General Open Thread – TV Shows
Home › Forums › Non-Doctor › TV programmes › General Open Thread – TV Shows
This topic contains 1,006 replies, has 66 voices, and was last updated by 
JimTheFish 9 years, 1 month ago.
-
AuthorPosts
-
18 February 2015 at 11:04 #38078
@purofilion @jimthefish
The turn of phrase was “bored now”. Ziiiipppp.
Did you notice Amber Benson in the main credits? That was done by Joss as a tribute, since she had always preferred not to be ‘main’ so she could do other work.
I picked the “he’s going to get his soul’ thing pretty quickly. It felt too much like “LOOL OVER THERE! LOOK OVER THERE! LOOK OVER THERE!” to be anything else.
Of course, Buffy and Spike was only ever going to end the way it did and I think Noxon deserves huge credit for having the cahones to go there. Spike hasn’t become good, he is evil on a leash. As soon has he realised he could hurt Buffy he had no hesitation or qualms and did all he could to pull her into the dark and away from her friends. And yet William’s tone of self-pity is still there….
The ‘sail trimming’ was the realisation that the story logic meant Power Mad Willow would have to die at the end, and Willow was the most popular character, which is why the addiction theme was punched up more explicitly so they could give her an out. The gear change is a bit clunky, but on balance they get away with it (because, people in Hollywood being able to write ‘addicts’? Shocker!).
Now, note that her issues were first hinted at in The Witch! Now that’s arc building!
Also, when Spike road out of town his Yamaha was a ahamaY – Hollywood convention is left-to-right is leaving, right-to-left arriving and they shot it the wrong way round.
“I’d like to test that theory”
Coolest entrance ever.
18 February 2015 at 15:45 #38079he had no hesitation or qualms and did all he could to pull her into the dark and away from her friends. And yet William’s tone of self-pity is still there
I think that’s slightly unfair. He was always just evil on a leash, for sure, but I think he definitely had some qualms. And he was as shocked as anyone when he went too far. To the extent that he realises that he has to do something and leaves immediately on his soul quest. He’s certainly not acting with the lack of pity which you would have seen in say s2 Spike. But yeah, definite kudos to Noxon for having the guts to go where they did. With that and Tara’s murder, this season really ups the ante in the final episodes.
Also Normal Again is in my view an episode that never gets the kudos that it really deserves.
I really like the extended finale to s6. I think partially because you’re taken to some dark places in the preceding episodes, the ultimate triumph of the Scoobies is all that sweeter. Although I don’t think we’ve ever been left with so many open questions and doubts at the end of a season of Buffy. And as @pedant says, Dark Willow is an arc that had been bubbling for a long, long time. Though Chris Claremont should really have been getting royalties for how it ultimately manifested itself.
Sorry you found it so bleak @purofilion and not sure you’re going to find much light relief in Angel, particularly when you hit seasons 3 and 4. On that, I was going to suggest a change in order of the blog-age if it would be more convenient. Was going to do s2 of Angel this weekend but might now switch to doing s6 of Buffy and then doing s2-4 of Angel in the following weeks and then we can look at the two finales of each series together for a compare and contrastey kind of deal. Let me know what y’all think.
18 February 2015 at 16:32 #38080To the extent that he realises that he has to do something and leaves immediately on his soul quest.
He thought he could change. He was wrong, because for all his Bloody Awful Romanticism it was his nature. But as far as he can tell the only difference between him and Angel is the soul. It is way too early to infer anything selfless going on.
18 February 2015 at 17:08 #38081@pedant — yeah, we’ve still got a ways to go with Spike’s arc so too much speculation at this point might end up being a bit misleading. But I’d definitely agree that his actions are far from selfless — but I’d also argue that for a large amount of the time the same is true of Angel.
Spike’s actions have been and continue to be (up to and including the finale of s6) driven almost exclusively by self-interest but it’s not now the conscious and gleeful evil of the Spike of old (or of any other run-of-the-mill vamp). If anything, he doesn’t really know what he’s doing and is spiralling as much out of control as Willow is at the same time.
His relationship with Buffy — whether that is in fact love or merely just obsession, something which I’ve never been able to satisfactorily answer in my own mind — has taken him part of the way towards change but it can only take him so far before he’s going to bump up against the brick wall of his demonic self. And largely he’s just let himself be carried along by it. But now he’s at the point if he wants to be more than he is now, he’s going to have take direct action himself. It’s late in coming — too late, in fact — but yeah, he thought he could change but just thinking that isn’t enough. He now realises that he has to go out there and do it.
A key question now is why he does so. Because surely it must be obvious to even him that even the remote chance he might have any kind of romantic future with Buffy has now been totally destroyed. I’m not convinced he gets his soul back for Buffy as he constantly claims but rather for himself, to claw back some of his now-damaged sense of himself. If he defines himself as the tortured Romantic lover, that conflicts directly with the knowledge of being a would-be rapist. He can’t accept that this would be a part of him (compare with Warren who has never shown any indication that the’s not cool with it). So again with the self-interest from Spike.
Of course, it’s difficult to tell with Spike. Even in his pre-vamp days, he’s essentially wrapped in layer upon layer of delusion. I’m not sure there are many other characters in the Buffiverse who don’t really know themselves to the extent that William does(n’t).
As to how he now compares with Angel — lots of ground to cover there but that, I suspect, will have to wait just a bit longer.
18 February 2015 at 19:56 #38082Of course another part of his motivation is that, right now (and as far as he knows including Willow) there isn’t a Scooby who wouldn’t stake him on sight.
18 February 2015 at 20:55 #38083ANYONE WHO HAS ANY SUPER RARE MICROFIGURES. CAN YOU PLEASE EMAIL ME AT loltardis@hotmail.co.uk, i’m aiming to collect them all and in desperate need of whovians help! THANKS
18 February 2015 at 23:37 #38085Anonymous @
@pedant @jimthefish @cathannabel
I think there were a few lines which were turned around and shifted in the last two episodes: “Bored now” is definitely one of them 🙂
As for bleak, Jim, I think watching so much of it in such a short time made it quite relentless. Had I taken more time, let things stew happily, I may not have been so disillusioned. It’s one thing to fight a Big Bad, clear and delineated but it’s worse when the Big Bad is Life. And inertia. Characters like Joyce and Tara are unexpectedly taken, a wedding is stopped mid- Lohengrin -that silly robotic quartet. Hope they don’t expect to get paid! And to find that humans (‘The -Trio- you’ve- heard -of -us -right?’) are subtly playing mind games. On top of that you should be dead and you’re not. No wonder Buffy is ready to bellow and inaugurate a course of action with the aberrant and wicked.
I look at the general aura of Angel and see him as quite the ‘modern mind’ (unlike Spike): generous, good hearted, solid and tough, stubborn and intellectual. He has the streetwise mind too but it’s more juvenile in Spike and far less reassuring.
Spike, without Dru and then Buffy is a mind of the Classical period -in music, of the 1700s, but in writing, and thought, of ancient times. He isn’t mild, but restless, untrustworthy, filled with wanderlust and around this iteration of Buffy, heavy, tortured and …leavened by what he thinks is love.
Jim, I also don’t know what he’s experiencing: love or obsession? Both? The latter over the former? Love isn’t easy to admire or define. It’s hard and non-consolatory. To put it another way, death is the mother of beauty. Beauty and love being painful, merciless, pitiless.
Spike’s classical personality, then, is narrow and unhesitating and in his soul (the spark of which is lit) he’s every bit the obsessive and I predict Spike With Soul will stay obsessive -it’s deeply cultivated. He’s marked by it.
Interestingly, whenever Buffy needed someone to look after Dawn, to find help for another in some other way -she turned to Spike. Did he do things purely for her -like a puppy eager to please or was he more cunning in his long-term objective? I don’t know, actually. Not entirely.
I’m also pretty unsure of how to judge him. Without a soul, doing any good at all -whether it be looking after Niblet or bringing flowers after Joyce departs – is difficult. He’s working against his natural state.
Soulful and clever, Willow faces an altered state as well: in a place of rage she turns murderous, wildly unfaltering, happy to “put Buffy back in the ground” and kill Giles outright. Do we absolutely hate her? No. We forgive. And yet, this is a story absolutely as important as the Spuffy one: is it a discussion of wanting to channel primal needs correctly? Because otherwise those old and powerful forces mass, strengthen and erupt in a rancorous fury threatening to spill away the will completely. Willow lost her pressure valve and it’s frightening. Did Will deny her own darkness and unreason? Was she so frightened of her power that she became terribly attached to it? She was attracted to the strange (and wonderful) Oz and to Tara, a clever witch in her own right.
Sometimes, bloody and ghastly things are beautiful. Was Willow’s and her friends ‘support’ of stopping the magic an entirely good thing (it mimicked what Buffy herself wanted to do with her own hidden relationship)? Had Will been able to control exactly how she used it, would her response to Tara’s death been different? I didn’t like the idea of Buffy and Dawn cleaning house of every piece of ‘mindful magic’. I’m not sure why -I should appreciate their efforts. I see, in a commentary, that Joss speaks of it metaphorically -the addiction -like cocaine and sex -without personal responsibility. But I still don’t fully buy it -and that, I know, is my own problem. My own flaw.
As for Spike, and the writing around those episodes, it seems stark but repetitive: “Buffy we have to talk”; Slayer we need to talk about what happened”; “Buffy, listen, we must talk.”
On and on. And then in her private space, asking the same thing; apologising, and then trying rape?
Horrifying. And I admit to having nothing pleasant left in my heart towards him. What did we expect, really?
As I said before, did we think it would be cheeky breakfasts, asking one to buy milk on their way home and inviting the Scoobs over for Friday chicken-dinner at crypt?
Buffy’s ‘brush with mortality’ leaves her flailing, radiating isolation and she flagellates and reproaches herself in response. One’s continuation can never be taken for granted (and this is heralded in Willow and her impending dark trip as far back as The Witch as @pedant reminded me); Buffy’s scrutinising the results and Spike’s offer of “stay in the dark as you’re a creature of darkness” is contagious. She’s disarmed by him, but never suppresses her irritation by this. Spike and Buffy abdicate their own independence to some extent. Their sex games germinate from an entirely different place: his is like religions ecstasy, wildly enthusiastic, frenzied, pre-intellectual, sadistic: barbarism over reason. Buffy’s state is more deliberate (though no less desperate and savage), appetitive, channelling the primitive impulses she’s worked so hard to subdue or ‘colour over’ in the past.
Perhaps Buffy could have worked out her destructive passions in less vulgar array -but Spike was always present. His was a powerful mystery for her to meet. It wasn’t beautiful ‘love’ though – and neither with Riley. With him, she withered, with Spike she quivered but became enraged with the addiction of it nonetheless. She wanted to be devoured (one step closer to the death she’d reconciled with) -interesting, that the word ‘devoured’ was programmed into the Buffy sex-bot.
The metaphor of fire, established in S3 “fire bad, tree pretty” was shown us again in Once More With Feeling and also in the final ‘act’ of the season. Fire bad? Buffy and Willow wanted to be hidden in fire, one that refined and destroyed. For both it provided resolution. And Spike is also tested by fire.
Sorry about this polemic -but I did some thinking last evening!
Regards, puro
18 February 2015 at 23:41 #38086@jimthefish I’d love your blog on S6 Buffy followed by Angel -although I wouldn’t mind either way. I’m still putting aside a lot of time for Angel now -for some space, I think.
@pedant I was always in trouble as a student for disliking the Romantic era of music -that 19th century ‘bliss’ of Chopin, Mahler and anyone else one cares to name. It was only with the clearly defined music of Bartok and Shostakovich did I come back into the ‘fold’. Redeemed -a bit. Still, I’ll always skip a Romantic music extravaganza in favour of a Penderecki or the Classicists and the Baroque.
19 February 2015 at 00:17 #38087@jimthefish @pedant Normal Again wasn’t liked that much?
Goodness, I thought it was marvellous and beautifully played by SMG and K. Sutherland. At some point I was waiting for this archetypal principal to appear: the whole thing in her mind after all.
Considering the Big Bad involved Life, Mind and Resurrection, it was cleverly placed roughly in the middle or the last third of this ‘play’. There was a Doctor Moon element to it that I liked as well.
It’s a metaphor for us all, really (I think of Birdman in the cinemas actually) where we might fantasise about our own heroic qualities and perhaps on a gentle level reminding us of the importance of real family (as opposed to Buffy’s never-Dad’s role compared to Giles) and true friends. Those scoobies really have faced some dreadful moments of utter collapse. Anya and Xander: a long look at his family, particularly goofy Uncle Rory and Xander’s frightening alcoholic father; Will’s undeniable growth; Real Life and Money the Summers girls have to reconcile head-on.
I’m remembering the early days in S1-2 when life was occasionally chaotic but still orderly, deep down: Giles sartorially prepared in library; predictable and popular Cordelia, Oz locked in storeroom every full moon and Willow and Xander having the occasional snog whilst Buffy prepares to compete as Prom Queen Extraordinaire. I might pop some of those old episodes in again.
I can surely see how this show quietly and deftly took viewers by storm. Joss speaks about creating an icon not just something to ‘like.’ And he nailed it. I remember when Seventh Heaven was all the rage. Before that, our female heroine was Lucy or Samantha in Bewitched; still at home, underpaid and crafty about her witchiness. At some point I would ask, “Wow, how far have we come?” -then I look at the political landscape and think, not as far as we should. But Whedon did move things on a fair bit!
19 February 2015 at 00:26 #38088@purofilion
Perhaps Buffy could have worked out her destructive passions in less vulgar array -but Spike was always present.
You can skip the spoiler space now (I know you already have – just a prod for context). Buffy may be the Slayer, but she was still a vulnerable woman and Spike exploited that. It is fairly classic sociopathic behaviour. Whoever planned that arc knows the subject matter. “This isn’t real, but I just want to feel.”
And, Willow.
For all of her life Willow had someone to give her a reality check, to make her stop and think. For most of her life it was Xander, with whom she was silently besotted. Then along came Oz, kind and gentle and offering the restraining comment softly and with love. And we got a flash of dangerous Willow in Something Blue. Then there was Tara, extra flamey. First amazed and besotted, then worried and then betrayed, tampered with. “Willow can’t you see? There’ll be nothing left of me”.
Again, whoever wrote that knows the turf, even if the sails were trimmed from idea (“power”) to substance (“magic”).
And just at that moment, when Willow is desolate and open, along comes Amy. Wild, reckless and mightily pissed off at being a rat for so long, but also hugely seductive and instantly sensing Willow’s vulnerability. But Willow is fundamentally good and the shock of hurting Dawn brings her back, brings Tara back. She has earned redemption and been rewarded. (“Can you just be kissing me now?”). And then, and then….and then Willow’s shirt.
I have rarely been as shocked at a single scene as the flaying of Warren Mears.
It took the one person whose love for Willow is now entirely unconditional to bring her back. But what next for her? She has killed and she is still a mightily powerful witch.
And so back to Spike, who has never done anything unconditional in his life. And now he has a soul. And has killed, many times over…
Where do we go from here?
19 February 2015 at 00:29 #38089PS re Normal Again.
Certainly where I hung out, Normal Again was well liked, but the negative reactions were of two kinds
1. Those who didn’t like the playful meta of the ambiguity of the ending;
2. Those who (and I promise I am not making this up) were offended (in part because of the aforementioned ambiguity) by the very idea that Sunnydale might be fictional. Seriously. I am not making that up.
19 February 2015 at 00:36 #38090@purofilion — that’s a terrific post. Love your interpretation of Spike’s and Angel’s character. Your idea of Spike’s Classical personality is extremely interesting. I’d still argue that Spike is textbook Romantic though — I don’t know from music really and I’m coming more from poetry/prose (specialised in the Romantics for pretty much all my honours years as an undergrad, so probably kinda biased). I’m pretty sure he’d subscribe to the chaos and “spontaneous overflow of strong feelings” of the Romantics.
However:
Horrifying. And I admit to having nothing pleasant left in my heart towards him. What did we expect, really?
Yes, horrifying. But don’t forget we’re not nearly done with Spike’s arc yet. There are still a few twists and turns on this road yet.
And on Petrie and men dancing in cages, it’s possibly worth pointing out that he originally wanted the “punishment” to be for the two guys to magically end up making out with each other but was overruled by Joss who thought that homosexuality being portrayed as some kind of punishment was not such a great idea.
I look at the general aura of Angel and see him as quite the ‘modern mind’ (unlike Spike): generous, good hearted, solid and tough, stubborn and intellectual. He has the streetwise mind too but it’s more juvenile in Spike and far less reassuring.
I fear that you may have to revisit some of your ideas about Angel after we get to s2 of his series.
And on that, I’ll do Buffy s6 this weekend and then we’ll do a few seasons of Angel. Which will, to be honest, a nice change of pace. Buffy and Angel are different pleasures but I think when everything is weighed up, I slightly favour Angel. (Although to be fair this is another point where Mrs Fish and I violently (not literally though) disagree.) Buffy will put you through the emotional wringer, make you laugh, make you cry like a baby, but Angel somehow has more, I dunno, more weight to it. For me anyway.
And it’s really worth looking at the finales at both shows together, I think.
19 February 2015 at 00:49 #38091@pedant and @purofilion–
I have rarely been as shocked at a single scene as the flaying of Warren Mears.
Have to agree. That, the shooting of Tara and the atttempted rape of Buffy, all within a few episodes of each other showed an incredible fearlessness on the part of the writing team.
And Amy. As I think we talked about in the s1 blog, Amy introduced in the second episode (which also brings in the witchcraft thread that leads us here) is a pivotal character in Buffy. She could so easily have been a Scooby but her path ends up being a lot more destructive, a lot more petty, and a lot more chaotic.
RE. Normal Again. As with @pedant, I’ve seen an awful lot of hostility to the episode online — for many of the same reasons that I love it, the ambiguity of the ending that brings Sunnydale itself into question and the whole idea that Sunnydale itself might not be real in the first place. It reminds me of the same sort of debates you see on the Guardian about how AG Who is somehow a betrayal of BG. (And Normal Again is definitely one of the few Buffy episodes that you could adapt for Who and it’d still work.)
19 February 2015 at 02:32 #38095@pedant ‘They were offended that Sunnydale might be fictional’? Boy.
Ooh, the Stupid Hurts – to borrow a phrase 🙂
@jimthefish Absolutely, you’d not be biased so much as correct. I see the Awful Romantic (well, he’s not THAT bad 🙂 )& also the classical mind of that ancient Greek period (and that’s my petty obsession & right to therefore get it wrong) & think it’s very rarely discursive (as the modern mind can be) so Spike’s repetition as well as his brooding destructiveness is quite ‘ancient.’ The tableau in Gone in his bed, and the working out of primal needs in a purely carnal manner would be right to him. It’s the idea of love as blood not brains.
The rush, the pure need and the thrilling enjoyment without question exists for itself without any ‘rash’ intellectualising. For Buffy it’s the corresponding flicker in gesture as opposites attract and the destruction of self is very nearly realised but her ennui is defined and finally faced. She is no longer hiding from the world, no longer protecting Dawn so furiously, but wanting to show her the world instead. That’s such an upbeat message that I hope it foretells the last season.
Yes, certainly the Storm and Stress of the Romantic period (poetry & definitely music), is also Spike’s theme and therefore his ‘place’. I think the musical proto Romantics saw themselves as ‘superior art’ practising the bacchanal at weekends: doing themselves both comic and serious harm in the method.
Not to mention my own light dabbling which was thoroughly ridiculous and embarrassing.
The flaying of Warren -absolute shock. I thought she’d stop, somehow. And of course, her white shirt and the blood in the Act before. It’s worth pondering that bullet? Wouldn’t it be likely to go thru Willow also at that direction?
One for the pedantic military firearms experts 🙂
Two guys making out? That was his idea? No wonder Whedon nixed that! What we have is perfectly fine. I really disliked those (‘typical’ bar room blitz) fellas and they sure wanted rough housing so a little punishment balanced their cosmos.
I originally thought that Amy might have been less inclined to encourage and tease Willow? A silly idea as, ‘hello? Emasculated Rat for three years!’
“Is Larry going to ask me to Prom?”
“Well, Larry’s gay, Prom’s over and so is school.” No wonder she’s up for both types of teasing and emasculation, which was her way of punishing Willow as well. Petty? Good choice of word.
@pedant yes, Spike and sociopathy. Years ago I made re-acquaintance with a student (of about 27 years of age by then) who became a friend (that’s all and only for awhile). But in his emails I sensed a terrible and overwhelming need to control and make me ‘believe’ in him. If I argued, he claimed I was ‘besting him’. If I agreed, I was “weak”. Later, he claimed I never quite used “enough ‘I’ statements”. Golly, here was I thinking that ‘I’ statements were somewhat selfish and careerist. What did I know?
A friend (a gestalt therapist: yep, I know very little about that type/style of psychology) lent me a book on psychopathy. It was absolutely brilliant as every paragraph shouted, “yeah, that’s the guy!”
At first I thought Spike’s little obsessive rambles around number 1630 (I think that’s right -desperately looking for clues about that house number) were a ‘protection’ thing. Boy Ilion added smashing clarity: “it’s not Hogwarts. He’s a stalker, mum, get over it. Stop disguising him to please yourself.”
Ouch. Out of the mouth of babes. That particular boy has only seen to the end of Flooded as he’s been on camp (where quite possibly the February rains at CampGoodEnough will undoubtedly flood the tents and cause bronchitis for all). He wants to watch four more episodes and then get back to Angel as this “season’s a bit depressing.” I would agree but I think it was the smart and only way to progress.
The last time Buffy is lit with that calm, glowing light (except for The Musical) is when she sits in the shade with Spike and explains “I don’t know about theology, or dimensions, or any of that, really, but I think I was in heaven.”
Here, even her hair and clothes are whimsical. After that, it’s pants, leather jackets and ‘harder’ clothing. Mmm, that sounds sexist, as if leather clothes are somehow ‘butch.’ Anyway, a lot of the time she’s wearing the tDMP uniform and then changes into jeans and T-shirts -apparently still smelling of ‘work’ and ‘beef’. It’s enough to turn me completely vegetarian.
Also, she’s wearing ‘off ‘ ‘neckwear’: what looks like shoelaces wound ’round her neck with about 6 inches falling out like black cat gut off an old violin (something went wrong with wardrobe choices that day). Also, for people with little money, they sure have a lot of clothes and accessories. I made a note of Willow’s and Tara’s beautiful necklaces and counted about 25 different ones. Maybe on ‘actual loan’ (as opposed to theft loan) from The Magic Box?
So, Angel is not always that serene and good? At times he appears a little wooden and I try to put that down to a less animated personality but it could easily be the 250 year old weary vamp inside. Who, as someone at work said, “can’t get laid so that’s his problem.” Okaaay. It’s that simple? Hah.
Back to some S1 eps -want to see just how ASH ages in 6 years! And is James Marsters’ face real? Can you buy those cheekbones or do Makeup tend to highlight the square jaw and bones sharp enough to cut veins?
Thank you both Jim and Pedant and also to @bluesqueakpip and @scaryb and those who loved Buffy so long ago. Who knew that this site would introduce me to such great television? I should have anticipated that. And to think until late last year I didn’t know the name Whedon. I believe I made a terrible mistake in critiquing Waterworld and its 40 million+ budget -Whedon wrote the script or was called in as Script Doctor? This I also heard from my boss. Really? Waterworld. The one with Costner! I better watch my hellmouth.
19 February 2015 at 02:41 #38096I’m pretty sure he’d subscribe to the chaos and “spontaneous overflow of strong feelings” of the Romantics.
Spike would. Because William wouldn’t.
William may have been a Bloody Awful Poet, but he was a Victorian Bloody Awful poet; if we go by the Fool For Love flashbacks, he was born a bit too late to be part of the Romantic era. He might have aspired to be one of the Aesthetics (like Wilde and Swinburne). Also, the whole ‘mad, bad, and dangerous to know thing’ is a bit of a problem when you don’t want to upset your Mum. 😉
‘Spike’, it’s hinted, is everything ‘William’ never dared to be.
Unfortunately, one of the things William never dared to be was a monster.
19 February 2015 at 03:40 #38097@pedant there is so much to discuss, here. Your mention of ‘writing from truth’ intrigues. I don’t like the over-use of the word ‘authentic’ but I see this clearly in those episodes where Willow is loved and trusted by her friends. No wonder it’s Xander who saves her and the world. His repetition of the words ‘I love you’ are starkly contrasted with Spike’s use of the same. They’re different in every way imaginable.
The fact Tara is so steadfast and perceptive (so perception might be the better word) and states: “there’ll be nothing left of me” is so very raw as you said. Compare that with Spike’s state of ‘knowingness’ about the Slayer’s raw capacity to feel and give.
Buffy recognises that her need for Spike is without artifice. Any façade must be broken. Indeed, all her constructions must be rebuilt. She must find a way to exist in a capacity opposite to the peace experienced in her timeless space of heaven. She needs to re-learn feeling. Whatever she is feeling is transmitted through internal wires furiously buzzing like a power line across her whole body -I’m not surprised that other characters are not more quizzical; it makes sense that only Tara, once told, is gently bemused and withholds judgement. But Spike exploits that need: heralded when he says that if Will had brought Buffy back “wrong” he would “keep” any part of that which was left.
To Spike Buffy says, “everything here is hard, bright and violent” and it’s absolutely spot on. Many years ago, after 12 months in hospital with peritonitis and VRE, I was fully institutionalised: it was warm and gentle, there was no pressure, no thought of responsibility and also, food on trays! Leaving that world was certainly difficult. But the moment you face that decision you recognise the first illumination and then the ignition of bravery. As Spike sped away on motorcycle, he too augured something new: no longer just reacting and being swept along, he’s acting independently.
19 February 2015 at 07:23 #38100whoo-ee back to S1 episodes 1-3 all over again. Here we have a Buffy completely disinterested in her mother’s hard work, who is flippant and basically a kiddliwink! Giles is dismissive of Buffy’s abilities and claims she should be able to sense a powerful vampire’s presence. We meet an Amy totally witchy -clever -the first real Big Bad of this first few episodes -more serious than The Master, it seems.
What I liked was Xander: “hey Buffy your pointy stick from which you can …build a really small fence?” Goodness, an arc to do with Xander’s post-senior school job!
And computer savvy Willow! I might add that I’ve hardly ever noticed a mobile phone in Buffy and yet Cordelia carries one in the first episode. How is it that everyone else is running to telephone boxes for quite some years? Giles’ first casting of a spell and Will simply says: “I know a nice cauldron and ..where’s your broomstick?”
Well, anyway, that was a little touch of History -probably I’ll keep going aaand…keep my opinions to myself otherwise I’ll be looping.
19 February 2015 at 07:30 #38101@pedant Ah, “when you’re alone”
“BUFFY: Why are you always around when I’m miserable?
SPIKE: ‘Cause that’s when you’re alone, I reckon.”
And so she was. Not the crowds, the alone part: “and I’m going to have myself a real good day.”
19 February 2015 at 08:36 #38102he was born a bit too late to be part of the Romantic era. He might have aspired to be one of the Aesthetics
Yeah, I was aware of that actually. Probably should have made that clear in previous posts on the subject. But you’r right. The poetical period fits quite well with, as you say, William’s repression. What was the Aesthetic/Victorian era but essentially defanged Romanticism, prettified, and with all the scary revolutionary stuff and madness taken out? (Appropriate too, as if the era of the worst Bloody Awful Poetry doesn’t like William then he must be doing something right.) But yeah, William probably did aspire to a Swinburnian or Arnoldian sensibility but Spike goes to the heart of what is repressed and excised from that sensibility. And it’s probably more Shelleyan than Byronic too. The late Victorians really idolised Shelley, but prettifying him, venerating the nature poetry and the work dense with Classical allusion and conveniently forgetting about all that pesky anti-monarchy, atheist and free love stuff. William strikes me as being cut from the same cloth while Spike is very much a Shelleyan hero — near-insane, chaotic, destructive, in thrall to the extremes of their emotions.
@purofilion — Whedon did indeed work as script doctor on Waterworld and many other movies. But part of the work of a good script doctor is not to leave your fingerprints all over it but to go in, fix what needs to be done and then get out again. I don’t think the mess that is the final film can be blamed on him. That honour must go to Costner who has fine history of interfering in and bollocksing up the films he’s involved in.
19 February 2015 at 10:02 #38103I always found that schools -at least in Adelaide and Brisbane -absolutely didn’t want their pupils going anywhere near Shelley except for his smaller (and still adept) poems. He really went against his Christian upbringing, first as an agnostic and then an atheist. Did Oxford deny his degree at all? I’m not sure (as I said: school in the ’80s…!) and also, was he quite mad? 🙂
I didn’t know that Costner was involved to that degree! I’m not really aware of these sorts of Hollywood (in)conveniences: Costner as producer, perhaps?
Now back to Buffy again or Angel… the woman in 17th century costume who ‘turns’ Angel looks an awful lot like Darla in the 1st Buffy Season. Difficult to tell: big wig, big dress, lots of talcum powder….
19 February 2015 at 10:26 #3810419 February 2015 at 10:53 #38105@purofilion
“it’s not Hogwarts. He’s a stalker, mum, get over it. Stop disguising him to please yourself.”
Heh. Just “heh”. That almost lets him off the spoilering!
It’s worth pondering that bullet?
Perhaps a Warren Commission is needed.
19 February 2015 at 10:55 #38106@bluesqueakpip — no worries. Hope I didn’t come across snippy. And it was my bad. I should have been clearer in my earlier posts and it’s a good point that was well worth making.
@purofilion — RE. Shelley. That’s probably a hangover from how the Victorians tried to rehabilitate him — focus on Ode to the West Wind and On A Skylark but at no cost expose the kids to Queen Mab or The Mask of Anarchy or The Cenci. And he got sent down from Oxford (in his first year I think) for publishing a pamphlet On The Necessity of Atheism. Or rather for refusing to disavow authorship of it when confronted.
And, yes, that is indeed Darla. Where are you at in Angel? Or are you still revisiting early Buffy? I thought the siring of Angel was seen in s2 of Buffy but I could be mistaken.
19 February 2015 at 11:23 #38107@bluesqueakpip — you also had a good point about William/Spike. There’s a clear relationship in personality and character there that doesn’t seem to be all that present between Angel/Angelus.
19 February 2015 at 17:09 #38117@purofilion
As a break from the continuity, so to speak enjoy Wrong Willow and Ned Reyerson.
19 February 2015 at 18:10 #38120@purofilion
How is it that everyone else is running to telephone boxes for quite some years?
Because mobile phones are evil plot destroying devices, far worse than any vampire. 🙂
@jimthefish – you did sound a tad snippy, but I put it down to my just having told a Romantics specialist the dates of Romanticism. Next up, teaching the Doctor how to suck an egg. 😉
Somebody (not me) once pointed out that both Spike and Angel have the same human name – Angel’s is the Irish version (Liam) and Spike’s the English version (William). So you could say that the one core thing lacking in Liam/Angel/Angelus that is present in William/Spike is Will. That may be a hint that – of the two – Spike is actually the stronger and more connected to his human self. Which might be why he can still love, even if that demonic nature twists it into a dark, obsessive, stalker kind of love.
Can’t say much more until puro’s seen S7. Which is my favourite of all the Buffy seasons.
19 February 2015 at 18:35 #38121@bluesqueakpip — my unreserved apologies. Snippiness absolutely not intentional.
I’ve seen the William/Liam link made before. Quite like that ‘lack of will’ idea. The connection between the two characters is definitely marked. (Although they did have to ret-con it majorly. Whatever happened to ‘you were my sire, man. You were my Yoda.’)
Never known anyone to choose s7 as their favourite. Will look forward to hearing your thoughts on it once it won’t be spoilery.
19 February 2015 at 23:10 #38127@jimthefish I’m near the end of S1 Angel (I know, bad, right?) & I thought I saw an ep which involves flashbacks to Angel as human (not a really good Irish accent!) in that series -possibly also Buffy.
There I’m doing a re-watch for comparison to S5-6. No real reason, checking out the quite awful wardrobe (the perspective is a problem), Buffy’s normal teeth (not the blue white of later seasons) and more obviously the arcs which connect to S3. Apparently, Joss was never sure it would be picked up in S2 or S3, so any arcs are ‘potential’ -or little ‘rooms’ for opening up the possibilities.
The strength of those characters is unbelievable. No wonder I was “Buffy’s bitch from S1” (I believe that’s @pedant‘s line) I quite adore Will in this era: “you want me to move? You don’t have to come back.” (“I’ll be back, I promise,” says Buffy)
Also, The Pack (what an episode -Cough, cough -) really makes Brendon shine as evil hyena. He was very new to acting apparently -and yet such a natural? Only got that from a non-spoilery commentary.
S7 a fav -my boss (in one job) also agrees. He’s a sociopath, however and obviously, obviously, you’re not!!
This guy has NO people skills whatsoever: on a school parade he once said: “Girls, I want to see flesh.” (he meant only translucent stockings not tights -although the reason for that is problematic in itself). No idea why I mentioned that: probably because I’m back at high school Buffy and cheerleaders are combusting.
I have never, ever, understood the moronic ‘thing’ that is cheerleading.
I also heard that Charisma was in some cheer leading movie/was a cheer leader prior to getting this role. That explains her hair and teeth. Also the wiry body.
Jim
I was educated in two Catholic schools which venerated some of Shelley’s ‘milder’ writings. I had one unbelievable male teacher who showed up in singlet and harem-style pants. He was very stoned (sorry, reminds me of Spike S5) and proceeded to talk (in religion class) about the Mai Lai massacre. He also droned on about Shelley’s atheist paper (I was 13). So I knew about that before I heard Ozmandias etc (God, I hope that’s his poem, otherwise I’ll be cornered in my stupidity). He also had the gals weeping about Byron. Shortly thereafter he was sacked. Being an atheist himself posed a problem for that particular Catholic school -though not for all of them.
Them were the days. No discussion of Ayn Rand, though.
19 February 2015 at 23:28 #38128@pedant that was marvellous -thank you!
Unfortunately I read the comments. Particularly one written by the charming ‘anal excavator’.
20 February 2015 at 00:01 #38129@pedant @jimthefish @bluesqueakpip
re Princ. Flutie: why did they go with a different actor? I quite liked ‘the tall guy’ (I know him from so many shows/films) and particularly those lines showing the problem he had with Buffy’s name which I don’t recall from the actual episode: “Bunny? Wilma? Betty?” Who wouldn’t say that (I know Deputy Principals/Principals well. Names? Not an important issue for many of them)?
Buffy is quite an unusual name but even unimaginative puro wouldn’t think “Betty The Vampire Slayer” would get traction.
20 February 2015 at 00:41 #38130@purofilion
The most likely explanation is that Ned Ryerson wasn’t available when it came to shooting the series. Am I right, am I right?
S7 contains probably the best debut by a new writer ever. The previous best being Normal Again, which was written by Whedon’s PA.
20 February 2015 at 00:47 #38131@purofilion —
I’m near the end of S1 Angel (I know, bad, right?)
Not in the slightest. The rate at which you’ve been caning the Buffies has been quite prodigious. And I’m sure you’ll dig the Angels in the same way. But you’ll definitely be seeing lots more flashbacks to the life and times of Angelus throughout the series. The godawful Irish accent may even grow on you in time.
I’m not sure why they went for another Flutie. Possibly a scheduling thing. The guy in the pilot is fun but I think I prefer the replacement version who had a nice passive-aggressive hopelessness to him. But the character didn’t have too many places to go and my heart will always belong to Snyder.
Your English teacher sounds, er, interesting. Can’t say I ever had a lesson that sounded quite as diverting as that. (And Ozymandias is indeed a sonnet by Shelley.)
20 February 2015 at 00:58 #38132Oh, and while I’m a bit wary of the whole cult of joss thing, here’s some Whedon-Tweetage….
20 February 2015 at 08:39 #38138that was great.
Wait…there’s a cult?
On S1 Angel; I completed 4 eps today concluding with Sanctuary. I gotta say, Buffy with perfectly curled glossy hair and soft suede getting slapped by Angel. Not cool. Though, he did say “hey, you started it. Not to get all school yard on you.”
A few things just didn’t add up. She seems to be very school-girl-ish (and I get this related to S4 Buffy) but “do you know what it felt like seeing her with you?” To:
“I have someone in my life. I love him, but it’s new”. I think his response to Buffy was pretty spot on: “I’m not allowed to have a life? Don’t expect me to do things your way. Go home. This is my life.”
Poor Wesley being tortured was very dark indeed -matches (but not quite) the darkness of S6 Buffy which whilst not pedestrian, can be a bit predictable (no, I’ve expressed that incorrectly) but with Angel it’s more definitely real -a murky world all round -and that’s just the regular people. I think, being in LA, with a larger cast, hints at the epic -not that S5 Buffy lacked epic qualities -but it seems small town. I like it that way..yes, don’t know what I’m trying to say here…
Best to read a book…
20 February 2015 at 12:07 #38140@purofilion — There is a kind of an uncritically obsessed cult of adulation that’s built up around Joss over the years. The man has wicked skills but as with everything some people take it too far.
RE. Angel. Yes, Five by Five and Sanctuary are awesome episodes. And Wesley’s torture more harrowing than anything seen on the parent show (the obvious comparison being Angelus’s torture of Giles in s2 of Buffy). And Faith is seen to cut loose in a way we never really get to see in Buffy too.
They’re also good for comparing the now-close-to-being established differences between the two shows. In Buffy, Faith is an adversary to be defeated. They have a vague discussion about what they’re going to do with her after they find here — but don’t come remotely to any conclusions. They’re focused on the fight. But in Angel, the gang know exactly what to do with Faith. They have to save her, although Wesley and Cordelia do naturally become a lot more ambivalent about this after the beating and torture at Faith’s hands. But for Angel it least, it’s Buffy that’s the problem for them rather than Faith. And interestingly, despite having been Buffy’s Watcher (briefly), it’s Angel’s side that Wesley eventually chooses.
Yeah, the smacking down of Buffy by Angel is not something you’d ever have seen on the parent show either, I suspect. That and the verbal smackdown at the end of the episode are quite eye-opening, I think. They’re not just telling Buffy that Angel’s world doesn’t revolve around her anymore but it’s also putting viewers on notice that Angel is its own show and is not willing to remain in Buffy’s shadow.
But to be fair, Angel regrets what he says to her and immediately goes to Sunnydale to, er, kick the crap out of Riley.
21 February 2015 at 07:55 #38153Yes, Angel is so the definitive or standalone program, that when Buffy appears against the now tougher Cordelia (who’s stepping down from the moral high ground in less expensive shoes) and the starker Angel persona, it’s easier to be objective, to stop a moment and realise that Buffy’s intransigent, a little one-sided and demanding.
Angel, as an adult show, asks some harder questions: “what makes these monsters who they are and can we save them?” The monster in Sanctuary is Faith; murderous: “want, take, have.” Angel intends rehabilitation with Wesley on board -and that nice misdirection provided by The Watcher’s Council gives depth and some humour in the goofiness.
It’s also interesting, when viewing S1-2 of Buffy just how young Buffy is; the only child, reliant on Mum as provider’. Real Life aspects arrive in S5 with Dawn and are multiplied by the ‘Brood Factor’ with Joyce’s death.
Getting back to why I loved S3 so much -the lovely rise and fall in the middle Act; the conclusion cleanly dealt with: school blown up, college beginning but high school in itself? “We survived!” The canvas is simpler but the harbinger of “fire bad, tree pretty” smokes past so quick that we’re unaware of the change-up to S4-5 with its desolation and confusion and the lovely pockets of discrete stories: Anya’s and Xander’s; Tara’s and Will’s; Dawn and Buffy’s Sister Act (dissent and blood ties) and Giles’ ennui.
It makes for more gripping and epic storylines which produce muddier self-appraisal: that rite of passage or ‘look in the mirror moment’ essential to college-age development (and those like Giles who are slightly out of step -acted out in song during Giles’ counterpoint).
We’ve moved from minor mischief to grand larceny but in Angel, some acts are justifiable in an area where vagrancy and poverty is LA’s backdrop so the greater good – or spirit of the law – is favoured over its letter.
Not that Buffy the character hasn’t learnt to recognise her mistakes and embrace subtlety. At the end of S6 she realises that her sister is the same age Buffy was in S1 – it’s a remarkable, joyous scene, suggesting a different colour, a hopeful message -and like life itself it moves through seasons:
“In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom, through the awful grace of God.”
“This isn’t real, but I just want to feel”
Yes, Spike the opportunist – the above line for him could read:
“This is real for me and I need to feel”. Perhaps he could have gone on and on in this senseless loop forever – as a vampire struggling to feel is a principal tenet. Desperate feelings emanate from a restless, grinding need to avenge the soul so brutally torn out. It mimics Buffy’s keenness to feel, an urge manifested from the loss of heaven. William’s torn from humanity by Dru and Buffy’s peace is shorn by Willow. Each is avenging loss through the other: Buffy says, “I’m using you William.” Buffy’s choice to stop places Spike on the road to independence. It’s hard -that crucial moment where instead of white-washing recent history – they stand back and take a look at themselves.
21 February 2015 at 08:41 #38157having had another look at the Joss tweets it sent me to yet another link regarding ‘several things nerd parents of nerd kids don’t want their kids to see’ etc: ‘Joss Whedon’s films as The Avengers was the only film not based on a cancelled TV show of his.’
F’fly (which I haven’t seen ), “Buffy and Angel were never rated highly and don’t belong on anything except Cable networks”
Boy- oh -boy – there’s a Joss Hate Club.
Huhn?
21 February 2015 at 16:18 #38165@purofilion — rather like Buffy, I don’t think Angel really found itself completely as a series until its s1 finale. Certainly not until Wolfram & Hart truly step up to the plate as the big villains of the show. Until then they’re just slowly making their presence felt, I think. But then it definitely starts asking some hard questions — about what makes a demon, what it actually means to have a soul, is redemption even possible, and is that the whole point anyway etc. But I think it only truly begins to hit the ground running from s2 onwards.
Firefly is definitely worth a watch at some point. Criminally short-lived — and that’s a whole other story — it’s Joss’s last big highpoint and frankly doesn’t have a bad episode within it. Maybe the gap between seasons 9 and 10 should be spent with a Firefly/Dollshouse retrospective.
And there is indeed a Joss hate club. As is inevitable. A common criticism is that his characters don’t speak like real people and it detracts from the realism. Which in shows about vampires, space cowboys etc gets a big ‘duuuh’ from me.
21 February 2015 at 17:29 #38171@purofilion
“This is real for me and I need to feel”.
I refer the honorable lady to Boyilion’s comment reported earlier.
21 February 2015 at 22:05 #38175OK, it’s established I’m mildly psychotic.
@jimthefish “….his characters don’t speak like real people…. ”
They should hang out in a school sometime: where demons and demon speak are metaphors for …other things.
And I do think the bullet would have hit Willow… Glad that it didn’t
21 February 2015 at 22:28 #38176@purofilion
The bullet was coming at a steep upward angle – the shot that hits Tara is one of the ones Warren shoots upwards as he’s leaving. She and Willow are in their bedroom.
Poetic licence, but not too much – if it hit Tara in the chest it would probably have hit Willow at neck or shoulder height- but we’re meant to presume it missed her by a centimetre or so.
21 February 2015 at 23:09 #38181@purofilion
And I do think the bullet would have hit Willow… Glad that it didn’t
Bear in mind it was fired from ground level- up, hit window, hit Tara’s spine, exits Tara’s chest and carrying on up past Willow right shoulder, spattering her shirt.
21 February 2015 at 23:49 #3818322 February 2015 at 23:47 #38209@jimthefish @pedant @bluesqueakpip
I’ve started S7 -couldn’t avoid it. It was sitting there. I was hiding in the study with head phones -I’m a Buffyaholic now.
I don’t know, if in episodes 2-3 I’ve ever seen acting quite like this – Spike’s reveal to Buffy that he has a soul. I think it was rather marvellously done. Willow being eaten piece by piece – by Golum, no less!
Not sure what I think about ‘return’ to Sunnydale High school? I guess it cycles nicely towards an eventual end.
“From beneath you, it devours”
22 February 2015 at 23:51 #38210Oh yes and Darla’s back ….in Angel S2 (*only episode 3 thus far) -finally enjoying that too at the expense of house work and gardening.
23 February 2015 at 00:02 #38212@purofilion — yes, that scene in the church never fails to move me. Probably James Marsters’s best work right there. And the flesh-eating creature is really, really creepy. I quite like the return to Sunnydale High but found myself thinking the kids were being too molly-coddled by that wussy new principal. Snyder would have sorted them out pronto. He certainly would have had any need for hiring student counsellors.
RE. Angel. Yes, indeed, s2’s Darla arc is just ace, in my opinion. And does it make me a bad person to think that Lindsey getting his hand cut off by Angel is one of the coolest things ever?
23 February 2015 at 00:42 #38218@purofilion
The scene in the church was one of several that Joss made late amendments to, but sadly is the only one that worked. I’ll dig out the shooting script and post the original when I next have a desk. You will hear the gears crunching as he does it later on, and can pretty much hear him mutter “the Internet loves spuffy must make internet happy”. Sadly he did not realise that “the Internet” and “the fanbase” are not the same thing. (There is an absolute screamer of an episode coming up that is entirely about one character, other than some c plot abou spike and Buffy – one review complete ignored the main plot to discuss the importance of the spike/ Buffy scene. Shippers? Killing’s to good for them ).
and much later on we get a timely reminder that Joss can bullshit with the best of ’em.
the good news is that the gear grinds are sufficiently rare as to make no real difference to the season, which I like a lot, and the ultimate message of which is, IMO, unarguable. But bear in mind that it is slightly compromised by not knowing at the start whether SMG would sign up for more, but there is a huge amount to enjoy (this was common knowledge at the time of first broadcast).
BTW, the farmhouse in England is Tony Head’s actual house and the horse is his actual horse. Paid for by his Gold Blend (and whatever the American version is) coffee commercials. They hoped to film more in England but the weather was terrible.
23 February 2015 at 00:51 #38222sign up for more….what?
Was she doing more in S7 than she had intended to take on?
There is a scene at the beginning of Selfless (Anya and The dude from ER -troll God) where Spike is ‘not asking for help’ and Buffy is giving him help which cuts to her ‘walking in’ and then telling him to ‘get up and get out’.
Is this the ‘scene’ of some discussion? I really get the impression that the fan base (the wrong one) wanted some ‘lovey dovey’ Spuffy stuff, but surely, surely this isn’t going to happen. We also get with Cassie The Dead; “She’ll tell you one day”. I imagine this made people quite nutso as well.
I like Spike as a character but as an ongoing love interest, not so_ I kind of miss S2 and S3 as a the here again gone again Duo of Angelus/Spike Spike/ Dru -here we’ve got him experimenting in ‘blue’ shirts and less hair product. I can just hear the fan nuts going “Oh my God, she’ll have proper sex, NOW”
Grrr. Still, he’s you know, got to have an arc of his own -or else, get him out!!
23 February 2015 at 01:38 #38229‘Him’
Gawd. I don’t like Dawn -the actress: I did, but I don’t: it’s the toothy all American smile and the hair: who looks like that, all the time, huh? No-one.
But. beyond that. This season is getting to me in ways others didn’t (not stopping the DVD player is a problem and not eating also). The thing I remember -a tag line -for S2 or 3 was “I’m love’s bitch, you can never be friends”, seems to be travelling thru every season. Buffy killing Angel, Anya and Xander ( after D’Hoffryn kills Hallie because “it’s always about the pain”) never getting back together (at this stage), Buffy helping Spike: the choices they make mean that consequences are driven through the entire arc of every season -right up to the end and I’m not sure I’ve really understood this fact until now. Interestingly, this season provides call backs to the very beginning and I like that -there’s a dedicated fan base who might remember and Whedon questions our ability to ‘bother’ to remember.
It seems a very complex show now – reminds me of Angel, actually, where things are never so black and white -and yet Buffy’s the Slayer -that very point must ensure that she remains true to her ‘heritage’, she can’t change the rules (unless she’s been brought back from heaven during which she becomes temporarily insane and boinks a lot)and maybe she shouldn’t -this season has the brightness of S3 again -a tonal and colour change which I was missing. Yet, it’s not tea n’ crumpets, either.
23 February 2015 at 04:10 #38237@pedant @bluesqueakpip @jimthefish Oh, come on “Early One Morning”?
And the only way to sing that ditty!
Years and years and years ago for a post grad thing I had to present some choral ‘choices’. I did, amongst other things, a 6 part version of Early one Morning. At the time, Brightman, the Mormon Tabacl. Choir and others utterly ruined it by turning this sweet 8 verse song into something it was never meant to be.
Part of the re-write involved some heavy research (funded by the dept -late ’80s) which involved a tour around Oxford where I spoke to a few lovely gents about the very beginnings of this song and how it was used in the late 1800s. Not just sung in pubs, it was used in May Day parades and even, as part of a wedding song when the bride was a little more than the ‘typical’ home-spun type. It found its way to France and across to Germany where I found it in Czech/Bohemian lands used at funerals. At a the Bonn Univ a professor explained how documents referred to the song used by villagers at the burning rites of witches -kind of as a ‘back-at you’ finale before the witch was finished off.
Anyway, point is, the orchestral over-blown rubbish (and even the popular stuff available by Dance Boys) was never the point of this ditty. The lyrics changed a lot in 100 years and became racier. It was always a hummin’ tune: so to see it sung naturally by Spike makes me less of a ‘Spike hater’ at the mo -never mind he’s killing the women of Sunnydale!
The fact it’s a sleeper song is even more fascinating: I also located some prints explaining how witches allegedly used it themselves to invoke the ‘earth’; a ‘so mote it be’, thing. Which makes ‘Sleeper’ all the more fascinating.
Prior to that I was wondering exactly what the point of either Dawn or Spike was -I was hankering for the original Will, Buff, Xander and Giles quartet -with the occasional Bad Spike showing up for Mayhem -to help with it or end it. I liked when he ended it but this angsty Spike is a stall for me.
-
AuthorPosts
The topic ‘General Open Thread – TV Shows’ is closed to new replies.
