similarity to Spike. Adducing alleged similarities that aren't really similar at all is no basis for complaints about what kinds of plotlines *might* play out on AtS this year. Anger arising out of ME's supposed copying of FK plotlines seems just as unfounded, to me, as anger arising out of ME's supposed copying of Dawson's Creek plotlines. When two male characters are both romantically interested in a female character, there are only so many ways in which the situation can be resolved. It's always possible to find a TV show, movie, play or novel that chooses one of those few ways of resolving the situation, and then complain about "copying." But it's equally easy to find another TV show, movie, play or novel that chooses one of the few other ways of resolving the situation. How is ME to avoid the charge of plagiarism, if one insists on looking for similar plot resolutions elsewhere in the world of fiction and drama? Common sense suggests just letting ME get on with however they want to resolve the Buffy/Angel/Spike plot, and not straining so hard to find parallels elsewhere just to have something to complain about. Personally I would predict that as long as Spike is incorporeal, ME is going to keep on throwing him in situations in which his rapport with Fred deepens, so that by the time he gets solidified and could phone Buffy if he wanted to, he no longer wants to. (Or at least doesn't want to get back together with her romantically--he might just want to phone her in a friendly way.) Is that original enough, or shall we look for precedents in television, movies, plays and novels so that we can be dissatisfied with that resolution too? Clairel

2003-08-25 17:48:02-05:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


> By the time Buffy got involved with Spike and Xander found out about > it, Xander was no longer actively vying for Buffy's affection--though > Xander did have some residual romantic feeling for her that he knew he > was never going to act on and, more importantly, he had some > idealistic notions about Buffy that were shattered when he found out > about her and Spike. That lead to Xander's anger over the situation, > in the ridiculously overblown scene ion "Seeing Red" in which he > bursts through a closed bathroom door to confront what he *thinks* is > going to be a naked Buffy-Spike clinch! (Xander thought Spike was > there with Buffy.) Anger that flares brightest also burns out > soonest, and Xander seems to have gotten over his anger at Spike in a > way he never quite got over his anger at Angel, which had been > simmering for a long time and never really came to a head. I always thought he was madder at Buffy for taking Spike back. Post Anya, he busrts through the door and finds out he was wrong. Sometime off screen I see buffy and Xander having a talk about what happened. Buffy being really beat up from a patrol, Spike stopping after she hits him once even though she was banged up enough he probably could have taken her. Probably with some statements by buffy about blaming herself. Enough that when spike returns Xander knows he doesn't have that whole story... Xander does know that Anya was a willing participant with Spike and that she reguards it as solace, not vengence... That no doubt hurt him far more. So I see Xander in a state of realizing he doesn't have the whole story on Spike... and what he thinks he knows about Spike doesn't match the actions of the Ladies. Also Defending a mass murderer and trying to save her life gave him new perspective on buffy and Spike IMO. Therefore you see Xander more reserved in his judgements in season 7. He is watching and considering.

2003-08-25 18:49:38-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308241827.2d96239@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308241415.30eec60b@posting.google.com>... > > > AtS and DC are apples and oranges. Both are TV shows, but one is a > > fantasy action-adventure series aimed primarily at adults, while the > > other is a soapy drama aimed at teens. One has vampires and the other > > doesn't. > > They, however, share the theme of the lead character looking for > something important in his life. Just because you can't get past the > labels, doesn't mean they don't have similarity. Yeah. They both have actors in the cast too. First rule of comparison is that the things you compare are comparable. That means they must have more things in common than are different. > > > AtS and Dracula movies are apples and kiwi fruits. Both are fantasy > > action adventures, yes. Both have vampires. But in one, the vampire > > is a heroic lead, while in the other, the vampire is the villain. > > Also, one is an on-going TV series with the whole range of seasonal > > arc and continuity issues, while the others are a loosely connected > > bunch of films made by different people with different casts over a > > period of at least 50 years. Come to think of it, this is more of an > > apples and yoyos comparison: both are round. > > This is even more ridiculous. I wasn't talking about Dracula in > different bunch of films but rather the original story of Dracula, > which doesn't exactly paint Dracula as villain but rather as someone > who's bitter in life and avowed revenge to God and humanity. Where do you get this? What version of the story is this? > > I didn't just mention the girls. I mention his lack of remorse except that Spike expressed plenty of remorse, then sucked it up and got back to business...almost certainly still feels it, just doesn't brood. I don't think LaCroix ever felt it. > and > his enjoyment of being vampire, something Spike revels in. Where do you get this? Buffy had to scream at him just to get him to enjoy fighting again. > > > > Rot. The look is there if you stretch your imagination, but not the > > story. Spike does correspond a bit to Vachon, right down to the fact > > that the Vachon/Tracy relationship echoed the Nick/Natalie > > relationship a bit the way S/B echoed B/A...right down to the fanboy > > screaming. > > You just don't like the fact that they (LaCroix and Spike) do lack > remorse of their past misdeed. Because this is a contrast, not a comparison. > Plus, there's their enjoyment of being > vampire. Something that Spike mentions repeatedly back seasons ago. Yep, seasons ago. And a very different kind of pleasure, I might add. LaCroix was more like Angelus, taking pleasure in slow torments, not rapid kills. > > Does everything have to be dead on similar for you to notice the > similarity? In other words, it takes anvils for you to actually be > able to do compare and contrast. Not for contrast, no. And contrasting AtS with FK can be useful in showing just how differently these two shows deal with similar protagonists and a grounding premise. > > Have you forgotten the most important part of their arcs? Suicidal > thoughts? Bouts of major depression? Ooh, yes, and that's so rare in TV characters. > > > Problem is, both Spike and Angel are now more or less goodish. > > LaCroix never was. Different story entirely. Just having two > > vampires on one show does not make it a repeat. > > They have the danger of making it a repeat if they end up doing the > same type of stories of how the two vampires deal with their vampire > nature. Unless they took an entirely different approach towards it, > one where one of them is not a vampire anymore by halfway of this > season. But they didn't make that mistake. They rang in very different stories and very different support characters. Hence the possibility for a meaningful contrast. > > > BTW, you do know that the minute AtS aired and we saw a vampire > > detective, the fanboys began bewailing the FK imitation, don't you? > > There you go. And that was before there were similar characters on > the show. Exactly my point. The fanboys are going to weep and wail regardless. Ignore them. himiko

2003-08-25 21:15:50-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0308240858.421118@posting.google.com>... > Why would Buffy slamming the door in Giles' face mean that she was > completely right and he was a useless asshole? Because we're not given another POV that disagrees with Buffy apart from that of Giles and Wood. No other Scoobies now about it, there wasn't anyone who called on Buffy for her action of slamming the door in front of a person who's interested in her well being and the safety of the entire group. >I mean, you complain > that she was unfair and biased (which I agree she was to some extent) > but then you seem to think that we're supposed to adopt her POV with > respect to Giles. WTF? Who said I want her to adopt the same POV to Giles? Read my sentence again. I want her to be a fair and non-bias party in this particular issue. > Also, it would've been ridiculous to keep Buffy as "a fair and > non-bias [sic] party in the Giles vs Spike issues." She had some > strong, albeit undefined, feelings for Spike, which were obviously > affecting her judgement. So all of those 5+ years of her being trained by Giles, Giles protecting her, being there for her when she needs him don't mean anything anymore to the point that she lets a feeling that she's not even sure herself to cloud her judgment? Just as Giles' feelings for her and his > opinion of Spike were obviously affecting his. Just as Wood's > complicated feelings about his mother and her death were obviously > affecting his. That's what that episode was all about! No one was > completely right or completely wrong, they were all biased by their > pasts and their emotions, all while telling themselves they were doing > the objectively "right thing" (except for Spike. He never claims to be > objective or tries to rationalize and justify his actions, which is a > big part of why he's my favourite character). ROTFLMAO. Yes, of course, everyone was wrong except for poor Spike. He didn't rationalise his actions? You don't think he was rationalising to Wood about Nikki? It was rationalising on his part even though he knows he did took a person's life regardless of the circumstances he was in. > Since I clearly see why both Buffy and Giles were "right/wrong" in > LMPTM (see above), I can't understand why you would choose to > interpret these scenes in a way that obviously upsets you. What do you mean I choose to interpret these scenes in a way that upsets me? I don't choose this way. I have no choice in how I see this. It just appear to me that way when I saw that episode. Obviously you don't see it that way because you have an attachment to Spike. Well, I don't have any feelings or attachment to him. I can ask the reverse to you why do you see it the scene as you do instead of how other people sees it? > I see this > all the time and it boggles my mind: Spike haters think he took over > the show; Spike fans think he was ignored, marginalized and > mistreated; Spike haters bitch that Buffy was All About Spike; Spike > fans bitch that Spike was All About Buffy; etc., etc. It's completely > insane. I do agree it's insane. But as someone who don't like Spike, I can tell you that I don't make this stuff up. I never make stuff up since I am not even that creative. I only speak of what I feel. Besides, do you really think it's fun for me to do this? To be mauled by, God knows how many, Spike fans everytime I speak of something that they don't like? Well, here's a newsflash: it's not fun and I would rather not talk about it if I don't feel passionate or think that it's an important issue. In fact, I doubt none of us who feels that Spike marginalised other characters in S6-7 made this stuff up. I and many other people also don't like Dawn but do you see me or other people making stuff up about her taking over the screen time in S6-7? No. Because no one feels that she marginalised anyone in S6-7. But she did so in S5 and that's when many people complained about her. > Is it the story itself you've a problem with or the way some people > perceive it? Well there's correlation between the two. Because the story is told in a certain way, people do get certain impression from it. And when SMG, who have played Buffy for 7 years feel that her character has become unsympathetic to the point that she asked for a change in S7, you must be wondering are they trying to make us hate the title character or sympathise with her? > Personally, I think they've made Buffy into a very complicated, > flawed, morally ambiguous and, ergo, fascinating and controversial > character. Which is all good. I'm not interested in unequivocally > good, righteous, heroic and likeable protagonists. Neither am I but unfortunately taking her in the direction that the writers took her opens her to insults and name slandering such as 'cold-hearted b*tch', etc. And many of these come from Spike fans who feel that Buffy doesn't give him enough break. For those of us who loves Buffy, what do you think we think when a character we've followed for 6+ years has now been turned into an insult fodder so that a new character can look good instead? > > Well, judging by the fact how some people can't even tell how certain > > events in Angel went, I am not surprised by that fact. > > You're kinda' predictable, y'know that? ;) No, I don't. If I do then I'll be a mind-reader. > Wait, I thought ME ruined the ending with all the half-assed pandering > to both B/S and B/A shippers. Now you think Buffy actually chose Spike > over Angel? Well, just because the writers were pandering to both groups, it doesn't mean they didn't gravitate more to one group or another. > As for "Dracula," yes, my stance is the same there as it is in the > Buffyverse. Metaphorically speaking, vampires in both fictional > 'verses stand for dangerous emanations from the unconscious which, > we're told by the heroes, must be killed, i.e. repressed (the focus is > on sexual urges in "Dracula," unsurprising for a Victorian novel). On > the literal level, vampires in both 'verses are bloodsucking, > homicidal monsters. Just because Dracula comes equipped with a sob > story and all the Romantic, vampire mystique claptrap that the > Jossverse mercifully lacks (and routinely mocks), we should root for > him to get the girl and the happy? Sorry, all things considered, I > don't think that's a reasonable expectation. > > > Is this the same book I read? > > No, I would guess not. Let me assure you that I wasn't the one who wrote that long winded paragraph above. > Or do you mean that his stated motives were inconsistent and more or > less contrived? They mostly were, I agree. But that's because they > weren't his real motives. Only how he was trying to justify his > decisions to both Buffy and himself. I thought you'll never get it. And as far as motives go, he only have those motives because the writers can't afford to have them on the same show. That's why the contrive explanation as to why Angel at one point can't be with Buffy because he's a vampire and then at another because he's a human. The problem is, people then wonder doesn't the character even remember what they previously said? And instead of fanwanking that's because Angel can't commit, I simply stick with what's obvious: the writers need to come up with reasons to seperate the two. Any reasons will do. > And are you arguing that Angel had good reasons to walk away from > Buffy (and I think he did have *some* valid - albeit not > insurmountable - concerns, generally speaking, "my friends'll be > pissed off if I decide to spend some time with the bereaved love of my > life in her time of need" NOT being one of them. Not that it was ever > in any way suggested that this was his motivation for leaving in > Forever) or that it was all completely contrived because the writers > needed to keep them away from each other? Please make up your mind. I did make up my mind. Maybe you need to read more closely. As far as reasons go, it's a lame one but since the writers are trying to keep them seperate, his reason of not wanting to piss of his friend is far less lame than the inconsistent one where he can't be with Buffy because he's vampire at one point and then because he's human at another point. > a) Happily ever after (for the lead) endings are clich� these days > because they're such a hackneyed staple of American entertainment. > That's what a clich� is: something that's painfully commonplace. I > remember being (pleasantly) shocked at some Julia Roberts romantic > comedy when she *didn't* get the guy. It was completely unexpected. And now you choose to talk about romantic comedy just when you said I shouldn't mix a vampire flick with romantic comedy. The last time I check most Sci-fi ending has either bleak or bittersweat ending. It's like a trend or something. The bleaker, the better. Granted on some cases, it's better like this. But there seems to be a tendency of doing bleak just for the sake of it these days. > Really?! Fluffy romances which end in bloodshed? I'm almost curious. *nods*. Lots, actually. > That last sentence being the key here. If I perceived AtS or the B/A > story as having fairy-tale overtones (which I suppose many B/A > shippers do), I might not find a fairy-tale happy ending quite so > objectionable. However, I do not. Therefore, such an ending would > strike me as a contrived, meaningless clich�. I don't want a fairy tale ending either. I want a reasonably complex story where Buffy and Angel get to rebuilt their relationship. It doesn't even have to end with them getting married. Just maybe getting a second chance of developing their relationship. And who knows what will happen after that? > Conversely, I might be OK with it were Buffy to show up for at least > the last few episodes, and give herself and Angel a chance to really > get to know each other and re-built their relationship on much more > solid ground than the adolescent, star-crossed twu wuv at first sight > nonsense it's currently based on. Exactly. > But that's not gonna happen. Oh, you broke my heart. > > Well, in reverse to the story I mentioned above, "Angel" is not an > > exactly an all-out depressing stories. In fact, in season 1, it has a > > rather heartwarming basic plot of Angel's need for a family in the > > form of his relationship with Cordy and Wes. It was good and nice to > > see a 'family' forming from 3 people who are not blood related. > > Who said "Angel" was all-out depressing? There's an awful lot of > ground between fluffy fairy-tale and tragedy and, yes, I think that's > where "Angel" mostly resides (albeit closer to the tragic side than > BtVS). And what its ending should reflect. Angel doesn't start the tragic part until S3 started. S1 and 2 were dark but not tragic. In fact S1 was full of hope and promise that Angel can somehow create a 'family' with Cordy and Wes. One who will protect one another even when there's no one out there who cares about the three of them. It's a shame that out of those 3, only 2 remains. > I've no problem with the show ending *somewhat* happily. I've already > stated that several times. I just have a problem with Angel and Buffy > walking off into the sunset to live happily ever after. Well, I don't. Ever seen 'Dark City'? The ending was a somewhat happy but not exactly happily ever after. It's more like second chance type of ending. > Not for long, presumably. Besides, if Angel gets the shanshu, will you > then argue that he shouldn't get the girl because he's not a vampire > anymore, so it wouldn't be "original"? No, I will then argue that the last time I checked, the scroll of aberjian (sp) stated that the vampire who will shanshu is the one whose position in good or evil side is unclear at the upcoming apocalypse battle. Spike's position in the good or evil side back at "Chose" is very clear. He was clearly in the side of good. Angel, OTOH, has been teetering between good and evil side lately what with him joining W&H and all. > Ambiguous - (adj.) that can mean two or more different things; vaguely > expressed; obscure; equivocal. Tell me what's so ambiguous about Chosen? Good remains on the good side, evil is defeated, rinse and repeat. > You tell me how "Chosen" was NOT ambiguous and what you meant by: > > > If there's something that is worse than a good ending or a > > bad ending, that would be a half-assed ending like the ones I > > mentioned above. Where the writers try not to make it too good or too > > bad and try to please everyone. That's what I felt happened in > > Chosen. They try too hard to please the B/A and B/S camp and at the > > end of the day ended up making everyone unhappy. Not being able to decide which ship to please is hardly my idea of an ambiguous ending. After yakking on and on how you don't want the ending to be romantic based, you ended your post on the idea that ambiguous ending is one where the writer couldn't decide which ship to please more? Plus, there was a rather heavy slant towards pleasing B/S in "Chosen" despite the half-assness of the earlier acts of the episodes.

2003-08-25 21:25:18-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308251423.53924052@posting.google.com>... > --Spike, however, was the one who saved Xander's eyesight in "Dirty > Girls." Spike noticed what Caleb was doing to Xander and rushed to > the rescue, knocking Caleb away before Caleb could get to Xander's > other eye. Oh, I'm not saying that wasn't a nice act of heroism. You seem to think that I can't tell when Spike was being heroic and from when he isn't. > Even before that, Xander had allowed Spike to stay at his > apartment--grudgingly, yes; I know Xander "reviled the plan"--but he > still took Spike in when Spike was in trouble. I doubt if Angel ever > had an invite to Xander's apartment. It'll be a bit hard wouldn't it if the guy isn't even there? You're fanwanking that Angel will neer have an invite to Xander's apartment if Buffy ask Xander to help him. > Despite Xander's anger at Spike in "Entropy," "Seeing Red," and > "Villains," it seems to me that Xander's hatred of Angel runs a lot > deeper and has a lot more real fire in it. All of the things Spike > did that Xander didn't like were done when Spike was soulless, and > Xander realizes that things changed when Spike got his soul restored. Again, fanwanking. Xander didn't even get to interact with Spike that much in S7 except when he has to play watchful guard together with Anya and that was played more for laughs than anything else. > A lot of the things Angel did that Xander didn't like were done when > Angel had a soul. (I mean Angel dating Buffy, Angel taking up Buffy's > romantic interest, Angel feeding on Buffy.) Since 1997 Xander has > nursed a grudge over the way Angel got ahead of him as a romantic > rival for Buffy's affection. Heh, I don't deny that. Xander and Angel is not best buds. But then again neither is Xander and Spike.

2003-08-25 21:49:28-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030825093831.06260.00000408@mb-m19.news.cs.com>... > And is what Giles thinks the 'right' decision always best? He felt Spike > should leave, though he was well-aware that was not what Buffy wanted. > But what if he had? > Does that mean we'd be watching Ghost Angel this season? I don't actually mind that. So then we can see the FangGang trying to find a way to get him back to corporeality. Plus, it'll show the gang the true face of W&H and it'll make it more personal to them since it's their friend who are being made in corporeal. > No, but remember Xander's judgment of Angel when he fed on Buffy? Utter > contempt! I don't think he ever displayed that level of disgust with Spike. > At least he did have some neutral or even friendly moments with Spike- which > he never did with Angel. It looks like someone forgot "Seeing Red". > Did he? > True, they are back to working together, but I don't think their issues are > entirely resolved. They never really talked about Wes' betrayal and Angel's > abandonment- not to mention Angel's attempt to suffocate Wes. Do you really think the writers will want to resolve the juiciest part of their storyline that quickly? Plus, it wouldn't make sense for the two of them to solve all of their issues immediately. But the caring, the loyalty, and the working relationship have at least been resurrected. Plus, it is obvious in "Inside Out" that Angel himself is capable of reaching out to Wes on his own accord. He even goes further to say that even though he hates Lilah, her death matters to him because Wes matters to him. For someone who don't normally expresses his feeling like Angel, it is obvious that Angel was making an attempt to reconcile entirely on his own accord and even Wes looked surprised and grateful for it judging by his expression. By the time "Sacrifice" came, Angel once again showed that he's very capable of making friendship on his own without anyone else's help by helping the young group of fighters underground. > And until they do, I think there's a lot of mistrust and hostility still > beneath the surface. Nothing more than the sort of mistrust and hostility that Angel has for Spike. All things considered, Angel is quite capable of making his own friend and resolving his own issues. Plus, why should an issue between two friends are interfered by someone outside who didn't even know the entire story? And as proven by last season, it's when no one interfere (ie. without Fred's nudging) that the two actually managed to resolve their issues. > > Plus I've had enough of > >Spike sharing screentime of the lead character most of the time while > >other characters only get minimal or don't get a chance to share > >screentime with that said lead character. > > > You say that because you don't like Spike and can't relate to him; but for > those of us who do, we tend to feel Spike gets shortchanged when it comes to > screentime! I didn't talk getting screentime as in screentime per episode. I'm talking about sharing screentime with the lead of the show, which tends to expand a character's story in a way because the lead of the show do get a lot of screen time and attention/focus paid to her/him. Plus, even when Spike isn't on screen, other characters are pre-occupied with talking about him and how to help him from First Evil, etc. Or they are pre-occupied with how to kill him and to talk why it's wrong to kill him. It's the focus on his character that overkills it. Spike got a lot of screentime in S5 and it didn't bother me one bit because the storyline doesn't revolve around him all the time and the focus isn't always about him back then. > Despite all the protests about him taking over BtVS, in terms of actual > screentime Spike was FIFTH, behind Buffy, Willow, Dawn, and Xander. > That's not a lot. Again, there needs to be a balance between focus and screentime. What Spike lacked in screentime he made up in focus which was the complaint that I have about him. Focus sometimes is far more important than screen time. Xander got a lot of screen time in S7 but would you trade Spike's place with him? Would you rather Spike get a lot of screentime but most of it are spend doing nothing or talking about things that are have no relevance or at the lest, non-essential to the plot? Would you prefer that?

2003-08-25 22:08:13-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308251153.141b8968@posting.google.com>... > Spoiler Space: > > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 0 > 9 > 8 > 7 > 6 > 5 > 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 > > Oh, the one where they've taken over a business they know to be evil > and are surrounded by people they can't trust at a time when they > themselves are still fairly divided by old mistrusts and newly > unshared memories. And that's why they had their secret meetings away from W&H because they don't trust those people. As far as trusts within a group. I assume that's why Angel and Wes are doing shared leadership because that way, they both have to make decision in reference to one another. This way, the rest of the gang also feels a bit content that their decision isn't purely made by one person and one person only. Now, they have two people to blame :P > Also, they're living(?) in a building inhabited by > the ghosts of past W&H employees; Actually, you're wrong about that. Read the sides again. Angel actually wonders why there aren't that many ghosts of past W&H employees in the building considering the risk of the job. > I wonder if that's the result of the > perpetuity clause? What perpetuity clause? Are you talking about the one that Angel may or may not have to sign on behalf of the gang? We don't know if Angel sign anything or just take the deal without any legally and magically binding documents to sign. > Spike comes from outside the group. He doesn't carry the same > emotional baggage with them that they do with each other, and his > presence will force new alliances and relationships. He may or may > not have his memories intact; I'd love to hear him blurt out "Whatever > happened to that son you used to have? or just "I even heard you had a > son; where do these rumors come from?" And where will he heard this from? I'll be disappointed if Eve or Lilah are stupid enough to not install some kind of safeguard measure when they're talking about Connor with Angel. Since W&H have it in their interest to corrupt Angel, I doubt they'll just talk about Connor freely with Angel so that other people can misheard it and spoil their plan. Especially now they know that there is a floating ghost around them. > We know he can contact the > spirit world, and I'm guessing that his understanding and control of > this dimension will increase. He may be able to be invisible and spy > on people: a valuable trait at W&H. Oh, I don't deny that. But again, unless W&H senior partners are a bunch of doofus, I doubt they'll leave too many evidence about their dirty dealings lying around. > And then there's the whole amulet plot point. If Spike is unliving > what was supposed to happen to Angel, then it becomes important to see > that play out. Not necessarily. Unless they're planning to make Spike evil again. Buffy couldn't wear that amulet, so they obviously didn't intend for Buffy to wear it. The senior partner don't want Angel dead because then he'll be useless to them, so I doubt the amulet was intended to harm/kill him. The only thing left is corruption through the use of the amulet. The amulet is a simple reminder as to why W&H is not to be trusted. They're only interested in ensuring that their end of the world is not override by someone else's end of the world. And they'll do whatever it takes to do it.

2003-08-25 22:20:18-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308251432.1ecb16c1@posting.google.com>... > Adducing alleged similarities that aren't really similar at all is no > basis for complaints about what kinds of plotlines *might* play out on > AtS this year. Anger arising out of ME's supposed copying of FK > plotlines seems just as unfounded, to me, as anger arising out of ME's > supposed copying of Dawson's Creek plotlines. Well, I don't see anyone here being angry about ME copying FK. If you're talking about me, I simply don't want to see repeats of story I've seen elsewhere. Especially when it's this closely similar. And as shown in "Rain of Fire" and later this season with that werewolf story, ME does have a tendency to imitate ideas for their show. The werewolf - vampire love story suggested on Angel is the theme of the new film called "Underworld". > How is ME to avoid the charge > of plagiarism, if one insists on looking for similar plot resolutions > elsewhere in the world of fiction and drama? How about by producing something that is from their own creative idea? And ME is not lacking ideas. I've seen many of their original episodes and I find them to be better than the ones where they try to incorporate a particular movie of the week idea into it. "Home" was refreshingly different, for example because they rely on their own creative idea for that episode instead of basing it on other stories out there. > Personally I would predict that as long as Spike is incorporeal, ME is > going to keep on throwing him in situations in which his rapport with > Fred deepens, so that by the time he gets solidified and could phone > Buffy if he wanted to, he no longer wants to. (Or at least doesn't > want to get back together with her romantically--he might just want to > phone her in a friendly way.) And then he'll turn into a real boy....just like... > Is that original enough, or shall we look for precedents in > television, movies, plays and novels so that we can be dissatisfied > with that resolution too? Well, if you insist......Casper :P

2003-08-25 22:57:36-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308251749.60afcfdd@posting.google.com>... > Where do you get this? What version of the story is this? Uh, hello? Bram Stoker's Dracula? Sure, to the heroes, he's a villain, but Bram Stoker also ensure that he provided a POV for Dracula himself from time to time to ensure that he doesn't end up as a mere villain. > Where do you get this? Buffy had to scream at him just to get him to > enjoy fighting again. You're talking about 1 season out of the entire 4.5 seasons Spike was in. Face it, Spike likes to fight and on normal occasion, lack of remorse ofor what he did in the past. "Lies My Parent Told Me" confirm that. He didn't regret that he killed a human being. The second episode of Angel this season will also confirmed that judging by the sides. > Because this is a contrast, not a comparison. Eh? Why does this have to be a contrast and not comparison or both? > Yep, seasons ago. Very sure, aren't we? What do you make of S5.2 talk where Spike said "Just because I have a soul doesn't mean I'll start atoning for my past misdeed" or something to that effect? > Not for contrast, no. And contrasting AtS with FK can be useful in > showing just how differently these two shows deal with similar > protagonists and a grounding premise. And again, I didn't just do contrast here but also comparison. > > Have you forgotten the most important part of their arcs? Suicidal > > thoughts? Bouts of major depression? > > Ooh, yes, and that's so rare in TV characters. No, it's not rare. But I thought we're talking about comparing "Angel" and "Forever Knight" not other shows. > But they didn't make that mistake. They rang in very different > stories and very different support characters. Hence the possibility > for a meaningful contrast. We have yet to see that this season, especially since S1-4 didn't have Spike in it. > Exactly my point. The fanboys are going to weep and wail regardless. > Ignore them. Well, you don't know that maybe the reason why the show is so different is after all because all of those concerns that surfaced earlier at the start of the show and the writers vowed that they're going to prove them otherwise, which I appreciated.

2003-08-26 01:50:13+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Linda <lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com>)


Well put. Thanks, Daniel. -- Best regards, Linda Mmmmmm......Angel

2003-08-26 03:41:44-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308252157.2520e175@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308251749.60afcfdd@posting.google.com>... > > > Where do you get this? What version of the story is this? > > Uh, hello? Bram Stoker's Dracula? Sure, to the heroes, he's a > villain, but Bram Stoker also ensure that he provided a POV for > Dracula himself from time to time to ensure that he doesn't end up as > a mere villain. Not that I recall. Admittedly, it's been years since I read the novel, but I recall Bram Stoker's Drac as being pretty much a monster, pure and simple. I think you may be confusing the novel with Coppola's much misnamed "Bram Stoker's Dracula." If not, please tell me where in the novel we see any sign that we are expected to sympathize, empathize, or otherwise view Drac as anything but an out and out villain? > > > Where do you get this? Buffy had to scream at him just to get him to > > enjoy fighting again. > > You're talking about 1 season out of the entire 4.5 seasons Spike was > in. Face it, Spike likes to fight and on normal occasion, lack of > remorse ofor what he did in the past. "Lies My Parent Told Me" > confirm that. He didn't regret that he killed a human being. Sure he did. That's why he didn't kill Wood..."on account of I killed his mum." What is that except an attempt at atonement. Of course, he's not going to admit that to Wood. Aside from the fact that he was in the middle of a fight with Wood and furious with the guy, Spike has serious macho-bravado issues and always has had. It was telling that he even admitted his feeling of guilt to Buffy. > > Eh? Why does this have to be a contrast and not comparison or both? OK, one more try. Before you make a comparison, you have to establish that what you're comparing is comparable. I think we have established that Nick and Angel are comparable and that the premises and genre of AtS and FK are comparable. Nothing much else is....hence, contrast. > > > Yep, seasons ago. > > Very sure, aren't we? What do you make of S5.2 talk where Spike said > "Just because I have a soul doesn't mean I'll start atoning for my > past misdeed" or something to that effect? Spike didn't have a soul in S5 nor did he say anything like this in any episode I can recall. > > > Have you forgotten the most important part of their arcs? Suicidal > > > thoughts? Bouts of major depression? > > > > Ooh, yes, and that's so rare in TV characters. > > No, it's not rare. But I thought we're talking about comparing > "Angel" and "Forever Knight" not other shows. OK, but if you're going to do the whole series and not just the ending, Buffy was pretty perky for most of it. She had two rounds of depression: one after S2 which we didn't see much of, and one in S6 which we saw too much of. > > > But they didn't make that mistake. They rang in very different > > stories and very different support characters. Hence the possibility > > for a meaningful contrast. > > We have yet to see that this season, especially since S1-4 didn't have > Spike in it. And what little we know is already totally different. himiko

2003-08-26 09:09:53-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (reldevik@usa.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308252025.270148c3@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308251423.53924052@posting.google.com>... > > > --Spike, however, was the one who saved Xander's eyesight in "Dirty > > Girls." Spike noticed what Caleb was doing to Xander and rushed to > > the rescue, knocking Caleb away before Caleb could get to Xander's > > other eye. > > Oh, I'm not saying that wasn't a nice act of heroism. You seem to > think that I can't tell when Spike was being heroic and from when he > isn't. --Well, then I guess a heroic character like Spike who is willing to put himself on the line for the sake of others could make quite a worthy addition to Angel Investigations, couldn't he? (In fact we already know this from the way in which Spike saves Angel in episode 5.2 and saves Fred's life in episode 5.4.) Ergo no Spike problem. > > Even before that, Xander had allowed Spike to stay at his > > apartment--grudgingly, yes; I know Xander "reviled the plan"--but he > > still took Spike in when Spike was in trouble. I doubt if Angel ever > > had an invite to Xander's apartment. > > It'll be a bit hard wouldn't it if the guy isn't even there? You're > fanwanking that Angel will neer have an invite to Xander's apartment > if Buffy ask Xander to help him. --What I meant is that I don't think Angel ever hung out with Xander at Xander's place of residence when Angel lived in Sunnydale. Of course Xander's place of residence was different: his parents' house when he was still in high school, then his parents' basement. But Spike stayed in Xander's parents' basement for quite a long time in season 4. I don't think Angel ever even visited Xander once. > > Despite Xander's anger at Spike in "Entropy," "Seeing Red," and > > "Villains," it seems to me that Xander's hatred of Angel runs a lot > > deeper and has a lot more real fire in it. All of the things Spike > > did that Xander didn't like were done when Spike was soulless, and > > Xander realizes that things changed when Spike got his soul restored. > > Again, fanwanking. Xander didn't even get to interact with Spike that > much in S7 except when he has to play watchful guard together with > Anya and that was played more for laughs than anything else. --You seem to be forgetting that Xander and Spike lived in the same house (the Summers house) for the last half of season 7. Of course they interacted. Xander's change of attitude toward Spike, and his refusal to blame Spike for the things the FE made Spike do, are evident in Xander's comments to Anya in--for example--episode 7.9 ("Never Leave Me") and episode 7.17 (LMPTM). Both times, Anya wanted Spike to be blamed harshly, and both times Xander refused to. LMPTM is also the episode in which Xander gave Spike a friendly pat on the shoulder when Spike didn't understand Xander's mutterings about the chains in the basement (which Xander wished he and Anya could have used in kinky naughty ways when they appropriated Spike's bed for their make-up sex in episode 7.16. Sounds like Xander really is holding a grudge against Spike for his one-night stand with Anya the previous year, doesn't it?) > > A lot of the things Angel did that Xander didn't like were done when > > Angel had a soul. (I mean Angel dating Buffy, Angel taking up Buffy's > > romantic interest, Angel feeding on Buffy.) Since 1997 Xander has > > nursed a grudge over the way Angel got ahead of him as a romantic > > rival for Buffy's affection. > > Heh, I don't deny that. Xander and Angel is not best buds. But then > again neither is Xander and Spike. --I just say there's more fire, and a longer history, in Xander's dislike of Angel than in Xander's dislike of Spike. Also, Xander's feelings about Spike must be mitigated by the knowledge that Spike is the heroic rescuer to whom Xander owes his eyesight. I don't think Xander feels grateful to Angel for anything, and he feels resentful against Angel for a hell of a lot. That's all. Clairel

2003-08-26 16:07:37-05:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


"Daniel Garten" <dxgarten@ignmail.com> wrote in message news:49cf8df3.0308252015.6da51b4c@posting.google.com... > mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0308240858.421118@posting.google.com>... > > > Why would Buffy slamming the door in Giles' face mean that she was > > completely right and he was a useless asshole? > > Because we're not given another POV that disagrees with Buffy apart > from that of Giles and Wood. No other Scoobies now about it, there > wasn't anyone who called on Buffy for her action of slamming the door > in front of a person who's interested in her well being and the safety > of the entire group. You mean a person who had just conspired to KILL someone she had repeated stated was not to be killed? Someone who took his own opinions and formed alliance behind her back to kill the "strongest warrior we have" or however buffy described him. Giles knew that Woods Opinion was biased, and yet he went forward with thier plan. Giles had just abused his relationship with Buffy. This door incident was far less than what he had done. > >I mean, you complain > > that she was unfair and biased (which I agree she was to some extent) > > but then you seem to think that we're supposed to adopt her POV with > > respect to Giles. WTF? > > Who said I want her to adopt the same POV to Giles? Read my sentence > again. I want her to be a fair and non-bias party in this particular > issue. buffy has to be fair and unbiased even though giles doesn't? > > Also, it would've been ridiculous to keep Buffy as "a fair and > > non-bias [sic] party in the Giles vs Spike issues." She had some > > strong, albeit undefined, feelings for Spike, which were obviously > > affecting her judgement. > > So all of those 5+ years of her being trained by Giles, Giles > protecting her, being there for her when she needs him don't mean > anything anymore to the point that she lets a feeling that she's not > even sure herself to cloud her judgment? well chosen 5, he left her to work her own things out and grow up in season 6. He returns in the end of 6 and takes a chance that almost destroys the world. And in season 7 he constantly challenges Buffy's leadership. Goes behind her back to betray her when he disagrees, and uses the former relationship to do so.... > Just as Giles' feelings for her and his > > opinion of Spike were obviously affecting his. Just as Wood's > > complicated feelings about his mother and her death were obviously > > affecting his. That's what that episode was all about! No one was > > completely right or completely wrong, they were all biased by their > > pasts and their emotions, all while telling themselves they were doing > > the objectively "right thing" (except for Spike. He never claims to be > > objective or tries to rationalize and justify his actions, which is a > > big part of why he's my favourite character). > > ROTFLMAO. Yes, of course, everyone was wrong except for poor Spike. > He didn't rationalise his actions? You don't think he was > rationalising to Wood about Nikki? It was rationalising on his part > even though he knows he did took a person's life regardless of the > circumstances he was in. Actually his analysis was Bang on. He spared Robins life because of he had killed his mom. Killing Robin would have been self defense. A situation acknowledged and excused by the majority of societies in our world... yet spike chose not to. > > Since I clearly see why both Buffy and Giles were "right/wrong" in > > LMPTM (see above), I can't understand why you would choose to > > interpret these scenes in a way that obviously upsets you. > > What do you mean I choose to interpret these scenes in a way that > upsets me? I don't choose this way. I have no choice in how I see > this. It just appear to me that way when I saw that episode. > Obviously you don't see it that way because you have an attachment to > Spike. Well, I don't have any feelings or attachment to him. I can > ask the reverse to you why do you see it the scene as you do instead > of how other people sees it? You have ignored most of the plot, if not by choice, maybe you should pay attention. > > I see this > > all the time and it boggles my mind: Spike haters think he took over > > the show; Spike fans think he was ignored, marginalized and > > mistreated; Spike haters bitch that Buffy was All About Spike; Spike > > fans bitch that Spike was All About Buffy; etc., etc. It's completely > > insane. > > > Is it the story itself you've a problem with or the way some people > > perceive it? > > Well there's correlation between the two. Because the story is told > in a certain way, people do get certain impression from it. And when > SMG, who have played Buffy for 7 years feel that her character has > become unsympathetic to the point that she asked for a change in S7, > you must be wondering are they trying to make us hate the title > character or sympathise with her? > Neither am I but unfortunately taking her in the direction that the > writers took her opens her to insults and name slandering such as > 'cold-hearted b*tch', etc. And many of these come from Spike fans who > feel that Buffy doesn't give him enough break. For those of us who > loves Buffy, what do you think we think when a character we've > followed for 6+ years has now been turned into an insult fodder so > that a new character can look good instead? Amazing the number of arcs that are missed because of people preconceptions. > > Or do you mean that his stated motives were inconsistent and more or > > less contrived? They mostly were, I agree. But that's because they > > weren't his real motives. Only how he was trying to justify his > > decisions to both Buffy and himself. > > I thought you'll never get it. And as far as motives go, he only have > those motives because the writers can't afford to have them on the > same show. That's why the contrive explanation as to why Angel at one > point can't be with Buffy because he's a vampire and then at another > because he's a human. The problem is, people then wonder doesn't the > character even remember what they previously said? And instead of > fanwanking that's because Angel can't commit, I simply stick with > what's obvious: the writers need to come up with reasons to seperate > the two. Any reasons will do. Damn, and here most of us thought they did a good job of that. Angel human = dead buffy (according to season 1 AtS) Angel Souled Vampire + Buffy = Angelus (Season 2 BtVS) Seemed rather clear to me.... > > Really?! Fluffy romances which end in bloodshed? I'm almost curious. > > *nods*. Lots, actually. Romeo and Juliette - Lady Macbeth Suicide - Ophelia Suicide Don't know that he was the first but clearly WS had an affinity for killing off loved ones. More recently there was the movie Sweet November --- not actual bloodshed, Terminal illness > > That last sentence being the key here. If I perceived AtS or the B/A > > story as having fairy-tale overtones (which I suppose many B/A > > shippers do), I might not find a fairy-tale happy ending quite so > > objectionable. However, I do not. Therefore, such an ending would > > strike me as a contrived, meaningless clich���. > > I don't want a fairy tale ending either. I want a reasonably complex > story where Buffy and Angel get to rebuilt their relationship. It > doesn't even have to end with them getting married. Just maybe > getting a second chance of developing their relationship. And who > knows what will happen after that? Still waiting on Shonshu for that. Buffy didn't exactly get a happily ever after. She got a... I get to be almost normal, I'm not alone anymore. > Angel doesn't start the tragic part until S3 started. S1 and 2 were > dark but not tragic. In fact S1 was full of hope and promise that > Angel can somehow create a 'family' with Cordy and Wes. One who will > protect one another even when there's no one out there who cares about > the three of them. It's a shame that out of those 3, only 2 remains. Not all that ambigous to me, one guys hand she held, the other guy she kissed. "with the rising music and the rising ... music" I did like the cookie dough analogy after Gun said he was betting that evil and a bun in the oven, "I'm betting it isn't cookies"

2003-08-26 17:20:36-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (marika5000@my-deja.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308252015.6da51b4c@posting.google.com>...> > Because we're not given another POV that disagrees with Buffy apart > from that of Giles and Wood. No other Scoobies now about it, there > wasn't anyone who called on Buffy for her action of slamming the door > in front of a person who's interested in her well being and the safety > of the entire group. i think you are spot on. esp. her. mk5000 "When it is cut there is usually a 300 to 600% mark up. When I was using only a couple hundred sq. inch a year buying buy the slab was ok but lately I think I can use 5 or 6 # a year and that can be some serious savings."--rhncue

2003-08-26 18:24:33-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308252108.fb5eb54@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308251153.141b8968@posting.google.com>... > > > > Spoiler Space: > > > > 1 > > 2 > > 3 > > 4 > > 5 > > 6 > > 7 > > 8 > > 9 > > 0 > > 9 > > 8 > > 7 > > 6 > > 5 > > 4 > > 3 > > 2 > > 1 > > > > > Also, they're living(?) in a building inhabited by > > the ghosts of past W&H employees; > > Actually, you're wrong about that. Read the sides again. Angel > actually wonders why there aren't that many ghosts of past W&H > employees in the building considering the risk of the job. But there are some. Or phantoms of some kind anyway. Spike has some close encounter of the painful kind with some of them. > > > I wonder if that's the result of the > > perpetuity clause? > > What perpetuity clause? Are you talking about the one that Angel may > or may not have to sign on behalf of the gang? We don't know if > Angel sign anything or just take the deal without any legally and > magically binding documents to sign. No. I'm talking about whatever Lilah signed that still has her working for W&H after death. The contract Wes couldn't burn. Presumably most W&H employees sign something of the sort. I wonder what contracts Angel and the others may find they've signed without even knowing it, the minute they accepted that offer. But then, that's a major story arc...at least, I sure hope it is. himiko

2003-08-27 05:42:51-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308261724.3f75213e@posting.google.com>... > dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308252108.fb5eb54@posting.google.com>... > > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308251153.141b8968@posting.google.com>... > > > > > > > Spoiler Space: > > > > > > 1 > > > 2 > > > 3 > > > 4 > > > 5 > > > 6 > > > 7 > > > 8 > > > 9 > > > 0 > > > 9 > > > 8 > > > 7 > > > 6 > > > 5 > > > 4 > > > 3 > > > 2 > > > 1 > > > > > But there are some. Or phantoms of some kind anyway. Spike has some > close encounter of the painful kind with some of them. Nope. Those phantoms are phantoms who managed to not get eaten by what's his name in ep.4. Every other phantoms have either been swallowed by him or become his slave elsewhere. That's why I said it reminds me a lot of "A Chinese Ghost Story". I supposed that film studies class didn't go waste after all. > No. I'm talking about whatever Lilah signed that still has her > working for W&H after death. The contract Wes couldn't burn. > Presumably most W&H employees sign something of the sort. I don't think that's a correct assumption to make. Obviously you'll have to be privy to W&H's evil doing to sign something that exclusive which certify that "your ass is ours". So I don't think the janitors or the low level secretary will have to sign that. > I wonder what contracts Angel and the others may find they've signed > without even knowing it, the minute they accepted that offer. But > then, that's a major story arc...at least, I sure hope it is. But they did say that there's no strings attached (at that point). So I assume they don't sign any contract whatsoever. W&H simply planning to corrupt them with power slowly but surely like they did to Lindsey and Lilah. And then once they got them cornered, W&H'll offer the contract. And by that time, W&H hope that they'll sign it. And yes, it better be a major story arc.

2003-08-27 06:03:09-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308260809.5634ff8e@posting.google.com>... > --Well, then I guess a heroic character like Spike who is willing to > put himself on the line for the sake of others could make quite a > worthy addition to Angel Investigations, couldn't he? Feel free to feel that way if heroic character is what you want Spike to be. I personally prefer that Angel, Wes, Gunn, etc to not be heroic characters but simply people who are trying to do the right thing. They're more interesting that way. Why do you think I rolled my eyes and cringed everytime the word "champion" came out on the screen? > --What I meant is that I don't think Angel ever hung out with Xander > at Xander's place of residence when Angel lived in Sunnydale. Of > course Xander's place of residence was different: his parents' house > when he was still in high school, then his parents' basement. But > Spike stayed in Xander's parents' basement for quite a long time in > season 4. I don't think Angel ever even visited Xander once. Well duh! I did tell you that Angel and Xander are not friends, didn't I? Since when do people who are not friends visit each other except when they need something? And in case you forgot, Spike sharing house with Xander wasn't out of his free will. He didn't have any other choice because the initative guys were after him. On top of that, while Spike sharing a house with Xander may make for wacky situations, it wasn't exactly convincing considering Xander's dislike of vampires in general. Ditto in S7. Spike wasn't sharing a house with Xander because he wants to but because Buffy ask him to be there so that the others can keep a watch over him. > I don't think > Xander feels grateful to Angel for anything, and he feels resentful > against Angel for a hell of a lot. That's all. You should really stop fanwanking because it's not good for you. What you think is not necessarily the truth. There have been many occassions where Angel saved Xander's life (and at one point was from Spike). And while Xander never once said thanks (just like he never said thanks to Spike either), it doesn't mean he's not grateful for it. If you think Xander feels grateful when Spike saving him from losing another eyes, what makes you think that he can't feel the same when Angel saved him from Spike? Xander feels resentful against Angel a hell lot? The last time they met (back in S4), Xander actually express his happpiness that Angel is temporarily back and joined the gang to help Buffy. He said "it reminds me of old time, you know with Angel here and all".

2003-08-27 06:15:50-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308260241.412feb1d@posting.google.com>... > Not that I recall. Admittedly, it's been years since I read the > novel, but I recall Bram Stoker's Drac as being pretty much a monster, > pure and simple. Well, then I suggest that you read the book again. I'm too tired to give you another blow by blow account of the book just like I did for Angel S1-4 arguments we had before. > Sure he did. That's why he didn't kill Wood..."on account of I killed > his mum." Oh wow, that makes it all peachy, ain't it? He doesn't even understand why Wood wanted to kill him to the point that he needs to justify why he won't kill him. Since when does not killing a human becomes a prize that is awarded to spefic type of people? It should have been a natural understanding that killing human is wrong. > What is that except an attempt at atonement. Of course, > he's not going to admit that to Wood. Aside from the fact that he was > in the middle of a fight with Wood and furious with the guy, Spike has > serious macho-bravado issues and always has had. It was telling that > he even admitted his feeling of guilt to Buffy. Buffy wasn't the one who lost her mother to someone she didn't know. Wood was. Even if Spike was angry at that point, there's no stopping him from coming back and at least tell Wood that he's sorry. > Spike didn't have a soul in S5 nor did he say anything like this in > any episode I can recall. I'm talking about Angel S5 episode 2. It's in the sides. > OK, but if you're going to do the whole series and not just the > ending, Buffy was pretty perky for most of it. She had two rounds of > depression: one after S2 which we didn't see much of, and one in S6 > which we saw too much of. The problem with depression though, it's not something that one get rids of easily. The last time I remembered, I don't see Buffy getting any counselling help to get over her depression. It's just suddenly disappear. I've seen people who have bouts of major depression later on getting it back again just when they thought they'll never suffer from one again. And Buffy obviously very prone to sadness and stress. She was suffering from mild one around S4 after Angel left and she found herself lonely in the campus. She suffered another one in S5 after Joyce's death and Dawn getting kidnapped to the point that she went coma. > And what little we know is already totally different. I wouldn't be that cocky yet. Wasn't it last year that people are so happy at the early episodes of BTVS S7? Only later on they start realising that everything goes down hill pretty much not long after a couple of early episodes (mostly after "Conversation with dead people").

2003-08-27 22:35:06-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308270515.4990bdaa@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308260241.412feb1d@posting.google.com>... > > > Not that I recall. Admittedly, it's been years since I read the > > novel, but I recall Bram Stoker's Drac as being pretty much a monster, > > pure and simple. > > Well, then I suggest that you read the book again. I'm too tired to > give you another blow by blow account of the book just like I did for > Angel S1-4 arguments we had before. I read the book last night. I enjoyed it. And I can now tell you that you are 100% wrong on this. The novel does show a wide range of different points of viw, alright...from pretty much all the characters except Dracula. These points of view are shown in journal entries, letters, dialogue, newspaper clippings and so on. The only time we hear from Drac is in the dialogue and that consistes of urbane manipulating, bragging, and threats. The Victorians liked their evil to be uncomplicated evil and that's what he is. There is even a scene in which this is spelled out by the main characters. > > > Sure he did. That's why he didn't kill Wood..."on account of I killed > > his mum." > > Oh wow, that makes it all peachy, ain't it? He doesn't even > understand why Wood wanted to kill him to the point that he needs to > justify why he won't kill him. Since when does not killing a human > becomes a prize that is awarded to spefic type of people? It should > have been a natural understanding that killing human is wrong. In self defense? Not in most nations. > > > What is that except an attempt at atonement. Of course, > > he's not going to admit that to Wood. Aside from the fact that he was > > in the middle of a fight with Wood and furious with the guy, Spike has > > serious macho-bravado issues and always has had. It was telling that > > he even admitted his feeling of guilt to Buffy. > > Buffy wasn't the one who lost her mother to someone she didn't know. > Wood was. Even if Spike was angry at that point, there's no stopping > him from coming back and at least tell Wood that he's sorry. He may have done it off screen, but I doubt it...it's that macho-bravado thing; Spike is still pretty insecure, especially with other men. I doubt Wood ever apologized to Spike for deliberately trying to turn him evil so that he (Wood) could kill him (Spike) either. > > > OK, but if you're going to do the whole series and not just the > > ending, Buffy was pretty perky for most of it. She had two rounds of > > depression: one after S2 which we didn't see much of, and one in S6 > > which we saw too much of. > > The problem with depression though, it's not something that one get > rids of easily. The last time I remembered, I don't see Buffy getting > any counselling help to get over her depression. It's just suddenly > disappear. I've seen people who have bouts of major depression later > on getting it back again just when they thought they'll never suffer > from one again. That's because Buffy doesn't have a problem with depression. She gets depressed when she has cause to be depressed, like when she has to kill her lover and send him to hell, or when she gets yanked out of heaven. This is a strong contrast with Natalie who, I agree, did have a problem with depression that was not triggered by specific events but by whatever causes clinical depression; opinions differ on this but in FK Natalie's was related to her obsession with and hatred of her own mortality. Natalie genuinely was a depressive type. > And Buffy obviously very prone to sadness and stress. > She was suffering from mild one around S4 after Angel left and she > found herself lonely in the campus. She suffered another one in S5 > after Joyce's death and Dawn getting kidnapped to the point that she > went coma. Which she snapped out of rapidly. The first is typical of at least 50% of all college freshman; are they all depressed? The second was another case where she had ample cause for depression, but actually what she experienced was more catatonia and a retreat from responsibility...from which she recovered with commendable speed. > > > And what little we know is already totally different. > > I wouldn't be that cocky yet. Wasn't it last year that people are so > happy at the early episodes of BTVS S7? Only later on they start > realising that everything goes down hill pretty much not long after a > couple of early episodes (mostly after "Conversation with dead > people"). We weren't talking about up or down hill. We were talking about whether or not AtS is likely to become a FK lookalike. It would be see how most of its characters, the past 4 seasons, or the spoilers for the new season could be seen as leading that way. himiko

2003-08-28 07:34:27-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


buffhunter@my-deja.com (Hunter) wrote in message news:<MPG.19a3aa16e2e5c22989b36@news.earthlink.net>... > In article <3f38d5a4$1@duster.adelaide.on.net>, > timken@internode.on.net.spam says... > > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > news:1faed770.0308112043.e237e69@posting.google.com... > > > S > > > > > > P > > > > > > O > > > > > > I > > > > > > L > > > > > > E > > > > > > R > > > > > > S > > > > > > P > > > > > > A > > > > > > C > > > > > > E > > > > > > On another thread I said it appeared to me that a whole summer hasn't > > > passed for the characters, and that the fifth season picks up only a > > > few days after "Home." I was right. It's specifically stated in > > > episode 5.2 that the destruction of Sunnydale was only 19 days ago. > > > > So episode 5.1 is somewhere before that?, as in less than 19 days after > > Sunnydale. Just curious, do you know how long between episode 1 and 2? I > > wonder this, because I recall one of the complaints Joss said he was going > > to address (and I assume it was The WB that wanted this changed) was that > > episodes would become more spaced once again, less serial. I suppose its to > > be expected that at least the first few shows be tighter together until they > > address the changes made to the show. Just hope they don't all end up being > > a really long couple weeks like season 4 (which I did like by the way) > ---- > I would say from the spoilers 5.1 starts 16 or 17 days after. 5.1 > seemed to have a two day feel. > > > > > Another point: Spike isn't exactly "tied" to Angel. Spike is tied to > > > Wolfram & Hart, because the amulet belongs to Wolfram & Hart. Spike, > > > in his incorporeal state, has mobility within Los Angeles. But if he > > > tries to go beyond the city limits he gets "bounced" back to the W&H > > > building. > > > > Hmmm, I wonder if there is some motivation behind W&H giving Angel the > > amulet in the first place? Other than the fact that he and W&H are supposed > > to have buddied up, is it possible they intended for Angel to wear the > > amulet knowing full well what would happen to the vamp who wore it, so that > > they might indeed 'capture' him in the same way Spike's been bound. > > Otherwise could they have been planning to catch Spike all along! Maybe I am > > looking for a W&H conspiracy where there is none... > ---- > I'm willing to bet that they hoped Angel would wear it. Even better, a > Slayer. Spike was I wild card I assume. As to conspiracies; this is > opposite of the real world. Conspiracies are to be assumed. With W&H > it is a given. Their whole firm is a conspiracy. > > > > > There are times when he leaves Angel's presence and goes roaming > > > around. But he can only go so far. > > > > > > When Spike asks about Buffy, he is told that Buffy is currently in > > > Europe. > > > > She didn't waste time leaving the country! Returned with Giles perhaps to > > help rebuild the council? > ---- > Make sense. Maybe along with Wood and Faith. > > > > > One interesting thing is that all the LA characters seem to know that > > > Spike saved the world by sacrificing his life, but at first only Angel > > > knows that Spike has a soul. Those who saw "Chosen" will of course > > > remember that in that episode Buffy told Angel that Spike had a soul. > > > But Angel has never mentioned that information to any of the others. > > > They've all been filled in on how the world was saved, but they > > > thought the world was saved by a soulless vampire. They're surprised > > > when they're finally told that Spike too has a soul. > > > > Curious. Sounds a little muddy, and I suspect its going to have to be seen > > to be understood. I got your general run down, but missed the backstory > > methinks. > --- > From Clairel's discription it is fairly straight forward; a vampire > Without a soul as W&H Inc. thought, saved the world. Wesley is > probably bewildered. Probably going into incorrect theories on how it > is now possible for a soulless vampire can give up his "life" for the > Greater Good. <snicker> Until that is Angel sets them straight. > > > > > If you've read other spoilers for this episode then you'll know that > > > when Angel opens the envelope and the amulet falls out, Spike emerges > > > burning and screaming--at first. The reason for this is now known: > > > it's because his death was being replayed in reverse. First he's > > > dust, then he's burning (painfully), then he's whole and no longer > > > burning. He appears as he did before he started getting all messed up > > > in "Chosen"--the classic Spike look, in other words. But he is > > > incorporeal. > > > > Am I wrong, or was Spike NOT screaming in pain when being consumed, been a > > while since I watched it, so I can't recall. Don't know why but I just seem > > to remember him being rather 'calm' while it all happened. > --- > He was laughing in the face of death. He probably started screaming > when the camera went to the far shot of him turning into a dust heap. > > > > Did he have the duster on? Damn, another detail I can't seem to remember from the eariler > > episode. Continuity wise I suppose he should have exactly the same cloths he > > was wearing in Chosen, and thus not change at all for that matter on Angel, > > at least until he gets form again. > --- > Correct. But I never understood why a vampire's cloths should turn to > dust as well (I know the real world reason; they did not want to have > cloths lying around the set, I don't know why seems like lazines to > me. Perhaps it was just cheaper to do it the way they do it) Oh, well, > I have to just put it net to the Incredible stretching pants of Bruce > Banner when he turns into the Hulk, a person 50 times his waste size. > :-) > > > > > Harmony is among the characters who come running in to Angel's office > > > to see what's happening. She assumes, in her typical ditzy way, that > > > Spike is there to resume his relationship with her. Of course he > > > isn't. But this sounds like it'll be a very funny scenelet between > > > the two of them. > > > > Yeah, I don't know about this. I have warmed somewhat to having Spike on the > > show, but Harmony still doesn't sit right. I just kinda feel Spike is too > > far past his Harmony thing. Having him interact with Harmony kind of brings > > back memories of old spike, the one who was still evil, rather reckless, and > > at times rather stupid in the way he kept going back for royal kickings of > > his ass. > --- > That is probably the memories Harmony have. > > > > > Spike, angry about his sudden involuntary appearance in Angel's > > > office, first finds out he's incorporeal by taking a swing at Angel, > > > and not connecting. The momentum leaves his wispy phantasmal form > > > standing *in* Angel's desk, which wasn't exactly what he expected. > > > > > > Fred does scientific tests, though, and determines that Spike's not > > > exactly a ghost. He isn't ectoplasmic. And she can sense his > > > brainwaves with scientific apparatus (which apparently you can't do > > > with true ectoplasmic ghosts). > > > > Kind of an 'out of phase' Star Trek type deal perhaps? Clearly is leading up > > to how they intend to make Spike 'Wholly Souly' (TM) again. > --- > Obviously. > > > > > Near the end of the episode, in a private conversation with Fred, > > > Spike confides to her that there are moments when he feels as if he's > > > straddling a chasm that's widening beneath him, and he's about to fall > > > down into Hell. I think this has something to do with the random > > > "blink-outs" that sometimes occur when Spike sort of fades out of > > > existence. These are different from him being "bounced back" from the > > > LA city limits, because these "blink outs" are occurring right inside > > > Angel's office, for no known reason. But Spike feels that some force > > > is trying to drag him down into Hell. Fred wants to help Spike. > > > > Me thinks that Fred and Spike could be being set up as a couple here. Fred > > is probably the exact type of person William would have fallen for, > > intelligent, somewhat shy etc. I can actually see this relationship working > > rather well. Fred seems like she wants to clamp onto someone else, and I > > don't think Wes would work now, after all the bad feeling it created between > > Gunn and Wes. Oh dear, what am I saying! I dunno, seems logical Spike fall > > for someone, Fred is kinda like Cecily (only nice) > > > > Tim Cunnings > > > ---- > Does Spike like the brainy type? Maybe he does now as he has now > reclaimed the part of himself that was William. At least we know he > still understands ancient Greek About how he is screaming when he comes back, they said it was a "reverse dusting".

2003-08-29 04:56:46-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308272135.678ea2a0@posting.google.com>... > I read the book last night. I enjoyed it. And I can now tell you > that you are 100% wrong on this. The novel does show a wide range of > different points of viw, alright...from pretty much all the characters > except Dracula. I just checked my copy and it actually is the annotated version of Bram Stoker's Dracula. So, it depends whether my book is actually the more complete version of the original novel that Bram Stoker decided to cut off from the original or if it's being add on by someone else. > In self defense? Not in most nations. People who self-defense against someone else do not normally stalk that someone else religiously. > He may have done it off screen, but I doubt it...it's that > macho-bravado thing; Spike is still pretty insecure, especially with > other men. I doubt Wood ever apologized to Spike for deliberately > trying to turn him evil so that he (Wood) could kill him (Spike) > either. Put yourself in Wood's shoe. Would you believe the idea of vampire with a soul and would you actually be able to forgive someone who killed your mother (regardless what the reason was)? > That's because Buffy doesn't have a problem with depression. She gets > depressed when she has cause to be depressed, like when she has to > kill her lover and send him to hell, or when she gets yanked out of > heaven. This is a strong contrast with Natalie who, I agree, did have > a problem with depression that was not triggered by specific events > but by whatever causes clinical depression; opinions differ on this > but in FK Natalie's was related to her obsession with and hatred of > her own mortality. Natalie genuinely was a depressive type. Well, I disagree with the idea that depression is something that wasn't triggered by specific event. At one point, there must be a starting point where a person starts to self-loathed him/herself and then it spiralling out of control into a clinical depression. Buffy is not there yet but in S6 she was almost there. > We weren't talking about up or down hill. We were talking about > whether or not AtS is likely to become a FK lookalike. In trying to please the Spike fans, there's likelihood that AtS suffers from the same fate that BTVS S7 suffered. If they're not careful, the story will be similar enough to the point that people who normally love the show starts to wonder if the show has any original idea anymore. And judging by the recent spoiler, ME doesn't seem to rule out repeating storyline even one that they've already used so many times. > It would be > see how most of its characters, the past 4 seasons, or the spoilers > for the new season could be seen as leading that way. The thing that Nick regretted the most in FK is the fact that he couldn't protect his mortal friends. If what Joss intended is to seperate them even further as he said in that scifi interview, then I can only see it leading to the same path that FK lead. With them being dead/in peril because Angel allows himself to be seperated from the very people who humanises him. Hasn't he learned from his mistake in the past couple of years that the people that he cares the most are the most likely to be targeted by his enemy? He should tried to get closer to them instead of getting away from them. But then again, it never cease to amaze me how ME insists on their character not learning from their mistake. It may make for a short run spectacle but in the long run, it ruins whatever vestiges of intelligence the characters may have.

2003-08-29 10:40:10-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308290356.592efdce@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308272135.678ea2a0@posting.google.com>... > > People who self-defense against someone else do not normally stalk > that someone else religiously. Spike did not stalk Wood, religiously or otherwise. It could be argued that Wood was somewhat stalking Spike, albeit in plain sight, what with turning up unnecessarily when they first tried to detrigger Spike...he wasn't there for any reason except to find out how to turn Spike into the monster he (Wood) needed him (Spike) to be so that he (Wood) could kill him (Spike). > > Put yourself in Wood's shoe. Would you believe the idea of vampire > with a soul Within the context of the Buffyverse and Wood's background, yes. In fact, Wood did believe Spike was now good. That's why he needed to trigger him. Wood couldn't kill what Spike had become...or at least he felt it would be wrong to do so...so he deliberately turned Spike back into what he had once been so that he could kill Spike with a clean conscience. > and would you actually be able to forgive someone who > killed your mother (regardless what the reason was)? Oh, I understand Wood's p.o.v. So did Buffy. So did Spike, for that matter. It's just that Spike also has a perfectly valid p.o.v. and it includes a good reason for withholding an apology to someone who tried to kill him in a particularly sleazy and dishonest manner. Spike knows he wronged Wood and he's genuinely sorry, hence the "on account of I killed his mum" exemption. But he also knows Wood did something really nasty to him, hence the "I don't give a piss about your mum" crack. > > > That's because Buffy doesn't have a problem with depression. She gets > > depressed when she has cause to be depressed, like when she has to > > kill her lover and send him to hell, or when she gets yanked out of > > heaven. This is a strong contrast with Natalie who, I agree, did have > > a problem with depression that was not triggered by specific events > > but by whatever causes clinical depression; opinions differ on this > > but in FK Natalie's was related to her obsession with and hatred of > > her own mortality. Natalie genuinely was a depressive type. > > Well, I disagree with the idea that depression is something that > wasn't triggered by specific event. At one point, there must be a > starting point where a person starts to self-loathed him/herself and > then it spiralling out of control into a clinical depression. Buffy > is not there yet but in S6 she was almost there. Many people think clinical depression is chemical, and certainly the success rate in treating it that way bears them out. Buffy definitely does not fit that view. She is a normally quite optimistic person who, on two very specific occasions, became very sad for very specific reasons. This is not true of Natalie who fit the depression profile very accurately. Even if you go with the self-loathing idea, Buffy was decidedly not there yet in S6 and I doubt she would ever have gotten there. The levels of self-loathing, self-blame, and other self-bad stuff she finally faced up to with Webs in CWDP were well within normal parameters for a young woman of her age who, after all, was facing some very real problems and dilemmas in her life. Also, she faced up to them quite well and while they weren't gone after that, she did show major signs of improvement. OK, one major relapse when she got thrown out, but that was, again, for a very specific reason and didn't last even one night. A few kind words from Spike and some useful information, and she was up being can-do Buffy again. We never saw anything like that kind of bounce back from Natalie. > > The thing that Nick regretted the most in FK is the fact that he > couldn't protect his mortal friends. We all regret that we can't protect our friends and loved ones better. It's a normal part of most human lives and so appears in the lives of any well-drawn fictional characters. > If what Joss intended is to > seperate them even further as he said in that scifi interview, then I > can only see it leading to the same path that FK lead. With them being > dead/in peril because Angel allows himself to be seperated from the > very people who humanises him. Hasn't he learned from his mistake in > the past couple of years that the people that he cares the most are > the most likely to be targeted by his enemy? He should tried to get > closer to them instead of getting away from them. He knows. But knowing and doing are two separate things. And again, this is a very realistic metaphor for most human lives when old friendships suffer because of new career and romantic interests. Unlike the Scoobs, at least the AI gang is still together physically in the same building, working for the same organization albeit in different divisions, and not (yet?) romantically involved with any outsiders...well, Wes was but no more. They're like old school friends who find themselves all working for the same company...headed up by one of them. Sounds like fun, but there are hierarchy issues and lots of other people which makes for friction and sometimes ends friendships for good. Add to the that the detail that W&H is evil, that the whole thing is based on Angel's dishonesty re. the mindwipe in the first place, and that Angel is a vampire who's only slowly learning to relate to others as it is, and you have a natural powder keg. Showing any of this happening easily or without major friction would be a mistake and it doesn't sound like it's one Joss intends to make. > But then again, it > never cease to amaze me how ME insists on their character not learning > from their mistake. Right. Because in real life people always learn from their mistakes the first time around, and never repeat them. > It may make for a short run spectacle but in the > long run, it ruins whatever vestiges of intelligence the characters > may have. I think it makes them realistically human. They do try and they are relatively bright. but they are also very emotional. They may "know" what is happening is not healthy (as Angel "knew" trying to kill Wes was unjustified), but doing it is something else. You don't get over issues like these characters have with each other and just generally simply by intellectually understanding them. Well, Wes likes to think he can, but he's proof positive that you can't. himiko

2003-08-30 04:38:49-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308290940.683f0c39@posting.google.com>... > Spike did not stalk Wood, religiously or otherwise. It could be > argued that Wood was somewhat stalking Spike, albeit in plain sight, > what with turning up unnecessarily when they first tried to detrigger > Spike...he wasn't there for any reason except to find out how to turn > Spike into the monster he (Wood) needed him (Spike) to be so that he > (Wood) could kill him (Spike). ..... *blinks* *blinks again* I was talking about Spike stalking Nikki...not Wood > Within the context of the Buffyverse and Wood's background, yes. In > fact, Wood did believe Spike was now good. That's why he needed to > trigger him. Wood couldn't kill what Spike had become...or at least > he felt it would be wrong to do so...so he deliberately turned Spike > back into what he had once been so that he could kill Spike with a > clean conscience. That's not the only way to see that scene. Spike is a vampire. What is the chances of Wood exacting his revenge if Spike is not slightly disturbed? Nil. Wood wouldn't have the power to beat Spike on normal occasion. Granted his manner was underhanded but I can't see him approaching Spike and tell him "you kill my mom and now I'm going to kill you" and think that Spike will allow him. > It's just that Spike also has a perfectly valid p.o.v. and it includes > a good reason for withholding an apology to someone who tried to kill > him in a particularly sleazy and dishonest manner. Spike knows he > wronged Wood and he's genuinely sorry, hence the "on account of I > killed his mum" exemption. But he also knows Wood did something > really nasty to him, hence the "I don't give a piss about your mum" > crack. Well, here's where our POV differs. In my opinion, Wood has more right than Spike to get his revenge. Wood is the one whose lives have been wrecked, not Spike. He deserves to get his revenge no matter what the method was. And he wasn't harming other people apart the person who was responsible for the death of his mother. It's very different from say, Holtz, who basically target Angel's loved ones. > Even if you go with the self-loathing idea, Buffy was decidedly not > there yet in S6 and I doubt she would ever have gotten there. The > levels of self-loathing, self-blame, and other self-bad stuff she > finally faced up to with Webs in CWDP were well within normal > parameters for a young woman of her age who, after all, was facing > some very real problems and dilemmas in her life. The fact that she has a need to see a professional help is IMO, a tell tale point that she's not alright. > He knows. But knowing and doing are two separate things. And again, > this is a very realistic metaphor for most human lives when old > friendships suffer because of new career and romantic interests. > Unlike the Scoobs, at least the AI gang is still together physically > in the same building, working for the same organization albeit in > different divisions, and not (yet?) romantically involved with any > outsiders... What are you talking about? The majority of the Scoobs were living under Buffy's roof in S7 or at least spend the majority of their time in that small house. I don't see what's different here. It's another recycled storyline. > well, Wes was but no more. They're like old school > friends who find themselves all working for the same company...headed > up by one of them. Sounds like fun, but there are hierarchy issues > and lots of other people which makes for friction and sometimes ends > friendships for good. Hmm, wonder why I feel that I've seen/heard this story before? Oh, that's right! Because it's been told beforehand in multitude of ways and storylines either on the BTVS or AtS. God, I'll kill to see one where the friendship actually becomes stronger instead of wavering. Especially since that's the part why I like AtS to begin with. It was the storyline of Angel/Cordy/Wes becoming closer and trusting each other what made AtS so attractive to me. But of course, since the trend these days is to show depressing storylines, unsupportive relationship between friends, I'll get to relive this same garbage all over again. > Add to the that the detail that W&H is evil, that the whole thing is > based on Angel's dishonesty re. the mindwipe in the first place, and > that Angel is a vampire who's only slowly learning to relate to others > as it is, and you have a natural powder keg. Showing any of this > happening easily or without major friction would be a mistake and it > doesn't sound like it's one Joss intends to make. They could have made this entire thing more interesting and from an angle that hasn't been used before hand as opposed to sprung it all on Angel by making all of his friends distrusting him even more. Angel could, for example, chose to tell it to one of his friends like Wes or Lorne (what's the point of Lorne being an empath to begin with? Shouldn't he be able to read Angel's mind when he's not aware of it? And how about the fact that Wes stole Connor to begin with? Doesn't Angel ever think sometimes that of all people maybe Wes will understand why he's doing this?), making him to be not the only person who knows about it. Then when the friction happens, he's not the only person who has to endure the burden of the revelation. But of course, such thoughts never occured to ME because showing the groups even more fractured is much more fun. > Right. Because in real life people always learn from their mistakes > the first time around, and never repeat them. Most people learn after their first and second mistakes. How do you think some people manage to get into a powerful position in a company in relatively short time without having to kiss ass? Because they are very attentive of what they're doing and they learn from their first or second mistake. But Angel and the gang have made many mistakes and yet none of them are the wiser out of it. It's one thing to ask the viewers to give the show a stretch of credibility but this is just too much to ask for. Like you said Angel and the gang are not stupid. In fact some of them are quite intelligent and yet I have rarely seen them to not get caught up in their emotional issues and use a clear judgement when it comes to this kinds of things.

2003-08-30 09:58:38-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030830084036.19586.00000109@mb-m20.news.cs.com>... > He did harm the others, since he was removing someone who was prepared to fight > to the death for Buffy. That person could have easily been Angel. Thus, setting up an interesting storyline for S5. Or even better. How about letting Buffy and other slayers to win the fight without the help of deus ex machina object? > Without Spike, they would have been unable to win > against the uber-vamps. And exactly my issue with the episode. For all of its supposed feminism allegory, at the end of the day, the world is still saved by a man's sacrifice. They didn't allow Buffy and the other slayers to get the glory even after sharing the power and all. They almost got beaten again if it wasn't for Spike's deus ex machina bright light. > I almost wish Buffy had killed him; except he wasn't worth the pain it would > cause her. Wow, isn't that nice of you to want a human being to be killed just because he wants a vampire who has wrecked his life to die. Meanwhile a vampire who has sinned and caused havocs on other people's life somehow deserves forgiveness. > >The fact that she has a need to see a professional help is IMO, a tell > >tale point that she's not alright. > > > I wouldn't exactly call Webs a professional; sure, he took a few classes in > psychology, Read my sentence again Sandy. At which point I suggested that Webbs is a professional? I said "she has a need to see professional help". Granted I should have been clearer and saying "she has a need to see a professional help but because she can't afford one, she got a vampire shrink instead". > but he wasn't really qualified to help anyone. He really just > provided a sympathetic ear, allowing Buffy to discuss her issues with someone > other than her loved ones. And that's just what I don't get about the character. That's what friends are for. Buffy used to be able to talk to her friends even when they are at odds with one another. Somehow that's not possible anymore so now she goes to vampires for consoling. I can just see Angel doing the same thing this season for the simple reason that ME likes to recycle their ideas and because it's the option that is the least interesting of all. Instead of running to Wes or Lorne for sympathetic ear, he will instead talk to someone he least likely want to talk to (Eve, Spike, or I won't be surprised if it turns out to be Harmony). No wonder they don't get anything solved at all. Because these characters tend to run away instead of learning from their mistake and talk to one another to resolve things at its root.

2003-08-30 12:40:36+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 8/30/2003 7:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0308300338.4816d8ab@posting.google.com> > >himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message >news:<c7902983.0308290940.683f0c39@posting.google.com>... > >That's not the only way to see that scene. Spike is a vampire. What >is the chances of Wood exacting his revenge if Spike is not slightly >disturbed? Nil. Wood wouldn't have the power to beat Spike on normal >occasion. Granted his manner was underhanded but I can't see him >approaching Spike and tell him "you kill my mom and now I'm going to >kill you" and think that Spike will allow him. > >> It's just that Spike also has a perfectly valid p.o.v. and it includes >> a good reason for withholding an apology to someone who tried to kill >> him in a particularly sleazy and dishonest manner. Spike knows he >> wronged Wood and he's genuinely sorry, hence the "on account of I >> killed his mum" exemption. But he also knows Wood did something >> really nasty to him, hence the "I don't give a piss about your mum" >> crack. > >Well, here's where our POV differs. In my opinion, Wood has more >right than Spike to get his revenge. Wood is the one whose lives have >been wrecked, not Spike. He deserves to get his revenge no matter >what the method was. And he wasn't harming other people apart the >person who was responsible for the death of his mother. It's very >different from say, Holtz, who basically target Angel's loved ones. > He did harm the others, since he was removing someone who was prepared to fight to the death for Buffy. Without Spike, they would have been unable to win against the uber-vamps. And he wasn't only sneaky and underhanded to Spike; what about Buffy? Here Wood is, offering to help, to care for someone, and he does this! I almost wish Buffy had killed him; except he wasn't worth the pain it would cause her. >The fact that she has a need to see a professional help is IMO, a tell >tale point that she's not alright. > I wouldn't exactly call Webs a professional; sure, he took a few classes in psychology, but he wasn't really qualified to help anyone. He really just provided a sympathetic ear, allowing Buffy to discuss her issues with someone other than her loved ones. Sandra

2003-08-30 17:45:49-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030830155255.19971.00000289@mb-m28.news.cs.com>... > If it had been Angel, he'd be gone again; sort of like he was at the start of > last season, when he was under the sea. > > Too repetitive. Hah! Like that ever stop Mutant Enemy! Doesn't ep.5.5 ring a bell for you? "Something Blue"? "Spin the Bottle"? "Tabula Rasa"? All are variations of the same story. ME never hesitate to repeat their plotline before. Why should it be different with this one? Besides, if they don't want to repeat the storyline, there's the option of not using a deus ex machina object whatsoever. > Except that SPike needed to go out in a blaze of glory. No, he doesn't. That's the thing. His sacrifice was merely needed to draw sympathy from the viewers but from story POV, it detracts from the story of slayerhood and their role in the story. > But I don't feel his sacrifice detracted from the SITs' empowerment at all. And I feel it detracts badly from it. The show is called Buffy the Vampire Slayer and yet at the end of the show instead of her and the slayer she shares her power with who saved the world, it was a male vampire who wears a deus ex machina object that saved the world. > NOt just because of that, but because Wood throughout showed himself to be > sneaky and treacherous. No, he wasn't. He was an okay guy except when it comes to Spike. Which gee, I wonder why? > And no, I wouldn't want a human being to die, which is > why I said I ALMOST wish! Semantics, aren't they useful sometimes? > If all of them deserve forgiveness, why not a vampire who chose to acquiire a > soul? Yes, whose last word was "that bitch was going to get what she deserves". The same word he uttered with same contempt as he left Sunnydale to search for that demon magician. > That is true to a certain extent; but sometimes it is easier to talk to a > stranger than to the people involved. Hmm, I wonder why I never done that before? Oh, because it's insane and unrealistic! You just don't go to a total stranger in a bus and say "My job sucks and I have to support my younger brother through university". Nor will I be crazy enough to tell my enemy or my former enemy that I have such problem because then they may used it to their advantage. Then who do I tell? Friends, of course. Friends, who even if I have disagreement with beforehand, will gladly throw away the disagreement to help me with my problem.

2003-08-30 19:52:55+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 8/30/2003 12:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0308300858.2c46803e@posting.google.com> > >That person could have easily been Angel. Thus, setting up an >interesting storyline for S5. Or even better. How about letting >Buffy and other slayers to win the fight without the help of deus ex >machina object? > If it had been Angel, he'd be gone again; sort of like he was at the start of last season, when he was under the sea. Too repetitive. >And exactly my issue with the episode. For all of its supposed >feminism allegory, at the end of the day, the world is still saved by >a man's sacrifice. They didn't allow Buffy and the other slayers to >get the glory even after sharing the power and all. They almost got >beaten again if it wasn't for Spike's deus ex machina bright light. > Except that SPike needed to go out in a blaze of glory. But I don't feel his sacrifice detracted from the SITs' empowerment at all. >Wow, isn't that nice of you to want a human being to be killed just >because he wants a vampire who has wrecked his life to die. >> NOt just because of that, but because Wood throughout showed himself to be sneaky and treacherous. And no, I wouldn't want a human being to die, which is why I said I ALMOST wish! But certain humans I would find it hard to shed a tear for, like Paul Bernardo, for instance. > Meanwhile >a vampire who has sinned and caused havocs on other people's life >somehow deserves forgiveness. > Yes. Just as much as a Slayer who betrayed her legacy and became a hired assassin. Or a witch who skinned a man alive, almost killed her only friends, and nearly destroyed the world. Or a demon who killed thousands and wrecked their lives because she was a woman scorned. If all of them deserve forgiveness, why not a vampire who chose to acquiire a soul? >And that's just what I don't get about the character. That's what >friends are for. Buffy used to be able to talk to her friends even >when they are at odds with one another. Somehow that's not possible >anymore so now she goes to vampires for consoling. I can just see >Angel doing the same thing this season for the simple reason that ME >likes to recycle their ideas and because it's the option that is the >least interesting of all. Instead of running to Wes or Lorne for >sympathetic ear, he will instead talk to someone he least likely want >to talk to (Eve, Spike, or I won't be surprised if it turns out to be >Harmony). No wonder they don't get anything solved at all. Because >these characters tend to run away instead of learning from their >mistake and talk to one another to resolve things at its root. > > That is true to a certain extent; but sometimes it is easier to talk to a stranger than to the people involved. Sandra

2003-08-31 18:12:02-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030831163843.14223.00000226@mb-m18.news.cs.com>... > > > The show is called Buffy the > >Vampire Slayer and yet at the end of the show instead of her and the > >slayer she shares her power with who saved the world, it was a male > >vampire who wears a deus ex machina object that saved the world. > > > I don't see it that way, because everyone helped. > Anya DIDN'T save the world technically, but her sacrifice was just as important > as Spike's. And Buffy's. And Willow's. And the SiTs. Everyone. Buffy didn't know what Spike and the amulet were going to do. She and Willow powered up the SiTs so they could all save the world. Anya, Dawn, Xander, and Wood held the line to keep the Ubies contained so the SiTs could do that. In fact, they didn't have to fight to the bitter end because of the unexpected Spike/amulet solution, but they were ready to. Saving the world has always been something of a group effort on BTVS even when one person does more than the others. S1: Buffy couldn't have done it without Xander because she'd have been dead, and Xander couldn't have done it with Angel helping him track Buffy. S2: This comes the closest as a full Buffy saves the world ending. Even so Buffy couldn't have done it without Whistler and the sword, not forgetting Spike pitching in unexpectedly. I think she probably could have done it without Willow, but sending Angelus to hell just wouldn't have hurt as much. S3: Can we say cast of thousands? Buffy was the bait and did the running but everyone at SHS did their bit and so did a whole lot of explosives. S4: The SuperBuffy. Nuff said. S5: Again a group effort. To the degree that anyone saved the world, Giles did so by killing Glory. Buffy saved her sister, not the world. S6: Xander saved the world. Buffy had a flowerpiphany. > > >Hmm, I wonder why I never done that before? Oh, because it's insane > >and unrealistic! You just don't go to a total stranger in a bus and > >say "My job sucks and I have to support my younger brother through > >university". > > It's been my experience that there are plenty of people who do exactly that. No kidding. Bus rides are too short, but planes and trains, you bet. People often tell me their stories, some of them embarrasingly personal. I'm safe, you see. Once the trip ends, they'll never see me again. I've been known to do this to others from time to time too. It's like a free shrink. Buffy did the same thing with Webs. She was absolutely free to tell him anything, knowing it would dust with him. We all do it when we seek professional help for emotional or situational problems. Partly we trust these folks with our issues because of their training, but also because they swear not to tell anyone, and once we're done with whatever the issue was, we don't have to see them ever again either. > > > Nor will I be crazy enough to tell my enemy or my > >former enemy that I have such problem because then they may used it to > >their advantage. Then who do I tell? Friends, of course. Friends, > >who even if I have disagreement with beforehand, will gladly throw > >away the disagreement to help me with my problem. > > > But what if your friends are part of the problem? And your former enemy isn't...either part of the problem or an enemy any longer. > Certainly not the friends who caused the problem, especially if they did so quite unwittingly and with the best intentions in the world as the Scoobs did. The one really strong, good thing Buffy did in S6 was trying to protect her friends from knowing what they'd done to her. It was a poor move psychologically, but it showed a lot of solid character and guts. Certainly more than that guy who let his emotions run away with him and tried to smother a friend who he knew had only tried to help. himiko

2003-08-31 20:38:43+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 8/30/2003 8:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0308301645.76c7eb09@posting.google.com> > >Hah! Like that ever stop Mutant Enemy! Doesn't ep.5.5 ring a bell >for you? "Something Blue"? "Spin the Bottle"? "Tabula Rasa"? All >are variations of the same story. ME never hesitate to repeat their >plotline before. Why should it be different with this one? Because you would be starting two consecutive seasons in the exact same way! Sure there's some repetition; after all, there is nothing new under the sun. But that would just be a retread, imo. > > The show is called Buffy the >Vampire Slayer and yet at the end of the show instead of her and the >slayer she shares her power with who saved the world, it was a male >vampire who wears a deus ex machina object that saved the world. > I don't see it that way, because everyone helped. Anya DIDN'T save the world technically, but her sacrifice was just as important as Spike's. >> NOt just because of that, but because Wood throughout showed himself to be >> sneaky and treacherous. > >No, he wasn't. He was an okay guy except when it comes to Spike. >Which gee, I wonder why?> No, he wasn't. Let's consider Wood a minute: he hired Buffy under false pretenses. So he's a liar. He is unsure whether he'll help with the Apocalypse. So he's a coward. He tries to stake Spike in the back, just after Spike saves his life! So he's an ingrate. He asks Buffy out, then tells her it ISN'T a case of her job being at stake. So he's a sexual harasser. He plays on Giles' disapproval of Buffy's affection for Spike. So he's a manipulator. He fires Buffy, telling her it's the mission that matters. He undermines Buffy to put Faith in the leadership role. He pretends to want to help them, when he is really trying to get a free shot at Spike. So he's a spiteful sleaze. Wood was never an okay guy, imo. In fact, I think the final arc would have been better if Wood and Caleb had turned out to be one and the same; but I expect JW wanted Nathan Fillion to get some extra work out of it. >> If all of them deserve forgiveness, why not a vampire who chose to acquiire >a >> soul? > >Yes, whose last word was "that bitch was going to get what she >deserves". The same word he uttered with same contempt as he left >Sunnydale to search for that demon magician. > And why did he go? To get a soul. For her, so that she would love him back. >Hmm, I wonder why I never done that before? Oh, because it's insane >and unrealistic! You just don't go to a total stranger in a bus and >say "My job sucks and I have to support my younger brother through >university". It's been my experience that there are plenty of people who do exactly that. > Nor will I be crazy enough to tell my enemy or my >former enemy that I have such problem because then they may used it to >their advantage. Then who do I tell? Friends, of course. Friends, >who even if I have disagreement with beforehand, will gladly throw >away the disagreement to help me with my problem. > But what if your friends are part of the problem? Then maybe, just maybe, you might find a detached opinion to be useful. Sandra

2003-09-01 02:05:38-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030831163843.14223.00000226@mb-m18.news.cs.com>... > Because you would be starting two consecutive seasons in the exact same way! > Sure there's some repetition; after all, there is nothing new under the sun. > But that would just be a retread, imo. Pfft, if they have done this correctly, it wouldn't have looked like a repetition. Certainly not more than ep 5.5 looking more like "Something Blue" or "Spin the Bottle" or "Tabula Rasa". > No, he wasn't. > Let's consider Wood a minute: > he hired Buffy under false pretenses. > So he's a liar. How is it that he hired Buffy under false pretenses? > He is unsure whether he'll help with the Apocalypse. > So he's a coward. So are hundreds of people who fleed from Sunnydale. What's new? It's human nature to fear something that looks dangerous. > He tries to stake Spike in the back, just after Spike saves his life! > So he's an ingrate. Heh, you try reasoning your feelings for a person who killed your mother. Regardless of whatever feel of thanks you may have for him/her after he/she saved you, your vengeance feelings will overweight your rational mind. > He asks Buffy out, then tells her it ISN'T a case of her job being at stake. > So he's a sexual harasser. He was joking and Buffy agreed to go on a date with him. > He plays on Giles' disapproval of Buffy's affection for Spike. > So he's a manipulator. BS. Giles is not a brainless robot who doesn't know what he's doing. He does believe that Spike is a danger to the mission, especially after all of the first evil bruhaha. > He fires Buffy, telling her it's the mission that matters. Yes, that's one wrong thing that he did which even I can't agree. > He undermines Buffy to put Faith in the leadership role. Uhm, he wasn't the only one who did this. Everyone wasn't feeling right about Buffy's decision after they were almost slaughtered a couple of days ago. > >Yes, whose last word was "that bitch was going to get what she > >deserves". The same word he uttered with same contempt as he left > >Sunnydale to search for that demon magician. > > > And why did he go? > To get a soul. > For her, so that she would love him back. We don't know that. At least the show has so far never really told us as whether or not he got the soul because the demon tricked him or because he really intended to get a soul. Because the word "the bitch is going to get what she deserves" doesn't exactly sound like he's going to try to make Buffy happy. > It's been my experience that there are plenty of people who do exactly that. Yes, most of them are in straight jackets and institutionalised. Or paying a hefty lots of money to talk to people who could barely care about your problem. > But what if your friends are part of the problem? Then you talk to them, tell them the problem, and try to find a solution. Because otherwise things will never be resolved. You can talk to other people about it but it'll not resolve the problem. You can run away and pretend as if everything is all right but it'll not resolve the problem. Only when you actually confront the problem and get into the root of things, then you'll actually resolve things.

2003-09-01 02:16:29-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308311712.45eb50e8@posting.google.com>... > And Buffy's. And Willow's. And the SiTs. Everyone. Buffy didn't > know what Spike and the amulet were going to do. She and Willow > powered up the SiTs so they could all save the world. Anya, Dawn, > Xander, and Wood held the line to keep the Ubies contained so the SiTs > could do that. In fact, they didn't have to fight to the bitter end > because of the unexpected Spike/amulet solution, but they were ready > to. Saving the world has always been something of a group effort on > BTVS even when one person does more than the others. Geez, Understand that part. But this is a season which supposed to show us how the shared female empowerment change the future of the world. What we saw at "Chosen' ain't that because it hardly get a result out of it. Their moment was stolen by amulet ex machina. > No kidding. Bus rides are too short, but planes and trains, you bet. > People often tell me their stories, some of them embarrasingly > personal. I'm safe, you see. Once the trip ends, they'll never see > me again. I've been known to do this to others from time to time too. > It's like a free shrink. Did it solve anything for them? No. What you did was simply providing an escape for them. While what they really need is to confront the problem at its source. And they're lucky you're not some nutcase who then becomes obsessed about their live or some terorrist who'll then take a vested interest in your friends and family. > Certainly not the friends who caused the problem, especially if they > did so quite unwittingly and with the best intentions in the world as > the Scoobs did. The one really strong, good thing Buffy did in S6 was > trying to protect her friends from knowing what they'd done to her. And the source of her bigger problem later on. If Buffy had honestly admitted her anger back then, there could be some talk instead of them avoiding each other pretending things are okay. > It was a poor move psychologically, but it showed a lot of solid > character and guts. No, the only thing that it showed was Buffy running away from her problem. She couldn't face her friends and treat them like her friends and tell them when she has a problem with them. >Certainly more than that guy who let his emotions > run away with him and tried to smother a friend who he knew had only > tried to help. At least Angel let his emotions out and expressed it (albeit in a negative way). But after that, he's completely run out of anger and able to weigh things out and as a result, he was able to connect with Wes faster than Buffy was able to connect with Willow again. They still have a long ways to go, but I'll much rather if their friends lock the two in a room, let the two have another screaming match at one another then allow them to cool down and talk about things like two adults who are not running away from their problems. If these are really adults we're talking about not some 17 year old teenagers running away from their problem, then I'll expect that Angel and Wes to at least be able to do this.

2003-09-01 03:04:09+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (sweick@aol.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote: >snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message >news:<20030830084036.19586.00000109@mb-m20.news.cs.com>... > >> He did harm the others, since he was removing someone who was prepared to >fight >> to the death for Buffy. > >That person could have easily been Angel. > >> Without Spike, they would have been unable to win >> against the uber-vamps. > >And exactly my issue with the episode. For all of its supposed >feminism allegory, at the end of the day, the world is still saved by >a man's sacrifice. Am I the only one remembering that it was Wolfram and Hart that actually "saved the world"? Now which superbeing was to wear it is fairly much meaningless cause it could have been almost anyone on the show. Well anyone not named Xander. Stephen Weick Eeyore is God. Murphy was an optimist. No good deed shall go unpunished.

2003-09-01 03:20:49-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Shuggie <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com>)


In article <49cf8df3.0309010105.1416ad9e@posting.google.com>, Daniel Garten says... > <snip> >> And why did he go? >> To get a soul. >> For her, so that she would love him back. > >We don't know that. At least the show has so far never really told us >as whether or not he got the soul because the demon tricked him or >because he really intended to get a soul.

2003-09-01 06:05:13-05:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


Daniel Garten wrote: >> He undermines Buffy to put Faith in the leadership role. > > Uhm, he wasn't the only one who did this. Everyone wasn't feeling > right about Buffy's decision after they were almost slaughtered a > couple of days ago. Yes he was. He's the one that told Buffy to test the girls by taking them into battle. Than he turns it around and makes Buffy out to be terrible when she followed his idea. Dirty Girls BUFFY Some of these girl haven't even been tested in battle. ROBIN WOOD Then, I guess, maybe you should test them. > >>> Yes, whose last word was "that bitch was going to get what she >>> deserves". The same word he uttered with same contempt as he left >>> Sunnydale to search for that demon magician. >>> >> And why did he go? >> To get a soul. >> For her, so that she would love him back. > > We don't know that. At least the show has so far never really told us > as whether or not he got the soul because the demon tricked him or > because he really intended to get a soul. Because the word "the bitch > is going to get what she deserves" doesn't exactly sound like he's > going to try to make Buffy happy. The show has told as many, many, many times to the point it got repentative. Lessons Mayor: So what'd you think? You'd get your soul back and everything'd be Jim Dandy? Beneath You BUFFY Your soul. SPIKE (laughs) Bit worse for lack of use. Buffy turns to face him. BUFFY You got your soul back. How? SPIKE It's what you wanted, right? (looking at the ceiling) It's what you wanted, right? (presses his fingers to his temples, looks down, and walks toward the altar). And-and now everybody's in here, talking. Everything I did...everyone I- and him... and it... the other, the thing beneath-beneath you. It's here too. Everybody. They all just tell me go... go... (looks back over his shoulder to Buffy) to hell. BUFFY Why? Why would you do that- SPIKE Buffy, shame on you. Why does a man do what he mustn't? For her. To be hers. To be the kind of man who would nev- (looks away) to be a kind of man. Him BUFFY (sighs) For the record, Spike knew how wrong it was. That's why he went away. DAWN But to get a soul? Like that would make him a better man? Xander had a soul when he stood Anya up at the altar. And now he says he still wants her? I just don't think it's the school basement that's making people crazy. Sleeper SPIKE (incensed) No, not the chip! Not the chip, dammit. You honestly think I'd go to the end of the underworld and back to get my soul and then- (sighs, shakes head) Buffy, I can barely live with what I did. It haunts me. All of it. If you think that I would add to the body count now, you are crazy. Never Leave Me SPIKE Oh, things have been wonky since I got back, ever since- BUFFY You got your soul. SPIKE (chuckles) Figured that's what it was like, it'd been so long since I had one. BUFFY How did you do it? How'd you get your soul back? SPIKE Saw a man about a girl. (sighs) I went to seek a legend out. Traveled to the other side of the world, made a deal with a demon. Get It Done SPIKE I did this for you. The soul, the changes-it's what you wanted. I can go on if you'd like. Jul

2003-09-01 16:49:31-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308252015.6da51b4c@posting.google.com>... > mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0308240858.421118@posting.google.com>.. > Because we're not given another POV that disagrees with Buffy apart > from that of Giles and Wood. No other Scoobies now about it, there > wasn't anyone who called on Buffy for her action of slamming the door > in front of a person who's interested in her well being and the safety > of the entire group. We're not given a POV agreeing with Buffy either. No one calls Giles on trying to get Spike killed or seems to hold it against him. Not even Spike. > > I mean, you complain > > that she was unfair and biased (which I agree she was to some extent) > > but then you seem to think that we're supposed to adopt her POV with > > respect to Giles. WTF? > > Who said I want her to adopt the same POV to Giles? Read my sentence > again. I want her to be a fair and non-bias party in this particular > issue. No, you read my sentence again. I'm asking why, when you feel that Buffy was in the wrong, as you stated, you nevertheless conclude that the writers wanted US (the audience) to adopt HER POV? > > Also, it would've been ridiculous to keep Buffy as "a fair and > > non-bias [sic] party in the Giles vs Spike issues." She had some > > strong, albeit undefined, feelings for Spike, which were obviously > > affecting her judgement. > > So all of those 5+ years of her being trained by Giles, Giles > protecting her, being there for her when she needs him don't mean > anything anymore to the point that she lets a feeling that she's not > even sure herself to cloud her judgment? She "lets" it cloud her judgement?? Do your feelings only cloud your judgement when you let them? In my experience, it's feelings that one is repressing or ignoring that tend to be judgement-clouding. That was certainly the case with everyone in LMPTM. As for Giles having trained, protected and been there for Buffy - does that mean she must now invariably defer to him when they're in disagreement? She has her own mind (right or wrong) and she's not a child anymore. I owe my parents every bit as much as Buffy owes Giles, if not more, but I certainly don't think this gives them the right to make major decisions, which would strongly impact MY life, behind my back. > > (except for Spike. He never claims to be > > objective or tries to rationalize and justify his actions, which is a > > big part of why he's my favourite character). > > ROTFLMAO. Yes, of course, everyone was wrong except for poor Spike. I never said he was right. He was a right asshole through much of this episode. > He didn't rationalise his actions? You don't think he was > rationalising to Wood about Nikki? It was rationalising on his part > even though he knows he did took a person's life regardless of the > circumstances he was in. No, he didn't and no, I don't. He offered no excuses, explanations or justifications for killing Nikki, hence he wasn't "rationalizing" anything. > > Since I clearly see why both Buffy and Giles were "right/wrong" in > > LMPTM (see above), I can't understand why you would choose to > > interpret these scenes in a way that obviously upsets you. > > What do you mean I choose to interpret these scenes in a way that > upsets me? I don't choose this way. I have no choice in how I see > this. More than one interpretation of these scenes and their intent is clearly possible. You keep arguing for precisely the one that you hate the most, dismissing everything that would support a reading more to your liking. > It just appear to me that way when I saw that episode. > Obviously you don't see it that way because you have an attachment to > Spike. Well, I don't have any feelings or attachment to him. I can > ask the reverse to you why do you see it the scene as you do instead > of how other people sees it? My attachment to Spike allows me to see that Giles had a point and Buffy was unreasonable in letting Spike run around unrestrained before they got to the bottom of his conditioning; that those who wanted to kill my beloved Spikey had valid reasons for feeling that way; that the writers very much intended for the whole thing to be debatable. This interpretation makes me quite happy with the ep, its meaning and everyone's characterization. Your dislike of Spike, however, seems to compel you to view any scenario wherein Spike and Buffy are not completely wrong and Giles and Wood completely right as entirely skewed against the latter two and, therefore, hate the episode, be unhappy with all the characterizations and deeply resent the writers. I think I like my biases much better. > Besides, > do you really think it's fun for me to do this? To be mauled by, God > knows how many, Spike fans everytime I speak of something that they > don't like? Ever consider that maybe it's not your opinions that get you "mauled," but the way you express them? > In fact, I doubt none of us who feels that Spike marginalised other > characters in S6-7 made this stuff up. Thinking that Spike got too much attention and others not enough is one thing (can't say I entirely disagree, as a matter of fact). Becoming convinced that the writers are intentionally making everyone look bad and ruining the show just to make the character you loathe look good and letting that affect your reading of said show to the point that you can't see what you *want* to see even when I and others *do* see it, is quite another. > > Is it the story itself you've a problem with or the way some people > > perceive it? > > Well there's correlation between the two. For you, clearly. But I don't see why there should be. > Because the story is told > in a certain way, people do get certain impression from it. People get very *different* impressions from this particular story and the way it was told. Some people love Spike and think Buffy's a bitch. Others love Buffy and think Spike's a waste of skin. Others (the majority, I suspect) like both characters, despite their flaws. What puzzles me is why you would decide that it's the impression you most despise that is the "correct" one? > And when > SMG, who have played Buffy for 7 years feel that her character has > become unsympathetic to the point that she asked for a change in S7, > you must be wondering are they trying to make us hate the title > character or sympathise with her? Here's a novel idea: maybe they want us all to argue about it and make up our own minds?! > Neither am I but unfortunately taking her in the direction that the > writers took her opens her to insults and name slandering such as > 'cold-hearted b*tch', etc. And many of these come from Spike fans who > feel that Buffy doesn't give him enough break. There's no shortage of insults directed at Spike either but you don't see me deciding that the writers must therefore hate Spike and want us to hate him too (although there are some Spike fans who do. They mystify me as well). Different people are going to see things differently, even when they're a lot less (deliberately) open to interpretation than BtVS or ME's true intent. Everyone's subjective. Get used to it. > For those of us who > loves Buffy, what do you think we think when a character we've > followed for 6+ years has now been turned into an insult fodder so > that a new character can look good instead? Here we go again. ME has deliberately trashed their heroine, their pop culture icon, the backbone of their franchise, JUST to make Spike look good. Right. Of course they simply HAD to make Spike look good at any cost, since... Why again? > > You're kinda' predictable, y'know that? ;) > > No, I don't. If I do then I'll be a mind-reader. Self-knowledge doesn't require telepathy. ;) > > Wait, I thought ME ruined the ending with all the half-assed pandering > > to both B/S and B/A shippers. Now you think Buffy actually chose Spike > > over Angel? > > Well, just because the writers were pandering to both groups, it > doesn't mean they didn't gravitate more to one group or another. Look, either Buffy chose Spike over Angel or it was ambiguous because the writers wanted to pander to all shipper groups, so it's not an example of "secondary character gets the girl." You can't have it both ways. > > > Is this the same book I read? > > > > No, I would guess not. > > Let me assure you that I wasn't the one who wrote that long winded > paragraph above. Huh? Your question was about Interview with a Vampire, as was my answer. I'm not sure what the (snipped) paragraph I wrote about Dracula had to do with it or what your little non-sequitur barb was supposed to mean. > I thought you'll never get it. See, this and the above is exactly what I mean about people responding negatively to your style rather than your opinions. > And instead of > fanwanking that's because Angel can't commit, I simply stick with > what's obvious: the writers need to come up with reasons to seperate > the two. Any reasons will do. "Can't commit" is oversimplifying what I said. Which is hardly a fanwank. It was made quite explicit in the very first episode of AtS that Angel had a dangerous tendency to isolate himself emotionally - that's why Doyle was sent to him. Did you miss that bit? Moreover, Angel's struggle to grow out of that - to not pull away and shut down when things get rough, let himself love and care (about people, not just abstract ideals) and, more importantly, be loved and cared about - has been a major theme throughout the show. > I did make up my mind. Maybe you need to read more closely. Gah. > As far > as reasons go, it's a lame one but since the writers are trying to > keep them seperate, his reason of not wanting to piss of his friend is > far less lame than the inconsistent one where he can't be with Buffy > because he's vampire at one point and then because he's human at > another point. a) Speaking of fanwanks, can you tell me where exactly is was said or even vaguely implied that Angel had to leave Buffy in Forever in order to not piss off his friends? b) Just because the writers have meta-narrative reasons for wanting to keep Buffy and Angel apart, it doesn't mean that they didn't come up with a very consistently portrayed and psychologically sound explanation (i.e. Angel's Issues) for why their relationship couldn't work out. You're free to dismiss it, of course, if you'd rather complain about how contrived and inconsistent it all was. > > a) Happily ever after (for the lead) endings are clich� these days > > because they're such a hackneyed staple of American entertainment. > > That's what a clich� is: something that's painfully commonplace. I > > remember being (pleasantly) shocked at some Julia Roberts romantic > > comedy when she *didn't* get the guy. It was completely unexpected. > > And now you choose to talk about romantic comedy just when you said I > shouldn't mix a vampire flick with romantic comedy. You said that happy endings were not necessarily clich� and that sad endings could be just as clich�, because they've all been done before. I was simply trying to explain the difference between "done before" (which everything has been) and "clich�," as I see it. Nothing to do with the argument against mixing genres and clich�s. > > Really?! Fluffy romances which end in bloodshed? I'm almost curious. > > *nods*. Lots, actually. Allow me to be sceptical. BTW, stories about hitmen or mobsters or such, which include - but do not exclusively revolve around - a romance, do not qualifiy as "fluffy romances." > > Conversely, I might be OK with it were Buffy to show up for at least > > the last few episodes, and give herself and Angel a chance to really > > get to know each other and re-built their relationship on much more > > solid ground than the adolescent, star-crossed twu wuv at first sight > > nonsense it's currently based on. > > Exactly. > > > But that's not gonna happen. > > Oh, you broke my heart. Sorry to hear that. To clarify, it's not gonna happen because what are the chances that SMG will agree to guest on several episodes or that ME will make the last few episodes of AtS All. About. B/A? It it's any consolation, I think this is a problem for a B/S ending as well, albeit that would require less of a build-up than B/A, seeing how they have at least been a part of each other's life for the last 4 years. > > I've no problem with the show ending *somewhat* happily. I've already > > stated that several times. I just have a problem with Angel and Buffy > > walking off into the sunset to live happily ever after. > > Well, I don't. Ever seen 'Dark City'? Yes. Lovely looking movie. However, an instance of why *some* ambiguity in one's "philosophical" message is a good thing. I found the whole resolution a bit hokey. IMHO. > The ending was a somewhat > happy but not exactly happily ever after. It's more like second > chance type of ending. I realize you mysteriously no longer object to "done before," but haven't we JUST had a "second chance type of ending" on BtVS? How many more such endings should Buffy get? > > Not for long, presumably. Besides, if Angel gets the shanshu, will you > > then argue that he shouldn't get the girl because he's not a vampire > > anymore, so it wouldn't be "original"? > > No, I will then argue that the last time I checked, the scroll of > aberjian (sp) stated that the vampire who will shanshu is the one > whose position in good or evil side is unclear at the upcoming > apocalypse battle. Spike's position in the good or evil side back at > "Chose" is very clear. He was clearly in the side of good. Angel, > OTOH, has been teetering between good and evil side lately what with > him joining W&H and all. That's nice. However, it seems that instead of responding to my actual post, you are responding to some stereotypical Spike-fan argument in your head. Take another look - what I wrote had absolutely nothing to do with Spike getting Angel's shanshu or who I think will/should get it. > Not being able to decide which ship to please is hardly my idea of an > ambiguous ending. Do I need to look up a better definition of "ambiguous"??? No textually clear winner between B/A and B/S IS an ambiguous ending, regardless of the writers' motives. That's not really a matter of opinion. More importantly, it's far from the only ambiguous thing about the finale - pretty well *everything* was left without an explicit answer. Which, after 3 seasons of everything being, erm, interpretable, showed that too much ambiguity can be just as bad as none and divested the story of emotional impact for me. I didn't hate the ending, nor did I think it was badly written - it just left me mostly cold. I guess even I got tired of having to work out for myself what everything really meant based solely on subtext, since the text was always so maddeningly vague. > After yakking on and on how you don't want the > ending to be romantic based, you ended your post on the idea that > ambiguous ending is one where the writer couldn't decide which ship to > please more? You've lost me. Who said the ambiguity was all about the ships (see above) or about the writers trying to please all shippers (that was YOUR complaint)? And what the hell does thinking the finale was ambiguous have to do with wanting romantic endings? Are you replying to your imaginary Spike-fan again? > Plus, there was a rather heavy slant towards pleasing > B/S in "Chosen" despite the half-assness of the earlier acts of the > episodes. I'm not the least bit surprised you think that. However, witness the multitudes of B/S shippers who are far from pleased.

2003-09-01 20:30:21+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 9/1/2003 5:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0309010105.1416ad9e@posting.google.com> > >> Let's consider Wood a minute: >> he hired Buffy under false pretenses. >> So he's a liar. > >How is it that he hired Buffy under false pretenses? He said he wanted to get some community involvement at the school; starting with Buffy. But he knew all the time that she was the Slayer and really wanted her as a kind of security force. >> He is unsure whether he'll help with the Apocalypse. >> So he's a coward. > >So are hundreds of people who fleed from Sunnydale. What's new? It's >human nature to fear something that looks dangerous. > True; but Wood had been trained to fight vampires; and he'd come to the hellmouth on purpose. He just didn't know how much he cared to risk himself. >> He tries to stake Spike in the back, just after Spike saves his life! >> So he's an ingrate. > >Heh, you try reasoning your feelings for a person who killed your >mother. Regardless of whatever feel of thanks you may have for >him/her after he/she saved you, your vengeance feelings will >overweight your rational mind. > Yes, and I could understand that. But I can't accept his sneaky backstabbing methods. >> He asks Buffy out, then tells her it ISN'T a case of her job being at >stake. >> So he's a sexual harasser. > >He was joking and Buffy agreed to go on a date with him. > If that's true, then why mention it in the first place and put the idea in her mind? More sneakiness! >> He plays on Giles' disapproval of Buffy's affection for Spike. >> So he's a manipulator. > >BS. Giles is not a brainless robot who doesn't know what he's doing. >He does believe that Spike is a danger to the mission, especially >after all of the first evil bruhaha. > True; but don't you think Giles is somewhat affected that way because he doesn't think Spike is worthy of Buffy? I do. >> He fires Buffy, telling her it's the mission that matters. > >Yes, that's one wrong thing that he did which even I can't agree. > >> He undermines Buffy to put Faith in the leadership role. > >Uhm, he wasn't the only one who did this. Everyone wasn't feeling >right about Buffy's decision after they were almost slaughtered a >couple of days ago. > I know; but watching those last episodes, it's amazing how often Wood drops a fatal word that sets events in motion! Like, telling Buffy the girls needed to have more training in the field, so she takes them to the vineyard. Like saying "Faith has the floor!" He did this sort of thing so frequently that I for one was convinced he was working for the First. >> And why did he go? >> To get a soul. >> For her, so that she would love him back. > >We don't know that. At least the show has so far never really told us >as whether or not he got the soul because the demon tricked him or >because he really intended to get a soul. Of course it did! There was much debate about this, even after the Whedon interview, so he clarified it in Beneath You. (As well as several other episodes). Remember "I went to find it, of course...they put the spark in me, and all it does is burn." He also told her straightout he did it for her so he would be "hers." >> It's been my experience that there are plenty of people who do exactly >that. > >Yes, most of them are in straight jackets and institutionalised. Or >paying a hefty lots of money to talk to people who could barely care >about your problem. > Well, I'm always surprised by the number of strangers willing to tell you their entire life story without the least encouragement! If everyone who did this was institutionalized, I don't believe we'd have many people left! (G) >Then you talk to them, tell them the problem, and try to find a >solution. Because otherwise things will never be resolved. You can >talk to other people about it but it'll not resolve the problem. But it might give you a new outlook on the problem. (Isn't that the reason why so many mediators are employed; they have no personal agenda and find it easier to be unbiased?) Sandra

2003-09-02 00:57:30-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0309011549.4866e3e9@posting.google.com>... > No one calls Giles > on trying to get Spike killed or seems to hold it against him. Hmm, have you forgotten Buffy? > No, you read my sentence again. I'm asking why, when you feel that > Buffy was in the wrong, as you stated, you nevertheless conclude that > the writers wanted US (the audience) to adopt HER POV? Gee, let's see. Buffy at the end of the day end up not listening to Giles and get her way. Also, never once her POV proven to be fallible even though there are times when she clearly screws up (ie. the wine cellar scene). Yet the other characters are supposed to place complete and total faith on her and when they don't, they get their punishment and Spike gets a cuddle because he's the only one loyal enough. It's clear that the writers are working to satisfy the Buffy/Spike fans while completely ignoring other characters' vestiges and POV. Here's what another fans write about the way the writers seem to write the characters: by doing it in backwards sequence such as: 1) Buffy needs to end up cuddling with Spike. 2) Therefore, Buffy must be alienated from the others. 3) Also, Spike needs to be the only one defending her. 4) Therefore, the others must reject Buffy in a completely irrational and unreasonable way. 5) Logic? Screw logic! > She "lets" it cloud her judgement?? Do your feelings only cloud your > judgement when you let them? In my experience, it's feelings that one > is repressing or ignoring that tend to be judgement-clouding. That was > certainly the case with everyone in LMPTM. There's nothing in this sentence that makes any sense. > As for Giles having trained, protected and been there for Buffy - does > that mean she must now invariably defer to him when they're in > disagreement? No, I expect her to show some respect and courtesy and to be able to bring out her argument in a less childish manner. <cut stories about your boring life> > No, he didn't and no, I don't. He offered no excuses, explanations or > justifications for killing Nikki, hence he wasn't "rationalizing" > anything. "I was a vampire and she was a slayer". That was rationalising to me. Regardless of what they were then, he took someone else's life and caused misery and anguish to the person left behind by the person he killed. The fact that he was a vampire and she was a slayer is a mood point if he really is a changed man now. > More than one interpretation of these scenes and their intent is > clearly possible. You keep arguing for precisely the one that you hate > the most, dismissing everything that would support a reading more to > your liking. The interpretation of those scenes and their intents are clearly possible within each individual who watched them. As a result, I came up with an interpretation that is different than yours. But that didn't mean that I 'chose' that interpretation. It simply occurs to me the way the storyline has been layout. You don't get to chose how you're feeling when you're upset then you're upset. And it's not like I'm the only one who sees it in this kind of way. Many others have pointed out similar things. Are they wrong and you are right? > My attachment to Spike allows me to see that Giles had a point and > Buffy was unreasonable in letting Spike run around unrestrained before > they got to the bottom of his conditioning; that those who wanted to > kill my beloved Spikey had valid reasons for feeling that way; that > the writers very much intended for the whole thing to be debatable. > This interpretation makes me quite happy with the ep, its meaning and > everyone's characterization. My non-attachment to Spike makes it obvious to me that while Giles pointed out his reasoning to not let Spike run around unrestrained, teh writers clearly intend for Buffy to side more with Spike. Which is mind-boggling given what he'd done to her not too long ago. Given that if I were in her position, I'll choose to trust someone who's been there for me right from the start as opposed to someone who's always tried to kill me beforehand and only now starts getting his act together because he has a soul. Plus, Buffy's weak reasoning ("Because he has a sooooul") and yet her ability of getting her way while Giles is left not being able to voice his disagrement and the later vindication of her action shows to me that right from the start the writers intent to create this Buffy/Spike vs everyone else story which just goes against what I think is believable within the framework of the story that has been told thus far. > Your dislike of Spike, however, seems to compel you to view any > scenario wherein Spike and Buffy are not completely wrong and Giles > and Wood completely right as BS. IMO, neither party are completely right. But at the end of the day the party that is vindicated is that of Buffy/Spike. So not only Spike is not killed, he's not even restrained as Giles requested. In other words, Spike through Buffy gets his way while Giles not only don't get the precautionary act he wanted from Buffy but instead get a door slammed in front of his face. > entirely skewed against the latter two > and, therefore, hate the episode, be unhappy with all the > characterizations and deeply resent the writers. I dislike the way the writers write the stories not the writers themself. But thank you for guessing. For not being able to give a fair account and be able to vindicate both parties. I resent that they decide to side with one party as opposed to giving both parties their reasoning and show that both are right and wrong and then vindicated both as opposed to just one. > Ever consider that maybe it's not your opinions that get you "mauled," > but the way you express them? I didn't start posting in this kind of tone before the entire things got out of hand. If you trace my posts way back before all of the Spike fans start jumping on my throat, you'll notice that I even have enough courtesy not to return the 'kindness' of the posters who chose to name-calling me just because of my dislike of a *fictional* character. I think I show as much restraint as I possibly can. And I have no intention of giving more leeways to them. > Thinking that Spike got too much attention and others not enough is > one thing (can't say I entirely disagree, as a matter of fact). Watch out, you may have to explain yourself to other Spike fans. You'll be hard-pressed to even be able saying this before someone jumps on you. > Becoming convinced that the writers are intentionally making everyone > look bad and ruining the show just to make the character you loathe > look good and letting that affect your reading of said show to the > point that you can't see what you *want* to see even when I and others > *do* see it, is quite another. I don't know if the writers are intentionally writing the stories to make the characters look bad. You're the one who's assuming that. But as of late (S6-7), I feel that they are too pre-occupied on the Buffy and Spike story much to the detriment of other characters. And in trying to justify the Buffy/Spike story, their writing make other characters look unsympathetic. Whether or not this is intentional we'll never find out. But it is in my view that their writing B/S in a certain way the results in making other characters look bad in comparison. > People get very *different* impressions from this particular story and > the way it was told. Some people love Spike and think Buffy's a bitch. Not in "Lies My Parent Told Me". All you have to do is go to boards such as Television Without Pity which has archives of what people think of Buffy's behaviour on LMPTM. It's amazing how when a character being just slightly unkind on Spike, they'll get bashed immediately by Spike fans. But when they defend him, the character will get a welcome ceremony the size of texas. Just look at Fred's character. When episode casting sides of Angel ep 5.3 was first released, there was a dialogue where Fred basically 'told Spike off'. And not long after that there are different sort of name-calling for her from cow to other assorted animals. But amazingly, hours later when more details emerge about Fred wanting to help Spike, they immediately put her on a pedestal and worship her. > Others love Buffy and think Spike's a waste of skin. Others (the > majority, I suspect) like both characters, despite their flaws. What > puzzles me is why you would decide that it's the impression you most > despise that is the "correct" one? I never said that the impression that I have is the correct one only that it's my impression and that's what I get and I'm sticking by it because it's my impression. And what makes you think your impression is the correct one? > > And when > > SMG, who have played Buffy for 7 years feel that her character has > > become unsympathetic to the point that she asked for a change in S7, > > you must be wondering are they trying to make us hate the title > > character or sympathise with her? > > Here's a novel idea: maybe they want us all to argue about it and make > up our own minds?! Check my sentence again. That was a rethorical question. SMG clearly feels that her character has become unsympathetic to her and to her audience. This is an actor who plays the character, who I'll think knows more about her than even the writers because she is the one who has to assume Buffy's skin for the past 7 years. Yet, she was clearly distressed that Buffy in S7 is clearly not the same person who the audience can sympathise in S1-5. > There's no shortage of insults directed at Spike either but you don't > see me deciding that the writers must therefore hate Spike and want us > to hate him too (although there are some Spike fans who do. They > mystify me as well). And when did this insults happen and who utters the insult? Is it the time when he tried to rape Buffy? Gee, I wonder why Xander was angry? Is it the time when they almost put everyone's life in jeopardy back in S4 or 5? > Here we go again. ME has deliberately trashed their heroine, their pop > culture icon, the backbone of their franchise, JUST to make Spike look > good. Right. Of course they simply HAD to make Spike look good at any > cost, since... Why again? Organised fan pressure. Let's face it, there have been more Spike fans mailing their support for the characters than Buffy fans doing similar things. If only some of us were aware that such actions actually does influence the writing team. Buffy is a pop culture icon but unless someone follows the show closely, they'll not know the sort of damage that the show has done to her in the last 2 seasons of her own show. And again, I must point out that even her portrayer doesn't feel that Buffy is a positive role model any longer. > Look, either Buffy chose Spike over Angel or it was ambiguous because > the writers wanted to pander to all shipper groups, so it's not an > example of "secondary character gets the girl." You can't have it both > ways. Geez, does things always either black or white for you? > Huh? Your question was about Interview with a Vampire, as was my > answer. I'm not sure what the (snipped) paragraph I wrote about > Dracula had to do with it or what your little non-sequitur barb was > supposed to mean. Nope. As I was pointing out, the little non-sequiter barb wasn't mine. > See, this and the above is exactly what I mean about people responding > negatively to your style rather than your opinions. Oh people already offended of my opinon way long before I added the pleasurable style. After getting frustated of not being able to say my opinion without ten people pouncing on me, I decided that may as well go all the way and give as best as I can. > "Can't commit" is oversimplifying what I said. Which is hardly a > fanwank. It was made quite explicit in the very first episode of AtS > that Angel had a dangerous tendency to isolate himself emotionally - > that's why Doyle was sent to him. Did you miss that bit? Moreover, > Angel's struggle to grow out of that - to not pull away and shut down > when things get rough, let himself love and care (about people, not > just abstract ideals) and, more importantly, be loved and cared about > - has been a major theme throughout the show. Still doesn't explain the inconsistency in his action everytime he has a reunion with Buffy. The only rational explanation is that the writers need to do that to seperate the two because each have a show to anchor. > Allow me to be sceptical. BTW, stories about hitmen or mobsters or > such, which include - but do not exclusively revolve around - a > romance, do not qualifiy as "fluffy romances." Of course it can't completely revolve around romance but it has a rather heavy romantic slant to it with other things being in the background until the last frame where suddenly the things that was in the background turns into something of much more important and change the course of the story. > Sorry to hear that. To clarify, it's not gonna happen because what are > the chances that SMG will agree to guest on several episodes or that > ME will make the last few episodes of AtS All. About. B/A? If SMG gets her way, then the chances is pretty big. You do realise that the decision is on her hands and she's been a pretty vocal B/A-er as some exemplified by some Spuffy's complaints. That's why they keep saying they don't want SMG to come back because they have this attitude that if Spike can't get her then Angel musn't get her as well. > It it's any > consolation, I think this is a problem for a B/S ending as well, > albeit that would require less of a build-up than B/A, seeing how they > have at least been a part of each other's life for the last 4 years. Yeah, because B/S is not fraught with more problem than B/A: rape, abusive relationship, lack of trust, etc. If I have a choice between someone who I haven't seen for a long time and had a rather good relationship with or someone whom I just recently had a rather volatile relationship with, I certainly will choose the one that I haven't seen for a long time. > Yes. Lovely looking movie. However, an instance of why *some* > ambiguity in one's "philosophical" message is a good thing. I found > the whole resolution a bit hokey. IMHO. IMHO, it's one of the best resolution they can give to the pairing. They get a second chance. They may succeed at it, they may not. You don't know by the time the final frame rolls out. > I realize you mysteriously no longer object to "done before," but > haven't we JUST had a "second chance type of ending" on BtVS? How many > more such endings should Buffy get? First of all, which second chance type of ending we saw on BTVS? Second of all, this is not BTVS we're talking about. We're talking about Angel and his second chance at enjoying life. > > No, I will then argue that the last time I checked, the scroll of > > aberjian (sp) stated that the vampire who will shanshu is the one > > whose position in good or evil side is unclear at the upcoming > > apocalypse battle. Spike's position in the good or evil side back at > > "Chose" is very clear. He was clearly in the side of good. Angel, > > OTOH, has been teetering between good and evil side lately what with > > him joining W&H and all. > > That's nice. However, it seems that instead of responding to my actual > post, you are responding to some stereotypical Spike-fan argument in > your head. Take another look - what I wrote had absolutely nothing to > do with Spike getting Angel's shanshu or who I think will/should get > it. Huh? it's perfectly reasonable to answer it using my answer given the fact that the show did set up that the vampire who'll shanshu is the one whose position in the good or evil side is unclear. Angel was still a vampire regardless what he turned into at the end of his journey. > You've lost me. Who said the ambiguity was all about the ships (see > above) or about the writers trying to please all shippers (that was > YOUR complaint)? So have you. You didn't provide any specific examples as to what sort of thing is ambigous despite the romantic entanglement which is not exactly ambiguous but rather left unresolved so that it can have another go around next time. Ambiguous ending is one where the chances of it being resolved/explained is quite unlikely. A/B/S triangle has the chance of being resolved sometime in the future. > I'm not the least bit surprised you think that. However, witness the > multitudes of B/S shippers who are far from pleased. Well, there's nothing pleasing them. They got 2 Spike-centric episodes and get a major focus on Angel this season and yet they still complain about him being ghost, etc.

2003-09-02 01:03:37-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


Shuggie <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<biv6i1020og@drn.newsguy.com>... > From Sleeper: > > SPIKE: This chip is something they did to me. I couldn't help it. But the soul I > got on my own. For you. That was then. Before that ("Two to Go"), he said: "The Bitch is going to get what's coming to her". Does that sound like someone who wants to give Buffy a present?

2003-09-02 01:22:47-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030901163021.28408.00000211@mb-m03.news.cs.com>... > He said he wanted to get some community involvement at the school; starting > with Buffy. > But he knew all the time that she was the Slayer and really wanted her as a > kind of security force. Was Buffy agreeing to take the job because she likes the job? The answer is no. It's because she likes the opportunity to watch over the hellmouth and obviously she likes the pay package better than working at the Doublemeat palace. All I'm saying is, it takes two to tango. > True; but Wood had been trained to fight vampires; and he'd come to the > hellmouth on purpose. > He just didn't know how much he cared to risk himself. Next time there's an apocalypse, go to that place yourself and then see if you choose to flee or stay and fight then come back and tell me before you judge others. > Yes, and I could understand that. But I can't accept his sneaky backstabbing > methods. Heh, I'd like to see someone who tries to exact their revenge in a non-backstabbing method. Only in Samurai movies that happened. The purpose of revenge is to caught someone off guard at their most unaware moment. Therefore, the idea of revenge in itself is already back-stabby. > If that's true, then why mention it in the first place and put the idea in her > mind? > More sneakiness! Granted, his 'charming' method is less than desirable but at no point do I detect harmful or malice intention when Wood said that to Buffy. Some guys are idiots when it comes to asking a girl on a date to the point they are actually saying the wrong thing that they think is okay. > True; but don't you think Giles is somewhat affected that way because he > doesn't think Spike is worthy of Buffy? I do. I don't. He was already offering Buffy the mid-road by asking Buffy to keep Spike restrained until they can figure out how the first evil was controlling Spike. Buffy chose the high road, Giles seeing no other option also chose the high road in a vehicle offered by Wood. > I know; but watching those last episodes, it's amazing how often Wood drops a > fatal word that sets events in motion! > Like, telling Buffy the girls needed to have more training in the field, so she > takes them to the vineyard. > Like saying "Faith has the floor!" And people think I'm seeing more/less than what's on the screen. > He did this sort of thing so frequently that I for one was convinced he was > working for the First. Nah, I called that script inconsistencies. I belive almost everyone work for the first evil in S7. > Of course it did! There was much debate about this, even after the Whedon > interview, so he clarified it in Beneath You. (As well as several other > episodes). > Remember "I went to find it, of course...they put the spark in me, and all it > does is burn." > He also told her straightout he did it for her so he would be "hers." The problem is, this statement contradicts his statement in S6 when he left Sunnydalle and saying all of those threatening words to himself as in "the Bitch is going to get what's coming to her". And his reaction when the demon gave him back his soul looked like that of a surprised and anger that he was deceived or something. > Well, I'm always surprised by the number of strangers willing to tell you their > entire life story without the least encouragement! If everyone who did this > was institutionalized, I don't believe we'd have many people left! (G) Well, I find those people creeps me out. Especially when they start acting as if they already know you ever since you were a kid. > But it might give you a new outlook on the problem. > (Isn't that the reason why so many mediators are employed; they have no > personal agenda and find it easier to be unbiased?) the problem is, in Angel's case none of the people who are present in his life don't have their own personal agenda or don't have their own issues with him or able to be unbiased. A new outlook on the problem still doesn't resolve the actual problem which can only be done by talking directly to the person you have a problem with.

2003-09-02 01:40:51-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<biv95d$dbmcg$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > Yes he was. He's the one that told Buffy to test the girls by taking > them into battle. Than he turns it around and makes Buffy out to be > terrible when she followed his idea. > Dirty Girls > BUFFY > Some of these girl haven't even been tested in battle. > > ROBIN WOOD > Then, I guess, maybe you should test them. Doesn't equal into "Take them to a wine cellar where a bunch of ubies are waiting to pounce on them". She could have asked for Willow's assitance to capture an ubbie, imprison it, and use it to train the slayers. > >> And why did he go? > >> To get a soul. That's one interpretation. He also did say that the 'bleeding chip' makes it impossible for him to do what needs to be done which can imply that it is possible that he was there to get the chip out. > The show has told as many, many, many times to the point it got > repentative. There's always a possibility that it was a backpedalling moves on the original treatment. He looked shocked and angry when the demon said we'll return "your soul" as if he didn't expected that. The fact that later episodes drops anvil after anvils about Spike going to Africa for the soul makes one wonder if it was done to convince the audience that's what he really wanted to do.

2003-09-02 04:49:04-05:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


Daniel Garten wrote: > > There's always a possibility that it was a backpedalling moves on the > original treatment. He looked shocked and angry when the demon said > we'll return "your soul" as if he didn't expected that. The fact that > later episodes drops anvil after anvils about Spike going to Africa > for the soul makes one wonder if it was done to convince the audience > that's what he really wanted to do. Well yeah. It doesn't make a difference at this point whether or not he went to Africa for a soul or to get the chip out. All that matters is according to canon he went to get a soul. You can believe they changed their mind after Grave was shot, you can believe it was just bad writing, you can believe anything you want as to why it was written that way, but within the story the truth is he wanted a soul. Deal! Jul -- "Beating dead horses is one of the most popular uses for Usenet. Porn and spam being the others." (Pete, Alt-tv-BtVS Poster)

2003-09-02 06:00:36-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


Nice anvil collection you've got there, Juleen. ;) himiko

2003-09-02 10:46:32+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 9/2/2003 4:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0309020040.4640b612@posting.google.com> > >That's one interpretation. He also did say that the 'bleeding chip' >makes it impossible for him to do what needs to be done which can >imply that it is possible that he was there to get the chip out. > Since Buffy wasn't affected by the chip, why would Spike wish to get it removed because of her? Sandra

2003-09-02 11:10:49+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 9/2/2003 4:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0309020022.7670e584@posting.google.com> > >snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message >news:<20030901163021.28408.00000211@mb-m03.news.cs.com>... > > >Was Buffy agreeing to take the job because she likes the job? The >answer is no. It's because she likes the opportunity to watch over >the hellmouth and obviously she likes the pay package better than >working at the Doublemeat palace. All I'm saying is, it takes two to >tango. > Sure, BUffy also had her own agenda; doesn't change the fact that Wood started off by telling her a pack of lies. > >Next time there's an apocalypse, go to that place yourself and then >see if you choose to flee or stay and fight then come back and tell me >before you judge others. > If I didn't intend to stay and help, why would I go there in the first place? I'd just stay away. Of course, it's possible I might panic and flee- which would make me a coward. > >Heh, I'd like to see someone who tries to exact their revenge in a >non-backstabbing method. Only in Samurai movies that happened. The >purpose of revenge is to caught someone off guard at their most >unaware moment. Therefore, the idea of revenge in itself is already >back-stabby. > I disagree; the point of revenge is to inflict an equal hurt.. In all the best revenge movies I have seen, from the Count of Monte Cristo to The Princess Bride, people NEVER resort to stabbing the person in the back! >Granted, his 'charming' method is less than desirable but at no point >do I detect harmful or malice intention when Wood said that to Buffy. >Some guys are idiots when it comes to asking a girl on a date to the >point they are actually saying the wrong thing that they think is >okay. > I think he was full of malice at just about every point throughout. >I don't. He was already offering Buffy the mid-road by asking Buffy to >keep Spike restrained until they can figure out how the first evil was >controlling Spike. Buffy chose the high road, Giles seeing no other >option also chose the high road in a vehicle offered by Wood. > You mean he betrayed Buffy "for her own good." Who was it who said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? >And people think I'm seeing more/less than what's on the screen. > I'm not quoting any lines that I made up myself; these statements were made, by Wood! >> He did this sort of thing so frequently that I for one was convinced he was >> working for the First. > >Nah, I called that script inconsistencies. I belive almost everyone >work for the first evil in S7. > I still wonder if they planned for Wood to work for the First; then brought in Nathan Fillion when he became available. >The problem is, this statement contradicts his statement in S6 when he >left Sunnydalle and saying all of those threatening words to himself >as in "the Bitch is going to get what's coming to her". "What she DESERVES." That was the clue. And by using that keyword, I could pick up that Spike would do nothing to harm Buffy. And his >reaction when the demon gave him back his soul looked like that of a >surprised and anger that he was deceived or something. > I thought it was pain rather than surprise. In fact, one of the writers, I forget which, said things were set up that way on purpose, so they could have a "Gotcha!" moment with the audience. BUt I think if you read spoilers, you'd know it was planned to restore his soul. >the problem is, in Angel's case none of the people who are present in >his life don't have their own personal agenda or don't have their own >issues with him or able to be unbiased. A new outlook on the problem >still doesn't resolve the actual problem which can only be done by >talking directly to the person you have a problem with. > > We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think it is sometimes helpful to discuss things with someone not directly involved. Sandra

2003-09-02 14:57:32+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


DX wrote: > >Well, there's nothing pleasing them. They got 2 Spike-centric >episodes and get a major focus on Angel this season and yet they still >complain about him being ghost, etc. > Believe it or not, some of us don't count the minutes Spike is onscreen and use that as a gauge for deciding whether we like what is going on with Spike. I'm for quality, not quantity, and for a good storyline as opposed to a Spike-centric storyline. I loved Storyteller and hated Lies My Parents Told Me last year, even though Spike wasn't in ST much, and he was the focus of LMPTM. Rose "So we're spawning -- and it's not a pretty story." -- Gary Shandling.

2003-09-02 15:07:31+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (sweick@aol.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >DX wrote: > >> >>Well, there's nothing pleasing them. They got 2 Spike-centric >>episodes and get a major focus on Angel this season and yet they still >>complain about him being ghost, etc. >> > >Believe it or not, some of us don't count the minutes Spike is onscreen and >use >that as a gauge for deciding whether we like what is going on with Spike. >I'm >for quality, not quantity, and for a good storyline as opposed to a >Spike-centric storyline. I loved Storyteller and hated Lies My Parents Told >Me >last year, even though Spike wasn't in ST much, and he was the focus of >LMPTM. You are the exception, not the rule. Stephen Weick Eeyore is God. Murphy was an optimist. No good deed shall go unpunished.

2003-09-02 23:44:06+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


That was a rethorical question. SMG clearly >feels that her character has become unsympathetic to her and to her >audience. This is an actor who plays the character, who I'll think >knows more about her than even the writers because she is the one who >has to assume Buffy's skin for the past 7 years. Yet, she was clearly >distressed that Buffy in S7 is clearly not the same person who the >audience can sympathise in S1-5. > SMG asked for the change because she didn't like the depressed, unhappy Buffy of season 6. What she actually said about season 7 was that doing the show was fun again! >Yeah, because B/S is not fraught with more problem than B/A: rape, >abusive relationship, lack of trust, etc. > If I have a choice between >someone who I haven't seen for a long time and had a rather good >relationship with or someone whom I just recently had a rather >volatile relationship with, I certainly will choose the one that I >haven't seen for a long time. > Wait a minute: wasn't Angelus guilty of rape? And he was verbally abusive to BUffy, threatened her family, and tortured her friends. So how can that be considered a good relationship? Sandra

2003-09-03 00:26:04-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309012357.101cc7a8@posting.google.com>... > mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0309011549.4866e3e9@posting.google.com>... > > No one calls Giles > > on trying to get Spike killed or seems to hold it against him. > > Hmm, have you forgotten Buffy? Umm, no. Buffy disagrees with Giles, Giles disagrees with Buffy. That's a given. You were bemoaning the lack of a *third party* to question Buffy's choices, remember? Well, no third party questioned Giles's either. > > No, you read my sentence again. I'm asking why, when you feel that > > Buffy was in the wrong, as you stated, you nevertheless conclude that > > the writers wanted US (the audience) to adopt HER POV? > > Gee, let's see. Buffy at the end of the day end up not listening to > Giles and get her way. How did Buffy not listening to Giles or "get[ting] her way" (whatever that means) prove that she was right? > Also, never once her POV proven to be fallible > even though there are times when she clearly screws up (ie. the wine > cellar scene). Xander losing an eye not enough of an indication that Buffy's fallible for you? > Yet the other characters are supposed to place > complete and total faith on her and when they don't, they get their > punishment and Spike gets a cuddle because he's the only one loyal > enough. What friggin' punishment? They turned out to be as fallible as Buffy? And, again, how does their so-called "punishment" prove that they were wrong? > It's clear that the writers are working to satisfy the > Buffy/Spike fans while completely ignoring other characters' vestiges > and POV. Here's what another fans write about the way the writers > seem to write the characters: by doing it in backwards sequence such > as: > > 1) Buffy needs to end up cuddling with Spike. > 2) Therefore, Buffy must be alienated from the others. > 3) Also, Spike needs to be the only one defending her. > 4) Therefore, the others must reject Buffy in a completely irrational > and unreasonable way. > 5) Logic? Screw logic! Look, go and deliberately ignore four seasons of building up Buffy and the SG's alienation from each other if you want. But don't tell me that's logical. > > She "lets" it cloud her judgement?? Do your feelings only cloud your > > judgement when you let them? In my experience, it's feelings that one > > is repressing or ignoring that tend to be judgement-clouding. That was > > certainly the case with everyone in LMPTM. > > There's nothing in this sentence that makes any sense. Psychology not your forte, eh? ;) > > As for Giles having trained, protected and been there for Buffy - does > > that mean she must now invariably defer to him when they're in > > disagreement? > > No, I expect her to show some respect and courtesy and to be able to > bring out her argument in a less childish manner. Seriously? After he went behind her back and tried to kill someone she cares about? You think that's a reasonable expectation? > <cut stories about your boring life> May I ask you how old you are? I'm not being patronizing, I'm seriously asking. > > No, he didn't and no, I don't. He offered no excuses, explanations or > > justifications for killing Nikki, hence he wasn't "rationalizing" > > anything. > "I was a vampire and she was a slayer". That was rationalising to me. rationalize - (v/t) give rational explanation or justification (of); find allegedly sound reasons for irrational views or behaviour. Statements of fact (e.g. "I was a vampire"; "she was a Slayer") are not rationalizations. Nor does a lack of expressed remorse for past behaviour constitute rationalizing/justifying said behaviour. > But that > didn't mean that I 'chose' that interpretation. It simply occurs to > me the way the storyline has been layout. You don't get to chose how > you're feeling when you're upset then you're upset. And it's not like > I'm the only one who sees it in this kind of way. Many others have > pointed out similar things. Are they wrong and you are right? No one can control how they *emotionally* react to something (although you sure seem to expect Buffy to do so). But continuing to *rationally* reject all arguments that might alter your initial emotional reaction, when that reaction is one of upset and dislike, is something that confounds me. > BS. IMO, neither party are completely right. But at the end of the > day the party that is vindicated is that of Buffy/Spike. So not only > Spike is not killed, he's not even restrained as Giles requested. In > other words, Spike through Buffy gets his way while Giles not only > don't get the precautionary act he wanted from Buffy but instead get a > door slammed in front of his face. Ah. So, Giles and Wood are shown to be wrong because they failed to kill Spike or even get him chained up after there was no longer any need for it. Buffy and Spike's POV is vindicated because they "get their way." Do you also think that, if someone gets away with murder, they are vindicated in their decision to kill? I mean, they got their way, right? > > Ever consider that maybe it's not your opinions that get you "mauled," > > but the way you express them? > > I didn't start posting in this kind of tone before the entire things > got out of hand. I'm not familiar with your entire posting history but I can tell you that your first post on this thread came across as aggressively and unnecessarily sarcastic towards someone who was merely expressing a preference of which you disapproved. Which prompted equally unpleasant responses. > I don't know if the writers are intentionally writing the stories to > make the characters look bad. You're the one who's assuming that. Oh, come on! You keep harping on how the writers "trashed" Buffy, Xander, Giles and god knows who else in order to make Spike look good! > But as of late (S6-7), I feel that they are too pre-occupied on the > Buffy and Spike story much to the detriment of other characters. This, I actually agree with. > And > in trying to justify the Buffy/Spike story, their writing make other > characters look unsympathetic. Well, that didn't last long. I don't think they made other characters look unsympathetic in order to justify Buffy/Spike. I think they made other characters look boring because they weren't as interested in writing them as they were in writing Buffy/Spike. > > People get very *different* impressions from this particular story and > > the way it was told. Some people love Spike and think Buffy's a bitch. > Not in "Lies My Parent Told Me". You yourself said just a few paragraphs above that there are plenty of people who saw LMPTM the same way you did. Now you're telling me a bunch of Spike-fans on TwoP or whatever didn't. Well, sorry, but... Duh?! > > > Others love Buffy and think Spike's a waste of skin. Others (the > > majority, I suspect) like both characters, despite their flaws. What > > puzzles me is why you would decide that it's the impression you most > > despise that is the "correct" one? > > I never said that the impression that I have is the correct one only > that it's my impression and that's what I get and I'm sticking by it > because it's my impression. And what makes you think your impression > is the correct one? I don't. You missed my point. I'm saying precisely that none of these contradictory impressions can be proved to be correct - they're all subjective. But subjectivity usually means that, given an ambiguous text, people will pick the interpretation that best fits what they *want* to see as their own. BtVS online fandom is the only time I've seen scores of people do exactly the opposite - and bitterly argue for the interpretations they hate, too. It's fascinating. > > > And when > > > SMG, who have played Buffy for 7 years feel that her character has > > > become unsympathetic to the point that she asked for a change in S7, > > > you must be wondering are they trying to make us hate the title > > > character or sympathise with her? > > > > Here's a novel idea: maybe they want us all to argue about it and make > > up our own minds?! > SMG clearly > feels that her character has become unsympathetic to her and to her > audience. So? Sure, SMG might've preferred for her character to be a universally loved and admired, unimpugnable heroine (and, if that's the case, I'm thankful no one listened to her). I don't see what her feelings on the subject have to do with whether or not the writers meant for the audience to hate Buffy. As an aside - you do realize that, if Buffy ends up with Angel as you want her to, the people who hate/dislike her now are gonna hate her a million times more, right? Will their opinions suddenly cease to mean anything, once you'll have gotten what you wanted? > This is an actor who plays the character, who I'll think > knows more about her than even the writers because she is the one who > has to assume Buffy's skin for the past 7 years. Yet, she was clearly > distressed that Buffy in S7 is clearly not the same person who the > audience can sympathise in S1-5. Oh, I seriously doubt that SMG understands Buffy better than Joss. I think she's a very talented actress but she doesn't strike me as that deep intellectually. And "distressed"...? Doncha think you're exaggerating just a tad? > > And when did this insults happen and who utters the insult? Is it > the time when he tried to rape Buffy? Gee, I wonder why Xander was > angry? Is it the time when they almost put everyone's life in > jeopardy back in S4 or 5? Right. No one's ever said anything negative about Spike that wasn't perfectly rational, warranted criticism. > > Of course they simply HAD to make Spike look good at any > > cost, since... Why again? > > Organised fan pressure. Let's face it, there have been more Spike > fans mailing their support for the characters than Buffy fans doing > similar things. If only some of us were aware that such actions > actually does influence the writing team. Sorry, don't buy it. Spike was always a popular character but I don't think many people seriously expected him to reform and become the male lead and/or Buffy's lover, much less demanded it. Most were quite happy with how he was in S4. It's ME who chose to have him fall hopelessly for Buffy and started building him up, making him more vulnerable and, hence, more sympathetic. It wasn't until FFL that people really went nuts over him and it snowballed from there. But it started with the writers, not with the audience. > And again, I must point out that even her portrayer doesn't > feel that Buffy is a positive role model any longer. I couldn't care less about positive role models and if SMG cares more about that than the opportunity to do the sort of acting that nothing else in her career is likely to afford her, then she's a twit. However, I think you're projecting your own feelings onto SMG just a bit. > > Look, either Buffy chose Spike over Angel or it was ambiguous because > > the writers wanted to pander to all shipper groups, so it's not an > > example of "secondary character gets the girl." You can't have it both > > ways. > > Geez, does things always either black or white for you? No, not always. Only when logic requires it - "either P or -P" type situations. > Nope. As I was pointing out, the little non-sequiter barb wasn't > mine. Umm... Eh. Nevermind. > Still doesn't explain the inconsistency in his action everytime he has > a reunion with Buffy. The only rational explanation is that the > writers need to do that to seperate the two because each have a show > to anchor. Hey, whatever rocks your boat. > Of course it can't completely revolve around romance but it has a > rather heavy romantic slant to it with other things being in the > background until the last frame where suddenly the things that was in > the background turns into something of much more important and change > the course of the story. So, really, not "fluffy romances" at all. More like, say, "Romeo and Juliet." Tragic love-stories, in other words. > If SMG gets her way, then the chances is pretty big. You do realise > that the decision is on her hands and she's been a pretty vocal B/A-er > as some exemplified by some Spuffy's complaints. So Joss is going to let SMG dictate the storyline? Doubt it. But, assuming he does, you think that's a good thing? > > It it's any > > consolation, I think this is a problem for a B/S ending as well, > > albeit that would require less of a build-up than B/A, seeing how they > > have at least been a part of each other's life for the last 4 years. > > Yeah, because B/S is not fraught with more problem than B/A: rape, > abusive relationship, lack of trust, etc. Did you watch Season 7? Did you fall asleep during the bits where they worked through most - if not all - of that (can't say I blame you, I thought it was pretty boring too)? Plus, it's more than arguable that what happened between Buffy and Spike was "more problem" than the disaster that was B/A. > First of all, which second chance type of ending we saw on BTVS? > Second of all, this is not BTVS we're talking about. We're talking > about Angel and his second chance at enjoying life. 1) Buffy. Leaving Sunnyhell. Free of the Hellmouth and her destiny as the one and lonely Chosen One. Having come full circle from WTTH. Having changed her world. Free to rebuilt her life any way she chooses. THAT "second chance ending." 2) Angel can't have a "second chance ending" with Buffy without Buffy having a second "second chance ending" with him. > Huh? it's perfectly reasonable to answer it using my answer given the > fact that the show did set up that the vampire who'll shanshu is the > one whose position in the good or evil side is unclear. Angel was > still a vampire regardless what he turned into at the end of his > journey. No, it's not, because I wasn't talking about who would/should shanshu. AT ALL. You said Angel getting the girl would be original because he was a vampire. You also said this didn't apply to Spike because he wasn't a vampire anymore. I asked you if this meant that, were Angel to get the shanshu, it would no longer be original for him to get the girl? 'Cause then he wouldn't be a vampire anymore. Just like Spike isn't a vampire anymore (at least for now). See how this does NOT warrant an extensive argument about who is more likely to shanshu based on the text of the prophecy? > You didn't provide any specific examples as to what sort > of thing is ambigous despite the romantic entanglement which is not > exactly ambiguous but rather left unresolved so that it can have > another go around next time. Unresolved = ambiguous. > Ambiguous ending is one where the > chances of it being resolved/explained is quite unlikely. Mind telling me by what definition of "ambiguous" you're going?

2003-09-03 02:13:26+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu>)


Snds15 <snds15@cs.com> wrote: : That was a rethorical question. SMG clearly :>feels that her character has become unsympathetic to her and to her :>audience. This is an actor who plays the character, who I'll think :>knows more about her than even the writers because she is the one who :>has to assume Buffy's skin for the past 7 years. Yet, she was clearly :>distressed that Buffy in S7 is clearly not the same person who the :>audience can sympathise in S1-5. :> : SMG asked for the change because she didn't like the depressed, unhappy Buffy : of season 6. : What she actually said about season 7 was that doing the show was fun again! :>Yeah, because B/S is not fraught with more problem than B/A: rape, :>abusive relationship, lack of trust, etc. :> If I have a choice between :>someone who I haven't seen for a long time and had a rather good :>relationship with or someone whom I just recently had a rather :>volatile relationship with, I certainly will choose the one that I :>haven't seen for a long time. :> : Wait a minute: wasn't Angelus guilty of rape? : And he was verbally abusive to BUffy, threatened her family, and tortured her : friends. : So how can that be considered a good relationship? Because the relationship was between Buffy and Angel, not Buffy and Angelus. And the writers have made it quite clear that there is a distinction between Angel and Angelus.

2003-09-03 11:17:07+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: Tammy Stephanie Davis tsdnospam@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu >Date: 9/2/2003 10:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <a7c5b.2312$H91.48798@news.itd.umich.edu> > > >: Wait a minute: wasn't Angelus guilty of rape? >: And he was verbally abusive to BUffy, threatened her family, and tortured >her >: friends. > >: So how can that be considered a good relationship? > >Because the relationship was between Buffy and Angel, not Buffy and Angelus. >And the writers have made it quite clear that there is a distinction >between Angel and Angelus. > If there's a distinction between Angel and Angelus, then it follows that there has to be a distinction between demonic Spike and souled Spike, which Buffy has been more than clear about . Viewers have complained about how often Buffy has pointed out that Spike is different now because he has a soul. She's even said that the person he used to be simply "doesn't exist any longer." The only difference is that the change (from unsouled to souled) is far less extreme in Spike's case. But it is still there, so the AR in Seeing Red is as irrelevant as the rape of Holtz's wife. Sandra

2003-09-03 11:54:16-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<a7c5b.2312$H91.48798@news.itd.umich.edu>... > : Wait a minute: wasn't Angelus guilty of rape? > : And he was verbally abusive to BUffy, threatened her family, and tortured her > : friends. > > : So how can that be considered a good relationship? > > Because the relationship was between Buffy and Angel, not Buffy and Angelus. > And the writers have made it quite clear that there is a distinction > between Angel and Angelus. What the writers have made quite clear is that *Angel* makes a distinction between Angel and Angelus. That Spike doesn't feel compelled to distance himself from his soulless persona in the same way makes it very doubtful that there is any substance at all to this distinction.

2003-09-03 15:30:07-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (William George Ferguson <william.george.ferguson@domail.maricopa.edu>)


On 3 Sep 2003 11:54:16 -0700, mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote: >Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<a7c5b.2312$H91.48798@news.itd.umich.edu>... > >> : Wait a minute: wasn't Angelus guilty of rape? >> : And he was verbally abusive to BUffy, threatened her family, and tortured her >> : friends. >> >> : So how can that be considered a good relationship? >> >> Because the relationship was between Buffy and Angel, not Buffy and Angelus. >> And the writers have made it quite clear that there is a distinction >> between Angel and Angelus. > >What the writers have made quite clear is that *Angel* makes a >distinction between Angel and Angelus. That Spike doesn't feel >compelled to distance himself from his soulless persona in the same >way makes it very doubtful that there is any substance at all to this >distinction. Actually, what we have seen is that Angelus makes a distinction between himself and Angel, but not so much the other way. Otherwise, why would Angel feel so guilty, which he clearly does (it's the driver for the show), about stuff 'that other guy' did? -- You've reached the Tittles. We can't come to the phone right now If you want to leave a message for Christine, Press 1 For Bentley, Press 2 Or to speak to, or worship, Master Tarfall, Underlord of Pain, Press 3

2003-09-03 18:43:12-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<_Nt5b.2331$H91.49399@news.itd.umich.edu>... > Hagen <mep22@excite.com> wrote: > : What the writers have made quite clear is that *Angel* makes a > : distinction between Angel and Angelus. That Spike doesn't feel > : compelled to distance himself from his soulless persona in the same > : way makes it very doubtful that there is any substance at all to this > : distinction. > > OR > > That Spike doesn't feel compelled to distance himself from his soulless > persona in the same way makes it very doubtful that there is any > validity to his supposed redemption. I see. So, redemption is not about changing your behaviour, trying to become a better person and doing good deeds. It's about changing your name, referring to yourself in the third person, and acting like it was really someone else altogether who committed the crimes from which you're trying to redeem yourself (?!).

2003-09-03 19:15:51-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308190308.7ab141f7@posting.google.com>... > snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030818083213.28058.00000220@mb-m29.news.cs.com>... > > > Nor will he. If you've been reading spoilers, then you know some of the things > > planned for the other characters. > > Well, then please do tell me what sort of interesting story they have > for Wes, Fred, and Lorne planned this season. Because so far from 3 > episodes, I have gotten zero, zilch, nothing for them. Not even a one > episode story, let alone an arc that goes beyond one episode (like > Spike's being a ghost issue). Well, it is kind of necessary to show the people who don't know just who the hell Spike is. Any character added would be given an intro like this. Also, it is only 3 stories. But I hope you read the episode 5 storyline about Lorne. > > That's part of it, but not entirely. As I said, I think all of the others will > > have more to do this season. > > I don't have premonition ability nor am I capable of reading tarot > cards. What I have is 3 episodes spoilers where nothing has been said > about some of the characters that I'm interested in. Well, he/she may have read spoilers or heard things at a con. > > LOTR, for one. That is the example everyone is discussing; and despite a few > > distractions along the way, Aragorn ends up with his first love. > > Since when LOTR becomes a vampire show? > > > I'm not really that familiar with other vampire stories. I know you mentioned > > that Lestat loses Claudia to Louis; but she was hardly a love interest, was > > she? > > Well I did mentioned that Lestat lost Claudia as a 'family' to Louis. > But the end result is still the same. The vampiric main character > lost something that he considers important in his life. > > > Nor do we know how Lestat's story ends, since Anne Rice hasn't yet ended it. > > Exactly. And therefore the end of each book such as the end of > "Interview with the Vampire", can be considered as a seperate endings > for Lestat at this point in time. A different chapter of his life > each time the book ends. > > > As for Dracula, he can't end- at least not definitively. (If Bram Stoker had > > lived in our era, he'd been an entire series by now). But in movies, he needs > > to be brought back, again and again, simply because the public doesn't want an > > ending in his case. So, in that sense I would say that he IS one vampire whose > > story (not ended, but concluded) happily- since he is never really gone for > > long! LOL! > > Well, I'm kind of discounting the ridiculousness of the fact that > there are different permutations of Dracula stories. I stick with the > original book or that version which Francis Ford Coppola tries to > closely portray in his film. Plus, we're not talking about sequel and > the never ending milking of a popular character in films. We're > talking about the fate of a vampiric character at the end of his > story.

2003-09-03 19:22:06-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308220136.1f9d120e@posting.google.com>... > snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030821083420.06903.00000879@mb-m03.news.cs.com>... > > > We only have some sides so far; Nowhere have I seen an entire script. And I > > believe they are setting up an arc for Angel- his gradual corruption by W&H. > > Sandra, this season is more MOTW. The chance is, the majority of the > storyline's meat is in the sides. Plus all of those sides have a good > glimpse of all sections of an episode: opener, act 1, act 2, act 3, > closing. > > > As for Wes, I was wondering if the reason he doesn't seem that active in the > > first few scripts might be because he is planning his wedding to Aly Hannigan, > > and perhaps needs some time to take a honeymoon? That would account for a > > somewhat light presence in the beginning without bringing in sinister motives! > > I've heard the wedding will take place in Oct.,x > > AD doesn't get married to AH until Dec when it's a break time. So > there's no excuse there. > > > and I'd be surprised if he > > doesn't get a lot more screentime afterwards. > > And myself and other viewers will be fuming with anger. > > > Since ME is hoping Marsters' fanbase will follow him to his new show, I'm not > > surprised if he gets a bit more time at first. But I wouldn't call that taking > > over; since in the other two episodes he doesn't seem to have much to do. > > Oh, that makes it fine to give him 2 Spike-centric episode while > others haven't got anything to do either in the other 2 episodes? Ep. > 1 deals with Angel, episode 2 Spike, episode 3 Fred/Spike plus largely > Nina. Ep. 4, Spike again. Does making JM's fanbase mean sacrifing > the 3+ million viewers who have stucked with the show from its > conception regardless where the show is placed on the WB? Well, it has to be established who he is. > > What would you consider fair dealing? > > For every character to have an equal number of lines? > > No. For each character to not get a character-centric episode again > before other characters got it. For other characters to not get > shafted into the background on each and every episode so that the > newcomer can strut his stuff. > > > > This season Gunn gets the big storyarc. > > I figure it will all balance in the long term. > > Yes, because barely there for the season opener where he gets jacked > into various machine is what I call a big storyarc. Heck, Gunn hasn't > even got his Gunn-centric episode yet while Spike already got 2. See > the problem? There were only 5 damn episode sides released! > As far as it will balance in the long term. I do recall that at the > end of BTVS, Xander and Willow never got anything much to do or having > any interesting storyline. I recall Xander not having anything except a girlfriend (while people who weren't even part of the cast, like the S.I.T.s, Andrew, and Faith) all did, but hey, it was part of the story. Willow did at first, but then it turned into being mostly about her girlfriend to help throw water on the fire of those homophobe accusations.

2003-09-03 20:21:58-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<_Nt5b.2331$H91.49399@news.itd.umich.edu>... > Hagen <mep22@excite.com> wrote: > : Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<a7c5b.2312$H91.48798@news.itd.umich.edu>... > : > :> : Wait a minute: wasn't Angelus guilty of rape? > :> : And he was verbally abusive to BUffy, threatened her family, and tortured her > :> : friends. > > :> : So how can that be considered a good relationship? > :> > :> Because the relationship was between Buffy and Angel, not Buffy and Angelus. > :> And the writers have made it quite clear that there is a distinction > :> between Angel and Angelus. > > : What the writers have made quite clear is that *Angel* makes a > : distinction between Angel and Angelus. When? Angel has been more than a bit dubious about the relationship. Buffy, and later Faith, have insisted that there Angel is not Angelus and vice versa...and Angel has been kind enough not to disabuse them of that idea because it's obviously important to them. He was equally nice about not insisting on the obvious connection between "kinda gay" VampWillow and Willow. > That Spike doesn't feel > : compelled to distance himself from his soulless persona in the same > : way makes it very doubtful that there is any substance at all to this > : distinction. > > OR > > That Spike doesn't feel compelled to distance himself from his soulless > persona in the same way makes it very doubtful that there is any > validity to his supposed redemption. OR That Spike thinks taking responsibility for his own actions is more important than being kind to Slayers who need to believe otherwise. himiko

2003-09-03 21:32:10-05:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


Linda wrote: > "Daniel Garten" <dxgarten@ignmail.com> wrote in message > news:49cf8df3.0309020040.4640b612@posting.google.com... >> "Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message > news:<biv95d$dbmcg$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... >> >> >>>>> And why did he go? >>>>> To get a soul. >> >> That's one interpretation. He also did say that the 'bleeding chip' >> makes it impossible for him to do what needs to be done which can >> imply that it is possible that he was there to get the chip out. >> >>> The show has told as many, many, many times to the point it got >>> repentative. >> >> There's always a possibility that it was a backpedalling moves on the >> original treatment. He looked shocked and angry when the demon said >> we'll return "your soul" as if he didn't expected that. The fact >> that later episodes drops anvil after anvils about Spike going to >> Africa for the soul makes one wonder if it was done to convince the >> audience that's what he really wanted to do. > > > Dan, I agree with you, he was fully expecting to get the chip out. > When his soul was returned he was totally surprised. But what did we > really expect him to tell Buffy? > > He told her what she wanted to hear. He told her things that would > get her to love him. The one thing he's not going to tell her is that > he went to get the chip out. He told her everything but that which > makes me believe - he wanted the chip out. > > If you were Buffy which would you rather hear? "Buffy - I love you so > much. You told me you couldn't love a soulless thing, so I went and > got a soul for you." > > Or > > "Buffy - I went to get this chip out so you could get what you > deserve." > > I know which one I would pick and stick with over and over. And why did the FirstMayor have to gain by telling Spike "So what'd you think? You'd get your soul back and everything'd be Jim Dandy?" If Spike was trying to get the chip out don't you think the First Evil would have been having a field day with Spike telling him how he got tricked? Jul -- "Beating dead horses is one of the most popular uses for Usenet. Porn and spam being the others." (Pete, Alt-tv-BtVS Poster)

2003-09-03 22:19:38+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu>)


Hagen <mep22@excite.com> wrote: : Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<a7c5b.2312$H91.48798@news.itd.umich.edu>... : :> : Wait a minute: wasn't Angelus guilty of rape? :> : And he was verbally abusive to BUffy, threatened her family, and tortured her :> : friends. :> :> : So how can that be considered a good relationship? :> :> Because the relationship was between Buffy and Angel, not Buffy and Angelus. :> And the writers have made it quite clear that there is a distinction :> between Angel and Angelus. : What the writers have made quite clear is that *Angel* makes a : distinction between Angel and Angelus. That Spike doesn't feel : compelled to distance himself from his soulless persona in the same : way makes it very doubtful that there is any substance at all to this : distinction. OR That Spike doesn't feel compelled to distance himself from his soulless persona in the same way makes it very doubtful that there is any validity to his supposed redemption.

2003-09-03 22:30:30-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0309031822.33a66093@posting.google.com>... > There were only 5 damn episode sides released! That's a friggin lame excuse I've had to hear. I'll bet if he got another character-centric episode, this same excuse will be used again. Imagine if Spike is the one who hasn't got anything for the first 5 episodes. I'll bet your reaction will be different. > I recall Xander not having anything Exactly. And having a girlfriend does not equal having a story. It's called a sub-plot and a mini one at that. It barely compares to the huge arc that Spike receives while other characters are getting none whatsoever.

2003-09-03 22:34:45-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


floppypaws@aol.com (Floppypaws) wrote in message news:<20030903224754.21934.00000477@mb-m04.aol.com>... > Sorry, but two Spike centric episodes are two too many for me. And for me too. > ME should > remember the 3 million or so Angel fans that stuck with the show through all > the schedule changes and sometimes long, drawn out plot lines. If only that is the case. But unfortunately thus far it looks like they don't care anymore about the 3 million Angel fans who have faithfully followed the show for the past 4 years. They just seem to want to appeal to the new viewers without considering that in doing so they have successfully alienating their existing viewers who have no interest in Spike.

2003-09-03 23:19:49+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


mep wrote: > >What the writers have made quite clear is that *Angel* makes a >distinction between Angel and Angelus. He didn't on BtVS, and neither did Buffy. Angel referred to Angelus as "I", and Buffy referred to Angelus as "you" (when talking to Angel). In fact, on BtVS, both the evil vampire and the good vampire were called Angel, and a couple of times both were called Angelus. Those of us who claimed there was a distinction were shouted down as starry-eyed shippers. BtVS and AtS had a different way of talking soul vs. nonsoul. Rose "So we're spawning -- and it's not a pretty story." -- Gary Shandling.

2003-09-04 01:54:50+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Linda <lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com>)


"Daniel Garten" <dxgarten@ignmail.com> wrote in message news:49cf8df3.0309020040.4640b612@posting.google.com... > "Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<biv95d$dbmcg$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > > > >> And why did he go? > > >> To get a soul. > > That's one interpretation. He also did say that the 'bleeding chip' > makes it impossible for him to do what needs to be done which can > imply that it is possible that he was there to get the chip out. > > > The show has told as many, many, many times to the point it got > > repentative. > > There's always a possibility that it was a backpedalling moves on the > original treatment. He looked shocked and angry when the demon said > we'll return "your soul" as if he didn't expected that. The fact that > later episodes drops anvil after anvils about Spike going to Africa > for the soul makes one wonder if it was done to convince the audience > that's what he really wanted to do. Dan, I agree with you, he was fully expecting to get the chip out. When his soul was returned he was totally surprised. But what did we really expect him to tell Buffy? He told her what she wanted to hear. He told her things that would get her to love him. The one thing he's not going to tell her is that he went to get the chip out. He told her everything but that which makes me believe - he wanted the chip out. If you were Buffy which would you rather hear? "Buffy - I love you so much. You told me you couldn't love a soulless thing, so I went and got a soul for you." Or "Buffy - I went to get this chip out so you could get what you deserve." I know which one I would pick and stick with over and over. -- Best Regards, Linda Mmmmmm.....Naked...Angel

2003-09-04 02:47:54+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (floppypaws@aol.com)


Sorry, but two Spike centric episodes are two too many for me. ME should remember the 3 million or so Angel fans that stuck with the show through all the schedule changes and sometimes long, drawn out plot lines.

2003-09-04 03:23:15+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu>)


Hagen <mep22@excite.com> wrote: : Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<_Nt5b.2331$H91.49399@news.itd.umich.edu>... :> Hagen <mep22@excite.com> wrote: :> : What the writers have made quite clear is that *Angel* makes a :> : distinction between Angel and Angelus. That Spike doesn't feel :> : compelled to distance himself from his soulless persona in the same :> : way makes it very doubtful that there is any substance at all to this :> : distinction. :> :> OR :> :> That Spike doesn't feel compelled to distance himself from his soulless :> persona in the same way makes it very doubtful that there is any :> validity to his supposed redemption. : I see. So, redemption is not about changing your behaviour, trying to : become a better person and doing good deeds. It's about changing your : name, referring to yourself in the third person, and acting like it : was really someone else altogether who committed the crimes from which : you're trying to redeem yourself (?!). Redemption isn't about changing your behavior, trying to become a better person and doing good deeds because you're obsessed with a good person. Its about doing changing your behavior, trying to become a better person, and doing good deeds because its the right thing to do.

2003-09-04 07:42:10-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309031921.7c6f38c4@posting.google.com>... > Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<_Nt5b.2331$H91.49399@news.itd.umich.edu>... > > Hagen <mep22@excite.com> wrote: > > : What the writers have made quite clear is that *Angel* makes a > > : distinction between Angel and Angelus. > > When? Angel has been more than a bit dubious about the relationship. > Buffy, and later Faith, have insisted that there Angel is not Angelus > and vice versa...and Angel has been kind enough not to disabuse them > of that idea because it's obviously important to them. He was equally > nice about not insisting on the obvious connection between "kinda gay" > VampWillow and Willow. When?? Why, as recently as... What was the ep after Orpheus called - with AI's first chat after Cordy's pregnancy news? Anyway, Fred tells him that he can't feel guilty for anything Angelus did and he goes "Oh, I know" (I remember that distinctly, because it made both me and my sister snort very loudly at exactly the same time). He later starts to tell Wes he's sorry about what he did and changes it mid-sentence to "what Angelus did." So, while he can be ambivalent about it on occasion, I think it's pretty clear that Angel does make the distinction. Not just for the benefit of those around him, but also because a touch of denial helps him live with what he's done. Whether he truly believes in it deep down is another question. I would guess not, but Angel's almost as good at repression as Buffy, so it's hard to tell.

2003-09-04 07:55:00-05:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


Tammy Stephanie Davis wrote: > Hagen <mep22@excite.com> wrote: >> Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in >> message news:<_Nt5b.2331$H91.49399@news.itd.umich.edu>... >>> Hagen <mep22@excite.com> wrote: > >>>> What the writers have made quite clear is that *Angel* makes a >>>> distinction between Angel and Angelus. That Spike doesn't feel >>>> compelled to distance himself from his soulless persona in the same >>>> way makes it very doubtful that there is any substance at all to >>>> this distinction. >>> >>> OR >>> >>> That Spike doesn't feel compelled to distance himself from his >>> soulless persona in the same way makes it very doubtful that there >>> is any validity to his supposed redemption. > >> I see. So, redemption is not about changing your behaviour, trying to >> become a better person and doing good deeds. It's about changing your >> name, referring to yourself in the third person, and acting like it >> was really someone else altogether who committed the crimes from >> which you're trying to redeem yourself (?!). > > Redemption isn't about changing your behavior, trying to become a > better person and doing good deeds because you're obsessed with a > good person. Its about doing changing your behavior, trying to become > a better person, and doing good deeds because its the right thing to > do. Okayyyyyyyyy. I guess we'll just ignore the fact that the only reason Angel started doing good was because he saw a lolly pop sucking 15 yr old girl. And I really hate to tell you this but it took Angel 100+ years to even get to that point, and Spike has had his for a year. It also took Angel two years after getting his own show to decided that it's because "It's the right thing to do. " And he only does the "right thing" when it directly effects his "family" otherwise he really doesn't care about anyone else. Yup now that Angel is working for W&H I can see where he's really working for redemption. Bleh! Jul

2003-09-04 08:15:44-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


Shit. As soon as I posted, I realized I badly needed to clarify this: > Whether he truly believes in it deep > down is another question. I would guess not, but Angel's almost as > good at repression as Buffy, so it's hard to tell. It's clear to me that, at least on a *subconscious* level, Angel has to know himself the same person as Angelus. Otherwise, he couldn't possibly feel guilty for his past and compelled to atone. What's less clear is whether he allows that knowledge to percolate to any level of his *conscious* mind. I think he does, but only in limited ways - in other words, he doesn't fully, rationally accept it.

2003-09-04 08:24:53-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


floppypaws@aol.com (Floppypaws) wrote in message news:<20030903224754.21934.00000477@mb-m04.aol.com>... > Sorry, but two Spike centric episodes are two too many for me. ME should > remember the 3 million or so Angel fans that stuck with the show through all > the schedule changes and sometimes long, drawn out plot lines. So every single one of those 3 million "Angel" fans hates Spike and feels that two Spike-centric episodes are two too many? You know that for a fact?

2003-09-04 08:30:36-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<Dey5b.2339$H91.49802@news.itd.umich.edu>... > Redemption isn't about changing your behavior, trying to become a better > person and doing good deeds because you're obsessed with a good person. > Its about doing changing your behavior, trying to become a better person, > and doing good deeds because its the right thing to do. So people should be judged on their beliefs, not on their actions?

2003-09-04 09:27:49-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


Juleen wrote: > Linda wrote: >>"Buffy - I went to get this chip out so you could get what you >>deserve." >> >>I know which one I would pick and stick with over and over. > > And why did the FirstMayor have to gain by telling Spike "So what'd you > think? You'd get your soul back and everything'd be > Jim Dandy?" If Spike was trying to get the chip out don't you think the > First Evil would have been having a field day with Spike telling him how > he got tricked? The First Evil was shilling for the producers/writers, hammering on that anvil to make sure the doubters (like me--I know damn well what I saw and heard, and it wasn't a quest for a soul) understand that THE OFFICIAL STORY is that Spike went to Africa to get his soul back. All it proves is that the First Evil can't be trusted. And, you know...duh!

2003-09-04 11:26:42-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0309040642.10676279@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309031921.7c6f38c4@posting.google.com>... > > Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<_Nt5b.2331$H91.49399@news.itd.umich.edu>... > > > Hagen <mep22@excite.com> wrote: > > > > : What the writers have made quite clear is that *Angel* makes a > > > : distinction between Angel and Angelus. > > > > When? Angel has been more than a bit dubious about the relationship. > > Buffy, and later Faith, have insisted that there Angel is not Angelus > > and vice versa...and Angel has been kind enough not to disabuse them > > of that idea because it's obviously important to them. He was equally > > nice about not insisting on the obvious connection between "kinda gay" > > VampWillow and Willow. > > When?? Why, as recently as... What was the ep after Orpheus called - > with AI's first chat after Cordy's pregnancy news? Anyway, Fred tells > him that he can't feel guilty for anything Angelus did and he goes > "Oh, I know" (I remember that distinctly, because it made both me and > my sister snort very loudly at exactly the same time). He later starts > to tell Wes he's sorry about what he did and changes it mid-sentence > to "what Angelus did." > > So, while he can be ambivalent about it on occasion, I think it's > pretty clear that Angel does make the distinction. Not just for the > benefit of those around him, but also because a touch of denial helps > him live with what he's done. Whether he truly believes in it deep > down is another question. I would guess not, but Angel's almost as > good at repression as Buffy, so it's hard to tell. Too true, and I'd forgotten his comments to Fred and Wes in whatever that episode was called. But again, the first is simply Angel telling Fred what he thinks she needs to hear. The Wes comment is more definite since it's unsolicited, but then, why should Angel be sorry about what Angelus did? Could be he's repressing too, or could be that he understands that humans who have seen him when Angelus gets the upperhand need to believe he's a different person. Angelus said some pretty nasty things to Wes as well as Fred after all, and even if he didn't kill Lilah, he fed off her. These are things he couldn't begin to apologize for. Makes it easier all around if everyone pretends it was someone else. One big thing I'm hoping for from Spike is that he pokes a big ole hole in the comfort zone they've all agreed on. himiko

2003-09-04 12:21:48+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: floppypaws@aol.com (Floppypaws) >Date: 9/3/2003 10:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <20030903224754.21934.00000477@mb-m04.aol.com> > >Sorry, but two Spike centric episodes are two too many for me. ME should >remember the 3 million or so Angel fans that stuck with the show through all >the schedule changes and sometimes long, drawn out plot lines. > > > > > > It's not that those fans are being forgotten, imo. But, it's been made pretty clear that they aren't enough to sustain the show. AtS NEEDS these new viewers; and the way to bring them in is not by maintaining the status quo. Maybe bringing some new characters on board won't make a difference; but I can't fault them for trying. Sandra

2003-09-04 12:27:12+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: "Linda" lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com >Date: 9/3/2003 9:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <KXw5b.3594405$cI2.497568@news.easynews.com> > > > >Dan, I agree with you, he was fully expecting to get the chip out. When his >soul was returned he was totally surprised. But what did we really expect >him to tell Buffy? > > >If you were Buffy which would you rather hear? "Buffy - I love you so much. >You told me you couldn't love a soulless thing, so I went and got a soul for >you." > >Or > >"Buffy - I went to get this chip out so you could get what you deserve." > >Best Regards, > >Linda > >Mmmmmm.....Naked...Angel > > > But how would getting the chip out affect Buffy? The chip didn't work on her at all. So, if he'd gone to get the chip out, they would still be exactly where they were before. There would be no purpose in Spike's getting the chip removed.

2003-09-04 17:51:32+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: mep22@excite.com (Hagen) >Date: 9/4/2003 8:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <2a530545.0309040730.296924dd@posting.google.com> > >Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in >message news:<Dey5b.2339$H91.49802@news.itd.umich.edu>... > >> Redemption isn't about changing your behavior, trying to become a better >> person and doing good deeds because you're obsessed with a good person. >> Its about doing changing your behavior, trying to become a better person, >> and doing good deeds because its the right thing to do. > >So people should be judged on their >beliefs, not on their actions? Both. Rose "So we're spawning -- and it's not a pretty story." -- Gary Shandling.

2003-09-04 19:32:35-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309041026.4e7e4887@posting.google.com>... > Too true, and I'd forgotten his comments to Fred and Wes in whatever > that episode was called. But again, the first is simply Angel telling > Fred what he thinks she needs to hear. The Wes comment is more > definite since it's unsolicited, but then, why should Angel be sorry > about what Angelus did? Could be he's repressing too, or could be > that he understands that humans who have seen him when Angelus gets > the upperhand need to believe he's a different person. Angelus said > some pretty nasty things to Wes as well as Fred after all, and even if > he didn't kill Lilah, he fed off her. These are things he couldn't > begin to apologize for. Makes it easier all around if everyone > pretends it was someone else. Well, yeah, there's no way to know exactly WHY Angel makes the distinction: maybe he really believes it, maybe he just wants to believe it, maybe he's trying to spare his friends from dealing with it, maybe he's afraid that they couldn't accept him otherwise, maybe it's a mixture of these reasons (I opt for #2, 3 & 4), etc., etc. His "I know" to Fred sounded pretty unhesitant, sincere and straightforward to me; but he may just be rationalizing that, since they all agreed to let Angelus out, he's not really responsible. On the other hand, there's the comment in Doppelg�ngerland; but admitting to personality overlap between the human and the vampire is not quite the same as admitting they're really the same person. <shrug> We'll probably never know for sure </shrug>. What's pretty obvious to me is that this is an issue they're all refusing to examine too closely ('cause if they did, they'd have to admit it makes no sense). I've just never seen any clear indication that any of them, including Angel, are consciously just pretending to buy the distinction. So I suspect that it's just one big group denial thing. > One big thing I'm hoping for from Spike is that he pokes a big ole > hole in the comfort zone they've all agreed on. Amen and Hallelujah! It seems he coudn't quite manage to pierce the SG's bubble (or at least ME refused to let it be explicitly pierced), but I still - irrationally - have high hopes for the AI gang.

2003-09-04 22:16:37-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0309022326.2480b556@posting.google.com>... > Umm, no. Buffy disagrees with Giles, Giles disagrees with Buffy. > That's a given. You were bemoaning the lack of a *third party* to > question Buffy's choices, remember? Well, no third party questioned > Giles's either. That's because Buffy was supposed to be the third party and yet she chose to side with Spike. > How did Buffy not listening to Giles or "get[ting] her way" (whatever > that means) prove that she was right? One word: "Chosen". Never once after Buffy made her decision she was presented with facts that maybe her decision isn't right after all. In fact, it's the other characters who are shown that they are wrong through and through. So in other words, Buffy and Spike are always right and other characters always wrong. > Xander losing an eye not enough of an indication that Buffy's fallible > for you? It is but when other characters question her judgment, Buffy was always the winner. To the point that the other characters end up dead because they weren't following Buffy the next time around. > What friggin' punishment? They turned out to be as fallible as Buffy? > And, again, how does their so-called "punishment" prove that they were > wrong? Because they chose not to follow Buffy they are punished for it. Note that the writers never for once show that the other characters can survive without Buffy or that Buffy can't survive without them. It's always Buffy can survive because she's the best and because she has Spike's love to back her up. Let me vomit at that last part. > Look, go and deliberately ignore four seasons of building up Buffy and > the SG's alienation from each other if you want. But don't tell me > that's logical. If that's the best you can come up with as a reply, then I can understand why you chose to think that's not logical. > Psychology not your forte, eh? ;) No, that's why I got paid a lot of money to do graphic design. > Seriously? After he went behind her back and tried to kill someone she > cares about? You think that's a reasonable expectation? She cares about Spike? Since when? This is the same girl who flinched when Spike touched her. That's my problem with this entire thing. There's not enough consistency in Buffy's behaviour for me to be able to fathom what is going on inside her mind. One moment she's scared of Spike, another moment she goes "he's got a sooooul". > May I ask you how old you are? I'm not being patronizing, I'm > seriously asking. That sort of trollish question is not even worth answering. I'm quite sure that I'm older than you are. Just because I'm not interested in your personal life, doesn't mean you have to get all ruffled up about it. > Statements of fact (e.g. "I was a vampire"; "she was a Slayer") are > not rationalizations. Nor does a lack of expressed remorse for past > behaviour constitute rationalizing/justifying said behaviour. Bla, bla, bla. You can mince the word, you can twist it, it doesn't change the fact that Spike was evading the truth that he took someone else's life. > But continuing to > *rationally* reject all arguments that might alter your initial > emotional reaction, when that reaction is one of upset and dislike, is > something that confounds me. Heh, I can say the same thing about you. To me I'm being rational enough to every single rant you have presented here. > Ah. So, Giles and Wood are shown to be wrong because they failed to > kill Spike or even get him chained up after there was no longer any > need for it. Buffy and Spike's POV is vindicated because they "get > their way." That's your opinion and stop pretending as if you know what I am thinking (why is it with Spike fans and your tendency to assume what other people think?). There was no longer any need for it? Spike was clearly hiding something which could be fatally dangerous for the gang. Wood being able to trigger him that easily by playing that record is an undeniable proof of that. > Do you also think that, if someone gets away with murder, they are > vindicated in their decision to kill? I mean, they got their way, > right? In a certain way, yes. Especially when there's no palpable punishment for it. > I'm not familiar with your entire posting history but I can tell you > that your first post on this thread came across as aggressively and > unnecessarily sarcastic towards someone who was merely expressing a > preference of which you disapproved. Which prompted equally unpleasant > responses. I have only developed the sarcasm after multitude of harrassment and name-calling provided by other Spike fans. I have so far though not resort to name-calling anyone and I think that's enough restraint on my part. > Oh, come on! You keep harping on how the writers "trashed" Buffy, > Xander, Giles and god knows who else in order to make Spike look good! Do you always take things literally? To me it looks like the writers 'trashed' the other characters to make Spike looks good. Whether it is intentional or not, that I'll never find out. But the end result is the same, if I compare Buffy in S3 or even S5 with that in S7, I know that the person in S3 or S5 was a much nicer, kinder person than the one in S7. > I don't think they made other characters look unsympathetic in order > to justify Buffy/Spike. I think they made other characters look boring > because they weren't as interested in writing them as they were in > writing Buffy/Spike. Whatever the motivation, we'll never find out because we are not them. We can only guess why other characters look really bad in comparison to Spike. But the end result is the same: Spike gets all the good lines, the good character development while others suffer from bad lines, no arc, little storyline, and unattractive personality. > You yourself said just a few paragraphs above that there are plenty of > people who saw LMPTM the same way you did. Now you're telling me a > bunch of Spike-fans on TwoP or whatever didn't. Well, sorry, but... > Duh?! Huh? I think you're confusing it now. I never said a bunch of Spike fans on TwoP didn't. > So? Sure, SMG might've preferred for her character to be a universally > loved and admired, unimpugnable heroine (and, if that's the case, I'm > thankful no one listened to her). I don't see what her feelings on the > subject have to do with whether or not the writers meant for the > audience to hate Buffy. It has everything to do with it. She's the one who has to play the character and she can clearly see in the dialogue, manners, way of speaking in the script that her character has somehow been turned into an unlikeable person. I don't think Sarah wanted Buffy to be perfect heroine because she clearly didn't mind playing Buffy to have her faults just like in S2, S3, S4, etc. But certainly there are limits that one must set before the character becomes too unlikeable. And IMO, Buffy was an indirect victim of that in S6-7. Her character becomes unsympathetic to the point that it makes it hard for people to be happy for her at the end of the show. > As an aside - you do realize that, if Buffy ends up with Angel as you > want her to, the people who hate/dislike her now are gonna hate her a > million times more, right? Huh? Sometimes you don't make any sense you know. What does Buffy end up with Angel got anything to do with people liking Buffy? It's been a couple of months since the event in "Chosen", if Buffy can turn into an unlikeable person, then certainly she can turn into a kinder person a couple of months later after spending some time free from the burden of her slayerhood. > Oh, I seriously doubt that SMG understands Buffy better than Joss. I > think she's a very talented actress but she doesn't strike me as that > deep intellectually. I think both SMG and Joss have an equal understanding of who Buffy is. Just because Joss was the one who wrote her doesn't mean SMG doesn't understand her character motivation as well or even better than him. Plus you forgot that from S5 onwards Joss has a very hands-off approach to BTVS, leaving Buffy in the hands of MN and SMG herself. And I'm sure SMG will find it flattering to know that you don't think of her as that deep intellectually. Why is that? Have you met her? Or is this one of those false assumptions you made about people you've never met in your life? From her interviews, SMG appears as someone, who at the very least, knows very well about her character, her past, present, and future character's arc, what certain things meant for her characters, which is more than I can say for other actors in other TV shows who can't seem to be bothered to remember what's the latest plot about his/her character. > And "distressed"...? Doncha think you're > exaggerating just a tad? Not really. She was hesitant in signing for S7 but hoping for the best. But once she saw that things are not going for the better, she refused to sign on for S8. > Right. No one's ever said anything negative about Spike that wasn't > perfectly rational, warranted criticism. Gee, when you have someone who's been trying to kill you, get you in loads of trouble, etc, I doubt you'll find it easy to trust that person. But hey, since you seem to like that sort of person, hope you'll meet one in your future life! > Sorry, don't buy it. Spike was always a popular character but I don't > think many people seriously expected him to reform and become the male > lead and/or Buffy's lover, ROTFL. Oh God, you're so naive. Or are you not aware of the Spike campaign that's been going on lately? > I couldn't care less about positive role models and if SMG cares more > about that than the opportunity to do the sort of acting that nothing > else in her career is likely to afford her, then she's a twit. Nice. So now you go insulting the actress. You're lucky she's not JM because otherwise her fans would have pounced on you. > However, I think you're projecting your own feelings onto SMG just a > bit. Go to SMG fan board.com if you really think I"m projecting my own feelings. Or better get that EW article with her interview on it. > So, really, not "fluffy romances" at all. More like, say, "Romeo and > Juliet." Tragic love-stories, in other words. Not exactly. The tragic part normally didn't come until the last half of the film > So Joss is going to let SMG dictate the storyline? Doubt it. But, > assuming he does, you think that's a good thing? I don't know because I'm not a mind-reader. And hey, WB has been dictating JW that JM is to be added as permanent cast of AtS. Do you think that's a good thing? > Did you watch Season 7? Did you fall asleep during the bits where they > worked through most - if not all - of that (can't say I blame you, I > thought it was pretty boring too)? Boring, contrived, and inconsistent were the three words you're looking for > 1) Buffy. Leaving Sunnyhell. Free of the Hellmouth and her destiny as > the one and lonely Chosen One. Having come full circle from WTTH. > Having changed her world. Free to rebuilt her life any way she > chooses. THAT "second chance ending." That's her ending. > 2) Angel can't have a "second chance ending" with Buffy without Buffy > having a second "second chance ending" with him. BS. This is Angel's show not Buffy's show. Everything will come under Angel's POV and if there's any second chance, it'll be for him, yes Buffy is a part of it, but this is mostly about Angel's second chance. Just because Buffy is a part of it doesn't invalidate Angel's second chance. > No, it's not, because I wasn't talking about who would/should shanshu. > AT ALL. You said Angel getting the girl would be original because he > was a vampire. You also said this didn't apply to Spike because he > wasn't a vampire anymore. I also said lead character vampire not just any vampire. But damn, you just have to miss that tiny important detail, don't you? > Mind telling me by what definition of "ambiguous" you're going? I just did in my previous post. Ambiguous ending is one where the likelihood of it being resolved is non-existent. But A/B/S triangle still has the likelihood of being resolved.

2003-09-04 22:50:07-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (himiko@animail.net)


mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0309041832.7a990fe1@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309041026.4e7e4887@posting.google.com>... > > > One big thing I'm hoping for from Spike is that he pokes a big ole > > hole in the comfort zone they've all agreed on. > > Amen and Hallelujah! It seems he coudn't quite manage to pierce the > SG's bubble (or at least ME refused to let it be explicitly pierced), > but I still - irrationally - have high hopes for the AI gang. Me too. Sad, isn't it? We really must go out and get lives one of these days. :) himiko

2003-09-05 03:26:55+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu>)


Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote: : Tammy Stephanie Davis wrote: :> Hagen <mep22@excite.com> wrote: :>> Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in :>> message news:<_Nt5b.2331$H91.49399@news.itd.umich.edu>... :>>> Hagen <mep22@excite.com> wrote: :> :>>>> What the writers have made quite clear is that *Angel* makes a :>>>> distinction between Angel and Angelus. That Spike doesn't feel :>>>> compelled to distance himself from his soulless persona in the same :>>>> way makes it very doubtful that there is any substance at all to :>>>> this distinction. :>>> :>>> OR :>>> :>>> That Spike doesn't feel compelled to distance himself from his :>>> soulless persona in the same way makes it very doubtful that there :>>> is any validity to his supposed redemption. :> :>> I see. So, redemption is not about changing your behaviour, trying to :>> become a better person and doing good deeds. It's about changing your :>> name, referring to yourself in the third person, and acting like it :>> was really someone else altogether who committed the crimes from :>> which you're trying to redeem yourself (?!). :> :> Redemption isn't about changing your behavior, trying to become a :> better person and doing good deeds because you're obsessed with a :> good person. Its about doing changing your behavior, trying to become :> a better person, and doing good deeds because its the right thing to :> do. : Okayyyyyyyyy. I guess we'll just ignore the fact that the only reason : Angel started doing good was because he saw a lolly pop sucking 15 yr : old girl. Wrong. As episodes "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been", "Darla", "Epiphany", and "Orpheus" clearly show, Angel was trying to do good deeds - with varying degrees of success - decades before Buffy was even born. : And I really hate to tell you this but it took Angel 100+ years to even : get to that point, and Spike has had his for a year. It also took Angel : two years after getting his own show to decided that it's because "It's : the right thing to do. " Wrong again. See my previous response. : And he only does the "right thing" when it directly effects his "family" : otherwise he really doesn't care about anyone else. Bullshit. There are countless episodes beginning with "City of...." through "Peace Out" where Angel has helped strangers, saved the world, etc. To say that he doesn't care about anyone else but his family is nonsense. Do you even watch the show?

2003-09-05 03:29:29+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Linda <lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com>)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:bj687h$ddvt0$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de... > Linda wrote: > > "Daniel Garten" <dxgarten@ignmail.com> wrote in message > > news:49cf8df3.0309020040.4640b612@posting.google.com... > >> "Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message > > news:<biv95d$dbmcg$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > >> > >> > >>>>> And why did he go? > >>>>> To get a soul. > >> > >> That's one interpretation. He also did say that the 'bleeding chip' > >> makes it impossible for him to do what needs to be done which can > >> imply that it is possible that he was there to get the chip out. > >> > >>> The show has told as many, many, many times to the point it got > >>> repentative. > >> > >> There's always a possibility that it was a backpedalling moves on the > >> original treatment. He looked shocked and angry when the demon said > >> we'll return "your soul" as if he didn't expected that. The fact > >> that later episodes drops anvil after anvils about Spike going to > >> Africa for the soul makes one wonder if it was done to convince the > >> audience that's what he really wanted to do. > > > > > > Dan, I agree with you, he was fully expecting to get the chip out. > > When his soul was returned he was totally surprised. But what did we > > really expect him to tell Buffy? > > > > He told her what she wanted to hear. He told her things that would > > get her to love him. The one thing he's not going to tell her is that > > he went to get the chip out. He told her everything but that which > > makes me believe - he wanted the chip out. > > > > If you were Buffy which would you rather hear? "Buffy - I love you so > > much. You told me you couldn't love a soulless thing, so I went and > > got a soul for you." > > > > Or > > > > "Buffy - I went to get this chip out so you could get what you > > deserve." > > > > I know which one I would pick and stick with over and over. > > And why did the FirstMayor have to gain by telling Spike "So what'd you > think? You'd get your soul back and everything'd be > Jim Dandy?" If Spike was trying to get the chip out don't you think the > First Evil would have been having a field day with Spike telling him how > he got tricked? Why? Because the writers were back pedaling as fast as they could after they decided to change direction *after* the last season episode aired. JM was told to act it one way and he did. Then the writers decided to change it so they had to continue to write scenes supporting it. But in the original episode Spike very clearly was not there to get his human soul back. That's the way JM was told to act it and that's the way I believe it. -- Best Regards, Linda I miss Kate Lockley.

2003-09-05 03:33:07+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu>)


Hagen <mep22@excite.com> wrote: : Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<Dey5b.2339$H91.49802@news.itd.umich.edu>... :> Redemption isn't about changing your behavior, trying to become a better :> person and doing good deeds because you're obsessed with a good person. :> Its about doing changing your behavior, trying to become a better person, :> and doing good deeds because its the right thing to do. : So people should be judged on their beliefs, not on their actions? I don't quite understand your question. Spike did good because of his obsession for Buffy. Without that obsession, he wouldn't have been motivated to do good. Until Spike starts doing good because its the right thing to do and not due to his obsession for Buffy, then he will be well on his way toward redemption. I don't question Spike has done good. I question his motivation.

2003-09-05 03:33:53+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (Linda <lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com>)


"Mark Jones" <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote in message news:3F576805.50803@pacifier.com... > Juleen wrote: > > Linda wrote: > > >>"Buffy - I went to get this chip out so you could get what you > >>deserve." > >> > >>I know which one I would pick and stick with over and over. > > > > And why did the FirstMayor have to gain by telling Spike "So what'd you > > think? You'd get your soul back and everything'd be > > Jim Dandy?" If Spike was trying to get the chip out don't you think the > > First Evil would have been having a field day with Spike telling him how > > he got tricked? > > The First Evil was shilling for the producers/writers, hammering on that > anvil to make sure the doubters (like me--I know damn well what I saw > and heard, and it wasn't a quest for a soul) understand that THE > OFFICIAL STORY is that Spike went to Africa to get his soul back. All > it proves is that the First Evil can't be trusted. > > And, you know...duh! I agree and Thank You. -- Best Regards, Linda Mmmmmm.....Naked...Angel

2003-09-05 17:17:22+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 9/4/2003 10:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0309042116.142b194c@posting.google.com> > >mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message >news:<2a530545.0309022326.2480b556@posting.google.com>... > >> Umm, no. Buffy disagrees with Giles, Giles disagrees with Buffy. >> That's a given. You were bemoaning the lack of a *third party* to >> question Buffy's choices, remember? Well, no third party questioned >> Giles's either. > >That's because Buffy was supposed to be the third party and yet she >chose to side with Spike. > >> How did Buffy not listening to Giles or "get[ting] her way" (whatever >> that means) prove that she was right? > >One word: "Chosen". Never once after Buffy made her decision she was >presented with facts that maybe her decision isn't right after all. Buffy was acting on a gut feeling. Often throughout the show, Buffy's instinct and intuition (Spike is good and will help save the world) are shown to be correct. It's her methods or attitude (I'm untying Spike and that's that, everyone back the hell off and don't contradict me) that can be wrong. I think that if she'd *behaved* differently, Giles might not have conspired to murder Spike. >In fact, it's the other characters who are shown that they are wrong >through and through. I don't agree. A lot of people came away from "Lies" thinking Giles was right, and that the ep was saying Giles was right. That wouldn't have happened if the message of the ep was an unambiguous "Giles was wrong." I didn't like Lies because NeoSpike's behavior was OOC and because the ep's plot depended on everyone (esp. Buffy, Spike, Giles, Wood) acting uncharacteristically stupid and obtuse. But it did possess the virtue of being morally ambiguous. Fury didn't spoon-feed the audience with that episode. >So in other words, Buffy and Spike are always >right and other characters always wrong. > >> Xander losing an eye not enough of an indication that Buffy's fallible >> for you? > >It is but when other characters question her judgment, Buffy was >always the winner. To the point that the other characters end up dead >because they weren't following Buffy the next time around. > The point was that no matter what decision you make, the right one or the wrong one, people will get killed during wartime. Buffy's judgment was wrong in Dirty Girls, but otoh, the extreme anger at her was misplaced because the attitude was "people got hurt and killed so let's depose Buffy," not seeming to understand that in war, that's what happens, and deposing Buffy was no guarantee. What Buffy learned through that arc was that the real reason she was deposed was that she had alienated them all by distancing herself from them, being judgmental and autocratic, and not attempting to get to know them or inspire them. In the finale, she corrected that mistake by talking TO them, not AT them, during her St. Crispin's Day speech. >> What friggin' punishment? They turned out to be as fallible as Buffy? >> And, again, how does their so-called "punishment" prove that they were >> wrong? > >Because they chose not to follow Buffy they are punished for it. By that logic, Xander and Molly were "punished" for following Buffy. >> Seriously? After he went behind her back and tried to kill someone she >> cares about? You think that's a reasonable expectation? > >She cares about Spike? Since when? Giles certainly thought she did, hence his concerned speech to her in First Date. I think her taking him in and keeping him alive even after he killed people while under hypnosis, indicated caring for him, although I also think she used him to a degree. >This is the same girl who >flinched when Spike touched her. Flinching and caring aren't mutually exclusive. >That's my problem with this entire >thing. There's not enough consistency in Buffy's behaviour for me to >be able to fathom what is going on inside her mind. One moment she's >scared of Spike, another moment she goes "he's got a sooooul". > Where is the contradiction? >> May I ask you how old you are? I'm not being patronizing, I'm >> seriously asking. > >That sort of trollish question is not even worth answering. I'm >quite sure that I'm older than you are. Just because I'm not >interested in your personal life, doesn't mean you have to get all >ruffled up about it. > >> Statements of fact (e.g. "I was a vampire"; "she was a Slayer") are >> not rationalizations. Nor does a lack of expressed remorse for past >> behaviour constitute rationalizing/justifying said behaviour. > >Bla, bla, bla. You can mince the word, you can twist it, it doesn't >change the fact that Spike was evading the truth that he took someone >else's life. > Yes, David Fury deliberately wrote Spike as bad, or at best un-good, in that episode. He didn't want Spike to be good, because that would detract from Angel's position in the Jossverse. He said so himself in an interview (and no, I don't have the link). We were not supposed to approve of Spike in Lies. Oddly, a lot of people, even non Spike fans, did approve of his behavior. I found it odious and I hated him in it. But at any rate, it was not at least his intention that Spike be seen as "right." > >I have only developed the sarcasm after multitude of harrassment and >name-calling provided by other Spike fans. I have so far though not >resort to name-calling anyone and I think that's enough restraint on >my part. Why don't you simply insult people who insult you, and treat decently, people who do not insult you? I mean, a lot of men have been rude to me, but that doesn't make it cool for me to then be rude to all men on usenet. > >> Oh, come on! You keep harping on how the writers "trashed" Buffy, >> Xander, Giles and god knows who else in order to make Spike look good! > >Do you always take things literally? To me it looks like the writers >'trashed' the other characters to make Spike looks good. They sure didn't make Spike look good in Lies, in Storyteller, or in quite a few eps in S6. >Whether it >is intentional or not, that I'll never find out. But the end result is >the same, if I compare Buffy in S3 or even S5 with that in S7, I know >that the person in S3 or S5 was a much nicer, kinder person than the >one in S7. Maybe they trashed her to make Riley look good, because I found her unlikeable in S4, when they weren't trying to make Spike look good. > >> I don't think they made other characters look unsympathetic in order >> to justify Buffy/Spike. I think they made other characters look boring >> because they weren't as interested in writing them as they were in >> writing Buffy/Spike. > >Whatever the motivation, we'll never find out because we are not them. >We can only guess why other characters look really bad in comparison >to Spike. But the end result is the same: Spike gets all the good >lines, the good character development while others suffer from bad >lines, no arc, little storyline, and unattractive personality. > Spike got few good lines in S6 and S7 (although he did at times get good character development -- and at other times, horrid development which permanently turned some viewers against him). He got a shitty arc in S6 and the first half of S7. And somehow I doubt that you think he had an "attractive personality." Rose "So we're spawning -- and it's not a pretty story." -- Gary Shandling.

2003-09-05 17:55:16-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<TtT5b.2375$H91.50701@news.itd.umich.edu>... > Hagen <mep22@excite.com> wrote: > : Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsdnospam@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<Dey5b.2339$H91.49802@news.itd.umich.edu>... > : So people should be judged on their beliefs, not on their actions? > > I don't quite understand your question. Spike did good because of his > obsession for Buffy. Without that obsession, he wouldn't have been > motivated to do good. Until Spike starts doing good because its the > right thing to do and not due to his obsession for Buffy, then he will > be well on his way toward redemption. I'll try to clarify. I think you're amalgamating two different things: motives/intentions, which I agree do matter, insofar as we can ever really know what someone's true motives/intentions are; and abstract moral beliefs, which I personally am not interested in. Let's say someone does nothing but good things, but has absolutely no abstract moral beliefs in good or evil, right or wrong. They couldn't care less about "doing the right thing" - they just act on emotion and gut feelings, irrationally and with no attempt at fitting their choices into a moral framework. But they're kind and helpful because they feel like it, because they care about people and want to see them happy and because they see no point in making the world more painful than it already is. Are they not a good person? Are their motives not good? Why? Conversely, what about someone who does things that we (our society/culture/species) consider wrong and evil, but firmly believes that they're the right thing to do? Does that make them good? Or is it only doing the right thing according to *our* beliefs that counts? If so, why? Philosophers have been trying to find rational justification for seeing human ethical systems as objectively and universally valid for millenia, but no one's ever really managed to avoid circularity or lapsing into idealism. So, if our moral beliefs are irrational anyway, what's wrong with the first guy, who admits that and doesn't bother pretending to know or care what The Right Thing is, but just tries to be kind and to help? > I don't question Spike has done good. I question his motivation. Is it his motivation or his beliefs that you question?

2003-09-05 18:41:09-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309042116.142b194c@posting.google.com>... > mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0309022326.2480b556@posting.google.com>... OK, this debate is not only going nowhere (that was clear pretty early on) but degenerating into something that I have no desire to be involved in. You'll be happy to hear that this is one Spike fan with whom you'll never have to contend again. Your opinions are safe from me. ;) > > Umm, no. Buffy disagrees with Giles, Giles disagrees with Buffy. > > That's a given. You were bemoaning the lack of a *third party* to > > question Buffy's choices, remember? Well, no third party questioned > > Giles's either. > > That's because Buffy was supposed to be the third party and yet she > chose to side with Spike. > > > How did Buffy not listening to Giles or "get[ting] her way" (whatever > > that means) prove that she was right? > > One word: "Chosen". Never once after Buffy made her decision she was > presented with facts that maybe her decision isn't right after all. > In fact, it's the other characters who are shown that they are wrong > through and through. So in other words, Buffy and Spike are always > right and other characters always wrong. > > > Xander losing an eye not enough of an indication that Buffy's fallible > > for you? > > It is but when other characters question her judgment, Buffy was > always the winner. To the point that the other characters end up dead > because they weren't following Buffy the next time around. > > > What friggin' punishment? They turned out to be as fallible as Buffy? > > And, again, how does their so-called "punishment" prove that they were > > wrong? > > Because they chose not to follow Buffy they are punished for it. Note > that the writers never for once show that the other characters can > survive without Buffy or that Buffy can't survive without them. It's > always Buffy can survive because she's the best and because she has > Spike's love to back her up. Let me vomit at that last part. > > > Look, go and deliberately ignore four seasons of building up Buffy and > > the SG's alienation from each other if you want. But don't tell me > > that's logical. > > If that's the best you can come up with as a reply, then I can > understand why you chose to think that's not logical. > > > Psychology not your forte, eh? ;) > > No, that's why I got paid a lot of money to do graphic design. > > > Seriously? After he went behind her back and tried to kill someone she > > cares about? You think that's a reasonable expectation? > > She cares about Spike? Since when? This is the same girl who > flinched when Spike touched her. That's my problem with this entire > thing. There's not enough consistency in Buffy's behaviour for me to > be able to fathom what is going on inside her mind. One moment she's > scared of Spike, another moment she goes "he's got a sooooul". > > > May I ask you how old you are? I'm not being patronizing, I'm > > seriously asking. > > That sort of trollish question is not even worth answering. I'm > quite sure that I'm older than you are. Just because I'm not > interested in your personal life, doesn't mean you have to get all > ruffled up about it. > > > Statements of fact (e.g. "I was a vampire"; "she was a Slayer") are > > not rationalizations. Nor does a lack of expressed remorse for past > > behaviour constitute rationalizing/justifying said behaviour. > > Bla, bla, bla. You can mince the word, you can twist it, it doesn't > change the fact that Spike was evading the truth that he took someone > else's life. > > > But continuing to > > *rationally* reject all arguments that might alter your initial > > emotional reaction, when that reaction is one of upset and dislike, is > > something that confounds me. > > Heh, I can say the same thing about you. To me I'm being rational > enough to every single rant you have presented here. > > > Ah. So, Giles and Wood are shown to be wrong because they failed to > > kill Spike or even get him chained up after there was no longer any > > need for it. Buffy and Spike's POV is vindicated because they "get > > their way." > > That's your opinion and stop pretending as if you know what I am > thinking (why is it with Spike fans and your tendency to assume what > other people think?). There was no longer any need for it? Spike was > clearly hiding something which could be fatally dangerous for the > gang. Wood being able to trigger him that easily by playing that > record is an undeniable proof of that. > > > Do you also think that, if someone gets away with murder, they are > > vindicated in their decision to kill? I mean, they got their way, > > right? > > In a certain way, yes. Especially when there's no palpable > punishment for it. > > > I'm not familiar with your entire posting history but I can tell you > > that your first post on this thread came across as aggressively and > > unnecessarily sarcastic towards someone who was merely expressing a > > preference of which you disapproved. Which prompted equally unpleasant > > responses. > > I have only developed the sarcasm after multitude of harrassment and > name-calling provided by other Spike fans. I have so far though not > resort to name-calling anyone and I think that's enough restraint on > my part. > > > Oh, come on! You keep harping on how the writers "trashed" Buffy, > > Xander, Giles and god knows who else in order to make Spike look good! > > Do you always take things literally? To me it looks like the writers > 'trashed' the other characters to make Spike looks good. Whether it > is intentional or not, that I'll never find out. But the end result is > the same, if I compare Buffy in S3 or even S5 with that in S7, I know > that the person in S3 or S5 was a much nicer, kinder person than the > one in S7. > > > I don't think they made other characters look unsympathetic in order > > to justify Buffy/Spike. I think they made other characters look boring > > because they weren't as interested in writing them as they were in > > writing Buffy/Spike. > > Whatever the motivation, we'll never find out because we are not them. > We can only guess why other characters look really bad in comparison > to Spike. But the end result is the same: Spike gets all the good > lines, the good character development while others suffer from bad > lines, no arc, little storyline, and unattractive personality. > > > You yourself said just a few paragraphs above that there are plenty of > > people who saw LMPTM the same way you did. Now you're telling me a > > bunch of Spike-fans on TwoP or whatever didn't. Well, sorry, but... > > Duh?! > > Huh? I think you're confusing it now. I never said a bunch of Spike > fans on TwoP didn't. > > > So? Sure, SMG might've preferred for her character to be a universally > > loved and admired, unimpugnable heroine (and, if that's the case, I'm > > thankful no one listened to her). I don't see what her feelings on the > > subject have to do with whether or not the writers meant for the > > audience to hate Buffy. > > It has everything to do with it. She's the one who has to play the > character and she can clearly see in the dialogue, manners, way of > speaking in the script that her character has somehow been turned into > an unlikeable person. I don't think Sarah wanted Buffy to be perfect > heroine because she clearly didn't mind playing Buffy to have her > faults just like in S2, S3, S4, etc. But certainly there are limits > that one must set before the character becomes too unlikeable. And > IMO, Buffy was an indirect victim of that in S6-7. Her character > becomes unsympathetic to the point that it makes it hard for people > to be happy for her at the end of the show. > > > As an aside - you do realize that, if Buffy ends up with Angel as you > > want her to, the people who hate/dislike her now are gonna hate her a > > million times more, right? > > Huh? Sometimes you don't make any sense you know. What does Buffy > end up with Angel got anything to do with people liking Buffy? It's > been a couple of months since the event in "Chosen", if Buffy can turn > into an unlikeable person, then certainly she can turn into a kinder > person a couple of months later after spending some time free from the > burden of her slayerhood. > > > Oh, I seriously doubt that SMG understands Buffy better than Joss. I > > think she's a very talented actress but she doesn't strike me as that > > deep intellectually. > > I think both SMG and Joss have an equal understanding of who Buffy is. > Just because Joss was the one who wrote her doesn't mean SMG doesn't > understand her character motivation as well or even better than him. > Plus you forgot that from S5 onwards Joss has a very hands-off > approach to BTVS, leaving Buffy in the hands of MN and SMG herself. > > And I'm sure SMG will find it flattering to know that you don't think > of her as that deep intellectually. Why is that? Have you met her? > Or is this one of those false assumptions you made about people you've > never met in your life? From her interviews, SMG appears as someone, > who at the very least, knows very well about her character, her past, > present, and future character's arc, what certain things meant for her > characters, which is more than I can say for other actors in other TV > shows who can't seem to be bothered to remember what's the latest plot > about his/her character. > > > And "distressed"...? Doncha think you're > > exaggerating just a tad? > > Not really. She was hesitant in signing for S7 but hoping for the > best. But once she saw that things are not going for the better, she > refused to sign on for S8. > > > Right. No one's ever said anything negative about Spike that wasn't > > perfectly rational, warranted criticism. > > Gee, when you have someone who's been trying to kill you, get you in > loads of trouble, etc, I doubt you'll find it easy to trust that > person. But hey, since you seem to like that sort of person, hope > you'll meet one in your future life! > > > Sorry, don't buy it. Spike was always a popular character but I don't > > think many people seriously expected him to reform and become the male > > lead and/or Buffy's lover, > > ROTFL. Oh God, you're so naive. Or are you not aware of the Spike > campaign that's been going on lately? > > > I couldn't care less about positive role models and if SMG cares more > > about that than the opportunity to do the sort of acting that nothing > > else in her career is likely to afford her, then she's a twit. > > Nice. So now you go insulting the actress. You're lucky she's not JM > because otherwise her fans would have pounced on you. > > > However, I think you're projecting your own feelings onto SMG just a > > bit. > > Go to SMG fan board.com if you really think I"m projecting my own > feelings. Or better get that EW article with her interview on it. > > > So, really, not "fluffy romances" at all. More like, say, "Romeo and > > Juliet." Tragic love-stories, in other words. > > Not exactly. The tragic part normally didn't come until the last half > of the film > > > So Joss is going to let SMG dictate the storyline? Doubt it. But, > > assuming he does, you think that's a good thing? > > I don't know because I'm not a mind-reader. And hey, WB has been > dictating JW that JM is to be added as permanent cast of AtS. Do you > think that's a good thing? > > > Did you watch Season 7? Did you fall asleep during the bits where they > > worked through most - if not all - of that (can't say I blame you, I > > thought it was pretty boring too)? > > Boring, contrived, and inconsistent were the three words you're > looking for > > > 1) Buffy. Leaving Sunnyhell. Free of the Hellmouth and her destiny as > > the one and lonely Chosen One. Having come full circle from WTTH. > > Having changed her world. Free to rebuilt her life any way she > > chooses. THAT "second chance ending." > > That's her ending. > > > 2) Angel can't have a "second chance ending" with Buffy without Buffy > > having a second "second chance ending" with him. > > BS. This is Angel's show not Buffy's show. Everything will come > under Angel's POV and if there's any second chance, it'll be for him, > yes Buffy is a part of it, but this is mostly about Angel's second > chance. Just because Buffy is a part of it doesn't invalidate Angel's > second chance. > > > No, it's not, because I wasn't talking about who would/should shanshu. > > AT ALL. You said Angel getting the girl would be original because he > > was a vampire. You also said this didn't apply to Spike because he > > wasn't a vampire anymore. > > I also said lead character vampire not just any vampire. But damn, > you just have to miss that tiny important detail, don't you? > > > Mind telling me by what definition of "ambiguous" you're going? > > I just did in my previous post. Ambiguous ending is one where the > likelihood of it being resolved is non-existent. But A/B/S triangle > still has the likelihood of being resolved.

2003-09-05 18:45:27-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309042150.18115879@posting.google.com>... > mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0309041832.7a990fe1@posting.google.com>... > > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0309041026.4e7e4887@posting.google.com>... > > > > > One big thing I'm hoping for from Spike is that he pokes a big ole > > > hole in the comfort zone they've all agreed on. > > > > Amen and Hallelujah! It seems he coudn't quite manage to pierce the > > SG's bubble (or at least ME refused to let it be explicitly pierced), > > but I still - irrationally - have high hopes for the AI gang. > > Me too. Sad, isn't it? We really must go out and get lives one of these days. :) I know! So... Whose lives do you think we should get? ;)

2003-09-06 02:43:45-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0309031815.2e4b6f59@posting.google.com>... > Well, it is kind of necessary to show the > people who don't know just who the hell Spike is. So the solution to someone who doesn't know about something new is to stuff them with too much information? > Any character added > would be given an intro like this. Also, it is only 3 stories. No they weren't. Wes, Gunn, Fred, and Lorne never got intro to the point that 2 very episodes that are very close to each other are dedicated to their stories at the expense of the veteran regulars.

2003-09-06 03:09:21-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030905131722.14300.00000429@mb-m12.aol.com>... > Buffy was acting on a gut feeling. Often throughout the show, Buffy's instinct > and intuition (Spike is good and will help save the world) are shown to be > correct. And incorrect as proven with the Wine cellar scenario. > It's her methods or attitude (I'm untying Spike and that's that, > everyone back the hell off and don't contradict me) that can be wrong. I think > that if she'd *behaved* differently, Giles might not have conspired to murder > Spike. Exactly. > I don't agree. A lot of people came away from "Lies" thinking Giles was right, The problem was, the show never show us that he can be right in S7. All through it all, he was shown to be wrong and Buffy to be right. > The point was that no matter what decision you make, the right one or the wrong > one, people will get killed during wartime. Buffy's judgment was wrong in > Dirty Girls, but otoh, the extreme anger at her was misplaced because the > attitude was "people got hurt and killed so let's depose Buffy," not seeming to > understand that in war, that's what happens, and deposing Buffy was no > guarantee. The rest of the group treatment of Buffy originated partly from the indication that Buffy doesn't seem to care about any of them whose name is not Spike throughout the season. Is it any wonder that they are afraid to follow Buffy after the Wine cellar incident? If your group leader don't even care about your safety and consider you as expendable, then loyalty will be divided. > By that logic, Xander and Molly were "punished" for following Buffy. That event happens before the major row that seperated Buffy with the rest, therefore can't be counted. At that point they still believe in her, thus there was no conflict. > Flinching and caring aren't mutually exclusive. They're not always. But you don't normally flinch at the people that you care for. > Where is the contradiction? That one moment she's all afraid of him. At another moment she defends him. If I don't know any better I'll thought she has an MPD. > Yes, David Fury deliberately wrote Spike as bad, or at best un-good, in that > episode. He didn't want Spike to be good, because that would detract from > Angel's position in the Jossverse. He said so himself in an interview (and no, > I don't have the link). We were not supposed to approve of Spike in Lies. > Oddly, a lot of people, even non Spike fans, did approve of his behavior. I > found it odious and I hated him in it. But at any rate, it was not at least > his intention that Spike be seen as "right." Well, if that's the case then the episode didn't manage to do that. There wasn't enough POV that can convince the audience that the right thing to do was to chain Spike. What the episode ended up doing was making other characters look bad in comparison. > Why don't you simply insult people who insult you, and treat decently, people > who do not insult you? Well, that was exactly what I tried to do. Notice that I haven't thrown any sarcasm to you once during this post. > They sure didn't make Spike look good in Lies, in Storyteller, or in quite a > few eps in S6. 'Good' may not be the exact word. It was more like it makes other characters look guilty for what they're trying to do even though ideally there should be equal POV for both sides of the argument. > Maybe they trashed her to make Riley look good, because I found her unlikeable > in S4, when they weren't trying to make Spike look good. Not really. Riley just made her a bit boring. Either way, both Riley and Spike got overexposure due to their extensive association with the main charater. While other characters get nothing. Note how S4 was the time when criticism against Riley was at its worse. Because he did took the attention away from the other regulars. But in S5, when he's not associated as heavily with the lead character anymore, things cool down a bit. > Spike got few good lines in S6 and S7 (although he did at times get good > character development -- and at other times, horrid development which > permanently turned some viewers against him). He got a shitty arc in S6 and > the first half of S7. And somehow I doubt that you think he had an "attractive > personality." Spike never the less got an arc that puts him in the center stage of the show. Compare that to Xander who don't get anything until the last reel of S6. Early in S7, he still got more story dedicated to him than any of the regulars Buffy excluded. As far as personality wise, it appears to me that in trying to rehabilitate him, the writers either consciously or unconsciously made it look like Spike is the hero we should root for against those meanie Scoobie gang.

2003-09-06 03:16:14-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


mep22@excite.com (Hagen) wrote in message news:<2a530545.0309051741.51e4f9b4@posting.google.com>... > OK, this debate is not only going nowhere (that was clear pretty early > on) but degenerating into something that I have no desire to be > involved in. You mean the part where you insult SMG? Well yeah, that was unnecessary. > You'll be happy to hear that this is one Spike fan with > whom you'll never have to contend again. Your opinions are safe from > me. ;) Well, the feeling is mutual here. ;)

2003-09-06 23:05:34-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (wolviegrl@yahoo.com)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030904082712.05851.00000371@mb-m07.news.cs.com>... > >Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 > >From: "Linda" lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com > >Date: 9/3/2003 9:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time > >Message-id: <KXw5b.3594405$cI2.497568@news.easynews.com> > > > > > > > >Dan, I agree with you, he was fully expecting to get the chip out. When his > >soul was returned he was totally surprised. But what did we really expect > >him to tell Buffy? > > > > > >If you were Buffy which would you rather hear? "Buffy - I love you so much. > >You told me you couldn't love a soulless thing, so I went and got a soul for > >you." > > > >Or > > > >"Buffy - I went to get this chip out so you could get what you deserve." > > > > >Best Regards, > > > >Linda > > > >Mmmmmm.....Naked...Angel > > > > > > > But how would getting the chip out affect Buffy? > > The chip didn't work on her at all. > So, if he'd gone to get the chip out, they would still be exactly where they > were before. > > There would be no purpose in Spike's getting the chip removed. Keyword: "The Bitch" (is going to get what she deserves). Such use of term to describe Buffy is hardly what I'll call noble intention. Spike wanted to get rid of the chip so he can kill Buffy without feeling a tinge of guilt. The chip serves as a constant reminder that he can't be either good or evil. He wants to be one or the other not someway in between. From this combined with his 'term of endearment' for Buffy, one doesn't have to guess with difficulty that he wanted to get rid of the chip so he can kill Buffy without any regret. ---------------------------- wolviegirl

2003-09-07 16:45:36-06:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (NOSPAMrobertocastillo@ameritech.net)


wolviegirl wrote: > snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030904082712.05851.00000371@mb-m07.news.cs.com>... > > But how would getting the chip out affect Buffy? > > > > The chip didn't work on her at all. > > So, if he'd gone to get the chip out, they would still be exactly where they > > were before. > > > > There would be no purpose in Spike's getting the chip removed. > > Keyword: "The Bitch" (is going to get what she deserves). Such use of > term to describe Buffy is hardly what I'll call noble intention. I'm paraphrasing Buffy's line: Buffy: "What the hell are you doing in front of my house. Tell me in five words or less." But this is a direct quote of Spike's response: "Out for a walk. Bitch!" This was when Spike first fell in "love" with Buffy and was stalking her. So ChippedSpike has no problem with using derogatory language towards Buffy even though he claims to love her. Spike's love for Buffy has always been a study in contradiction. Remember this line from OMWF: "I hope she dies. I'm free if that bitch dies. I better help her out." There's no reason to think that Spike wouldn't call Buffy a bitch and then turn around and decide that what "she deserves" is him with a soul to love. > Spike wanted to get rid of the chip so he can kill Buffy without > feeling a tinge of guilt. He could already do that without getting rid of the chip because it didn't work on Buffy after she came back. > The chip serves as a constant reminder that > he can't be either good or evil. He wants to be one or the other not > someway in between. From this combined with his 'term of endearment' > for Buffy, one doesn't have to guess with difficulty that he wanted to > get rid of the chip so he can kill Buffy without any regret. Except that he could already do that. Spike is still soulless even with the chip, so he wouldn't have felt any regret about killing Buffy. The only reason he would have needed the chip out would be if he wanted to torture Buffy by killing her friends and family. While this is certainly possible, I think that it's easier to just assume that Spike was being his old conflicted self -- professing hatred of Buffy and then turning around and making a huge sacrifice for her because he loves her so much. -- Does this .sig make my butt look big? Roberto Castillo robertocastillo@ameritech.net

2003-09-14 02:07:30+00:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 >Keyword: "The Bitch" (is going to get what she deserves). Such use of >term to describe Buffy is hardly what I'll call noble intention. >Spike wanted to get rid of the chip so he can kill Buffy without >feeling a tinge of guilt. The chip serves as a constant reminder that >he can't be either good or evil. He wants to be one or the other not >someway in between. From this combined with his 'term of endearment' >for Buffy, one doesn't have to guess with difficulty that he wanted to >get rid of the chip so he can kill Buffy without any regret. > >---------------------------- >wolviegirl > Spike did try to kill (or at least bite) Buffy in the episode where Riley needed the doctor. He still had the chip, so why didn't he feel any guilt at that time? The chip never caused him to feel guilt; it caused him to feel pain: "searing pain" as he told Drusilla. The truth is, as far as Buffy was concerned, Spike might as well NOT have been chipped at all. So the argument that he really wanted the chip out doesn't follow, since it would mean that he put himself through an entire series of painful and debilitating trials for absolutely no purpose. Sandra

2003-09-14 12:01:00-07:00 - Re: A few more details about AtS 5.2 - (mep22@excite.com)


NOSPAMrobertocastillo@ameritech.net (Zombie Elvis) wrote in message news:<BB811130yf@ameritech.net>... > [...]it's easier to just assume that Spike was being his old > conflicted self -- professing hatred of Buffy and then turning around and > making a huge sacrifice for her because he loves her so much. Are you mad?? Why, that would actually make sense! ;) Seriously, IMO Spike's trip to Africa is exactly what OMWF, with his little detour through those dark alleys (and the "I'm free if that bitch dies/I'd better help her out" lines), foreshadowed. I think the latter part of S6 and S7, as well as some events still to come, are all there in a nutshell in the musical (and TR too). Of course, it's all vague enough that it could go a number of ways.