babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Farewell to Buffy: How will we cope?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Farewell to Buffy: How will we cope?
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 May 2003 02:38 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sometimes disappointing, sometimes infuriating, the show was (almost) always fascinating.

quote:
One thing about "Buffy" that hasn't changed, though, is that idea of the blonde who strikes back. Her blow has generated ripples that have traveled to some unlikely and marvelous places. Fetching, absorbing and hilarious as some of the series' tangents have been, the core of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" has always been the story of a girl hero (well, superhero, to be precise). It's commonplace by now to rave about the liberating effect of Buffy's heroism on girlhood, the supposedly salutary and definitely gratifying spectacle of a young woman kicking bad-guy ass. There's Buffy's independence, her formidable strength, her radiant courage. But if what Buffy's heroism has done to girlhood gets talked about all the time, what her girlishness has done for heroism is even more revolutionary, if less well sung.

...

The glamorized alienation of the gunfighter carries over into the hard-boiled detectives of noir and, of course, the superheroes of comic books who, like Buffy, are supposed to conceal their secret crime-fighting identities from those acquainted with their workaday selves. But from the very beginning, Buffy could not keep her mission to herself. In addition to her assigned Watcher, Giles (Anthony Head), she quickly acquired allies in Willow and Xander, who in turn drew others into the Scooby gang. The traditional American male hero wallows in romanticized isolation, a condition supposedly forced upon him, but one that also conveniently caters to an aversion to connection and intimacy.

Buffy, however, not only allows herself connection, she demands it. Furthermore, in the first few seasons, she insisted on gossiping about boys, running for homecoming queen, and going on dates and to the prom -- in other words, having a life -- despite the ongoing demands of fending off archvillains ("If the apocalypse comes, beep me!" is one of her best lines). This, like her mom's inability to see that Buffy is acting like "it's the end of the world" because it literally is the end of the world, gets played for laughs, and it's very funny, but it's also the show's most radical twist to the genres it plays upon. There were girls who kicked ass in pop culture before Buffy, going back at least as far as Mrs. Peel of "The Avengers," but they always wound up living the relatively solitary lives of the male heroes they resembled.



From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 20 May 2003 02:40 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The movie was better.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 May 2003 02:47 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heretic! Blasphemer! Infidel! Like, get thee hence!
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 20 May 2003 03:01 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think Joss Whedon would agree about the movie being better.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 20 May 2003 03:04 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Was he involved with the movie or did he just do the tv adaptation. Perhaps I'm being unfair to the series never having watched more than 10 min of an episode... but the movie was bloody brilliant!
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 May 2003 03:05 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He wrote the movie screenplay, but has since complained that it was taken in a different direction to what he wanted. Not unusual with movies. He had more freedom to pursue his own ideas on the TV show.

[ 20 May 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 20 May 2003 06:17 PM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Since the last two seasons have been almost complete pap, its probably best that its all over. Spoilers ahead...
.
.
.
.
.
.
The finale was a perfect top-off to a horribly written season. All year they've been trying to convince us that the latest evil is unstoppable and all-powerful, so how do they kill it? With a magic doodad that Angel drops off while passing through. The last bit of dialogue should have been:
Giles: So Buffy, how'd we beat the First, anyway?
Buffy: I dunno, I think Spike shot it with a ray or something.
The End.

[ 20 May 2003: Message edited by: cynic ]


From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 May 2003 06:32 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I have to admit I switched allegience to Angel some time last year. Still, Buffy at its holey-plotted worst (why did all the civilians flee Sunnydale, anyway? Because of the latest New Wave of vampires? But there've been dozens of those!) was better than most other TV out there. Which is, I grant, faint praise.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 20 May 2003 09:32 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have a question. Is Buffy really a Feminist show? Yes, I know the feminist academics who study it say Buffy is a female warrior kicking ass and taking names. This is quite true, but ask yourselves, how many real female warriors would worry about their hair and nails? For four years on the show, Buffy only worried about two things, slaying vamps and chasing boys. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the corner stones of feminist thought the idea that a woman does not need a man on her arm every second of every day in order to make her life complete?
After Buffy was almost raped by Spike in season six, she spends season seven doing nothing but worry about him. If it were truly a feminist show Buffy would have staked Spike. She souldn't be that attached to the man who assaulted her.

I've always found Buffy's sidekicks to be more interesting then the slayer herself.

I'm still waiting for Jennine Garrofaloe to star
in an action/adventure series. She can always be counted on to play strong women who actually do reflect feminist values...and I think she's pretty.

[ 20 May 2003: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 21 May 2003: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 May 2003 10:21 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've always found Buffy's sidekicks to be more interesting then the slayer herself.

I agree, Throat*, but I've found that to be true of a good many action shows or movies. Or cartoons, for that matter.

I'll leave it to better minds than mind to render an opinion on just how feminist Buffy was, except that she was trying to have (what passes for) a normal teenage American life as well being a superhero. Which for many grils includes at least some attention to hair and nails, etc.

(*I'm a big fan of the Discworld books too!)


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 21 May 2003 12:27 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
(*I'm a big fan of the Discworld books too!)

It's always nice to meet a fellow pratchett fan


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CocaCola58204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2900

posted 21 May 2003 08:33 AM      Profile for CocaCola58204     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One thing to note... (More Spoilers Ahoy!)


Last night, the foundations of Buffy's plot were destroyed when Buf decided to make every girl in the world who could be a slayer A slayer, thus wiping out the whole bit about Buffy being the one chosen to be the vampire slayer for this generation.


From: Grand Forks AFB, ND | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 21 May 2003 11:08 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I liked that Buffy decided that a chick should have a say in the whole Slayer thing, not some long ago dead guys. She thought that the Slayers should have some say in their destiny.

I'm still weepy. Buffy has had some of the greatest one liners in TV and some of the best supporting cast. I mean Andrew, he's hysterically funny. Him and Spike and a blooming onion. Great TV!

And I am a feminist and I adore manicures, pedicures and cool highlites. And I am 30 today so I stick out my tongue at you.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 21 May 2003 12:47 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, Andrew (whoever plays him, that is) is a comic genius.

I didn't have a problem with the episode "destroying the foundations of the [series'] plot":

quote:
I liked that Buffy decided that a chick should have a say in the whole Slayer thing, not some long ago dead guys. She thought that the Slayers should have some say in their destiny.

... but as someone pointed out over on Television Without Pity, the figure of the Guardian (and, for that matter, the Little Red Axe that Could) made no sense. Who's she been guarding these seven years? Buffy's died twice.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 21 May 2003 01:39 PM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Every plot point they came up with this season made no sense. It was clear they were making it all up as they went along. What was the point of the preacher character? He shows up, beats everybody up, then is promptly dispatched with a ridiculous D&D prop. Huh?
Since the show is over, they really should have killed everybody. That way we wouldn't have to dread a spin-off with the excreable Willow.

From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 21 May 2003 01:43 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Absolutely. Bloody. Awful. Out with a whimper.

The funny thing is that Buffy doesn't actually do anything. It's all in the deux ex machina. She could have stayed home and watched Oprah.

A little disturbing was the allusion to nuclear war. All the little slayers couldn't keep back the baddies, but Angel's do-dad that gives out a bright flash and a blast wave that vaporizes and leaves a smoking hole in the ground could. The ultimate solution to the evildoers? What is Whedon trying to say here?"

They should have killed off all the characters, until only Andrew is left. He kills it by spraying it with Raid or something, then falls dead himself from an Asthma attack. Just then, Oz walks in saying "Hey guys! I figured it out! Raid will kill the First!". He then looks around, sees all the gang is dead, shruggs his shoulders, says "hmm." and walks out. Roll credits.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
beibhnn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3178

posted 21 May 2003 01:48 PM      Profile for beibhnn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, Andrew (whoever plays him, that is) is a comic genius.

Tom Lenk

As for the Buffy-is-not-a-feminst argument, feminism is supposed to be about choices which include the choice to slay demons in 2 inch heels when doc martens might be more comfortable. If Buffy wants to worry about her nails and hair in conjunction with whether she should kill vampire 1 or 2 first, well I'm okay with that. I liked the take on Buffy in this Herizons article

And although the season finale did suck and not answer any of the questions or elaborate sub plots that had been set up over the years (and the point of Caleb or Jasmine on Angel? to give fired Firefly alumni a job perhaps?), I'm not taping over it anytime soon!


From: in exile | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 May 2003 02:30 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Firefly rocked. R.I.P. Firefly.
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 21 May 2003 05:22 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beibhnn:

Tom Lenk

As for the Buffy-is-not-a-feminst argument, feminism is supposed to be about choices which include the choice to slay demons in 2 inch heels when doc martens might be more comfortable. If Buffy wants to worry about her nails and hair in conjunction with whether she should kill vampire 1 or 2 first, well I'm okay with that. I liked the take on Buffy in this Herizons article

And although the season finale did suck and not answer any of the questions or elaborate sub plots that had been set up over the years (and the point of Caleb or Jasmine on Angel? to give fired Firefly alumni a job perhaps?), I'm not taping over it anytime soon!


Good article.

It isn't really balanced though. Aside from Rachel Fudge, the woman who wrote the peice didn't provide readers with dissenting opinions. It's as if our culture has so few strong female role models that feminist scholars will lach on to anything that comes along.

Sorry if I sound bitter, but I think my main problem with Buffy is that I don't like her.
She's a shallow nurotic fashion victim. I like women who are strong, mentally as well as physically. Women who are practical, mature and who WOULDN'T ware spike heals into battle. If I were surrounded by vampires I certainly wouldn't want a girl fighting for me who could easily trip and break an ankle because of her inapropriate footware.

If I were to create a slayer and build a T.V. series around her, I think she'd be a lot more like the character Sandra Bullock played in " Miss congeniallity and a lot less like Buffy.

[ 21 May 2003: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 May 2003 05:37 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Have you ever heard the philosophical theory that you can only demonstrate your free will by doing something that isn't in your best interest? Like piercing your genitals for example (why would you do that if not for free will??).

In that sense, Buffy's making a choice when she wears heels into battle. Does it provide a tactical advantage? Nope. So she must be making a pure choice. So much more interesting than someone who wouldn't choose to wear the heels, lest some awful man find them attractive. That's not a free will decision so much as a reaction. Like women who wear pants precisely because some men would rather they wore a dress. Y'know?

BTW, Janeane Garofalo would be a real fun slayer. Ya, real fun. (Whine, complain, grouse, smoke, call the Vamps names, carp, smoke some more, leave the world to die.)


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 21 May 2003 05:42 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well I'm not a real fan-geek about the show or anything, but I can't recall Buffy going into a fight in heels.

If she did, doubtless someone on one of the fan sites knows about it.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 21 May 2003 06:01 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Have you ever heard the philosophical theory that you can only demonstrate your free will by doing something that isn't in your best interest? Like piercing your genitals for example (why would you do that if not for free will??).

In that sense, Buffy's making a choice when she wears heels into battle. Does it provide a tactical advantage? Nope. So she must be making a pure choice. So much more interesting than someone who wouldn't choose to wear the heels, lest some awful man find them attractive. That's not a free will decision so much as a reaction. Like women who wear pants precisely because some men would rather they wore a dress. Y'know?

BTW, Janeane Garofalo would be a real fun slayer. Ya, real fun. (Whine, complain, grouse, smoke, call the Vamps names, carp, smoke some more, leave the world to die.)


You don't like her? What's wrong with her? She's beutiful, she's rich, she's got HUGE tracts of land!

[ 21 May 2003: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 27 November 2003 12:17 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In that sense, Buffy's making a choice when she wears heels into battle. Does it provide a tactical advantage? Nope. So she must be making a pure choice. So much more interesting than someone who wouldn't choose to wear the heels, lest some awful man find them attractive. That's not a free will decision so much as a reaction. Like women who wear pants precisely because some men would rather they wore a dress. Y'know?

I still think it's rather silly to wear inappropriate footwear into battle. Buffy risks her life in the fight against evil every night, you would think that somebody with her responsibilities would want to wear running shoes once in awhile. Imagine how to blistered her feet must be after a night's work. Surely Giles has taught their about sensible shoes, he being an Englishman and all.

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 November 2003 01:03 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, I really, really hate the idea that women who are well groomed are poor "feminists," so as far as I'm concerned Buffy could have worn three-inch fake nails and slathered the makeup on with a trowel; it doesn't make a difference. I really, really do not like this intrusion into women's personal appearance, where every smudge of eyeliner is supposed to be a political statement. It's belittling.

I think the show went dreadfully off track starting in the fourth season. Buffy started off as a much spunkier, brighter and more likeable character than she became later on. By the seventh season, however, she was Buffy McBeal. It was awful. That whole season was a travesty - so many dei ex machina, so many plot holes, just lame and stupid all the way through (well, the first few episodes were okay, but after that). Much of the sixth season was bad too (including a horrible drug-metaphor subplot), but seventh was the worst.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 27 November 2003 04:01 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tell it, Smith. Most of the women I know like to get dolled up once in a while, and they're all ardent feminists and strong women. There is no connection to be made.

As for Buffy, I was an infrequent watcher, but I thought she was a good example of a modern feminist. She knew her own mind, didn't take crap, and dealt with her relationships as well as could be expected considering half of them were corpses. What more do you want from the poor girl? And I don't remember her ever wearing stilletos.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 27 November 2003 02:39 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, as far as I am concerned the chosen one can put on as much makeup as she wants. If she didn't then no one would want to watch the show. I am just baffled by Buffy's choice in footwear.

I agree that the character became less feminist after the third season. This was mainly due to the loss of Angel.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 27 November 2003 03:11 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't much care how feminist Buffy was at what point in the show, nor what she wore. But in retrospect, I was far too kind to the show, above -- at least, to the last two seasons of it. Gawd, it was embarassing. (Even the fourth season dragged).

My apologias for the show were partly down to Laura Miller, the Salon writer I linked to above. Not only is she a good writer, she kept on making excuses for the program which I kept on buying. Foolish me.

I'm even beginning to tire of, and turn a hard eye on, Angel, which suffers from much the same syndrome of lousy continuity, senseless plot points, and dei ex machina.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 November 2003 03:23 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But even she can't defend it entirely.

quote:
This season, however, Buffy has drifted away from that core strength. She's been struggling to find the right way to handle her authority (a harder thing for most women to manage than the usual coming-of-age travails) over both her original group and a passel of wayward and poorly trained potential slayers. As a result, she's been slipping into the leadership style of a thousand westerns and war movies: gruff, remote and preoccupied with her own burden. How much of this is an avoidable part of being in charge, and how much the kind of self-protection she used to disdain? Recently, she confessed to not letting herself care about any of the potential slayers as people because she knows that some of them will die. She knows that's a mistake, but can she regain her heart? Will she figure out how to get back to where she once belonged? That's for the season finale to tell.

Which it didn't. Which is why, although it's true that the fans don't like changes at first, this one is different; this one wasn't justified. And the season finale wrap-up came as too little (much too little), too late.

(CMOT Dibbler, the high heels bugged me too, actually. I mean, makeup and cute outfits I can understand, but no woman with half a brain - superhero or not - would try to fight or run around in such things.)


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 27 November 2003 03:37 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But even she can't defend it entirely.

Yes, but you'll notice Miller describes these changes as being due to some inner logic (or lack thereof) of the character herself, as though she were a real, self-sustaining person. (If she seemed to struggle to find the right way to handle her authority, it's only because the writers did). She says of fans' perennial gripes:

quote:
All this is pretty ironic, when you consider that most fans will also tell you that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is about growing up. The creators of imaginary worlds know that they have to stick to their own invented rules.

In retrospect, she might better have said forthrightly: invented rules are one thing, but when they no longer seemed to apply, the writers didn't know how to move to new ones. They really didn't know what to do with her after they brought her back for the second time. The final two seasons floundered (though the musical episode, "Once More With Feeling," remains one of my favourites ever), with the finale confirming that the internal logic of the show had been lost. As you say: it wasn't justified.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 November 2003 03:57 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's a common thing in fandom, I find, not to recognize the writing as such. Thus, after the episode where Buffy's friends told her off, a lot of fandom was talking about them as if they were actual people. "Buffy will get her revenge! They're horrible and she's strong and better than any of them and blah blah blah..."

Well, no. Buffy is a character. Sure, people identify with her, but she's still a character and she does what she's written to do. And while real, self-sustaining people are often boring to watch, TV characters are not supposed to be. The writers made Buffy boring. Internal logic or none, that's not an acceptable thing for a TV writer to do.

[ 27 November 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gentlebreeze
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4562

posted 27 November 2003 04:10 PM      Profile for Gentlebreeze     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
While I agree with the critiques of seasons 6, and especially 7, I must defend 5 as one the finest. Aside from the 3rd season, I believe 5 to have been the best.

We must remember that it was thought for a while that the shows run was to end at season 5. UPN had dropped the program and Whedon and the writers were prepared to have it end there. In fact, having just watched the episode last night, I believe the finale for that season would have made an excellent ending to the show. The whole "death is your gift" theme was fantastic, and the overall writing during that season was top-notch.

Its a shame it came unglued later, but still it had some superb moments.


From: Thornhill | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 November 2003 04:16 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It was a decent season, yes. I didn't like the villain, but I have no major quibbles with the season as such.

It was actually UPN that picked it up for season six after the WB dropped it. I'm glad they did because there were some excellent episodes in season six, but the whole thing would have been much more coherent and the experience less sour for me if they'd ended it at season five.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 27 November 2003 04:30 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Agreed. It's a rare producer who knows to end a show when it's at its best. I suppose it's natural to assume, if you're doing well, that things will just get better.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gentlebreeze
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4562

posted 27 November 2003 04:38 PM      Profile for Gentlebreeze     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Right, WB to UPN. My bad.

You didn't like Glory? I must say I haven't heard that one very much. Again outside of the Mayor from season 3, I think she was the best villian.


From: Thornhill | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 November 2003 04:41 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, I didn't like her, although I thought she was better than Adam, DarkWillow (didn't set that one up properly; if they had it would've been cool), or the First. So she wasn't bad, just...I personally found her annoying.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 27 November 2003 04:41 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Mayor rocked. Glory... I dunno, she was OK, but I think by then I was just tiring of the show anyway, perhaps.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 November 2003 04:52 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The mayor made me howl.

Say... anyone watch Firefly?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 27 November 2003 05:29 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm even beginning to tire of, and turn a hard eye on, Angel, which suffers from much the same syndrome of lousy continuity, senseless plot points, and dei ex machina.


I cannot believe I am discussing Buffy the Vampire Slayer on Rabble.ca with people who probably have 23 political science degrees. What the hell, we all need a break from reality now and again.

So far, I have only counted one
dei ex machina in Angel, but Joss only did that to get himself out of the mess that was season four. Have I missed a couple?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 27 November 2003 05:35 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I cannot believe I am discussing Buffy the Vampire Slayer on Rabble.ca with people who probably have 23 political science degrees.

Political science? Never touch the stuff!

(And lots of intellectuals talk pop culture these days. Or so I'm told, anyway...).

The occasional interventions, in the first and second seasons, of that disdainful couple of "powers that be" Angel goes to visit could be considered dei ex machina, I suppose.

And Darla's pregnancy, while not quite in the same category, struck me as unconvincing. (And I'm not even talking about that extremely unconvincing belly-bulge of hers...).


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 November 2003 06:10 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Slayage.tv

Read it, and be amazed no more.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 27 November 2003 06:13 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The occasional interventions, in the first and second seasons, of that disdainful couple of "powers that be" Angel goes to visit could be considered dei ex machina, I suppose.


The powers that be never really solved any of Angel's problems, and in some cases they made them worse.
Isn't a deus ex machina supposed to cure everybody's ills?

I was more concerned about the dirty great plot holes in season four, mainly the fact that the goals of the beast seemed completely incompatible with those of its master. I think season 5 is better than four but I am still not sure where it's going...


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 27 November 2003 06:20 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The powers that be never really solved any of Angel's problems, and in some cases they made them worse.
Isn't a deus ex machina supposed to cure everybody's ills?

Hmmm. Yes, I suppose you're right.

As for season five: I really dislike Eve, and I'm impressed neither with the constant invocation of the "senior partners" (that particular plotline has always reminded me too much of the alienconspiracygeneticengineering line in The X-Files; a constant tease, with none of the occasional revelations holding much interest) nor with the return of Lindsay.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 27 November 2003 06:42 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As for season five: I really dislike Eve, and I'm impressed neither with the constant invocation of the "senior partners" (that particular plotline has always reminded me too much of the alienconspiracygeneticengineering line in The X-Files; a constant tease, with none of the occasional revelations holding much interest) nor with the return of Lindsay.


I don't like Eve either and I think that Sarah Thompson was sadly miscast.
Lila would have been a much better liaison.
The main problem is with the roll itself. As someone pointed out onthe SPACE message boards, why do they need a liaison in the first place? Why can't the senior partners just send Angel memos?

*Spoiler*


However, things will get a bit more exciting, because Andrew will show up in episode 11 straight from watchers training.
Spoiler End

I hope they end season five in a satisfactory way because this will probably be Angel's last. Hopefully they won't turn it into a Spike fest.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 30 November 2003 09:01 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I kinda agree with Mycroft. While the TV show was a phenomenon, the movie was a genre-spoofing classic. So much better than the 'Scary Movie' series.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 30 November 2003 08:37 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The movie was terrible. The fight scenes were badly done. Having said that, Christie Swanson was beautiful. Of course, that was 11 years ago. Where is she now?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 12 December 2003 11:27 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anja! Say it ain't so!
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 12 December 2003 11:33 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Given Anja's obsession with filthy lucre, it's hardly surprising.
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 12 December 2003 11:50 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now we know how she prepared for her role as a vengeance demon.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 12 December 2003 01:30 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Word.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 12 December 2003 01:35 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It gets worse.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 12 December 2003 02:08 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
NO.

Is it true??


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 12 December 2003 02:13 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh Man! My day just got WAAAAAAAY better. Buffy the Socialist Nutbar Slayer. Give her a steak, an endangered redwood stake, and send her after hemp wearing granola eating vegan tree huggers.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 12 December 2003 02:24 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Er... Heywood, man?

Overdosing on coffee will not give you the speed or strength of Angel.

quote:
Is it true??

Can't confirm or refute so far. Googling on "'Sarah Michelle Gellar' Republican" is inconclusive.

This page mentions Caulfield's politics, but not Gellar's.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 12 December 2003 02:25 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is it that noticable? Three Venti's from FiveBucks can leave you vvibbrrattingggg.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 12 December 2003 02:52 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Aside: At the age of 16, Gellar played as a 22 year old in All My Children. What the?

Anyway, this is all I can find about her poltics:

quote:
"Feminism sort of has a negative connotation. It makes you think of women that don't shave their legs," explains Sarah Michelle Gellar, the 21-year-old actress who plays Buffy with a kicky aplomb. "But feminism is just about not being weak. It's about being able to take care of yourself. ... Just because you might care about what you look like or what the opposite sex thinks of you, it doesn't make you not a feminist."

Does Gellar consider herself a feminist?

"I hate the word," she replies, almost apologetically. "Do I consider myself a strong female individual? Uh-huh. Can I take care of myself? Yeah, sure."



From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
spatrioter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2299

posted 12 December 2003 05:33 PM      Profile for spatrioter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Never fear! We still have MARG, PRINCESS WARRIOR on our side!


From: Trinity-Spadina | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 10 March 2004 08:53 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Firefly rocked. R.I.P. Firefly.

Fear not! Firefly will return next year in the form of a motion picture!


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 March 2004 12:28 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've heard the rumors too, CMOT. But the powers-that-be have also promised me a fourth Indiana Jones movie, and that's vapourware too, so far.
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2279

posted 11 March 2004 01:32 PM      Profile for Alix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, but hopefully getting the actors for Firefly together to do a movie will prove a bit easier than getting those involved in Indiana Jones.

I mean, other than other Joss Whedon shows, we unfortunately haven't seen any of the Firefly actors do much lately.


From: Kingston | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 March 2004 01:48 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
True. Maybe Joss is just waiting until they're ready to work for food.

I do wonder about the movie though. I loved Firefly while it lasted, and for sure Joss will get my and Mrs. M's ticket money if he makes the movie, but if people didn't really care to watch the TV show, for free, I wonder what he thinks will make them flock to theatres?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
vexedvee
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5344

posted 31 March 2004 02:41 AM      Profile for vexedvee        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Any thoughts on the Online Rally to save Angel that's happening today(March 31)? This is the first time I've heard of an online rally happening does anyone know if there've been online rallies before?
From: l | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mick
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2753

posted 03 April 2004 01:30 AM      Profile for Mick        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
on a side note I just watched the first 2 episodes of buffy (signed out from my local library no less) that had a bit of lefty trivia:

Q: Who was a history teacher at sunnydale high?

A: Mr. Chomsky.


From: Parkdale! | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 06 April 2004 12:54 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just had a bit of a brain fart earlier today. I figured I'd share it with you. It's Firefly related.

I have always thought of Mal and company as something akin to Iraqi Fedayeen. Consider, they are thumbing their noses at the alliance military, which, while well funded and well trained is a corrupt and bureaucratic organization. Both Mal and Zoe faught on the wrong side of a war about empire. They lost. The crew of Serenity now steals from the the alliance whenever possible and still manages to stay below the alliance(U.S.) radar.

OK, so the analogy isn't perfect. Mal hasn't actually blown up alliance property during his time as captain, but after the show was canceled, one critic theorized that FF had been axed because it puts the American military-industrial complex in a bad light.

[ 06 April 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 06 April 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca