Tue, 18 October 2005 "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" We considered paying tribute to our favorite episode by giving you thirty minutes of silence, but figured you'd find an audible discussion of "Hush" more enjoyable. Comments[36] |
ing thoughts on the role of stand-alone episodes. It's hard to beat a tight, contained 40 minutes. Hush, BB&B, the Wish - these are definitely right up there with my favourites. That slow-mo shot of Xander walking through the school hallway in BBB is one of the great Buffy images. And of course there is Once More With Feeling, although that is only superficially a stand-alone.
Why does Buffy try to keep her identity secret? I can only surmise that she wants to avoid the attention of various human authorities (eg, her mother, the police, teachers, psychiatrists, secret federal agencies). Whether they believe Buffy or simply think her delusional, all of these have the ability to make her life and work much more difficult. Joyce certainly gets in the way there for a while, and much later we have a clear view of Buffy's solipsist nightmare where she is institutionalised and *all* her beliefs are brought questioned. With a job like hers, you don't want every person you meet to be throwing doubt on your mission. And given all our discussion of Buffy the Serial Killer (which begins to ring true with me), we can imagine that Buffy does not want her slaying operations brought to the attention of the Law (although there is some reason to suspect that the Law is actually aware of the Slayer).
Very much looking forward to your show on Willow and Tara, a great couple. Are you going to follow it up with one on Kennedy???
All love, the Professor.
Why does Buffy try to keep her identity secret? I can only surmise that she wants to avoid the attention of various human authorities (eg, her mother, the police, teachers, psychiatrists, secret federal agencies). Whether they believe Buffy or simply think her delusional, all of these have the ability to make her life and work much more difficult. Joyce certainly gets in the way there for a while, and much later we have a clear view of Buffy's solipsist nightmare where she is institutionalised and *all* her beliefs are brought questioned. With a job like hers, you don't want every person you meet to be throwing doubt on your mission. And given all our discussion of Buffy the Serial Killer (which begins to ring true with me), we can imagine that Buffy does not want her slaying operations brought to the attention of the Law (although there is some reason to suspect that the Law is actually aware of the Slayer).
Very much looking forward to your show on Willow and Tara, a great couple. Are you going to follow it up with one on Kennedy???
All love, the Professor.
posted by: Professor on Wed, 10/19 09:23 PM EDT
Look at that. I chopped off my first word. THat should have read "Interesting thoughts...". Apologies.
posted by: Professor on Wed, 10/19 09:24 PM EDT
I also find Hush to be one of my favorite episodes. I think the episode's real strength is that it puts Buffy in the context of what might be a more classic form of horror than we usually see on the show. The usual monsters and demons of Buffy, as much as I like them, aren't really scary, it's just the genre they happen to be in. The stories were often suspenseful, but not really scary in that way that traditional cinematic and literary horror was meant to be. Especially in the earlier seasons, the episodes put traditional monsters in a contemporary high school setting, like the old "I Was a Teenage Werewolf/Frankenstein/Mummy/Vampire" formula, which itself was an ironic repackaging of the previous generation's horror conventions. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was smarter and funnier, and it was often very honest and dramatic -- but it was also ironic.
The Gentlemen on the other hand are very unironic monsters. I'm not great at deciphering the visual design of things, but the way they look and move around, and the way they'e shot, as well as the music, seems to have a very classical, very primal scariness, more like Stephen King or Clive Barker than we are accustomed to. If Buffy was a horror show that wasn't intended to be scary, Hush was one episode that actually was.
I would also agree with the defense of the standalone episode, particularly the ones that are experimental, and really mess with the way we watch TV, like The Zeppo, which is not only a standalone episode, but a standalone episode that appears to have another standalone episode going on at the same time. Hush is way up there though, the first time I saw it, I found the silence to be genuinely uncomfortable, but in a really cool way.
The Gentlemen on the other hand are very unironic monsters. I'm not great at deciphering the visual design of things, but the way they look and move around, and the way they'e shot, as well as the music, seems to have a very classical, very primal scariness, more like Stephen King or Clive Barker than we are accustomed to. If Buffy was a horror show that wasn't intended to be scary, Hush was one episode that actually was.
I would also agree with the defense of the standalone episode, particularly the ones that are experimental, and really mess with the way we watch TV, like The Zeppo, which is not only a standalone episode, but a standalone episode that appears to have another standalone episode going on at the same time. Hush is way up there though, the first time I saw it, I found the silence to be genuinely uncomfortable, but in a really cool way.
God, I love this episode! I hadn't watched it in a while, so put it in again today. Probably the third or fourth time I've seen it, but it still holds up. In fact, I see more in it with each viewing. Bar none, The Gentlemen are the most eerily menacing "bad guys" on Buffy. That silent, polite grinning still creeps me out.
OK, so, I'm an English teacher. THus, anything dealing with the power of language and words is going to be inherently interesting to me. That said, I think anyone would agree Whedon does a brilliant job in this of layering the various uses of language to communicate and miscommunicate. I caught myself thinking of my Mom's old (and much hated by me!) axiom: Actions speak louder than words. As Revello points out, we see repeated examples of "Show, Don't Tell." in this: Willow and Tara moving Pepsi machine together, Xander finally showing Anya his love by kissing her after Spike's "attack." The hilarious interplay between Spike and Xander when they first discover they've lost their voices: Xander silently accuse Spike of having done something to him; Spike replies with the British version of the the finger. Xander gets on the phone to Buffy, realizes he can't actually talk, and the look Spike throws him speaks volumes. Similarly, Gile's equally hilarious presentation not only includes drawings on each slide, implying words aren't enough, but even moves to ONLY pictures after several slides, though he does add words again after a bit.
Thus, as Revello points out, ultimately words are necessary: while gestures may carry important emotional context and attitudes, they can't convey significant, detailed information, as Buffy's wanking motions humorously portrays. Moreover, actions can mislead as easily as words: Xander enters a room, sees ANya lying immobile on the sofa with Spike kneeling beside her and leaps to the worst conclusion. Had he been able to speak, his inevitable yelling would have woken Anya and avoided the misconception. More importantly, Joss adds a great touch when Giles finds The Gentlemen not in one of his many demon tomes, but in a book of Fairy Tales--stories orginally passed on in the oral tradition, thus implying the danger in words while, simultaneously arguing that words also contain the answer.
Finally, I love the final scene Buffy and Riley declare "We need to talk," and find themselves silenced, with a wide shot showing the distance between them, giving the ideas of words' inadequacy the final say. (that term being an interesting irony.)
On a totally different note: Willow and TARA!? Ugh! I have to admit, I couldn't stand Tara from the very first. She is weak, meek and makes me want to slap her on a regular basis. I find it almost impossible to believe that Willow would find her romantically interesting--and doubt she would have if she could have found someone else interested in witchcraft--and certainly wouldn't love her intensely enough to lead to the maelstrom she creates after Tara's death, which I would have cheered if I weren't in shock over Buffy's shooting. (grin--ok, so this has me coming off as way more mean-spirited than I am. Suffice it to say, "I can't stand Tara."
OK, so, I'm an English teacher. THus, anything dealing with the power of language and words is going to be inherently interesting to me. That said, I think anyone would agree Whedon does a brilliant job in this of layering the various uses of language to communicate and miscommunicate. I caught myself thinking of my Mom's old (and much hated by me!) axiom: Actions speak louder than words. As Revello points out, we see repeated examples of "Show, Don't Tell." in this: Willow and Tara moving Pepsi machine together, Xander finally showing Anya his love by kissing her after Spike's "attack." The hilarious interplay between Spike and Xander when they first discover they've lost their voices: Xander silently accuse Spike of having done something to him; Spike replies with the British version of the the finger. Xander gets on the phone to Buffy, realizes he can't actually talk, and the look Spike throws him speaks volumes. Similarly, Gile's equally hilarious presentation not only includes drawings on each slide, implying words aren't enough, but even moves to ONLY pictures after several slides, though he does add words again after a bit.
Thus, as Revello points out, ultimately words are necessary: while gestures may carry important emotional context and attitudes, they can't convey significant, detailed information, as Buffy's wanking motions humorously portrays. Moreover, actions can mislead as easily as words: Xander enters a room, sees ANya lying immobile on the sofa with Spike kneeling beside her and leaps to the worst conclusion. Had he been able to speak, his inevitable yelling would have woken Anya and avoided the misconception. More importantly, Joss adds a great touch when Giles finds The Gentlemen not in one of his many demon tomes, but in a book of Fairy Tales--stories orginally passed on in the oral tradition, thus implying the danger in words while, simultaneously arguing that words also contain the answer.
Finally, I love the final scene Buffy and Riley declare "We need to talk," and find themselves silenced, with a wide shot showing the distance between them, giving the ideas of words' inadequacy the final say. (that term being an interesting irony.)
On a totally different note: Willow and TARA!? Ugh! I have to admit, I couldn't stand Tara from the very first. She is weak, meek and makes me want to slap her on a regular basis. I find it almost impossible to believe that Willow would find her romantically interesting--and doubt she would have if she could have found someone else interested in witchcraft--and certainly wouldn't love her intensely enough to lead to the maelstrom she creates after Tara's death, which I would have cheered if I weren't in shock over Buffy's shooting. (grin--ok, so this has me coming off as way more mean-spirited than I am. Suffice it to say, "I can't stand Tara."
Here's a continuity question: I would swear I remember in season five (I think. Anyway, the episode that first starts exploring Spike's mother issues) that William, after being rejected, wanders into the streets and meets Drusilla, who bites him and turns him into a vampire (one assumes). However, I just finished rewatching season two, and in it Spike declares more than once that Angel is his sire. Does anyone else remember the Drusilla bit, or did I dream that? Not a big deal, just one of those sloppy mistakes, if it is one, that one finds vaguely annoying!
As an afterthought, Hush also connects thematically with Storyteller, from seasonn seven, (btw, both of those (and Once More, With Feeling) vie for favorite episode status). Storyteller also deals with language and the way its used to obfuscate truth: specifically, the stories we tell ourselves in order to live with our actions and maintain the myths we tell ourselves.
Note to Revello: Storyteller would also be good food for podcast thought! (grin)
Note to Revello: Storyteller would also be good food for podcast thought! (grin)
Traveller - You're right about Spike contradicting himself about his sire. Most likely a goof on the part of the writers, but if we want to give them (and Spike) the benefit of the doubt, maybe he meant to say "Grandsire"... We haven't done any shows with Andrew yet, so we'll have to think about Storyteller, because that one reveals a lot about him.
I could watch that scene with Willow and Kennedy kissing on the sofa all day. The heat is just intense!!
posted by: Professor on Thu, 10/20 09:41 PM EDT
lol--what is it with guys and lesbian sex!? I always enjoyed the little riffs when Xander would fantasize about Willow and Tara. Too funny.
Andrew's the best--really makes me laugh. I don't know who plays him, but he's brilliant. And it's a great moment in "The Girl in Question" when he, of all people, lectures Spike an Angel about changing and moving on with your life!
Andrew's the best--really makes me laugh. I don't know who plays him, but he's brilliant. And it's a great moment in "The Girl in Question" when he, of all people, lectures Spike an Angel about changing and moving on with your life!
Hey Traveller! I hope you're not assuming that the Professor is a "guy". Anyway, guy or not, you'd have to be undead not to feel the passion from Willow and Kennedy. It was burning up the screen! Actually, gay themes are treated very seriously on Buffy (Willow and Tara), and also for comic relief (Andrew, shirtless Spike, Scott Bakula, Xander, and of course that "magnificent poof", Angel). Surprisingly little homophobia all round.
posted by: Professor on Fri, 10/21 05:28 AM EDT
Professor: Perish the thought! I'm a post-modern feminist type, whatever that means! (grin) I just thought I remember you mentioning a wife in a previous posting. Apologies if not! As to gay themes on Buffy, I completely agree. I was rewatching a season 7 episode where a "civilian" was trying to work out the sexual relationships bewteen Anya, Spike, Buffy and Xander. After much confusion she groaned in exasperation: "Are there any of you who haven't slept together!?" Spike and Xander glance at each other, then quickly away. hilarious. So, no (recognized) homophobia here. While I find Tara intensely annoying, Kennedy has my firm Willow approval!
I was very disappointed with the Willow/Kennedy relationship.
OZ and Tara were both genuinely nice people, and you could see Willow's attraction to them. Kennedy on the other hand, was a spoiled, self-centered girl and it is tough to see what Willow saw in her.
I really think that Kennedy was sort of thrown in to be Willow's happy ending.
OZ and Tara were both genuinely nice people, and you could see Willow's attraction to them. Kennedy on the other hand, was a spoiled, self-centered girl and it is tough to see what Willow saw in her.
I really think that Kennedy was sort of thrown in to be Willow's happy ending.
Ah, I see why you are puzzled, Traveller. I did indeed mention a wife, but I also mentioned that I am from Australia, so maybe that will make the position clear.
But speaking of Buffyverse relationships, Willow seems to be the character who generates the most real chemistry with her various partners (Kennedy being the great exception, if I haven't made my position clear). Willow-Oz, Willow-Tara, these are relationships that are going somewhere good. Even the few seconds of Willow and Fred promise so much more than Fred and Gunn.
I guess I'm showing myself as a true "shipper" now. How embarrassing...
posted by: Professor on Fri, 10/21 05:40 PM EDT
Stand-alone episodes like “Halloween�, “The Wish�, “The Zeppo�, “Dopplegangland�, “Earshot�, “I Only Have Eyes For You�, “Fear, Itself�, “A New Man�, “Triangle�, “The Body�, “Tabula Rasa�, “Normal Again� (although technically not a stand-alone, it feels like it), and “Selfless� all demonstrate that Buffy definitely had a knack for creating strong, encapsulated stories that left the viewer satisfied.
Part of why Buffy season seven and Angel season four were far less satisfying than what came before it is simply because Whedon and his writers lost track of their winning formula, forgetting that there is something gratifying in seeing a creative gem that works itself out in forty-minutes, a story that can’t stretch out for a season-long arc, but is still worthy of being told. Season two and three of Buffy (the best two in my humble opinion) succeeded because they knew how to balance stand-alones and arc episodes. Look over an episode list of season seven and try and find some solid stand-alones and you’ll be hard pressed. Instead the writers chose to concentrate on long, repetitive conversations with and about “The First�. After hearing Buffy give another speech about how “things are going to get bad and people are going to die� to the slayerettes, I was chomping at the bit for things to actually get bad and for people to actually die. A few creative stand-alones to replace episodes like “First Date� or “Get It Done� would have been much appreciated.
Part of why Buffy season seven and Angel season four were far less satisfying than what came before it is simply because Whedon and his writers lost track of their winning formula, forgetting that there is something gratifying in seeing a creative gem that works itself out in forty-minutes, a story that can’t stretch out for a season-long arc, but is still worthy of being told. Season two and three of Buffy (the best two in my humble opinion) succeeded because they knew how to balance stand-alones and arc episodes. Look over an episode list of season seven and try and find some solid stand-alones and you’ll be hard pressed. Instead the writers chose to concentrate on long, repetitive conversations with and about “The First�. After hearing Buffy give another speech about how “things are going to get bad and people are going to die� to the slayerettes, I was chomping at the bit for things to actually get bad and for people to actually die. A few creative stand-alones to replace episodes like “First Date� or “Get It Done� would have been much appreciated.
God, thank you Menachem. Why all the love here for W/K? Yuck, oh and Ew. Kennedy was overbearing, bratty, mouthy.
I think Willow just sort of let herself be with Kennedy. She was such the opposite of Tara, I mean, can you really go that much opposite in finding another mate? I didn't see the attraction or feel any chemistry. All it was was girl on girl attraction. Not all girl on girl attraction is good.
Gag me with their love scene.
I think Willow just sort of let herself be with Kennedy. She was such the opposite of Tara, I mean, can you really go that much opposite in finding another mate? I didn't see the attraction or feel any chemistry. All it was was girl on girl attraction. Not all girl on girl attraction is good.
Gag me with their love scene.
Revello, you've obviously hit a hot topic with next week's podcast issue! We're already arguing it!
Kennedy the anti-Tara? Absolutely! She actually has a personality, spoiled rich brat that she may be. I think I said above Tara's so meek and spineless she made me want to slap her on a regular basis, and violence isn't my usual reaction to being annoyed! Tara's the only person in the Scoobies Willow can actually feel stronger than, both personality wise and power-wise (at least at this point, Maybe it's even a plus that she's not a Scooby at all, at first. Thus giving Willow an identity outside the group. In fact, in Hush Tara makes it clear she sees Willow as very strong, which would certainly appeal to Willow's vanity, despite her half-hearted denial). IMHO, Willow was only with Tara as the anti-Oz: if Oz had to leave to fight his inner demons, as it were, then Willow has certainly the partner who will never leave her because s/he has strength s/he finds it hard to control! The brilliant irony in this relationship, is that Tara (temporarily) leaves Willow because she can't deal with HER growing strength. Only when Willow agrees to limit her use of her powers will Tara return. I hate say it (grin--ok, no I don't) in a heterosexual relationship, we'd call that emasculating! (assuming, of course, the social recognition of power with masculinity).
Kennedy the anti-Tara? Absolutely! She actually has a personality, spoiled rich brat that she may be. I think I said above Tara's so meek and spineless she made me want to slap her on a regular basis, and violence isn't my usual reaction to being annoyed! Tara's the only person in the Scoobies Willow can actually feel stronger than, both personality wise and power-wise (at least at this point, Maybe it's even a plus that she's not a Scooby at all, at first. Thus giving Willow an identity outside the group. In fact, in Hush Tara makes it clear she sees Willow as very strong, which would certainly appeal to Willow's vanity, despite her half-hearted denial). IMHO, Willow was only with Tara as the anti-Oz: if Oz had to leave to fight his inner demons, as it were, then Willow has certainly the partner who will never leave her because s/he has strength s/he finds it hard to control! The brilliant irony in this relationship, is that Tara (temporarily) leaves Willow because she can't deal with HER growing strength. Only when Willow agrees to limit her use of her powers will Tara return. I hate say it (grin--ok, no I don't) in a heterosexual relationship, we'd call that emasculating! (assuming, of course, the social recognition of power with masculinity).
Hey, I've only just recently discovered BuffyCast but am very interetested already. Your discussions of death in Buffy and also continuity really got me thinking about the payment for death. If we remember in Consequences Buffy makes a big deal about the fact that Faith killed a human, and it can certainly be argued that Faith paid for her actions. Angelus/Angel certainly paid for his killing of humans as well. But can the same be said for Willow? I don't think so and this really bugged me all through series 7.
There was a big deal made that Willow killing Warren would mean that she would pay big time, (Remember the couch discussion between Xander, Willow and Dawn) but I don't think she ever did. I waited for the whole series for Buffy and Willow to have it out over Willows fall to evil, but it never happened. Willow just went back to the old Willow we loved. This made no sense. In fact the comment made by Principal Wood "She was evil?" or some such thing really made sense. Willow's transformation to evil was never made a huge deal of. The gang went back to trusting her right away that they never did for Angel or for even Andrew really. I never understood why she was forgiven and forgotten so easily. Evil Willow really was as bad and evil as Angel, she threw away all her friends and killed a whole lot of people. This was never really mentioned again. Why did Willow not pay for what she did? I'd love to hear your opinion on this issue.
There was a big deal made that Willow killing Warren would mean that she would pay big time, (Remember the couch discussion between Xander, Willow and Dawn) but I don't think she ever did. I waited for the whole series for Buffy and Willow to have it out over Willows fall to evil, but it never happened. Willow just went back to the old Willow we loved. This made no sense. In fact the comment made by Principal Wood "She was evil?" or some such thing really made sense. Willow's transformation to evil was never made a huge deal of. The gang went back to trusting her right away that they never did for Angel or for even Andrew really. I never understood why she was forgiven and forgotten so easily. Evil Willow really was as bad and evil as Angel, she threw away all her friends and killed a whole lot of people. This was never really mentioned again. Why did Willow not pay for what she did? I'd love to hear your opinion on this issue.
Hi Lozfrog, can you remind me... who did Evil Willow kill? I can only remember Warren.
I have certainly noticed that *Angel's* attitude towards killing humans has changed a great deal over the years, which is fine by me, because I never really bought the whole idea that it was wrong to kill evil humans, assuming that is is in fact right to kill evil demons. What is the moral difference? The whole blow-up about Angel letting Darla and Dru eat their way through W&H's middle management that split Angel Investigations just didn't make much sense to me. Season 5 Angel now seems to take a much more pragmatic, and much less discriminatory, view of killing humans.
I guess this all feeds into the discussion of Buffy the Serial Killer.
See ya,
Professor
posted by: Professor on Sun, 10/23 11:18 PM EDT
Hi, Lozfrog. Welcome aboard! Good question about Willow but, hey, she's Willow! Get out of jail free because she's cute and can make us cry, I guess. I only remember her killing Warren, but she did a VERY thorough job of it. Does the show really make it clear you have to pay for a human death (aside from Angel/Faith), or is it for bringing someone BACK from the dead? I mean, W&H never seem to pay, nor any of the other demons, really. In fact, back to Buffy the Serial Killer--she dusts quite a few vamps before they can even think of killing someone, let alone pay for doing it!
This is a little comment for Professor about the Kennedy show...who cares, i never liked her don't waste the air time and if you have to make it, do it a long time from now...
I really really don't like how she was portrayed- a disrespectful brat with little, or no consideration for the history of the slayer and/or witchcraft. she is CLEARLY a rebound girl for Willow who, after going though a terrible ordeal, the death of her SOUL MATE, feels that she needs a little bit of control in her life seeing she seems to always be teatering on the edge of her own self control with not only magic but with life. Kennedy, I suppose suplied a character who seems quite sure of herself...cocky... and who could dominate Willow concerning self-esteem- a theme that Willow struggles with thoughout the whole series. Infact the only time she has any real sureness of herself and confidence in herself and therfore making her a stronger and deeper character is when SHE IS WITH TARA. Tara in herself is insecure, as a result, I'm sure, of all the hardships in her life. The death of her mother when she was young and her borther and fathers physical abuse of her as evident in "Family" and i have little doubt about the ridicule she would have faced with coming out of the closet in that sort of environment. This means that Willow has to take the dominant role as emotional stronghold for a lot of the time. Yet when she does break down Tara is allways there to be the mature "Knowledge Woman" ( as described by Tara herself). Tara seems to be an extremely caring and loving person dedicated to Willow, as Willow is to her, ultimately giving up on magic completely so Tara will accept her again. Through all of Willow and Taras Hardships they are devoted ultimately to each other, love each other, and I think that no matter what relationships Willow has in the future if Tara came back from the dead (Not an unlikely thought or scenario in the Buffyvers) then they would get back together, to live a LONG AND HAPPY LIFE.
Lots of Love,
Kira
I really really don't like how she was portrayed- a disrespectful brat with little, or no consideration for the history of the slayer and/or witchcraft. she is CLEARLY a rebound girl for Willow who, after going though a terrible ordeal, the death of her SOUL MATE, feels that she needs a little bit of control in her life seeing she seems to always be teatering on the edge of her own self control with not only magic but with life. Kennedy, I suppose suplied a character who seems quite sure of herself...cocky... and who could dominate Willow concerning self-esteem- a theme that Willow struggles with thoughout the whole series. Infact the only time she has any real sureness of herself and confidence in herself and therfore making her a stronger and deeper character is when SHE IS WITH TARA. Tara in herself is insecure, as a result, I'm sure, of all the hardships in her life. The death of her mother when she was young and her borther and fathers physical abuse of her as evident in "Family" and i have little doubt about the ridicule she would have faced with coming out of the closet in that sort of environment. This means that Willow has to take the dominant role as emotional stronghold for a lot of the time. Yet when she does break down Tara is allways there to be the mature "Knowledge Woman" ( as described by Tara herself). Tara seems to be an extremely caring and loving person dedicated to Willow, as Willow is to her, ultimately giving up on magic completely so Tara will accept her again. Through all of Willow and Taras Hardships they are devoted ultimately to each other, love each other, and I think that no matter what relationships Willow has in the future if Tara came back from the dead (Not an unlikely thought or scenario in the Buffyvers) then they would get back together, to live a LONG AND HAPPY LIFE.
Lots of Love,
Kira
Hey Professor, it is said a few times during the show that you don't kill humans. Think back to the discussion that Buffy and the Scoobies had just after Willow killed Warren. Buffy made it very explicit that the human world had it's own rules for dealing with people, that they could not take human life into their own hands. Therefore since Willow did just this, doesn't that mean that she pay? Faith and Angel are both punished for taking a human life, it is not the done thing. Joss makes that very clear to us. Buffy as a slayer can only kill demons, it is not the job of the slayers/slayerettes to kill humans. It just isn't done. Therefore it doesn't seem right that Willow should get off scott free. I just didn't think that this followed. What happened in Season 6 should have changed Willow, but it didn't really seem to. This just makes no sense? It took two seasons to get Faith back to relatively normal, but you must admit she was never the same Faith as before she went to the dark side. But this wasn't really the same for Willow. She goes to England for a few months and then is back to normal? Doesn't follow. I don't find this believable at all.
Hi all, let me set the record straight:
I don't like Kennedy at all, and I LOVE Tara.
I am both male and Australian, and as of October 2005, you still have to be male in Australia to have a wife - just a silly troll on my part.
Joss may say that it's wrong to kill a human, but I have never accepted the logic of that, although it is a basic premise of the (early) show. Indeed, as I mentioned, both Season 6 Willow and Season 5 Angel demonstrate that the rules are becoming relaxed. Good and Evil become more important than Human and Demon, which makes a whole lot more sense to me. Even way back when Faith killed a human by mistake, and Buffy got on her soapbox, it just didn't ring true. The guy was one of the Mayor's henchman, it was a mistake in the heat of battle, and Faith was feeling pretty bad about it, but Faith feeling bad just wasn't enough for Buffy; Faith feeling anything short of suicidal wouldn't have been enough for Buffy. This is where Buffy herself started to reveal an unsympathetic character.
I guess, for me, the supposed Human and Demon divide is undermined by the way in which demons are portrayed in the Buffyverse. Demons (apart from obvious spear carriers) are well-rounded characters, every bit as human as the humans, and posturing that it is okay to kill them, but definitely not okay to kill humans, just never seemed to gel.
As for whether Willow pays for killing Warren... well, that action does come back to haunt her (literally).
See ya,
Professor
posted by: Professor on Mon, 10/24 10:57 PM EDT
Hi all!
I just started listening to the Buffycast (starting with the Angel episode) and I must say how refreshing it is to read comments that are intelligent. These comments totally restore my faith in online forums as a method of communicating.
Anyway, I wanted to address the Professor's killing human comments. First off, I think the distinction of when killing is allowed is not humans and non-humans. I think the distinction lies in souled and non-souled. Killing a souled creature is a no-no. Killing a non-souled creature is alright.
That being said, I think human/non-human and souled/non-souled is pretty much the same thing. Aberrations like Spike and Angel (the non-souled that possess souls) live by slightly different rules anyway.
I think the henchmen argument's an interesting avenue to persue. What about Caleb, specifically? I don't quite remember if he was a human or a demon or a hybrid but if I remember correctly, he was a human. Does killing Caleb result in the same level of punishment that Faith and Willow suffered?
I think one of the reasons why the rules were softened as Buffy progressed was that we began to see more and more that death is not quite the handicap it used to be. Angel "died" and then returned, Buffy died and then returned and then died and then returned, Spike died and then returned (albeit in LA), Darla died and then returned, Dawn... just returned (from non-human Key to human slayer sister). And we saw in the beginning on season 6 that bringing someone back from the dead is actually kinda simple. Sure, it results in nigh 2 years of recooperation from the individual who was brought back but it seems that all you need are good Wicca, some potions/powders/etc., and an episode's worth of spare time. Just remember to exhume the body first. Otherwise, manicured fingernails are absolutely destroyed.
Anyway, those are just my 2 cents. I'm really looking forward to the Willow/Tara post. I absolutely loved Tara and I thought that the Willow/Tara relationship was the absolute best thing that ever happened to the show. (I also liked Kennedy too, though. She wasn't Tara but she was good for a fling, so to speak. She did manage to bring out the best in Willow.)
I just started listening to the Buffycast (starting with the Angel episode) and I must say how refreshing it is to read comments that are intelligent. These comments totally restore my faith in online forums as a method of communicating.
Anyway, I wanted to address the Professor's killing human comments. First off, I think the distinction of when killing is allowed is not humans and non-humans. I think the distinction lies in souled and non-souled. Killing a souled creature is a no-no. Killing a non-souled creature is alright.
That being said, I think human/non-human and souled/non-souled is pretty much the same thing. Aberrations like Spike and Angel (the non-souled that possess souls) live by slightly different rules anyway.
I think the henchmen argument's an interesting avenue to persue. What about Caleb, specifically? I don't quite remember if he was a human or a demon or a hybrid but if I remember correctly, he was a human. Does killing Caleb result in the same level of punishment that Faith and Willow suffered?
I think one of the reasons why the rules were softened as Buffy progressed was that we began to see more and more that death is not quite the handicap it used to be. Angel "died" and then returned, Buffy died and then returned and then died and then returned, Spike died and then returned (albeit in LA), Darla died and then returned, Dawn... just returned (from non-human Key to human slayer sister). And we saw in the beginning on season 6 that bringing someone back from the dead is actually kinda simple. Sure, it results in nigh 2 years of recooperation from the individual who was brought back but it seems that all you need are good Wicca, some potions/powders/etc., and an episode's worth of spare time. Just remember to exhume the body first. Otherwise, manicured fingernails are absolutely destroyed.
Anyway, those are just my 2 cents. I'm really looking forward to the Willow/Tara post. I absolutely loved Tara and I thought that the Willow/Tara relationship was the absolute best thing that ever happened to the show. (I also liked Kennedy too, though. She wasn't Tara but she was good for a fling, so to speak. She did manage to bring out the best in Willow.)
Has anyone else seen the unaired pilot of Buffy? That would be an interesting discussion for a podcast! If you want to view it (it's available alternate days), here's the link: http://www.benhen.com/pilots/
Definitely interesting--many characters the same, but Willow! She was so un-Willow-like!
Definitely interesting--many characters the same, but Willow! She was so un-Willow-like!
All this talk about how Willow gets off scot free for killing a human in a moment of grief-driven rage, and no one mentions Giles' cold, calculated murder of Ben. Sure, a demon would from time to time take over Ben's body, but when Giles killed him, he was fully human, and Giles faces no repercussions for this act--not in the human realm, not in the demon/supernatural realm, he does not even seem to harbor any self-recriminations, doubt or guilt over his action. Unlike Faith, he cannot claim it was a case of mistaken identity. Unlike Willow, he cannot claim it was an act of passion. He did what he did knowingly, cooly, decisively. How does this square with the "Thou shalt no kill humans" dictum?
You said it Revello. But just sit to think of how the show would have turned out if she had stayed as willow...god i shiver to think ( In the bad way btw), however we are pining her up against Allyson Hannagen so in conparisen this girl , you said her name was Riff Regan (Never heard of her), would shouly shrink in acting ability.
maby you could to a podcast topic on it...the long lost story plots of the buffyverce lol. or perhaps ( I just got this idear now) Charecters you see in one ep that are then gorn the nexst to never be seen again or something,
anyway catch you guys later,
Kira
maby you could to a podcast topic on it...the long lost story plots of the buffyverce lol. or perhaps ( I just got this idear now) Charecters you see in one ep that are then gorn the nexst to never be seen again or something,
anyway catch you guys later,
Kira
About the human-demon murder rules:
I see the shift not just for pure cinematic needs but also as indicitive as the growth of the characters. Buffy first outlines murder as BAD IF HUMAN and GOOD IF DEMON, which I think is symbolic of the black/white good/bad dichotomy of the earlier stages of moral devolpment. She accepts the rules concerning the murder of humans - ie, human law- and accepts the rules concerning the murder of demons - ie, slayer duty - as absolute rule.
When the characters mature and Buffy reaches a higher moral level (and I think this also has to do with the inclusion of Spike, who is arguably moral before he has a soul - such an encounter and realization would weaken the human/demon murder rule in itself) she is able to see beyond that. Now it's more of a bad-humans and bad-demons can be killed, while good-humans and good-demons won't be. So it's while it's not "okay" to kill Warren, the fact that she did it as revenge and arguably, to save the rest of her "family", it can be forgiven. A stronger example might be in Giles: his murder of Ben, though human, IS necessary to save humanity, or at least the Scoobies. On the other hand, Clem, although a demon, wouldn't be killed because he's clearly not evil. Unless you count trading kittens.
Personally, I have no moral qualms with Buffy killing the stock vampires. She is doing what she must to save the innocent. So is the killing of Ben. Warren, on the other hand...
The change in the human/demon murder code would be a good podcast topic, methinks. I like the "Buffy the Serial Killer", Professor. Very funny. Although I bet Willow would get mad if Buffy destroyed all of her lucky charms. (Ouch, bad pun. I need to stop studying for finals, it's ruined my cognitive ability.)
I see the shift not just for pure cinematic needs but also as indicitive as the growth of the characters. Buffy first outlines murder as BAD IF HUMAN and GOOD IF DEMON, which I think is symbolic of the black/white good/bad dichotomy of the earlier stages of moral devolpment. She accepts the rules concerning the murder of humans - ie, human law- and accepts the rules concerning the murder of demons - ie, slayer duty - as absolute rule.
When the characters mature and Buffy reaches a higher moral level (and I think this also has to do with the inclusion of Spike, who is arguably moral before he has a soul - such an encounter and realization would weaken the human/demon murder rule in itself) she is able to see beyond that. Now it's more of a bad-humans and bad-demons can be killed, while good-humans and good-demons won't be. So it's while it's not "okay" to kill Warren, the fact that she did it as revenge and arguably, to save the rest of her "family", it can be forgiven. A stronger example might be in Giles: his murder of Ben, though human, IS necessary to save humanity, or at least the Scoobies. On the other hand, Clem, although a demon, wouldn't be killed because he's clearly not evil. Unless you count trading kittens.
Personally, I have no moral qualms with Buffy killing the stock vampires. She is doing what she must to save the innocent. So is the killing of Ben. Warren, on the other hand...
The change in the human/demon murder code would be a good podcast topic, methinks. I like the "Buffy the Serial Killer", Professor. Very funny. Although I bet Willow would get mad if Buffy destroyed all of her lucky charms. (Ouch, bad pun. I need to stop studying for finals, it's ruined my cognitive ability.)
Hey! about that whole, thay didn't make a big deal out of willow trying to end the world and killing warren... Giles took Willow to England to his coven. And when she returns to sunnydale with the whole the scoobies can't see her and vice versa. They all thought willow skinned the guy. But at the end you see the scene with buffy "Lending" willow her powers to heal. I think that was the forgivesness part. And with all the angst in the season and the changed persons-relationships they needed to keep willow willow, because the babbling and sweetness is what makes her willow. But I think they had to have made a bigger deal about willow doing magic again (serious magics anyway). But Willow protests once and then she does it. I thought that was a bit lame...
Hi!
First, I know I'm late to post this comment, but I have just discovered this show and been listening to them rapidly since then.
Second, english is my second language, so I'm already sorry for the mistakes I will make.
Third, the real reason of my post, I have to disagree with something said during the show. It was said that it was somewhat weird that Hush main theme is how words get in the way of communication and that some of the vital information is given through words (written). I didn't see this as a condraction. I thought it was more about choosing your words. When you have to write everything, or simply when communication through solely spoken words become difficult, you have to be careful which words you choose and really think about what you are saying. For exemple, when Giles does his presentation, some things would have been quite difficult to portray with drawings, so he had to resort to words, but specifically chosen words. He couldn't write a thousand word essay on the question.
And, I also want to say that it is great to see and hear such interesting comments on this great show that always seem somewhat underestimated.
Illusoire
First, I know I'm late to post this comment, but I have just discovered this show and been listening to them rapidly since then.
Second, english is my second language, so I'm already sorry for the mistakes I will make.
Third, the real reason of my post, I have to disagree with something said during the show. It was said that it was somewhat weird that Hush main theme is how words get in the way of communication and that some of the vital information is given through words (written). I didn't see this as a condraction. I thought it was more about choosing your words. When you have to write everything, or simply when communication through solely spoken words become difficult, you have to be careful which words you choose and really think about what you are saying. For exemple, when Giles does his presentation, some things would have been quite difficult to portray with drawings, so he had to resort to words, but specifically chosen words. He couldn't write a thousand word essay on the question.
And, I also want to say that it is great to see and hear such interesting comments on this great show that always seem somewhat underestimated.
Illusoire
hiii i love sarah m gellar verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrym much
posted by: samahlucky on Wed, 12/26 09:14 AM EST
Post your comment:
