From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #16 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Friday, January 21 2000 Volume 02 : Number 016 Today's Subjects: ----------------- b/new video set I ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/new video set II ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/ speculative thoughts [allenw ] Re: b/new video set I [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/new video set II [GHighPine@aol.com] b/ Lindsey Crouse [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/ speculative thoughts [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/ speculative thoughts (mild spoilers) [allenw ] m/sonic youth does indeterminacy [meredith ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 06:30:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/new video set I In fall of 1998 (early 3rd season) 20th Century Fox released the first commercial videos of =Buffy the Vampire Slayer=, three tapes comprising six episodes from the 1st season. But that was all for more than a year and a half. I had been dimly aware that the plan was to release more videos somtime around now; so I wasn't stunned to see them advertising the new set during Tuesday's episodes. Just in case anyone cares to play the game with me, I'll stop here and let you guess as I did: the set is called =The Buffy & Angel Chronicles=, and also consists of three tapes. What six episodes are included? TO BE CONTINUED... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 06:35:14 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/new video set II It seemed obvious to me that the first of the three tapes would be "Surprise"/"Innocence" (those episodes being the culmination of the Buffy/Angel romance); and that the last of the three would be the two parts of "Becoming" (the end--temporarily--of the romance); I was helped along in this surmise because I knew from ads in British magazines that those two tapes had been released separately over there. But what about the middle tape? I was pretty sure that "Passion" had to be one of the episodes; the best of all episodes, and a clear bridge between the two-parters as far as story arc goes. I was torn, however, between "Phases" and "I Only Have Eyes for You" as the remaining episode; "Phases" because it was direct aftermath and a bridge to "Passion"; "Eyes" because it had something to do with the romance, even though it had distinct standalone qualities. Unable to help myself, I went and bought the set last night, and I was as right as I allowed myself to be: "Surprise/Innocence," "Passion" and "I Only Have Eyes for You," and "Becoming" I & II. I wish to register a complaint. I'm very disappointed in their decision to cherry-pick the show, rather than simply release all the episodes in an orderly manner. As it stands now, we have 6 of the first 9 episodes of the 1st season, and 6 of the =last= 10 of the 2nd season. Someone who =only= watches these videos is likely to have a puzzling time trying to figure out the yawning gap (a dozen- plus episodes) between the sets. And the effect on the 1st-season set is that it only includes two ("Angel" and "Puppet Show") of the five best episodes (the others being "The Pack," "Nightmares," and "Prophecy Girl"). True, the 2nd-season set is not similarly problematical: not only are those episodes the heart of the season's arc, they may well represent the five finest hours the show has yet produced; and "I Only Have Eyes for You" is a fine episode in its own right, with its bravura use of the "script" the ghosts are following. Though it's great to replace one's scruffy off-air tapes with clean, clear, uninterrupted-by-commercials copies of the episodes, the =real= reason to own these is that each tape concludes with a minute or so of commentary on the two episodes by Joss Whedon himself. (The new set improves on the old: not only did the old put the Joss Whedon comments =before= the episodes, but preceded it by irrelevant commercials; the new ones have only a commercial for the tape set at the beginning, and the commentary at the end.) I'll only mention here a few things Mr. Whedon said. He refers to "Surprise"/"Innocence" as "the mission statement" of the show, explicitly referring to the mythological level and the Hero's Journey, and the more personal level of Buffy sleeping with a guy who doesn't call her afterwards. He also notes that they started filming the after-scene where Angel blows Buffy off on the lawn of her house at night; it wasn't working for anyone, until he realized that it =had= to happen in Angel's bedroom. Then, as he put it, "the actors hit it out of the park." (He =really= loves his actors, it's very clear.) The thing that startled me most was when he said that originally Jenny Calendar wasn't a Gypsy; going on to explain that they never tell everything about a character, precisely so that they have room to fill in something useful later. Now why this startled me is that, after the whole Gypsy thing came out, I watched "I Robot, You Jane" again (where Jenny is introduced), and there's that moment where Giles looks at her in surprise and says, meaningfully, "=Who are you?=" and she answers, with what seems (in retrospect) like absolutely transparent disingenuousness, "I'm the computer teacher at the local high school." Giles doesn't pursue it any further, allowing that first level, and the second level of her dabbling in magic, to carry the day. Now, from a fiction-writing perspective, it's one thing to throw in a moment like that =just= to be mysterious; it's another to throw it in as a deliberate piece of foreshadowing with a definite purpose; it's still another to do it in such a way that =later= you come up with something that makes it =seem= like deliberate foreshadowing. Amazing. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:25:40 -0600 (EST) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/ speculative thoughts Gayle, While I enjoy speculating about plot developments, I'm somewhat handicapped due to spoiler knowledge; while I don't seek out major spoilers as a rule, I do run across enough information on USENET (and sometimes TV Guide) to change my perspective. For example, last week there was a brief yet intriguing quote from Joss Whedon about both Oz and Tara that could provide grist for conversation, but could be more spoilerish than the list prefers. As far as Spike goes: I thought I recalled Spike being unable to fight Harmony post-op. Am I misremembering, or are they changing Spike's rules? Or was his implant actually disabled in the fight, but he doesn't realize it yet... -Allen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:07:16 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/new video set I In a message dated 1/20/00 3:32:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, dgk@panix.com writes: << Just in case anyone cares to play the game with me, I'll stop here and let you guess as I did: the set is called =The Buffy & Angel Chronicles=, and also consists of three tapes. What six episodes are included? >> Haven't looked at the sequel-post yet, but I did make a guess when I saw the commercial for those three tapes: Surprise / Innocence, Passion / Eyes for You, Becoming 1 & 2. Then I realized that "Angel" had to be one, so part of my guess would be wrong. So "Angel" and something else from Season 1. (BTW, I haven't done the top ten thing because a lot of eps, esp Season 1, I have seen only once and they are fuzzy in my memory.) Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:07:17 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/new video set II Wow, guessed it right! And another right guess! I had guessed that Jenny's role in the Angel arc was not planned from the outset, but woven in as an afterthought, and that it is an excellent example of Joss's abilities to seamlessly retrofit his stories. I never thought that could be confirmed, though. I read something even more revealing in a magazine interview with Joss. (Actually, it was an article on SMG, but the interviewer talked to Joss for a few paragraphs.) Joss said that originally he had conceived BUFFY as having mainly a satiric black-comedy tone, like the tone that prevailed during the first season. But once he started working with SMG and realized her extraordinary capabilities to go to "a deep emotional place," it opened up whole new possibilities for drama. IOW, the whole direction of the show was shaped in part by SMG's talents. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:07:15 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: b/ Lindsey Crouse Happened to turn on LAW & ORDER last night, a show I don't usually watch, though when I have caught it I have thought it was very good. Lindsey Crouse was the main guest star, and she gave a very impressive, even Emmy-caliber, performance indeed. Knowing that BUFFY has an actress of this level of accomplishment, I hope they give her something to do that is worthy of her talents. In fact, I am inclined to think that she would not have taken the job unless she knew she was going to get something she could sink her teeth into. So this makes me think that Walsh's character will probably have something substantive to do before season's end. I started thinking -- wonder if she has a family? Wonder if we will find out what started her on vampire /demon research? I started wondering if she might have had a personal reason for this (vampires killed her kid, or something) but I don't think so, she doesn't act as though she has a personal emotional hatred for them, plus the research is not just on vampires, it's on demons too. But going back to the idea of a parallel between Walsh /Riley and Mayor / Faith... Walsh does seem to favor Riley, since he is at command rank and seems to be her favorite TA ... and then the obvious hit me: Riley is this season's SECOND SLAYER. From Season 2 on, there has been a Second Slayer character who reflects, or illumines by contrast, Buffy's role in some way. Kendra was by-the-book; Faith was Kendra's diametrical opposite. And now Riley, whose role goes in another direction, as though perpendicular to the Kendra/Faith axis, but he is still, as far as story structure is concerned, another Second Slayer who again leads Buffy to reflect on herself, her life, her responsibilities and role in the world. So we have a lot set up here. And Joss loves parallels. Kendra didn't seem to have a "Giles," but we do have these three parallel relationships, Buffy / Giles, Faith / Mayor, and (evidently) Riley / Walsh (the first time the genders are reversed. Matter of fact, this is the first time the Second Slayer role has been taken by a male.) Lots and lots of setup, probably too much to fully play out this season. Whoo. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:07:07 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/ speculative thoughts In a message dated 1/20/00 8:28:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, allenw@io.com writes: << Gayle, While I enjoy speculating about plot developments, I'm somewhat handicapped due to spoiler knowledge; while I don't seek out major spoilers as a rule, I do run across enough information on USENET (and sometimes TV Guide) to change my perspective. For example, last week there was a brief yet intriguing quote from Joss Whedon about both Oz and Tara that could provide grist for conversation, but could be more spoilerish than the list prefers. >> Hm, this is something the list should talk about -- what levels of spoilers are acceptable? See, I love having little bits of clues that I can use as nuclei for my speculations to crystallize around, but OTOH, I don't want total spoilers. Cast lists for upcoming eps are ideal. Just the clue that Ethan or Faith or Tara or Amy or Drusilla will be appearing at a certain point is the ideal level of spoiler-hint for me. But different people have different degrees of spoiler-tolerance. I like ambiguous clues, too. Like the clue in TV GUIDE that Giles goes drinking with Ethan Rayne and "wakes up with more than a hangover." I start thinking... hm... what would Ethan do to Giles.... My mind was working more along the lines than Ethan might try to "seduce him to the dark side," but I guess Ethan is more of a mischief-worker and more into simply causing trouble for the fun of it, judging from the preview for next week. So my personal preference would be, if someone knows plot spoilers, that they might find a way if possible to offer phrases of tantalizing ambiguity. And if I knew outright spoiler info, I would use them to build more speculation. So, Allen, if you want to build speculations on the spoilers you know... hm... can't we maybe have such spoiler-built speculations if they are properly labeled? Donald, you are the listowner here, so you are the one to set policies. << As far as Spike goes: I thought I recalled Spike being unable to fight Harmony post-op. Am I misremembering, or are they changing Spike's rules? Or was his implant actually disabled in the fight, but he doesn't realize it yet... -Allen >> I don't remember Spike =trying= to fight Harmont post-op. Harmony did punch him when he came back, but he didn't try to fight her back, IIRC. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 16:31:30 -0600 (EST) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/ speculative thoughts (mild spoilers) Gayle, I thought Spike was portrayed as being unable to fight back against Harmony. Anyone have the tape handy? Since the Initiative seems to be working on a strictly rationalist basis, presumably Spike's conditioning involves his senses, rather than some mystical conditions; therefore, perhaps he just can't hurt anything that *looks* human, which usually includes Harmony. And as far as those spoilers go... Moderate Oz and Tara spoilers below... v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v ... here's the quote, allegedly from the Oakland Tribune (I've been unable to find the original article): "On the "Buffy" front, Whedon says that popular character Oz (Seth Green) will be returning for a few episodes this season. Green had left the show because of some movie commitments. In the meantime, his girlfriend Willow will be delving into a bewitching relationship with fellow sorceress Tara (Amber Benson)." So Oz will be back, but maybe not for good; and Willow and Tara will be interacting on some cleverly-worded level. Make of it what you will. =Allen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:30:44 -0500 From: meredith Subject: m/sonic youth does indeterminacy Hi! Since I've been out of town I'm "doomed" to have to wait until Saturday to see this week's Buffy ep. As a result, I haven't read anything posted here since Monday. I did, however, want to mention a review I heard on NPR this evening, of the new Sonic Youth album _Goodbye 20th Century_. Don, have you picked this up yet? It's their versions of works by Cage, Reich (including the rarely-done "Pendulum Music"), and Wolff, among others (I think Yoko Ono's "Screaming Song" is another selection). Sounds really interesting, and right up your alley... +==========================================================================+ | Meredith Tarr meth@smoe.org | | New Haven, CT USA http://www.smoe.org/~meth | +==========================================================================+ | "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille | | *** TRAJECTORY, the Veda Hille mailing list: *** | | *** http://www.smoe.org/meth/trajectory.html *** | +==========================================================================+ ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #16 ****************************