We get down to the last of the new episodes before the break until next sweeps. * sigh * Remember when there was something like twenty-eight episodes of a series and they’d just run them straight through, only breaking for Christmas week?
Spoilers follow…
SMALLVILLE: As we appear to witness the last gasp of the “I wonder if Adam is young Bruce Wayne” storyline, Kryptonite plays its weirdest part yet as Clark gets a magic phone call from the future alerting him to Lana’s immediate demise, but leaving him helpless to do anything about it until the final moments (because, y’know, sticking her on the next train out of town would be too easy.) Meantime, we get a startling revelation about Lionel that actually brings a lot of his activities into much clearer focus. It doesn’t transform him into a nice guy or a good guy, but at least he’s a more understandable guy.
I hate to admit that I’m a sucker for these types of stories…the ones where you see a predestined future rushing toward the heroes like a runaway bus, and you wonder how the heck they’re going to get out of the way. I’m still a little fuzzy on the mechanics of the future call, but not so much so that it ruined the episode for me.
Lana is becoming masterful at not asking too many questions, particularly considering that Clark’s explanation for how he managed to be there to save her within a second or two of her call is his weakest in the show’s history. Clark and Pete’s relationship seems on the mend, which is nice, and Lex’s alliance with the Feds could prove especially interesting…if it doesn’t turn out to be moot.
ANGEL: The moment Spike started to rattle off all the ways that Fred could be reconstituted, I knew she wasn’t coming back. They wouldn’t go that much out of their way to establish it as no big deal if it wasn’t going to be a hugely impossible deal. Wesley is becoming so icily cool at annihilating people (stabbing Gunn, for God’s sake?!?) that more than one fan has suggested he take over for Pierce Brosnan in the “Bond” franchise.
But the real standout of the episode is that they manage to take a storyline which threatened to just rehash previous tropes and do the unexpected. Fred is possessed by great evil and has an elaborate end-the-world masterplan? Done with Cordy, done with Willow. She’s an evil goddess desiring to return home? Done with Glory. In a startling twist, however, her end-the-world machinations last exactly forty three minutes as she opens the dimensional gap in one episode’s time (it took Glory almost all of season 5 of BtVS to accomplish that) only to discover that she’s the Queen of a vast crumbling city filled with people decaying into Cremora.
So basically what we’ve got is “Seven of Fred”–an emotionally distant woman in a tight outfit and funky hairdo who has fragmented memories of the woman she was and is trying to comprehend the human race. The fascinating angle is that it appears she’s not intrinsically evil. When Wes tells her she cannot kill (ironic considering the source) she accepts this condition without hesitation. She’s looking to understand and perhaps even adopt a moral code, which is intriguing considering the Fang Gang’s own moral code appears to have gone bye-bye.
I admit to being EXTREMELY torqued that Buffy’s crew (Willow, judging by context) blows off Angel when he calls for help. They didn’t hesitate to take advantage of W&H when they needed help with a Slayer; now Fred’s possessed in a potential End-of-the-World scenario and Buffy et al tell them to go screw? I’m sorry, I don’t care how annoyed they are with whom Ange’s allied. He’s saved Buffy, Willow and the world enough times that he’s due their consideration and help, and it just makes the isolation come across as the contrived “This is how we keep Buffy’s folks out of the mix” scenario that I suspect it is.
WEST WING: Well, I was right about Will Bailey being the guy grilled in the teasers. And hey, how can you go wrong with the Muppets? Answer: You can’t. You can, however, go wrong without the Muppets, and that’s what happens here. There appears to be a ton of stuff happening, and lots of people running around concerned with lots of things, but ultimately I found it utterly uninvolving. There’s a germ of an interesting story there with Ellie being dragged into a political slugfest involving medical research, but it’s buried under flat writing, unengaging acting, and tepid direction.
Best moment was Elmo’s short-circuiting a medical exam by demanding of Abby, “Hey, wait a minute, wasn’t your medical license revoked?!” The total disintegration of the listeners into hysterics makes me wonder if it was an ad lib. If not, kudos to the script. It was one of the only highlights in otherwise uninspired dialoging.
PAD
• 
Harmony sure seems like Harmony to me. >>
It’s not. She just has her memories. She “likes” Cordelia based on those memories, but she’s not Harmony. Harmony is dead, and in fact, they should stake this vampire ASAP so that Harmony’s soul will no longer be in limbo (that’s what I believe happens to people’s souls who become vamps because Angel and Spike, unlike Buffy, had no memory of any afterlife).
Harmony chose not to drink human blood because that was a condition of her working at W&H and there was a fairly strict “drug testing” policy. However, she is still evil. She felt no remorse over the thought that she might have killed a man in “Harm’s Way.” She just feared for her life. Just like a dog is upset when you catch it eating your food. It’s not upset because it realizes it has taken something from you. It’s upset because it knows that you’re going to punish it.
More importantly, Harmony *can’t be trusted* (as “Disharmony” demonstrated). She is *compelled* to do evil. She’s “harmless” now because, well, she works for Evil Incorp. The Devil hasn’t changed. AI has.
I agree that Vamp Harmony isn’t the real Harmony, she just has her memories (as is true with all Buffyverse/Angelverse vampires). And I agree that she’s a follower who does what those more powerful than her are doing, or tell her to do. Since she cannot just leave Wolfram and Hart without some serious consequences, she tows the line. At present that line is to not feed on humans. She also shouldn’t have any feelings of genuine cameraderie with Angel, et al.
Keeping all this in mind, why then does she show genuine concern and sympathy in her scene with Gunn in the hospital? Answer, there’s no logical reason she should. It’s a TV writing error, one of those occasional moments where someone acts out of character. While I thought the scene would’ve worked fine as written if it had been a HUMAN Harmony who’d matured over the years; it would’ve been better if the VAMP Harmony had come across as more sycophantic, trying to score points with those she feared and respected (out of that same fear).
In the hosptial scene that could’ve been done by having her feign concern to learn something from Gunn then go “tattling” to Angel in the hopes of getting a reward.
The irony is that I liked the scene with Harmony and Gunn, even if she was completely out of character.
Rick
Rick: Unfortunately, the scene *is in character* given the Spike factor. Spike did things in the fifth and sixth season of Buffy that defied everything we knew about the mythos. It just wasn’t feasible.
Yes, it’s possible for him to love Buffy, but it should have manifested itself in his wanting to “tie her up and torture her” until she liked him or turning her into a vamp.
Notice Angelus’s version of “love.” What he did to Buffy is similar to what he did to Drusilla. That’s what “love” is for a monster. And vampires are monsters.
See, they make monster movies about them.
Great Spike line SER, but from the same episode I prefer “I may be Love’s bìŧçh, but at least I’m man enough to admit it.”
I always wondered about that soul thing, has Joss written anything official on it? Like is the soul that the Gypsies cursed Angel with Liam’s actual soul? Or just a random soul that was available and got filled with Liam’s (and Angelus’) memories once shoved into Angel’s body? Same for Spike…
With that whole explanation, Angel really does beat himself up too much over Angelus’ mis-deeds, since technically it wasn’t him…
I’d forgotten about the scenes with Harmony and Wes. Same argument applies as with Harmony and Gunn.
Ser: I understand your point Re Spike, but don’t entirely agree with it. I think the pre-souled Spike was incapable of actually loving Buffy, but was instead acting based on William’s personality traits. He wanted Buffy to love and accept him, just as William wanted Cecily to love him.
It’s possible William didn’t actually love Cecily, either, just idolized her and was infatuated with her. He obviously cared for her, but did he actually love her? I think it’s open to interpretation.
There was also a degree of lust for Buffy on Spike’s part, but again, that’s not love.
I don’t think Spike actually felt genuine LOVE for Buffy until after he got his soul back. Then what about his motivations for going out of his way to get his soul back? Again, I think it was based on his need (carried over from William) to be accepted. With the chip in his head, he can’t be a regular vampire, and because he attacks other vampires and demons (since he can’t fight anyone human), he’s shunned by others of his kind. The only ones willing to accept him to any degree were Buffy and the Scoobies.
After his attempted assault on Buffy, Spike faced complete isolation, shunned by both his fellow vampires and the Scoobies. Being a social creature, he couldn’t stand that, so sought a way to get back in to Buffy’s good graces by seeking out his soul. While he may have rationalized it as doing it for her, I think he was doing it more for himself, so he wouldn’t be alone.
So, why then didn’t he seek to have the chip removed, so he could become the old Spike again? I can’t say for sure, but I’d guess he’s come to find the company of other vampires and demons less satisfying.
Why didn’t Spike make Buffy into a Vampire or torture her until she loved him? I would say A) because the Vamp wouldn’t BE Buffy, and he didn’t want a copy; and B) Buffy isn’t Dru. Dru is into that sort of thing; Buffy isn’t.
As far as comparing Spike to Angelus goes, William and Liam had completely different personalities, which resulted in different actions and motivations by the vampires who occupied their bodies. William was a poet and at heart very insecure (something Spike made up for in bravado). Liam was a near-do-well with an apparent streak of cruelty which he’d probably never acted on in life. Angelus, of course had no such compunctions, and Liam now has to deal with the guilt of those actions.
Perhaps that’s why he ultimately took the name Angel, instead of reverting to his mortal name. He was as ashamed of Liam as he was of Angelus and wanted to forge a new path.
Rick
Smallville:Am I the only one around who remembers the old Christopher George series “The Immortal”?
The title character, Ben Richards, was found to have a natural immunity to all diseases and infirmities (even aging). When an billionaire receives a blood transfusion from Richards is temporarily rejuventated, he decides to search down the source of the blood in the hopes of capturing the donor to tap him regularly.
**Harmony chose not to drink human blood because that was a condition of her working at W&H and there was a fairly strict “drug testing” policy. However, she is still evil. She felt no remorse over the thought that she might have killed a man in “Harm’s Way.” She just feared for her life. Just like a dog is upset when you catch it eating your food. It’s not upset because it realizes it has taken something from you. It’s upset because it knows that you’re going to punish it.
******************
Okay, now you’ve offended all the dog owners on the board… including ME!!! 🙂
As I stated earlier, to my mind, it doesn’t matter **why** she doesn’t kill humans. What matters is that just like any of us, she either can or can not kill. She can make that choice. It may be that she only chooses not to kill because she feels her life is at stake (Pun intended…) but then a lot of people choose not to kill because they wouldn’t like the consequences. Does it make it right to kill them because they *might* kill? Does it even make it okay if they *probably will* kill but haven’t yet? Because that kinda sounds like the argument for capital punishment to me.
*******************
Posted by Rick Keating at March 8, 2004 03:38 PM
Keeping all this in mind, why then does she show genuine concern and sympathy in her scene with Gunn in the hospital? Answer, there’s no logical reason she should. It’s a TV writing error, one of those occasional moments where someone acts out of character. While I thought the scene would’ve worked fine as written if it had been a HUMAN Harmony who’d matured over the years; it would’ve been better if the VAMP Harmony had come across as more sycophantic, trying to score points with those she feared and respected (out of that same fear).
**************************
Well, that’s my point in two:
1) We’re told that vampires are all-“bad” but here’s Harmony showing real compassion and Spike falls in love which leads him to attempt, successfully, to regain his soul and that’s not even mentioning (He said, while mentioning it…) Darla sacrificing her life for her child’s. So if not *all* vamps are *all* bad, how does Buffy justify killing them all, many of them literally just as they’re being “born”?
2) I realize that the *real* answer is that Harmony and Spike are “player characters” and, to mix metaphors, other vamps are the Security guys in the red shirts. But like PAD wrote about the Goldbergian contortions the “Angel” writers are going through to keep the Scoobies out of their world convincingly (They should probably just ignore it like Batman writers who have the character frequently and conveniently forget that he has Superman’s number on his speed dial.), you would think they would be able to come up with a better explanation.
Bladestar said: I always wondered about that soul thing, has Joss written anything official on it? Like is the soul that the Gypsies cursed Angel with Liam’s actual soul? Or just a random soul that was available and got filled with Liam’s (and Angelus’) memories once shoved into Angel’s body? Same for Spike…>>
It’s Liam’s soul. I think “Spin the Bottle” confirmed that.
Pack said:
1) We’re told that vampires are all-“bad” but here’s Harmony showing real compassion and Spike falls in love which leads him to attempt, successfully, to regain his soul and that’s not even mentioning (He said, while mentioning it…) Darla sacrificing her life for her child’s. So if not *all* vamps are *all* bad, how does Buffy justify killing them all, many of them literally just as they’re being “born”?>>
OK, Darla sacrificed her life for her child because she was influenced by Connor’s soul. That was stated overtly in the episode.
I’ve mentioned already that Spike’s actions don’t make sense. However, I would rationalize it by saying that the conditons under which Spike became less of a threat (the chip, falling for Buffy) are so unique that it doesn’t justify changing the “kill sharks on sight policy.”
And, yes, Harmony’s actions are hard to justify, as well.
Still, these are unique circumstances. Harmony is still a major threat. I can’t rationalize keeping her alive. As I said before, keeping the vampire Harmony alive is *unfair* to human Harmony, whose soul is locked in limbo until its freed upon vamp. Harmony’s being staked (I strongly believe this because Angel and Spike have no memory of an after life, even after having their souls restored).
Pack: “She’s doing a good job of it too so you decide to play it safe and order the Super Size Pig Blood shake instead. But it doesn’t matter because Buffy will kill you just for being a vampire which you probably never asked to be in the first place.”
How often have we seen Buffy hunt down and kill vampires who weren’t trying to hurt anyone? She’s generally killed a) vampires with big evil plots (e.g. the Master), b) vampires who attack her or somebody else, or c) vampres who’ve just crawled from the grave (and who’ve generally been portrayed as instinct-driven killing machines). If you can provide an example of Buffy killing a vampire who’s demonstrably no threat to anyone, I’ll be convinced; otherwise it seems to come down to personal interpretation.
How is Buffy a serial killer? She killed vamps in defense of herself and others. She patroled, but did not actively seek out any vamps who may have had gentler leanings. In the Buffy verse there are many different grades of vampire viciousness. There was the nest of vamps drinking drugged blood from humans. They did not kill, but lived a more parasitic life. No one went out of their way to dust them.
I don’t care what anybody says. He is definitely Batman.
🙂
Doug posted – If you can provide an example of Buffy killing a vampire who’s demonstrably no threat to anyone, I’ll be convinced; otherwise it seems to come down to personal interpretation.
Although i still do not consider a Buffy a killer. there is actually a example for this.
After her breakup fight with Riley she is attacked by a group of vampires (7 or 8). one of them is the girl that was feeding from Riley who let himself get bitten for the thril of it. If i remember correctly she does not participate in the attack. After the big fight is over she is confronted with Buffy alone holding a sharp stake to her throat. she is cleary petrified and shaking like a leaf posing no threat what so ever. Buffy signales her to leave. She runs of and just when you think she is out of reach Buffy throws the stake after her dusting her. the first time i saw this i interpreted this as first sign that Buffy would turn in to the big bad in the last season. Because she who would be the worst enemy that the scoobies could have been confronted with.
In my opinion one of the most compelling parts of this show was that the good guys could do bad things. It wasn’t always so black and white like with other shows.
Now to say she is a cold harded killer is rediculous. What would have been the alternative wait until a vampires kills somebody and then kill him/her. Just explain this to the family sorry guys but i had to wait until it killed your sister/brother because he might be not so bad a vampire after all. It was already stated before Buffy never bothered demons if they weren’t a threat to her or somebody else. This is shown in her visits to demons bars where she went for information but did not pay attention to crowd.
————————————————–
Posted by: SER at March 8, 2004 06:02 PM
As I said before, keeping the vampire Harmony alive is *unfair* to human Harmony, whose soul is locked in limbo until its freed upon vamp. Harmony’s being staked (I strongly believe this because Angel and Spike have no memory of an after life, even after having their souls restored).
————————————————–
Since I missed the first, oh, forty minutes of “Just Rewards,” did Spike mention anything about an afterlife after he “got better” from being BURNT TO ASH? I know Darla said there was “nothing” after she got resurrected, but Angel’s never been dusted (discounting “The Wish;” not part of continuity)…if I understand what you’re saying, you believe that a vampire’s host’s soul is in limbo until it’s dusted, then it goes on to Heaven or Hëll or whatever. So why is it that neither Darla nor Spike had any memories of an afterlife after they were dusted and truly dead, whereas Buffy had very vivid, distinct memories of Heaven? Is Buffy’s soul somehow better than William’s or Darla’s? Spike sacrificed himself as well, but he didn’t get to go to Heaven.
I know, I know, “tied to the amulet” and all that, but not even Darla had an afterlife. Or do you think she’s there now, finally, after sacrificing herself for Connor?
I love debates. 🙂
Queenanthai:
>>
When Spike returns at the end of Conviction, it appears to be simultaneous with his “death.” He’s still screaming in agony. In other words, his soul didn’t “move on” because it never had a chance.
Darla remembers “nothing,” which some people speculate *is* what hëll would be like. Also, it’s possible that human Darla — an amoral høøkër but hardly an “evil” person — didn’t rate either heaven or hëll. The Darla who appeared to Connor in “Inside Out” appeared to have “moved on” to her final reward (whatever that was).
Obviously, of course, Angel and Buffy do not really agree with this theory. If they did, Angel would not have spared Drusilla in “Lie to Me” — he would have made it his business to kill the vampire Drusilla.
>>Keeping all this in mind, why then does she show genuine concern and sympathy in her scene with Gunn in the hospital? Answer, there’s no logical reason she should. It’s a TV writing error, one of those occasional moments where someone acts out of character
I does fit with how the Buffy protrayed Vampires though all along. (or at least since the second season.) Remember the Judge stated that Spike and Dru had a taint of humanity because they loved one another and that Bookworm Vampire had a taint of humanity because he loved books.
I think the thing to keep in mind is that being evil doesn’t preclude having feelings of compasion or empathy or even love. Animals display such things (or at least simulate it), so why wouldn’t intelligent beings like vampires be capable of the full range of emotional responses.
The problem is they are not trustworthy. In the case of Harmony, she’s not growing; she just doesn’t want to get staked. Yeah, showing Gunn some compassion cost her nothing, but I was half expecting her to kill him. And the minute, Angel’s drops the “no human blood” rule, she just might.
Posted by SER at March 8, 2004 06:02 PM
I’ve mentioned already that Spike’s actions don’t make sense. However, I would rationalize it by saying that the conditons under which Spike became less of a threat (the chip, falling for Buffy) are so unique that it doesn’t justify changing the “kill sharks on sight policy.”
Posted by Ron at March 8, 2004 08:58 PM
Although i still do not consider a Buffy a killer. there is actually a example for this.
Now to say she is a cold harded killer is rediculous. What would have been the alternative wait until a vampires kills somebody and then kill him/her. Just explain this to the family sorry guys but i had to wait until it killed your sister/brother because he might be not so bad a vampire after all. It was already stated before Buffy never bothered demons if they weren’t a threat to her or somebody else. This is shown in her visits to demons bars where she went for information but did not pay attention to crowd.
*****************************
Ron, I edited your post and put it together with SER’s for a reason. First, a point of semantics, you can’t really make a case that Buffy is not a killer. Hëll, the show is *called* “Buffy the Vampire *Slayer*”. So the question is whether or not Buffy is justified in what she’s doing. (Which okay, she is. It’s just a TV show and just like the premise behind most comic books if you analyze it too hard, you take all the fun out of it. But this is just fans kicking around the concepts of a show we like, right?)
SER, I think there’s a flaw in your “kill sharks on sight” policy: 1) There are really sharks, that can really kill people and really would have no regrets about it and 2) we *don’t* kill them on sight.
One reason we don’t ties into what Ron said. Yes, I would say that the crime has to be committed before the punishment can be handed out. But there’s a particular reason I say this.
SER, I thought it was interesting that you used an animal, a shark, in your example because I think that may be a very accurate example. Like a shark, a vampire’s nature seems to be to kill for survival. This seems particularly repugnant because they *appear* human and they seem to enjoy killing but it really seems to be just what they’re compelled to do. So Buffy is killing intelligent creatures who are merely being true to their nature. In fact, these slayings are justified, we’re told, because the vampires literally can’t help themselves, they have to kill and eat humans.
Only they don’t have to do that. Harmony doesn’t. Spike stopped. (Angel too but because of the soul thing, it doesn’t count.) In fact, in both of these cases, the vampires are accepted into human society and seem to lose their desire to kill for sport.
So what’s the next justification? Well, even if they aren’t *actually* killing, they’re still soulless and irredeemably evil, right? Spike doesn’t seem to be. In fact, he falls in love and becomes a puppy. Harmony doesn’t seem particularly sinister. Actually, you could probably make a case that she was *more* evil when she had a soul and mocked Cordelia for dating Xander and humiliated Jonathon to further mock Cordelia.
Again, I know the fact of the matter is that they needed someone for J. August Richards to play his big breakdown scene with and the only other actress on the show was busy rehearsing her big fight scene so Mercedes McNabb got the tap but I just think it’s interesting that the show has a rich enough mythology to support debates like these.
**************************
Posted by Karen at March 8, 2004 06:34 PM
How is Buffy a serial killer? She killed vamps in defense of herself and others. She patroled, but did not actively seek out any vamps who may have had gentler leanings. In the Buffy verse there are many different grades of vampire viciousness. There was the nest of vamps drinking drugged blood from humans. They did not kill, but lived a more parasitic life. No one went out of their way to dust them.
***********************************
Didn’t say she was a serial killer and a case could be made that we just never saw Buffy letting vampires go who she thought were harmless.
I guess, to be honest, what bothers me about this is that so many Americans right now seem to be willing to kill people in Middle Eastern countries, partially in retaliation for what happened on Sept. 11, but also, I think, because they have a culture that is just so different from ours, with different values and different perceptions of women and the value of life.
I’ll freely admit, I struggle with it too. I got into it with a female friend recently who said that she would gladly visit the Middle East and adopt all the native styles of dress and expectations of the culture over her role out of respect for the people of that culture. I think by the end of it, I was a little shaken about how much of a feminist she was and she was a little shaken about how open-minded I was.
But the way that vampires on “Buffy” and “Angel” seem to interact socially and form relationships and regard humans as food without question (Anyone here want to be around if a cow and a chicken gained superpowers and accepted the mission of avenging/protecting their brethren from the animals that regarded them as food…?) makes me a little uncomfortable with the wholesale slaughter without even an attempt at communication.
See? I grew up with Kirk but in my old age, I’ve become Picard…
I believe it was established at some point–I have no idea where, may have been in the Angel comic book, but I’m so glad to be of service–that when a vampire is sired, his or her soul vanishes, and a demon takes over the vampire’s body. As a result, the vampire is no longer really the person who was bitten. However, the actions and personality of the demon are influenced by who the person was in life. So if the vampire was once loving and compassionate, the demon might be able to at least simulate love, compassion, and the like. Whether that’s equivalent is a matter for philosophers.
A couple of other points to bear in mind: Some demons, such as Lorne, have demonstrated kindness and love. If vampires are demons of some variety, they might have the same capacity.
Also, in season five of BUFFY, Drusilla was told that vampires can’t love anyone. She answered, “We can and we do.” Maybe she was just in denial, but I took her at her word.
–Daniel
Who misses the italics and boldface
Luigi Novi said:
How is it moveable?
Moveable Type is the name of the program used to layout the blog and all that jazz. It’s a pretty common one that’s (from what I hear) very user friendly and easy to maintain). I don’t have it on my blog because I had just configured the B2 layout and whatnot on mine by the time my sysadmin got his hands on it, and I don’t really feel like going through all that again, especially since I’m happy with what I’ve got now.
Of course, you may be asking that sarcastically, but if so, that’s my bad… 😉
Steve. what you posted about Joss’ past is true enough, but look at the show’s track record. what in the past few seasons have really shown empowerment of women? Buffy falling in love with the guy who tried to rape her? Becoming a total bìŧçh in the last two seasons? and I don’t mean bìŧçh in the way that men describe strong women, i mean bìŧçh in the way that her friends kicked her out of her house cause she wouldn’t listen to reason.
Cordy grew strong gotmpossessed killed. Fred grew strong got possessed/killed.
Have you ever been to Televisionwithoupity.com? they do recaps of television shows. the recaps of the last two seasons you can see how the reviewers/recappers found that Buffy the show and the character became less and less of a positive show about girl power. I don’t think Joss hates women or is a chauvanist I just think he’s kinda ran out of things to say, so he’s falling back on old standbys.
He’s been doing the ally becomes enemy bit since Buffy season 2. Angelus, 3) Faith, 4) Initiative (though it’s a bit of a stretch, i’ll grant you.) season 5 they avoided it, mostly because of Dawn, 6) Willow. 7 they didn’t do it but really the gang spent so much time divded and mad at each other it was with friends like that who needs enemies.
Angel season 4 (the first season that Greenwalt wasn’t the show runner,) Cordy. Now Fred, though it seems they are twisting it a bit. (well they pretty much have to in order to stop people from throwing stuff at the tv.)
I think Joss kills of his female characters because it’s an easier sell. Early on told Alyson hannigan one of the reasons why he puts willow in danger was because the audience loves her.
In his mind i think it’s easier to get the audience to feel sad over a girl dying.
> P.S. Speaking of creatures killing someone and taking their body, it’s too bad Jesse was never mentioned again after Xander dusted him. Granted, he only appeared in two episodes of “Buffy”, but he was someone Joss Whedon had intended us to think would be a regular (re his original plans to have him in the opening credits).
> Jesse and Fred are the only cases on either “Buffy” or “Angel” where someone emotionally close to the central characters was killed by something that then continued to use their bodies (albeit very briefly in Jesse’s case, unfortunately). I don’t count Harmony because she was never really close to the gang in “Buffy.” Nor do I count Cordelia, because she was still alive when possessed, last season. Angelus doesn’t count either, because technically speaking, Liam’s soul is possessing him, keeping him in check. And, of course, Liam’s soul was able to be restored on those occasions where Angel became Angelus again.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that, at one point after Amber Benson refused to come back, the Willow/Cassie scene from Conversations with Dead People was going to be a Xander/Jessie scene. Forget where I read it tho.
—
> Since I missed the first, oh, forty minutes of “Just Rewards,” did Spike mention anything about an afterlife after he “got better” from being BURNT TO ASH? I know Darla said there was “nothing” after she got resurrected, but Angel’s never been dusted (discounting “The Wish;” not part of continuity)…if I understand what you’re saying, you believe that a vampire’s host’s soul is in limbo until it’s dusted, then it goes on to Heaven or Hëll or whatever. So why is it that neither Darla nor Spike had any memories of an afterlife after they were dusted and truly dead, whereas Buffy had very vivid, distinct memories of Heaven? Is Buffy’s soul somehow better than William’s or Darla’s? Spike sacrificed himself as well, but he didn’t get to go to Heaven.
> I know, I know, “tied to the amulet” and all that, but not even Darla had an afterlife. Or do you think she’s there now, finally, after sacrificing herself for Connor?
> I love debates. 🙂
For Spike – he wasn’t just “tied to the amulet” – his whole mind, soul and demon went into the amulet. Had the amulet been left in the Hellmouth, and never destroyed, he would never have “moved on.”
Darla, who knows? Maybe the method of resurrection mindwiped her. (whatever happened to that scroll? We haven’t seen it since the end of To Shanshu in LA, have we?)
——-
> I believe it was established at some point–I have no idea where, may have been in the Angel comic book, but I’m so glad to be of service–that when a vampire is sired, his or her soul vanishes, and a demon takes over the vampire’s body. As a result, the vampire is no longer really the person who was bitten. However, the actions and personality of the demon are influenced by who the person was in life. So if the vampire was once loving and compassionate, the demon might be able to at least simulate love, compassion, and the like. Whether that’s equivalent is a matter for philosophers.
I think it was Angel (the ep – Buffy 1×08), and reconfirmed in Lie to Me.
Pack:
>
That
ANGEL: I’ll tell you, my wife was deeply distressed by Fred’s conversion. Fred was simply put the closest embodiment to the old high school version of Willow. We liked Willow alot back when she was a shy, insecure, braniac because she was very likeable and easy to identify with. Unlike the other characters who appear to act with the emotional and physical maturity of 25 year olds, Willow’s character seemed to be very genuine to a typical teenager. If Fred is truly gone then we’ll miss her as much as we miss old Willow. Its almost like Joss has a grudge against these type of characters and needs them to ‘grow up’ into assertive roles that fundamentally alter the personalities we grow attached to.
Re: Fred
I love what happened to her. I find it a very nice symbolism of what happens to many innocent young people like Fred. She came to the big city and sold her soul to the evil corporate entity that left her a shell of herself. It’s all too true of what happens every day.
Giles wouldn’t deliver a message to Willow, and just as well. Angel was grasping at straws hoping Wilow could work some mojo to bring Fred back. We all know Willow with her dead girlfriend history would run in horror from this idea.
…So just as well, really.
SER wrote:
**However Spike, as depicted in later seasons of Buffy, would have made sense on Angel. See, in many ways, Buffy and Angel are in different thematic universes and trying to reconcile the two is almost impossible. On Buffy, there is black and white, which is fitting of youth. On Angel, there are shades of gray. That
Daniel:
I agree with you. However, I think that thematically, BUFFY *should* have been about high school and the black and white nature of youth and that the characters slowly growing darker was not ideal. In my dream world, Graduation Day would have been the last episode, with ANGEL continuing the Whedonverse, as a series about adults.
SER:
Well, you’re welcome to write your own stories about high school students living relatively innocent lives, based on your own experiences. Might be very entertaining. You have your worldview and Joss has his. Personally, I liked the fact that BUFFY became darker as the series progressed. I know some BUFFY fans really disliked that aspect of the show, but I thought it made the series more original and iconoclastic.
–Daniel
Well, you’re welcome to write your own stories about high school students living relatively innocent lives, based on your own experiences. Might be very entertaining. You have your worldview and Joss has his. >>
That *was* Joss’s worldview.
My point was that during the first three seasons of Buffy, things were fairly black and white, as befitting of a show about young people. The show was in a weird place in the final two seasons. It felt superfluous compared to ANGEL.
Posted by SER at March 9, 2004 10:44 AM
>
That
Daniel
I totally agree it was the continious development of Buffy and her friends that made the show intressting to watch. There are enough shows out there that will repeat the same stories over and over again (Charmed for example).
I also do not agree to the fact that everything was black and white in Buffy. Over the years they were not affraid to make her do things that were not always sympathetic. The changes however were more gradual and subtle then with Angel. This also made it look more natural.
That it looked more convincing might also have to do with the acting talent within the cast. Although i like Angel the cast is not up to par on Buffy. Just compare the acting of talents of David Boreanaz with Sarah Michelle Gellar. Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying he’s a bad actor he just doesn’t have the range as Sarah.
Since when were things black and white on the first three seasons of Buffy? The first season, maybe. After that, the handling of Angel/Angelus and Faith led to enormous grey areas. (Particularly after Angel returned from Hëll in Season 3.)
The claim that Harmony killed around 1000 people in three years is, once you think about it for a bit, just plain silly. It seems to be based on an assumption that a) vampires have to feed every night and b) they always kill a human they feed on.
Do the math: Sunnydale has a population of 38,500. Over the 7 seasons of Buffy, it would take only 15 vampires to completely eliminate the town. (Not counting all the other demons and such.) There’s clearly a higher average vampire population in town than that. If vampires really had that high a kill ratio, given the numbers in which they exist they’d be making a very noticeable dent in the world’s population.
By way of comparison, in the real world there were 653 murders in LA in 2002. If we accept Harmony’s kill rate as being accurate, she would single-handedly be responsible for increasing the murder rate in LA-Buffyverse by 50%.
Oh, and 164 vampires would exceed the entire number of 2001 deaths in LA by all cause put together.
Angel comments:
On Fred — I was really struck by the fact that Fred — arguably the nicest, most innocent [as in never hurting anyone] character — has suffered the worst fate of anyone in the “Whedonverse.” It’s bad enough the poor girl was driven insane by years of being prey/enslaved in a demon dimension. Now she gets a few days of happiness — and bam, not only is she dead *her soul is annihilated.* That is what strikes me as “cruel” here — other Whedon characters have died but, in a body of fiction in which there are clearly souls and an afterlife, there is always a silver lining to any character’s death. Doyle, Cordelia, Buffy’s mom, Anya — we have no reason not to think they are all now merely “somewhere else” — not irrevocably Ended. Only Fred has been this completely destroyed, without even an afterlife.
That said, I think it is misdirection. And all the comments about the demon Ilyra [sp>] having super-speed are further misdirection. When Ilyra first used her ability, it was described as manipulating time. Only later was it referred to as simple superspeed – which it clearly is not. So, my completely unspoiled guess is that Illyra can change time so that Fred was not killed — and either Wesley will convince the demon to do this unselfishly [and not be resurrected as she has no army and no purpose] or another will go in Fred’s place as Illyra is needed in the “final battle.”
As for first Spike and then Harmony being more morally-capable than other strictly evil vampires:
With Spike I always thought that he was different for one very simple reason, a reason I keep hoping would be written into a story: he was sired by an insane women with psychic abilities. If Dru sired others in her hundreds of years, my thought was they went crazy from the psychic complications [inline with the vamp in “Why we Fight”] and were quickly killed. Only Spike was somehow able to reconcile the aftereffects — perhaps because of the tutelage of Angelus. But while Spike survived, he was different from other vampires… due not to anything special about William, but due to who sired him. [The only other character we saw sired by Drusilla was Darla, under very different circumstances. And who is to say Darla wasn’t crazy thereafter?]
Harmony I think is merely playing along, following her meal tickets. Perhaps she is developing affection for the Angel crew, as we’ve seen vampires have emotions — but she in no way is loyal or moral.
Paul
“The claim that Harmony killed around 1000 people in three years is, once you think about it for a bit, just plain silly. It seems to be based on an assumption that a) vampires have to feed every night and b) they always kill a human they feed on.”
It’s possible that vampires don’t feed every night. However, it’s rare that they don’t kill the people they feed on. There are also the people they sire or just kill for kicks and don’t feed on.
I think it’s silly to use “real world” numbers to disprove my point. Logically speaking, vampires couldn’t exist *as depicted* in Sunnydale or even LA. The murder rate would be too high — even if vampires just killed once a month.
I think it’s fair to debate this issue based on what we’re shown on the series. Vampires kill frequently and not just for fun but to survive. We also don’t see a big effort of non-chipped, non-souled vampires to not drink human blood.
In this fictional world, what do you think is the body count of a vampire at large for two years? 100? 500? Whatever you might suggest still qualifies Harmony as a mass murderer.
Angel:
As to whether or not Harmony is evil, she’s evil. She said so herself in the most recent episode. In Harm’s Way, she realizes that she’s innocent of the murder because she has a habit of always biting people on the left side of their neck when she kills them. I’d say that confirms that she’s a mass murderer.
But even evil people can feel compassion for others. Harmony likes Fred. Fred tried to help her with her lonliness and relationship problems. When she was being set up, Fred was trying to help her within the W&H system right up until Harmony tied her up. I think Harmony remembers that. I think that episode is a fine example of what her brand of evil is like. She’s a follower, but she still places her own interests far over thoses of others. She tied up everyone instead of killing them, but she didn’t hesitate to do it to further her own interests. She said she was sorry and I even believe it a little.
I think that some vampires have a VERY short list of people who are real to them, that they have an emotional attachment to. These are people that they might give something up for. In the Buffy episode, Lie To Me, Buffy gets the Vampire Cultist out of the bomb shelter by threatening Drucilla and Spike does what she says. Harmony put Fred on her list, so she’s upset with Gunn about his betrayal coming back and getting Fred. If it had targeted some random victim, she wouldn’t have care about them at all.
In regards to Angel and the Fred/Old One thing:I actually think I saw this coming. Good at intuiting this sort of thing. I like it. I was thinking…what if the big bad they must face is the Other Old Ones waking up and they having to face them, with the One they have at their side? Not likely but would be interesting. As for Harmony…vampires remain as they were at death physcially…but as for psychologically…the demon within them may be capable of growing and change, subltly affected by the tendancies the host body gives it ie personality. And each demon is an individual as well. I concur that certain people are attachments to vampires after they are vampires and may induce emotions or less likely to kill things, however if they were close before they vamped…they are likely more likely to be killed or tortured. They were part of the hosts life and it would be cruel and fun to do so. Harmony while not empathizing with Gunn may sympathize, ie “Aw that’s sad…hope your day goes better…anyway…oh well, moving on…”
Those without a soul may have trouble getting what things are …if they were born that way…however, if they had a soul or recieved one, it may affect them more so and they would then be able to understand more so things soulpeople would have and do. I have a charcter in a thing I do named Kaine would was born without a soul. He’s a sociopath. Now he has the soul of a blackdragon bounded to him, he slighlty better now.
k,
seeya,
~Jimmy Jr.~
SMALLVILLE: I thought the last few episode had some good stories to them, but i common question i have (1 of many) How fast is fast? Even for Superboy? In the episode where Jonathon Kent had the bypass surgrey, in the time that kid witht he Kryptonite bomb click the switch Clark ran into the other room, grabbed aled lined vest, ran to the bomb, ran out of the building, and stuffed it into a hole, with no one the wiser? Seems a littel too fast even for him. If he is so fast could he not have stopped that bullet in the first place, heard it coming and put out a hand to stop it? Speaking of bullets – being on the phone with Lana in “real time” and hearing the bullet fire, run accross town, stop the bullet, and again Lana doesn’t ask questions. How fast is fast?
Eric
About why Spike always had a kinda different ‘slant’ to him. I only ever saw one episode of him in the past and it was the one where he and Drusilla got turned into vampires. Angel picked out Drusilla for Darla because she was a ‘pure soul’ and gifted and innocent etc etc, and as soon as she gets the idea of going after a human to make her companion she goes after this innocent, socially inept guy who (I think we find out in the end of BTVS) lives with his sick mum to look after her. Maybe she picked him because she sensed there was something like herself as she used to be in him? She picked another innocent soul right off the bat.
Or maybe its because of their backgrounds? You see Drusilla walking with her sisters, shepherding them away from the people she percieves are ‘not right’ (Angelus, Darla) at the start. Darla was a lonely, dying working girl who hated the world, Liam was a bit of an áršë who had no real ties to his family save the little sister he didn’t seem to care enough about to provide any sort of role model or support to. Drusilla and William had families, and loved them. They were also both selfless where Darla and Liam were selfish. Maybe that’s why they were never… quite right as vampires.