From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #92 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Thursday, April 27 2000 Volume 02 : Number 092 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/wildthings/5x5 [allenw ] Re: b/wildthings/5x5 ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/wildthings/5x5 [allenw ] b/Where the Wild things are ["Hilary L. Hertzoff" ] Re: Angel spoiler, perhaps [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: Angel spoiler, perhaps ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/wildthings/5x5 ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/wildthings/5x5 [allenw ] b/concession ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: AICN review of tonight's episode ["Berni Phillips" ] Re: AICN review of tonight's episode [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: AICN review of tonight's episode [GHighPine@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 09:30:56 -0500 (CDT) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/wildthings/5x5 On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > Wonder if, given that Buffy goes to Los Angeles next week, this > means she's a minor character in "New Moon Rising." Good as that's > likely to be, I find myself looking forward much more to > "Sanctuary"; very exciting preview. > Don, I suspect that Buffy's appearance on Angel next week is why she was a minor character *this* week. She was stuck in bed most of the episode, after all. Personally, I think Buffy should go to LA *every* week... that way there's more screentime for everyone else, as we just saw. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:32:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/wildthings/5x5 _Buffy_: It was a good one, though I think the review that Meredith posted wildly overstated its charms. (And I thought "Band Candy" was already "the one with all the sex".) What I liked best was the blending in of the humor with the rest of the story -- that's one of the things they do best on this series -- and the spookiness of the spell (or curse, or whatever you want to call it) UP UNTIL the branches start growing out of Riley's room. This ties in with the conversation we were having earlier about whether horror needs the supernatural. Much of the best horror and fantasy occurs when you don't really know whether anything supernatural is happening or not, or when it's fleeting (like the drowning ghost that Willow sees in the bathroom). Once the branches start coming out, it gets too obvious and loses much of its story-telling charm (though I did like the parts with Xander and Anya cutting through the underbrush like Bogart and Hepburn). There seemed to me, however, to be a lot of irritating loose ends, especially involving Tara. When did she get to know the rest of the gang? When did she become so skilled a witch? (Apparently she was not so panicked as I and some others thought the time she spoiled Willow's spell.) I feel like we've missed an episode here. Why did she run away from Willow? This doesn't seem to have been the result of the spell; maybe she was afraid of the spell. Where did she go? She wasn't in the bathroom as Willow thought. Why is she perfectly OK as soon as we see her again? Then there's the third Initiative guy, the one Forrest drags into the basement. He's channelling Puritan Old Lady for a moment there, but as soon as he gets into Initiative HQ he's fine. One thing that other commenters found a loose end, though, was nicely foreshadowed earlier. This was the question of why Buffy and Riley were so turned on by fighting together in the first place. Was this part of the spell itself rather than the thing that kicked the spell off? No; remember their first sex scene some weeks ago, the one that was weirdly intercut with their first fight? I guess the only question is, if it's seeing each other's bodies in action that does it, why they didn't similarly fall to the mattress in passion during their gym training sessions, the ones in which Buffy demonstrated she could beat Riley up. _Angel_: Sorry, guys, this one sucked big jagged rocks. It was so awfully and horribly written that even the great Eliza Dushku couldn't save it, although she did do pretty well in the final scene in the alleyway, which was the worst-written of all. The torture of Wesley was just gratuitous hurting of sympathetic characters, a pathological phenomenon noted by scholars who've studied fan fiction. As for the 1898 flashbacks, words cannot describe their irrelevance and sheer awfulness. We already know that Boreanaz cannot emote, something that's played off on when the writers are in their right minds. (Cordelia even makes a joke about it this time.) As for Darlene, or whatever her name is: this is what Anya would be like if Emma Caulfield could not act. Yech! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:53:08 -0500 (CDT) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/wildthings/5x5 WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE spoilers v v v v v v v v v v v On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, David S. Bratman wrote: > This ties in with the conversation we were having earlier about whether > horror needs the supernatural. Much of the best horror and fantasy > occurs when you don't really know whether anything supernatural is > happening or not, or when it's fleeting (like the drowning ghost that > Willow sees in the bathroom). Once the branches start coming out, it > gets too obvious and loses much of its story-telling charm (though I did > like the parts with Xander and Anya cutting through the underbrush like > Bogart and Hepburn). Or Adam and Eve... or like the prince cutting his way through the thorns to reach Sleeping Beauty (the Anne Rice version, perhaps). > > There seemed to me, however, to be a lot of irritating loose ends, > especially involving Tara. When did she get to know the rest of the > gang? When did she become so skilled a witch? (Apparently she was not > so panicked as I and some others thought the time she spoiled Willow's > spell.) I feel like we've missed an episode here. Why did she run away > from Willow? This doesn't seem to have been the result of the spell; > maybe she was afraid of the spell. Where did she go? She wasn't in the > bathroom as Willow thought. Why is she perfectly OK as soon as we see > her again? Tara's been getting to know the gang since she helped with the Buffy/Faith thing. True, that's only been two episodes our time, but it's been weeks or months their time. If she still *wasn't* hanging with them I'd want an explanation. And, despite her protestations, Tara's been shown to be a very skilled (or at least knowledgable) witch (or whatever...) all along, limited only be her apparent self-confidence issues. I agree that Tara's behavior wasn't completely explained in this episode (i.e., where did she go? Did she cure herself of the spell? How? What was that scene of her looking down at the living room about?), but I still have some hope that things will become clear next ep. when we (supposedly) learn much more about her. Disagreement on the "running away" bit, though; I took it as another effect of the spell, similar to Xander's new friend locking herself in the closet and cutting off her hair. (Which implies that Tara was having naughty thoughts during the horsey conversation, but I think we all knew that). Here's a Tara speculation: Perhaps up until "Who are You?", Tara was (deliberately or otherwise) using her magic to draw attention away from herself and stay isolated from most people, whereas now (deliberately or otherwise) she's magically making herself popular? Speaking of which, am I the only one who thinks it looked like someone stole half of SMG's bust-size and gave it to Amber Benson this episode? - -Allen W. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:19:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "Hilary L. Hertzoff" Subject: b/Where the Wild things are And once again Joss plays with the fan community/fanfic etc... When Buffy first started I was on the Giles mailing list, since at the time it was a bastion of intellegent conversation among the worshiping fans. I watched it degenerate into "Wasn't Giles cute tonight?" and eventually dropped it. However the thing I remember most about the list was: A. When are they going to have Giles sing? He sang in Chess and the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Why dont they have a show where he sings. B. Giles is cuuute. Why doesn't anyone notice this? If I lived in Sunnydale I'd be in the library drooling all the time. I guess they're happy today. This is why when Giles started singing I fell off my chair laughing. This was a fun episode. I'm impressed that they managed to get the sex magick theme past the censors, although I suppose the actual execution was pretty tame by certain standards. The conversation between Spike and Anya was priceless, and I love the way Joss has been subtlely or not-so-subtlely reminding us that Spike isn't really on the Scooby Gang's side, he just likes a good fight. Xander seems to have snapped out of Zeppo mode. Hilary Hilary L. Hertzoff From here to there, Mamaroneck Public Library a bunny goes where a bunny must. Mamaroneck, NY hhertzof@wlsmail.wls.lib.ny.us Little Bunny on the Move hhertzof@panix.com by Peter McCarty ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:15:28 -0400 (EDT) From: "Hilary L. Hertzoff" Subject: Misc. comments and observations Just tossing a few weird ideas out. Weird Idea #1: Kate and Riley/Adam are following the same basic path. Both Kate and Riley have discovered magic exists and have lost a parental figure as a result of magic. Both work for gov't agencies/law enforcement. Both Kate and Adam seem to be showing up just to remind viewers that they're around and that there's "something yet to come". Adam could be taken as the dark side of Riley... Weird idea #2 In the Joss steals from many genres department. I don't remember if it was here that someone mentioned that absent parents are a hallmark of the horror movie genre. The lack of parents is also very common in the juvenile mystery series genre where parents are either clueless (pun intended) or absent, because you can't have proper adventures with your parents hanging around. We've watched parental figures die (starting with Principal Flutie and including the Mayor and Professor Walsh), ignore their kids (both Willow's and Xander's parents), fade into the background like Joyce, or have their power of authority stripped away (Giles and Wesley - not that Wesley had much authority to begin with). Weird idea #3 The three seasons of Buffy thus far have followed a pattern, starting in the darkness with a depressed Buffy, getting better through the middle episodes and then slowly slipping into the darkness again. Season 1: Start with Buffy trying to fit in at a new school, not wanting to be the slayer. She finds friends and a boyfriend. and everything gets better. Then at the end of season 1, we have the Prophecy and she dies. Season 2: Start with Buffy disturbed about dying and wanting to fight all alone. Her friends and boyfriend convince her that they can help and all is well until Angel turns evil and Ms. Calendar dies. End with Buffy forced to kill the vampire she loves to save the world. Season 3: Start with Buffy disturbed about Angel's death. She literally goes to hell and back and he is returned to her (not cause and effect, but in traditional stories it would have been). After some rough times she is reunited with her friends and boyfriend, only to realize that she and Angel have to separate for the good of the spinoff. End with Buffy fighting to prevent the apocolypse (again?!?) and blowing up the school. Season 4: Start with Buffy trying to fit in at a new school (shades of season one). Anyone else notice that the first friend she made in both season 1 and season 4 died. After some rough times fitting in (evil roommate and boyfriend troubles) she finds a new boyfriend and things seem to be looking up. If this season follows the same pattern, her world is about to fall apart again. And Weird Comment #1 Regarding time and the Marvel universe...shortly after my post about Patsy Walker/Hellcat, she was rescued from hell and is set to star in her own miniseries over the summer. (It's only been about 30 years since her last series was cancelled.) It suddenly hit me that given the parallels that I listed earlier, she's roughly in the same point of the story as Anne (beginning of season 3). Even if we consider that her original series corresponds to Buffy's life before Sunnydale, that still means that it's taken about 25 years to get through a story that took two years on Buffy. (Of course, it's mainly been back story in scattered comics, but still...) Hilary Hilary L. Hertzoff From here to there, Mamaroneck Public Library a bunny goes where a bunny must. Mamaroneck, NY hhertzof@wlsmail.wls.lib.ny.us Little Bunny on the Move hhertzof@panix.com by Peter McCarty ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:38:19 -0600 From: Kathleen Woodbury Subject: Angel spoiler, perhaps SPOILER WARNING: At 04:45 AM 4/26/00 -0400, Don Keller wrote: >Wish they hadn't used up so much time with the flashbacks; not clear >on first viewing what they were doing there. (Left less screen time >for Faith.) > >Not =entirely= sure, either, that I buy the ending. (My TV is so >dark it was hard for me to see just what exactly was going on: was >Angel fighting defensively the whole time?) But that's something to >consider on repeat viewings. And Meredith Tarr wrote in response: >I was waiting for some nifty tie-together, but it never happened. Will the >flashbacks be explained next week? Or are we just left to figure out for >ourselves the parallel between Angel and Faith both getting their souls back? > >It *was* nice to see the moment of the first laying-on of the curse, and >it's always neat to see Darla again. But yeah, I'm kind of lost as to what >that whole bit was doing there in the first place. > >>Not =entirely= sure, either, that I buy the ending. (My TV is so >>dark it was hard for me to see just what exactly was going on: was >>Angel fighting defensively the whole time?) But that's something to >>consider on repeat viewings. > >Angel wasn't fighting back, except when he absolutely had to. That's why >Faith kept yelling at him to fight. I think that's what finally broke her >- - the realization that without the fight it wasn't fun any more. Okay, my take on all of this (and what I told my husband when he said he didn't believe the ending): They showed Angel getting a soul so that we would realize that he is the only one who =truly= understands how much Faith hates herself and how that feels. She =was= beating on herself when she was pounding Buffy in Faith's body and calling her all kinds of names. Faith hates herself. Angel understands this. The flashbacks were intended to show that. Faith accepted the job of killing Angel in hopes that he would kill her instead. That was the "game" she was talking about. Angel knew she wanted him to kill her, and he wouldn't do it, because he =knows= that the only way to get through the self hate and back to sanity is by surviving it and finding a way to atone. Phaedre workshop@burgoyne.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 18:26:40 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: Angel spoiler, perhaps In a message dated 4/26/00 2:52:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, workshop@burgoyne.com writes: << Okay, my take on all of this (and what I told my husband when he said he didn't believe the ending): They showed Angel getting a soul so that we would realize that he is the only one who =truly= understands how much Faith hates herself and how that feels. She =was= beating on herself when she was pounding Buffy in Faith's body and calling her all kinds of names. Faith hates herself. Angel understands this. The flashbacks were intended to show that. Faith accepted the job of killing Angel in hopes that he would kill her instead. That was the "game" she was talking about. Angel knew she wanted him to kill her, and he wouldn't do it, because he =knows= that the only way to get through the self hate and back to sanity is by surviving it and finding a way to atone. >> This was exactly my take on it as well. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:11:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: Angel spoiler, perhaps On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Kathleen Woodbury wrote: > They showed Angel getting a soul so that we would realize that he is the > only one who =truly= understands how much Faith hates herself and how that > feels. That's as good an explanation as any for the flashbacks, but if so man did they do a terrrrrible job of communicating it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:15:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/wildthings/5x5 On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, allenw wrote: > Tara's been getting to know the gang since she helped with the > Buffy/Faith thing. True, that's only been two episodes our time, but it's > been weeks or months their time. If she still *wasn't* hanging with > them I'd want an explanation. Indeed. But stuff like that is usually shown happening, or at least some of it happening. Riley's introduction and assimilation has been better handled. Oz's and Angel's in previous seasons were handled better still. > And, despite her protestations, Tara's been > shown to be a very skilled (or at least knowledgable) witch (or > whatever...) all along, limited only be her apparent self-confidence > issues. More powerful than she thinks (or claims to think, yes); but more knowledgable? > Here's a Tara speculation: Perhaps up until "Who are You?", Tara was > (deliberately or otherwise) using her magic to draw attention away from > herself and stay isolated from most people, whereas now (deliberately or > otherwise) she's magically making herself popular? I desperately hope that it does not turn out that Tara is Ms. Super-Powerful Witch. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:28:30 -0500 (CDT) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/wildthings/5x5 On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, David S. Bratman wrote: > On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, allenw wrote: > > And, despite her protestations, Tara's been > > shown to be a very skilled (or at least knowledgable) witch (or > > whatever...) all along, limited only be her apparent self-confidence > > issues. > > More powerful than she thinks (or claims to think, yes); but more > knowledgable? > Well, she has been doing it "always" (whatever that implies). When the Gentlemen came calling, it was Tara, not Willow, who took the initiative to look for anti-silence spells. After that, it's true that we generally saw Willow telling Tara about neat new spells, rather than the reverse... but the demon-finding spell incident seems to imply that Tara knows more about some things than she lets on. And since "Who Are You", Tara has been the leader and teacher, magic-wise. > > > Here's a Tara speculation: Perhaps up until "Who are You?", Tara was > > (deliberately or otherwise) using her magic to draw attention away from > > herself and stay isolated from most people, whereas now (deliberately or > > otherwise) she's magically making herself popular? > > I desperately hope that it does not turn out that Tara is Ms. > Super-Powerful Witch. > If she's super-powerful, it's probably due to being a demon, or related to Thespia, etc. I hope not; however, I have a suspicion that Tara may have been involved with the earthquake which conveniently cleared everyone out of the frat house. -Allen W. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:57:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/concession "You're gonna die. You hear me? You don't =know= what evil is. I'm bad! Fight back!...I'm evil! I'm bad! Kill me already, I'm bad!...[incoherent repetitions]...just do it, just kill me!" - --Faith =in medio bello= [grammar correction welcomed] I have a concession to make. The climactic fight in the alley in "Five By Five" is clearly the same moment as the climactic fight in the church in "Who Are You?" And the text of Faith's raving in both scenes is very much the same; and there's no question in the above-quoted that she =is= talking about herself. So I accept the consensus that she was talking about herself in the earlier scene as well. When you're wrong you're wrong. There's a =lot= to be said about Faith...but having spent some time re-watching and taking notes (on the new episodes and the previous digests), I find myself too tired to write a long exposition tonight. Promise or threat, more later. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:57:44 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: AICN review of tonight's episode - ---------- >From: meredith >Hi! > >Major spoilers for this week's episode ... if you haven't watched your tape >yet, do not read! > > > > >I mean it... > > > > > > > > >Really! > >*Emma Caulfield, who’s been hilariously deadpanning the Anya role for more >than a season and a half now, proves conclusively with this glance that she >deserves immediate promotion to regular cast member. Well, this last statement is certainly one I agree with. Other than that, I think we were watching totally different shows. Along with Xander, I find it boggles the mind that all the frat houses seem to be haunted. I found the poltergeist-like energy very unplausible. And as a Christian, I was highly offended that a show which constantly uses Christian symbols and yet totally avoids having any Christian characters, finally has a Christian character and she's insane or close enough to it to not matter. (We did see that Riley goes to church in the Faith-as-Buffy episode. I think that's the first time we saw someone go to a church service.) As drool-worthy (to quote my friend Cynthia) as I find Giles, it saddens me how they have stripped him of so much of his dignity. This season we've had Giles unemployed, doing a bad Hugh Hefner imitation, and now playing bar singer. We know the actor can sing -- I read that his Frank 'N Furter in the London "Rocky Horrow Show" was better than Tim Curry's, and he also played Jesus in "Godspell." (His brother, Murray Head, had a hit with "One Night in Bangkok" from "Chess" and was the original Judas in "Jesus Christ Superstar.") When did Giles start wearing an earring? Angel, too, was a disappointment. While it does seem to moving towards the Faith Redeemed we've been speculating about, I thought the level of violence was over the top on this episode, and the scenes about early Angel did not mesh well with the rest of the episode. (Although I did enjoy seeing Julie Benz as Darla again. Has anyone else seen her Agent Topolsky on "Roswell"?) Well, I should send this and see what Donald has to say. Berni ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:21:03 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: b/wildthings/5x5 >From: allenw Speaking of which, am >I the only one who thinks it looked like someone stole half of >SMG's bust-size and gave it to Amber Benson this episode? No one else has answered this weighty question so I suppose I shall. Re SMG's bust, the lady goes up and down in size. I read somewhere that when she was working on a movie, she lost too much weight so the decrease in cleavage was noticeable. They had her wear falsies so her look was consistent throughout the film. Re Amber Benson, I thought she looked smaller overall in this episode, but upon reflection, I've decided that her posture was better and her clothing tighter than when we first saw her. This would be an interesting thing to go back and check. She seems so much more sure of herself now that she stands up straight and shows off her body with clothes that fit. I'm sure that in earlier episodes she slumped a lot and wore looser clothes. To me, that made her look heavier. Perhaps to another's eye, that came off as a smaller bust. Berni ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 00:54:15 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: AICN review of tonight's episode In a message dated 4/26/00 7:51:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bernip@ix.netcom.com writes: << As drool-worthy (to quote my friend Cynthia) as I find Giles, it saddens me how they have stripped him of so much of his dignity. This season we've had Giles unemployed, doing a bad Hugh Hefner imitation, and now playing bar singer. We know the actor can sing -- I read that his Frank 'N Furter in the London "Rocky Horrow Show" was better than Tim Curry's, and he also played Jesus in "Godspell." (His brother, Murray Head, had a hit with "One Night in Bangkok" from "Chess" and was the original Judas in "Jesus Christ Superstar.") When did Giles start wearing an earring? >> ASH wears an earring all the time, only takes it off on camera. At the con I saw him at (which was early in second season), someone mentioned noticing that Giles had a pierced ear, and he said something about it fitting with Giles' past. At a con party he performed "Sweet Transvestite" from Rocky Horror. He can really sing. His interpretation of the song (intonations, etc) was almost identical to Tim Curry's, but IMO his voice was stronger. It looked odd, though, because, instead of dancing and doing the appropriate gestures and facial expressions, he just sang intently reading the lyrics from a piece of paper he held in his hand. I liked his singing in this ep, BTW (a very different vocal style from Rocky Horror). I thought it was coffeehouse singing, like folkies in the 60s -- not bar singing. I still think that a major Giles arc has been set up, even if it has not been played out this season. I hope I'm not wrong, because Giles is my favorite character after Buffy herself. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 01:03:55 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: AICN review of tonight's episode In a message dated 4/26/00 7:51:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bernip@ix.netcom.com writes: << Angel, too, was a disappointment. While it does seem to moving towards the Faith Redeemed we've been speculating about, I thought the level of violence was over the top on this episode, >> And draggy and repetitious and nowhere near as complex as Joss's writing of Faith. Nevertheless, I enjoy Eliza Dushku's performance as Faith so much, and even at this level of writing I think Faith as a regular or semi-regular would add a lot to the Angel series. << and the scenes about early Angel did not mesh well with the rest of the episode. >> I got the same point that Phaedre did from that. Nevertheless, the flashbacks to Angel's guilt-ridden past are too reminiscent of Forever Knight - -- unfortunately, whenever Angel does anything similar to FK, Angel suffers from the comparison. (IMO) (I am not suggesting that Angel is influenced by FK; I think that there will inevitably be convergent evolution in two shows about guilt-ridden vampires looking for redemption. But wherever there are similarities, FK did it better.) << (Although I did enjoy seeing Julie Benz as Darla again. Has anyone else seen her Agent Topolsky on "Roswell"?) >> I have. I've watched that show on and off. It seemed so much like slow-moving teen soap opera that I wasn't that interested for a while, but lately the story seems to have speeded up and gotten more interesting. Gayle ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #92 ****************************