From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #14 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Wednesday, January 19 2000 Volume 02 : Number 014 Today's Subjects: ----------------- b/ predictions/ speculations (and maybe little spoiler?) [GHighPine@aol.c] Andy Kaufman [Kathleen Woodbury ] Re: Andy Kaufman [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/yes! ["Susan J. Kroupa" ] b/doomed ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/doomed ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: Andy Kaufman ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:00:49 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: b/ predictions/ speculations (and maybe little spoiler?) At the grocery store today, I noticed the new TV GUIDE was out, and while waiting in line, I read the logline for next week's BUFFY. (Spoiler warnings for those who want to remain totally virginal) It said something like, "Depressed that Buffy has been keeping secrets from him, Giles goes out drinking with Ethan Rayne. But he wakes up with more than a hangover." Is it too obvious a prediction that the secrets referred to are about Riley? And from that to back-predict about tonight's episode, that Buffy and Riley have decided to tell each other everything but each keep the other's identity secret from their respective allies? Note that I use the word "predict," which means I am I think this is going to happen, not that it is a maybe-could be possible, like a speculation. Predictions are riskier than speculations. But here's a speculation (that means maybe-possibly-could be): Ethan puts some sort of evil spell on Giles, and Buffy and Riley ally to fight/save Giles. One reason that something along these lines occurs to me is that I think that we are close to the point at which "Helpless" happened last year, which suggests another crucial turning point re Giles. (We are way overdue for some of the storylines set up last season to start paying off, and I am starting to think that the Giles storyline begun in "Helpless" may not fully bear fruit until next season.) Another reason that this possibility occurs to me is that I have been on the lookout for "Pangs" to turn out to be thematic foreshadowing. Buffy and/or Slayerettes could be trying to hold back to keep from hurting Giles, while Riley might have no such inhibitions. This could, of course, put a strain on the Buffy / Riley relationship, maybe precipitating its end. (Put all this in the "speculation" column.) Oo! I have been looking for how Buffy and the Initiative will become adversaries. Speculation: they become involved in battling Giles, perhaps because Riley enlists their help. This could all end up with the Slayerettes and the Initiative being enemies. (The Slayerettes have Spike on their side, making things worse.) All this in the speculation column again. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:07:39 -0700 From: Kathleen Woodbury Subject: Andy Kaufman One question about Andy Kaufman: did he do a schtick where the host/announcer/whoever would ask him what his name was and he would answer in a very meek, little voice, "My name Jose Jimenez"? Or was that someone else? My daughter saw FIGHT CLUB and said that there were some very interesting structural things about the way the movie was made that reflected its content--one example being the "subliminal" stuff. sign me, Looking forward to a new Buffy episode, Phaedre/Kathleen workshop@burgoyne.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:50:42 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: Andy Kaufman I think that was someone else. But you know what, I would like it if we always used =some= sort of prefix with this list mail -- if b/ and m/ are not appropriate for some posts (ones not about BUFFY or music), then some other prefix. Something like os/ for other stuff, maybe? I'm on a lot of lists (too many, but hey) and prefixes really help with managing all the mail. Only 84 minutes till a new BUFFY -- Gayle PS Nice to see you here, Phaedre! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:18:17 -0700 From: "Susan J. Kroupa" Subject: Re: b/yes! We weren't cheated out of the conversation after all! I thought that Spike would eventually become an ally, but it's nice that he's doing it for all the wrong reasons. I thought this was a good episode, and that this week's Angel was one of the best of the season. Sue ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 23:33:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/doomed So I was sitting there, fidgeting through the "previously on..." scenes, and they get to the Riley/Buffy nonconversation scene, and I'm chanting, are we going to get the scene? and then the episode starts from the same point, and I'm saying, we're going to get the scene! thank you, Joss! Nicely done scene; amusing how Buffy knew who Riley was without him telling her, and Riley =didn't= know who she was, even after she =did= tell him. (The Slayer =is= a boogeyman, you see...) And =four= Riley/Buffy scenes altogether, the middle two very intense indeed. We can already see the difference between Riley and Angel; Angel was always willing to let Buffy walk away. Riley, in the most benign way possible, isn't. (Did we all notice that Marc Blucas is a regular now? Ditto Alexis Denisof on =Angel=? And that this was the first 3-byline =Buffy=--all staff writers? Didn't have the feel of a patch job, however.) Spike continues to be an amusing character. But what a new wrinkle: how come he didn't discover this during the mausoleum fight in "Something Blue"? Tired old open-the-Hellmouth plot (even the characters were aware of it--"Again??"), but that's OK. The demons turning out to be the sacrifice was a nice touch--I figured it out a minute or two before Xander. Do we care that Buffy falling after the demon and catching him violates the laws of physics? And Spike Speaks Truth again. Well, that's enough for starters. I was very satisfied with the episode. And =Angel= was really good, too. Lots of vampire/copper angst. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 01:38:55 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/doomed I whooped when the Slayerettes all said "Again?!" Berni then commented, "That's what you were going to say if they didn't, right?" How tremendously post-modern, to not only 1) anticipate and defang objections to a hackneyed plot idea in this way, but 2) do it effectively and amusingly. Buffy and Riley's conversations were fascinating: this sort of intense dialogue is the show's writing strong point. In the first of the two most intense conversations (the one in the cemetery), Riley's naive suggestions that Buffy can walk away from Slayerhood are reminiscent of conversations Buffy had with Giles about going away to college. In the second conversation (the one on the street), Riley was being just the sort of exasperating psych student one would expect (a point Buffy makes herself). I'm on Buffy's side on this one: I think she's correct about the nature of the world and Riley is wrong. (This is a philosophical point transcending Slayerhood and vampires.) The "non-conversation" (in Buffy's dorm room) carrying on directly from the point it left off at the end of "Hush" was a delicious piece of editing. Sorry to bring up what seems to have been the most boring subject of the old SFRT3 BUFFY topic, but the map on which Giles has plotted the demon sightings in Sunnydale _is a map of Santa Barbara!_ Aha, the guess we made earlier -- that Sunnydale occupies the locale of Santa Barbara in the primary world -- is pretty well confirmed. Speaking of good guesses, the preview for next week shows that Gayle was on the money, as usual. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 01:46:02 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: Andy Kaufman On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Kathleen Woodbury wrote: > One question about Andy Kaufman: did he do a schtick where the > host/announcer/whoever would ask him what his name was and he > would answer in a very meek, little voice, "My name Jose Jimenez"? > > Or was that someone else? That was a guy named Bill Dana, of an earlier vintage -- very popular in the late 50s and early 60s. He was so identified with that character -- it was just about his only schtick -- that he was usually identified as "Bill (Jose Jimenez) Dana". He had a particularly famous skit in which Jose was a frightened astronaut giving an interview. Some of the real Mercury astronauts got a big kick out of it (Alan Shepard actually did the routine on the launch-pad intercom), and there's a scene in the film THE RIGHT STUFF where the (actors playing the) astronauts can be seen chuckling at a (genuine tape of a) Jose broadcast. Glad to see you made it over here, Phaedre. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #14 ****************************