FLM films - My Webpage

2004-05-05 21:44:21-05:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Richard Thomas <newsuser@bellsouth.net>)


On Thu, 06 May 2004 03:03:28 GMT, Jamal Chapultapec <your@email.com> wrote: >Ciao. Ciao. Ciao. Ciao. Ciao. Ciao. Ciao. Ciao. > >AND we got to see some SPECTACULAR cleavage. That chick looked familiar. Reminded me very much of Maya Rudolph's Versace on Saturday Night Live. Except way more overdone. Rich

2004-05-06 00:22:48-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Noyourrole@webtv.net)


<much snippage> <<So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for the episode...>> Nope, I pretty much agreed with everything you said in your post. I don't particularly like the uber-angst festivals myself. If the tragedy/humor mix is going to tilt in one or the other direction, I'd much rather it tilt toward the side of humor. You can make serious, important story and character points without turning everything into a wake. Real life is seldom 100% unrelentingly grim, even in the grimmest of circumstances, and humor is a coping mechanism anyway. A good drama should reflect those truths.

2004-05-06 02:51:18+00:00 - "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - ("Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com>)


"... and HE'S over there eating cookie dough!" Thanks Joss and ME. Thank you for one last lighthearted and funny episode before all the traditional season-ending apocolypse grim stuff kicks in full-swing. Thanks for reminding me what I really loved about this show's first couple of seasons. Thanks for putting the nail in the coffin of all the speculation that JM would drag the show down this year rather than have great chemistry with DB and the others. Most of all, thanks for providing some dignified psuedo-closure to the Angel-Buffy- Spike triangle that alot of us non-shippers wish would just stay on BtVS and not get dragged into AtS in the first place. So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for the episode... all the other responses bemoan the fact that we didn't get more of Wes and Illyria having the same grim slit-my-wrists perpetual conversation they've been having for the past several episodes straight, dragging the show to a manic-depressive halt. Oh well, different strokes and all...

2004-05-06 03:03:28+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Jamal Chapultapec <your@email.com>)


"Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in news:Xns94E0E86EA9483generalsteveperkins@130.133.1.4: > "... and HE'S over there eating cookie dough!" > > Thanks Joss and ME. Thank you for one last lighthearted and > funny > episode before all the traditional season-ending apocolypse grim stuff > kicks in full-swing. Thanks for reminding me what I really loved > about this show's first couple of seasons. Thanks for putting the > nail in the coffin of all the speculation that JM would drag the show > down this year rather than have great chemistry with DB and the > others. Most of all, thanks for providing some dignified > psuedo-closure to the Angel-Buffy- Spike triangle that alot of us > non-shippers wish would just stay on BtVS and not get dragged into AtS > in the first place. > > So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive > feedback for > the episode... all the other responses bemoan the fact that we didn't > get more of Wes and Illyria having the same grim slit-my-wrists > perpetual conversation they've been having for the past several > episodes straight, dragging the show to a manic-depressive halt. Oh > well, different strokes and all... Ciao. Ciao. Ciao. Ciao. Ciao. Ciao. Ciao. Ciao. AND we got to see some SPECTACULAR cleavage. That chick looked familiar.

2004-05-06 03:22:11+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (alanesue@aol.com)


>Subject: Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." >From: Richard Thomas >Reminded me very much of Maya Rudolph's Versace on Saturday Night >Live. Except way more overdone. I think the casting sides said something along the lines that she was supposed to be a cross between Versace and that ex-prostitute who is in the Italian Parliament. Alane

2004-05-06 03:29:21+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Charles Franklin <man2god@tampabay.rr.com>)


"Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns94E0E86EA9483generalsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > "... and HE'S over there eating cookie dough!" > > Thanks Joss and ME. Thank you for one last lighthearted and funny > episode before all the traditional season-ending apocolypse grim stuff > kicks in full-swing. Thanks for reminding me what I really loved about > this show's first couple of seasons. Thanks for putting the nail in the > coffin of all the speculation that JM would drag the show down this year > rather than have great chemistry with DB and the others. Most of all, > thanks for providing some dignified psuedo-closure to the Angel-Buffy- > Spike triangle that alot of us non-shippers wish would just stay on BtVS > and not get dragged into AtS in the first place. > > So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for > the episode... all the other responses bemoan the fact that we didn't get > more of Wes and Illyria having the same grim slit-my-wrists perpetual > conversation they've been having for the past several episodes straight, > dragging the show to a manic-depressive halt. Oh well, different strokes > and all... > > I thought it was a teriffic episode, so you're not alone.

2004-05-06 03:35:45+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (tsd@tetris.gpcc.itd.umich.edu)


In article <20040505231802.22947.00000861@mb-m16.aol.com>, Alane Sue <alanesue@aol.com> wrote: :>Subject: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." :>From: "Steve D. Perkins" dontwritesteve@hotmail.com : :> So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for :>the episode.. : :I'll join you. I adored it. :) I enjoyed it as well. I have noticed that episodes which have the greater disparity in opinions, i.e. you either love it or hate it, are usually the comedic ones. --

2004-05-06 04:30:12+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (LadyLuck <ladyluck523@hotmail.com>)


"Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns94E0E86EA9483generalsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > "... and HE'S over there eating cookie dough!" > > Thanks Joss and ME. Thank you for one last lighthearted and funny > episode before all the traditional season-ending apocolypse grim stuff > kicks in full-swing. Thanks for reminding me what I really loved about > this show's first couple of seasons. Thanks for putting the nail in the > coffin of all the speculation that JM would drag the show down this year > rather than have great chemistry with DB and the others. Most of all, > thanks for providing some dignified psuedo-closure to the Angel-Buffy- > Spike triangle that alot of us non-shippers wish would just stay on BtVS > and not get dragged into AtS in the first place. > > So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for > the episode... all the other responses bemoan the fact that we didn't get > more of Wes and Illyria having the same grim slit-my-wrists perpetual > conversation they've been having for the past several episodes straight, > dragging the show to a manic-depressive halt. Oh well, different strokes > and all... I'm surprised by all the negative reviews of this eps. I loved it. I also needed some lightheartedness to help offset the sadness of the series ending. I enjoyed seeing Angel and Spike...past as well as present...cooperating to try to bring down the Immortal. Loved the Darla and Drusilla scene too esp. when Angel and Spike realize they've BOTH been cuckolded....simultaneously! I also enjoyed how they snuck in references to a lot of past events... The Mayor, Jasmine, Acathla (I stopped Acathla!....No, Buffy killed you with a sword and I helped her so that one is mine!) It was a nice reminder. As a S/B shipper, I'm glad they did address the Buffy issue. And as Joss Whedon has said "I don't give the fans what they want. I give them what they need." I got what I needed so thank you Mr. Whedon and ME. --Ladyluck

2004-05-06 06:28:41+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Bryan Fellows <BryanFellows@SafariPlanet.com>)


"LadyLuck" <ladyluck523@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:objmc.38111$mX.13430297@twister.nyc.rr.com... > "Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns94E0E86EA9483generalsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > Loved the Darla and Drusilla scene too esp. when Angel and Spike realize > they've BOTH been cuckolded....simultaneously! You mean ... CONCURRENTLY :)

2004-05-06 06:29:21+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - ("George W. Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com>)


alanesue@aol.com (Alane Sue) wrote: :>Subject: Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." :>From: Richard Thomas : :>Reminded me very much of Maya Rudolph's Versace on Saturday Night :>Live. Except way more overdone. : :I think the casting sides said something along the :lines that she was supposed to be a cross between :Versace and that ex-prostitute who is in the :Italian Parliament. Porn star, not prostitute. : :Alane -- Want to help fund terrorism? Drive an SUV. George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.

2004-05-06 07:17:10+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (LadyLuck <ladyluck523@hotmail.com>)


"Bryan Fellows" <BryanFellows@SafariPlanet.com> wrote in message news:tWkmc.36159$W%i1.710@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... > > "LadyLuck" <ladyluck523@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:objmc.38111$mX.13430297@twister.nyc.rr.com... > > "Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:Xns94E0E86EA9483generalsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > > > Loved the Darla and Drusilla scene too esp. when Angel and Spike realize > > they've BOTH been cuckolded....simultaneously! > > You mean ... CONCURRENTLY :) > *laugh* that's right...one of the best lines of the night!

2004-05-06 09:46:32+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Danny <thefirstevil@verizon.net>)


> "... and HE'S over there eating cookie dough!" > > Thanks Joss and ME. Thank you for one last lighthearted and funny > episode before all the traditional season-ending apocolypse grim stuff > kicks in full-swing. Thanks for reminding me what I really loved about > this show's first couple of seasons. Thanks for putting the nail in the > coffin of all the speculation that JM would drag the show down this year > rather than have great chemistry with DB and the others. Most of all, > thanks for providing some dignified psuedo-closure to the Angel-Buffy- > Spike triangle that alot of us non-shippers wish would just stay on BtVS > and not get dragged into AtS in the first place. > > So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for > the episode... all the other responses bemoan the fact that we didn't get > more of Wes and Illyria having the same grim slit-my-wrists perpetual > conversation they've been having for the past several episodes straight, > dragging the show to a manic-depressive halt. Oh well, different strokes > and all... > I loved it too...all of the Angel/Spike stuff AND the Wes/Illyria stuff. Her shift between the two was great. I loved seeing Fred's parents as well. This episode had quite a bit of references to previous Angel and Buffy eps and I thought all it was very well done. It made me think that is Angel were to go on another season it could be a very funny "buddy cop" show, but that's just me wishing I could see DB and JM in tight 70's clothes...

2004-05-06 11:41:59+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (walkietalkie <without@net.bom>)


LadyLuck wrote: > > > > > You mean ... CONCURRENTLY :) > > > *laugh* that's right...one of the best lines of the night! "You didn't even let US do that!"

2004-05-06 12:27:30+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (tsd@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu)


In article <18062-4099BD98-594@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net>, Da Blue Guy <Noyourrole@webtv.net> wrote: :<much snippage> : :<<So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for :the episode...>> : :Nope, I pretty much agreed with everything you said in your post. I :don't particularly like the uber-angst festivals myself. If the :tragedy/humor mix is going to tilt in one or the other direction, I'd :much rather it tilt toward the side of humor. You can make serious, :important story and character points without turning everything into a :wake. Real life is seldom 100% unrelentingly grim, even in the grimmest :of circumstances, and humor is a coping mechanism anyway. A good drama :should reflect those truths. Absolutely. Its one of the reasons why Season 4 was such a hard haul. Watching multiple grim tragedies plays out over and over from one episode to another with little or not humor just isn't appealing. --

2004-05-06 13:22:32-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Xarias <Xarias@trollsrgay.com>)


Yes...you are. It was pure fecal matter. "Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for > the episode... all the other responses bemoan the fact that we didn't get > more of Wes and Illyria having the same grim slit-my-wrists perpetual > conversation they've been having for the past several episodes straight, > dragging the show to a manic-depressive halt. Oh well, different strokes > and all... >

2004-05-06 13:42:58-07:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (himiko@animail.net)


alanesue@aol.com (Alane Sue) wrote in message news:<20040505231802.22947.00000861@mb-m16.aol.com>... > >Subject: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." > >From: "Steve D. Perkins" dontwritesteve@hotmail.com > > > So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for > >the episode.. > > I'll join you. I adored it. :) > > Alane Me three. My main grouse is that it came after TB and should have happened before. Not a huge issue. I think some people just don't like the funny stuff. When it's a "funny standalone" I agree with them. I don't like MOTW standalones either. But this was no standalone. It provided closure on a fair number of issues. I think that may be one reason it's so unpopular. The closure (more or less) on both major Buffyships was probably not satisfying to two groups of serious shippers. himiko himiko

2004-05-06 14:57:53-05:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Robin Miller <complex.gal@cox.net>)


Xarias wrote: > Yes...you are. > It was pure fecal matter. > > "Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for >>the episode... all the other responses bemoan the fact that we didn't get >>more of Wes and Illyria having the same grim slit-my-wrists perpetual >>conversation they've been having for the past several episodes straight, >>dragging the show to a manic-depressive halt. Oh well, different strokes >>and all... I've watched AtS since the beginning (and Buffy from S1), and I thought it was a fabulous episode, the best of what AtS has to offer. Of course, it's the humor that I like best in both shows, so maybe that's why. I'm dumbfounded at the intense negative reaction. --Robin

2004-05-06 16:01:01-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Thu, 06 May 2004 14:57:53 -0500, Robin Miller <complex.gal@cox.net> wrote: >I've watched AtS since the beginning (and Buffy from S1), and I thought >it was a fabulous episode, the best of what AtS has to offer. Of course, >it's the humor that I like best in both shows, so maybe that's why. I'm >dumbfounded at the intense negative reaction. I've always thought the humor was some of the best things in these shows. I would have never watched a little show called Buffy the Vampire Slayer without it. The difference is that humor wasn't based on the main characters being total idiots. This episode was like watching the two guys from Dumb and Dumber act out a scenes from one of their favorite tv shows. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2004-05-06 17:22:57-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"Charles Franklin" <man2god@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:liimc.3588$2f6.164231@twister.tampabay.rr.com... > > "Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns94E0E86EA9483generalsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > > "... and HE'S over there eating cookie dough!" > > > > Thanks Joss and ME. Thank you for one last lighthearted and funny > > episode before all the traditional season-ending apocolypse grim stuff > > kicks in full-swing. Thanks for reminding me what I really loved about > > this show's first couple of seasons. Thanks for putting the nail in the > > coffin of all the speculation that JM would drag the show down this year > > rather than have great chemistry with DB and the others. Most of all, > > thanks for providing some dignified psuedo-closure to the Angel-Buffy- > > Spike triangle that alot of us non-shippers wish would just stay on BtVS > > and not get dragged into AtS in the first place. > > > > So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for > > the episode... all the other responses bemoan the fact that we didn't get > > more of Wes and Illyria having the same grim slit-my-wrists perpetual > > conversation they've been having for the past several episodes straight, > > dragging the show to a manic-depressive halt. Oh well, different strokes > > and all... > > > > > > I thought it was a teriffic episode, so you're not alone. Same here. He is not alone now. Although when he dies, he will be. -- "Everybody dies alone." -Capt. Malcolm Reynolds; Firefly ep 1AGE07, "Out of Gas"

2004-05-06 17:36:56+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (tsd@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu)


In article <409a745b$0$35071$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>, Xarias <Xarias@trollsrgay.com> wrote: :"Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message :> So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for :> the episode... all the other responses bemoan the fact that we didn't get :> more of Wes and Illyria having the same grim slit-my-wrists perpetual :> conversation they've been having for the past several episodes straight, :> dragging the show to a manic-depressive halt. Oh well, different strokes :> and all... :Yes...you are. No he's not. I liked this episode. You're perfectly free to dislike something and express yourself accordingly, but lets not get arrogant about it. Your opinion by no means speaks for everyone. --

2004-05-06 18:31:17-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Code Monkey <codemonkey@nowhere.com>)


In article <4Nwmc.24796$pJ1.24187@lakeread02>, complex.gal@cox.net says... > > > Xarias wrote: > > Yes...you are. > > It was pure fecal matter. > > > > "Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for > >>the episode... all the other responses bemoan the fact that we didn't get > >>more of Wes and Illyria having the same grim slit-my-wrists perpetual > >>conversation they've been having for the past several episodes straight, > >>dragging the show to a manic-depressive halt. Oh well, different strokes > >>and all... > > > I've watched AtS since the beginning (and Buffy from S1), and I thought > it was a fabulous episode, the best of what AtS has to offer. Of course, > it's the humor that I like best in both shows, so maybe that's why. I'm > dumbfounded at the intense negative reaction. > Join the club of the dumbfounded. If this newsgroup is in *any* way indicative of the general spread of the fans for these sort of cult shows then it is no wonder that Angel is being cancelled. Shows like this are intentionally "difficult" and wind up keeping away the large numbers that execs like. Yet, apparently with the 4-5 million it does draw, no matter what the studios do, there are large numbers of "fans" doing nothing but pissing and moaning endlessly. Why would any network want to try and make TV for a small audience that is never really satisified when they can turn out LCD-oriented television that will get 4-5X the audience of these sorts of shows? I thought the whole thing was great. Andrew did feel shoe-horned in but other than that it was a great contrast of a comical parody of spy/crime movie with the A/S story and the dead serious pathos of the W/F/I & her parents story. A perfect example of what ME does so well: blend comedy and serious drama while killing an hour and advancing a long term story all at the same time.

2004-05-06 20:23:57+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Cryptic <no*tedjr*spam@rogers.com>)


"Xarias" <Xarias@trollsrgay.com> wrote in message news:409a745b$0$35071$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com... > Yes...you are. > It was pure fecal matter. > > "Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for > > the episode... all the other responses bemoan the fact that we didn't get > > more of Wes and Illyria having the same grim slit-my-wrists perpetual > > conversation they've been having for the past several episodes straight, > > dragging the show to a manic-depressive halt. Oh well, different strokes > > and all... > > > The episode wasn't bad. However, given that it is the third last of the series, it seems a little light.

2004-05-06 20:53:24+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (MRL@PSFC.MIT.EDU)


In a previous article, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: ->On Thu, 06 May 2004 14:57:53 -0500, Robin Miller <complex.gal@cox.net> ->wrote: -> ->>I've watched AtS since the beginning (and Buffy from S1), and I thought ->>it was a fabulous episode, the best of what AtS has to offer. Of course, ->>it's the humor that I like best in both shows, so maybe that's why. I'm ->>dumbfounded at the intense negative reaction. -> ->I've always thought the humor was some of the best things in these shows. I ->would have never watched a little show called Buffy the Vampire Slayer ->without it. The difference is that humor wasn't based on the main ->characters being total idiots. Well said. It's one thing to have comedy happen due to the silliness of the situation (like on the Buffy episode where everyone loses the ability to talk), it's another thing to have the characters create the silliness themselves. And I also think it would have been nice to finally have Angel grow up and stop acting like such an idiot with Spike.

2004-05-07 07:53:32+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (LadyLuck <ladyluck523@hotmail.com>)


"Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns94E0E86EA9483generalsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > "... and HE'S over there eating cookie dough!" > > Thanks Joss and ME. Thank you for one last lighthearted and funny > episode before all the traditional season-ending apocolypse grim stuff > kicks in full-swing. Thanks for reminding me what I really loved about > this show's first couple of seasons. Thanks for putting the nail in the > coffin of all the speculation that JM would drag the show down this year > rather than have great chemistry with DB and the others. Most of all, > thanks for providing some dignified psuedo-closure to the Angel-Buffy- > Spike triangle that alot of us non-shippers wish would just stay on BtVS > and not get dragged into AtS in the first place. > > So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for > the episode... all the other responses bemoan the fact that we didn't get > more of Wes and Illyria having the same grim slit-my-wrists perpetual > conversation they've been having for the past several episodes straight, > dragging the show to a manic-depressive halt. Oh well, different strokes > and all... A question, is it ever made clear whether Buffy heard about Spike coming back to undeadness?

2004-05-07 10:43:50-07:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Alicat <me@privacy.net>)


On 6 May 2004 13:42:58 -0700, himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote: >alanesue@aol.com (Alane Sue) wrote in message news:<20040505231802.22947.00000861@mb-m16.aol.com>... >> >Subject: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." >> >From: "Steve D. Perkins" dontwritesteve@hotmail.com >> >> > So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for >> >the episode.. >> >> I'll join you. I adored it. :) >> >> Alane > >Me three. My main grouse is that it came after TB and should have >happened before. Not a huge issue. > >I think some people just don't like the funny stuff. When it's a >"funny standalone" I agree with them. I don't like MOTW standalones >either. But this was no standalone. It provided closure on a fair >number of issues. > >I think that may be one reason it's so unpopular. The closure (more >or less) on both major Buffyships was probably not satisfying to two >groups of serious shippers. > >himiko > >himiko I'm not a shipper of anyone on this show anymore, I just didn't think it was either funny or even particularly interesting. And there has been really funny stuff on ATVS this year - I thought Spike on the Nazi U-Boat had much better lines than anything we had this week. Its a question of writing: last week's ep was so well written, even though the premise was the usual ludicrous mess you get with time travel stories; this week's was lame (except for the Wes/Frillya stuff). adios, alicat adios, alicat

2004-05-07 11:14:58-07:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (himiko@animail.net)


Kevin Croxen <klcroxen@ls04.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<slrnc9n847.hcp.klcroxen@ls04.fas.harvard.edu>... > > Sharing an apartment with Andrew, Spike's biggest known worshipper outside > this newsgroup, it's hard to imagine her not knowing. Andrew may be 82% > more manly, but he isn't exactly tight-lipped. Indeed not. He parts his thresholds quite freely. himiko

2004-05-07 14:34:53-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Fri, 07 May 2004 10:43:50 -0700, Alicat <me@privacy.net> wrote: >I'm not a shipper of anyone on this show anymore, I just didn't think >it was either funny or even particularly interesting. And there has >been really funny stuff on ATVS this year - I thought Spike on the >Nazi U-Boat had much better lines than anything we had this week. > >Its a question of writing: last week's ep was so well written, even >though the premise was the usual ludicrous mess you get with time >travel stories; this week's was lame (except for the Wes/Frillya >stuff). I'm not a shipper either. The only ship I ever cared to see happen on either show was for Xander and Willow to end up together. Angel/Buffy, Spike/Buffy, Buffy/pickem hasn't interested me at all. The Girl in Question just appeared totally amateurish. I mean they even had the lame gag of Angel and Spike trying to fit through the same doorway at once. This was Angel by way of Dumb and Dumber. Actually, it appeared to be an episode from a show that got it's budget slashed, then canceled and finally something no one cared about one way or another. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2004-05-07 14:43:19+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Kevin Croxen <klcroxen@ls04.fas.harvard.edu>)


In article <0gHmc.38169$mX.13825363@twister.nyc.rr.com>, LadyLuck wrote: > "Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns94E0E86EA9483generalsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... >> "... and HE'S over there eating cookie dough!" >> >> Thanks Joss and ME. Thank you for one last lighthearted and funny >> episode before all the traditional season-ending apocolypse grim stuff >> kicks in full-swing. Thanks for reminding me what I really loved about >> this show's first couple of seasons. Thanks for putting the nail in the >> coffin of all the speculation that JM would drag the show down this year >> rather than have great chemistry with DB and the others. Most of all, >> thanks for providing some dignified psuedo-closure to the Angel-Buffy- >> Spike triangle that alot of us non-shippers wish would just stay on BtVS >> and not get dragged into AtS in the first place. >> >> So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for >> the episode... all the other responses bemoan the fact that we didn't get >> more of Wes and Illyria having the same grim slit-my-wrists perpetual >> conversation they've been having for the past several episodes straight, >> dragging the show to a manic-depressive halt. Oh well, different strokes >> and all... > > A question, is it ever made clear whether Buffy heard about Spike coming > back to undeadness? > > Sharing an apartment with Andrew, Spike's biggest known worshipper outside this newsgroup, it's hard to imagine her not knowing. Andrew may be 82% more manly, but he isn't exactly tight-lipped.

2004-05-07 15:20:18-07:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<v76l90td93qef41nvc1adkcu6f4nir6ukf@4ax.com>... > This episode was like watching the two guys from Dumb and Dumber act out a > scenes from one of their favorite tv shows. That is a perfect description of the episode.

2004-05-07 18:18:03-07:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (kat6745@yahoo.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0405071014.3b2395dd@posting.google.com>... > Kevin Croxen <klcroxen@ls04.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<slrnc9n847.hcp.klcroxen@ls04.fas.harvard.edu>... > > > > Sharing an apartment with Andrew, Spike's biggest known worshipper outside > > this newsgroup, it's hard to imagine her not knowing. Andrew may be 82% > > more manly, but he isn't exactly tight-lipped. > > Indeed not. He parts his thresholds quite freely. > > himiko THAT was the best line in the show! :)

2004-05-07 19:27:45-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Eric Hunter <hunter90@comcast.not>)


On 6 May 2004 13:42:58 -0700, himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote: > I think some people just don't like the funny stuff. I suppose that's possible, but I'm not one of them. Conner: "I guess I have a thing for older women..." Angel: "They were supposed to FIX that." was funny. "I'm waiting for her to bake, and he's eating cookie dough!" was funny, but almost all of the Spike/Angel interaction was forced, fake, unfunny and OUT-OF-CHARACTER in "Girl in Question". Neither Spike nor Angel were adolescents when they were vamped, and there's no reason for them to do a bad job of acting like they are just because Buffy's with someone else. > It provided closure on a fair number of issues. Name one. Spike and Angel talked about moving on, but the end of the show made it clear that they weren't. > I think that may be one reason it's so unpopular. The closure (more > or less) on both major Buffyships was probably not satisfying to > two groups of serious shippers. I'm not a shipper. (I suppose Willow/Oz/Kennedy might be interesting, but I can't be bothered to write or even search for the fanfic ;) ) What bothered me most was the LACK of closure, and the hackneyed writing to dance around the issue. There was no reason to take the head to the bar, and there was no reason why Spike and Angel had to fly back when they did, whether they had the head or not. The show was a poor attempt to handle the Buffy issue with Tom Lenk(Andrew) standing in for SMG, and even then, they took the wrong approach. The final scene should have been something like this: Angel: "As much as I hate to admit it, Andrew was right. Buffy has moved on, and it's long past time for me to do so, as well. I think I'll call Nina." Spike: "Good for you, Mate. I wish you all the happiness in the ... Well, no, I don't, but have fun. I think I'll go down to the lab and see how tough Grandma is now." E. --

2004-05-07 20:24:40-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"walkietalkie" <without@net.bom> wrote in message news:409A2493.DD92DDBD@net.bom... > > > LadyLuck wrote: > > > > > > > > > You mean ... CONCURRENTLY :) > > > > > *laugh* that's right...one of the best lines of the night! > > "You didn't even let US do that!" On second thought, it bothers me a bit that Angelus spoke as though he would've needed their consent.

2004-05-08 11:39:13-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (nfway <me@here.com>)


In article <opr7ops2apjtszlz@news.verizon.net>, sandora@verizon.net says... > On 7 May 2004 14:43:19 GMT, Kevin Croxen <klcroxen@ls04.fas.harvard.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > Sharing an apartment with Andrew, Spike's biggest known worshipper > > outside > > this newsgroup, it's hard to imagine her not knowing. Andrew may be 82% > > more manly, but he isn't exactly tight-lipped. > > > > > > Andrew can keep secrets when he wants to. > He concealed his conspiracy with Warren from Jonathan. > And that went on for months. > > It's just a hunch; but I get the sense Andrew is keeping quiet about > a LOT of things! > > > Sandra > he can keep quiet permanently.

2004-05-08 11:54:35-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"Sandra S" <sandora@verizon.net> wrote in message news:opr7opn5tdjtszlz@news.verizon.net... > On Fri, 7 May 2004 20:24:40 -0400, The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> > wrote: > > > > > "walkietalkie" <without@net.bom> wrote in message > > news:409A2493.DD92DDBD@net.bom... > >> > >> > >> LadyLuck wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > You mean ... CONCURRENTLY :) > >> > > > >> > *laugh* that's right...one of the best lines of the night! > >> > >> "You didn't even let US do that!" > > > > On second thought, it bothers me a bit that Angelus spoke as though he > > would've needed their consent. > > > > > > > > Wouldn't he have? > After all, the older a vampire gets, the stronger s/he gets! Really? I know it's been shown that that strength and age tend to coincide, but I can't recall that particular causal rule being spelled out. The most I've ever known of was that there was usually a correlation between age and strength, but that this could simply be because the stronger vampires last longer or because the older vampires are more statistically likely to be "purer", which would make them stronger. There've been a lot of seasons, though. Must be some quote or another that I'm forgetting. > Darla is older than Angelus while Dru is older than Spike. > I can see how the females couldn't be made to do ANYthing without their > consent. I suppose I've had the impression that for vampires, the line between consent and coercion is even fuzzier than it is for humans. My mind always goes back to the Spike's line in Lover's Walk about tracking Dru down, tying her up, and torturing her until she likes him again.

2004-05-08 14:10:39+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net>)


On Fri, 7 May 2004 20:24:40 -0400, The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > "walkietalkie" <without@net.bom> wrote in message > news:409A2493.DD92DDBD@net.bom... >> >> >> LadyLuck wrote: >> >> > >> > > >> > > You mean ... CONCURRENTLY :) >> > > >> > *laugh* that's right...one of the best lines of the night! >> >> "You didn't even let US do that!" > > On second thought, it bothers me a bit that Angelus spoke as though he > would've needed their consent. > > > Wouldn't he have? After all, the older a vampire gets, the stronger s/he gets! Darla is older than Angelus while Dru is older than Spike. I can see how the females couldn't be made to do ANYthing without their consent. Sandra -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

2004-05-08 14:13:33+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net>)


On 7 May 2004 14:43:19 GMT, Kevin Croxen <klcroxen@ls04.fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > > Sharing an apartment with Andrew, Spike's biggest known worshipper > outside > this newsgroup, it's hard to imagine her not knowing. Andrew may be 82% > more manly, but he isn't exactly tight-lipped. > Andrew can keep secrets when he wants to. He concealed his conspiracy with Warren from Jonathan. And that went on for months. It's just a hunch; but I get the sense Andrew is keeping quiet about a LOT of things! Sandra

2004-05-08 17:45:14+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net>)


On Sat, 8 May 2004 11:54:35 -0400, The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > Really? I know it's been shown that that strength and age tend to > coincide, > but I can't recall that particular causal rule being spelled out. The > most > I've ever known of was that there was usually a correlation between age > and > strength, but that this could simply be because the stronger vampires > last > longer or because the older vampires are more statistically likely to be > "purer", which would make them stronger. There've been a lot of seasons, > though. Must be some quote or another that I'm forgetting. > It was mentioned in season 1 of BtVS; when Giles was analyzing the Master for Buffy. He specifically said that a vampire gets stronger as he ages. But I don't recall the exact episode. Sandra

2004-05-09 03:52:52+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (ebailey140@aol.com)


>From: "The Babaloughesian" me@privacy.net >Date: 5/8/2004 10:54 AM Central Standard Time >Message-id: <2g4e5vF45m5qU1@uni-berlin.de> > > >"Sandra S" <sandora@verizon.net> wrote in message >news:opr7opn5tdjtszlz@news.verizon.net... >> On Fri, 7 May 2004 20:24:40 -0400, The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> >> wrote: >> >> > >> > "walkietalkie" <without@net.bom> wrote in message >> > news:409A2493.DD92DDBD@net.bom... >> >> >> >> >> >> LadyLuck wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > You mean ... CONCURRENTLY :) >> >> > > >> >> > *laugh* that's right...one of the best lines of the night! >> >> >> >> "You didn't even let US do that!" >> > >> > On second thought, it bothers me a bit that Angelus spoke as though he >> > would've needed their consent. >> > >> > >> > >> >> Wouldn't he have? >> After all, the older a vampire gets, the stronger s/he gets! > >Really? I know it's been shown that that strength and age tend to coincide, >but I can't recall that particular causal rule being spelled out. The most >I've ever known of was that there was usually a correlation between age and >strength, but that this could simply be because the stronger vampires last >longer or because the older vampires are more statistically likely to be >"purer", which would make them stronger. There've been a lot of seasons, >though. Must be some quote or another that I'm forgetting. Well, we saw that Angel and Spike can give Buffy a fight (Sure, they lose, but it takes her a while), while she was casually smacking Darla around in WttH. > >> Darla is older than Angelus while Dru is older than Spike. >> I can see how the females couldn't be made to do ANYthing without their >> consent. > >I suppose I've had the impression that for vampires, the line between >consent and coercion is even fuzzier than it is for humans. My mind always >goes back to the Spike's line in Lover's Walk about tracking Dru down, tying >her up, and torturing her until she likes him again. Yep, and he knew she'd want him to do that. That created a problem for him later with Buffy. They were always fighting, and she was always beating him up, and then he couldn't figure out why she decided this wasn't healthy and broke it off. E

2004-05-10 06:13:18+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (LunaLu <shadowland@this.time>)


On 6 May 2004 02:51:18 GMT, "Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote: > "... and HE'S over there eating cookie dough!" > > Thanks Joss and ME. Thank you for one last lighthearted and funny >episode before all the traditional season-ending apocolypse grim stuff >kicks in full-swing. Thanks for reminding me what I really loved about >this show's first couple of seasons. Thanks for putting the nail in the >coffin of all the speculation that JM would drag the show down this year >rather than have great chemistry with DB and the others. Most of all, >thanks for providing some dignified psuedo-closure to the Angel-Buffy- >Spike triangle that alot of us non-shippers wish would just stay on BtVS >and not get dragged into AtS in the first place. > > So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for >the episode... all the other responses bemoan the fact that we didn't get >more of Wes and Illyria having the same grim slit-my-wrists perpetual >conversation they've been having for the past several episodes straight, >dragging the show to a manic-depressive halt. Oh well, different strokes >and all... ============================= Haven't read the feedback yet, and maybe I won't. I'm with you a hundred percent. This was an excellent episode and had me laughing and wishing there were more than just a few eps left. You hit all the highlights in your first paragraph... but I'm even liking the Illyria de-throned, king god. Just think Wes should lighten up a bit. He could have fun if he'd just let himself. He already told Angel he "needed her"... so why treat her like she's bad? "As you wish"... what more could he ask for? ~Luna

2004-05-10 20:52:07+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


Steve D. Perkins <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote: : So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for : the episode... all the other responses bemoan the fact that we didn't get : more of Wes and Illyria having the same grim slit-my-wrists perpetual : conversation they've been having for the past several episodes straight, : dragging the show to a manic-depressive halt. Oh well, different strokes : and all... Not the same: she at least found a charming new trick. It is funny that all one heard about in S6 of Buffy was how the funny was gone, and now all one hears about is how unwelcome the funny has become on Angel. It truly must be scads of different strokers posting in each case. Or, more accurately, whatever ME does, they're'll be those who get it, and those who don't want it. Shawn

2004-05-10 20:53:01+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


Alane Sue <alanesue@aol.com> wrote: :>Subject: Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." :>From: Richard Thomas :>Reminded me very much of Maya Rudolph's Versace on Saturday Night :>Live. Except way more overdone. : I think the casting sides said something along the : lines that she was supposed to be a cross between : Versace and that ex-prostitute who is in the : Italian Parliament. Whose name, like W&H lady, was Ilona. This one had way better sartorial sense, though. Shawn

2004-05-10 20:55:25+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: : On Fri, 07 May 2004 10:43:50 -0700, Alicat <me@privacy.net> wrote: : The Girl in Question just appeared totally amateurish. I mean they even had : the lame gag of Angel and Spike trying to fit through the same doorway at : once. This was Angel by way of Dumb and Dumber. It's hardly the first time they've used that one. I didn't like it either, but only because they've done it before, not because it didn't fit with the episode. : Actually, it appeared to be an episode from a show that got it's budget : slashed, then canceled and finally something no one cared about one way or : another. Which is clearly not the case, look how long the voting poll is at this point. Shawn

2004-05-10 20:58:03+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


Eric Hunter <hunter90@comcast.not> wrote: : Neither Spike nor Angel were adolescents when they were vamped, and : there's no reason for them to do a bad job of acting like they are just : because Buffy's with someone else. Calendar-age, no. I don't think adolescent was even a concept in either of their human years. But emotional maturity level? Pretty durn close. :> It provided closure on a fair number of issues. : Name one. Spike and Angel talked about moving on, but the end of : the show made it clear that they weren't. It made it clear that they didn't know how. But, as they didn't go capture Buffy and "rescue" the unwilling, in fact they were nonetheless. : Angel: "As much as I hate to admit it, Andrew was right. : Buffy has moved on, and it's long past time for me to do so, : as well. I think I'll call Nina." : Spike: "Good for you, Mate. I wish you all the happiness : in the ... Well, no, I don't, but have fun. I think I'll go down : to the lab and see how tough Grandma is now." You seem to have more fanfic skills than you think. Shawn

2004-05-10 20:59:33+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: :> > *laugh* that's right...one of the best lines of the night! :> :> "You didn't even let US do that!" : On second thought, it bothers me a bit that Angelus spoke as though he : would've needed their consent. Why? They're not food. Shawn

2004-05-10 21:01:05+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net> wrote: : On Sat, 8 May 2004 11:54:35 -0400, The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> : wrote: :> longer or because the older vampires are more statistically likely to be :> "purer", which would make them stronger. There've been a lot of seasons, :> though. Must be some quote or another that I'm forgetting. : It was mentioned in season 1 of BtVS; when Giles was analyzing the Master : for Buffy. He specifically said that a vampire gets stronger as he ages. : But I don't recall the exact episode. Also the cloven-hooved vamp who killed Faith's watcher. One of the oldest, and very strong because of it. shawn

2004-05-10 21:02:04+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


Danny <thefirstevil@verizon.net> wrote: : thought all it was very well done. It made me think that is Angel were to go : on another season it could be a very funny "buddy cop" show, but that's just : me wishing I could see DB and JM in tight 70's clothes... And short short shorts? And tube socks! Shawn

2004-05-10 21:04:53-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:c7oqih$ed4$7@news.fas.harvard.edu... > Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net> wrote: > : On Sat, 8 May 2004 11:54:35 -0400, The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> > : wrote: > > :> longer or because the older vampires are more statistically likely to be > :> "purer", which would make them stronger. There've been a lot of seasons, > :> though. Must be some quote or another that I'm forgetting. > > : It was mentioned in season 1 of BtVS; when Giles was analyzing the Master > : for Buffy. He specifically said that a vampire gets stronger as he ages. > : But I don't recall the exact episode. > > Also the cloven-hooved vamp who killed Faith's watcher. One of the oldest, > and very strong because of it. I can't find anything in the episode that says that Kakistos' age is the cause of his strength. Hell, the only thing actually said about his age AFAICT is that he's "so old that his hands and feet are cloven", and even that statement doesn't contain a clear causal link.

2004-05-10 21:13:00-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:c7oqfl$ed4$6@news.fas.harvard.edu... > The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > :> > *laugh* that's right...one of the best lines of the night! > :> > :> "You didn't even let US do that!" > > : On second thought, it bothers me a bit that Angelus spoke as though he > : would've needed their consent. > > Why? Because he's evil and powerful and nothing should stand in his way. It's disappointing for the same reason Angelus and "William" hanging around in shackles ranting impotently while the Immortal screws their women, and then never getting their vengeance is disappointing. It's a power/dominance thing. > They're not food. I don't understand.

2004-05-11 04:42:31+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: :> : On second thought, it bothers me a bit that Angelus spoke as though he :> : would've needed their consent. :> :> Why? : Because he's evil and powerful and nothing should stand in his way. It's : disappointing for the same reason Angelus and "William" hanging around in : shackles ranting impotently while the Immortal screws their women, and then : never getting their vengeance is disappointing. It's a power/dominance : thing. If that was all Angelus wanted, he wouldn't have stayed Darla's mate more or less until getting souled. :> They're not food. : I don't understand. He doesn't respect the needs of food (humans); doesn't like taking orders (as from the Master); but that doesn't mean he regularly does things Darla doesn't want done to her. Shawn

2004-05-11 05:17:22+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (aej17DELETEME@comcast.net)


Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > :> > *laugh* that's right...one of the best lines of the night! > :> > :> "You didn't even let US do that!" > > : On second thought, it bothers me a bit that Angelus spoke as though he > : would've needed their consent. > > Why? They're not food. Because, if Angelus (the OLD Angelus) had wanted a threesome with Dru and Darla, he would have simply threatened them, and/or beaten the living unholy shit out of them, and then screwed them. And you know what? Darla would have forgiven him for it. Just like she thought it was fun when Angel threw her through a glass door. I didn't see the episode, but from the summaries and comments I ahve read, it sounds like they turned both Spike and Angel, both in the present and in their soulless pasts, into stupid, incompetent, adolescent, banal, immature fools. If that's what Angelus was like, then why the hell was he so feared? If that's what Angel was like, then how in the hell did S1 and S2 happen. The Angel from "Redefinition" was not the Angel who would act like a cast off from a bad comedy. -- AE Jabbour "If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do." - Angel, "Epiphany"

2004-05-11 11:55:40-07:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


aej17DELETEME@comcast.net (A.E. Jabbour) wrote in message news:<2gb5v2Flbb2U4@uni-berlin.de>... > I didn't see the episode, but from the summaries and comments > I ahve read, it sounds like they turned both Spike and Angel, > both in the present and in their soulless pasts, into stupid, > incompetent, adolescent, banal, immature fools. Someone (EGK, I think) accurately described the episode as being like the two characters from Dumb and Dumber acting out a skit based on characters from AtS. That about sums it up.

2004-05-11 13:35:28-07:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (himiko@animail.net)


aej17DELETEME@comcast.net (A.E. Jabbour) wrote in message news:<2gb5v2Flbb2U4@uni-berlin.de>... > Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > > The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > > > :> > *laugh* that's right...one of the best lines of the night! > > :> > > :> "You didn't even let US do that!" > > > : On second thought, it bothers me a bit that Angelus spoke as though he > > : would've needed their consent. > > > > Why? They're not food. > > Because, if Angelus (the OLD Angelus) had wanted a threesome with > Dru and Darla, he would have simply threatened them, and/or > beaten the living unholy shit out of them, and then screwed them. Why would you assume that? We've seen no sign of this. In S2, Angelus didn't just attack Dru the first time he got horny. He seduced her in full sight of Spike...much nastier, but a very different thing. And in the flashbacks in Destiny, we saw much the same dynamic. > > And you know what? Darla would have forgiven him for it. Just > like she thought it was fun when Angel threw her through a glass > door. Because it was fun for her. At least, it was fun until he went all good and souly. Angelus also forgave Darla for leaving him to die in that barn. They may or may not have loved each other, but their relationship was extremely complex, not a matter of grab and take at all...well, not between each other anyway. Once you add Dru and then Spike to that dynamic, it becomes even more complex. I'm enjoying these little glimpses into how DADS actually played out on a day to day or rather, night to night basis. > I didn't see the episode, but from the summaries and comments > I ahve read, it sounds like they turned both Spike and Angel, > both in the present and in their soulless pasts, into stupid, > incompetent, adolescent, banal, immature fools. If that's what > Angelus was like, then why the hell was he so feared? Maybe because he was an incompetent, adolescent, banal, immature fool with fangs and more than average vampire strength and ruthlessness? Also a clever lover who kept him alive despite his stupidity, but otherwise encouraged him to get into more and more trouble. It's hard to think of anything more terrifying than an adolescent with real power, (relative) invulnerability, and no one to rein him in. > If that's what Angel was like, then how in the hell did S1 and > S2 happen. The Angel from "Redefinition" was not the Angel > who would act like a cast off from a bad comedy. Oh come on. Angel has always had his goofy, doofus side. We didn't see too much of it on BTVS because we saw him mostly through Buffy's teen-romance-colored glasses. But on AtS this came out more and more. Cordy saw it at once and drew it out of him...because it's honestly an attractive trait. We've seen Angel go goofy doofus over movies, over BabyConnor, over restaurant bills, over shopping, over being a Pylean hero (pre-krebbil), over ballet, over cars, and certainly over Cordy. He even did his happy dance with her in YW. He did silly stuff (mostly with her) in S1 and S2 too. A hero/lead who did nothing but brood and be totally serious and/or heroic would be deadly dull...is deadly dull on a fair number of TV shows. himiko

2004-05-11 13:47:21+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (tsd@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu)


In article <2gb5v2Flbb2U4@uni-berlin.de>, A.E. Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote: :Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: :> The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: :> :> :> > *laugh* that's right...one of the best lines of the night! :> :> :> :> "You didn't even let US do that!" :> :> : On second thought, it bothers me a bit that Angelus spoke as though he :> : would've needed their consent. :> :> Why? They're not food. : :Because, if Angelus (the OLD Angelus) had wanted a threesome with :Dru and Darla, he would have simply threatened them, and/or :beaten the living unholy shit out of them, and then screwed them. Darla was Angelus' sire and about two hundred years older than him. Angelus would not have been able to beat her or otherwise abuse her unless she wanted him to. --

2004-05-12 04:47:20+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: : "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message :> :> : It was mentioned in season 1 of BtVS; when Giles was analyzing the : Master :> : for Buffy. He specifically said that a vampire gets stronger as he : ages. :> : But I don't recall the exact episode. :> :> Also the cloven-hooved vamp who killed Faith's watcher. One of the oldest, :> and very strong because of it. : I can't find anything in the episode that says that Kakistos' age is the : cause of his strength. Hell, the only thing actually said about his age : AFAICT is that he's "so old that his hands and feet are cloven", and even : that statement doesn't contain a clear causal link. Doesn't it? It seemed to imply that long-lived Vampires become less and less human. The tainted partial demon infestation becomes prevalent with age, leading to the cloven extremeties, horns and (to judge from his relative strength and invulnerability) an increase in the already formidable vampiric abilities. Shawn

2004-05-12 04:58:30+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (aej17DELETEME@comcast.net)


himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > aej17DELETEME@comcast.net (A.E. Jabbour) wrote in message news:<2gb5v2Flbb2U4@uni-berlin.de>... >> >> Because, if Angelus (the OLD Angelus) had wanted a threesome with >> Dru and Darla, he would have simply threatened them, and/or >> beaten the living unholy shit out of them, and then screwed them. > > Why would you assume that? We've seen no sign of this. In S2, > Angelus didn't just attack Dru the first time he got horny. He > seduced her in full sight of Spike...much nastier, but a very > different thing. And in the flashbacks in Destiny, we saw much the > same dynamic. The evidence of it is that pretty much whatever Angelus wanted, he got. If wanted to do something, he would. As far as the Dru/Spike thing, he did that because he wanted to hurt Spike. Not because he wanted Dru. As far as Destiny, I see it as the same thing. >> And you know what? Darla would have forgiven him for it. Just >> like she thought it was fun when Angel threw her through a glass >> door. > > Because it was fun for her. At least, it was fun until he went all > good and souly. Angelus also forgave Darla for leaving him to die in > that barn. They may or may not have loved each other, but their > relationship was extremely complex, not a matter of grab and take at > all...well, not between each other anyway. Once you add Dru and then > Spike to that dynamic, it becomes even more complex. I'm enjoying > these little glimpses into how DADS actually played out on a day to > day or rather, night to night basis. Yes, it would be interesting if it were the same Angelus. From what I have read about it, Angelus was just a very powerful idiot. >> I didn't see the episode, but from the summaries and comments >> I ahve read, it sounds like they turned both Spike and Angel, >> both in the present and in their soulless pasts, into stupid, >> incompetent, adolescent, banal, immature fools. If that's what >> Angelus was like, then why the hell was he so feared? > > Maybe because he was an incompetent, adolescent, banal, immature fool > with fangs and more than average vampire strength and ruthlessness? > Also a clever lover who kept him alive despite his stupidity, but > otherwise encouraged him to get into more and more trouble. It's hard > to think of anything more terrifying than an adolescent with real > power, (relative) invulnerability, and no one to rein him in. And yet, Angelus was never portrayed that way before. No one ever referred to him that way. No one ever talked about him that way, and we never saw him that way. Was he portrayed that way in "Somnambulist?" I don't think so. Was he portrayed that way in "The Prodigal?" No. Was he portrayed that way in "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been?" Hell no. Was he portrayed that way in "Darla?" Nope. Etc. This idea of Angelus is a newly birthed one. You may like it. But it is a huge redefinition of his character; and one that flies in the face of everything we had seen before. >> If that's what Angel was like, then how in the hell did S1 and >> S2 happen. The Angel from "Redefinition" was not the Angel >> who would act like a cast off from a bad comedy. > > Oh come on. Angel has always had his goofy, doofus side. We didn't > see too much of it on BTVS because we saw him mostly through Buffy's > teen-romance-colored glasses. But on AtS this came out more and more. > Cordy saw it at once and drew it out of him...because it's honestly > an attractive trait. We've seen Angel go goofy doofus over movies, > over BabyConnor, over restaurant bills, over shopping, over being a > Pylean hero (pre-krebbil), over ballet, over cars, and certainly over > Cordy. He even did his happy dance with her in YW. He did silly > stuff (mostly with her) in S1 and S2 too. A hero/lead who did nothing > but brood and be totally serious and/or heroic would be deadly > dull...is deadly dull on a fair number of TV shows. Every example you gave came from S3 or later. That's when I started to dislike the show. They chose to change Angel's character, to make him more goofy, and more silly. They replaced Sartre with Heston, replaced Baudelaire with ridiculous comments. They stole his culture and his knowledge, and made him a parody of himself. -- AE Jabbour "If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do." - Angel, "Epiphany"

2004-05-12 20:11:41+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (ebailey140@aol.com)


>From: aej17DELETEME@comcast.net (A.E. Jabbour) >Date: 5/11/2004 11:58 PM Central Standard Time >Message-id: <2gdp7lF1k446U1@uni-berlin.de> > >himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote: >> aej17DELETEME@comcast.net (A.E. Jabbour) wrote in message >news:<2gb5v2Flbb2U4@uni-berlin.de>... >>> >>> Because, if Angelus (the OLD Angelus) had wanted a threesome with >>> Dru and Darla, he would have simply threatened them, and/or >>> beaten the living unholy shit out of them, and then screwed them. >> >> Why would you assume that? We've seen no sign of this. In S2, >> Angelus didn't just attack Dru the first time he got horny. He >> seduced her in full sight of Spike...much nastier, but a very >> different thing. And in the flashbacks in Destiny, we saw much the >> same dynamic. > >The evidence of it is that pretty much whatever Angelus wanted, >he got. If wanted to do something, he would. He wasn't one to argue with the woman who made him, though. I don't know if that was a sire thing or what. > >As far as the Dru/Spike thing, he did that because he wanted to >hurt Spike. Not because he wanted Dru. As far as Destiny, I >see it as the same thing. Well, Dru was Angelus's pet project. He put a lot of work into making her what she was. Souled Angel considered her the worst thing he ever did, so Angelus would consider her his masterpiece. Angelus also tends to be very terrirorial and alpha. Dru was given permission to turn, and have, Spike, but Angelus still considered her his. That's part of the problem with Angel's relationship with Buffy. He's still possessive and territorial, even with the soul, and anytime she sees somebody, a little of Angelus comes out. It seems that Giles, Andrew, and company are going out of their way to keep those two from even talking. Everything either Angel or Spike have heard for the last year about what Buffy wants, how she feels about things, has been second hand. A bit extreme, but understandable, if that's way they set up so many buffers. Of course, Angel or Spike COULD try contacting her directly... > >>> And you know what? Darla would have forgiven him for it. Just >>> like she thought it was fun when Angel threw her through a glass >>> door. >> >> Because it was fun for her. At least, it was fun until he went all >> good and souly. Angelus also forgave Darla for leaving him to die in >> that barn. They may or may not have loved each other, but their >> relationship was extremely complex, not a matter of grab and take at >> all...well, not between each other anyway. Once you add Dru and then >> Spike to that dynamic, it becomes even more complex. I'm enjoying >> these little glimpses into how DADS actually played out on a day to >> day or rather, night to night basis. > >Yes, it would be interesting if it were the same Angelus. From what >I have read about it, Angelus was just a very powerful idiot. Well, vamps are a bit twisted when it comes to love and sex. See Spuffy. Spike just couldn't get why she broke it off, what was wrong with their relationship. He genuinely didn't understand what the problem was. Angelus wasn't going to do anything to Darla she didn't give some sort of consent for. She made him, after all. > >>> I didn't see the episode, but from the summaries and comments >>> I ahve read, it sounds like they turned both Spike and Angel, >>> both in the present and in their soulless pasts, into stupid, >>> incompetent, adolescent, banal, immature fools. If that's what >>> Angelus was like, then why the hell was he so feared? >> >> Maybe because he was an incompetent, adolescent, banal, immature fool >> with fangs and more than average vampire strength and ruthlessness? >> Also a clever lover who kept him alive despite his stupidity, but >> otherwise encouraged him to get into more and more trouble. It's hard >> to think of anything more terrifying than an adolescent with real >> power, (relative) invulnerability, and no one to rein him in. > >And yet, Angelus was never portrayed that way before. No one >ever referred to him that way. No one ever talked about him >that way, and we never saw him that way. > >Was he portrayed that way in "Somnambulist?" I don't think so. > >Was he portrayed that way in "The Prodigal?" No. > >Was he portrayed that way in "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been?" Hell >no. > >Was he portrayed that way in "Darla?" Nope. > >Etc. > >This idea of Angelus is a newly birthed one. You may like it. >But it is a huge redefinition of his character; and one that >flies in the face of everything we had seen before. I suspect there were some compromises in characterization for the sake of a few laughs, but I had a lot of problems with this episode. Everybody in this weird family dynamic, Angel, Spike, Buffy, Darla, Dru, came off as a bit out of character in an effort to get the episode to a specific point. That's why I shrugged off the "revelation" at the end that Andrew is hetero (What seems to be some's big beef). That was just consistant with the rest of the episode, IMO. But, I had no issue with Darla getting away with things with Angelus, because she was the party in charge in their relationship. Same with Dru and Spike. But, the Darla we'd known wouldn't have likely done that. And Dru, well... Why was Spike so shocked at her infidelities in recent years if she'd ALWAYS been unfaithful? > > >>> If that's what Angel was like, then how in the hell did S1 and >>> S2 happen. The Angel from "Redefinition" was not the Angel >>> who would act like a cast off from a bad comedy. >> >> Oh come on. Angel has always had his goofy, doofus side. We didn't >> see too much of it on BTVS because we saw him mostly through Buffy's >> teen-romance-colored glasses. But on AtS this came out more and more. >> Cordy saw it at once and drew it out of him...because it's honestly >> an attractive trait. We've seen Angel go goofy doofus over movies, >> over BabyConnor, over restaurant bills, over shopping, over being a >> Pylean hero (pre-krebbil), over ballet, over cars, and certainly over >> Cordy. He even did his happy dance with her in YW. He did silly >> stuff (mostly with her) in S1 and S2 too. A hero/lead who did nothing >> but brood and be totally serious and/or heroic would be deadly >> dull...is deadly dull on a fair number of TV shows. > >Every example you gave came from S3 or later. That's when I started >to dislike the show. They chose to change Angel's character, to make >him more goofy, and more silly. They replaced Sartre with Heston, >replaced Baudelaire with ridiculous comments. They stole his culture >and his knowledge, and made him a parody of himself. Well, the Manilow thing was established in S1. Just made him a little less distant, giving him some guilty pleasures (Well, he SHOULD feel guilty about "Mandy"). It was easier to have him stick to Sartre when he was a shadowy supporting character on Buffy, because he wasn't having to be the center of the show. On his own show, he had to have a lighter side. It's like how Buffy was able to be into both Samuel Beckett and Ice Capades. E

2004-05-12 20:46:32+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (aej17DELETEME@comcast.net)


EBailey140 <ebailey140@aol.com> wrote: >>From: aej17DELETEME@comcast.net (A.E. Jabbour) >>Date: 5/11/2004 11:58 PM Central Standard Time >>Message-id: <2gdp7lF1k446U1@uni-berlin.de> [snip] >>This idea of Angelus is a newly birthed one. You may like it. >>But it is a huge redefinition of his character; and one that >>flies in the face of everything we had seen before. > > I suspect there were some compromises in characterization for the sake of a few > laughs, but I had a lot of problems with this episode. Everybody in this weird > family dynamic, Angel, Spike, Buffy, Darla, Dru, came off as a bit out of > character in an effort to get the episode to a specific point. That's why I > shrugged off the "revelation" at the end that Andrew is hetero (What seems to > be some's big beef). That was just consistant with the rest of the episode, > IMO. This is the essence of the point I was trying to make. This is also what I saw in the later seasons of BtVS. Alterations to the carefully constructed characters, done by fiat, not by development through change, crisis, conflict. This sort of thing bothers me a great deal when I see it in a two-hour film. When it happens in a multi-year series, it is even worse. [snip] >>Every example you gave came from S3 or later. That's when I started >>to dislike the show. They chose to change Angel's character, to make >>him more goofy, and more silly. They replaced Sartre with Heston, >>replaced Baudelaire with ridiculous comments. They stole his culture >>and his knowledge, and made him a parody of himself. > > Well, the Manilow thing was established in S1. Just made him a little less > distant, giving him some guilty pleasures (Well, he SHOULD feel guilty about > "Mandy"). It was easier to have him stick to Sartre when he was a shadowy > supporting character on Buffy, because he wasn't having to be the center of the > show. On his own show, he had to have a lighter side. It's like how Buffy was > able to be into both Samuel Beckett and Ice Capades. Yes, and the Manilow thing was funny and added to his character *precisely because* it was so far out of left field for Angel. It was so unlike the type of character we had come to know that it served the story adn the character well. But when you take that exception, that out-of-left-field detail and begin to make it the norm, you not only completely redefine the character as someone else entirely (hence, my lack of interest in the show once they did that: that's not what I signed on to watch), but you also detract from the interest of the original detail. It's no longer out-of-left-field. It is no longer something odd, quirky, but interesting about the character. It no longer gives a bit of depth to the character; it is now just another in a long string of similar traits. Taking the 'quirk' and turning it into the character is not character development. We never saw Angel develop from the character he was to the character he is, in relation to what he knows, what he learned, and what he was interested in. One day is one thing, and then, suddenly, by fiat, he was completely different. And doing something like that for a cheap laugh is even worse. They managed a great deal of comedy that was actually funny without devolving the character before. Maybe they are just lazy, or hope no one will notice or care. I don't know. But that kind of writing infuriates me. -- AE Jabbour "If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do." - Angel, "Epiphany"

2004-05-13 05:36:28-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Eric Hunter <hunter90@comcast.not>)


ecriva wrote: > Sorry, what does "DADS" stand for in this post please Himiko? Darla, Angel, Drusilla, Spike. E. --

2004-05-13 08:08:59+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (ecriva <ecriva@bigpond.com>)


Sorry, what does "DADS" stand for in this post please Himiko? cheers Erica Brandon himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message news:c7902983.0405111235.480472f3@posting.google.com... > Because it was fun for her. At least, it was fun until he went all > good and souly. Angelus also forgave Darla for leaving him to die in > that barn. They may or may not have loved each other, but their > relationship was extremely complex, not a matter of grab and take at > all...well, not between each other anyway. Once you add Dru and then > Spike to that dynamic, it becomes even more complex. I'm enjoying > these little glimpses into how DADS actually played out on a day to > day or rather, night to night basis. > > > I didn't see the episode, but from the summaries and comments > > I ahve read, it sounds like they turned both Spike and Angel, > > both in the present and in their soulless pasts, into stupid, > > incompetent, adolescent, banal, immature fools. If that's what > > Angelus was like, then why the hell was he so feared? > > Maybe because he was an incompetent, adolescent, banal, immature fool > with fangs and more than average vampire strength and ruthlessness? > Also a clever lover who kept him alive despite his stupidity, but > otherwise encouraged him to get into more and more trouble. It's hard > to think of anything more terrifying than an adolescent with real > power, (relative) invulnerability, and no one to rein him in. > > > If that's what Angel was like, then how in the hell did S1 and > > S2 happen. The Angel from "Redefinition" was not the Angel > > who would act like a cast off from a bad comedy. > > Oh come on. Angel has always had his goofy, doofus side. We didn't <snip> > himiko

2004-05-13 15:00:57-07:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (himiko@animail.net)


ebailey140@aol.com (EBailey140) wrote in message news:<20040512161141.11088.00001280@mb-m12.aol.com>... > >From: aej17DELETEME@comcast.net (A.E. Jabbour) > >Date: 5/11/2004 11:58 PM Central Standard Time > >Message-id: <2gdp7lF1k446U1@uni-berlin.de> > > > >himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > >> aej17DELETEME@comcast.net (A.E. Jabbour) wrote in message > news:<2gb5v2Flbb2U4@uni-berlin.de>... > >>> > >>> Because, if Angelus (the OLD Angelus) had wanted a threesome with > >>> Dru and Darla, he would have simply threatened them, and/or > >>> beaten the living unholy shit out of them, and then screwed them. > >> > >> Why would you assume that? We've seen no sign of this. In S2, > >> Angelus didn't just attack Dru the first time he got horny. He > >> seduced her in full sight of Spike...much nastier, but a very > >> different thing. And in the flashbacks in Destiny, we saw much the > >> same dynamic. > > > >The evidence of it is that pretty much whatever Angelus wanted, > >he got. If wanted to do something, he would. > > He wasn't one to argue with the woman who made him, though. I don't know if > that was a sire thing or what. Sire-whipped, I think it's called. > > > >As far as the Dru/Spike thing, he did that because he wanted to > >hurt Spike. Not because he wanted Dru. As far as Destiny, I > >see it as the same thing. Why he wanted to sleep with Dru is irrelevant. The point is, he never raped her or Darla that we saw. > > It seems that Giles, Andrew, and company are going out of their way to keep > those two from even talking. Everything either Angel or Spike have heard for > the last year about what Buffy wants, how she feels about things, has been > second hand. A bit extreme, but understandable, if that's way they set up so > many buffers. Of course, Angel or Spike COULD try contacting her directly... I wonder what Giles thinks of the Immortal. All that work to keep her away from Angel and Spike, and she just goes and finds another one. > > > > > >Yes, it would be interesting if it were the same Angelus. From what > >I have read about it, Angelus was just a very powerful idiot. Or a very powerful, well protected adolescent. That is indeed something to fear. > > > > >And yet, Angelus was never portrayed that way before. No one > >ever referred to him that way. No one ever talked about him > >that way, and we never saw him that way. Maybe you missed it, but a lot of us mentioned it. > > > >Was he portrayed that way in "Somnambulist?" I don't think so. > > > >Was he portrayed that way in "The Prodigal?" No. > > > >Was he portrayed that way in "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been?" Hell > >no. > > > >Was he portrayed that way in "Darla?" Nope. > > > >Etc. You're going to have to be more specific about what aspects of these episodes you are referring to. I see nothing in any of them that actively refutes his becoming who he now is, goofy doofus and all. > >>> If that's what Angel was like, then how in the hell did S1 and > >>> S2 happen. The Angel from "Redefinition" was not the Angel > >>> who would act like a cast off from a bad comedy. Sure he was. He just didn't know it until Cordy dragged it out of him. He took himself terribly seriously, but the show didn't. It often laughed at him. It did this as early as S1 BTVS by showing us that high school brooder in NKABOTFD. He really was a silly adolescent that only another silly adolescent (Buffy and some of the other girls in her class) would see as romantic. There was an analogy playing out there, you know. > >> > >> Oh come on. Angel has always had his goofy, doofus side. We didn't > >> see too much of it on BTVS because we saw him mostly through Buffy's > >> teen-romance-colored glasses. But on AtS this came out more and more. > >> Cordy saw it at once and drew it out of him...because it's honestly > >> an attractive trait. We've seen Angel go goofy doofus over movies, > >> over BabyConnor, over restaurant bills, over shopping, over being a > >> Pylean hero (pre-krebbil), over ballet, over cars, and certainly over > >> Cordy. He even did his happy dance with her in YW. He did silly > >> stuff (mostly with her) in S1 and S2 too. A hero/lead who did nothing > >> but brood and be totally serious and/or heroic would be deadly > >> dull...is deadly dull on a fair number of TV shows. > > > >Every example you gave came from S3 or later. See above. S1 BTVS. And below. >> That's when I started > >to dislike the show. They chose to change Angel's character, to make > >him more goofy, and more silly. They replaced Sartre with Heston, > >replaced Baudelaire with ridiculous comments. They stole his culture > >and his knowledge, and made him a parody of himself. He learned to laugh at himself. That's a sign of maturity. Angel is maturing. Very slowly due to the being dead and all, but he is doing his best. That's not becoming a parody. That's self awareness and a decreasing reliance on posturing. In S1, he found the idea of him trying to dance at Cordy's party disturbing because it violated his brooding, angsty self image; we (or at least, me) found it hysterically funny for the same reason...it was a revelation of another side to this character, a goofy doofus afraid to come out and show himself. Same with the karaoke singing. By now, he doesn't mind being silly and enjoys the laugh along with everyone else. Go Angel. himiko

2004-05-13 22:10:26+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (aej17DELETEME@comcast.net)


himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > > You're going to have to be more specific about what aspects of these > episodes you are referring to. I see nothing in any of them that > actively refutes his becoming who he now is, goofy doofus and all. I think it is safe to leave it here. We clearly have seen two completely different characters on two complteley different shows. I don't think we will ever be able to convince the other of anything different. -- AE Jabbour "If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do." - Angel, "Epiphany"

2004-05-13 22:48:56+01:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." - (Alun <alun.bell@ntlworld.com>)


In message <YIumc.4978$Nz2.102277@news.itd.umich.edu>, Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsd@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> writes >In article <409a745b$0$35071$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>, >Xarias <Xarias@trollsrgay.com> wrote: > >:"Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message >:> So far it looks like I'm the only person with positive feedback for >:> the episode... all the other responses bemoan the fact that we didn't get >:> more of Wes and Illyria having the same grim slit-my-wrists perpetual >:> conversation they've been having for the past several episodes straight, >:> dragging the show to a manic-depressive halt. Oh well, different strokes >:> and all... > >:Yes...you are. > >No he's not. I liked this episode. > >You're perfectly free to dislike something and express yourself accordingly, >but lets not get arrogant about it. Your opinion by no means speaks for >everyone. > > > > Certainly not for me - I loved it, as did my sister and a good friend who have been watching since Buffy started. I found it very funny in parts, moving in others, and I can't understand the hatred some people have expressed for this ep. -- Alun

2004-05-14 15:42:49+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


A.E. Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote: :> Maybe because he was an incompetent, adolescent, banal, immature fool :> with fangs and more than average vampire strength and ruthlessness? :> Also a clever lover who kept him alive despite his stupidity, but :> otherwise encouraged him to get into more and more trouble. It's hard :> to think of anything more terrifying than an adolescent with real :> power, (relative) invulnerability, and no one to rein him in. : And yet, Angelus was never portrayed that way before. No one : ever referred to him that way. No one ever talked about him : that way, and we never saw him that way. Not in Darla? Not in Orpheus? Seeing Angelus as a frustrated child rather than a raving maniacal genius isn't that big a stretch. It perfectly fits what we know of vampires, and what we know of both his and Spike's reasons for getting vamped. : Was he portrayed that way in "Somnambulist?" I don't think so. Angel's worst fears about himself? Probably not that he was whiny and cuckolded, but doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. : Was he portrayed that way in "The Prodigal?" No. The heady rush of newfound power. : Was he portrayed that way in "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been?" Hell : no. Was that Angelus? : Was he portrayed that way in "Darla?" Nope. Even Angelus had a bad day now and then? : This idea of Angelus is a newly birthed one. You may like it. : But it is a huge redefinition of his character; and one that : flies in the face of everything we had seen before. I see it as a minor variation in the course of decades. : Every example you gave came from S3 or later. That's when I started : to dislike the show. They chose to change Angel's character, to make : him more goofy, and more silly. They replaced Sartre with Heston, : replaced Baudelaire with ridiculous comments. They stole his culture : and his knowledge, and made him a parody of himself. You realize Angelus and Angel are different people, right? Shawn

2004-05-14 15:46:30+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


EBailey140 <ebailey140@aol.com> wrote: : But, I had no issue with Darla getting away with things with Angelus, because : she was the party in charge in their relationship. Same with Dru and Spike. : But, the Darla we'd known wouldn't have likely done that. And Dru, well... : Why was Spike so shocked at her infidelities in recent years if she'd ALWAYS : been unfaithful? Two things: 1) the Immortal is the exception to all rules. 2) Spike was shocked not because of the infidelity, but because of what it represented; her loss of interest in him, simultaneous to his growing interest in Buffy. She knew how he felt long before he did. : Well, the Manilow thing was established in S1. Just made him a little less : distant, giving him some guilty pleasures (Well, he SHOULD feel guilty about : "Mandy"). It was easier to have him stick to Sartre when he was a shadowy : supporting character on Buffy, because he wasn't having to be the center of the : show. On his own show, he had to have a lighter side. It's like how Buffy was : able to be into both Samuel Beckett and Ice Capades. The intellectual pretensions were never that convincing anyway. Shawn

2004-05-14 15:51:00+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


A.E. Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote: : But when you take that exception, that out-of-left-field detail : and begin to make it the norm, you not only completely redefine the : character as someone else entirely (hence, my lack of interest in : the show once they did that: that's not what I signed on to : watch), but you also detract from the interest of the original The show wasn't working in its original form. It never found a voice or a perspective until it found the (satirical, ironic, black) humor in Pylea. : Taking the 'quirk' and turning it into the character is not : character development. We never saw Angel develop from the : character he was to the character he is, in relation to what he : knows, what he learned, and what he was interested in. One day : is one thing, and then, suddenly, by fiat, he was completely : different. Which day was that? : And doing something like that for a cheap laugh is even worse. : They managed a great deal of comedy that was actually funny : without devolving the character before. Maybe they are just : lazy, or hope no one will notice or care. I don't know. But : that kind of writing infuriates me. Though you don't really know, as you haven't even seen the episode. You're only going from reports by the infuriated, not really the most reliable sources. I'd say the explanation for changes in Angel's character come from definitively developed stories: 1) Dark, Gray and Beige Angel from S2. 2) Fatherly Angel from S3. 3) Cordy-loving angel from S4. 4) And now compromised, implicated, master-plan Angel from S5. Shawn

2004-05-14 15:53:47+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote: : brooding, angsty self image; we (or at least, me) found it : hysterically funny for the same reason...it was a revelation of : another side to this character, a goofy doofus afraid to come out and Also because he just can't dance. : show himself. Same with the karaoke singing. By now, he doesn't mind : being silly and enjoys the laugh along with everyone else. Go Angel. He has something in HelLA he never had in Sunnydale: friends. All he had there was a lover, whose mom cared enough to send him away. And he's fought for them over the last 4 seasons (losing some along the way, sadly), so damn right, Go Angel! Shawn

2004-05-14 17:40:38+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (aej17DELETEME@comcast.net)


Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > A.E. Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote: > > : But when you take that exception, that out-of-left-field detail > : and begin to make it the norm, you not only completely redefine the > : character as someone else entirely (hence, my lack of interest in > : the show once they did that: that's not what I signed on to > : watch), but you also detract from the interest of the original > > The show wasn't working in its original form. It never found a voice or a > perspective until it found the (satirical, ironic, black) humor in Pylea. I don't even know where to start with this comment, honestly. I really don't. > : Taking the 'quirk' and turning it into the character is not > : character development. We never saw Angel develop from the > : character he was to the character he is, in relation to what he > : knows, what he learned, and what he was interested in. One day > : is one thing, and then, suddenly, by fiat, he was completely > : different. > > Which day was that? The day when he was running around like an idiot, jabbering on about a Heston film festival. > : And doing something like that for a cheap laugh is even worse. > : They managed a great deal of comedy that was actually funny > : without devolving the character before. Maybe they are just > : lazy, or hope no one will notice or care. I don't know. But > : that kind of writing infuriates me. > > Though you don't really know, as you haven't even seen the episode. > You're only going from reports by the infuriated, not really the most > reliable sources. I was referring to what they did to him in S3 and S4, not specifically in TGiQ. > I'd say the explanation for changes in Angel's character come from > definitively developed stories: > > 1) Dark, Gray and Beige Angel from S2. > 2) Fatherly Angel from S3. > 3) Cordy-loving angel from S4. > 4) And now compromised, implicated, master-plan Angel from S5. Blah. -- AE Jabbour "If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do." - Angel, "Epiphany"

2004-05-14 17:48:42+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (aej17DELETEME@comcast.net)


Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > A.E. Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote: > > :> Maybe because he was an incompetent, adolescent, banal, immature fool > :> with fangs and more than average vampire strength and ruthlessness? > :> Also a clever lover who kept him alive despite his stupidity, but > :> otherwise encouraged him to get into more and more trouble. It's hard > :> to think of anything more terrifying than an adolescent with real > :> power, (relative) invulnerability, and no one to rein him in. > > : And yet, Angelus was never portrayed that way before. No one > : ever referred to him that way. No one ever talked about him > : that way, and we never saw him that way. > > Not in Darla? Not in Orpheus? Seeing Angelus as a frustrated child rather > than a raving maniacal genius isn't that big a stretch. It perfectly fits > what we know of vampires, and what we know of both his and Spike's > reasons for getting vamped. "Orpheus" is post Pylea. I am already arguing that post-Pylea, they changed his character, both Angel and apparently Angelus. A frustrated child is never going to be as intelligent as Angelus was. Nor will a child be as knowledgeable. > : Was he portrayed that way in "Somnambulist?" I don't think so. > > Angel's worst fears about himself? Probably not that he was whiny and > cuckolded, but doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. Umm ... no. > : Was he portrayed that way in "The Prodigal?" No. > > The heady rush of newfound power. Means what, exactly? Was he or was he not portrayed as a doofus? > : Was he portrayed that way in "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been?" Hell > : no. > > Was that Angelus? No, and I mistakenly put that in there. But even as Angel, one can see that he was not, in any possible definition of the word, a doofus in that episode. > : Was he portrayed that way in "Darla?" Nope. > > Even Angelus had a bad day now and then? He was a doofus in "Darla?" He was goofy? He was silly? > : This idea of Angelus is a newly birthed one. You may like it. > : But it is a huge redefinition of his character; and one that > : flies in the face of everything we had seen before. > > I see it as a minor variation in the course of decades. Yeah, minor variation, sure: Angelus has sadistic, torturing, horrific scourge and murderer of thousands ... and Angelus as doofus. Yeah, I agree, minor. I would hate to see what you think of as a *major* variation. > : Every example you gave came from S3 or later. That's when I started > : to dislike the show. They chose to change Angel's character, to make > : him more goofy, and more silly. They replaced Sartre with Heston, > : replaced Baudelaire with ridiculous comments. They stole his culture > : and his knowledge, and made him a parody of himself. > > You realize Angelus and Angel are different people, right? Huh? This discussion started out as one about how both Angelus and Angel's characters have been altered. Others stated that he was always a goofy doofus, in both incarnations. You, apparently, agree. -- AE Jabbour "If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do." - Angel, "Epiphany"

2004-05-14 18:28:01+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


A.E. Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote: :> The show wasn't working in its original form. It never found a voice or a :> perspective until it found the (satirical, ironic, black) humor in Pylea. : I don't even know where to start with this comment, honestly. I : really don't. Well, I think it defines a perspective towards the show (one we don't share, apparently). :> Which day was that? : The day when he was running around like an idiot, jabbering on : about a Heston film festival. Which episode? It was obviously quite significant to you, whereas it merited nary a blip to me. :> Though you don't really know, as you haven't even seen the episode. :> You're only going from reports by the infuriated, not really the most :> reliable sources. : I was referring to what they did to him in S3 and S4, not specifically : in TGiQ. Should we change the thread title? :> I'd say the explanation for changes in Angel's character come from :> definitively developed stories: :> :> 1) Dark, Gray and Beige Angel from S2. :> 2) Fatherly Angel from S3. :> 3) Cordy-loving angel from S4. :> 4) And now compromised, implicated, master-plan Angel from S5. : Blah. Then I understand why you're not still watching the show. But, uhm, why are you still talking about it? Shawn

2004-05-14 19:15:20-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:c83f1q$r3e$6@news.fas.harvard.edu... > A.E. Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote: > : Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > :> A.E. Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote: > :> > :> : Means what, exactly? Was he or was he not portrayed as a doofus? > :> > :> Your vision of Angelus seems rather limited and one-sided. > > : AS qwith the rest of this post, you never once gave an example of > : when Angelus was portrayed as a doofus. > > What I gave examples of showed how it was not inconceivable that he might > be; even you admitted he has been shown that way (or so you suppose, > since you haven't been watching) since things went downhill for you > during/after S2. You're objecting to what the show itself has done (the > direction it's gone in), and not this episode itself at all in any valid > way. It is perfectly valid to object to an episode which is an example of how the show has gone downhill.

2004-05-14 20:56:19+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (aej17DELETEME@comcast.net)


Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > A.E. Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote: > > : Means what, exactly? Was he or was he not portrayed as a doofus? > > Your vision of Angelus seems rather limited and one-sided. AS qwith the rest of this post, you never once gave an example of when Angelus was portrayed as a doofus. Thank you. -- AE Jabbour "If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do." - Angel, "Epiphany"

2004-05-14 21:51:54+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


A.E. Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote: : Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: :> A.E. Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote: :> :> : Means what, exactly? Was he or was he not portrayed as a doofus? :> :> Your vision of Angelus seems rather limited and one-sided. : AS qwith the rest of this post, you never once gave an example of : when Angelus was portrayed as a doofus. What I gave examples of showed how it was not inconceivable that he might be; even you admitted he has been shown that way (or so you suppose, since you haven't been watching) since things went downhill for you during/after S2. You're objecting to what the show itself has done (the direction it's gone in), and not this episode itself at all in any valid way. Shawn

2004-05-15 06:27:58+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: :> What I gave examples of showed how it was not inconceivable that he might :> be; even you admitted he has been shown that way (or so you suppose, :> since you haven't been watching) since things went downhill for you :> during/after S2. You're objecting to what the show itself has done (the :> direction it's gone in), and not this episode itself at all in any valid :> way. : It is perfectly valid to object to an episode which is an example of how the : show has gone downhill. Even if his only evidence for that judgment is the reviews of others? Shawn

2004-05-15 12:48:24-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:c84d9e$ab9$1@news.fas.harvard.edu... > The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > :> What I gave examples of showed how it was not inconceivable that he might > :> be; even you admitted he has been shown that way (or so you suppose, > :> since you haven't been watching) since things went downhill for you > :> during/after S2. You're objecting to what the show itself has done (the > :> direction it's gone in), and not this episode itself at all in any valid > :> way. > > : It is perfectly valid to object to an episode which is an example of how the > : show has gone downhill. > > Even if his only evidence for that judgment is the reviews of others? I don't see why not. It's a simple relay of factual information-- Angel(us) was shown doing this, saying this, etc. If the mere fact of certain occurrences is sufficient for his purposes, it makes little difference whether he becomes aware of those facts firsthand or secondhand, unless you're implying that these reviews of others actually distorted the details of the episode. That'd be something else. -- "Good, bad, Angel, Angelus, none of it makes a difference. I wish it did, but an ant with the best intentions or the most diabolical schemes is just exactly an ant." -Angel

2004-05-17 00:41:25+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: : I don't see why not. It's a simple relay of factual information-- Angel(us) : was shown doing this, saying this, etc. If the mere fact of certain : occurrences is sufficient for his purposes, it makes little difference : whether he becomes aware of those facts firsthand or secondhand, unless : you're implying that these reviews of others actually distorted the details : of the episode. That'd be something else. I don't think there has ever existed a review of anything that doesn't "distort the details" of the topic at hand. Everyone has their own slant, and rightly so. But "factual?" No way. There are no facts in art beyond: "X signed his name here, Y was played by Z." Beyond basic description, it's all interpretation. Thus the way the same play or movie can get equal amounts of raves and pans, and does every week, over and over again. Shawn

2004-05-17 20:31:47-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:c891nl$tr4$2@news.fas.harvard.edu... > The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > : I don't see why not. It's a simple relay of factual information-- Angel(us) > : was shown doing this, saying this, etc. If the mere fact of certain > : occurrences is sufficient for his purposes, it makes little difference > : whether he becomes aware of those facts firsthand or secondhand, unless > : you're implying that these reviews of others actually distorted the details > : of the episode. That'd be something else. > > I don't think there has ever existed a review of anything that doesn't > "distort the details" of the topic at hand. Everyone has their own > slant, and rightly so. But "factual?" No way. There are no facts in > art beyond: "X signed his name here, Y was played by Z." Beyond basic > description, it's all interpretation. And where was the distortion in this case? I didn't see anybody correcting A.E. about the actual descriptions of what occurred in the episode. The disagreements in this discussion have been about his interpretations of previous episodes, their consistency with later episodes, and what exactly the essence of the one true Angelus is.

2004-05-19 14:43:19+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: :> I don't think there has ever existed a review of anything that doesn't :> "distort the details" of the topic at hand. Everyone has their own :> slant, and rightly so. But "factual?" No way. There are no facts in :> art beyond: "X signed his name here, Y was played by Z." Beyond basic :> description, it's all interpretation. : And where was the distortion in this case? I didn't see anybody correcting : A.E. about the actual descriptions of what occurred in the episode. The : disagreements in this discussion have been about his interpretations of : previous episodes, their consistency with later episodes, and what exactly : the essence of the one true Angelus is. IIRC, he took the characterization of "Dumb and Dummer" S/A in the episode at face value. I would argue that point above all; they were not idiots. They were fools for love. Shawn

2004-05-19 15:59:09-04:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:c8frq7$7qk$2@news.fas.harvard.edu... > The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > :> I don't think there has ever existed a review of anything that doesn't > :> "distort the details" of the topic at hand. Everyone has their own > :> slant, and rightly so. But "factual?" No way. There are no facts in > :> art beyond: "X signed his name here, Y was played by Z." Beyond basic > :> description, it's all interpretation. > > : And where was the distortion in this case? I didn't see anybody correcting > : A.E. about the actual descriptions of what occurred in the episode. The > : disagreements in this discussion have been about his interpretations of > : previous episodes, their consistency with later episodes, and what exactly > : the essence of the one true Angelus is. > > IIRC, he took the characterization of "Dumb and Dummer" S/A in the > episode at face value. I would argue that point above all; they were not > idiots. They were fools for love. What does that mean?

2004-05-20 19:08:35+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>)


The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: :> IIRC, he took the characterization of "Dumb and Dummer" S/A in the :> episode at face value. I would argue that point above all; they were not :> idiots. They were fools for love. : What does that mean? That it was a comedy episode featuring romantic heroes in an amusing plight. Shawn

2004-05-21 06:47:15+00:00 - Re: "I'm waiting on her to bake..." SPOILERS for 5.20 - (ecriva <ecriva@bigpond.com>)


thanks! Eric Hunter <hunter90@comcast.not> wrote in message news:S_edne7UXL3e3D7dRVn-vw@comcast.com... > ecriva wrote: > > Sorry, what does "DADS" stand for in this post please Himiko? > > Darla, Angel, Drusilla, Spike. > > E. > -- >