From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #22 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Sunday, January 30 2000 Volume 02 : Number 022 Today's Subjects: ----------------- b/A New Man, Doomed ["Donald G. Keller" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:04:23 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/A New Man, Doomed On the spoiler issue, I don't feel motivated to play Big Brother here; my own taste runs mostly against spoilers (and against SPOILER SPACE, too)--I do read =TV Guide= ahead, but regard it as a vice (like a sweet tooth). Generally I'm with Gayle that foreknowledge of characters' return I'm comfortable with, but not much beyond that. Before I deal with "A New Man," a few leftover comments about "Doomed": A really interesting trick they played on us, leaving no "seam" between "Previously on..." and the start of the episode; usually there's a short-but-obvious blackout and then the first scene of the teaser. This time it just cut from some retrospective on Riley and Buffy talking/not talking, then suddenly you realize that the scene has moved on. I'm not even sure where the break is. Cleverly bewildering. Cusp of Capricorn/Aquarius would put Buffy's birthday just about 1/19 as I'd guessed. The reason they saved it for the next episode, of course, is that "Doomed" begins, showtime, at the very point "Hush" ends, a month ago realtime. Here's an odd question: why, storywise, were Anya and Tara absent from "Doomed"? Especially since they return with relatively small parts in "A New Man." Doesn't seem any particular point either way. And conversely, Spike's part in "Doomed" seemed a bit shoehorned in; he was merely tagging along, and his part in the fight could have been done by anyone. I guess he was needed for that mean-spirited little speech to Willow and Xander, but that =could= have been in another episode; and his discovery of the exception to his "treatment" could have occurred earlier (did he =not= fight back in the mausoleum scene in "Something Blue"?) By the way, ampersands in force in the triple byline. Meaning collaboration. Have to award points to Marc Blucas (whose acting I thought uneven the first few episodes) for going toe-to-toe with SMG in the two angsty Buffy/Riley scenes. As with the similar Angel scenes, she's the heavyweight actingwise, but she can't do it without =some= help. And how about how much Riley's psychoanalytical arguing about Buffy's "real" motivations smacks of Faith's similar arguing in "Consequences" (especially the dock scene)? And note the actual reference to Faith; even the unwary are not being allowed to forget about her. Nice piece of work with the counterpoint war councils: Buffy & team doing the mystical research thing while Riley & team are talking tech/military. Sets up the discussions in the following episodes. "turn my frown upside down" (Buffy to Riley) was previously said by the Mayor (while paper-shredding). OK. Here's my main sticking-point. Meredith will recall telling me, when "Halloween" (2nd season) was first broadcast, that she didn't really buy how comfortable Angel and Buffy were with each other (so early in their relationship) in the last scene of that episode. I wasn't sure I agreed (and correctly predicted that the very next episode would cause them trouble, i.e. the Drusilla issue in "Lie to Me"), but over time I've come to think that that scene was a bit of a miscalculation. And I'm wondering if the last scene of "Doomed" is something of the same. (Did like how it echoed the first scene, how it began the =previous= episode, with this time Buffy knocking on Riley's door.) Riley and Buffy are a bit further along in their relationship than Angel and Buffy were in "Halloween," but still, given how adamant Buffy was--twice--earlier in the episode, what ever made her change her mind and see things Riley's way? Doubtless more trouble will ensue ("this is a horror show; things are going to go =badly=," as Joss Whedon once said). Geez, this is long already--and I'm just getting to the new episode... ...which was, again, very good. A real Giles episode, and one had to feel sorry the way =everybody= seemed to be (mostly accidentally) dumping on him. And by the way, I applaud having a Buffy birthday party with no "misery and terror" (wasn't that the quote?) Here's another quibble: what was Buffy doing being interviewed by Prof. Walsh about being the Slayer? Did Riley spill the beans? I guess he must have; partly over embarrassment about giving himself away. Usually we get a bit more of a logical link, though. Hilarious moment when Walsh asks Buffy about her kill number. Perfect cutaway. The whole "demon prince" plotline turned out to be a red herring, huh. Are we to assume Willow's speculation is right, that the Initiative detected him and dealt with it? And another hilarious moment when Ethan, soliloquizing, is discovered by Giles returning. Even better than Spike, similarly occupied, getting shot by the "raygun." So Ethan made Giles a demon just 'cause? And how? Just a spell? (We =do= realize Ethan is the trickster figure in this mythology, yes?) Another issue. Ethan implies that the Initiative's use of hi-tech (in only six months! now we know) has seriously upset the Balance; and =explicitly= excludes the Slayer from consideration. But consider this: it's something I've noticed that Buffy has wasted a tremendous lot of long-lived demons, in many cases through use of superior technology (electrocution, rocket-launcher, etc.) What's the difference? Suddenly Thoroughly Modern Buffy is the musty old mystic? Interesting breakfast conversation between Buffy and Willow. The fact that Buffy thinks she and Riley are going well should get us smelling a setup. And how about the fact that Willow totally dissembled, failing to mention Tara's presence during the rose-spell? Why did Professor Walsh (after having met Buffy and speaking approvingly) decide Riley couldn't take her along on the demon kill? (Maybe the answer is in some comments below.) Riley got the message quick about Buffy taking orders from no one. That was Faith's motel Ethan was staying in...and shall we set up a betting pool on how many episodes Ethan will stay incarcerated? I do hope he'll be back for a longer stay... I've been trying to think whether 314 has any mathematical relationship to 730 (from the Faith & Buffy dream); probably not. Possible crux of the episode. In the last scene Prof. Walsh makes three comments to Riley about Buffy: 1) she acts on instinct 2) she has no discipline 3) her loyalties are uncertain. Are =any= of these statements true? I don't think so. 1) is the item that sets Buffy apart from the other Slayers we've seen; though Kendra and Faith are diametrically opposed in their attitude towards authority, they are both "hit first ask questions later" types. Buffy =always= thinks; she just thinks so well on her feet that it =looks= instinctual. 2) Buffy trains hard; patrols in an organized fashion; plans well; etc. etc. It's just that, like a brilliant athlete, she doesn't "follow the play"; she goes with the flow (she used that phrase once, to Kendra) and =figures out= (doesn't just react) what the next move needs to be, whether long-term strategy or in-the-moment fighting. 3) Buffy's loyalty may be hard to earn, but it sticks; very simply, how often has she put =her= life in jeopardy to protect her friends and colleagues? That's the end of my notes, and it's getting late, so I'll pause here. More to say I'm sure. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #22 ****************************