From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #227 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Sunday, December 3 2000 Volume 02 : Number 227 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/this week's ANGEL (spoiler) ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/this week's ANGEL (spoiler) ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/Dawn [meredith ] Re: b/this week's ANGEL (spoiler) [Todd Huff ] Re: b/Dawn ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/this week's ANGEL (spoiler) ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 09:55:36 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/this week's ANGEL (spoiler) I'm not prepared to argue the point, but I finally watched this week's tape before reading any of the messages on the topic, and my honest unfettered reaction was that if this wasn't the stupidest, dumbest, most tedious and pointless episode of ANGEL ever, it's only because it was outclassed by the gladiator episode last season. Already, by the point it was revealed that Darla was terminally ill (which I didn't believe for a minute - she's within a month of death from tertiary syphillis, but looks fine? What is this, LOVE STORY?), I was starting to cheer. "Yes, die, Darla, die! Do it right now!" I don't even want to think about Jeeves and his three tasks. Put it in the dictionary as the defintion of "contrived". Oh, the ironies, the ironies. I bet the writers thought they were being really deep. Not to mention the last scene, shocking more than powerful, and idiotic in terms of the plot line. 1) It just gets us back where we were ages ago, with nothing accomplished in the meantime: a journey of a thousand miles that does nothing. 2) If all Darla could find was this loser dweeb vamp, where did Lindsay find Dru? 3) Angel warned him that this would be a bad move: is he really that stupid? (And don't tell me that love makes people do stupid things.) About a quarter of BTVS this week was really good - the mother/daughter/sister scenes (when Joyce wasn't being crazy), and the Buffy/Spike scene. The rest, including the second consecutive Stupid Monster of the Week, was lame-o supremo. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 10:21:10 -0600 (CST) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/this week's ANGEL (spoiler) David, Sorry you didn't like it. You don't have to argue the point if you don't want to, but I have a few comments on your complaints below: ***SPOILERS ***SPOILERS ***SPOILERS ***SPOILERS ***SPOILERS ***SPOILERS ***SPOILERS ***SPOILERS ***SPOILERS ***SPOILERS ***SPOILERS ***SPOILERS On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, David S. Bratman wrote: > Already, by the point it was revealed that Darla was terminally ill > (which I didn't believe for a minute - she's within a month of death from > tertiary syphillis, but looks fine? What is this, LOVE STORY?), I was > starting to cheer. "Yes, die, Darla, die! Do it right now!" > What was said was that she had a syphillitic heart condition. I can easily accept that Darla's body was brought back *without* syphillis, but *with* the structural damage that syphillis had caused. Particularly since that would further W&H's plans. > I don't even want to think about Jeeves and his three tasks. Put it in > the dictionary as the defintion of "contrived". Oh, the ironies, the > ironies. I bet the writers thought they were being really deep. > YMMV: In retrospect, I prefer to think that the writers knew how cliched (and reminiscent of B5's "Comes the Inquisitor") Jeeves was, and took advantage of that to undercut viewer expectations by having it *not* save Darla's life, while at the same time setting up the not-quite-as-cliched result of it deepening Angel and Darla's mutual understanding and appearing to save her soul. Until... > Not to mention the last scene, shocking more than powerful, and idiotic > in terms of the plot line. 1) It just gets us back where we were ages > ago, with nothing accomplished in the meantime: a journey of a thousand > miles that does nothing. 2) If all Darla could find was this loser dweeb > vamp, where did Lindsay find Dru? 3) Angel warned him that this would be > a bad move: is he really that stupid? (And don't tell me that love makes > people do stupid things.) > I really, really liked the last scene. It was (IMHO) cleverly forshadowed in the flashbacks, and it sets up three greatly changed dynamics: 1: Darla-vamp/Angel, but with Darla-vamp having been a much stronger, better person before being vamped, with unknown consequences, and with Angel having saved Darla's soul only to lose it (and possibly willing to do almost anything to get it back); 2: Darla/Dru, with Darla's formerly-disdained "granddaughter" Dru now in the position of maternal power; 3: Darla/Lindsey/Angel, with Lindsey even less likely than before to love or be loved by Darla, and no longer having power over her, but having stolen Darla and Angel's love just at the moment that it first truly appeared. As far as Darla and vamp-geek go, I was hoping that they'd show Darla trying some vamp besides Angel, and like she said, she needed a stupid one she could manipulate. And she was doing her search without the (apparent) co-operation of W&H, who after all know plenty of powerful vampires, as clients and (probably) as employees/contractors. If Dru has always been part of the W&H plan (or vice-versa), as seems likely, then they've known where she was for some time (it's not like she's undistinctive); she may even be their client. - -Allen W. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 16:10:36 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/this week's ANGEL (spoiler) On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, allenw wrote: > What was said was that she had a syphillitic heart condition. I can > easily accept that Darla's body was brought back *without* syphillis, but > *with* the structural damage that syphillis had caused. Piffle. "Love Story" piffle. > YMMV: In retrospect, I prefer to think that the writers knew how cliched > (and reminiscent of B5's "Comes the Inquisitor") Jeeves was, and took > advantage of that to undercut viewer expectations by having it *not* save > Darla's life, while at the same time setting up the not-quite-as-cliched > result of it deepening Angel and Darla's mutual understanding and > appearing to save her soul. The undercutting was part of what made it so contrived. There was no clear distinction made between what Jeeves could not do and what he would not do, and why. > I really, really liked the last scene. It was (IMHO) cleverly > forshadowed in the flashbacks, and it sets up three greatly changed > dynamics: I guess you're easily impressed. > As far as Darla and vamp-geek go, I was hoping that they'd show Darla > trying some vamp besides Angel, and like she said, she needed a stupid one > she could manipulate. That makes Dru even stupider than geek guy. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 16:21:21 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: b/Dawn One thing that impressed me in the last BTVS (much subtler and more imaginative than anything that happened in ANGEL) was the beginning of the breakdown of the spell that created Dawn. What it reminds me of (and what it "rhymes" with, in the sense that Don has been using that word) is the body-switching episode last season. That time it was Tara whose witchly insight saw that there was something wrong. This time Tara is apparently under the spell, and for whatever reason, probably the different nature of the spell, and it's insane or delirious people who are seeing that something is wrong. In most thoughtful fantasy I know, transformation spells that powerful can't be maintained for long: too much disruption of the natural order, perhaps. (It's in cheap fantasy that transformations can be maintained without side effects.) And note that both spells were cast in great haste. What the Mayor thought or knew of the device he gave Faith we do not know, but Faith was trying in a hurry to get out of a jam. Similarly, the key spell (which we saw being cast, though we did not know at the time quite what was happening) was designed to hide it in haste, and whatever the monk who spoke to Buffy may have said or thought, it seems an unlikely way to keep the key hidden permanently. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:12:06 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/Dawn Hi! I find it interesting that of both episodes this week, the one that has spawned the discussion was _Angel_. David did post re _Buffy_: >One thing that impressed me in the last BTVS (much subtler and more >imaginative than anything that happened in ANGEL) was the beginning of >the breakdown of the spell that created Dawn. I wouldn't say that it's technically the beginning. Remember, several eps ago when Joyce first started feeling under the weather, she looked at Dawn and said, "Who are you?" >In most thoughtful fantasy I know, transformation spells that powerful >can't be maintained for long: too much disruption of the natural order, >perhaps. (It's in cheap fantasy that transformations can be maintained >without side effects.) True. And I'm becoming more and more convinced that Joyce's illness is a direct result of the spell (a "side effect"). Sort of like what happened when Agent Scully got the chip removed from the back of her neck. (I'm probably reminded of that more because in both instances the side effect was a brain tumor, but still.) +==========================================================================+ | 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 *** | +==========================================================================+ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 16:32:47 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Huff Subject: Re: b/this week's ANGEL (spoiler) > And she was doing her search > without the > (apparent) co-operation of W&H, who after all know > plenty of powerful > vampires, as clients and (probably) as > employees/contractors. If Dru has > always been part of the W&H plan (or vice-versa), as > seems likely, then > they've known where she was for some time (it's not > like she's > undistinctive); she may even be their client. > > -Allen W. I only mention this without a spoiler warning because I consider it so unlikely, but I've seen some amusing speculation that Dru is one of the "Senior Partners". Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 22:39:36 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/Dawn On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, meredith wrote: > I find it interesting that of both episodes this week, the one that has > spawned the discussion was _Angel_. Yep, that's a first. (Maybe not literally, but it feels that way.) > David did post re _Buffy_: > > >One thing that impressed me in the last BTVS (much subtler and more > >imaginative than anything that happened in ANGEL) was the beginning of > >the breakdown of the spell that created Dawn. > > I wouldn't say that it's technically the beginning. Remember, several eps > ago when Joyce first started feeling under the weather, she looked at Dawn > and said, "Who are you?" Point taken, but I consider that more a foreshadowing. Nothing followed from it for quite a while. Now it's Joyce again, _and_ one (or was it two?) other people, and Dawn is beginning to notice. She's in for a big and very uncomfortable surprise, sooner or later, and one question is whether she'll resent Buffy hiding it from her. (They are forming a much warmer sisterly relationship than we were initially led to expect, but Joyce's health, as well as Buffy's awareness of the key, affects this.) Another possibility, though, is that Dawn will become aware of her nature by herself, and that it will feel _right_, the way that Buffy found it at least partially right to be the Slayer. > >In most thoughtful fantasy I know, transformation spells that powerful > >can't be maintained for long: too much disruption of the natural order, > >perhaps. (It's in cheap fantasy that transformations can be maintained > >without side effects.) > > True. And I'm becoming more and more convinced that Joyce's illness is a > direct result of the spell (a "side effect"). Sort of like what happened > when Agent Scully got the chip removed from the back of her neck. (I'm > probably reminded of that more because in both instances the side effect > was a brain tumor, but still.) I don't watch X-Files, so I didn't know that Scully had a chip. Scully had a chip: Riley had a chip. Scully had a tumor: Joyce had a tumor. How much are these shows alike in style and detail as well as having the "hidden world" theme? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 22:40:58 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/this week's ANGEL (spoiler) On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Todd Huff wrote: > I only mention this without a spoiler warning because > I consider it so unlikely, but I've seen some amusing > speculation that Dru is one of the "Senior Partners". Is anyone else reminded of C.S. Lewis's _That Hideous Strength_? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 01:04:40 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/Dawn Hi! David inquired: >I don't watch X-Files, so I didn't know that Scully had a chip. Scully >had a chip: Riley had a chip. Scully had a tumor: Joyce had a tumor. >How much are these shows alike in style and detail as well as having the >"hidden world" theme? Hardly alike at all. Until the cockroach pod crashed to earth, that is. I was waiting for a humorous X-Files reference out of Xander's mouth, but it never came. I'm sure any similarities are completely coincidental. +==========================================================================+ | 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 #227 *****************************