From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V4 #27 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Thursday, February 28 2002 Volume 04 : Number 027 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/return of R [Todd Huff ] Re: b/return of R [allenw ] Re: b/return of R ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/return of R ["Susan Kroupa" ] RE: b/return of R ["Karin Rabe" ] RE: b/return of R ["David S. Bratman" ] b/online interview with joss whedon [meredith ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:48:15 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Huff Subject: Re: b/return of R > This week's demons, along with looking ridiculous, > were a McGuffin if there > ever was one. Their sole purpose was to make the > plot happen around them. > Agreed. And what's with them being "breeders", but "almost extinct"? Somebody wasn't thinking this out. > This was proven by the eventual denouncement. I was > not expecting how the > villain would turn up, and nor do I think there was > any reason to expect > it. Actually, I was hoping for the return of Joel > Grey, given the name. > Yup. Why use such a similar name? Angel was better this week, especially Wesley's discussion with the loa. This show can still surprise. Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! http://greetings.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:59:15 -0600 (CST) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/return of R On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Todd Huff wrote: > > This was proven by the eventual denouncement. I was > > not expecting how the > > villain would turn up, and nor do I think there was > > any reason to expect > > it. Actually, I was hoping for the return of Joel > > Grey, given the name. > Yup. Why use such a similar name? > Misdirection? Both on the writer's part, and on the villain's. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:43:38 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/return of R At 07:48 AM 2/27/2002 , Todd wrote: >> This week's demons, along with looking ridiculous, >> were a McGuffin if there >> ever was one. Their sole purpose was to make the >> plot happen around them. > >Agreed. And what's with them being "breeders", but >"almost extinct"? Somebody wasn't thinking this out. Indeed: I noticed that. Also the final destruction of them was cheap and chintzy. It was cut so badly that I'm not sure I followed it. Buffy and Riley throw a grenade down into the basement and then hit the floor? And they're OK? And then somehow we cut to Xander and Anya so fast I didn't realize it wasn't still Buffy and Riley at first. Not the only example of bad cutting. The vampire encounter at the beginning: when he's staked, there's no shot of Buffy throwing it. We see her only standing so still that I suspected some unseen person had thrown the stake from behind her. But as nobody else shows up later, I guess they didn't. Nor is the Xander/Anya sideplot at all integrated into the main plot. Usually BTVS is really good at this sort of thing, or at least at Alan Moore-style counterpoint. When Buffy brings Riley and Sam to meet the team, there had been no scene in which she told them they were coming. So I wondered at first if 1) they were going to be surprised when Riley walks in; 2) once it was clear they did know, if Buffy'd told them who Sam was. That became clear too, but I don't think even brief puzzlement was intended. >> This was proven by the eventual denouncement. I was >> not expecting how the >> villain would turn up, and nor do I think there was >> any reason to expect >> it. Actually, I was hoping for the return of Joel >> Grey, given the name. >> > >Yup. Why use such a similar name? Allen suggested misdirection. I don't think so. They'd have provided more false clues if it were. >Angel was better this week, especially Wesley's >discussion with the loa. This show can still surprise. Haven't seen it yet. Was off listening to the St Petersburg Philharmonic. Must view tape in my copious spare time. Hope it's a better episode than the last two. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:20:05 -0800 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: b/return of R Really? I thought the last two Angels have been strong--much better than the season as a whole, I thought. And I liked Monday night's episode a lot, too. Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: David S. Bratman To: Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:43 AM Subject: Re: b/return of R > > >Angel was better this week, especially Wesley's > >discussion with the loa. This show can still surprise. > > Haven't seen it yet. Was off listening to the St Petersburg Philharmonic. > Must view tape in my copious spare time. Hope it's a better episode than > the last two. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:14:35 -0500 From: "Karin Rabe" Subject: RE: b/return of R I agree with all the criticism's of this ep's sloppiness, but am puzzled by the lack of any reaction at all to its handling of the Riley -- Buffy - -- Spike triangle, and to Buffy's ending it with "William." Do you all think it's really "over"? For my part, I was most struck by two things: her =overtly= needing to hear Spike loves as well as wants her, after the unexpected meeting with Riley; it confirmed my gut feeling about the basis for her addiction to him. And when she tells him she's got to be strong, that she's been using him and it's killing her, she goes on to say not that she =doesn't= love him, but that she "can't" -- with a great deal of emphasis in Sara Michelle's delivery on that ambiguous word. Clearly, Riley's return in a solid, loving partnership with a comrade in arms who's also his wife has painfully reminded Buffy of what she wanted and could have had, had she had her act just a bit more together then, and of just how much further short of that she feels she's fallen since. So =is= she ready to "be strong" without Spike's unconditional love and desire? Isn't she perhaps kidding herself even now, since she has no reason to think Spike will stop loving and desiring her, just because she puts an end to the sexual encounters in which she wallowed in and passionately responded to his feelings. Since there's no way she can forget any of that, seems to me she'll continue to be sustained by it to some real but diminishing degree, even as the boost to her self-esteem from her new-found self control robs the memory of any power to keep "killing" her. Assuming, of course, that her new-found self control lasts. I suspect it probably will, since she does need to continue being the Slayer of vampires. - ---Karin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:30:47 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: RE: b/return of R Good post, Karin. Don't forget that Buffy isn't the only one who's gotten her act together. Riley was pretty strung out there for a while, and that was a cause of trouble between them. The alternative Buffy & Riley of today might not be so pretty as the "real" Riley & Sam. But that fact is probably not heavy on Buffy's mind at the moment. I think we're meant to hear that Buffy really does love Spike - especially from her calling him William - and is determined to walk away from him nonetheless. You can read this as a very thinly-disguised non-fantasy story of a good woman facing up to Mr. Wrong. Unfortunately, the impact of her leaving him at the end is lessened by the number of times she's done something similar, especially at the ends of episodes. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:44:01 -0500 From: meredith Subject: b/online interview with joss whedon Hi, I've been meaning to post this ... last week I was poking around the web site for the NPR interview show Fresh Air, and in their searchable show archive I entered "Joss Whedon". Lo, something came up! He was the guest on May 9, 2000. The entire show (even including NPR news updates and WHYY underwriting promos, oh well) is online at: http://freshair.npr.org/dayFA.cfm?display=day&todayDate=05%2F09%2F2000 It is a significant interview, lasting around 40 minutes and interspersed with relevant snippets from episodes of the series. It's definitely a "must hear". ======================================= Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth ======================================= Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://www.smoe.org/meth/muzak.html ======================================= (: New England Patriots - Super Bowl XXXVI CHAMPIONS :) ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V4 #27 ****************************