We get down to the last of the new episodes before the break until next sweeps. * sigh * Remember when there was something like twenty-eight episodes of a series and they'd just run them straight through, only breaking for Christmas week?
Spoilers follow...
SMALLVILLE: As we appear to witness the last gasp of the "I wonder if Adam is young Bruce Wayne" storyline, Kryptonite plays its weirdest part yet as Clark gets a magic phone call from the future alerting him to Lana's immediate demise, but leaving him helpless to do anything about it until the final moments (because, y'know, sticking her on the next train out of town would be too easy.) Meantime, we get a startling revelation about Lionel that actually brings a lot of his activities into much clearer focus. It doesn't transform him into a nice guy or a good guy, but at least he's a more understandable guy.
I hate to admit that I'm a sucker for these types of stories...the ones where you see a predestined future rushing toward the heroes like a runaway bus, and you wonder how the heck they're going to get out of the way. I'm still a little fuzzy on the mechanics of the future call, but not so much so that it ruined the episode for me.
Lana is becoming masterful at not asking too many questions, particularly considering that Clark's explanation for how he managed to be there to save her within a second or two of her call is his weakest in the show's history. Clark and Pete's relationship seems on the mend, which is nice, and Lex's alliance with the Feds could prove especially interesting...if it doesn't turn out to be moot.
ANGEL: The moment Spike started to rattle off all the ways that Fred could be reconstituted, I knew she wasn't coming back. They wouldn't go that much out of their way to establish it as no big deal if it wasn't going to be a hugely impossible deal. Wesley is becoming so icily cool at annihilating people (stabbing Gunn, for God's sake?!?) that more than one fan has suggested he take over for Pierce Brosnan in the "Bond" franchise.
But the real standout of the episode is that they manage to take a storyline which threatened to just rehash previous tropes and do the unexpected. Fred is possessed by great evil and has an elaborate end-the-world masterplan? Done with Cordy, done with Willow. She's an evil goddess desiring to return home? Done with Glory. In a startling twist, however, her end-the-world machinations last exactly forty three minutes as she opens the dimensional gap in one episode's time (it took Glory almost all of season 5 of BtVS to accomplish that) only to discover that she's the Queen of a vast crumbling city filled with people decaying into Cremora.
So basically what we've got is "Seven of Fred"--an emotionally distant woman in a tight outfit and funky hairdo who has fragmented memories of the woman she was and is trying to comprehend the human race. The fascinating angle is that it appears she's not intrinsically evil. When Wes tells her she cannot kill (ironic considering the source) she accepts this condition without hesitation. She's looking to understand and perhaps even adopt a moral code, which is intriguing considering the Fang Gang's own moral code appears to have gone bye-bye.
I admit to being EXTREMELY torqued that Buffy's crew (Willow, judging by context) blows off Angel when he calls for help. They didn't hesitate to take advantage of W&H when they needed help with a Slayer; now Fred's possessed in a potential End-of-the-World scenario and Buffy et al tell them to go screw? I'm sorry, I don't care how annoyed they are with whom Ange's allied. He's saved Buffy, Willow and the world enough times that he's due their consideration and help, and it just makes the isolation come across as the contrived "This is how we keep Buffy's folks out of the mix" scenario that I suspect it is.
WEST WING: Well, I was right about Will Bailey being the guy grilled in the teasers. And hey, how can you go wrong with the Muppets? Answer: You can't. You can, however, go wrong without the Muppets, and that's what happens here. There appears to be a ton of stuff happening, and lots of people running around concerned with lots of things, but ultimately I found it utterly uninvolving. There's a germ of an interesting story there with Ellie being dragged into a political slugfest involving medical research, but it's buried under flat writing, unengaging acting, and tepid direction.
Best moment was Elmo's short-circuiting a medical exam by demanding of Abby, "Hey, wait a minute, wasn't your medical license revoked?!" The total disintegration of the listeners into hysterics makes me wonder if it was an ad lib. If not, kudos to the script. It was one of the only highlights in otherwise uninspired dialoging.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at March 7, 2004 02:46 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingWell, I don't think Buffy's crew directly blew off Angel Co., probably some secretarial flunky.
And how nice that the "Old One" in Fred remembers Wolfran and Hart back when they were lesser demons in her day... Interesting ally.
And what exactly did Gunn sign, I couldn't tell... probably paperwork barring him from signing anything else.
Woah. New look. I have to admit to liking the old one a little better, to be honest, but it's still pretty slick.
Angel was pretty good, and though I do like the idea of an elder god becoming a part of Angel's crew simply because she has no place else to go, I liked Fred way too much to really enjoy seeing it go down that way. Sure, Amy Acker is dead sexy with those contacts, but that doesn't really justify for me her death. I think a few weeks ago, somebody mentioned that Whedon seems to have something against women, since male characters don't really die all that much, and when they do the consequences are short-lived and quickly become little more than a footnote. With the permanent deaths of Tara, Anya, Cordy, and a handful of other great characters with scads of potential, what happened to Fred just seems to be something that wouldn't have happened if her full name was Fredrick Berkel. And she was a he.
Aside from that, I like the ways the characters are dealing with how dark W&H is making them; Angel is trying to come back from it, Gunn made compromises he began to regret almost immediately, and Wesley seems to be embracing it. I wish Fred hadn't died, because she was dealing with her darkness in a way that put me in mind of the corporation from the Alien movies.
Bladestar: **Well, I don't think Buffy's crew directly blew off Angel Co., probably some secretarial flunky.**
Nope. Angel was addressing Giles directly while on the phone. It was no secretary, unless ol' Ripper got some sort of serious demotion.
Regarding the new look, can the comments link be made to *not* open in a new popup window?
-Ralf
Smallville: What, you didn't know that Kryptonite was the fuel that Mr. Peabody used in the Way-Bak machine?
Angel: I'm probably just grasping at straws, but I'm still not convinced that Fred's gone for good. Although the bit Illyria expressing herself through Fred's memories was torture for Wes, it gave me a sense of hope. Also, it just seemed too convenient that everyone just accepted the Bad-Guys statement that Fred's soul had been consumed in the process of Illyria's rebirth. I mean, they're the Bay-Guys; they could lie. But Wes just immediately accepted that Fred was gone on their say-so. I realize that episodes work under a time constraint, but I still think he bought into it too fast. It's almost like Wes thinks that Fred's being consumed is better than some alternative senario he's cooked up in his mind.
And if you want to get technical, the analysis about all her organs being liquified can't be right either. Angel's team isn't getting entirely accurate date from W&H. I can name some organs that I KNOW weren't liquified. Her eyes, and her skin. Her eyes seemed to harden instead of liquifying. And get got too see lots of Fred's skin this episode...and it looked just great to me.
I see your point about the moral code of Angel's team flying out the window. I think Wes sees it, too. His comments about right and wrong to Illyria, his frank admission that shooting Knox was wrong, his doubts about his being able anything close to a moral example. All these things speak to his wondering what's happenned to them all.
Final Thought: I was struck by the irony of the speech that Gunn gave to Fred last Season. The one about how, no matter what prophesies said, or what ancient gods had been planning for millions of years, at the end it's always in the balance and what you do and your choices matter. He was rebutting Skip's comment about how everything important is pre-destined. Now Gunn's found out that he was right. Everything came down to his personal decision about wheter to sell out his previous morals to keep the gifts that he had been given. And now he's got to live with the consequences of that choice.
Hey guys. What's with the new look???
Anyway, at 22 a season, by my count Angel has 6 out of 110 episodes left after #100 (Cordy), 101 (1943), 102 (Fred and Wesley get together), 103 (Fred dies), and 104 (Fred gets 'better').
Meanwhile, Sarah Michelle Gellar has stated in a SCI-FI Channel interview that when originally asked earlier this past season, she couldn't make an Angel appearance because of a sick aunt.
Now she is not certain she could finish her movie in Japan in time to make the series finale, although Gellar states that she has not been approached by anyone with the show (yet?) and is skittish about the idea to begin with because Angel, the series, spent its whole existence (in her opinion) trying to get out from Buffy's shadow, and is not sure how the character appearing on the (series?) finale would go over.
So your guess is as good as mine about the 'final' fate of the "Fang Gang".
Meanwhile, Wheddon has gotten the green light to do a 'Firefly' movie! :)
But since there hasn't been a new episode since early February, any idea why Fox is jerking Tru Calling around?
BTW: like the new version of 'Preview Your Message'.
Also, Giles didn't *exactly* blow them off. He said that Willow was unavailable because she was astral projecting and they couldn't exactly just call her up.
Granted, Giles and co. aren't as willing to help as they once were--but if Willow truly was having an out-of-body experience at the time, it isn't like they could just page her and ask if she was willing to help.
I loved this past Wednesday's "Angel", even though I'm not entirely happy with the fate of Fred.
I figure nothing's going to save "Angel" from the chopping block at this point, but if it must end, I'd love to see the show make the transition to, say, quarterly TV movies or -- gasp -- the big screen.
The site's new look is interesting, though I notice names are once again at the bottom of the posts.
As to the shows, I only saw "Angel" and I liked it. It'll be interesting to see how the suplot of Wes offering to teach "Seven of Fred" (I forget the spelling of the ancient one's name, and am not going to guess at it) plays out. Could Team Angel ever truly accept this creature, even if it isn't intrinsically evil and never again does anything to harm anyone? Under different circumstances, perhaps; but I doubt they would so long as it continues to walk around in Fred's body.
That would be hitting a little too close to home.
Still, it will be interesting to see where this subplot goes.
One thing I like about the "Seven of Fred" subplot, is that the other characters are reacting to the fact that some creature has killed Fred and taken her body-- an issue that we can be reasonably certain won't be forgotten by the next episode. Compare that to Nyssa's reaction to her father's murder by the Master, who then took over his body, in "Doctor Who." She makes a total of two comments on that matter: "you killed my father?" ("Logopolis") and "That face, I hate it." ("Castrovalva"); but never says anything more, even though she encounters the Master once more in "Time Flight." No expressions of anger or sadness; no call for revenge; nothing. Viewers who had missed "Logopolis" and "Castrovalva", and for that matter "Keeper of Traken" in which Tremas is actually killed, wouldn't see any hint of a connection between the Master and Nyssa.
I always felt the writers should have done more to explore Nyssa's feelings, perhaps even have a scene where she had to fully come to terms with the reality of her father's death and where she had to decide whether she would become a killer herself (of the Master) to avenge him.
On a related note, I have no idea where Peter Haining, in his various books about "Doctor Who" got the idea that Nyssa hoped to restore her father to his former self, because there wasn't a single line of dialogue to suggest that.
Rick
P.S. Speaking of creatures killing someone and taking their body, it's too bad Jesse was never mentioned again after Xander dusted him. Granted, he only appeared in two episodes of "Buffy", but he was someone Joss Whedon had intended us to think would be a regular (re his original plans to have him in the opening credits).
Jesse and Fred are the only cases on either "Buffy" or "Angel" where someone emotionally close to the central characters was killed by something that then continued to use their bodies (albeit very briefly in Jesse's case, unfortunately). I don't count Harmony because she was never really close to the gang in "Buffy." Nor do I count Cordelia, because she was still alive when possessed, last season. Angelus doesn't count either, because technically speaking, Liam's soul is possessing him, keeping him in check. And, of course, Liam's soul was able to be restored on those occasions where Angel became Angelus again.
ANGEL: It's not shocking that Giles would not trust Angel, as he never really did in the first place. Angel's connection to the Scoobys was tenous, mostly through Buffy. That was definitely the case during the third season. They regarded him as an ally at best not a friend.
This was what I liked so much about ANGEL: Angel, Cordelia, and Wesley were never fully embraced by the Scoobies, but once they left Sunnydale, they found true friendship with each other. It's not until Angel met Doyle that he became to move out of "loner-mode."
I think, though, that if Angel had spoken directly to Willow, she would have helped. She was the closest he had to a friend among the non-Buffy members of the Scooby gang.
As for the notion that Whedon has something against women, that's just absurd. It's one of the more annoying online rumors. Angel, Giles, Xander, Oz, Riley, and Spike were all put through their paces (Angel and Spike are "undead" so it's hard for death to "stick" but they still apparently "died" at some point on the show).
While Cordelia and Fred died on ANGEL, so did Doyle. It's hard to see evidence of a conspiracy.
I'm really hoping that the big bad this season ends up being the Scoobies. I can see a situation where no one is really evil, but both sides get drawn into a conflict that simply escalates out of control. They've established that Buffy & co. have issues with Angel's involvement with Wolfram and Hart, and Xander's always been out to get his licks in on Angel whenever possible. If Fred/Illyria begins hanging out with the rest of the group, then it may appear that Angel has joined up with an ancient evil.
On the other side, I'm still trying to figure out how Andrew became "Giles' best man," as shown in an earlier episode this season. The Scoobies have never been masters of organization or adhering to a plan, which could cause a huge mixup that gets out of hand. I'd love to see how Spike would involve himself, and how the Scoobies would react.
I don't read spoilers, so I really have no idea what's going on next. I'd guess for the Senior Partners to end up being the big bad, but I can hope we'll get something with more meat to it.
On another note, I've got a question for Peter. Have you ever considered writing a Buffy novel or comic? I enjoy your work, and I'd love to see you tackle the characters. I think your humor would really work as well, and your appreciation of the material could really make it something great.
WEST WING: I actually liked the episode of West Wing last week. The whole theme about science and discovery...I dunno, it really worked for me, and it's always nice to see one of the Bartlet daughters again.
When I first heard the Sesame Street muppets were going to make a guest appearance, I thought, "Oh, geez...this is going to be a jump-the-shark moment if ever there was one." But you know, it worked for me. Abby's comments about how the show and the characters had changed, how Kermit was the only "crossover" from the Muppet Show was very fun, and Lily Tomlin's Debbie Fitterer actually had something interesting to say and do this week, other than saying to the Oval Office guest of the week "The President will see you now." The revelation of Debbie's sister's bout with cervical cancer and tying into Ellie's research ("Work harder") was nicely done, plus it's always good to see a happier President Bartlet joking with his daughters, as opposed to the dour version we've seen lately.
I didn't think it was Will who had targeted Ellie...I got the distinct impression it was the VP, with all the dialogue about the causes important to the VP's wife and the friendship with the Senator who initiated the whole investigation. Maybe Will faciliated it...I'm not sure. I didn't pick up on it. Anyone else care to fill in the blanks?
I found the Elmo comment funny, but that wasn't the funniest moment of the episode for me. For me, the funniest moment was CJ sitting nonchalantly reading on that bench, when Big Bird comes over, sits next to her, and the camera stays on the two as Big Bird looks at CJ, twiddles his fingers, etc. The way they played the whole CJ-Big Bird bit in the episode, with CJ having been equated with Big Bird, and the deadpan look on Big Bird's face as CJ got up and walked away...priceless.
ANGEL: Jesus skeet-shooting Christ, thank you. Fred has annoyed the hell out of me nonstop for three seasons now, and Amy Acker is hotter than ever as Illyria.
SMALLVILLE: The funniest review I've heard about this episode was from the next morning's Howard Stern show. Howard's friend Ralph called in and the two spent 15 minutes debating the veracity of time travel. Nothing's funnier than two forty-year old yentas screaming at each other about Superboy.
"The phone line fell in the kryptonite, I explained all this to you yesterday!!"
SEAN
You have to give the Smallville crew credit for ending for the hiatus at least with a solid episode. The plotting was very tight and the timing was very quick and didn't drag as it has in some of the previous episodes. Pete, your comment about putting Lana on a train out of town, wiht an episode like, how do you know that isn't what brings her face to face with her fate. That's what makes this kind of episode so good. We know what happens. We watch as step by step the characters seem to seal Lana's fate. At the same time, the characters don't even know that they are. That's as close to dramatic irony as we will see on episodic TV.
Lana's not questioning Clark was good, but haven't they overplayed the routine now. In the old days of comics the writers could get away with it forever, because the belief was pre-adolescent boys grew up, stopped reading the comics, and the next crew came in. Just because Lana hasn't figured it out in the last 25 issues, we can do it again. That doesn't work now. Lana has to be totally stupid to not have put everything together. And even realize why Clark is so afraid. She felt Adam was spying more on Clark then her. Do you need to be Batman to figure out that something is up?
And Lionel, what a great ending. Now we wait.
PAD: "The moment Spike started to rattle off all the ways that Fred could be reconstituted, I knew she wasn't coming back."
Well, when I saw the words "Written and Directed by Joss Whedon" at the beginning of last week's show, I knew *someone* wasn't coming back. Joss has more free time than he used to, but he hasn't been writing routine Angel episodes. (Although I do see he had story co-credit on "Smile Time".)
-- I'm sorry, what were those fake-html markers again? There was a list in the old page format but I can't find it now.
I was going out that night and taped Angel so I only saw that last scene of Smallville. I'm really sorry I missed it now.
When I read an article about SMG, I understood that the comments about whether she will be on the show, or will it keep Angel in the shadow of Buffy, came from Joss Whedon, not SMG. He hasn't contacted her yet because he hasn't decided whether to bring her on.
Comments about the new look: Please put the names on top again. I got very used to being able to just skip the few posters I find to be offensive. Other than that it looks good. Easier for these aging eyes to read without the grey background...
Ghah! Don't mind the format, BUT THERE'S NO CONTRAST IN THE TEXT! Makes it VERY hard to read!
We can't post without leaving our email address? I like to discuss and post on the board, but I'm not sure I want some of these people to contact me directly...
**Lana has to be totally stupid to not have put everything together. And even realize why Clark is so afraid. She felt Adam was spying more on Clark then her.**
Or perhaps she has figured it out, respects his privacy, and is willing to wait until he's ready to trust her with it. I mean, it's a pretty big deal, realizing the boy you've fallen for has more weird powers than all the other kryptonite cases in town put together! (I doubt she'd have figured out the alien angle by now, but if she ever did, that'd just be one more thing to bond them; she's an orphan, and he's the ultimate orphan - his entire planet is gone, his entire species is extinct except for him.)
Nobody's seem to said it yet... but I wonder- might Lionel's liver disease be a result of long term Kryptonite exposure? ala the comic book post-crisis continuity of Lex getting cancer from wearing a ring set with a Krytonite stone. (for those not in the know... comic book Lex eventually had to amputate his hand but the cancer had spread to the rest of his body and he died, but not before having a younger and hairier clone of himself made, and his brain transplanted into that clone. Fun. This was referenced somewhat in the episode where we saw a glimpse of Lex's future, in the White House and in a meadow. He had a gloved hand, much like the Lex with an amputated hand.)
Somewhat ironic that Fred broke up with Gunn due to Gunn killing someone, with Fred commenting beforehand about how she loved him because he wouldn't do something like that (which at the time had me going "Do you know this man at all?").
Only to hook up with Wesley "Do not be alone with this man and weaponry" Wyndham-Price.
I figured what Gunn was signing was his separation papers and severance package.
As for Smallville, I was very disappointed in all but the final scene with Lionel. By this point, Kryptonite has done some much deus ex machina plot McGuffins that I can't believe there isn't a Meteor Rock Research Institute built in the middle of downtown Smallville. And apparently the reset button got hit between episodes on Clark and Pete's relationship. With the minor nit of you don't just drop a 16 year old onto the phones at a teen crisis hotline without them going through at least some training.
Karen, it seems you don't have to put in YOUR actual email in the field. I saw a good tip elsewhere- put in easily identifiable false information in your email. That way, email bots won't be able to copy your address then use it, but humans can. For example SPAMLESSeddie@thisemail.net.
For this one I said madeupemailforKare@nowheresville.net so you can enter whatever you want. I would suggest trying to makeup something that's totally absurd that nobody actually has that email, because you wouldn't want to be responsible for that person getting spam. Heck, maybe we can all agree on a fake email to put in this field like justvisiting@peterdavid.net-- that doesn't exist, right Glenn? Then spammers can just email it to their heart's content and find out it ain't there, just like their souls.
eddie
**Peter David: * sigh * Remember when there was something like twenty-eight episodes of a series and they'd just run them straight through, only breaking for Christmas week?**
Luigi Novi: Yes, and thank God it’s not like that any more. Breaks give those of us who like to discuss the film online a needed respite, and since I’ll be in Italy from April 4-May 4, the more repeats there are during that month, the less I’ll have to tape on my VCR, which means less worry about fitting my favorite series onto one tape.
**Peter David: Clark and Pete's relationship seems on the mend, which is nice…**
Luigi Novi: Seems more like the Reset Button than anything else. Since the rift created by the end of **Velocity(SMV)** was welcome because it grew out of actual plot and character related to the Clark’s place as a future hero trying to come to terms with his abilities, so too might it have been nice if it was healed the same way, instead of merely forgotten, which is what it seems like in this episode.
Btw, Peter, what’s with the new look? I like the white background, mind you, the Georgia font is fine, and the names of the authors of posts now appear more bold and prominent than before, but could you PLEASE put them ABOVE the posts like you did previously? I was elated when you made that change not too long ago. Please tell me your putting them below the posts once again is not permanent.
Also, I tried using my usual formatting style of putting the quotes I’m responding to in boldface, and it didn’t work. Attempting to do a test with italics also didn’t work. Have you now eliminated formatting? Please say that this is just temporary, as Glenn works out the kinks of this new look. :-)
Wow, new format. Needs a little tweaking, don't you think?
ANGEL
Just some quick thoughts:
I really don't like Fred dead.
I mean, I like the new incarnation and I think it is a somewhat interesting turn of events...I just don't like not having the old Fred around anymore. This would have been a much more interesting development with more time left to explore it. (Damn you, WB!)
Illyria's power seems like it's going to come in very handy if we are to believe Spike's intuition that the perverbial s*** -- with Illyria as the tip of the iceberg-- is about to hit the fan. I wonder if Spike & Angel learned something else at the Old One's Burial Hole that they don't dare tell anyone? (I don't read spoilers-- so I wouldn't know.)
Good for Wesley... Charles deserved the shank. I always thought Alexis Denisof would be a perfect REED RICHARDS... But with a little weight training I'd buy him as JAMES BOND in a second.
As briefly mentioned above-- Angel was talking to Giles when he asked for Scooby help. Giles HATES Angel. Giles has hated Angel for a LONG time. (Heck, I hate Angel for killing Jennie Callendar (sp?)-- one of the hottest babes to ever grace the Buffyverse.) Makes sense-- especially with the Wolfram & Hart affiliation-- that Giles would be LESS than inclined to send Scooby help.
[Maybe in an alternate universe Sarah Michelle Gellar did NOT quit BUFFY for a "promising" career in "Scooby Doo" films... And we would be watching the further European adventures of Whedon's "Scooby Gang" instead of those glorious cinematic gems... And we would know EXACTLY why Giles turned down Angel's request.]
I will not say anything about Sarah's myriad reasons for not reappearing on Angel-- other than they don't ring near 100% genuine. (I read that Sci-Fi article too... It sounded like a series of responses written by a series of publicists.)
Don't like the new format. Sorry.
Re: Angel
Wow, what an episode. I was also concerned that the possessed Fred would lead to yet another Universal-Armageddon-esque plot. I'm glad that wasn't the case here (especially since it usually takes the entire season to play out).
Finally, the deal Gunn made for his newfound wisdom is revealed to the others; he essentially sold out to Wolfram and Hart, and Fred ended up paying for it. I doubt the gang will be ready to trust him again anytime soon.
It's interesting that you should compare the possessed Fred to Seven of Nine, PAD; that IS what she seems like. Only the possessed Fred has got the increasingly cold-blooded Wesley to "help" guide her. Something's wrong with this picture.
I'm glad to see more cooperation between Angel and Spike occurring. They take the bickering too far sometimes, but they make a great team.
As for the Angel crew being "snubbed" by the Buffy crew, I guess the rumors I've heard of Willow and Buffy making future appearances aren't true after all. I agree with you; it doesn't make sense that the Buffy crew would refuse to help, considering the situation, and especially considering that similar situations have led to crossovers in the past.
Thanks for the advice Eddie B. I'd make a lousy criminal. It doesn't even occur to me to lie about my email address! :)
Forgot to comment on the website's new look. Interesting change, but I kinda liked the old one better.
Angel:
Hated when Fred died last week, but liked the ending this week. Illyria is not the Big Bad and may be a new Fang Gang member. Unexpected and intriguing.
New look:
The font is way to light, I now have a headache from reading this forum. The comments seem even lighter than PAD's initial post!
Totally disagree with PAD on Angel - I think the fact they've gone to such lengths to establish that they *can't* bring back Fred means that in the end they'll find a way.
I enjoy Smallville overall, but I am also having a bit of trouble suspending my disbelief. DC Comics went through a lot of trouble to rewrite everything with regards to origins. Now with putting in into a different format aiming towrds a different audience, it's all so easy with "meteor rocks," amnesia, disbelief, and just plain stupidity. I enjoy watching someone who looks EXACTLY like my first wife on TV every week, but it does make my brain hurt.
For the record, I like the new look and I've never been married. Love ya Kristen!
Am I the only one who saw a parallel between Wes and Fred and the whole Decker and Lieutenant Ilia in Star Trek: The motion Picture? Both Decker and Wes lost a loved one and had something come back looking exactly like their loved ones with partial memories of the dead. I expect Wes to be meeting up with Ve'ger at the end of the season with that cool merging light effect.
"Totally disagree with PAD on Angel - I think the fact they've gone to such lengths to establish that they *can't* bring back Fred means that in the end they'll find a way.
Posted by: Deano at March 7, 2004 09:09 PM "
That's what *I* was thinking. Any magician can misdirect you to look at his left hand to distract you from what he has in his right. But when they make it obvious that they're trying to get you to look at the right, they really have something in the left. (I'm not sure even *I* followed that...)
Actually, the thing that stood out to me about this week's "Angel" hasn't been mentioned by anybody yet. I apologize in advance because this is classic fanboy over-analysis but sometimes the inner geek needs to run free.
The scene with Harmony and Gunn. When no one else would offer Gunn a sympathetic ear, Harmony did. I seem to remember there was even a line from Harmony about betraying your friends. (Do I just not remember or did the writers leave out the fact that doing something like that was the plot of the first episode of "Angel" that Harmony appeared in?) I find this extremely troubling.
There is a central belief that the entire "Buffy" series was built around: Vampires are evil, soulless creatures who all deserve to be killed on sight. Many times, we saw Buffy killing a vampire who was just crawling out of the grave for the first time and we accept this because, well, see the previously state central belief.
Angel is an exception because he has a soul. Spike becomes an exception, at first, well, seemingly for no better reason than because James Marsters had been made a series regular, but then because he had a soul too. But now we see Harmony refraining from killing humans and offering what sure seems like compassion to Gunn.
Suddenly, Buffy is starting to look like... Well, a racist. Vampires have a culture she doesn't understand so she "demonizes" these demon-like creatures and cuts them down every time she sees one. But if Harmony, never portrayed as being particularly smart or willful, can learn to control her worst impulses and empathize with someone who's hurting, doesn't that mean that vampires should be given a *chance* before they're dusted?
Now I realize that ME has always played fast and loose with the mythology. More than one poster here has pointed out that Willow was basically given a pass for what would have gotten a guest character killed before the hour is over. Also, I think Harmony is following the same character arc that Cordelia and Spike went through. (Bad guy -> Sympathetic person in pain->Good guy.) Still, I'm a little uncomfortable cheering on a heroine who kills intelligent beings who are, apparently, capable of making choices about their behavior (Not necessarily moral choices. Some might say that Harmony only refrains from the worst aspects of vampiric behavior because she's afraid of Angel but Buffy could have put that fear into a vampire and she apparently never did.) without any thought given to whether those beings could have been preserved without threat to the human population.
How's *that* for a rant about something so geeky it would embarass "Kirk vs. Picard"-ers...?
Except, it's been established that Harmony is a follower. She does what she does because of who she is around.
But if Harmony is a follower who can be trained to not hurt other people, then is the same possibly true of other vampires?
I tend to view it like this: Vampires are like sharks. Imagine if sharks could walk around in the city, killing people without compunction. I would have no problem with a "kill sharks on sight" policy in such a scenario.
Even if it's possible to train a vampire to not harm people (just as it's possible to train a tiger not to kill you -- though ask Roy Horn about that), that doesn't mean you alter your otherwise reasonable "kill sharks/tigers/lions on sight" policy.
Given that there are all these new slayers out there, it probably makes sense for Harmony to "compromise" with W&H.
First off, good looking new look. Brava Moveable Type!
On Angel, it's hard for me to look past the sameness the Fred possession has with a lot of other stuff they've done, especially with Cordy last season, who I count in the "female possessed by elder god" category. It just strikes me as a little odd when people start ripping themselves off. Not to mention the fact that I don't buy the whole "Hey, my world-killing army is gone...can I chill with you guys?" thing they are doing. I hope when we come back from the break that is addressed somehow.
And I really, really, hope that the season ends with them pounding on the Wolf, Ram & Hart. That story is like Grey Poupon..."anything less would be uncivilized."
And as others have said, the first thing I thought of when Lionel was like "I have a liver disease" I immediately thought "Kryptonite Poisoning."
"My disease has a first name, it's K-R-Y-P-T-O-*breath*-N-I-T-E"
As for the rest of Smallville...I mourn for the Adam Knight/Bruce Wayne speculation. It was a good friend in trying times, but it gives us hope that the real Bruce Wayne is still out there...somewhere.
And yes, if Kryptonite can do all this, how the hell did the planet blow up in the first place? Who knows, maybe someone dropped a powerline there.
They have traded a lot of storytelling points on the "S" reputation. Miracle K, Lana's short term memory crisis (plural), Clark & Pete's relationship (when there is one), a lot of it strikes me as lazy & sloppy. But still, the series is better than it has been in the past, so I have faith.
Faith, it's what's for dinner...
"Remember when there were 28 episodes to a
season and they'd run them straight thgough,
only breaking for Holidays?"
(Not an accurate quote: sorry,
cut-n-paste doesn't work here)
I do remember when shows started in early
September and kept the same night and time slot
all year, then provided a summer replacement show
to "hold" their time slot.
I remember when shows
had an opening teaser, a full length theme song,
four numbered and sometimes titled chapters, and
end tag and a closing musical theme.
When the end
credits and closing music ran full screen with NO
voice-over.
When there was no crawls, on screen
animation or promos for other shows on the bottom
of the screen during the show.
When there was no
network ID logo in the corner of the screen.
I remember when pay movie networks like HBO ran
the entire movie uncut and uninterrupted without
superimposed logos or voice-over plugs for the
next movie during the closing credits.
Television will never be that good again.
**************
The new layout is nice and bright and crisp for
us elderly and hard-of-seeing types.
The grey pages were cooler, though. IMO
Only an occasional visiter here, but I also vote
for "Name at the top" and "bring back the
formatting options." Assuming those are viable
options and this is a democracy.
just wanted to weigh in on the whole Joss Whedon killing female characters thing. Joss Whedon is about as feminist a public figure as any man I can think of. Buffy is all about female empowerment, as he has often stated, and if I'm not mistaken, he was a feminist studies undergrad at wesleyan, one of the most liberal colleges around (I'm not doublechecking right now, so forgive me if I'm wrong.
BTW,as a first time poster I want to just say to Peter that I loved your X-factors and Hulks back in the day. I don;t think I've enjoyed an X comic nearly as much since you did it.
Re: Angel
Remember Charles' Barry Allen-Jay garrick reference, and the blank stares Angel and Wes gave him? To get that joke is to also be its primary target. As I laughed, I pictured Angel, Wes and Charles looking right into the camera yelling "Geek check!!" Nice.
As for Fred's fate...I think it's a great turn of events for the actress that plays Fred. The week before, during Fred's final hours, it dawned on me that I was watching a display of real acting chops. When she spoke her first words as the demon queen---"This will do"--I was stoked, because I knew she could pull off the one-eighty it takes to convince an audience that the being that looks like Fred is in fact Fred's killer. Kind of like a Dr. Who regeneration in reverse. The new guy always has to convince you that he's the same guy who fell to the floor before the big switch, whereas the lady playing Fred has to do the opposite. I think she nailed it. And with the demon taking on a disheartened, vulnerable quality, I'm intrigued to see what she'll make of the opportunity, acting-wise.
Thacher E. Cleveland: Brava Moveable Type!
How is it moveable?
Also, Peter, the "Recent Comments" feature on the righthand side of the main page is a good idea, but what criteria does it use? The last 24 hours? Is there a way to put the time of the most recent comments there, so people checking back here and see which "recent" ones they haven't already read?
I am sorry but I need to say this. Lionel's brain in lex's body! Wouldnt that be cool!
"Remember when there were 28 episodes to a
season and they'd run them straight thgough,
only breaking for Holidays?"
I remember those days. Wasn't that when there were only three channels available? (And in my area the ABC station was always snowy)
Age is creeping up on me.
I even remember the Milk Man.
"When there was no network ID logo in the corner of the screen ... Television will never be that good again."
You'd think that, with ever-increasing competition from DVDs, the Internet and other things, networks wouldn't be going out of their way to annoy potential viewer. Unfortunately such does indeed appear to be the case. And they wonder why viewership is down? OK the product is often awful, too, but that never seemed to be a problem in years past.
Channel 20 / Detroit's WB is a REALLY BAD offender in that respect.
During Angel they run their logo rather large in the corner of the screen and periodicaly will make the screen space they waste even worse with contest and similar crap over the logo even bigger...
I hate to comment on a show I haven't seen yet, but I'm in the process of moving my fiance in and I've been too busy. But before I get to my comment, I do want to say this: I don't like the new format here as much as the old one, but I can live with it. Now on to Angel: As much as I love Joss' shows, both he and his writing staff have ripped off Star Trek, Doctor Who, and Peter David's work (among others)for years -- and they've usually done it with a wink & smile. They know their audience and that we LOVE these little borrowings.
Oh well not an insightful or important comment, I know, I just wanted to try out this new "Remember Info" feature & chime in with my friends here at Pad's Pad. LOL
Smallville: I thought this episode wasn't that good, and tried to hide it by being overly violent. Why didn't Adam just call Lana up and say, "Hey, I left something in my room and I need to get it."? She's a nice person. She'd help him out. Why did Jonathan walk out into the rain with a gun when he thought something was up with Chloe in the truck? He knew that Lana's life was in danger. He could have called the cops first. *Lana* could have called the cops. And why is Lionel throwing Lex to the FBI? It seems like an awfully extreme way to hide that he's dying, especially since it will keep Lex focussed on the lab and what was going on there. He could have given Lex a big project to work on to drive his focus away. And, as someone else said, who puts a teenager on a teen crisis hotline with absolutely no training whatsoever? (Even if said teen is Superboy.)
I knew that Gunn's deal to get his knowledge back would haunt him, though I don't know why je didn't just fess up to it from the get go, or at least, not after he found out.
I mean, how many papers does he file a day? He could've easily said one of their clients needed to get something out of customs, and he got it for'em, not knowing what it was, or anything of the sort, and didn't find out until he beat it out of Knox.
Though Wes stabbing him was a surprise, but at least Angel had some sort of reaction to it.
I'm curious to see how thigns with Gunn will play out, if he's around for the rest of the season.
I'm also glad they didn't forget about the Fred/Spike friendship that had developed earlier in the season. It was good seeing him react to Fred being in danger...
And PAD, borrowing Priest's weblog format, eh?
One of my favorite bits in the "Angel" episode was the comparison between Wesley and Knox. At the beginning of the episode, when Knox was going on about how he loved Fred, it was pretty close to a speech Wesley'd give on the same subject. Coupled with how quickly he joined Illyria after killing Knox, it can't help but raise the question of whether Wesley was in love with Fred, or the idea of Fred like Knox.
*****************
But if Harmony is a follower who can be trained to not hurt other people, then is the same possibly true of other vampires?
I tend to view it like this: Vampires are like sharks. Imagine if sharks could walk around in the city, killing people without compunction. I would have no problem with a "kill sharks on sight" policy in such a scenario.
Even if it's possible to train a vampire to not harm people (just as it's possible to train a tiger not to kill you -- though ask Roy Horn about that), that doesn't mean you alter your otherwise reasonable "kill sharks/tigers/lions on sight" policy.
*****************
Which makes sense if vampires are animals (an analogy that has been made, I think) who need to be "trained" not to kill humans.
But it seems pretty clear that Harmony wasn't trained, she *decided* not to kill humans. It's less important *why* she decided that then it is to understand that she can make that decision.
So let's say you're a vamp living in Sunnydale. The cute blonde cheerleader type (who actually *is* a cheerleader in a movie where her character has to have an arc but not in a TV series where viewers have to like her right off and want to bring her into their living rooms week after week. But like our house, I digress...) is killing off your friends and peers. She's doing a good job of it too so you decide to play it safe and order the Super Size Pig Blood shake instead. But it doesn't matter because Buffy will kill you just for being a vampire which you probably never asked to be in the first place.
Or look at it another way. Your wife, best friend, parent, child, whatever, dies. Than he/she/it comes back. ME mythology is that what comes back isn't your loved one but I dunno... Harmony sure seems like Harmony to me. Would you be willing to keep around the Mrs. or grandma or whoever by feeding them animal blood rather than see them dusted?
Harmony sure seems like Harmony to me. >>
It's not. She just has her memories. She "likes" Cordelia based on those memories, but she's not Harmony. Harmony is dead, and in fact, they should stake this vampire ASAP so that Harmony's soul will no longer be in limbo (that's what I believe happens to people's souls who become vamps because Angel and Spike, unlike Buffy, had no memory of any afterlife).
Harmony chose not to drink human blood because that was a condition of her working at W&H and there was a fairly strict "drug testing" policy. However, she is still evil. She felt no remorse over the thought that she might have killed a man in "Harm's Way." She just feared for her life. Just like a dog is upset when you catch it eating your food. It's not upset because it realizes it has taken something from you. It's upset because it knows that you're going to punish it.
More importantly, Harmony *can't be trusted* (as "Disharmony" demonstrated). She is *compelled* to do evil. She's "harmless" now because, well, she works for Evil Incorp. The Devil hasn't changed. AI has.
I agree that Vamp Harmony isn't the real Harmony, she just has her memories (as is true with all Buffyverse/Angelverse vampires). And I agree that she's a follower who does what those more powerful than her are doing, or tell her to do. Since she cannot just leave Wolfram and Hart without some serious consequences, she tows the line. At present that line is to not feed on humans. She also shouldn't have any feelings of genuine cameraderie with Angel, et al.
Keeping all this in mind, why then does she show genuine concern and sympathy in her scene with Gunn in the hospital? Answer, there's no logical reason she should. It's a TV writing error, one of those occasional moments where someone acts out of character. While I thought the scene would've worked fine as written if it had been a HUMAN Harmony who'd matured over the years; it would've been better if the VAMP Harmony had come across as more sycophantic, trying to score points with those she feared and respected (out of that same fear).
In the hosptial scene that could've been done by having her feign concern to learn something from Gunn then go "tattling" to Angel in the hopes of getting a reward.
The irony is that I liked the scene with Harmony and Gunn, even if she was completely out of character.
Rick
Rick: Unfortunately, the scene *is in character* given the Spike factor. Spike did things in the fifth and sixth season of Buffy that defied everything we knew about the mythos. It just wasn't feasible.
Yes, it's possible for him to love Buffy, but it should have manifested itself in his wanting to "tie her up and torture her" until she liked him or turning her into a vamp.
Notice Angelus's version of "love." What he did to Buffy is similar to what he did to Drusilla. That's what "love" is for a monster. And vampires are monsters.
See, they make monster movies about them.
Great Spike line SER, but from the same episode I prefer "I may be Love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."
I always wondered about that soul thing, has Joss written anything official on it? Like is the soul that the Gypsies cursed Angel with Liam's actual soul? Or just a random soul that was available and got filled with Liam's (and Angelus') memories once shoved into Angel's body? Same for Spike...
With that whole explanation, Angel really does beat himself up too much over Angelus' mis-deeds, since technically it wasn't him...
I'd forgotten about the scenes with Harmony and Wes. Same argument applies as with Harmony and Gunn.
Ser: I understand your point Re Spike, but don't entirely agree with it. I think the pre-souled Spike was incapable of actually loving Buffy, but was instead acting based on William's personality traits. He wanted Buffy to love and accept him, just as William wanted Cecily to love him.
It's possible William didn't actually love Cecily, either, just idolized her and was infatuated with her. He obviously cared for her, but did he actually love her? I think it's open to interpretation.
There was also a degree of lust for Buffy on Spike's part, but again, that's not love.
I don't think Spike actually felt genuine LOVE for Buffy until after he got his soul back. Then what about his motivations for going out of his way to get his soul back? Again, I think it was based on his need (carried over from William) to be accepted. With the chip in his head, he can't be a regular vampire, and because he attacks other vampires and demons (since he can't fight anyone human), he's shunned by others of his kind. The only ones willing to accept him to any degree were Buffy and the Scoobies.
After his attempted assault on Buffy, Spike faced complete isolation, shunned by both his fellow vampires and the Scoobies. Being a social creature, he couldn't stand that, so sought a way to get back in to Buffy's good graces by seeking out his soul. While he may have rationalized it as doing it for her, I think he was doing it more for himself, so he wouldn't be alone.
So, why then didn't he seek to have the chip removed, so he could become the old Spike again? I can't say for sure, but I'd guess he's come to find the company of other vampires and demons less satisfying.
Why didn't Spike make Buffy into a Vampire or torture her until she loved him? I would say A) because the Vamp wouldn't BE Buffy, and he didn't want a copy; and B) Buffy isn't Dru. Dru is into that sort of thing; Buffy isn't.
As far as comparing Spike to Angelus goes, William and Liam had completely different personalities, which resulted in different actions and motivations by the vampires who occupied their bodies. William was a poet and at heart very insecure (something Spike made up for in bravado). Liam was a near-do-well with an apparent streak of cruelty which he'd probably never acted on in life. Angelus, of course had no such compunctions, and Liam now has to deal with the guilt of those actions.
Perhaps that's why he ultimately took the name Angel, instead of reverting to his mortal name. He was as ashamed of Liam as he was of Angelus and wanted to forge a new path.
Rick
Smallville:Am I the only one around who remembers the old Christopher George series "The Immortal"?
The title character, Ben Richards, was found to have a natural immunity to all diseases and infirmities (even aging). When an billionaire receives a blood transfusion from Richards is temporarily rejuventated, he decides to search down the source of the blood in the hopes of capturing the donor to tap him regularly.
**Harmony chose not to drink human blood because that was a condition of her working at W&H and there was a fairly strict "drug testing" policy. However, she is still evil. She felt no remorse over the thought that she might have killed a man in "Harm's Way." She just feared for her life. Just like a dog is upset when you catch it eating your food. It's not upset because it realizes it has taken something from you. It's upset because it knows that you're going to punish it.
******************
Okay, now you've offended all the dog owners on the board... including ME!!! :)
As I stated earlier, to my mind, it doesn't matter **why** she doesn't kill humans. What matters is that just like any of us, she either can or can not kill. She can make that choice. It may be that she only chooses not to kill because she feels her life is at stake (Pun intended...) but then a lot of people choose not to kill because they wouldn't like the consequences. Does it make it right to kill them because they *might* kill? Does it even make it okay if they *probably will* kill but haven't yet? Because that kinda sounds like the argument for capital punishment to me.
*******************
Posted by Rick Keating at March 8, 2004 03:38 PM
Keeping all this in mind, why then does she show genuine concern and sympathy in her scene with Gunn in the hospital? Answer, there's no logical reason she should. It's a TV writing error, one of those occasional moments where someone acts out of character. While I thought the scene would've worked fine as written if it had been a HUMAN Harmony who'd matured over the years; it would've been better if the VAMP Harmony had come across as more sycophantic, trying to score points with those she feared and respected (out of that same fear).
**************************
Well, that's my point in two:
1) We're told that vampires are all-"bad" but here's Harmony showing real compassion and Spike falls in love which leads him to attempt, successfully, to regain his soul and that's not even mentioning (He said, while mentioning it...) Darla sacrificing her life for her child's. So if not *all* vamps are *all* bad, how does Buffy justify killing them all, many of them literally just as they're being "born"?
2) I realize that the *real* answer is that Harmony and Spike are "player characters" and, to mix metaphors, other vamps are the Security guys in the red shirts. But like PAD wrote about the Goldbergian contortions the "Angel" writers are going through to keep the Scoobies out of their world convincingly (They should probably just ignore it like Batman writers who have the character frequently and conveniently forget that he has Superman's number on his speed dial.), you would think they would be able to come up with a better explanation.
Bladestar said: I always wondered about that soul thing, has Joss written anything official on it? Like is the soul that the Gypsies cursed Angel with Liam's actual soul? Or just a random soul that was available and got filled with Liam's (and Angelus') memories once shoved into Angel's body? Same for Spike...>>
It's Liam's soul. I think "Spin the Bottle" confirmed that.
Pack said:
1) We're told that vampires are all-"bad" but here's Harmony showing real compassion and Spike falls in love which leads him to attempt, successfully, to regain his soul and that's not even mentioning (He said, while mentioning it...) Darla sacrificing her life for her child's. So if not *all* vamps are *all* bad, how does Buffy justify killing them all, many of them literally just as they're being "born"?>>
OK, Darla sacrificed her life for her child because she was influenced by Connor's soul. That was stated overtly in the episode.
I've mentioned already that Spike's actions don't make sense. However, I would rationalize it by saying that the conditons under which Spike became less of a threat (the chip, falling for Buffy) are so unique that it doesn't justify changing the "kill sharks on sight policy."
And, yes, Harmony's actions are hard to justify, as well.
Still, these are unique circumstances. Harmony is still a major threat. I can't rationalize keeping her alive. As I said before, keeping the vampire Harmony alive is *unfair* to human Harmony, whose soul is locked in limbo until its freed upon vamp. Harmony's being staked (I strongly believe this because Angel and Spike have no memory of an after life, even after having their souls restored).
Pack: "She's doing a good job of it too so you decide to play it safe and order the Super Size Pig Blood shake instead. But it doesn't matter because Buffy will kill you just for being a vampire which you probably never asked to be in the first place."
How often have we seen Buffy hunt down and kill vampires who weren't trying to hurt anyone? She's generally killed a) vampires with big evil plots (e.g. the Master), b) vampires who attack her or somebody else, or c) vampres who've just crawled from the grave (and who've generally been portrayed as instinct-driven killing machines). If you can provide an example of Buffy killing a vampire who's demonstrably no threat to anyone, I'll be convinced; otherwise it seems to come down to personal interpretation.
How is Buffy a serial killer? She killed vamps in defense of herself and others. She patroled, but did not actively seek out any vamps who may have had gentler leanings. In the Buffy verse there are many different grades of vampire viciousness. There was the nest of vamps drinking drugged blood from humans. They did not kill, but lived a more parasitic life. No one went out of their way to dust them.
I don't care what anybody says. He is definitely Batman.
:)
Doug posted - If you can provide an example of Buffy killing a vampire who's demonstrably no threat to anyone, I'll be convinced; otherwise it seems to come down to personal interpretation.
Although i still do not consider a Buffy a killer. there is actually a example for this.
After her breakup fight with Riley she is attacked by a group of vampires (7 or 8). one of them is the girl that was feeding from Riley who let himself get bitten for the thril of it. If i remember correctly she does not participate in the attack. After the big fight is over she is confronted with Buffy alone holding a sharp stake to her throat. she is cleary petrified and shaking like a leaf posing no threat what so ever. Buffy signales her to leave. She runs of and just when you think she is out of reach Buffy throws the stake after her dusting her. the first time i saw this i interpreted this as first sign that Buffy would turn in to the big bad in the last season. Because she who would be the worst enemy that the scoobies could have been confronted with.
In my opinion one of the most compelling parts of this show was that the good guys could do bad things. It wasn't always so black and white like with other shows.
Now to say she is a cold harded killer is rediculous. What would have been the alternative wait until a vampires kills somebody and then kill him/her. Just explain this to the family sorry guys but i had to wait until it killed your sister/brother because he might be not so bad a vampire after all. It was already stated before Buffy never bothered demons if they weren't a threat to her or somebody else. This is shown in her visits to demons bars where she went for information but did not pay attention to crowd.
--------------------------------------------------
Posted by: SER at March 8, 2004 06:02 PM
As I said before, keeping the vampire Harmony alive is *unfair* to human Harmony, whose soul is locked in limbo until its freed upon vamp. Harmony's being staked (I strongly believe this because Angel and Spike have no memory of an after life, even after having their souls restored).
--------------------------------------------------
Since I missed the first, oh, forty minutes of "Just Rewards," did Spike mention anything about an afterlife after he "got better" from being BURNT TO ASH? I know Darla said there was "nothing" after she got resurrected, but Angel's never been dusted (discounting "The Wish;" not part of continuity)...if I understand what you're saying, you believe that a vampire's host's soul is in limbo until it's dusted, then it goes on to Heaven or Hell or whatever. So why is it that neither Darla nor Spike had any memories of an afterlife after they were dusted and truly dead, whereas Buffy had very vivid, distinct memories of Heaven? Is Buffy's soul somehow better than William's or Darla's? Spike sacrificed himself as well, but he didn't get to go to Heaven.
I know, I know, "tied to the amulet" and all that, but not even Darla had an afterlife. Or do you think she's there now, finally, after sacrificing herself for Connor?
I love debates. :)
Queenanthai:
>>
When Spike returns at the end of Conviction, it appears to be simultaneous with his "death." He's still screaming in agony. In other words, his soul didn't "move on" because it never had a chance.
Darla remembers "nothing," which some people speculate *is* what hell would be like. Also, it's possible that human Darla -- an amoral hooker but hardly an "evil" person -- didn't rate either heaven or hell. The Darla who appeared to Connor in "Inside Out" appeared to have "moved on" to her final reward (whatever that was).
Obviously, of course, Angel and Buffy do not really agree with this theory. If they did, Angel would not have spared Drusilla in "Lie to Me" -- he would have made it his business to kill the vampire Drusilla.
>>Keeping all this in mind, why then does she show genuine concern and sympathy in her scene with Gunn in the hospital? Answer, there's no logical reason she should. It's a TV writing error, one of those occasional moments where someone acts out of character
I does fit with how the Buffy protrayed Vampires though all along. (or at least since the second season.) Remember the Judge stated that Spike and Dru had a taint of humanity because they loved one another and that Bookworm Vampire had a taint of humanity because he loved books.
I think the thing to keep in mind is that being evil doesn't preclude having feelings of compasion or empathy or even love. Animals display such things (or at least simulate it), so why wouldn't intelligent beings like vampires be capable of the full range of emotional responses.
The problem is they are not trustworthy. In the case of Harmony, she's not growing; she just doesn't want to get staked. Yeah, showing Gunn some compassion cost her nothing, but I was half expecting her to kill him. And the minute, Angel's drops the "no human blood" rule, she just might.
Posted by SER at March 8, 2004 06:02 PM
I've mentioned already that Spike's actions don't make sense. However, I would rationalize it by saying that the conditons under which Spike became less of a threat (the chip, falling for Buffy) are so unique that it doesn't justify changing the "kill sharks on sight policy."
Posted by Ron at March 8, 2004 08:58 PM
Although i still do not consider a Buffy a killer. there is actually a example for this.
Now to say she is a cold harded killer is rediculous. What would have been the alternative wait until a vampires kills somebody and then kill him/her. Just explain this to the family sorry guys but i had to wait until it killed your sister/brother because he might be not so bad a vampire after all. It was already stated before Buffy never bothered demons if they weren't a threat to her or somebody else. This is shown in her visits to demons bars where she went for information but did not pay attention to crowd.
*****************************
Ron, I edited your post and put it together with SER's for a reason. First, a point of semantics, you can't really make a case that Buffy is not a killer. Hell, the show is *called* "Buffy the Vampire *Slayer*". So the question is whether or not Buffy is justified in what she's doing. (Which okay, she is. It's just a TV show and just like the premise behind most comic books if you analyze it too hard, you take all the fun out of it. But this is just fans kicking around the concepts of a show we like, right?)
SER, I think there's a flaw in your "kill sharks on sight" policy: 1) There are really sharks, that can really kill people and really would have no regrets about it and 2) we *don't* kill them on sight.
One reason we don't ties into what Ron said. Yes, I would say that the crime has to be committed before the punishment can be handed out. But there's a particular reason I say this.
SER, I thought it was interesting that you used an animal, a shark, in your example because I think that may be a very accurate example. Like a shark, a vampire's nature seems to be to kill for survival. This seems particularly repugnant because they *appear* human and they seem to enjoy killing but it really seems to be just what they're compelled to do. So Buffy is killing intelligent creatures who are merely being true to their nature. In fact, these slayings are justified, we're told, because the vampires literally can't help themselves, they have to kill and eat humans.
Only they don't have to do that. Harmony doesn't. Spike stopped. (Angel too but because of the soul thing, it doesn't count.) In fact, in both of these cases, the vampires are accepted into human society and seem to lose their desire to kill for sport.
So what's the next justification? Well, even if they aren't *actually* killing, they're still soulless and irredeemably evil, right? Spike doesn't seem to be. In fact, he falls in love and becomes a puppy. Harmony doesn't seem particularly sinister. Actually, you could probably make a case that she was *more* evil when she had a soul and mocked Cordelia for dating Xander and humiliated Jonathon to further mock Cordelia.
Again, I know the fact of the matter is that they needed someone for J. August Richards to play his big breakdown scene with and the only other actress on the show was busy rehearsing her big fight scene so Mercedes McNabb got the tap but I just think it's interesting that the show has a rich enough mythology to support debates like these.
**************************
Posted by Karen at March 8, 2004 06:34 PM
How is Buffy a serial killer? She killed vamps in defense of herself and others. She patroled, but did not actively seek out any vamps who may have had gentler leanings. In the Buffy verse there are many different grades of vampire viciousness. There was the nest of vamps drinking drugged blood from humans. They did not kill, but lived a more parasitic life. No one went out of their way to dust them.
***********************************
Didn't say she was a serial killer and a case could be made that we just never saw Buffy letting vampires go who she thought were harmless.
I guess, to be honest, what bothers me about this is that so many Americans right now seem to be willing to kill people in Middle Eastern countries, partially in retaliation for what happened on Sept. 11, but also, I think, because they have a culture that is just so different from ours, with different values and different perceptions of women and the value of life.
I'll freely admit, I struggle with it too. I got into it with a female friend recently who said that she would gladly visit the Middle East and adopt all the native styles of dress and expectations of the culture over her role out of respect for the people of that culture. I think by the end of it, I was a little shaken about how much of a feminist she was and she was a little shaken about how open-minded I was.
But the way that vampires on "Buffy" and "Angel" seem to interact socially and form relationships and regard humans as food without question (Anyone here want to be around if a cow and a chicken gained superpowers and accepted the mission of avenging/protecting their brethren from the animals that regarded them as food...?) makes me a little uncomfortable with the wholesale slaughter without even an attempt at communication.
See? I grew up with Kirk but in my old age, I've become Picard...
I believe it was established at some point--I have no idea where, may have been in the Angel comic book, but I'm so glad to be of service--that when a vampire is sired, his or her soul vanishes, and a demon takes over the vampire's body. As a result, the vampire is no longer really the person who was bitten. However, the actions and personality of the demon are influenced by who the person was in life. So if the vampire was once loving and compassionate, the demon might be able to at least simulate love, compassion, and the like. Whether that's equivalent is a matter for philosophers.
A couple of other points to bear in mind: Some demons, such as Lorne, have demonstrated kindness and love. If vampires are demons of some variety, they might have the same capacity.
Also, in season five of BUFFY, Drusilla was told that vampires can't love anyone. She answered, "We can and we do." Maybe she was just in denial, but I took her at her word.
--Daniel
Who misses the italics and boldface
Luigi Novi said:
How is it moveable?
Moveable Type is the name of the program used to layout the blog and all that jazz. It's a pretty common one that's (from what I hear) very user friendly and easy to maintain). I don't have it on my blog because I had just configured the B2 layout and whatnot on mine by the time my sysadmin got his hands on it, and I don't really feel like going through all that again, especially since I'm happy with what I've got now.
Of course, you may be asking that sarcastically, but if so, that's my bad... ;)
Steve. what you posted about Joss' past is true enough, but look at the show's track record. what in the past few seasons have really shown empowerment of women? Buffy falling in love with the guy who tried to rape her? Becoming a total bitch in the last two seasons? and I don't mean bitch in the way that men describe strong women, i mean bitch in the way that her friends kicked her out of her house cause she wouldn't listen to reason.
Cordy grew strong gotmpossessed killed. Fred grew strong got possessed/killed.
Have you ever been to Televisionwithoupity.com? they do recaps of television shows. the recaps of the last two seasons you can see how the reviewers/recappers found that Buffy the show and the character became less and less of a positive show about girl power. I don't think Joss hates women or is a chauvanist I just think he's kinda ran out of things to say, so he's falling back on old standbys.
He's been doing the ally becomes enemy bit since Buffy season 2. Angelus, 3) Faith, 4) Initiative (though it's a bit of a stretch, i'll grant you.) season 5 they avoided it, mostly because of Dawn, 6) Willow. 7 they didn't do it but really the gang spent so much time divded and mad at each other it was with friends like that who needs enemies.
Angel season 4 (the first season that Greenwalt wasn't the show runner,) Cordy. Now Fred, though it seems they are twisting it a bit. (well they pretty much have to in order to stop people from throwing stuff at the tv.)
I think Joss kills of his female characters because it's an easier sell. Early on told Alyson hannigan one of the reasons why he puts willow in danger was because the audience loves her.
In his mind i think it's easier to get the audience to feel sad over a girl dying.
> P.S. Speaking of creatures killing someone and taking their body, it's too bad Jesse was never mentioned again after Xander dusted him. Granted, he only appeared in two episodes of "Buffy", but he was someone Joss Whedon had intended us to think would be a regular (re his original plans to have him in the opening credits).
> Jesse and Fred are the only cases on either "Buffy" or "Angel" where someone emotionally close to the central characters was killed by something that then continued to use their bodies (albeit very briefly in Jesse's case, unfortunately). I don't count Harmony because she was never really close to the gang in "Buffy." Nor do I count Cordelia, because she was still alive when possessed, last season. Angelus doesn't count either, because technically speaking, Liam's soul is possessing him, keeping him in check. And, of course, Liam's soul was able to be restored on those occasions where Angel became Angelus again.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that, at one point after Amber Benson refused to come back, the Willow/Cassie scene from Conversations with Dead People was going to be a Xander/Jessie scene. Forget where I read it tho.
---
> Since I missed the first, oh, forty minutes of "Just Rewards," did Spike mention anything about an afterlife after he "got better" from being BURNT TO ASH? I know Darla said there was "nothing" after she got resurrected, but Angel's never been dusted (discounting "The Wish;" not part of continuity)...if I understand what you're saying, you believe that a vampire's host's soul is in limbo until it's dusted, then it goes on to Heaven or Hell or whatever. So why is it that neither Darla nor Spike had any memories of an afterlife after they were dusted and truly dead, whereas Buffy had very vivid, distinct memories of Heaven? Is Buffy's soul somehow better than William's or Darla's? Spike sacrificed himself as well, but he didn't get to go to Heaven.
> I know, I know, "tied to the amulet" and all that, but not even Darla had an afterlife. Or do you think she's there now, finally, after sacrificing herself for Connor?
> I love debates. :)
For Spike - he wasn't just "tied to the amulet" - his whole mind, soul and demon went into the amulet. Had the amulet been left in the Hellmouth, and never destroyed, he would never have "moved on."
Darla, who knows? Maybe the method of resurrection mindwiped her. (whatever happened to that scroll? We haven't seen it since the end of To Shanshu in LA, have we?)
-------
> I believe it was established at some point--I have no idea where, may have been in the Angel comic book, but I'm so glad to be of service--that when a vampire is sired, his or her soul vanishes, and a demon takes over the vampire's body. As a result, the vampire is no longer really the person who was bitten. However, the actions and personality of the demon are influenced by who the person was in life. So if the vampire was once loving and compassionate, the demon might be able to at least simulate love, compassion, and the like. Whether that's equivalent is a matter for philosophers.
I think it was Angel (the ep - Buffy 1x08), and reconfirmed in Lie to Me.
Pack:
>
That’s true. Earlier in the thread I qualified this statement by pointing out that if sharks lived on land and in our neighborhoods and were just as lethal, we probably would have a “kill on sight” policy. Otherwise, how could we survive?
If vampires all lived in Vampire City and never left (sort of like the ocean), we could easily keep our distance, as we try to do with sharks. However, vampires look like us. They can pounce on you on your way home from work. They are such a threat that you really can’t give them the benefit of the doubt.
>
True, but as you point out, they seem to enjoy it. They also kill for the sake of killing. They enjoy a good torture. Also, it’s obvious that they can live without any ill effect on non-human blood but make no effort to change their lifestyle unless forced to do so (Spike and Harmony).
Carnivorous animals aren’t capable of that degree of choice. Vampires apparently are. In a way, they are the worst of both animals and people. They are compelled by instinct to kill (as many animals are) but they also have the intelligence (their human memories) to resist this urge.
>
See, this is a breakdown in the show’s mythos that I blame entirely on the Spike Factor. It’s interesting, because prior to Spike, Whedon made of point of depicting vamps as outright monsters (notice that they would always appear in vamp face). There was never any question about Buffy’s mission. She was a hero.
Vampires are monsters. They are the monsters that killed the person who they appear to look like. Unsouled Spike and Harmony defy this and in ways that aren’t positive for the show.
>
They can help themselves, as Harmony has demonstrated. Even when Spike was unable to harm humans, he existed perfectly well on non-human blood. If you put a chip in a lion that prevented it from eating animals, it would die. It couldn’t survive on a diet of tofu (now, there’s an obscure Futurama reference).
>
There were extreme circumstances in both cases. And Spike was still quite dangerous with the chip (The Yoko Factor). He ceased to be an outright threat once he fell in love with Buffy (a rather extreme circumstance) and he was still evil. He tried to kill a woman when he thought his chip had failed; he peddled demon eggs that could have killed innocent people; and he tried to rape Buffy. Even soulless Spike had the insight to realize that he was incapable of defying his evil nature without a soul.
Harmony works for Evil Incorporated. We can’t really forget that. Most of the staff that isn’t Angel, Wes, Fred, Gunn, and Lorne is evil and is just going along with the current program.
>
A “puppy” who tried to rape the woman he claimed to love and who took advantage of her deep depression. Angelus was in love with Buffy and tried to destroy the world. Vampires seem to react differently.
>
She’s killed countless people: the minions she sired in Real Me, the store clerk (in the episode I don’t recall), and pretty much everyone she killed in order to survive until she met up with Wolfram & Hart (think at least one victim a day between Disharmony and Conviction – that’s nearly a 1,000 at least).
>
She was a shallow and mean teenager. She never killed anyone. She would certainly not have set Cordelia up to die as she did in Disharmony. I’m always stunned when people make that claim. Yes, she’s more pathetic as a vampire (compared to the Big Bads) but on her worst day as a human, she was not a remorseless killer.
>
Again: Whedon has failed. The point of the show is that vampires are monsters. Buffy is unquestionably a hero for killing vampires. The Spike Factor caused more harm than good.
However Spike, as depicted in later seasons of Buffy, would have made sense on Angel. See, in many ways, Buffy and Angel are in different thematic universes and trying to reconcile the two is almost impossible. On Buffy, there is black and white, which is fitting of youth. On Angel, there are shades of gray. That’s because that’s what adulthood is like. Clem was an Angel character not a Buffy character and so on.
ANGEL: I'll tell you, my wife was deeply distressed by Fred's conversion. Fred was simply put the closest embodiment to the old high school version of Willow. We liked Willow alot back when she was a shy, insecure, braniac because she was very likeable and easy to identify with. Unlike the other characters who appear to act with the emotional and physical maturity of 25 year olds, Willow's character seemed to be very genuine to a typical teenager. If Fred is truly gone then we'll miss her as much as we miss old Willow. Its almost like Joss has a grudge against these type of characters and needs them to 'grow up' into assertive roles that fundamentally alter the personalities we grow attached to.
Re: Fred
I love what happened to her. I find it a very nice symbolism of what happens to many innocent young people like Fred. She came to the big city and sold her soul to the evil corporate entity that left her a shell of herself. It's all too true of what happens every day.
Giles wouldn't deliver a message to Willow, and just as well. Angel was grasping at straws hoping Wilow could work some mojo to bring Fred back. We all know Willow with her dead girlfriend history would run in horror from this idea.
...So just as well, really.
SER wrote:
**However Spike, as depicted in later seasons of Buffy, would have made sense on Angel. See, in many ways, Buffy and Angel are in different thematic universes and trying to reconcile the two is almost impossible. On Buffy, there is black and white, which is fitting of youth. On Angel, there are shades of gray. That’s because that’s what adulthood is like. Clem was an Angel character not a Buffy character and so on.**
and
**I love what happened to her. I find it a very nice symbolism of what happens to many innocent young people like Fred. She came to the big city and sold her soul to the evil corporate entity that left her a shell of herself. It's all too true of what happens every day.**
I don't think BUFFY and ANGEL are opposites, just different stages in the lives of the characters. BUFFY started out as a show about high school students. By the last season, the characters were starting careers and long-term relationships (or, given the characters, failing to do so). As they got older, the show got darker, and the characters became more flawed. Joss seems to think that the world works that way. Your mileage may vary. ANGEL (which Joss described from the beginning as a show about grown-ups) is dealing with older characters, who are facing corruption and disillusionment. (Over on FIREFLY, the characters were adults and were all criminals and fugitives.) The characters are trying (and have been, since early episodes of BUFFY--"Lie to Me" comes to mind) to resist this sort of darkness. Corruption and redemption are major themes of both shows, maybe the main themes. When "good" characters "go bad," and the "bad guys" look for redemption, it's not just the writers repeating themselves. It's the main point.
--Daniel
Daniel:
I agree with you. However, I think that thematically, BUFFY *should* have been about high school and the black and white nature of youth and that the characters slowly growing darker was not ideal. In my dream world, Graduation Day would have been the last episode, with ANGEL continuing the Whedonverse, as a series about adults.
SER:
Well, you're welcome to write your own stories about high school students living relatively innocent lives, based on your own experiences. Might be very entertaining. You have your worldview and Joss has his. Personally, I liked the fact that BUFFY became darker as the series progressed. I know some BUFFY fans really disliked that aspect of the show, but I thought it made the series more original and iconoclastic.
--Daniel
Well, you're welcome to write your own stories about high school students living relatively innocent lives, based on your own experiences. Might be very entertaining. You have your worldview and Joss has his. >>
That *was* Joss's worldview.
My point was that during the first three seasons of Buffy, things were fairly black and white, as befitting of a show about young people. The show was in a weird place in the final two seasons. It felt superfluous compared to ANGEL.
Posted by SER at March 9, 2004 10:44 AM
>
That’s true. Earlier in the thread I qualified this statement by pointing out that if sharks lived on land and in our neighborhoods and were just as lethal, we probably would have a “kill on sight” policy. Otherwise, how could we survive?
If vampires all lived in Vampire City and never left (sort of like the ocean), we could easily keep our distance, as we try to do with sharks. However, vampires look like us. They can pounce on you on your way home from work. They are such a threat that you really can’t give them the benefit of the doubt.
***************************
Y'know, I was going to add to my post but I didn't want to make it longer and I thought it was obvious that there are other animals, bears for instance in the Northeast of the USA where I live or large cats in Africa or India that *do* co-exist with people.
*****************************
A “puppy” who tried to rape the woman he claimed to love and who took advantage of her deep depression. Angelus was in love with Buffy and tried to destroy the world. Vampires seem to react differently.
She’s killed countless people: the minions she sired in Real Me, the store clerk (in the episode I don’t recall), and pretty much everyone she killed in order to survive until she met up with Wolfram & Hart (think at least one victim a day between Disharmony and Conviction – that’s nearly a 1,000 at least).
She was a shallow and mean teenager. She never killed anyone. She would certainly not have set Cordelia up to die as she did in Disharmony. I’m always stunned when people make that claim. Yes, she’s more pathetic as a vampire (compared to the Big Bads) but on her worst day as a human, she was not a remorseless killer.
***************************************
Actually, we don't *know* that Harmony was never a remorseless killer but it's unlikely enough to be a safe assumption.
However, I still think these are interesting points. Sure Spike took advantage of Buffy and tried to rape her. But that's not something that can be blamed on his existence as a vampire because there are too many men that do what he did and worse in the real world where there are no vampires. We have no particular reason to think that vampires are more likely to commit rape than humans so there's no particular reason to kill them on sight because of the *potential* danger. If we accepted that line of reasoning, an Andrea Dworkin would say that all human men should be killed on sight because they have more potential to commit rape than not.
As for Harmony's behavior being worse as a vampire, well, I think that kind of leads us into the labyrinth this kind of debate can become. Sure, she killed as a vampire but as a vampire *that was her nature*! Did she kill human beings? Yes, but as a vampire, why wouldn't she? That's what vampires do! But like animals, it's just their nature. A shark or a bear may kill a human but there's no real malice there. It's just being a bear or a shark.
As a human, however, Harmony had a soul so she had a good reason not to hurt other people. She had the power of compassion but she *chose* to ignore it and that makes her actions as a human more evil than her actions as a vamp. The results are worse but the human should have had better judgment over her actions than the vamp.
Vamps, after all, have no compassion... Only now they do... So we're back to *this* circle again :) where we come to:
********************************
Again: Whedon has failed. The point of the show is that vampires are monsters. Buffy is unquestionably a hero for killing vampires. The Spike Factor caused more harm than good.
*********************************
Exactly. As I said, I think we both know that the cracks in the system are caused by an imcomplete world view. I think "Star Trek" went through the same problem. First, all Klingons were evil and deserved to be killed on sight, then there was Worf. Then it was the Borg, until Seven of Nine, etc.
I also think it's a challenge caused by the constraints of network TV, the fickle nature of the audience, the underestimation of the audience's intelligence by network executives, etc. It's a challenge to write sympathetic, *bad* characters. The temptation is just too great to write that scene - writers love 'em, actors love 'em, they get uses as the Emmy clip - but they usually end up softening the character. (I know that *I* liked Wolverine a lot better when he was dark and harsh and not hanging out with pre-teen girls...)
Ultimately, I agree it's just a question of writing in a way that doesn't fully think through the implications. But just once in a while, I would like to see the characters have this same conversation.
Daniel
I totally agree it was the continious development of Buffy and her friends that made the show intressting to watch. There are enough shows out there that will repeat the same stories over and over again (Charmed for example).
I also do not agree to the fact that everything was black and white in Buffy. Over the years they were not affraid to make her do things that were not always sympathetic. The changes however were more gradual and subtle then with Angel. This also made it look more natural.
That it looked more convincing might also have to do with the acting talent within the cast. Although i like Angel the cast is not up to par on Buffy. Just compare the acting of talents of David Boreanaz with Sarah Michelle Gellar. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying he's a bad actor he just doesn't have the range as Sarah.
Since when were things black and white on the first three seasons of Buffy? The first season, maybe. After that, the handling of Angel/Angelus and Faith led to enormous grey areas. (Particularly after Angel returned from Hell in Season 3.)
The claim that Harmony killed around 1000 people in three years is, once you think about it for a bit, just plain silly. It seems to be based on an assumption that a) vampires have to feed every night and b) they always kill a human they feed on.
Do the math: Sunnydale has a population of 38,500. Over the 7 seasons of Buffy, it would take only 15 vampires to completely eliminate the town. (Not counting all the other demons and such.) There's clearly a higher average vampire population in town than that. If vampires really had that high a kill ratio, given the numbers in which they exist they'd be making a very noticeable dent in the world's population.
By way of comparison, in the real world there were 653 murders in LA in 2002. If we accept Harmony's kill rate as being accurate, she would single-handedly be responsible for increasing the murder rate in LA-Buffyverse by 50%.
Oh, and 164 vampires would exceed the entire number of 2001 deaths in LA by all cause put together.
Angel comments:
On Fred -- I was really struck by the fact that Fred -- arguably the nicest, most innocent [as in never hurting anyone] character -- has suffered the worst fate of anyone in the "Whedonverse." It's bad enough the poor girl was driven insane by years of being prey/enslaved in a demon dimension. Now she gets a few days of happiness -- and bam, not only is she dead *her soul is annihilated.* That is what strikes me as "cruel" here -- other Whedon characters have died but, in a body of fiction in which there are clearly souls and an afterlife, there is always a silver lining to any character's death. Doyle, Cordelia, Buffy's mom, Anya -- we have no reason not to think they are all now merely "somewhere else" -- not irrevocably Ended. Only Fred has been this completely destroyed, without even an afterlife.
That said, I think it is misdirection. And all the comments about the demon Ilyra [sp>] having super-speed are further misdirection. When Ilyra first used her ability, it was described as manipulating time. Only later was it referred to as simple superspeed - which it clearly is not. So, my completely unspoiled guess is that Illyra can change time so that Fred was not killed -- and either Wesley will convince the demon to do this unselfishly [and not be resurrected as she has no army and no purpose] or another will go in Fred's place as Illyra is needed in the "final battle."
As for first Spike and then Harmony being more morally-capable than other strictly evil vampires:
With Spike I always thought that he was different for one very simple reason, a reason I keep hoping would be written into a story: he was sired by an insane women with psychic abilities. If Dru sired others in her hundreds of years, my thought was they went crazy from the psychic complications [inline with the vamp in "Why we Fight"] and were quickly killed. Only Spike was somehow able to reconcile the aftereffects -- perhaps because of the tutelage of Angelus. But while Spike survived, he was different from other vampires... due not to anything special about William, but due to who sired him. [The only other character we saw sired by Drusilla was Darla, under very different circumstances. And who is to say Darla wasn't crazy thereafter?]
Harmony I think is merely playing along, following her meal tickets. Perhaps she is developing affection for the Angel crew, as we've seen vampires have emotions -- but she in no way is loyal or moral.
Paul
"The claim that Harmony killed around 1000 people in three years is, once you think about it for a bit, just plain silly. It seems to be based on an assumption that a) vampires have to feed every night and b) they always kill a human they feed on."
It's possible that vampires don't feed every night. However, it's rare that they don't kill the people they feed on. There are also the people they sire or just kill for kicks and don't feed on.
I think it's silly to use "real world" numbers to disprove my point. Logically speaking, vampires couldn't exist *as depicted* in Sunnydale or even LA. The murder rate would be too high -- even if vampires just killed once a month.
I think it's fair to debate this issue based on what we're shown on the series. Vampires kill frequently and not just for fun but to survive. We also don't see a big effort of non-chipped, non-souled vampires to not drink human blood.
In this fictional world, what do you think is the body count of a vampire at large for two years? 100? 500? Whatever you might suggest still qualifies Harmony as a mass murderer.
Angel:
As to whether or not Harmony is evil, she's evil. She said so herself in the most recent episode. In Harm's Way, she realizes that she's innocent of the murder because she has a habit of always biting people on the left side of their neck when she kills them. I'd say that confirms that she's a mass murderer.
But even evil people can feel compassion for others. Harmony likes Fred. Fred tried to help her with her lonliness and relationship problems. When she was being set up, Fred was trying to help her within the W&H system right up until Harmony tied her up. I think Harmony remembers that. I think that episode is a fine example of what her brand of evil is like. She's a follower, but she still places her own interests far over thoses of others. She tied up everyone instead of killing them, but she didn't hesitate to do it to further her own interests. She said she was sorry and I even believe it a little.
I think that some vampires have a VERY short list of people who are real to them, that they have an emotional attachment to. These are people that they might give something up for. In the Buffy episode, Lie To Me, Buffy gets the Vampire Cultist out of the bomb shelter by threatening Drucilla and Spike does what she says. Harmony put Fred on her list, so she's upset with Gunn about his betrayal coming back and getting Fred. If it had targeted some random victim, she wouldn't have care about them at all.
In regards to Angel and the Fred/Old One thing:I actually think I saw this coming. Good at intuiting this sort of thing. I like it. I was thinking...what if the big bad they must face is the Other Old Ones waking up and they having to face them, with the One they have at their side? Not likely but would be interesting. As for Harmony...vampires remain as they were at death physcially...but as for psychologically...the demon within them may be capable of growing and change, subltly affected by the tendancies the host body gives it ie personality. And each demon is an individual as well. I concur that certain people are attachments to vampires after they are vampires and may induce emotions or less likely to kill things, however if they were close before they vamped...they are likely more likely to be killed or tortured. They were part of the hosts life and it would be cruel and fun to do so. Harmony while not empathizing with Gunn may sympathize, ie "Aw that's sad...hope your day goes better...anyway...oh well, moving on..."
Those without a soul may have trouble getting what things are ...if they were born that way...however, if they had a soul or recieved one, it may affect them more so and they would then be able to understand more so things soulpeople would have and do. I have a charcter in a thing I do named Kaine would was born without a soul. He's a sociopath. Now he has the soul of a blackdragon bounded to him, he slighlty better now.
k,
seeya,
~Jimmy Jr.~
SMALLVILLE: I thought the last few episode had some good stories to them, but i common question i have (1 of many) How fast is fast? Even for Superboy? In the episode where Jonathon Kent had the bypass surgrey, in the time that kid witht he Kryptonite bomb click the switch Clark ran into the other room, grabbed aled lined vest, ran to the bomb, ran out of the building, and stuffed it into a hole, with no one the wiser? Seems a littel too fast even for him. If he is so fast could he not have stopped that bullet in the first place, heard it coming and put out a hand to stop it? Speaking of bullets - being on the phone with Lana in "real time" and hearing the bullet fire, run accross town, stop the bullet, and again Lana doesn't ask questions. How fast is fast?
Eric
About why Spike always had a kinda different 'slant' to him. I only ever saw one episode of him in the past and it was the one where he and Drusilla got turned into vampires. Angel picked out Drusilla for Darla because she was a 'pure soul' and gifted and innocent etc etc, and as soon as she gets the idea of going after a human to make her companion she goes after this innocent, socially inept guy who (I think we find out in the end of BTVS) lives with his sick mum to look after her. Maybe she picked him because she sensed there was something like herself as she used to be in him? She picked another innocent soul right off the bat.
Or maybe its because of their backgrounds? You see Drusilla walking with her sisters, shepherding them away from the people she percieves are 'not right' (Angelus, Darla) at the start. Darla was a lonely, dying working girl who hated the world, Liam was a bit of an arse who had no real ties to his family save the little sister he didn't seem to care enough about to provide any sort of role model or support to. Drusilla and William had families, and loved them. They were also both selfless where Darla and Liam were selfish. Maybe that's why they were never... quite right as vampires.