From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V3 #195 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Tuesday, December 11 2001 Volume 03 : Number 195 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/comments12/9 ["Berni Phillips" ] Re: b/comments12/9 [meredith ] Re: b/comments12/9 [allenw ] Re: b/comments12/9 ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:29:07 -0800 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: b/comments12/9 From: "David S. Bratman" > At 09:46 PM 12/9/2001 , DGK wrote: > > >David/Berni: Was that your first opportunity to see > >"Nightmares"? I'm curious to know your opinion of the episode > >overall. I saw the episode in its first run. This was the first time I'd seen it since then. I liked it then; I like it more now. I was very sorry that we had a power outage Saturday night, preventing us from seeing the episode about the invisible girl. (Again, I saw it the first time it aired and have not seen it since.) Oh, well, I've pre-ordered the Buffy DVD. I can watch it when I get that. > I did find the scene in which Hank crushes Buffy > emotionally to be quite effective. I agree. He so perfectly hit her weak points -- the weak points of any child of divorced parents, I would imagine, blaming the divorce on her. Telling her not to cry, to be adult in the face of such cruelty was rubbing salt in the wounds. > >Berni: Buffy an angel?!? That's it! She's one of the Valar! > >Buffy the White! After all, she =did= sacrifice herself by > >falling off a precipice and then came back...[insert long > >exposition of the Ego/Shadow on Brink motif, Frodo and Gollum > >on Orodruin etc. etc. etc.] I hadn't thought of that. It fits! I was thinking more along the lines of the current Supergirl run, that bad girl Linda Danvers merged with an angelic being. On "Angel," I think we've seen a wider range of the supernatural hierarchy than on "Buffy." You've got the Powers That Be, the Tribunal, etc. I think there's lots of room for possibilities for Buffy to be rather than vampire/demon. > I thought Slayers tended to die young because they were killed by > vampires. If life is that tough for Slayers, there'd be no way of knowing > whether they'd grow old or not. Good point, m'dear. Pining for a new episode, Berni ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:01:32 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/comments12/9 Hi, David responded: >Buffy's second death is more problematic. On one hand, she appears not to >have died in the ordinary sense. (cf Willow's comments on raising >her) On the other, maybe there is a Third Slayer now, and we just don't >know about it. I'm fully expecting a new Slayer to show up at some point. ***BEGIN SPOILER FOR TONIGHT'S _ANGEL_*** Wouldn't it be fun if that Slayer turned out to be the girl Holtz has taken under his wing? She was fighting pretty good there in the cemetery. There'd be an interesting plot twist ... ***END SPOILER FOR TONIGHT'S _ANGEL_*** >That may or may not follow. Buffy's soul survived her second death, why >not her Slayer demon? But in that case, what's different about her now? What's different is, the wholly artificial (and against the Rules) means in which she came back to life. The first time, she was "dead" for only a few seconds, presumably not long enough for her soul to depart her body before Xander brought her back with CPR. The second time she was dead, buried, and happy in Heaven for several months before Willow accessed a magic she had no right to mess with in order to bring her back. There could be all sorts of things different about her now. >By this token, Buffy can similarly be attracted and revolted at the same >time. I don't buy this hot&heavy building-crashing sex scene as a mere >convenient "consolation". If she is only repelled by him, then no desire >for consolation would be enough to explain all this. And Spike keeps >claiming they have an affinity, and for all we can see now, he's right. As much as it pains me to do so :), I agree with David on this. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Buffy would have staked Spike long ago, long before he got his chip if she didn't feel something for the bloke, even if those feelings were buried so deeply under strata of denial that even know she refuses to acknowledge (or even be aware of) them. >Finally, it's not inconsistent that she doesn't pine for Spike the way she >does for Angel (though she does pine for Spike in a way) because this >isn't that kind of a relationship. She doesn't have the kind of sex with >Spike that she did with Angel either. Well, no. Sex with Angel may have been sweeter and more meaningful to her, but it ended very, very badly. ======================================= Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth "an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" -- mahatma gandhi ======================================= Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://www.smoe.org/meth/muzak.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:13:22 -0600 (CST) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/comments12/9 On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, meredith wrote: > Hi, > > David responded: > > >Buffy's second death is more problematic. On one hand, she appears not to > >have died in the ordinary sense. (cf Willow's comments on raising > >her) On the other, maybe there is a Third Slayer now, and we just don't > >know about it. > > I'm fully expecting a new Slayer to show up at some point. > > ***BEGIN SPOILER FOR TONIGHT'S _ANGEL_*** > > Wouldn't it be fun if that Slayer turned out to be the girl Holtz has taken > under his wing? She was fighting pretty good there in the > cemetery. There'd be an interesting plot twist ... > That'd certainly be interesting; I was definitely getting Buffy flashbacks from the whole cemetary fight. However, Joss is on record as saying that the "Slayer line" runs through Faith now, so that only her death would trigger a new Slayer. Not that Joss hasn't lied (and/or changed his mind) before... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 22:38:43 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/comments12/9 Meredith wrote, >Wouldn't it be fun if that Slayer turned out to be the girl Holtz has taken >under his wing? She was fighting pretty good there in the cemetery. >There'd be an interesting plot twist ... Didn't I just say to Berni, while we were watching the episode, "This scene is like a dark version of Slayer meets Watcher"? >As much as it pains me to do so :), I agree with David on this. I've said >it before, and I'll say it again: Buffy would have staked Spike long ago, >long before he got his chip if she didn't feel something for the bloke, even >if those feelings were buried so deeply under strata of denial that even >know she refuses to acknowledge (or even be aware of) them. Buffy would have staked Spike long ago if the Powers That Be (the _real_ powers) didn't want to keep James Marsters around. This required them to come up with contorted reasons to keep his character around, and what we're seeing are the contortions. Here we're up against the limits of secondary reality in series television. >>Finally, it's not inconsistent that she doesn't pine for Spike the way she >>does for Angel (though she does pine for Spike in a way) because this isn't >>that kind of a relationship. She doesn't have the kind of sex with Spike >>that she did with Angel either. > >Well, no. Sex with Angel may have been sweeter and more meaningful to her, >but it ended very, very badly. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? All I meant about the sex was that Angel and Buffy as physical lovers didn't go in for the sort of rough trade stuff that Spike and Buffy do. What happens to Angel the next morning doesn't affect that point, except insofar as it may be a partial explanation for the change in Buffy's sexual tastes. And wasn't that a good fake-out on "Angel" tonight? Not quite as delightfully complex, but almost as satisfying, as those great fake-outs on BTVS a few years ago. (Remember Mr. Light Show?) ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V3 #195 *****************************