PDA

View Full Version : Passion of the Nerd - Buffy and Angel youtube videos



flow
12-06-18, 07:30 PM
So, this guy is - imho - amazing. He publishes episodes Review Videos for BtsV as well as for AtS on his YouTube channel. We have talked about his reviews so far in the favorite podcast thread, but I think, he deserves his own thread.

So far he has covered season 1-3 and about half of season 4 for BtsV.

Season one:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ-lwpabT36k5hcDEoGOHNJ8qi7NemRkT

Season two:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ-lwpabT36nHAy0TWBbpoMqOwMXA1MPQ

Season three:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ-lwpabT36mJ2ouOJlMS4FM-PC-P8_L2

Season four:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ-lwpabT36lCyetf0mw8yrzJ1sC9lXQ3

He usually puts up a new episode for BtVS every month. The last one - This Years Girl - was published about a month ago and therefore I am eagerly waiting for Who Are You right now. As soon as it is up on YouTube, I am gonna post the link here and we can share our thoughts about it.

I am not up to date with his AtS Reviews, maybe someone else wants to keep us updated on them.

flow

Silver1
12-06-18, 08:16 PM
If you're a member of youtube you can subscribe to his channel and you will get emailed updates. He seems to have gone a bit quite of late for some reason.

If you subscribe you'll also get to know when he does his occasional live feeds where he either talks and takes questions whilst editing one of his videos or just does alive chat with a few other Buffy fans.

Always entertaining.

HowiMetdaSlayer
13-06-18, 03:40 PM
*can't wait for New Moon Rising review* :whoo:

Silver1
28-06-18, 08:58 AM
Buffy seasons 4's Who are you is now up....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx2YDPDMhAM

Priceless
28-06-18, 06:13 PM
Really interesting stuff, as usual. I agree that Faith raped both Buffy and Riley when she had sex with Riley, and I do see how Buffy expecting Riley to have known it wasn't her is perhaps expecting too much, but I think it's a very human reaction. Even if Buffy hadn't said it out loud, most of us in her situation would have blamed Riley just a little, for not recognising this woman wasn't the woman he loved, no matter how unfair that might have been. I am also pretty sure that if it had been the other way around and Buffy hadn't recognised the 'fake-Riley', Riley wouldn't have been as understanding - look how he was when Buffy fell under Dracula's thrall.

flow
02-07-18, 09:17 PM
I do have some issues with this review.

He says:

Rape is unlawful sexual activity carried out against a person who is incapable of valid consent because of intoxication, uncoinsciuosness or deception.



I`d like to know, where this defintion is from. There have been and still are many different definitions of rape throughout the ages and in different cultures. There are even nowadays different definitions of rape in the US, because it is a criminal offence under the jurisdiction of each federal state.

What surprises me a bit about his definition is, that it does not even mention the case, where a person is very much capable of a valid consent and just doesn`t give it. Or openly denies it. But maybe he just skipped that, because it`s not relevant in the Buffy/Riley/Faith situation.

I admit, that have difficulties with "incapable of valid consent because of deception". There is certainley a lot of deception going on in the Buffy/Riley/Faith situation. But this situation is not only fictional, it is a fiction that takes place outside our reality. A body swap device does not exist and therefore there no one can have sex with a person while being in another persons body.

The closest, you can come to this is the well-known example of the twin, who has sex with the wife of his brother, while she is assuming, it`s her husband, she is having sex with. This is probably not a common but instead a very exceptional crime.

If I believe, my husband is faithful and I have sex with him while being under the assumption he is faithful and he knows, that I would not have sex with him, if I knew, he was unfaithful, but all the while he does have an affair with his secretary - is that rape ? is my consent valid, although I have been deceited?

And if it isn`t valid....what if my husband tells me, he has put the garbage out and I have sex with him believing, he put the garbage out and later I find, he didn`t put the garbage out - is that rape?

I am not sure, I am really happy with POTN`s definition here.

I agree, that Riley did not consent to have sex with Faith (in Buffy`s body) and Buffy did not consent to have sex at all. Buffy was raped. No doubt about that. Riley - well, I think it is debatable, if he was raped. He did consent to sex. He just didn`t knew, he consented to sex with Faith. He thought, he was consenting to sex with Buffy. Does our definition of rape really cover that? As I said, it is something, that does not happen (yet), because we don`t have the technology (yet). We might have to change our laws, if we come that far.

What I strongly object against though, is, that he accuses Buffy of accusing Riley of cheating on her. Buffy accuses Riley of not recognizing Faith. And yes, it is questionable, if Riley really had a chance to realize, he wasn`t having sex with Buffy. I actually would say, there was a small chance. After all, Tara noticed that there was something wrong with Buffy without having even met her before. Riley knew about demons, magic and all things supernatural. There had been another body swap just weeks ago with Giles and the Fyarl demon. And Faith was acting very .... unusual. For Buffy.

There were signs. He did not read them. Okay. I wouldn`t hold that against him. But I do believe, that Buffy has every right, to be hurt and vulnerable about what happened. I believe that Buffy has every right, to need time to come to terms with what happened. And I believe, that Buffy has every right, to be distant towards Riley for more than just a few weeks.

POTN basically says, that Buffy holds Riley accountable and she does not have a right to do so. I`d say, that Buffy is hurt and has every right to do so. Yes, it is Faith who is to blame here, not Riley. But that doesn`t mean, Buffy has to cuddle Riley. I can understand her reaction and I would feel just the same. Not because Riley is culpable, but because she has the right to feel hurt.

I feel, that POTN is blaming Buffy here - not for the actual rape of course, but for her reaction towards Riley. I am not happy with that.

flow

Sosa lola
02-07-18, 09:31 PM
POTN basically says, that Buffy holds Riley accountable and she does not have a right to do so. I`d say, that Buffy is hurt and has every right to do so.

I agree with POTN. Buffy has the right to feel upset about the situation, but she shouldn't blame Riley for what happened because Riley was the victim.

vampmogs
03-07-18, 09:12 AM
If I'm being honest, I was pretty underwhelmed by his review of Who Are You. It wasn't bad mind you, but I don't think he said anything particularly insightful or original about the episode that hasn't been said many times before. I agree with him that Riley was raped but that's been discussed numerous times in fandom so I wasn't at all surprised that he'd interpret the episode that way.

I think both Buffy and Riley are victims in this episode. I agree that the trauma and severity of what Riley went through is underplayed in Superstar but I disagree with POTN that Buffy was blaming Riley for "cheating" on her. I guess I would struggle to articulate it differently as well but I don't really think Buffy was hurt at him for "cheating" and I don't think that word accurately reflects her issues here. Deep down Buffy knows it's irrational to blame Riley for what happened but she needs some time to come to terms with what happened. I'm actually fully on board with that - it's just a pity that what Riley went through is brushed aside.

Cheese Slices
03-07-18, 12:23 PM
I think he might be feeling a lot of pressure and sometimes it translates into being underwhelming. I can definitely relate to that.
As for the rest, I think Buffy is entitled to her perfectly understandable feelings, though rationally it isn't fair to put most of the blame on Riley. That said, I feel like it's more, like vampmogs said, than cheating : she's upset that Riley couldn't tell it wasn't her. I've forgotten whether it's something that's ever expressed in the following episodes ?

vampmogs
03-07-18, 12:34 PM
In Superstar;

Buffy: "It's all Faith's fault. She's like poison. No worse,
she's like acid that eats through everything. Maybe she's a bomb. The
point is everything was going along great with Riley and then
she comes along and messes everything up.

Jonathan: "Buffy you know what I think: I don't think this
about you being angry with Faith, I think you're angry with
Riley. I mean you have this amazing connection with him and then at the one moment when it matters the most
he looks into your eyes and he doesn't even see that it's not
you looking back at him."

Buffy: "There's no way he could know. I mean you don't just
look at someone and say 'Hey that's not your body, get out of
that body with your hands up!'"

And Buffy does express disappointment at Giles in Who Are You that he couldn't tell it wasn't her like she could tell he was a demon in A New Man;

Buffy: "Giles you turned into a demon and I knew it was you! Can you not just look into my eyes and be all intuitive?"

I think I was just disappointed as this is one of my favourite episodes and I believe he said it was one of, if not his favourite, Season 4 episode, so I was hoping for some new insights I hadn't considered before. But I don't usually put him on much of a pedestal as at the end of the day he's just another fan and not even someone I agree with a lot of the time.

Sosa lola
03-07-18, 01:26 PM
I think the difference between the Giles and Buffy/Faith situation was that they were really Giles' eyes on that demon. Buffy was in Faith's body and had Faith's eyes. But I do think it was odd that no one could tell Buffy's behavior was off in Who Are You.

vampmogs
03-07-18, 02:14 PM
Oh definitely. Giles was literally transformed into a demon whereas Faith was wearing Buffy's face so it's not really fair to compare them.

I think the character's definitely noticed that Buffy's behaviour was strange. There's several moments where they all pause of react with confusion at some of her strange reactions and behaviour. But at the end of the day, even in the Buffyverse, I can't blame characters for not jumping to conclusions that Buffy/Faith have switched bodies or that anything supernatural was going on. People react strangely sometimes or don't always act as you'd expect. With nothing else to go on it's too much of a leap to suspect something more sinister is afoot.

Priceless
03-07-18, 02:54 PM
I think throughout the Buffy/Riley relationship there has been an underlying issue of Riley not really wanting Buffy as she it, but wanting an idealised version who isn't super-strong Slayer-girl. Sleeping with Faith played into that issue, because Faith was presenting someone who looking like Buffy, but was not Buffy and was perhaps behaving more like the kind of girl Riley wanted. Of course we don't know how much Riley told Buffy about Faith's behaviour. I would suggest not much.

Sosa lola
03-07-18, 04:49 PM
But at the end of the day, even in the Buffyverse, I can't blame characters for not jumping to conclusions that Buffy/Faith have switched bodies or that anything supernatural was going on. People react strangely sometimes or don't always act as you'd expect. With nothing else to go on it's too much of a leap to suspect something more sinister is afoot.

I agree. Like in Bad Girls when Buffy was acting more Faith like, she was still Buffy but acting strangely.

Alce
09-07-18, 10:32 AM
Idea of Faith raping Buffy seems a little too bizzare to me. Buffy wasn't a participant of this sexual act. Of course we could argue that it was her body Faith used, but it was just body, not mind and soul.

Also Faith stole Buffy's body and had no intentions to give it back. So if she succeeded would that mean that Buffy couldn't have sex at all till death, because it would be 'raping' of Faith? :confused: That doesn't sound reasonable to me at all.

flow
09-07-18, 11:31 AM
It is always difficult to apply Terms or definitions, we use in a world without supernatural to a world with supernatural. There is no "term" in our world for a scenario where two people swap their bodies and then one of them has sex, because that simply doesn`t happen.

But if you reduce this scene to the basics, than someone had sex with Buffy`s body on the one hand but without Buffy`s consent on the other hand.

I wouldn`t say that this scenario is very different from a scenario where someone is unconcious - either because that person is being roofied, drugged or knocked out - and someone else is having sex with that person. The mind would not participate in the sexual act, because the mind is unconscious. But the scenario would clearly be a rape by almost every definition I have ever heard of.

The question if Buffy would also rape Faith, if she had sex during the body swap is a bit tricky. But - Faith was the one who consented to the body swap. You might say, that included that she consented to everything that happened to her body during that body swap.

flow

Priceless
09-07-18, 11:31 AM
Idea of Faith raping Buffy seems a little too bizzare to me. Buffy wasn't a participant of this sexual act. Of course we could argue that it was her body Faith used, but it was just body, not mind and soul.

Also Faith stole Buffy's body and had no intentions to give it back. So if she succeeded would that mean that Buffy couldn't have sex at all till death, because it would be 'raping' of Faith? :confused: That doesn't sound reasonable to me at all.

I think using Buffy's body against her will, to commit an act she did not consent to, is rape. To argue that it's 'just a body' is similar to saying that if a girl is passed out, therefore her consciousness is not there, she is just a body and an assailant can do anything they want - her mind doesn't know what's going on.

Alce
09-07-18, 12:09 PM
I think using Buffy's body against her will, to commit an act she did not consent to, is rape. To argue that it's 'just a body' is similar to saying that if a girl is passed out, therefore her consciousness is not there, she is just a body and an assailant can do anything they want - her mind doesn't know what's going on.

I disagree. "Just a body" was about body without mind and soul, not simply unconscious. In case of unconscious girl it still would be assault on her as complete entity. And assailant would have intention to assault her. In Faith case she had no intention to have sex with Buffy, she had sex with Riley. And my question still stands. Would Buffy be morally obliged to be celibate for the rest of her life? Or she would accept Faith's body as her own in some point of time?





The question if Buffy would also rape Faith, if she had sex during the body swap is a bit tricky. But - Faith was the one who consented to the body swap. You might say, that included that she consented to everything that happened to her body during that body swap.

flow

Not really. Even if we forget that it was as surprising to Faith as to Buffy, wouldn't it be hypocritical to use different standards for such thing as sex? If it's wrong to use one body for it, it should be equally wrong to use another.

Priceless
09-07-18, 12:23 PM
I disagree. "Just a body" was about body without mind and soul, not simply unconscious. In case of unconscious girl it still would be assault on her as complete entity. And assailant would have intention to assault her. In Faith case she had no intention to have sex with Buffy, she had sex with Riley. And my question still stands. Would Buffy be morally obliged to be celibate for the rest of her life? Or she would accept Faith's body as her own in some point of time?


I still disagree with 'just a body' idea, as the body is so much of who we are and how we identify ourselves, any misuse of it is still wrong. I also think Faith had every intention of assaulting Buffy , doesn't she say to Riley 'What nasty little things have you always wanted to do to this body . . .' (sorry, can't remember the exact phrasing) - showing Faith's intention to wanting to abuse that body. The body is not worthless, a thing to be ****ed with, it has power on its own, as shown by Faith's need to defile it.

And yes, if Buffy wan't to keep her morality, she would have to be celibate for the rest of her life. The body her mind is in is not hers, she has a duty of care, no matter who that body belongs to. It would show the difference between Faith and Buffy, one would care for the others body, the other wishes it to be ill used. Although in reality, could Buffy keep that body from being hurt/used/misused, I'm not so sure :noidea:

Alce
09-07-18, 12:48 PM
I still disagree with 'just a body' idea, as the body is so much of who we are and how we identify ourselves, any misuse of it is still wrong. I also think Faith had every intention of assaulting Buffy , doesn't she say to Riley 'What nasty little things have you always wanted to do to this body . . .' (sorry, can't remember the exact phrasing) - showing Faith's intention to wanting to abuse that body. The body is not worthless, a thing to be ****ed with, it has power on its own, as shown by Faith's need to defile it.

And yes, if Buffy wan't to keep her morality, she would have to be celibate for the rest of her life. The body her mind is in is not hers, she has a duty of care, no matter who that body belongs to. It would show the difference between Faith and Buffy, one would care for the others body, the other wishes it to be ill used. Although in reality, could Buffy keep that body from being hurt/used/misused, I'm not so sure :noidea:

Ok. I can see reasoning in that point of view.

As for me I see it differently. For comparison I'll take Buffy resurrection in season 6. That moment when her dead rotten body was restored back to life. Should we consider her new body less authentic, less genuine and therefore resurrected Buffy being less of Buffy than Buffy before death? I myself think that's not the case. That why I still think that "just a body" is valid point of view in this case. In moment of sex Faith had full ownership of a body. It was her body at that moment. Same as former Faith's body was in full ownership of Buffy at the time of the switch. Her soul, her mind, her body.

Priceless
09-07-18, 01:06 PM
Ok. I can see reasoning in that point of view.

As for me I see it differently. For comparison I'll take Buffy resurrection in season 6. That moment when her dead rotten body was restored back to life. Should we consider her new body less authentic, less genuine and therefore resurrected Buffy being less of Buffy than Buffy before death? I myself think that's not the case. That why I still think that "just a body" is valid point of view in this case. In moment of sex Faith had full ownership of a body. It was her body at that moment. Same as former Faith's body was in full ownership of Buffy at the time of the switch. Her soul, her mind, her body.

Your argument is that possession is 9 /10ths of the law, and that too is a valid viewpoint.

But as for the dead body, that is not similar, because Buffy's consciousness was not in this dimension. She happily gave up her life and her body and was happy where she was. No one wanted the body she left behind, except to bury it and respect it. The body-swap is very different imo. Faith stole Buffy's body, which is bad enough, but she also wanted to damage it, bring it as low as possible, do things with it that she thought Buffy would never do, in an act of revenge. Two very different situations. Also, Buffy's mind was still here, and her mind knew she was in the wrong body and she was fighting to get back to her real body

Silver1
07-08-18, 10:42 AM
Angel season 1 The Ring is up.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZATVSqEylE&t=403s

Silver1
11-08-18, 10:13 AM
I've just watched one of his live feeds/discussions which pretty much seem to be an excuse to get raging drunk on air sadly. He seems to do a lot of those these days, which makes me suspect he may have a 'problem'.

It was a strange little 2 hour wander through various topics, some of which was Once more with Feeling, which was okay (except his drunkenness was getting extremely embarrassing, I mean why do this to yourself so often and in public too?) but he ended it by saying those who thought the last scene when Spike and Buffy kiss was romantic were missing the frigging point, and that all her songs were about depression, and "that this was no different" Has anyone ever heard that view on this particular scene before? Or was I really viewing that kiss via my 'Spike Goggles' yet again? :lol:

He also amazed me by saying he disliked Tara's song as It was pitched too high.

As per with these late night live feeds he's taken the video down after a couple of hours so It's not visible now.

vampmogs
11-08-18, 10:40 AM
I caught one of his live feeds and he did seem to be drinking heavily but I was honestly more embarrassed by all the fawning over him from the comment section. I find it really cringeworthy :s

In regards to OMWF, he's not wrong to say that Buffy was singing about her depression. After all, she sings "this isn't real but I just want to feel" which is more or less an admission that she's a) using him and b) suffering from depression. It's what she'll repeat ad nauseam throughout the season (Dead Things, As You Were). However, the scene is also has grand romantic music, the epic kiss, and the sweeping curtain call, so just because it's dark and depressing it doesn't also mean it can't be viewed as romantic as well. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. But yeah, I do think that OMWF is overall meant to be subversive with the 'grand musical' and all it's tropes being used to hide the pain all the characters were going through. Most of the lyrics are all very dark hidden behind 'happy' songs.

I feel the same way about the Willow/Tara song. There's a dark undercurrent to I'm Under Your Spell but I also wouldn't blame people for finding it romantic with the Disney-esque magic, flowing dresses, dancing and sex.

Personally, I think the guy is a little overrated myself. His reviews aren't bad at all but he doesn't really say anything that hasn't already been said over the past 20 years. I think he just has a knack for editing his videos and I admit that some of his earlier vids made me unexpectedly emotional. But his last few reviews have left me pretty cold.

Silver1
11-08-18, 11:13 AM
I know It's none of my business, but I get the feeling he's going through some rough times emotionally and thats why these 'drunk feeds' are getting more frequent. I mean hell, now does his live editing feeds whilst drinking, which just rings alarm bells for me.

I still do rate him video wise, but as you've hinted at the quality has dropped off more.

As to the whole Spike/Buffy thing, yeah, I get It's about depression, but maybe It's just me getting swept up in the moment, but I also thought there was a tiny bit of hope thrown into the mix. But then I'm one of those poor deluded souls who saw the whole 'Smashed' episode house falling as a metaphor for the barriers between the characters coming down, rather then being this signaling the start of a destructive relationship. :lol:

Priceless
11-08-18, 02:20 PM
He also amazed me by saying he disliked Tara's song as It was pitched too high.


Me too. I don't like the pitch when Tara sings alone, though I think she and Giles together are great

- - - Updated - - -


Personally, I think the guy is a little overrated myself. His reviews aren't bad at all but he doesn't really say anything that hasn't already been said over the past 20 years. I think he just has a knack for editing his videos and I admit that some of his earlier vids made me unexpectedly emotional. But his last few reviews have left me pretty cold.


I agree, but I think he's given up his job and is just doing the videos/reviewing. Unfortunately that could mean he's chasing a buck now, so is perhaps only saying what he thinks the majority of his viewers want to hear, though I hope I'm very wrong about that.

As I've mentioned several times, the Still Pretty and Still Dead podcasts are great for bringing in new views and opinions (such as Marcie and bi-erasure & Darla/Angel having sex) and that's one of the reasons I like them. POTN is lyrical and sweet and makes great videos, but he says very little that is new.

- - - Updated - - -


As to the whole Spike/Buffy thing, yeah, I get It's about depression, but maybe It's just me getting swept up in the moment, but I also thought there was a tiny bit of hope thrown into the mix. But then I'm one of those poor deluded souls who saw the whole 'Smashed' episode house falling as a metaphor for the barriers between the characters coming down, rather then being this signaling the start of a destructive relationship.

I think it can mean both. Things don't only have to have one meaning. Things have the meanings you assign to them. I choose to believe the house being destroyed is about the Verse being destroyed, because here is Buffy, the Slayer sleeping with Spike, a soulless creature. The Verse is smashed and everyone's view, beliefs and actions have to be reformed from this moment. Smashed is the Buffyverse's Reformation

flow
11-08-18, 07:51 PM
Silver1
he ended it by saying those who thought the last scene when Spike and Buffy kiss was romantic were missing the frigging point, and that all her songs were about depression, and "that this was no different"

Spike goggles here as well (same as for Smashed, which is my favorite Spuffy episode) but I read the absolutely fantastic and brilliant review for Once More with Feeling by American Aurora on the BtVS rewatch season 6 thread a short while ago and she pointed out that Spike and Buffy are both singing to each other in the last scene shortly before the kiss. But they don`t listen to each other. They are both completely missing the other ones point. I have rewatched that particular scene afterwards and sadly had to throw my Spike goggles in the bin.


flow

Priceless
12-08-18, 05:27 AM
Silver1

Spike goggles here as well (same as for Smashed, which is my favorite Spuffy episode) but I read the absolutely fantastic and brilliant review for Once More with Feeling by American Aurora on the BtVS rewatch season 6 thread a short while ago and she pointed out that Spike and Buffy are both singing to each other in the last scene shortly before the kiss. But they don`t listen to each other. They are both completely missing the other ones point. I have rewatched that particular scene afterwards and sadly had to throw my Spike goggles in the bin.


flow
But isn't that the same when Giles and Tara sing to Buffy and Willow? It's not that they are not listening as such (although that's the subtext) it's that they cannot hear? Or are you saying that's the same thing?

vampmogs
12-08-18, 05:44 AM
I agree, but I think he's given up his job and is just doing the videos/reviewing. Unfortunately that could mean he's chasing a buck now, so is perhaps only saying what he thinks the majority of his viewers want to hear, though I hope I'm very wrong about that.

I'll always be amazed that people actually donate money to these guys. I also think it's pretty cheeky that they actually set up a donation tab but more power to them I guess. I just can't fathom parting my with money to listen to this guy talk about Buffy when I can read decades worth of fabulous discourse on the show for free.

flow
12-08-18, 09:57 AM
Priceless
But isn't that the same when Giles and Tara sing to Buffy and Willow? It's not that they are not listening as such (although that's the subtext) it's that they cannot hear? Or are you saying that's the same thing?

I don`t remember the Giles and Tara bits. Anyway, American Aurora explained it so much better than I can thus I take the liberty to directly quote her here from her OMWF review:

AmericanAurora:


What Spike can’t see is that Buffy isn’t really responding to his words at all – but what he represents

So Buffy’s main interest in Spike isn’t just sexual or romantic or even a diversion from the trials and tribulations of life although those are all important elements of her attraction. In reality, her slow movement towards Spike is a deliberate embrace of death.


Buffy realizes that she can choose another way to “die” that’s much less painless (or so she thinks) than the last one. Through a relationship with Spike, she can run away from her former life as a living woman – forget about heaven – and just rut and wallow in the dark like a dead thing.

But Spike is oblivious to Buffy’s true motives – as he moves forward, he believes that she’s finally decided to give into her deepest desires.

And Buffy starts to sing the last line of her opening number “Going Through the Motions” even as Spike reprises “Rest in Peace” – and it’s clear how Whedon has cleverly connected their numbers. But neither is really listening to the other - the subtle difference in the word "feel" as both sing it simultaneously is telling.


As the curtain starts to descend on Spike and Buffy, the ending of the drama can be viewed from two very different perspectives because Buffy and Spike both walk together but separately in darkness and light, both crossing each other’s path in a search for meaning. One seeking death and final oblivion, one seeking life and something effulgent

The two meet at the middle when they come together for a kiss – Buffy reaching for death and Spike reaching for life.

But of course there is also another perspective as well. The hope thrown into the mix, as Silver1 mentioned it:

AmericanAurora:


And the answer is that Once More With Feeling is both tragedy and comedy at once that leads to infinite possibilities. For Buffy, it is a tragedy that ends in the bleak finality of death. But for Spike, it is a comedy that holds out the promise of redemption through the perpetual cycle of life and rebirth.

flow

Silver1
12-08-18, 10:03 AM
I'll always be amazed that people actually donate money to these guys. I also think it's pretty cheeky that they actually set up a donation tab but more power to them I guess. I just can't fathom parting my with money to listen to this guy talk about Buffy when I can read decades worth of fabulous discourse on the show for free.

Well to be fair I think It's more about wanting him to continue making nice little videos then any kind of unique insight into the show. Didn't somebody on here say he bases his views on another Buffy thesis type book?

TriBel
12-08-18, 11:31 AM
The two meet at the middle when they come together for a kiss – Buffy reaching for death and Spike reaching for life.

Hmmm...okay but...in theory (and off the top of my head) this amounts to the same thing. Language is what allows being to emerge from not being - we "live" through language - but language is the death of the real. Seems to me they're both reaching for an imaginary plenitude (the thing Buffy's still looking for in S12). Having said that - it could be what Aurora's saying.

What I've always intended to ask Aurora is the significance of the reference to Music Man (76 Trombones). IIRC, Marion and Harold sing different songs to the same melody (I could be completely wrong - I usually am :sadwalk:). I'll re-read her piece - she might have mentioned it. :) I'm putting off reading the Season 6 reviews - they're daunting. :confused:

Priceless
12-08-18, 03:20 PM
I'll always be amazed that people actually donate money to these guys. I also think it's pretty cheeky that they actually set up a donation tab but more power to them I guess. I just can't fathom parting my with money to listen to this guy talk about Buffy when I can read decades worth of fabulous discourse on the show for free.

I would rather pay money to POTN and his like, who are at least trying to discuss Buffy with some intelligent thought, rather than those Reactors that are all over youtube. Some are better than others, but all they do is watch the show, they offer nothing in terms of discussion or debate. Although I have to admit, I do watch a couple of them when they're watching episodes I like :s

- - - Updated - - -


Hmmm...okay but...in theory (and off the top of my head) this amounts to the same thing. Language is what allows being to emerge from not being - we "live" through language - but language is the death of the real. Seems to me they're both reaching for an imaginary plenitude (the thing Buffy's still looking for in S12). Having said that - it could be what Aurora's saying.

And what is 'death' in the Buffyverse, where no-one actually ceases to exist, they just go to another dimension? Spike is the most 'alive' person in the verse, while Buffy has died twice, and didn't cease to exist, only her existence on this plane ceased. Death in the verse doesn't mean the end, it means a different state of being you. I'm not sure I believe Buffy wants 'death' as such, but just wants to be in a different state of being.

She says she wants to 'feel', and that isn't 'death' in the sense of non-existence, or becoming dust, or lack of self (come on you clever people, how do philosophers talk about death? I just don't have the words) It's about wanting to be different to how one is in that moment. I think Buffy embraces Spike because he offers her an alternative that isn't death, and I think Spike embraces Buffy because she offers him an alternative that isn't life (as in human). They offer the Buffyverse, between them, a middle ground of existence, a different way of being, that is both life/death alive/dead

TriBel
12-08-18, 04:18 PM
Priceless


They offer the Buffyverse, between them, a middle ground of existence, a different way of being, that is both life/death alive/dead


I'd go along with that - on the understanding that no one actually asks me what "that" is! I think it's the thing represented by their entwined hands and - as we saw in Chosen (the flaming hands) - as soon as it is - it consumes itself. It's the End of Days speech continually deferred...or it's a cat.

SPIKE: (looks at her) Were you there with me?
BUFFY: (looks straight at him) I was.
SPIKE: What does that mean?
BUFFY: I don't know. Does it have to mean something?
SPIKE: No. (looks away) Not right now.
BUFFY: Maybe when...
SPIKE: No. (throws up his hand) Let's just leave it................................................ ....



(come on you clever people, how do philosophers talk about death? I just don't have the words) :rotf:

The Inevitable Philosophy Lightbulb Jokes

How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?
It depends on how you define ‘change’.

How many existentialists does it take to change a light bulb?
Two – one to bemoan the darkness until the other redefines something else as light.

How many analytic philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?
None – its a pseudo-problem…light bulbs give off light (hence the name). If the bulb was broken and wasn’t giving off light, it wouldn’t be a ‘light bulb’ now would it? (oh, where has rigour gone?!)

How many Heraclitians does it take to change a light bulb?
None – it’s never the same light bulb again anyway

How many Epicureans does it take to change a light bulb?
None – they’re too busy taking advantage of the darkness!

How many Marxists does it take to change a lightbulb?
None. The lightbulb contains the seeds of its own revolution.

How many Nietzschians does it take to change a light bulb?
0.00001

How many Natural Selectionists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Well actually, we won’t even try to change the bulb. We will simply stop using the room that has the burned out bulb, and start using only rooms with functioning bulbs. That way, over time, ….

How many fatalists does it take to change a light bulb?
None, why fight it?

How many Humeans does it take to change a light bulb?
None – since the bulb actually contains a gaseous substance, and thus contains no ‘abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number’ nor any ‘experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact and existence’ it will simply be removed and thrown in the fire…

How many Kantians does it take to change a light bulb?
Two to change the phenomenal bulb; and one to explain that we might not have actually changed the bulb-an-sich at all.

How many theologians does it take to change a light bulb?
100 – one to change the bulb, and 99 to explain why an infinite God of love would allow darkness to occur in the world at all.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/25/The_Inevitable_Philosophy_Lightbulb_Jokes

vampmogs
12-08-18, 04:18 PM
I would rather pay money to POTN and his like, who are at least trying to discuss Buffy with some intelligent thought, rather than those Reactors that are all over youtube. Some are better than others, but all they do is watch the show, they offer nothing in terms of discussion or debate. Although I have to admit, I do watch a couple of them when they're watching episodes I like :s

Oh I agree with you there, but I also can't understand why anyone would ever pay the reactors either. It's just so bizarre to me.

Watching people react to the shows is oddly addictive. I'm following at least 5 of them at the moment and I honestly couldn't even tell you why. I think it's because it's almost like getting to experience the show for the first time all over again through their fresh eyes. And I always used to get excited introducing friends and family to the series so watching reaction videos is just an extension of that, I guess.

I'm pleasantly surprised by how many reactors seem to really enjoy the series throughout Season 1. It's easily the most dated season of the show and the series was still finding it's footing, but they all seem to have really enjoyed it still which makes me happy. It also warms my heart that Buffy seems to quickly become their Number 1 show they're reacting to even though some of them react to multiple shows. It just demonstrates how much more gripping Buffy still is than most of the newer shows on TV today.

***

Whilst Buffy may have continued on in some fashion whilst in "Heaven" what she rejects is, for all intents and purposes, life. It's true that Buffy described some form of consciousness whilst in Heaven but it sounds like she was in a permanent stasis where she had no form, no concept of time, no interaction with anything or anyone beyond a sense of "feeling warm and loved", and she was unable to observe anything. It wasn't even comparable to Cordelia's existence as a Higher Being as Cordy was shown to actually observe what was going on below, and at one point manage to influence things, whereas Buffy had no idea what was happening (she didn't know anything that had occurred in the 3 months she was dead - she just described a hazy feeling of "knowing everybody she loved was ok"). And whilst Cordy expressed frustration and boredom from being in a "paradise" where she wasn't able to effect anything, Buffy welcomed being ineffectual, lost to the world, and "finished." Her consciousness may have lingered on but Buffy herself described it as a feeling of being "complete" so she didn't see it as a continuation of her life just in another form.

I agree with others that Spike is definitely meant to symbolise "death" in Season 6, at least to Buffy. He was her constant flirtation with death and the dark. We saw her turn to Spike instead of her responsibilities on numerous occasions (much like she longed for death again to escape her responsibilities), she turned to him instead of her friends because a "whisper in a dead man's ear [didn't] make it real", and I'm sure that the possibility that Spike could, in theory, even bite her during sex must've at the very least crossed her mind. I agree that she used Spike to feel which suggests that he wasn't a form of suicide for Buffy, but their relationship was overall a form of self-harm (I liken it to "cutting" - it's better to feel something bad then nothing at all) and there's a very thin line between harming oneself and going too far and actually ending it. As Buffy gets better throughout the season she ends up rejecting the relationship because "it's killing [her]" and she no longer desired that feeling anymore.

However, I will say that I agree that Season 6 Spuffy enabled Buffy to break free from some barriers and learn things about herself. I think that because she used to the relationship as a form of escapism she was able to explore sides of herself (and her sexuality) that she previously hadn't been willing to explore or was aware of before.

Priceless
12-08-18, 04:35 PM
TriBel - fantastic jokes! Thank you for sharing, I honestly laughed out loud :D

TriBel
12-08-18, 04:45 PM
TriBel - fantastic jokes! Thank you for sharing, I honestly laughed out loud :D

The Humeans frighten me! :behindsofa:

What idiot throws a light bulb in the fire?! :boom:

Priceless
12-08-18, 04:52 PM
feeling

In our world, when we die, we do not go on feeling. Of course I'm an atheist, so I would say that, but it's exactly what I mean - death is the end of feeling in our world. In the Buffyverse, the feeling continues. She feels when she's in heaven and it brings her peace. She comes to earth and she doesn't feel. Spike is a 'dead thing' but also 'alive' in that he exists here, and he feels everything deeply. Of course I would say that being a Spike fan, and not everyone would agree. But Spike takes a joy and a pleasure in life that few of the other characters can match.


I agree with others that Spike is definitely meant to symbolise "death" in Season 6, at least to Buffy. He was her constant flirtation with death and the dark.

You are probably right, and it's what the writers intended. I understand that there may be a lack of logical thinking when one is mentally ill, and Buffy was suffering from a mental illness, but still I do not see the through line of this thinking. She flirts with death in the guise of someone who is more alive than she is in many ways, and if she wanted to die there are better ways than sleeping with Spike, who she knew was in love with her. As you say, she ends her relationship with him because 'it's killing her' - so she doesn't want to die.

I would partly agree that 'self harm' is a better way of framing the relationship, but even then I struggle because I don't know enough about self harm to see the similarities. And self-harm isn't death, it's a release of tension and high emotion (I'm guessing here, maybe someone with more knowledge could explain it a bit more?)

Priceless
18-08-18, 10:00 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVWcLQpHDvc

Silver1
18-08-18, 02:37 PM
I watched him editing this online this morning. This is the first of these I had issues with. I think he's being overly picky with this story and a tad humourless. Also he just had to get his little Spike dig in didn't he. ;)

Sosa lola
18-08-18, 02:54 PM
I like the idea that Johnathan might have met Andrew and Warren at counseling.

Priceless
18-08-18, 02:59 PM
I watched him editing this online this morning. This is the first of these I had issues with. I think he's being overly picky with this story and a tad humourless. Also he just had to get his little Spike dig in didn't he. ;)

Yes, the Spike digs are becoming a regular thing. I actually liked this review and agree with much he said. Superstar doesn't work for me. I've always disliked Jonathan, and this episode just reinforces that, but I can understand why others think it's good.

Silver1
18-08-18, 03:23 PM
Well it may not surprise you then when I say I adored Jonathan and i thought this episode was extremely well done. Jane Espenson's fav character If I remember correctly. I wish he'd been the one to transfer over to season 7 rather then overused Andrew.

Sosa lola
18-08-18, 05:16 PM
I loved this episode a lot when I first watched it. I haven't seen in in years. I probably should. It was funny. It also included a very rare Buffy-Anya scene.

American Aurora
19-08-18, 03:49 AM
Hey, Guys, :)

I haven’t watched any Passion of the Nerd videos, but it sounds like this guy has quite a following. I’ll have to look at a few videos if I get a few minutes. I’m always skeptical of You Tube videos because they can be so rife with plagiarism – it’s kinda easy to check out a few essays and copy and paste with your mouth.

But it’s an interesting phenomenon to me - especially now that it’s become a marketing tool for movie and theatre producers to hook young people into their project. “You love Hamilton! Wait ‘till you see Be More Chill!” Be More Chill – a somewhat failed musical project that has already been staged multiple times – has piggybacked on the teen obsession with You Tube to make their show a rousing success that’s selling out off-Broadway despite mediocre reviews. It’s the video equivalent of the old “concept musical album” like Jesus Christ Superstar and Evita that Lloyd Webber pioneered so well – creating a meta-narrative for the show before it even happens.

The problem is – someone could easily slip this guy a few Franklins and he could play up all manner of crap based on his following. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s already happened.

But I finally got to wandering through other threads and perked up at the mention of Once More With Feeling. I’m really happy, flow, that you enjoyed it! Yay! :p

But I just wanted to be clear - when I used the phrases “life” and “death” when talking about the final coda, I was not only talking about life and death in a literal sense – Buffy is alive (well, sort of) and Spike is dead – human vs. vampire – and not just the specific references in the lyrics – but also Whedon’s use of the tropes of tragedy and comedy. The musical episode is a pastiche that uses all the various trappings and tropes of the traditional “musical” to comment on the action and forward character. It’s both integrated stage drama and modernist absurdity all rolled up into one big beautiful ball.

My review is so bug-f**king long because I wanted to first show how the musical is perceived, how it works, how powerfully Whedon was invested in it (his grandfather and father wrote musicals produced in New York, he worships Stephen Sondheim, his knowledge of musical theater is vast and has affected almost every word he’s written for Buffy), other musical episodes that are fundamentally different in nature and then get to how Whedon is purposefully working the themes that are the basis of Western drama itself (Eastern and African drama is very different and Whedon seemingly has had little contact with it outside of its vast influence on Western culture.)

The psychological meaning, societal function – and most importantly, the fundamental mythology that derives from the Earth Goddess/Orphic/Dionysian mysteries that explore the meaning of “life” and “death” in early Greek religion (death being another form of rebirth progressive and circular in nature – creating a sense of temporal displacement – so Time becomes both holistic and fragmented simultaneously) created the idea of “drama” as we know it – actors recreating this movement of life to death to rebirth as a purgative mechanism of catharsis. The religious basis of the Greek ideas of comedy and tragedy.

After reading tons of interviews with Whedon and reading extensively on how it was created, I honestly wanted people to see how powerfully Once More With Feeling uses the musical form – and the very nature of Western drama – to tell its story – complete with Dawn as Persephone/Eurydice and Sweet as Hades reenacting the Orphic mysteries with Buffy as both Demeter/Orpheus. As I wrote near the end (and everywhere else):


Dionysus was the God who hovered between life and death – the spiritual leader of the Mystery Religions that centered around the cult of Persephone and the mystery of death and regeneration. One of the few Greek/Roman gods able to raise the dead to life, the dramas that honored him were also metaphorical sacrifices honoring his resurrection. Orpheus – the greatest of all musicians and the originator of Dionysian veneration – was worshipped right alongside the God of wine and his Underworld Queen. Ecstatic imbibers could experience the same frenzy as their God in Bacchanalian orgies and mystery religions – their descendants were the practitioners of modern Western Drama.

The chthonic nature of the Festival (chthonic meaning literally underneath the earth) is based on the idea of sacrifice and reaches back to fertility rituals and mythologies of the underworld as personified by the myth of Demeter and her daughter Persephone who was kidnapped by Hades, the Lord of the Greek and Roman underworld. The Greek word khthon literally means dust or earth – not the cover above, but a signifier for the actual interior of the underworld below. And the central meaning of the Dionysian Mysteries is that all must come to dust in the end as Orpheus finds when he uses his musical skill to lead his beloved Eurydice from the underworld - and fails miserably.

But there was an upside – the festival concluded with a show that followed the precepts of tragedy with a difference – a comedy that celebrated the resurrection of Dionysus and human fertility. Tragedies almost always ended with death – whereas comedies almost always ended with a prelude to a wedding or rebirth – a tension that informs Once More With Feeling. Lawlessness meant freedom to create in this sense – the liberty given to celebrate Dionysus was connected with a happy ending in both sense of the phrase. To sing and dance was to embrace life – and to teach others to do so was an attempt to change an Apollonian black-and-white view of life to a Dionysian experience of pure ecstasy and terror.

And why is any of this important? For one, Buffy’s heroic journey fits in with Greek mythology – with a few gender alterations. Secondly, the Persephone/Dionysus/Orpheus myth of Death and Resurrection are central to Once More With Feeling and Season Six in general. And last, the very form of Once More With Feeling – a musical – actually determines the content of the episode. Whedon uses the idea of the musical – a genre generally associated either with high tragedy (as in Grand Opera) or low comedy (as in American musical comedy) – to explore the idea of performance as a representation of life itself – both comic and tragic.

With only a few minutes left, we’ve come to the end of the drama and now the question has to be asked – where do we go from here? And the answer is simple – is Once More With Feeling a comedy or a tragedy? Does it end with the finality of death – or is it a sign of renewal and potential rebirth? Musicals all don't end with a kiss and a promise of marriage (and future rebirth) – from Carousel to West Side Story to Sweeney Todd, a lot of the characters end up dead – even the star-crossed lovers. But there is always change – either to die or to create something new. Tragedy and comedy. And where the Season will finally end is unknown at this point. So Whedon characteristically gives us an “anti-group number” group number in which every character is as painfully aware of their distance from one another as their closeness.

I know it was way too much for most people here on the Forum, but it sure got a lot of hits from people outside the Forum – people I worked with loved it and we spent a lot of nights discussing how Whedon used theatrical formula to shape both the form and content of the piece. It helped, of course, that Buffy was literally ripped out of heaven by her friends and forced to literally enact the drama inherent in mystery religions of the West.

I’m writing more about it in Seeing Red, but Buffy and Spike are both wanderers in both the land of the living and the dead, making the epic journey from life to death and life again. So in that sense, they are both trapped in a state of chrysalis – both resting and changing. That’s why they can go either way – towards death or towards life – which is really a state of constant renewal in classic drama. Birth leads to Marriage (reproduction) leads to Death leads to Rebirth in another form. What’s dead is never really dead – Hamlet’s father wanders Elsinore and Hedda Gabler’s deceased father still speaks through her in every word and action. Buffy’s wanderings through the graves of Sunnydale prove the dead are still among us – even without the literalization of an undead vampire.

The importance of these stages in drama is what affects character and creates dramatic tension – the objective is always bound up with what state the character initially starts from and determines whether it’s a tragedy, comedy or a combination of the two (most common in Western Drama today). Buffy perceives Spike as a Dead Thing and her embrace of him is a movement (in her mind) towards Death whereas Spike feels the exact opposite – Buffy is representative of Life and his movement towards her lends the possibility of Rebirth.

Whedon is well aware of how classical dramatic construction works and he wanted to merge the big sweeping ending of a musical comedy with the darker and richer threads of a Greek tragedy. To Buffy, it’s a tragedy and to Spike it’s a comedy. The irony is that it’s both and neither – and we get a magnificent resolution of this in the end point of Season Six – Grave – when Buffy comes up again out of the ground after Willow “buries” her and Spike is reborn with a soul in the cave. Life and death and rebirth. It’s even in the lyrics that play over the last few minutes.

But I think you can keep the Spuffy feels at the end of Once More With Feeling, though, because the greatest connection between characters is when they feel the other can offer them an opportunity for transformation – trapped in stasis, they look to the other for a way out. In contrast, the relationship between Buffy and Angel fell apart when both came to believe that the other offered no possibility of transformation as long as Angel’s soul was at stake and his single-minded determination to find some sort of redemption was blocked by Buffy’s presence. The prelude to a kiss at the end of Once More With Feeling reflects the fact that both are seeing the same thing from different perspectives – their simultaneous phrases “But you can make me feel – “ and “But I just want to feel – “ leaves off the unspoken word “alive” that ends Buffy’s initial song and runs through Spike’s entire song “Rest in Peace” and replaces it with a kiss that represents life and death and everything in-between for both of them. But they’re absolutely not listening to each other even though they are connecting in a larger sense because each is looking to the other for transformation.

This is why the breakup of Buffy and Spike in Season 12 is so peculiar and feels so “off.” I honestly don’t believe that they’ve stopped finding that moment of redemptive change in each other – and so Buffy’s bizarre self-blame for the breakup feels weird and unconvincing. The dramatic pull of Spike towards life is still so incredibly strong even in the comics that Gage’s reasoning falls apart altogether – it merely comes off as Spike breaking off the relationship because Buffy wanted to and he wants to make her happy, despite his denials. It’s really badly done. If Spike and/or Buffy had moved on in any specific direction, things would have felt different. But they’re just seemingly standing still, looking at each other with no specifics that would drive them apart.

TriBel, in reference to your question regarding The Music Man, yes, both Harold Hill’s “76 Trombones” and Marian’s “Goodnight, My Someone” are essentially (but not completely) the same melody line in different time signatures. Meredith Willson wanted to suggest that these two people had something more in common than the audience suspected and linked them musically. And they are linked - Harold Hill fools the parents into buying band uniforms and instruments by convincing them that their kids will play in an imaginary grand marching band of 76 Trombones. Marian the Librarian/Music Teacher, who dreams of an imaginary lover in "Goodnight, My Someone" decides Hill is a fraud and threatens to expose him. But when her mute brother starts to speak and the kids who can barely play a note sound like a magnificent band to their doting parents, Marian confesses that she herself can now hear bells and birds and music that were nothing but noise before – because she loves Hill. So The Music Man is about transformation – the power of belief – the beauty of delusion.

And this also applies to Buffy and Spike in [I]Once More With Feeling[I] – although they don’t sing each other’s songs at the end like Harold Hill and Marian do in counterpoint, Buffy’s songs and Spike’s songs are counterparts of each other in terms of melody, lyrics and content because they both sing of the power of transformation. Here's a bit from what I wrote (gads, I hate to write it again - sorry!):


In the printed sheet music to “Rest in Peace”, the singer is instructed to sing three different sets of lyrics to the same melody – the seven bars of music that open the song. But this is literally impossible – looking at the four verses one can clearly see that the first verse is much shorter (and even follows a different melody line!) from the rest.

Anyone who tries to play and sing through “Rest in Peace” comes in for a big surprise – the words don’t fit on the musical notation. Why? The arranger of the sheet music assumed that the song was structured like a typical pop song with multiple repetitions of the same exact melody. If they’d realized that “Rest in Peace” was actually part of a MUSICAL, they might have been more careful with the sheet music. As it is now, it’s pretty unplayable unless you already know the song.

In musicals, songs rarely stand alone – unlike pop singles meant for radio play, a musical score works as a larger dramatic text in which the whole is much, much more than the sum of its parts. Music and lyrics are broken down into parts (or “leitmotifs”) associated with people, places or themes. In operas, musicals and movies, the musical development of these small units are then repeated and altered to form new meanings as the storyline progresses. Certain leitmotifs become so recognizable that one can anticipate when the shark is about to strike just from a few well-placed notes.

And Once More With Feeling is no exception – despite Whedon’s lack of professional musical know-how, he fundamentally understood that what brings a musical together is a series of leitmotifs that act like dramatic subtext in a play or screenplay. The audience may not consciously know that they are there – but they register nonetheless as our brains recognize repetitive musical patterns and words.

As the one of the first numbers written for the Buffy musical episode (the other being “Under Your Spell”), Whedon carefully mapped out how “Rest in Peace” would connect with other songs within the entire context of the episode, both musically and thematically. “Rest in Peace” is a book number disguised as a pop song – or a pop song disguised as a book number. And that’s what confused the sheet music arranger. The opening lines aren’t written to match the rest of the song – they’re written to match Buffy’s song.

Both character-driven and thematic in scope, “Rest in Peace” is not only a middle point in Once More With Feeling, but a turning point as well for Buffy’s journey. It’s as much Buffy’s song as Spike’s despite the fact that she never sings a note. Spike sings the song directly to her – which makes her a large dramatic presence. She shares the same thematic motifs in her previous and subsequent numbers. She even begins her opening “Walk Through the Fire” with a counter-melody that is really a delayed musical response to the verse in “Rest in Peace” and its themes. Buffy may not be conscious that her opening lines are a musical response to Spike’s song, but the composer/lyricist makes certain that the audience knows it by the end of the musical when her song blends with Spike’s song to create a multi-layered drama.

And this kind of subconscious linkage is at the heart of the musical – songs aren’t just thrown in, but constructed to bounce off each other. The slow build of leitmotifs gives scores an emotional power that transcends mere speech or song. The audience is given clues to hidden meanings embedded within the text. The music and lyric leitmotifs that wind from Buffy’s opening number all the way to the finale allow the viewer to finish the puzzle and end it with a bang.
--
SPIKE: Look, you don't have to say anything –

And Buffy follows his advice – she doesn’t “say” anything. Instead, she starts to sing. Because Buffy can’t speak anymore and when a character in a musical can no longer speak, they sing and when they can no longer sing or dance, then the old dramatic rules apply. When a character reaches that pitch of emotion – the same that almost burned Buffy to a cinder before Spike stopped her – then they have to “die” in some sense of the word. Either literally die or change into something so new that the old “self” is officially dead.
In Walk Through the Fire, Buffy began her portion of the song lamenting her inability to feel the fire of life – when Spike sang the second verse of the same melody, he complained that the fire of love was burning him from within. Typically in any production number, two or more characters have a different twist on the main refrain – Buffy saw the fire as something that she’d lost because of her experience in heaven – Spike saw it as something he was burdened with because of his love for Buffy. Despite being a dead thing, it’s Buffy who keeps Spike connected to life – not a great situation for a soulless vampire.
Buffy’s reprise of “Walk Through the Fire” is the start of a duet that Spike was fervently hoping for at the beginning of “Rest in Peace” and he eagerly sings his song again – but this time, Buffy’s not mocking him – she’s responding back.

And Buffy starts to sing the last line of her opening number “Going Through the Motions” even as Spike reprises “Rest in Peace” – and it’s clear how Whedon has cleverly connected their numbers. But neither is really listening to the other - the subtle difference in the word "feel" as both sing it simultaneously is telling.

But as the music swells, the expected word that completes both lines – “alive” – is never spoken or sung. Instead, the characters do what all musical characters do when they are so overwhelmed with emotion that it is no longer possible to sing. They express their feelings through physical movement – kissing passionately – in lieu of the unspoken word.

Hopefully, that gives a little insight into what I was thinking - but, yes, I think that Buffy and Spike are meant to be diametrically opposed at the beginning of their romantic relationship. They're singing past each other - they're not listening to each other - one moving towards life and one towards death in the classic dramatic sense - and both are not seeing that they're simply two sides of the same thing just as comedy and tragedy are. That's the point of Whedon's Greek Chorus - Where do we go from here? Will it be a tragedy or a comedy? The answer is - it's both depending on perspective - but neither is right and neither is wrong.

Sosa lola
19-08-18, 07:09 AM
American Aurora, I wanna tell you in case you didn't know. When I'm writing a fic, I always watch the episode my fic is set on and read the review in the Rewatch thread in this forums, especially your reviews. They're so helpful in getting into the characters' mindset. Right now I'm upset that we didn't get to S7 yet because I'm writing a S7 fic.

Priceless
19-08-18, 08:19 AM
POTN tweeted this overnight (or overnight for me) . . .

I'm considering a supplemental video series when fulltime where I respond to comments from the past Buffy and Angel guide. I think I missed the mark with the section on Jonathan in this one and a few people are wondering why I omitted the implications with the twins

I think this does show that he's listening to his commentators and so re-aligning his videos to please them. And when he doesn't please them, he wants to go back and re-evaluate :(

Silver1
19-08-18, 09:43 AM
So It's those with the loudest voices get to change his mind then. I see......;)

Priceless
19-08-18, 10:01 AM
So It's those with the loudest voices get to change his mind then. I see......;)

I think that could be the issue, which would be a shame. But if he's making this his living, he has to give the fans what they want. Or what he thinks they want.

Sosa lola
19-08-18, 10:11 AM
POTN tweeted this overnight (or overnight for me) . . .

I'm considering a supplemental video series when fulltime where I respond to comments from the past Buffy and Angel guide. I think I missed the mark with the section on Jonathan in this one and a few people are wondering why I omitted the implications with the twins

I think this does show that he's listening to his commentators and so re-aligning his videos to please them. And when he doesn't please them, he wants to go back and re-evaluate :(

It reads to me that he's going to make videos answering commentators' questions and comments after his review series is over. That's not a bad thing. I don't know if his commentators' opinions shape how he thinks. From what I remember from his earlier reviews, he'd always had a low opinion of characters like Xander and Spike and especially Riley. I personally find the Riley mocking in his videos to be tiresome. He's making fun of a real person's physical appearance there and I've always found that of bad taste.

TriBel
19-08-18, 10:27 AM
I think that could be the issue, which would be a shame. But if he's making this his living, he has to give the fans what they want. Or what he thinks they want.

*Eyeroll* :rolleyes: and arched eyebrows.

Priceless
19-08-18, 10:29 AM
It reads to me that he's going to make videos answering commentators' questions and comments after his review series is over. That's not a bad thing. I don't know if his commentators' opinions shape how he thinks. From what I remember from his earlier reviews, he'd always had a low opinion of characters like Xander and Spike and especially Riley. I personally find the Riley mocking in his videos to be tiresome. He's making fun of a real person's physical appearance there and I've always found that of bad taste.

You could be right about his consistently low opinion of Xander and Spike, though I do remember a video where he praises Spike as a character (I'll see if I can find it later).

I think the only way for the commentators comments not to affect him is if he doesn't read them. Once read, they will affect him, it's only natural and cannot be any other way, even if it's subconsciously and he doesn't feel they have affected/influenced him. He puts so much effort and thought into these videos, or so it seems, that I felt he'd covered everything he wants to cover and considers his work quite deeply before issuing a video, so I just feel issuing 'explanation' videos is pandering. But of course he has to, as this is where his income comes from.

Silver1
19-08-18, 10:54 AM
I think that could be the issue, which would be a shame. But if he's making this his living, he has to give the fans what they want. Or what he thinks they want.

And there lies the problem. As he's now going to be trying to make a career out of this he's going to be chasing favor with his audience just to survive financially, which I get, but It doesn't make for an balanced review. Shame, I thought he was doing so well up till now.

TriBel
19-08-18, 11:31 AM
Priceless


But of course he has to, as this is where his income comes from.

See...I have real problems with that. If the comments cause him to reflect that's a good thing but - to my mind - that reflection should either lead him to a genuine reconsideration of his original opinion or result in a clarification of why he's standing by his initial one. If he's going to be swayed for financial reasons and give his audience what they want then his opinion is worthless to anyone but himself. In short - what Silver 1 says. :)

vampmogs
20-08-18, 11:31 AM
I actually thought that this was one of his better reviews in a while. I was disappointed in his review with Who Are You as it felt more like an episode recap as opposed to offering anything particularly insightful about the characters but he made me reconsider some things here (Buffy's humiliation being Jonathan's passive aggressive way of "punishing" Buffy for saving him etc) and I'll probably rewatch the episode now. I've never been a big fan of Superstar, though. It's not a bad episode per say but I've always been greatly apathetic towards Jonathan so an entire episode revolved around him just does not excite me much. I have no idea what Jane Espenson sees in him and a part of me actually resents that she inflicts him on us for an entire episode. Can't she just write a fanfic or something? :coffee:

I don't think he made a "dig" at Spike or Xander. He did make a dig at Riley. People may disagree with his interpretation of Spike or Xander but regardless of whether you disagree with him or not, he actually bothered to back up his opinions with examples from past (and future) episodes. Whereas with Riley he's just being petty and immature making fun of his hairless chest and bone structure. And, frankly, he has a bit of a nerve commenting on Marc Blucas' looks when he's not exactly model material himself. I'll personally never understand why Riley inspires so much hate from people in Season 4 (I like him in Season 5 but I can at least understand why his behaviour may push some people's personal buttons) but it's straight up character bashing. His comments on Spike and Xander are actually rooted in how they behave in this episode and whilst I think his comments about Xander in this episode are quite a stretch (especially considering the spell appears to make everyone doubt and undermine Buffy) he seems genuinely interested in both of them. The Buffy/Riley scene was pretty much included for no other reason other than to mock "Ken Doll" Riley.

And I've been more critical of him than pretty much anyone but I don't think he's changing his opinion about the twins. I think he's simply interacting with his audience and is offering to share his thoughts on particular things that he may not have intended to but that there is a demand for. He doesn't say anywhere about his opinion on them being altered in some way.

Sosa lola
20-08-18, 12:29 PM
I don't think he made a "dig" at Spike or Xander. He did make a dig at Riley. People may disagree with his interpretation of Spike or Xander but regardless of whether you disagree with him or not, he actually bothered to back up his opinions with examples from past (and future) episodes. Whereas with Riley he's just being petty and immature making fun of his hairless chest and bone structure. And, frankly, he has a bit of a nerve commenting on Marc Blucas' looks when he's not exactly model material himself.

I agree. His comments about Riley always rubbed me the wrong way, especially when he mocks how the actor looks. That's uncalled for. I also share your confusion over fans' extreme hate for Riley in S4.

Silver1
20-08-18, 02:08 PM
but he made me reconsider some things here (Buffy's humiliation being Jonathan's passive aggressive way of "punishing" Buffy for saving him etc)

Well I think he's completely barking up the wrong tree with that one. I don't think that was Espenson's intention at all.

But yeah, his take on Riley can get a bit much, but I suspect some of that is actually jealously because of how Riley looks. He does seem very fixated on that aspect doesn't he. :lol:

Priceless
23-08-18, 06:35 PM
POTN just tweeted this about Hells Bells

In this episode, the FEAR of becoming the thing we've known Xander was afraid of becoming since Restless (and that I outlined briefly in Amends) does irreperable damage without him even becoming it. It's agony to watch. Fear of failure poisons everything.

I think that's a great way of putting it - fear of failure poisons everything. POTN does have a lovely turn of phrase.

Sosa lola
23-08-18, 10:27 PM
POTN just tweeted this about Hells Bells

In this episode, the FEAR of becoming the thing we've known Xander was afraid of becoming since Restless (and that I outlined briefly in Amends) does irreperable damage without him even becoming it. It's agony to watch. Fear of failure poisons everything.

I think that's a great way of putting it - fear of failure poisons everything. POTN does have a lovely turn of phrase.

I thought he was rewatching S4. How did he get to Hell's Bells?

Priceless
24-08-18, 09:48 AM
I thought he was rewatching S4. How did he get to Hell's Bells?

I think he must be doing a re-watch. It's likely he just watches Buffy and Angel on a loop continually :D

flow
24-08-18, 10:02 AM
Yes, he is as far as season4 with his YouTube Review but he is also doing a season6 rewatch at the moment. He posted a comment a couple of weeks ago about how much he loves season6.

I watched his Superstar Review. It´s okay but felt more or less like a recap not a review. Maybe that`s because the episode isn`t layered enough to dig deeper. I didn`t agree with him that Jonathan was the wrong guy to become the Superstar. I thought it was brilliant to pick Jonatahn of all the main characters and side characters. It is also because of this episode that I could never forgive Jonathan for teaming up with Warren and Andrew. Buffy reached out to him. He dismissed that. He deserved to get killed by Andrew (although Andrew of course does not deserve to become head of the Watchers Council. But that`s a different story).

Do you really think he made fun of Marc Blucas looks? I thought he was making fun of Marc Blucas shaving/waxing.

flow

flow

Sosa lola
24-08-18, 11:30 AM
I didn`t agree with him that Jonathan was the wrong guy to become the Superstar. I thought it was brilliant to pick Jonatahn of all the main characters and side characters.

Who did he have in mind to do the spell? I agree with you that Johnathan is the right choice. It fits his character perfectly. He'd always wanted acceptance and to be part of a group of friends (like the Scoobies in Superstar) and obviously he thought that being this superstar character would guarantee him acceptance. It's why he joined the trio in S6, they wanted him in the team. He finally belonged.



Do you really think he made fun of Marc Blucas looks? I thought he was making fun of Marc Blucas shaving/waxing.

He zoomed to his chest and laughed at him. I don't know. It rubbed me the wrong way. He just likes making fun of Riley's face and hair and body in almost every review, it became boring. I just can't take his critique of Riley seriously. He's just so biased and petty when it comes to Riley and he's supposed to be a serious reviewer. I respect his opinion on Xander and Spike far more because he clearly puts more thought into it and backs it up with evidence (even if I disagree with some of what he says about them). I don't feel the same way about his take on Riley.

Silver1
24-08-18, 12:25 PM
Oh I dunno, maybe all that drinking has rotted his reviewer brain cells. :lol: But what ever It is imo his analysis isn't as good as it used to be.

Priceless
24-08-18, 12:37 PM
Oh I dunno, maybe all that drinking has rotted his reviewer brain cells. :lol: But what ever It is imo his analysis isn't as good as it used to be.

I don't think his reviews have changed, they were always 8 minutes of recap and two minutes of insight. I think he's got a great turn of phrase and is a good editor.

flow
24-08-18, 12:50 PM
Let`s keep this polite and respectful, please.

flow

Silver1
24-08-18, 04:37 PM
I am, whats disrespectful about it? He openly drinks to excess live on Youtube, It's not like I'm making this stuff up.

Silver1
26-08-18, 09:38 AM
A link to last nights live patron stream. I'm sure he'll take this down soon. I'm afraid (as per) I really, really disagreed with their take on Spike as well as Xander. Imo Spike was no Warren. People today seem so grim and unforgiving. I'm getting sick of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsL7pxPnOds

Priceless
26-08-18, 09:43 AM
A link to last nights live patron stream. I'm sure he'll take this down soon. I'm afraid (as per) I really, really disagreed with their take on Spike as well as Xander. Imo Spike was no Warren. People today seem so grim and unforgiving. I'm getting sick of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsL7pxPnOds

Do they really say Spike is like Warren? Does anyone mention one is a soulless vampire, the other not? Or have they totally forgotten that? Is this video really going to annoy me?

Silver1
26-08-18, 09:55 AM
It ended up annoying the crap outta me, but I recommend watching it before it gets taken down in the next few hours because It's going to give you big bloody hints as to what his review of season 6 is going to be. God, they have some odd takes on Spike. Basically he can do no right. I couldn't believe "He turned his mother and then killed her because he couldn't handle a strong independent women" bit. Err, WTF!!?

They only seem to love straight out 'perfect' characters like OZ, who never did much for me, but then I was never keen on one dimensional characters who did no wrong. Oz always came across to me as a highly unrealistic depiction of a man in the 1990's. I knew more Xander's then I ever did Oz's.

Oh and to add I think you can spot my live rection to all this in their chat box chat.

Priceless
26-08-18, 10:11 AM
It ended up annoying the crap outta me, but I recommend watching it before it gets taken down in the next few hours because It's going to give you big bloody hints as to what his review of season 6 is going to be. God, they have some odd takes on Spike. Basically he can do no right. I couldn't believe "He turned his mother and then killed her because he couldn't handle a strong independent women" bit. Err, WTF!!?

They only seem to love straight out 'perfect' characters like OZ, who never did much for me, but then I was never keen on one dimensional characters who did no wrong. Oz always came across to me as a highly unrealistic depiction of a man in the 1990's. I knew more Xander's then I ever did Oz's.

Oh and to add I think you can spot my live rection to all this in their chat box chat.

Yeah I feel the same about Oz, and I still know more Xander's than Oz's :lol:

I don't know if I can watch it Silver 1, especially if they are being so ridiculous about Spike. Don't they understand context? Or that he's a soulless vampire. But these are the constant struggles of a Spike fan - it's the same old arguments over and over.

Silver1
26-08-18, 10:28 AM
I still say watch it. It's not that long and It will give you an idea of his patron audience and the fact these are the people who he's going to be trying to please from now on to keep earning a crust. He's leaving his job next week (so I believe) and so his entire income is going to be from Youtube, which personally I think Is not the greatest of ideas, but hey ho, you never know. I wish him well. :lol:

Priceless
26-08-18, 10:51 AM
I still say watch it. It's not that long and It will give you an idea of his patron audience and the fact these are the people who he's going to be trying to please from now on to keep earning a crust. He's leaving his job next week (so I believe) and so his entire income is going to be from Youtube, which personally I think Is not the greatest of ideas, but hey ho, you never know. I wish him well. :lol:

He should just go part time at work if he can, just to keep some regular income coming in. I do find it worrying that he now has to please his fans to earn a living - that doesn't lead to independent thought and lack of bias :( I expect if those that are paying him find Spike unpalatable, I won't be agreeing with many more of his videos.

flow
26-08-18, 10:59 AM
Well, it`s almost two hours long, so I decided NOT to watch it, but please tell me: Do those people, we see in that video actually PAY Ian to be allowed to discuss Buffy with him? Do they know they can discuss it here for free? What the heck? Is it a honor to speak to him nowadays? Has he got to say something that is worthwhile paying for?

And how will he survive on his youtube-channel alone? Word is, that you get paid bewteen 1,00 Euro to 2,00 Euros per 1000 clicks. The videos he uploaded within the last months have roughly about 55k clicks. If he can survive on that, that should be worth making a video about.

Did he ever confirm that he is going to drop out of his paid job because he wants to earn a living with YouTube Videos? Maybe he got a severance pay or he inherited money or he is on a sabbatical.

I mean, he must know, that he is almost through season 4. Only three more seasons to come. What`s he gonna do after Chosen?

When I briefly tuned into the live chat they were discussing the age gap between Spike and Buffy. Seriously? I mean, what difference do 154 years make, if the vampire in question doesn`t even behave like he is his human age? In his mind, his spirit and his personality, Spike is definitely not older or more mature than Buffy is. So, what`s the big deal? I might add, although Angel acts a bit more mature than Spike and Buffy, the age gap between him and Buffy never struck me as weird either.

flow

Silver1
26-08-18, 11:14 AM
Yes, they pay. Nearly all youtubers have patrons, who can pay monthly towards the youtuber so he can make more content. Anywhere between $1 to $20.

Not all his patrons get onto broadcasting on his live streams though from what I can gather.

And yes, I find It odd he's stopping work, but I don't know his situation well enough. He may have decided to do this just as a try out rather then a whole new business venture, but whatever the reason he's going to need those patrons more then ever so I'm expecting a lot more 'playing to his audience' to happen.

He intends to cover more topics on his channel and cover more shows. Such as The Marvel live action universe and reviewing more movies.

I still recommend watching this video though. You can fast forward through bits till you reach the more relevant parts. I can't repeat them all here but their take on Spike and the fact in their opinion he didn't have a character arc though the seasons because he didn't have a soul just boggles my mind.

Priceless
26-08-18, 11:27 AM
Well, it`s almost two hours long, so I decided NOT to watch it, but please tell me: Do those people, we see in that video actually PAY Ian to be allowed to discuss Buffy with him? Do they know they can discuss it here for free? What the heck? Is it a honor to speak to him nowadays? Has he got to say something that is worthwhile paying for?


POTN belongs to Patreon (as do Lani and just about every other podcaster out there), where you can sign up to receive hidden/special content, gifts, chats etc. with/from the podcaster, which watchers like you and I, who do not pay, receive. That's how most podcasters earn their money.

I've just checked his Patreon site and he has 185 Patreons, giving between $2 and $75 a month, making him $758 altogether. That's £590 a month, which is not a lot. He must be making money somewhere else to be able to survive.

- - - Updated - - -

Chipperish Media who make Still Pretty and Still Dead have 594 patrons and are making $1909, with patrons paying between $1 and $20. That's £1486 a month.

These people are not making a fortune from Patreon, so it does make me wonder where else they are making money?

And perhaps their Patreons are not so important that they need to pander so completely to them? :noidea:

- - - Updated - - -


I still recommend watching this video though. You can fast forward through bits till you reach the more relevant parts. I can't repeat them all here but their take on Spike and the fact in their opinion he didn't have a character arc though the seasons because he didn't have a soul just boggles my mind.


Didn't have a character arc? Seriously? This reminds me of Slayerfest 98, who are continually wiping Spike's existence from the show - I can see POTN going the same way, because he doesn't like the character or what he does.

This is just the way the world works with art unfortunately, what doesn't suit the times gets expunged

Silver1
26-08-18, 11:33 AM
What I hate is the over used term "Misogynist".

Apparently nearly ever damn male out there (unless they're are written as a saint) is one. There is no grey when it comes to these peoples views. Only black and white and what makes me laugh the most is Both AtS and Buffy used to revolve around redemption plots, ie giving characters a second chance, and yet this new generation of viewers don't seem capable of being able to do that.

Priceless
26-08-18, 11:51 AM
What I hate is the over used term "Misogynist".

Apparently nearly ever damn male out there (unless they're are written as a saint) is one. There is no grey when it comes to these peoples views. Only black and white and what makes me laugh the most is Both AtS and Buffy used to revolve around redemption plots, ie giving characters a second chance, and yet this new generation of viewers don't seem capable of being able to do that.


It's a symptom of the times we live in. The #MeToo movement and #TimesUp are now part of the zeitgeist. To support a male character who isn't perfect and has some misogynistic values but is meant to be heroic/redeemed, is taking your life in your hands :lol: It takes a strong person to contend with the backlash they'll receive. Look at Xander - he is absolutely hated on every podcast I listen to, he has no defenders at all. Yet to me, he's just a normal teenage boy. But if you say that out loud, the backlash would be terrible and the podcasters just don't need the stress of it,they just want to earn a living.

Silver1
26-08-18, 11:56 AM
Dear god I'm all for balance, but sometimes folks have to get a grip and realise the real world isn't populated by saints.

Sosa lola
26-08-18, 11:59 AM
I started to watch it but it's too long. It's an interesting way to discuss the show. I would like to try something like that but I'm afraid I'll stutter and sound like an idiot.

I agree with him about the lighting in the show, how it was gothic in S1 and S2, and then got this ugly beige coloring in S3 and then suddenly it was bright and pretty in S4.

I didn't get to the Spike and Xander stuff. Do you know when they start talking about them?


Look at Xander - he is absolutely hated on every podcast I listen to, he has no defenders at all. Yet to me, he's just a normal teenage boy.

The way Xander is described as the worst human being to walk the Earth makes me wish I can live in those people's world. If Xander is the worst thing out there, then that's such a great world to live in. Xander is neither a murder, nor a rapist, nor a violent person... all he got is cruel sarcasm and inappropriate sense of humor. If only the villains of the real world are like that.

Sosa lola
26-08-18, 12:59 PM
I got to the part about Xander/Cordelia, and I agree with their points. Xander and Cordelia were always mean to each other, they were both equally mean to one another, and it would have been great if their relationship was developed more. Also Cordelia did develop more than Xander did in that relationship. I guess because Xander was confused about his feelings for Buffy and Willow as well, and if given the choice, he'd pick Buffy in a heartbeat during S2, he was still into her and he told her exactly that in the beginning of Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered.

They're talking about Spike now, but they're comparing him to Parker, you get fooled by his charm and charisma not realizing that he's a terrible person. I don't know if they meant that on a character/audience level or character/character because either way... Spike being charming yet flawed is good character wise. The audience perceive charismatic, flawed characters as interesting. As for character/character level, Spike was always upfront about his intentions. He doesn't pretend to be someone he's not to get a woman.

Mylie
26-08-18, 02:33 PM
I really wouldn't worry if I were you. I doubt season 6 would be his favorite season if he didn't enjoy the Spike/Spuffy stuff in it.

He's made his feelings on this clear a few months ago on Tumblr. He finds Spuffy problematic (and Bangel as well) but he still finds it interesting. So while he's not a shipper, he's probably going to approach it just as he did with Bangel during seasons 1 to 3.

flow
26-08-18, 05:01 PM
Thinking about it, I come to the conclusion, that this whole paying for discussing does not tell anything about him (except maybe that he found a niche) but about the people who pay him.

Honestly, how desperate and lonely do you have to be to pay someone to discuss Buffy with you?

I am not over it yet...

flow

Sosa lola
26-08-18, 05:04 PM
Thinking about it, I come to the conclusion, that this whole paying for discussing does not tell anything about him (except maybe that he found a niche) but about the people who pay him.

Honestly, how desperate and lonely do you have to be to pay someone to discuss Buffy with you?

I am not over it yet...

flow

Perhaps because he's a well known name in fandom and more fans would watch their discussions on his channel than the people who would read their opinion in a fan forum.

Priceless
26-08-18, 05:09 PM
I wonder if they thing they can't get the level of debate and discussion anywhere else. POTN is intelligent, knowledgeable and obviously cares deeply about the show and the characters. From what I can gather, in other places on the internet, people can get mean and nasty and rude, and perhaps they want to avoid that and just discuss Buffy in a safe environment.

Silver1
26-08-18, 05:23 PM
Thinking about it, I come to the conclusion, that this whole paying for discussing does not tell anything about him (except maybe that he found a niche) but about the people who pay him.

Honestly, how desperate and lonely do you have to be to pay someone to discuss Buffy with you?

I am not over it yet...

flow

To be fair I don't think thats their aim. Most youtube patrons pay because they have a favorite youtuber they want to support and help make more content (videos) for them. They're not paying to be able to chat with them. Thats a secondary thing and some youtubers don't even do that. It mainly about creating more content.

Double Dutchess
26-08-18, 05:28 PM
These days, Internet forums are considered by many to be totally obsolete; it's things like Tumblr and YouTube where the action is now. The possibility of discussing Buffy with other people on a forum (what?) may not even have crossed their minds. I also agree with Sosa lola that having their "15 minutes of fame" (or rather, nearly two hours :)) may have something to do with it too.

- - - Updated - - -


To be fair I don't think thats their aim. Most youtube patrons pay because they have a favorite youtuber they want to support and help make more content (videos) for them. They're not paying to be able to chat with them. Thats a secondary thing and some youtubers don't even do that. It mainly about creating more content.

True, but I think flow was specifically referring to the people in the Hangout live stream?

Silver1
27-08-18, 09:14 AM
This dropped last night......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cj9wKoXm34

a thing of evil
27-08-18, 02:43 PM
Oz always came across to me as a highly unrealistic depiction of a man in the 1990's.

You do realize that Oz is actually based on a real person? Personally, I find Oz pretty realistic. Wolf-thing aside, I've met people like Oz. Hell, I can see some of myself in Oz.

Silver1
27-08-18, 04:16 PM
Based on who exactly? And fair enough. I don't know what teenagers were like in the 90's in the States, but here in the UK I didn't meet many 'boys' who talked like they had a team of script writers behind them. :)

Sosa lola
27-08-18, 05:01 PM
Based on who exactly? And fair enough. I don't know what teenagers were like in the 90's in the States, but here in the UK I didn't meet many 'boys' who talked like they had a team of script writers behind them. :)

I remember Joss saying that Oz is based on a guy he knew in college. Perhaps a very zen-like guitar player. I personally never met or knew someone like Oz. I remember reading a fic where Oz smokes weed and I won't be surprised if that's the case on the show, but since it was aimed at teens and had episodes like Beer Bad, implying a character is smoking joint especially a role model like Oz in the high school years would be a big no.

Priceless
27-08-18, 06:03 PM
I always thought of Oz as a stoner. He's a musician, plays in a band, is so laid back and has that van. I'd be surprised if he wasn't smoking weed.

Silver1
08-09-18, 07:16 AM
This just dropped.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS7EE7mAKwE

Well I'm sorry I but liked this episode. It has lots of great scenes and golden lines. Sometimes a person can just drain the fun outta something by being far too nit picky. :)

Sosa lola
08-09-18, 09:37 AM
I'm not surprised he didn't like it as most fans done, but I'm like you, Silver, I adore this episode a lot! Giles singing behind Blue Eyes and the gang's reaction is the highlight.

vampmogs
08-09-18, 10:24 AM
This just dropped.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS7EE7mAKwE

Well I'm sorry I liked this episode. It has lots of great scenes and golden lines. Sometimes a person can just drain the fun outta something by being far too nit picky. :)

I like it too. It's by no means the best episode of Buffy but I've never personally understood why it's deemed so awful. I mean, even if you consider the Ruffy sex as an abomination, as so many seemingly do, I've always found that fans greatly exaggerate how prominent it is throughout the episode. In the grand scheme of things it barely features at all and IMO it doesn't eclipse all the wonderful character moments. I also actually like the idea behind the episode (pent up sexually oppressed energy etc) and certainly don't consider it the most farfetched storyline in the show.

But then, I appear to have weird taste as I rather enjoy a lot of the early MotW episodes that the majority of fans dislike so much. For instance, it's always perplexed me why Bad Eggs has such a bad reputation in fandom when I consider it great fun. It's chockfull of great scenes between the characters and I've always loved the scene of Buffy slaying the egg hatchling in her bedroom. It's classic B-grade horror movie stuff and I think it's done really well. Whilst I agree that the inclusion of the Gorg Brothers *and* the Mother Bezoar is a bit weird (why not just pick one?), and I think Joyce is portrayed in a really unflattering light, perhaps unfairly so, it's overall a pretty fun romp. I never quite got why it's so picked on by fans as opposed to far more egregious episodes or even just other MotW episodes? :noidea:

I think episodes like Where the Wild Things Are tend to be really under-appreciated by fandom. They often contain little gems of character moments that tend to get slept on the majority of the time. To be fair, POTN does acknowledge that the episode does contain a lot of nice moments but I find some of his criticisms to be strange. For instance, what's wrong with the sweeping shot of the fraternity house at night? It's appropriately eerie and atmospheric and I don't get what's so on-the-nose about it? I mean, yeah, it's certainly not a groundbreaking shot, but it's no different to how they establish creepiness or horror throughout numerous other episodes so why single this one out? Technically speaking, the camera work is actually rather well done, and IMO it's quite a pretty visual. He also claims that the episode is contradictory and that it's both pro and anti-sex. I think there may be some validity to the argument that Buffy has some issues when it comes to it's overall message about sex (I don't think any episode actually suggests sex as bad, it's usually quite the opposite, but when characters are routinely endangered or punished for sex, even if the individual episodes are trying to critique that punishment, it does create an unintentional but unfortunate pattern) but he chooses to claim the episode is "anti-sex" over the shot of Tara flinching at Willow's touch. That's obviously intentional on his part and his way of suggesting that the episode was depicting Willow touching Tara on the leg as negative in some way. However, Tara was clearly being influenced by the spirits in the house and the oppression of their sexuality so I'm not sure why he feels the episode is endorsing this at all? I just don't get why he chose that moment to single out as proof that the episode is "anti-sex." :headscratch:

And, yes, once again he's pointed out how smooth Riley's chest is and made snide remarks about his appearance. We get it. It also just makes no sense as I don't spot a trace of chest hair on either Angel or Spike either. They all clearly wax themselves so why he singles Riley out for this but never made reference to it in regards to Angel throughout S1-S3 (or Angel) is beyond me. And so what if he does? Is there anything wrong with that? Some men take pride in their appearance and prefer to be waxed.

I *did* like how he pointed out that Willow never raised her hand to Giles being "Eww" in Faith, Hope & Trick. I had noticed the picture of Giles in Willow's locker before and I always got the sense that there may have been some kind of crush there, as well as Willow confirming it in this episode, but I had never noticed that before. Nice catch. I'm sure I'm probably just late to the party on that one, though.

Silver1
08-09-18, 11:39 AM
No you're not I didn't notice that either. :lol:

- - - Updated - - -


I'm not surprised he didn't like it as most fans done, but I'm like you, Silver, I adore this episode a lot! Giles singing behind Blue Eyes and the gang's reaction is the highlight.

I think the whole 'playing to his audience' bit is starting to come into play more. Maybe because Riley is seen as an easy/safe target unlike Angel or Spike which he knows would pull down the shippers wrath.

vampmogs
08-09-18, 12:01 PM
I think the whole 'playing to his audience' bit is starting to come into play more. Maybe because Riley is seen as an easy/safe target unlike Angel or Spike which he knows would pull down the shippers wrath.

I suspect you may be right a little here. It's not just POTN, either. I sometimes wonder if Riley's reputation in fandom kind of precedes him as I can think of at least two other Youtube reactors who bashed him incessantly throughout their videos in Season 4-5 and I wondered if they were 'playing up' to their audience a little bit too. In both examples the reactors seemed fairly apathetic or even warm to Riley at the beginning of Season 4 and then inexplicably switched to having a blatant hatred of him seemingly out of nowhere. I remember that the same thing happened with that insufferable Mark Watches guy from years ago. He liked Riley throughout Season 4 and then in-between Season 4 & 5 he suddenly decided that Riley was "boring" and he hated him and, IMO, it was incredibly obvious he found out about Riley's unpopularity in fandom and switched to appease his audience.

It's hard to say. Like, Riley is obviously unpopular, otherwise there wouldn't even be anyone to 'play up to', so maybe these people genuinely do just dislike him as other fans clearly hate him too. I guess I've just always failed to understand what is so terrible about him and why he elicits such strong reactions in people. I get finding him boring in comparison to other characters, and I get why he could push people's personal buttons in Season 5, but I don't get bashing him incessantly in Season 4? What's so polarising about him in that season that people can't contain themselves and have to bash him repeatedly throughout every episode? Being dull or vanilla doesn't usually warrant such OTT hatred and he really doesn't do anything that season that I can see as controversial :confused3:

The funny thing is that in both cases I mentioned the incessant hatred got so OTT that there was actually a backlash from both reactor's subscribers and they had to end up addressing their reactions in regards to Riley. People grow tired of it and it tends to have the opposite effect and make people start defending the character. I certainly know that it did for me. I'm a contrary SOB by nature but I also started thinking about his character a lot more to try and understand him after I came across so many fans constantly painting him as some kind of monster. And the more I thought about him the more I started to sympathise with him and like him. Prior to that I was completely disinterested in the guy. He'll never be a favourite character of mine because I agree that he's simply nowhere near as interesting as other characters, but I do rather like him now.

Priceless
08-09-18, 03:02 PM
You can certainly add me to the list of people who like this episode. It's got some great moments in it, and to be fair POTN does point some of them out, such as Xander in his ice cream van and the Spike/Anya scenes. He actually loves the shot of Riley/Buffy in bed and calls it 'haunting and beautiful'.

I wonder why POTN, who is a grown man, keeps saying Buffy and Riley are 'wombo combo-ing each other', I wish he'd talk like an adult. And why does he say their sex is 'mediocre college sex'? It might very well be (this is Riley after all, with his watch set to when he has to take his vitamins) but we can't know that, and I just think it's another dig at Riley. POTN says it's very boring sex, and I guess it is for the audience, but not obviously for the participants.

I also think he totally misses that the episode is about sex, and the previous haunted house episode he sited was not. The whole reason the Initiative soldiers don't stop the party straight away is because that's the power sex has over you, even when you know it's wrong, you don't want the orgasms to end.

Silver1
08-09-18, 03:26 PM
I suspect you may be right a little here. It's not just POTN, either. I sometimes wonder if Riley's reputation in fandom kind of precedes him as I can think of at least two other Youtube reactors who bashed him incessantly throughout their videos in Season 4-5 and I wondered if they were 'playing up' to their audience a little bit too. In both examples the reactors seemed fairly apathetic or even warm to Riley at the beginning of Season 4 and then inexplicably switched to having a blatant hatred of him seemingly out of nowhere. I remember that the same thing happened with that insufferable Mark Watches guy from years ago. He liked Riley throughout Season 4 and then in-between Season 4 & 5 he suddenly decided that Riley was "boring" and he hated him and, IMO, it was incredibly obvious he found out about Riley's unpopularity in fandom and switched to appease his audience.

It's hard to say. Like, Riley is obviously unpopular, otherwise there wouldn't even be anyone to 'play up to', so maybe these people genuinely do just dislike him as other fans clearly hate him too. I guess I've just always failed to understand what is so terrible about him and why he elicits such strong reactions in people. I get finding him boring in comparison to other characters, and I get why he could push people's personal buttons in Season 5, but I don't get bashing him incessantly in Season 4? What's so polarising about him in that season that people can't contain themselves and have to bash him repeatedly throughout every episode? Being dull or vanilla doesn't usually warrant such OTT hatred and he really doesn't do anything that season that I can see as controversial :confused3:

The funny thing is that in both cases I mentioned the incessant hatred got so OTT that there was actually a backlash from both reactor's subscribers and they had to end up addressing their reactions in regards to Riley. People grow tired of it and it tends to have the opposite effect and make people start defending the character. I certainly know that it did for me. I'm a contrary SOB by nature but I also started thinking about his character a lot more to try and understand him after I came across so many fans constantly painting him as some kind of monster. And the more I thought about him the more I started to sympathise with him and like him. Prior to that I was completely disinterested in the guy. He'll never be a favourite character of mine because I agree that he's simply nowhere near as interesting as other characters, but I do rather like him now.

The ironic part about It is If you treated this whole 'world' as being real then Riley would be the best partner for Buffy. He's a warrior and somebody who does have honour and compassion imo.

Also years back I used to know somebody who worked for the London Hospital in the east end who was also a big Buffy fan. She told me that when Mark Blucas was shooting a movie in the UK (some kind of big war thing, I can't remember now) he visited the children's cancer ward without shouting the odds about it or using it as publicity for himself. This would have been not that long after leaving BTVS. Apparently he was a big hit with both the kids and the staff.

I will never hate on Riley or the actor.

vampmogs
08-09-18, 03:52 PM
Also years back I used to know somebody who worked for the London Hospital in the east end who was also a big Buffy fan. She told me that when Mark Blucas was shooting a movie in the UK (some kind of big war thing, I can't remember now) he visited the children's cancer ward without shouting the odds about it or using it as publicity for himself. This would have been not that long after leaving BTVS. Apparently he was a big hit with both the kids and the staff.

I will never hate on Riley or the actor.

That's a great story. Thanks for sharing. I always felt bad for Marc that people were so rude to him during his time on Buffy. There was that incident on The Bronze chat forums where he participated in a live Q/A and fans started bashing him personally which is just insane. And it mustn't have been easy for him coming in as a replacement love interest after the popularity of Bangel. I actually felt pretty bad for him that he wasn't invited or even mentioned at the Buffy 20th Anniversary shoot. I know that Ruffy was never as popular as Bangel/Spuffy but he was still an important part of the series for 1.5 seasons and had left his mark on the show. I wouldn't blame him if he looked back pretty bitterly at his time on Buffy but from the latest interview I ever read he was still really gracious and positive about it.

I thought Marc did a great job as Riley. I've seen a lot of people criticise his acting but I think he portrayed the character really well. Whilst I don't think he had any truly spectacular moments on the show I also cannot think of a single scene where I thought he did a bad job, either. He was consistently good and the more comfortable he got in the role (and, let's be honest, the better the writers got at writing him) I thought he portrayed Riley's more loveable and dorkier side really endearingly. I know a lot of people would have preferred Christian Kane in the role (who went on to play Lindsey) but I personally wouldn't have liked that at all.


And why does he say their sex is 'mediocre college sex'? It might very well be (this is Riley after all, with his watch set to when he has to take his vitamins) but we can't know that, and I just think it's another dig at Riley. POTN says it's very boring sex, and I guess it is for the audience, but not obviously for the participants.

Yeah I don't even know what he even means by "mediocre college sex" but, even if it were, Buffy and Riley are college students so it kinda makes sense they'd be enjoying mediocre college sex, no? :headscratch:

And as you say, he seems to be projecting his own lack of interest in Ruffy sex scenes onto the characters themselves. If he doesn't think they have chemistry or that their sex scenes are shot uninterestingly he is of course entitled to that opinion. However, it is text that Buffy and Riley were so engrossed in each other at this point that it was actually their "acts of nakedness around the clock lately" that unleashed the dormant poltergeists in the first place. So it obviously wasn't boring for the characters as they apparently were doing it so frequently they had even developed a reputation for it (and we saw their hornyness at the graveyard and in the campus common area mid-Scooby Meeting).


I also think he totally misses that the episode is about sex, and the previous haunted house episode he sited was not. The whole reason the Initiative soldiers don't stop the party straight away is because that's the power sex has over you, even when you know it's wrong, you don't want the orgasms to end.

Agreed. He seemed to be missing a few key details about the plot of this episode;

He questions why the poltergeists would only suddenly be an issue in this episode even though "we've had this set for 18 episodes now" despite the fact that the episode clearly states why. It states that it was Buffy/Riley's growing infatuation and frequent sex that awakened the poltergeists which hasn't been the case all season (they didn't even sleep together until The I In Team) and had been gradually building up until this point. So it's mildly annoying he makes jabs at the episode's writing when it's actually his own inattention at fault here.

As you say, there's a logical reason as to why the Initiative soldiers don't put a stop to the party straight away. They're under the thrall of the poltergeist's impulses the same as anyone else at that party. But even so, since when are Initiative soldiers supposedly so in tune with the supernatural that they'd even immediately sense that something is up? They've been portrayed as being ignorant to mysticism and out of their depth all season now (and in contrast to people, like Tara, who can 'sense' something is wrong) so it's far more fitting that they're blind to what is going on.

And as I mentioned earlier, I don't get what he is trying to imply by suggesting that the episode is "anti-sex" because it had Tara flinch at Willow making a pass on her. Did he really not get that Tara was momentarily under the influence of the poltergeists? She's clearly shocked by her own reaction and she runs away out of what I suspect is a mix of confusion, embarrassment, guilt and fear. Tara obviously doesn't really think that Willow's touch is "disgusting." So how is that proving that the episode is "anti-sex?" It's actually proving that being judgemental about sex and repressing sex is unhealthy and harmful. The episode certainly isn't endorsing Mrs Holt's treatment of these children or depicting their eternal suffering as a good thing :confused3:

Priceless
08-09-18, 04:18 PM
He questions why the poltergeists would only suddenly be an issue in this episode even though "we've had this set for 18 episodes now" despite the fact that the episode clearly states why. It states that it was Buffy/Riley's growing infatuation and frequent sex that awakened the poltergeists which hasn't been the case all season (they didn't even sleep together until The I In Team) and had been gradually building up until this point. So it's mildly annoying he makes jabs at the episode's writing when it's actually his own inattention at fault here.

He passes over half the plot in the episode with something like 'wacky sexy high jinx ensue' so I'm thinking he's really not interested in this episode at all, which is why he's missing so much of the good stuff. He even show's clips of the next episodes of Angel and Buffy to illustrate how boring it is for him to review these episodes. I think that's just patronising and lacks class. Don't set yourself up as this great reviewer who looks for depth of meaning . . . but only in the episodes where the depth/meaning is obvious. It takes no work to find the greatness in a great episode, but takes really intelligence, generosity and love for a show to find it in the episodes considered not so great.


And as I mentioned earlier, I don't get what he is trying to imply by suggesting that the episode is "anti-sex" because it had Tara flinch at Willow making a pass on her. Did he really not get that Tara was momentarily under the influence of the poltergeists? She's clearly shocked by her own reaction and she runs away out of what I suspect is a mix of confusion, embarrassment, guilt and fear. Tara obviously doesn't really think that Willow's touch is "disgusting." So how is that proving that the episode is "anti-sex?" It's actually proving that being judgemental about sex and repressing sex is unhealthy and harmful. The episode certainly isn't endorsing Mrs Holt's treatment of these children or depicting their eternal suffering as a good thing


Agreed. This episode isn't anti-sex as such, it's about he effect that sex has on people, but is no reflection on those particular people, it's about the abused children and how they were told sex was bad and these beliefs are manifesting in the guests.

Mylie
08-09-18, 04:29 PM
Well this is definitely one of my least favorite episodes of the show so I can't say I disagree with his criticism of it. I think the biggest problem with the episode is that it doesn't seem to know what exactly it wants to say at times. And the episode gives me a lot of second-hand embarrassment.

But mostly, I just find it incredibly boring. Apart from some of the Xander/Anya stuff and Spike's speech, there's not much I enjoy about this episode.

Another thing I dislike about it is the fact that Tara freaking out when Willow touches her is never addressed.

I have to say that I do find POTN's fixation on Riley's lack of chest hair peculiar. But it's probably because I've always been a bit ew about chest hair in general (though I'm definitely not the "audience" for that lol), but it does also come across as judging a man for not being "man enough" to me, because of this association between hair/puberty and "becoming a man". That I have a problem with.

Sosa lola
08-09-18, 07:42 PM
I *did* like how he pointed out that Willow never raised her hand to Giles being "Eww" in Faith, Hope & Trick. I had noticed the picture of Giles in Willow's locker before and I always got the sense that there may have been some kind of crush there, as well as Willow confirming it in this episode, but I had never noticed that before. Nice catch. I'm sure I'm probably just late to the party on that one, though.

We were talking about this a few weeks ago here in the forums. :lol: Willow didn't raise her hand, Xander was about to raise his hand but didn't out of respect for Giles I assume.

flow
08-09-18, 08:40 PM
I completely agree with what POTN says about WTWTA as an episode:

"The episode amounts to the characters being entertaining while they wander around a plot that never really finds itself."

I agree that I find the remarks about sex - mediocre college sex and boring sex - out of place. What is non-boring sex? What is non-mediocre sex? (Just asking for a friend....)

About Riley`s hairless chest ... we have talked about this topic before (I actually can`t believe, that we did talk about Riley`s chest before. More than once....). I stick to my belief, that POTN mentions this detail not because he wants to make fun out of Riley or bash him as being not manly enough. I do believe, that being hairless nowadays is regarded as very manly. Otherwise I would like to know, why not only Riley but also Spike and Angel and hundreds of thousands of men put so much effort into waxing or shaving their chests.

When I was in my teens, it wasn`t as common to shave or wax as it is nowadays. Nowadays having not a single hair on your smooth skin is a beauty ideal not only for women but also for men.

That`s actually in the same line with showing only size zero women on tv or in movies as if female attractiveness depends on being super-skinny.

When POTN makes fun of Riley´s hairless chest, I believe him to make fun of the notion that it is important for the physical attractiveness of a male that his chest is hairless and smooth despite the fact that according to our human nature we (especially the males among us) usually do have rather hairy bodies.

Maybe he should clarify this. Ian, please don`t let me down :D

flow

vampmogs
08-09-18, 11:58 PM
But mostly, I just find it incredibly boring. Apart from some of the Xander/Anya stuff and Spike's speech, there's not much I enjoy about this episode.

That's fair enough. Not very many episodes of Buffy bore me but the ones that do - I Robot You Jane, Beer Bad & Gone - are all some of my least favourites for that exact reason. I can deal with absurdity and I can deal with maybe a weak plot, but if the episode *bores* me, then yeah, there's really no saving it.


I have to say that I do find POTN's fixation on Riley's lack of chest hair peculiar. But it's probably because I've always been a bit ew about chest hair in general (though I'm definitely not the "audience" for that lol), but it does also come across as judging a man for not being "man enough" to me, because of this association between hair/puberty and "becoming a man". That I have a problem with.

Yep. Either that or it's rooted in misogyny because often people (men and even women) make fun of guys who are hairless as being "like a woman" which, of course, must be a bad thing, right? Things are changing a bit nowadays in terms of how publicly open men are about grooming themselves but men used to keep it quiet that they'd wax out of fear of ridicule. Men aren't supposed to care about their appearance or it makes them "like a girl" and we all know there's nothing worse than being like a girl! :rolleyes:

HardlyThere
10-09-18, 12:58 PM
I liked that episode and never thought it was anti-sex. It was anti-anti-sex and wisely uses repression as a catalyst.

I've also never thought Briley was boring, nor is it ever implied they had boring sex. It always seemed like a fandom thing. Riley gets too much hate. The chest thing is a perfect illustration of it. Barely any characters have chest hair. Angel, Spike, Oz. Fixating on that about Riley is just reaching.

Willow from Buffy
10-09-18, 02:57 PM
Another thing I dislike about it is the fact that Tara freaking out when Willow touches her is never addressed.

I thought was obvious. The kids were taught to be ashamed of their sexuality, so Tara is feeling that shame. The mistress also punished the girls for being vain by cutting their hair, and so spin-the-bottle girl cuts her hair off.

This made think that Tara should have been the star of this episode. Considering Tara's background, it would not be surprising if she had some lingering dissonance in regards to her sexuality. For some reason, Xander and Anya get to be the stars of the show, but their problems, though related to sex, have nothing to do with shame or repression. Their problem is the total opposite. They've been indulging so much in sex that their relationship falls apart without it.

There is one painful moment where Giles asks Willow about how the haunting manifests itself, and instead of saying, "I touched my girlfriends inner thigh and she reacted as though I was her creepy uncle," Willow looks bothered and answers vaguely. While every other relationship on the show is meticulously documented and we are spoon-fed ever little nuance, Willow and Tara is like a game of connect the dots, where even the dots are kinda hard to spot.


I have to say that I do find POTN's fixation on Riley's lack of chest hair peculiar. But it's probably because I've always been a bit ew about chest hair in general (though I'm definitely not the "audience" for that lol), but it does also come across as judging a man for not being "man enough" to me, because of this association between hair/puberty and "becoming a man". That I have a problem with.

Also, why do the vampires get a pass? :p I guess hairlessness is part of the vampire aesthetic. I actually wished they would have shaved Spike's armpits. It looks odd on him.

Priceless
10-09-18, 03:35 PM
For some reason, Xander and Anya get to be the stars of the show, but their problems, though related to sex, have nothing to do with shame or repression. Their problem is the total opposite. They've been indulging so much in sex that their relationship falls apart without it.

This is exactly why they are the stars of the episode, because they aren't repressed and can come to terms with their sexual needs within their relationship, so the 'spirits' don't have such a hold on them. Willow is newly out, and I think they wanted to show the newness of that relationship and perhaps the insecurities within it, because Oz is to return in the next episode, so we don't automatically think that Willow will stay with Tara.


Also, why do the vampires get a pass? I guess hairlessness is part of the vampire aesthetic. I actually wished they would have shaved Spike's armpits. It looks odd on him.


Personally I wish all the men were hairier and really wouldn't have wanted to see Spike with shaved pits :o

Willow from Buffy
10-09-18, 04:00 PM
This is exactly why they are the stars of the episode, because they aren't repressed and can come to terms with their sexual needs within their relationship, so the 'spirits' don't have such a hold on them. Willow is newly out, and I think they wanted to show the newness of that relationship and perhaps the insecurities within it, because Oz is to return in the next episode, so we don't automatically think that Willow will stay with Tara.

But Xander and Anya do not get to work through anything, because the haunting does not relate to their problem.

Also, Willow and Tara's 9 episode long waiting-for-Oz purgatory is just painful :p

There is something wrong about Buffy and Riley screwing for hours in front of tiny kids who didn't get to masturbate. I mean, seriously. The spirit residue of underage children used the libido from Buffy and Riley's humping to make grown men ejaculate into their pants.


Personally I wish all the men were hairier and really wouldn't have wanted to see Spike with shaved pits :o

But a vampire is supposed to look a little bit ... off. Spike looks like a walking marble statue. If he had a giant rug on his chest and scruff in his face, he would look too human.

Priceless
10-09-18, 04:34 PM
But Xander and Anya do not get to work through anything, because the haunting does not relate to their problem.

Also, Willow and Tara's 9 episode long waiting-for-Oz purgatory is just painful

There is something wrong about Buffy and Riley screwing for hours in front of tiny kids who didn't get to masturbate. I mean, seriously. The spirit residue of underage children used the libido from Buffy and Riley's humping to make grown men ejaculate into their pants.

For me, the haunting is about sex and so Anya and Xander's issues are set up as to be about sex. Anya believes that if they don't regularly have sex Xander doesn't love her. She sees sex and love as the same thing. Throughout the episode we see them talk (okay, it could just be Xander 'explaining' to Anya that sex and love aren't the same) and come to some shared understanding of the other's pov.

Tillow has been happening since Hush, but that's only a few month and I don't think Willow actually comes out until the next episode, New Moon Rising. I think Tillow in this episode is meant to be a partial build up to that coming out and Willow's decision to stay with Tara.

Hey, no one said this episode wasn't weird :lol: The kids aren't actual ghosts, on one died in the house (that we know of) but they are more the manifestation of the history of the house, so Ruffy is awaking the history of the house, not the kids themselves, so I don't have a problem with that.


But a vampire is supposed to look a little bit ... off. Spike looks like a walking marble statue. If he had a giant rug on his chest and scruff in his face, he would look too human.


You are right, a vampire shouldn't look too human, but they have to pass for human. I'd just have liked a more natural hairiness, but that's just me :D

HowiMetdaSlayer
10-09-18, 06:29 PM
The next episode should be New Moon Rising! :)

Silver1
11-09-18, 04:27 AM
I always find that one to be a tad dull for some weird reason.

- - - Updated - - -


I thought was obvious. The kids were taught to be ashamed of their sexuality, so Tara is feeling that shame. The mistress also punished the girls for being vain by cutting their hair, and so spin-the-bottle girl cuts her hair off.

This made think that Tara should have been the star of this episode. Considering Tara's background, it would not be surprising if she had some lingering dissonance in regards to her sexuality. For some reason, Xander and Anya get to be the stars of the show, but their problems, though related to sex, have nothing to do with shame or repression. Their problem is the total opposite. They've been indulging so much in sex that their relationship falls apart without it.

There is one painful moment where Giles asks Willow about how the haunting manifests itself, and instead of saying, "I touched my girlfriends inner thigh and she reacted as though I was her creepy uncle," Willow looks bothered and answers vaguely. While every other relationship on the show is meticulously documented and we are spoon-fed ever little nuance, Willow and Tara is like a game of connect the dots, where even the dots are kinda hard to spot.



Also, why do the vampires get a pass? :p I guess hairlessness is part of the vampire aesthetic. I actually wished they would have shaved Spike's armpits. It looks odd on him.

I remember JM's comments on this, where he said he used to look at himself in the mirror of a morning when shaving his chest and thinking "Is this what a grown man should be doing?" :lol:

- - - Updated - - -

I think this chap has really lost the plot. I mean why upload this for all to see?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOC4Y19KMEw&t=282s

Willow from Buffy
11-09-18, 04:57 AM
You are right, a vampire shouldn't look too human, but they have to pass for human. I'd just have liked a more natural hairiness, but that's just me :D

On the issue of shaving, I really wish Buffy's sidecut could have been a regular thing.

Priceless
11-09-18, 10:06 AM
On the issue of shaving, I really wish Buffy's sidecut could have been a regular thing.

I'm not sure what you mean? Are you meaning the cut in the comics, where half her head is shaved? Fray had a similar cut on one of the comic covers. Yes, I really like it, I feel it's 'punk' for Spike's benefit (I know it was burnt off in battle) and she's also wearing red, Spike's colour.

Mylie
12-09-18, 03:00 AM
I thought was obvious. The kids were taught to be ashamed of their sexuality, so Tara is feeling that shame. The mistress also punished the girls for being vain by cutting their hair, and so spin-the-bottle girl cuts her hair off.

I meant « addressed » as in Willow and Tara discussing what happened, not the episode making sense of it. I got that.



Also, why do the vampires get a pass? :p I guess hairlessness is part of the vampire aesthetic. I actually wished they would have shaved Spike's armpits. It looks odd on him.

Yes, it seems weird to me that he'd have such a problem with it when it comes to Riley but not with Angel and Spike. Anyways, it's a very minor annoyance so I don't want to harp on it.

Willow from Buffy
12-09-18, 03:43 AM
I'm not sure what you mean? Are you meaning the cut in the comics, where half her head is shaved? Fray had a similar cut on one of the comic covers. Yes, I really like it, I feel it's 'punk' for Spike's benefit (I know it was burnt off in battle) and she's also wearing red, Spike's colour.

Yes, I meant the hair. I guess you're right it is a style that works well while she is Spike's girlfriend.


I meant « addressed » as in Willow and Tara discussing what happened, not the episode making sense of it. I got that.

I apologise. I misunderstood. In that case, I totally agree with you. As I mentioned earlier, I think Tara should have been the focus of this episode.

One common guideline for literature is 'show don't tell.' For Tara and Willow, the lesson should be 'show don't imply.' It is not common for the Whedonverse to be subtle. I guess fear of censorship and Oz's return was much to blame, though.

Priceless
12-09-18, 10:50 AM
Yes, I meant the hair. I guess you're right it is a style that works well while she is Spike's girlfriend.

I understand what you are saying here, but I never think of Buffy as Spike's girlfriend, or of Spike as Buffy's boyfriend. I think those terms just don't work for them. Maybe if they were younger, but even then those terms feel regressive . . . but that's not even the right word. :s

Willow from Buffy
12-09-18, 03:00 PM
I understand what you are saying here, but I never think of Buffy as Spike's girlfriend, or of Spike as Buffy's boyfriend. I think those terms just don't work for them. Maybe if they were younger, but even then those terms feel regressive . . . but that's not even the right word. :s

Man, you don't have to tell me. Boy/girlfriend is one of my least favourite words in English. Here we say kjæreste, which literally means dearest. It is nice and gender neutral and it is vague enough to apply to any kind of arrangement you may be having. In English, there are no good alternatives to boy/girlfriend. Partner and significant other sound to formal. Lover is too casual. It sounds like you're talking about a clandestine thing.

What I meant to say, and what I think you may have meant to, is that when you are with someone, you tend to consciously or subconsciously adopt some of their quirks without ... you know ... melting into them. The cool asymmetrical hair sorta symbolises that, even though it wasn't really a deliberate style choice.

a thing of evil
12-09-18, 03:34 PM
Maybe if they were younger

But they are young. OK, obviously, Spike's a vampire but he has a body of a young man and he's, like, young in spirit so whatever and Buffy's thirty. Natalie Dormer who kinda popularized that haircut is older. I'd understand that argument if Buffy had some serious office/government job with dress code and shit but she doesn't. She's a mercen-, I mean, a private contractor, her job is basically kicking ass. Why not look the part?

Priceless
12-09-18, 09:53 PM
But they are young. OK, obviously, Spike's a vampire but he has a body of a young man and he's, like, young in spirit so whatever and Buffy's thirty. Natalie Dormer who kinda popularized that haircut is older. I'd understand that argument if Buffy had some serious office/government job with dress code and shit but she doesn't. She's a mercen-, I mean, a private contractor, her job is basically kicking ass. Why not look the part?

I think you misunderstood me, I'm not the greatest at explaining what I mean :) I love the haircut, I wish Buffy had kept it for S12. What I thought they were too old for is calling each other boyfriend/girlfriend. I don't think those terms really work for Buffy and Spike's relationship.

TriBel
13-09-18, 12:06 AM
I've also never thought Briley was boring, nor is it ever implied they had boring sex.

I don't think Briley's boring but I think it's implied Buffy sometimes finds the sex unfulfilling. There's one episode where she can't sleep. She slips out of Riley's bed, goes out and slays then returns and slips back in beside him and sleeps.


I'm not sure what you mean? Are you meaning the cut in the comics, where half her head is shaved? Fray had a similar cut on one of the comic covers. Yes, I really like it, I feel it's 'punk' for Spike's benefit (I know it was burnt off in battle) and she's also wearing red, Spike's colour.

This is going to sound incredibly facetious but it's not meant to be, so apologies up-front.:) It wasn't "burnt off in battle". It was drawn that way and the reason given was it was burnt off in battle. Why? It's a deliberate choice - it didn't have to be burned off. I actually thought it would have more significance in 12 - particularly since it mirrors Mel's. I thought maybe two timelines - or "of two minds".


I understand what you are saying here, but I never think of Buffy as Spike's girlfriend, or of Spike as Buffy's boyfriend. I think those terms just don't work for them. Maybe if they were younger, but even then those terms feel regressive . . . but that's not even the right word.


As they stand, I think they're too circumscriptive (which is kinda the debate we had elsewhere). I've just read this quote from Zadie Smith: “All I want to do with my work is to take words like black, British or woman and stretch them so they’re big enough so I can live in them comfortably.” I think Spuffy does something similar with Slayer/Vampire. They stretch them to accommodate "Girlfriend/Boyfriend" and vice versa.

Priceless
13-09-18, 08:34 AM
This is going to sound incredibly facetious but it's not meant to be, so apologies up-front.It wasn't "burnt off in battle". It was drawn that way and the reason given was it was burnt off in battle. Why? It's a deliberate choice - it didn't have to be burned off. I actually thought it would have more significance in 12 - particularly since it mirrors Mel's. I thought maybe two timelines - or "of two minds".

Yes, totally take on board that the artist and writer took the decision to make Buffy more 'punk' or with more alternative hair. She could have tried to cover it, wear a hat, wig etc. or cut the rest of her hair short, but she didn't. She wore the cut proudly, as a symbol (in my mind) of her pride of winning the battle and in being with Spike who looks punk/alternative.

- - - Updated - - -


As they stand, I think they're too circumscriptive (which is kinda the debate we had elsewhere). I've just read this quote from Zadie Smith: “All I want to do with my work is to take words like black, British or woman and stretch them so they’re big enough so I can live in them comfortably.” I think Spuffy does something similar with Slayer/Vampire. They stretch them to accommodate "Girlfriend/Boyfriend" and vice versa.

That's a good way of looking at it. I think I just have a problem in general with boyfriend/girlfriend. Those terms seem very young and slightly old fashioned to me. I don't think there are many 30 year old women who would think of their partners as their boyfriends, or introduce them as such. I'm not a fan (at all) of Spike thinking of Buffy as his girlfriend - it lessens the relationship in my eyes, makes it childish and doesn't encompass all they are to each other and all they've been through to get to S11. Of course in S12 I'd be incredibly gratefully and happy beyond words if they finished the season as boyfriend/girlfriend :lol:

Willow from Buffy
13-09-18, 09:12 AM
As they stand, I think they're too circumscriptive (which is kinda the debate we had elsewhere). I've just read this quote from Zadie Smith: “All I want to do with my work is to take words like black, British or woman and stretch them so they’re big enough so I can live in them comfortably.” I think Spuffy does something similar with Slayer/Vampire. They stretch them to accommodate "Girlfriend/Boyfriend" and vice versa.

I wrote my BA dissertation on Zadie Smith and I love her to death.

I listened to this short story of hers about Childish Gambino this summer: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/23/now-more-than-ever She's so funny.

Priceless
13-09-18, 09:15 AM
Passion of the Nerd
@Iannitram

If cavemen and astronauts got into a fight, who would win?

... Cavemen win... Of course

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dm9ZjrhUUAAvBXk.jpg


POTN has spoken - Cavemen win :)

Silver1
27-09-18, 10:25 AM
Talk about a clash of styles. :lol:

Ian re-watches Fool For Love together with that girl from 'After show reactions'.

As per very few incites to do with Spike imo.

She acts as clueless as usual and Ian often comes up with good observations, except when It's dealing with Spike's character, and thats despite him saying this is his fav episode.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAyOTFuFDbs&t=1s

Him seeing himself nearer to Xander's character was a bit of a revelation.

Priceless
27-09-18, 11:58 AM
I like how Shannon (?) draws attention to his drinking and Ian picks up on it :) ian is a talker isn't he, which is a good thing, and Shannon comes across as far more on the ball as she usually is. Watching with someone else bring things out in both of them in a positive way, if that makes sense :)

Neither of them are particular Dawn fans, which I think is sad and I hope they come to love her as the seasons go on. I actually liked Ian defending Riley, and I agree, Riley is a try-hard and that isn't hateful, it's more sad. Thinking Forrest having feelings for Riley is somehow excusing Forrest from being 'that big dumb guy' is a bit of a cop out. But I accept that it's more interesting if Forrest is in love with Riley.

I liked their silence when William is confessing his love for Cecily, you can see it touches both of them. Ian says the later scene, of Spike killing Nikki is so good they have to stay silent, but actually they talk through it, and yet he misses that they were both silent through the Cecily scene.

Notice how Ian slips with 'Buffy says she's beneath him' . . . is that what he really thinks? Or was it Freudian and sexual?

I love his idea that Willow actually influenced Jonathan in Earshot to take that rifle into the tower and for Season 4's Supernatural. You could take this further . . . is Willow the puppet master who's influenced everyone to do everything they do . . . something I'll be looking out for.

vampmogs
27-09-18, 12:28 PM
Did he really say that Fool For Love was his favourite episode? Because he left a comment on After Show's Reactions stating that The Gift was his favourite episode? :headscratch:

To be honest, I didn't watch much of this. I find it a bit self-indulgent and the way the girl (Sharon?) constantly asks Ian questions as if his interpretations are somehow factual makes me feel a little sorry for her, to be honest. It's kind of cringeworthy how POTN has been treated by the Youtube community as if he's some kind of Buffy "expert." Most of his vids are great but people don't need to defer to his interpretations as if they carry more weight than anybody else's. There's just a weird imbalance of power going on in this video that I'm sure isn't intentional but it just rubs me up the wrong way for whatever reason. I also find that I greatly prefer just watching his episodic videos than actually watching him on screen. Some of his mannerisms and reactions just grate on me I'm afraid.

I don't really agree with them at all about Forrest's character and how they need for him to be in love with Riley to "understand" his character. Why can't he just be an aggressive, misogynistic jerk? There's plenty of them in the world and I have no problem whatsoever believing that a guy like Forrest would deeply resent Buffy not only messing things up for The Initiative but also stealing Riley's attention away as well. Believe me, I've seen plenty of bromances over the years go through a rough patch when a girlfriend is added to the mix. It doesn't mean there's some kind of infatuation or unrequited love going on and Forrest's issues with Buffy are only heightened more by the fact that she's both a better solider than he is and is also disrupting things at The Initiative. Some people are just jerks.

SpuffyGlitz
27-09-18, 12:55 PM
I enjoyed this - thanks for sharing. I like the insight about Spike's line: "I mean, if you're looking for fun...there's Death, there's Glory and sod all else, right?" Interesting thing for Spike to say in a season featuring Glory as the Big Bad and ending with Buffy's death. That never struck me before. She was quieter than usual, but I think she was enjoying his interpretations. It's cool to see this episode get so much love - as far as favourite S5 episodes, it's always a tie between FFL and The Gift for me too.

Silver1
27-09-18, 01:35 PM
I enjoyed this - thanks for sharing. I like the insight about Spike's line: "I mean, if you're looking for fun...there's Death, there's Glory and sod all else, right?" Interesting thing for Spike to say in a season featuring Glory as the Big Bad and ending with Buffy's death. That never struck me before. She was quieter than usual, but I think she was enjoying his interpretations. It's cool to see this episode get so much love - as far as favourite S5 episodes, it's always a tie between FFL and The Gift for me too.

I don't go with his reading of Spikes Glory line myself. I took at at It's broadest meaning as to tie It in with actual Gory would be too on the nose imo.

- - - Updated - - -


Did he really say that Fool For Love was his favourite episode? Because he left a comment on After Show's Reactions stating that The Gift was his favourite episode?

To be honest, I didn't watch much of this. I find it a bit self-indulgent and the way the girl (Sharon?) constantly asks Ian questions as if his interpretations are somehow factual makes me feel a little sorry for her, to be honest. It's kind of cringeworthy how POTN has been treated by the Youtube community as if he's some kind of Buffy "expert." Most of his vids are great but people don't need to defer to his interpretations as if they carry more weight than anybody else's. There's just a weird imbalance of power going on in this video that I'm sure isn't intentional but it just rubs me up the wrong way for whatever reason. I also find that I greatly prefer just watching his episodic videos than actually watching him on screen. Some of his mannerisms and reactions just grate on me I'm afraid.


Yeah, I suspect Ian changes his opinions sometimes to fit with the crowd he's with. And as for Sharon, well as you know I don't credit her as being a particularly 'bright' observer of things. She reacts to the show on a purely emotional/shallow level and often misses whacking great chucks of subtext. She recently did a review of AtS's episode 'Billy' where imo she was way off the mark in how to approach such material. I ended up leaving a comment and several folks leapt in behind me to back me up which was nice. :)

To be honest I dread to think how she's going to process/react to 'Seeing Red'.

vampmogs
27-09-18, 02:00 PM
She recently did a review of AtS's episode 'Billy' where imo she was way off the mark in how to approach such material.

Based on her reaction to Billy I get the sense that she primarily reacts to episodes of an emotional level so if an episode makes her feel uncomfortable (and it's understandable that Billy would) she has difficulty enjoying it. To be fair, a lot of viewers are this way and I've personally seen a lot of fans comment on how they've only ever watched The Body once because it's too painful for them. I can't understand that myself because I don't respond to TV shows that way but it appears to be fairly common.


To be honest I dread to think how she's going to process/react to 'Seeing Red'.

To be honest, I'm curious to see it. She's a huge Spike fan and, as you say, she reacts on a very emotional level to the episodes, so I'm definitely interested to see what kind of reaction she has and how it effects her moving forwards. The only other reactor I followed that got to that point so far was Torchwood Boy and he was also a huge Spike fan but that episode more or less killed his enjoyment of the character and he didn't start to warm to him again until the very end of Season 7. The thing I like most about the reaction vids is watching people's perception of characters/ships etc change right in front of me (it's very different than discussing the series with fans who have watched the series privately and already formed their opinions) so I'm actually looking forward to it strangely enough. There's another male reactioner who has been posted on here already (I believe his name is Liam?) and he's not a fan of Cordelia at all so I'm watching with a lot of interest to see if his perception of her changes as he moves further into Season 2 and then Season 3. I find it fascinating.

Silver1
27-09-18, 02:09 PM
I'm afraid Torchwood boy got on my nerves in the end. He never did finish his reviews of season 7 did he?

Although I used to ship characters I was also always about the writing, and so episodes such as billy and the Body didn't upset me as much as for some. Yes, I was emotionally invested, but mainly because I was fascinated at how Whedon was approaching the subject matter.

Nothing ever puts me off a character to such a degree that I would either stop watching the series, or hate on the the actors/characters involvecd. It is a fantasy after all, and not a manual on how to run your own life, and sometimes I think todays viewers seem to forget that.

It's all about context too. This series and AtS are old shows when people weren't so overtly sensitive about some pretty disturbing topics. Sometimes looking at places like Tumblr I think people seem to want characters to just play safe and not engage in any conflict at all.

If I see the word 'cute' aimed at certain characters/plots one more time...:roll:

vampmogs
27-09-18, 02:35 PM
I'm afraid Torchwood boy got on my nerves in the end. He never did finish his reviews of season 7 did he?

No he definitely finished them. I remember watching all of them and funnily enough his reaction vid to Chosen actually came up as a 'Suggested Video' for me on Youtube today :s

Although, it did seem like he wasn't enjoying the show as much throughout Season 7. He certainly seemed less responsive throughout his videos and not as enthusiastic as he used to be. I thought I may have just been imagining it but then a few other people posted comments on his vids saying the same thing so I guess not.

I think he's taken a break due to some health issues but he's currently reacting to all of Angel now. He's in the middle of Season 2.


Although I used to ship characters I was also always about the writing, and so episodes such as billy and the Body didn't upset me as much as for some. Yes, I was emotionally invested, but mainly because I was fascinated at how Whedon was approaching the subject matter.

I'm pretty much the same. I am absolutely invested in the characters and am emotionally connected to the show but I can't really ever imagine any TV series, even Buffy, becoming so upsetting for me that I couldn't watch an episode again. I tend to approach stories with a more analytical slant and whenever there are episodes that do hit me really hard emotionally I'm fascinated by them so I tend to watch them repeatedly.


Nothing ever puts me off a character to such a degree that I would either stop watching the series, or hate on the the actors/characters involved. It is a fantasy after all, and not a manual on how to run your own life, and sometimes I think todays viewers seem to forget that.

Oh there's definitely things a character could do that would put me off them. But I'd never extend disliking a character to taking it out on the actor who played them and it wouldn't turn me off a show either. The only thing that would put me off a series was if I thought it was condoning a character's really awful behaviour but I have no issues whatsoever with a TV series depicting characters doing wrong or awful things.

flow
27-09-18, 08:19 PM
My two favorite YouTube-vlogger in one vid. Actually Ian and Shannan (sic) are the only youtubers that I follow at all. Yay me, I am looking forward to watching this.

Yes I dread Shannans reaction to SR too. She is very emotional (not shallow at all about it, though). This episode will be emotional gutting for her and not only because of the AR. I am afraid that it will leave her devastated.

Torchwood Boy finished season 7 and was very touched with the finale. He said something like „ how can a tv show make you cry ?“

He forgave Spike in the end but never loved him like he did before.

flow

- - - Updated - - -

I just fell off the sofa because I was laughing so hard:

"Ian: I don`t know, what the eighties were like in Australia.
Shannan: Neither do I."

With just three words she flattened him and his supposed intellectual superiority.

Ian strikes strikes back. He just made a connection, I`ve never seen before. "I know that I am a bad poet, but I am a good man." "I know, that I am a monster, but you treat me like a man."

Go, Ian!



flow

Silver1
27-09-18, 08:29 PM
Sadly I don't think It's very difficult to feel superior when it comes to her. :lol:

flow
27-09-18, 09:11 PM
I just finished it and really loved it. He seemed to be genuinely ashamed and shocked, when she adresses his drinking. I have never before seen her wearing make up. Did she really dress up for him ??

I like them both, but they don`t work together well. They just live in completely different worlds and they don`t speak the same language. Each of them is better off alone.

flow

SpuffyGlitz
27-09-18, 09:38 PM
Do we have a thread for Shannon's reaction videos as well? I kinda love her, I think she's hilarious (maybe I'm naive but I really do think her reactions are authentic..) I saw her reaction video to Out of My Mind and it's worth watching just for the end - I've never seen someone so utterly stunned, lol. If we had a thread on her videos I'd post this there.


If you watch from 17:11, her reactions are priceless :lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlSCEHuN4WE

Silver1
27-09-18, 11:50 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEYrhbn4Pwg

5 by 5 with the pair of them.

- - - Updated - - -

Which ties in nicely with his own separate review of that episode just posted today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oKufxtuqK4


(recommended)

flow
28-09-18, 07:52 AM
SpuffyGlitz: No, Shannan hasn`t got her own thread here. We have always posted and commented her videos in the general podcast thread. I agree with you. I do think, she is absolutely authentic. There is a noticeable difference to - for example - Torchwood Boy. I loved his reactions videos also but they had a touch of proficiency.

flow

Priceless
28-09-18, 11:04 AM
Enjoying Shannon and Ian together, hope they do more crossovers in the future. Shannon asks Ian questions and raises points that I don't think he'd thought of before, or put no weight to. Does anyone think Ian has vodka in that flask?

Ian's review of 5x5 was excellent, with the right balance of poetic romanticism and actual criticism. Really enjoyed it. Small nitpick - Angel didn't track Faith down, Cordy did

Silver1
28-09-18, 03:01 PM
Does anyone think Ian has vodka in that flask?

Sadly yes. His words always sound slightly slurred to me these days.


Ian's review of 5x5 was excellent, with the right balance of poetic romanticism and actual criticism.

It was excellent wasn't it. Found myself actually tearing up a bit at the end, which I thought was brightly done by the way. Spikes voice over just hit the right note.

Priceless
28-09-18, 05:28 PM
Ian's asking for questions for a Q&A he's doing, if anyone has any questions you're burning to ask. I'm tempted to ask what are his real feelings about Spike. Or if he'd go dry for a month, but I didn't want him to think I was being insulting.

Silver1
28-09-18, 06:03 PM
I wouldn't touch on the drinking If I were you. I don't think he'd take kindly to that.

Ask him about Spike and see If he responds.

By the way Shannon has just posted up her responses to 3 Buffy episodes, including Once more with Feeling


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DXiewIHrYo&t=3s

I can't get over how childlike she comes across in her processing of these. She was so into Spike in this, and little does she know she's being set up for a huuuuuge fall.

flow
28-09-18, 06:35 PM
She is not pretending to have an academic education or to be an intellectual. She is just a young woman from Australia who lives with her father and enjoys Buffy. There are probably lots of people who have a more sophisticated approach to the show but she would be the first to admit that.

flow

Priceless
28-09-18, 06:43 PM
I can't get over how childlike she comes across in her processing of these. She was so into Spike in this, and little does she know she's being set up for a huuuuuge fall.

She is so childlike, but I mostly think it's real. I liked her with Ian because we see a deeper side to her. Yes she's going to feel so betrayed later in the season, but I'm hopeful she'll be understanding of Spike's character and lack of soul.

Maybe we would start a new thread for her reactions?

Silver1
28-09-18, 06:54 PM
Yeah, Think thats probably a good idea.

- - - Updated - - -


She is not pretending to have an academic education or to be an intellectual. She is just a young woman from Australia who lives with her father and enjoys Buffy. There are probably lots of people who have a more sophisticated approach to the show but she would be the first to admit that.

flow

My problem is she seems so utterly clueless half the time, far more then a women her age should be.

flow
28-09-18, 07:43 PM
My eldest is 22 years old, just like her and I am sometimes astonished at how clueless he is regarding life. This whole generation has been brought up very sheltered. And we don`t know, what she is doing apart from this videos. Has she finished college? Has she ever lived abroad? Does she have a job? Has she ever had a long-going romantic relationship? She has mentioned once, that she is still living at home with her father who is very ill and whom she looks after. I actually can´t imagine, that she has a nine to five Job in addition to taking care of her father and doing her videos. She might have led a very quiet life so far.

flow

SpuffyGlitz
28-09-18, 07:50 PM
Aw, I don't know, because I love her reactions :heart: I find she IS 'sophisticated'/ intelligent as a viewer? She appreciates the show fulsomely and genuinely and that's the best way to watch art. Her commentary is pretty alert too - She made a really great point about how this musical is self reflexive unlike others ("hey! they know about all the singing and dancing?" Unlike Disney musicals?) I love that she loves Grease! I can't wait for her next reaction! :p I love watching people watch things I love!

Silver1
28-09-18, 08:41 PM
I find she IS 'sophisticated'/ intelligent as a viewer?

Christ, you must be watching somebody else then because I find her clueless. Even down (in todays video) asking what certain words meant? I mean hello hon, apparently you're in your mid 20's and you should know this stuff by now. It's all pretty basic.

I also can't stand when she gurns at the camera and stops the video to witter on about "whats happening?", or "don't hurt my Cory" something a 10 year old would say not a grown women. *sigh*

SpuffyGlitz
28-09-18, 08:47 PM
Lol I see your point, she does do that, but it hasn't bothered me so far.. :noidea: I haven't been following her regularly. I just like that I get to watch a fan watch episodes for the first time ever, and see how that goes.
I don't know who Torchboy is either - maybe I'll check him out as well.

Silver1
28-09-18, 09:01 PM
It's 'Torchwood boy' as in the Dr Who spin off. :)

- - - Updated - - -


Ian's asking for questions for a Q&A he's doing, if anyone has any questions you're burning to ask. I'm tempted to ask what are his real feelings about Spike. Or if he'd go dry for a month, but I didn't want him to think I was being insulting.

I've just asked him on Twitter did he mind explaining his well trod phrase 'The Spike problem'. :)

a thing of evil
28-09-18, 09:07 PM
@Silver1
Jesus, if she aggravates you so much, have you considered not watching? Like, wtf, it's just a person watching Buffy on the internet - nothing she does justifies spewing so much venom. Why go full toxic nerd stereotype on her?

Silver1
28-09-18, 09:15 PM
Because I have no life and I was bored? It's hardly taxing stuff and takes very little time outta my life sweetie. Also anyone who puts themselves out there is fair game for feedback whether they like it or not, and her audience do seem extremely kind and uncritical to her. Also she's hardly likely to read my comments on here is she?

I still keep hoping she's grow some awareness at some point. She appeared to be taking pointers from Ian now and again. :lol:

Mylie
28-09-18, 09:37 PM
I haven’t been a big presence over here but I think I have to speak out nonetheless.

I’ve seen lots of comments in this part of the forum that make me extremely uncomfortable. Some people apparently find that it’s perfectly ok to just sit and spit hateful, jugmental and gratuitous comments about regular people who put their heart and energy into something they love*. I’ve seen the same people express outrage over people implying an actor was acting in a problematic way. But apparently regular people are fair game!

*maybe some should spend more time doing that because I’ve yet to see a single positive post from them on this whole forum.

I don’t expect to get a positive response from this post (but I am expecting at least one condescending post) so I guess this my exit post.

Silver1
28-09-18, 09:38 PM
It's peoples opinions love. We're all entitled to them. :)

Also you really do have to understand the culture of youtubers' they are a breed that seem to thrive on clicks and almost treat It as a business.

Mylie
28-09-18, 09:41 PM
It's peoples opinions love. We're all entitled to them. :)

Here it is!!!!

I guess I have at least come to find this place predictable.

Silver1
28-09-18, 09:43 PM
But whats your issue with that? We are all entitled to our own opinions. :)

Mylie
28-09-18, 09:46 PM
But whats your issue with that? We are all entitled to our own opinions. :)

You can’t be that clueless about doing this «*love*»*«*hon*» thing every single time you disagree with someone... because wow

Silver1
28-09-18, 09:47 PM
I'm a sixty one years of age women love. From the UK and I use those words in real life. Okay?

Also you seem determined to start a fight. Am I correct in that assumption?

Mylie
28-09-18, 09:52 PM
I'm a sixty one years of age women love. From the UK and I use those words in real life. Okay?

Also you seem determined to start a fight. Am I correct in that assumption?

No. I’ve said my piece.

It’s been fun for a while but I don’t think this place is for me after all. But happy fandom-ing to you all!

flow
29-09-18, 07:20 AM
Mylie, you are welcome to post here and you are free to leave. Your indignation would feel more genuine and authentic though,if you would apply the same moral standards to other places of fandom as well.

Silver1: you are of course entitled to your opinion and you have voiced it. I think everyone here knows perfectly well, how you feel about after show reacts. But I agree with a thing of evil. Maybe it is time you move on to reaction videos - whatever -, you enjoy.

flow

Silver1
29-09-18, 07:45 AM
Silver1: you are of course entitled to your opinion and you have voiced it

Yes, I am entitled, aren't I. :lol:


Maybe it is time you move on to reaction videos

Noted. I follow loads on youtube, and thats probably why I find her response and thought processing so....I don't know, odd?

But then I'm quite old and she's very young and maybe thats the real issue here.

Mylie
29-09-18, 02:20 PM
Mylie, you are welcome to post here and you are free to leave. Your indignation would feel more genuine and authentic though,if you would apply the same moral standards to other places of fandom as well.

Silver1: you are of course entitled to your opinion and you have voiced it. I think everyone here knows perfectly well, how you feel about after show reacts. But I agree with a thing of evil. Maybe it is time you move on to reaction videos - whatever -, you enjoy.

flow

I just want to address this.

The forum you are talking about isn't perfect. I had to step away from it multiple times (I once took a 2 months break from it) because some people's comments were outright sexist, racist and homophobic, it became a toll on me. But I've never seen that forum let people make judgments about how regular people live their life, implying that they're alcoholic, childish, etc, And I have the ignore button there.

I'm all fine with criticizing the content of a video but once you start making assumptions like this about someone's life, then it's a big no for me.

I know you all think this place is better than that other place and I have no problem understanding why that's the case for you. But this place can be just as toxic, it's just that you don't see it.

But I'm not there to criticize you all, I think most of you are great to exchange with. But there are people who are making this environment not very welcome-y for me. And not being a Spuffy, I think I don't really have anything to hold on to.

Anyways, I'm really done. I don't want to keep on hijacking the thread with this issue.

Silver1
29-09-18, 02:29 PM
Anyways, I'm really done.

Okay. Thats fine.

Oh except, dare I ask is "the other place" referring to Buffy Boards?

Priceless
29-09-18, 03:54 PM
I've just asked him on Twitter did he mind explaining his well trod phrase 'The Spike problem'.

I saw that. I really hope he answers. I'd love to hear his views now, and then compare them to his reviews when he gets to Season 6/7.

Silver1
29-09-18, 04:06 PM
I bet he'll just ignore me. :lol:

Priceless
29-09-18, 04:30 PM
I bet he'll just ignore me. :lol:

I've never asked him anything, so not sure how he is with his fans and if he's happy to answer 'difficult' questions.

Silver1
29-09-18, 04:33 PM
I've watched many of his editing live streams where he also takes questions and It seems to depend on what mood he's in. :)

Priceless
15-10-18, 10:55 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aff8yg5zFcs

flow
15-10-18, 09:07 PM
Riley has incredibly glaring mommy issues? Since when?

flow

bespangled
15-10-18, 11:04 PM
I haven’t been a big presence over here but I think I have to speak out nonetheless.

I’ve seen lots of comments in this part of the forum that make me extremely uncomfortable. Some people apparently find that it’s perfectly ok to just sit and spit hateful, jugmental and gratuitous comments about regular people who put their heart and energy into something they love*. I’ve seen the same people express outrage over people implying an actor was acting in a problematic way. But apparently regular people are fair game!

*maybe some should spend more time doing that because I’ve yet to see a single positive post from them on this whole forum.

I don’t expect to get a positive response from this post (but I am expecting at least one condescending post) so I guess this my exit post.

Wow - that's a blast from the past. On another board I once objected to a poster who claimed that JM adopted his niece in order to molest her because he's a pedophile. I was attacked by a mod, but the person who doubled down on his defamation of JM was allowed to continue with his toxic crap. It was then that I left that board.

I don't watch reaction shows, but on a thread where they are being discussed I don't see anything wrong with someone saying "she seems kind of clueless", or some version of I don't like her but I still watch and complain. If you are doing any sort of reaction show you are performing. Any critique of her is about information gleaned about her during her performance in front of a camera - how she appears to a particular viewer. We actually do that with all the actors, and once any reviewer sets up a camera in order to broadcast their candid reaction, then they are aware they are performing. A successful reviewer is one who can attract an audience because that translates into opportunities in other areas.

I would object if someone says this girl sleeps with her father and dismember animals. I would object if someone says she's a child predator who babysits in order to molest infants. There really is a huge difference here. I'm sorry if you conflate those very different types of reaction. I've never seen anything close to that sort of venom here. I hope I never do.

TriBel
15-10-18, 11:09 PM
Riley has incredibly glaring mommy issues? Since when?

flow

I'm presuming because of his relationship with Professor W. I've never been interested enough to plot them out bu they'll be there. Whether they "glare" compared to the issues other characters have with their parents is a moot point.

HowiMetdaSlayer
16-10-18, 12:22 AM
Since I watched the first POTN vids back when he was still on S2. There have been a couple of episodes I was highly anticipating. This may be the top amongst them (along with Hush, Dopplegangland & The Body). Made a really good point about how they coulda had Willow choose Tara and then have Oz wolf out on them. Yet leave the rest largely intact. As a big Willow fan (one that also ♥ Willow & Tara as a couple, yet still liked Oz a lot), this was a huge episode for her character. Seth & Amber are both remarkable in this episode. Yet this is Aly's moment and she (once again) shows why I believe that she's the best actor in the Whedon verse.

bespangled
16-10-18, 02:18 AM
Mylie - I didn't mean to say that the two boards are in competition. There were some great people there, and it was a lot of fun while it lasted. I've stayed in touch with a few. There was a mod who was quite open about wanting me gone. I left. We are all happier.

Feel free to explore - there are plenty of threads that aren't about Spuffy, and no fandom branch is excluded.

Yes, I love Allyson Hannigan in this episode. She can be so vulnerable. I always love the very end with Willow and Tara. I also like the way this episode begins to show ( and POTN points out) the basic moral failure behind the Initiative. Yes, they fight demons but they fight them indiscriminately. They would take and experiment on Lorne, and Clem. I like the thematic twist - not all attacks on demons are warranted.

Silver1
16-10-18, 08:58 AM
Wow - that's a blast from the past. On another board I once objected to a poster who claimed that JM adopted his niece in order to molest her because he's a pedophile. I was attacked by a mod, but the person who doubled down on his defamation of JM was allowed to continue with his toxic crap. It was then that I left that board.

I don't watch reaction shows, but on a thread where they are being discussed I don't see anything wrong with someone saying "she seems kind of clueless", or some version of I don't like her but I still watch and complain. If you are doing any sort of reaction show you are performing. Any critique of her is about information gleaned about her during her performance in front of a camera - how she appears to a particular viewer. We actually do that with all the actors, and once any reviewer sets up a camera in order to broadcast their candid reaction, then they are aware they are performing. A successful reviewer is one who can attract an audience because that translates into opportunities in other areas.

I would object if someone says this girl sleeps with her father and dismember animals. I would object if someone says she's a child predator who babysits in order to molest infants. There really is a huge difference here. I'm sorry if you conflate those very different types of reaction. I've never seen anything close to that sort of venom here. I hope I never do.

Exactly. :) You want to see truly hateful comments, well there's another board that does that and imo It isn't here. :lol:

Priceless
16-10-18, 02:38 PM
I really like that POTN points out that Willow doesn't actually make a choice. I think a lot of reviewers overlook that when discussing the episode, or perhaps don't even realise that's what happened. We think we know that Willow would have chosen Tara, but in the end she didn't have to make the choice, the choice was always Oz's.

flow
16-10-18, 08:48 PM
I really like that POTN points out that Willow doesn't actually make a choice. I think a lot of reviewers overlook that when discussing the episode, or perhaps don't even realise that's what happened. We think we know that Willow would have chosen Tara, but in the end she didn't have to make the choice, the choice was always Oz's.

That was an interesting point, he made. But I am not sure, I agree with it. I have always understood that it was not the time for Willow and Oz to be together, because Willow wanted to be together with Tara instead.

Re-reading the transcript:

WILLOW: I was waiting. I feel like some part of me will always be waiting
for you. Like if I'm old and blue-haired, and I turn the corner in Istanbul
and there you are, I won't be surprised. Because... you're with me, you know?
OZ: I know. (Pause) But now is not that time, I guess.
WILLOW:(shakes her head) No.

I have to admit, that you could also see it as if it wasn`t the time for them to be together because Oz still hadn`t full control over his wolf. "Now is not the time" could refer to his still ongoing wolf-issues, that might get solved somewhere in the future and then they can walk through the streets of Istanbul together.

But to me it still feels more like "Now ist not the time to be together because now is the time I want to be together with Tara".

flow

HowiMetdaSlayer
17-10-18, 06:35 PM
Agree with Flow here...
I think that she was/kinda did choose Tara. If you read the 2 scenes (candle & van). In the van scene Willow basically says that it's not the time for us (cause now she's in love with Tara). I think when she says that in a way that she'll always be waiting for him it's more theoretical, or a way of making them both feel better about the whole thing. Also in the candle scene Willow says she is with the one she loves.

Silver1
28-10-18, 09:32 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiwxGvZLlkM

Published via Youtube premiere last night, which meant chat was live as well.

A link to his patrons hangout where they discuss both 'Passion' and 'I only have eyes for you'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc4NpOCddT8

Priceless
28-10-18, 10:23 AM
I actually found this review a bit confusing. He rightly says that every time Buffy has been 'mean' to Angel in the past, she has been 'punished', but as he says about Faith, it's about change. So Buffy has changed too, she's dealing with Angel differently and POTN sees this as ooc. So Faith and Angel can grow and change, but Buffy can't? Then he goes on to say Buffy has every right to be angry, as she was raped . . . so she can be angry, but she can't lose it with the guy now protecting her rapist?

I think the whole point of the episode is that ALL the characters change; Wesley certainly does within the episode. POTN see's Buffy as the aggressor and he thinks that's how the writers wanted it, but I think the writers wanted the audience to make up their own minds, to consider what Faith did and pick a side. Or see it from both sides.

Silver1
28-10-18, 12:10 PM
I agree, I think this one was a bit meandering and too long for what it was. I felt he could have got his point across much sharper with less waffle.

Also you don't have to be a genius to figure this episode was AtS so Angel is going to be favoured more.

flow
28-10-18, 12:27 PM
I liked his reviwe for Sanctuary. I actually agree with most of what he says here.

I don`t think, he says Buffy was punished every time she was mean to Angel in the past. He says, she gets a chance at redeeming herself after being mean to him in the past and she usually takes that chance.

He also says, that both Buffy and Angel have grown. They have outgrown the Bangel melodrama and they are both now indepentend persons. Which is accurate imho.

When he say, Buffy is acting ooc, he is not saying, she isn`t allowed to be angry at Faith and consequently at Angel too. He confirms, that she has been raped in Who are You. He thinks, it is plausible she is angry. He is just saying, that Sanctuary is dealing badly with the anger she is entitled to.

He doesn`t blame Buffy for hitting Angel. He blames her for her "Oh god, my ex-boyfriend hit me, he is an abuser" after he hits her back. That is actually the part, where I don`t agree with him. Buffy`s Looks dumbfounded not because she has been hit by her ex-boyfriend but because she realizes, that they have both crossed a line and it will be hard if not impossible to get back from there.

If any character acts ooc in this episode it is Angel, when he hits Buffy. This is not really an act of self-defense. He holds one of her arms and he has easily deflected her second blow. For self-defence it would have been sufficient to block the next blows as well, should there be any. I actually don`t think, Buffy would have hit him a third time, after her second blow failed.

And of course there isn`t a rule that goes "You hit me once, I get one free." Hitting someone is always wrong. Even if someone has hit you first.
So, Buffy is extremly angry at Faith and Angel. Her anger is understandable. Angel grabs her arm, forcing her to stay instead of going after Faith. It isn`t right that she hits him, but it is understandable. It is clearly wrong, that she tries to hit him a second time and it is far less understandable. But hey, cut the girl some slack, She is emotionally devastated.

But why does Angel actually hit her? Is he angry at her? Why? Because she hit him first? Come on - he is a vampire. He has taken worse blows than that in the past. This is the girl who nearly died to save his life. No, I don`t see Angel hitting Buffy. I think that is just not plausible.

But maybe the scene was written to draw a line, from which Bangel could never come back. I don`t know. If they tried to do that, they failed to get their message through, I think.

flow

Priceless
28-10-18, 01:41 PM
I don`t think, he says Buffy was punished every time she was mean to Angel in the past. He says, she gets a chance at redeeming herself after being mean to him in the past and she usually takes that chance.

That might be what he's trying to say, but the scenes he picks to show this don't work. Buffy is mean by telling Angel she has a boyfriend now, and the next scene is her being dumped by Scott. To me that's 'punishment' rather than Buffy taking a chance to 'redeem herself'. What has Scott dumping her got to do with redemption? She had no choice in the matter at all, so it certainly isn't about choice.

This is what I mean about his video being confusing. I understand his points, but he's using the wrong illustrations.


When he say, Buffy is acting ooc, he is not saying, she isn`t allowed to be angry at Faith and consequently at Angel too. He confirms, that she has been raped in Who are You. He thinks, it is plausible she is angry. He is just saying, that Sanctuary is dealing badly with the anger she is entitled to.


Is he saying that? If so, I completely disagree with him. The man she loves more than anything in the world is protecting her rapist, if all he gets is a punch in the face then imo he got off lucky :lol: I agree with you that Buffy's shock is about crossing a line, and that they can never go back, but I also think it's about Angel choosing Faith over her, which might make no logical sense, but emotionally I think that's how most people would feel in that situation.

I think he should have I think he's got a bit lost with this episode, which he why he rambles on about Star Trek and Capt. Picard who I also love by the way, but if you need to use Star Trek to illustrate a point about Buffy, I think you've lost your way :D

POTN is usually so poetic in his reviews, but here he says things like ' . . . that's like trying to drop a ball by squeezing it tighter' and 'you can't clean a board by running with it' (or some such) His usual poetic use of language seems to have left him for this one.

Reviews are all very personal, I understand that. I love Buffy in this episode, I love that she punches Angel and he punches her back, that feels so real and honest to me, as does Buffy's shock at being punched. I don't find this episode a 'mixed bag', it's actually one of my very favourites of the season.

Silver1
28-10-18, 03:09 PM
POTN is usually so poetic in his reviews, but here he says things like ' . . . that's like trying to drop a ball by squeezing it tighter' and 'you can't clean a board by running with it' (or some such) His usual poetic use of language seems to have left him for this one.


I hate to say this but maybe the stress of leaving his job is starting to effect him? Also I notice he's 'drinking' in nearly all his videos now. You can hear it in his voice. I wish he would try and do something about that (If he isn't already of course) before It's too late.

Dipstick
29-10-18, 07:31 PM
I saw this video. I disagreed for a lot of same reasons as Priceless. This was the first time that I heard Buffy described as "mean" for telling Angel that she was dating Scott Hope. I don't really get what's mean about that. Angel broke up HARD with Buffy through everything he did as Angelus. Buffy was going out on a limb (to the point of disloyalty to her friends and the world) by hiding Angel to care for him. Angel was not entitled to Buffy's fidelity. I don't see what Buffy was supposed to do. Have these intimate caring moments with Angel at night while she dates Scott Hope secretly? Dump Scott the minute Angel came back from hell even though she can't even be sexually intimate with Angel?

Yes, Buffy is a little harsh by saying Angel doesn't have a beating heart in The Prom. But that's after, Angel condescendingly insults Buffy for bringing up the prom, dumps her in the sewers right before prom, and calls their relationship a "freak show." Where's Angel's comeuppance for all of that crap? Why is it a matter of Buffy getting comeuppance for IMO mostly reacting to a ugly conversation which Angel started and initiated the bad tone?

The creator of the video did something which I see a lot- pay lip-service to how Faith really did rape, torture, and hurt Buffy so Buffy had every right to be angry BUT THEN say that Buffy wasn't entitled to her anger. I don't think Buffy was perfect in this episode. She shouldn't have rubbed Angel's face in her relationship with Riley or hit Angel. I think these are the only two moments where I disagreed with her.

However, IMO, the most crucial difference of opinion is what to do with Faith. Buffy is actually on the RIGHT SIDE when Buffy insists on jail and Angel insists on taking Faith into his home while he speechifies on atonement and Cordelia/Wesley just have to deal with sharing the same small space with Faith after she tortured Wesley for hours seemingly in perpetuity. Actually, both slayers knew better what should be done than Angel because Faith turns herself into jail too. Fans would call Buffy punitive for insisting on jail, but that ends up being what Faith chose and key to buying Faith's redemption.

The author of the video expresses regret that we never got to see Angel make a whole televised project of sponsoring Faith. However, I believe that's to Angel's benefit. I mean, it would have been an interesting story of Angel taking Faith into AI and forcing Wesley to get over his PTSD to work closely and fight with Faith. But then, seven episode later, Angel embarks on his S2 story of abandoning his team and human connections to jerk off to Darla and then soon, Sponsor!Angel demonstrates to Apt Pupil Girl!Faith that questioning his decision to lock up a bunch of lawyers to be eaten by Drusilla and Darla is met with a firing and disbandment of the company. The creator of the video buys into Angel's stated mythos in Sanctuary- that he's the business of saving souls- while Buffy is the Judge who dispenses baddies. I'm not sure if this guy has seen the show but I think the whole of AtS lays waste to this idea that Angel saves corrupted souls. Angel did so well with Faith because she already wanted to change on the inside and he had limited time with her so he could just keep up being his best instead of backsliding around her. As always, Angel is not as cured as he thinks he is. He's in no position to sponsor anyone other than in short speechy spurts MAYBE.

I also disagree with the author saying the Council goons weren't necessary. They're *crucial* to wrap up their appearance in Who Are You? and tell an unbelievably important story about Wesley picking Angel's judgement and Faith’s life over the Council's judgment and the chance to get his job/destiny/family/country/everything he was raised to value back. But also, it's crucial that Buffy saved Faith from the Council goons. To me, it solidifies that Buffy wanted universally human recognized redemption/justice with Faith- jail. Buffy talks a harsh game of "beating Faith down" but Buffy risked her own life to make sure that Faith wasn't extra-judicially executed by the corrupt Council.

Silver1
29-10-18, 09:05 PM
"BIG news to share with you.."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eakwfjTHKwg&t=361s

flow
29-10-18, 09:31 PM
He is wearing a Spike t-shirt!

flow

Priceless
30-10-18, 12:51 AM
"BIG news to share with you.."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eakwfjTHKwg&t=361s

I wish him all the luck in the world. He's a good guy who loves a show that I love. I hope that it isn't too stressful for him, as he doesn't seem much of a business man.

- - - Updated - - -


He is wearing a Spike t-shirt!

flow

That made me smile so much. I love anyone who loves Spike!

- - - Updated - - -

Ok I've been on Patreon and supported him for $2. I have to say I raised an eye-brow at the starting rate being $2 because the other two podcasts/channels I support start at $1 a month.

vampmogs
08-11-18, 12:06 PM
The creator of the video did something which I see a lot- pay lip-service to how Faith really did rape, torture, and hurt Buffy so Buffy had every right to be angry BUT THEN say that Buffy wasn't entitled to her anger.

Word. I've finally got around to watching this and it immediately stood out to me as well before even reading your post. There's no "but." Buffy is entitled to be angry. End of story.

I've... never disagreed more with a POTN video. I actually completely disagree that we needed an entire episode of Angel and Faith sitting around his apartment whilst Angel moralised her with speeches. To be honest, possibly my least favourite thing about Angel is how the series tends to be extremely preachy sometimes and I think my least favourite moment of this episode is Angel's "feel it" speech. It's both in part the writing and DB's delivery of that line but I've always thought it was cringeworthy AF. What I actually did like about this episode is the moment the writing undercuts Angel's speechifying when an uncomfortable Faith tells Angel that she was actually referring to using the microwave ("How does this work?") and both of them look embarrassed. It was the writer's way of acknowledging that the preachiness is a little OTT.

I will never understand people's obsession with how Buffy is portrayed in Angel. There's this constant fascination with people speculating and/or worrying that non-Buffy watchers will think Buffy is a "bitch." Do I care? No. Do I honestly believe that Angel Season 1 even had a significant portion of viewers who hadn't watched Buffy? Definitely not. Regardless, I want the writers to write Buffy exactly as she should be whenever she crossed over. And in IWRY she was justifiably angry at Angel sneaking around behind her back and in Sanctuary she was super justifiably angry at Faith and, to an extent, at Angel, for his lack of regard for Faith's victims (including herself). I mean, I actually thought that Buffy was super loveable throughout the majority of IWRY anyway, but the point is that it would have been dishonest for the writers to script Buffy any differently just so she's more appeasing to Angel-only viewers and it'd be the exact thing that the writer's get criticised for in episodes like Chosen where fans complained that Angel was written OOC and accused the writing of completely disregarding what had happened to him on his own show (losing Connor etc).

And I will always disagree that Buffy's reaction to hitting her is OOC. Everyone ignores the fact that Buffy explicitly states why it hurt her so much ("you did it for her"). Is it hypocritical that Buffy takes two swings at Angel but is then upset with him when he defends himself? Sure it is. But when people are upset and traumatised they act irrationally. And there's a rational explanation for why she's acting, well, so irrationally ("you did it for her"). And leaving aside for a moment what Faith did to Buffy in This Years Girl/Who Are You, it's not as if we don't have two episodes in Season 3 dealing with Buffy's insecurities over Angel/Faith that are coming to the forefront here when Angel actually is choosing Faith over Buffy in this episode.

People want Buffy to be the perfect victim. They acknowledge that Faith did something extremely horrible and traumatic to her (they even go so far to call it "rape") but they want her to be placid and appeasing rather than enraged and flawed. And I agree with you wholeheartedly Dipstick that Buffy isn't on the morally "wrong" side as POTN claims. She wants Faith to go to jail for her crimes which is a perfectly reasonable belief that pretty much all of society shares. And as you point out, it's what Faith ends up wanting too. And POTN completely fails to acknowledge how Buffy shoves Faith out of harm's way without a moment's hesitation when the Council goons open fire. I definitely think Buffy was flawed in this episode and I agree that she had no right to hit Angel and that it was spiteful to throw Riley in Angel's face but she was written believably.

For the most part I really enjoy Sanctuary. I think I may like Five By Five a tad more because it is more action-packed but, honestly, once Buffy arrives, this episode is incredibly interesting to me and overall I think it's an objectively stronger episode (Five By Five takes fooorreever to get going). I'm surprised that POTN didn't enjoy it more as I thought it would be right up his alley but there was almost nothing I agreed with him on about this episode. What I will point out is that I have unfortunately noticed a trend wherein the strongest episodes of Angel (IMO) all feature very little of Cordelia. Which is strange, as I definitely feel that the series overall was better with her in it, but she's just not pivotal to making an episode great. Episodes such as Sanctuary, Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been and Darla all feature very little Cordelia and she's absent entirely from episodes like Sleep Tight, Forgiving and Not Fade Away. Does anybody know if there was a behind the scenes reason for why Cordy was written out of this episode? There's a trend where Cordy seems to be written out of some of the most pivotal episodes of each season (she's absent from the Holtz/Wes/Connor plot entirely in Season 3) which in hindsight just never boded well for her character. One thing I will agree with POTN about is that in many ways Sanctuary redefined the mission statement of the show. For the writers to feel that Cordy had no place in this episode is sadly kind of telling.

HardlyThere
08-11-18, 12:57 PM
I think it's the discrepancies in those instances (Sanctuary/Chosen) that are why it does set people on edge. In one instance, they write it safe for this-show-only viewers and the others they don't. Why make an exception in one but not the other? Or they do in both and Joss didn't care because it was character-specific show and characterizations don't really count. I have noticed over the years that those who watched Angel first then watched BTVS have a different views on the characters, so I don't think those worries are without merit. Even Minear and Espenson have said as much.

They should have gone more into what Faith did, mentioned it at least. All we really get is Faith did something, but it comes off as downplayed. Yeah, they do the whole victim argument, but they don't get into it and it's really there to make it all about Faith. That's why I loathe redemption arcs in the Buffyverse, though, on Angel specifically.

Cordy was absent from the Holtz arc because Charisma took a hiatus because of personal reasons. The other times, who knows. There was some gossip that she wasn't very reliable.

Dipstick
09-11-18, 02:41 PM
Word. I've finally got around to watching this and it immediately stood out to me as well before even reading your post. There's no "but." Buffy is entitled to be angry. End of story.

I've... never disagreed more with a POTN video. I actually completely disagree that we needed an entire episode of Angel and Faith sitting around his apartment whilst Angel moralised her with speeches. To be honest, possibly my least favourite thing about Angel is how the series tends to be extremely preachy sometimes and I think my least favourite moment of this episode is Angel's "feel it" speech. It's both in part the writing and DB's delivery of that line but I've always thought it was cringeworthy AF. What I actually did like about this episode is the moment the writing undercuts Angel's speechifying when an uncomfortable Faith tells Angel that she was actually referring to using the microwave ("How does this work?") and both of them look embarrassed. It was the writer's way of acknowledging that the preachiness is a little OTT.

I will never understand people's obsession with how Buffy is portrayed in Angel. There's this constant fascination with people speculating and/or worrying that non-Buffy watchers will think Buffy is a "bitch." Do I care? No. Do I honestly believe that Angel Season 1 even had a significant portion of viewers who hadn't watched Buffy? Definitely not. Regardless, I want the writers to write Buffy exactly as she should be whenever she crossed over. And in IWRY she was justifiably angry at Angel sneaking around behind her back and in Sanctuary she was super justifiably angry at Faith and, to an extent, at Angel, for his lack of regard for Faith's victims (including herself). I mean, I actually thought that Buffy was super loveable throughout the majority of IWRY anyway, but the point is that it would have been dishonest for the writers to script Buffy any differently just so she's more appeasing to Angel-only viewers and it'd be the exact thing that the writer's get criticised for in episodes like Chosen where fans complained that Angel was written OOC and accused the writing of completely disregarding what had happened to him on his own show (losing Connor etc)

Word to all of this. Especially word to how Sanctuary would have been FAR more boring if there were more scenes of Angel moralizing. Although, as a Buffy-partisan, I've always wondered what did Angel say to make Faith say to Buffy:

Faith: Angel said there was no way you were going to give me a chance.

Angel didn't say anything like that to Faith in the scenes that we saw- although he does minimize Buffy's pain by saying that this isn't about Buffy. However, I kind of think that Faith, at this rock bottom moment of honesty, is reporting something that Angel said with accuracy or at least, some intended honesty even if she misinterpreted it. Because if Angel DID tell Faith that Buffy would never give Faith a second chance, than I'm EVEN MOAR on Buffy's side. Angel would have no right to say that, and such a statement would be profoundly counter-productive. But we don't know. Anyway, that's the only Faith/Angel moralizing that I thought we were missing and I only wanted it to clear up an ambiguity.


For the most part I really enjoy Sanctuary. I think I may like Five By Five a tad more because it is more action-packed but, honestly, once Buffy arrives, this episode is incredibly interesting to me and overall I think it's an objectively stronger episode (Five By Five takes fooorreever to get going). I'm surprised that POTN didn't enjoy it more as I thought it would be right up his alley but there was almost nothing I agreed with him on about this episode. What I will point out is that I have unfortunately noticed a trend wherein the strongest episodes of Angel (IMO) all feature very little of Cordelia. Which is strange, as I definitely feel that the series overall was better with her in it, but she's just not pivotal to making an episode great. Episodes such as Sanctuary, Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been and Darla all feature very little Cordelia and she's absent entirely from episodes like Sleep Tight, Forgiving and Not Fade Away. Does anybody know if there was a behind the scenes reason for why Cordy was written out of this episode? There's a trend where Cordy seems to be written out of some of the most pivotal episodes of each season (she's absent from the Holtz/Wes/Connor plot entirely in Season 3) which in hindsight just never boded well for her character. One thing I will agree with POTN about is that in many ways Sanctuary redefined the mission statement of the show. For the writers to feel that Cordy had no place in this episode is sadly kind of telling.

It's nice that Cordelia peaced out in Sanctuary for this reason. I can't really imagine Cordelia taking *Buffy's* side against *Angel* if Cordelia was right there between them fighting. However without Buffy as the Outsider Ex-Girlfriend to rally against and protect Angel from (as Cordelia did in IWRY), Cordelia had the freedom to say that Angel's plan to sponsor Faith from their office is ridiculous.

Angel: He'll come around.
Cordelia: Wesley? Sure! People always get a little funny right after they've been sadistically tortured. Well, you'd know.

bespangled
13-11-18, 06:18 AM
I am walking a newbie through the Buffy path and I have introduced her to POTN. She loves it and watches it after every episode now. But we have reached season 4. She's finally really enjoying the show and we will run out of POTN soon.

Is there any other review that comes close?

Silver1
13-11-18, 08:28 AM
Not that I've seen. :)

flow
13-11-18, 12:12 PM
I like Lani Diane Rich`s Still Pretty video reviews, but her earliest video is about season 6 episode "Gone". There isn`t anything for the rest of season 4 and for season 5. Imho season 5 is the best season, therefore you might be able to convince the newbie to just watch the show.

flow

Sosa lola
13-11-18, 05:45 PM
The newbie is watching the show through the reviews?

bespangled
13-11-18, 09:08 PM
She's watching the show - and then watching the POTN review. There were a few episodes I suggested she just watch POTN, because she was kinda on the fence. Now she watches the POTN after every episode.

Silver1
28-11-18, 07:28 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2D47axSmLs

Just up.

flow
28-11-18, 08:29 PM
Riley: I love you so much, I can`t think straight.
POTN: I HATE this.
Me: Yesssss!

flow

SpuffyGlitz
28-11-18, 09:04 PM
OK I went over to PoTN's YouTube channel but I can only see Buffy S1, 2 and 3, no mention of 4?

flow
28-11-18, 09:30 PM
Try this link:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ-lwpabT36lCyetf0mw8yrzJ1sC9lXQ3

flow

Silver1
03-12-18, 11:26 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tQWrUq6NAA

Just up today.

Priceless
03-12-18, 11:45 AM
Thanks for posting Silver1. Not a very interesting analysis, but it's a poor episode so that's understandable. Two things stuck out for me, that he recognises that Cordelia is one of the most complex characters on the show, which is true. And he shows himself with a drink in his hand. He talks about normalising in television, and the more difference we see on tv makes that difference become normal to us and that's a good thing . . . I wish I could tell him that the more he puts images of himself with a drink in his hand seems like his way of trying to normalise his drinking, and that's not a good thing.

Priceless
15-12-18, 07:26 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiOETmS8rcg

Priceless
28-12-18, 07:21 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0cPb9yd3Co

- - - Updated - - -

Is there a hint that Cordy is Angel's mother figure. Not sure how I feel about that.

Dipstick
28-12-18, 08:12 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0cPb9yd3Co

- - - Updated - - -

Is there a hint that Cordy is Angel's mother figure. Not sure how I feel about that.

I believe that was foreshadowing Connor as the Oedipal figure who was taken by a "rival king" (Holtz) and never really knew the full truth of his true heritage (Angel/Darla). Connor sleeps with his alleged "mother-figure"/his father's Lady (Cordelia) and tries to kill his father (Angel).

Priceless
28-12-18, 08:24 PM
Connor is very much an Oedipal figure, though he doesn't fully fit the model as he knew his Cordy was his 'mother', and Oedipus did not. But from this video if felt like POTN was suggesting Cordy was the 'mother' of Angel. It's an interesting thought.

Dipstick
28-12-18, 09:12 PM
Connor is very much an Oedipal figure, though he doesn't fully fit the model as he knew his Cordy was his 'mother', and Oedipus did not. But from this video if felt like POTN was suggesting Cordy was the 'mother' of Angel. It's an interesting thought.

The video is cut awkwardly like POTN didn't want to include later clips in such a way that it tells an out-and-out spoilerrific story (as opposed to elsewhere in the video where he used a one-second shot of Wesley in AHITW that doesn't indicate any spoilers). However, he did say that he would return to this Oedipus similarity- I think Connor fits that pattern more than anyone.

I'd argue that Connor didn't identify Cordelia as his "mother." It's complicated. He knew by Tomorrow that Angel had a thing for Cordelia. I don't think Angry!Connor gave thought to how Angel took care of him as a baby before Holtz took him. However, to the extent that he did, I imagine that he assumed Fred and Cordelia in particular aided Angel but wouldn't identify either as a "mother." By far, the main way that Connor takes Cordelia as a "mother" is how he relates to her as a teenager because he's new to Earth and she's not and soon has a manipulative mission to boss him around. However, that's very different from Connor knowing that Cordelia was his "mother" as a baby. (Frankly, I think *Angel* is the only one who had real designs on Cordelia being a mother to Connor.) However, I'll agree that Connor knew Cordelia as part of the group unit before their sexual relationship started while Oedipus was randomly promised Jocasta as a wife for ridding the city Thebes of the Sphinx.

Priceless
29-12-18, 03:48 PM
The video is cut awkwardly like POTN didn't want to include later clips in such a way that it tells an out-and-out spoilerrific story (as opposed to elsewhere in the video where he used a one-second shot of Wesley in AHITW that doesn't indicate any spoilers). However, he did say that he would return to this Oedipus similarity- I think Connor fits that pattern more than anyone.

I'd argue that Connor didn't identify Cordelia as his "mother." It's complicated. He knew by Tomorrow that Angel had a thing for Cordelia. I don't think Angry!Connor gave thought to how Angel took care of him as a baby before Holtz took him. However, to the extent that he did, I imagine that he assumed Fred and Cordelia in particular aided Angel but wouldn't identify either as a "mother." By far, the main way that Connor takes Cordelia as a "mother" is how he relates to her as a teenager because he's new to Earth and she's not and soon has a manipulative mission to boss him around. However, that's very different from Connor knowing that Cordelia was his "mother" as a baby. (Frankly, I think *Angel* is the only one who had real designs on Cordelia being a mother to Connor.) However, I'll agree that Connor knew Cordelia as part of the group unit before their sexual relationship started while Oedipus was randomly promised Jocasta as a wife for ridding the city Thebes of the Sphinx.

I think Connor would view Cordy as a 'mother', without knowing anything about his childhood, because Angel, his father, sees her as his partner. Connor doesn't need to know the past, to understand the bond between Angel and Cordy, and doesn't he even take pride in the fact that he 'steals' Cordy from Angel.

I'll have to watch the video again to get a clearer ideo of what POTN was trying to say, I've only seen it once, and you're right, he does refer to later episodes.

Silver1
06-02-19, 05:37 PM
For those who are interested Passion of the Nerd is doing a live feed right now whilst he edits his next video about Restless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMH35rrBMxQ&feature=em-lbcastemail

- - - Updated - - -

After the last live stream was broken he continues on with his editing over here right now.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jApPNUB571w&feature=em-lbcastemail

Silver1
09-02-19, 02:05 AM
He's finished Restless and It's now been uploaded. At a massive 37 mins in length too. :lol:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_T3hboQQyM

bespangled
09-02-19, 04:04 AM
I Like it - some good connections there.

Priceless
09-02-19, 09:41 AM
That was so good. You can tell he put a lot of effort into producing that video.

Sosa lola
09-02-19, 10:15 AM
Ooooh, can't wait to listen to that. Restless is my favorite review/podcast episode, it's so rich with character insight and almost every reviewer notices and points out new thoughts when talking about it. Off to watch it now.

Silver1
09-02-19, 10:40 AM
Very sympathetic towards Xander's character too which makes a change. :lol:

flow
09-02-19, 10:48 AM
Hah, don’t have the time (and mind) to watch it right now but I am so looking forward to this.

flow

Sosa lola
09-02-19, 11:25 AM
Very sympathetic towards Xander's character too which makes a change. :lol:

I enjoyed that. :lol:

It was fun to watch. I loved his reasons for why Anya and Buffy were not sexualized in Xander's dreams. Also the part about Xander confusing sex with wanting love and comfort because, really, on the show while he was all talk about wanting sex and objectifying the girls in his life, when things get real, what he really wants is a relationship and not just sex.

I also loved the darkness/light stuff about Willow and Tara.

I laughed when he showed up holding a candle when Giles started singing. :lol:

Silver1
10-02-19, 09:33 AM
His end of season round up live stream, where (amongst a whole like of other things which you can fast forward though) he also talks about how the channel is going to shape up going forward and his plans for covering Firefly as well as revisiting some of his past videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7krYWJX8yeE&feature=em-lbcastemail

Priceless
10-02-19, 09:48 AM
I'm watching that now. Ian is so personable, and he's trying hard to sell Firefly. He doesn't sound like a fan of S7, but I'm hoping he'll change his mind once he starts reviewing it.

HowiMetdaSlayer
10-02-19, 01:12 PM
Don't blame him. If I were him, I'd just make one review for whole season and not even bother rewatching. :s

Silver1
10-02-19, 02:37 PM
Nah. Not in my opinion. It has It's faults but I still don't write It off completely.

flow
10-02-19, 03:13 PM
I am impressed. Great piece. Kudos.

flow

Priceless
10-02-19, 03:25 PM
He's a fan of Season 6, so I'm hopeful he'll grow to love S7 as a continuation

BtVS fan
10-02-19, 06:51 PM
Don't blame him. If I were him, I'd just make one review for whole season and not even bother rewatching. :s

S7 is watchable but Id recommend skipping Episode 10 to 15 in which basically nothing happens. The Potentials, (shudder) sit around Buffys house while the First pops up and makes a threat which the cast then sell like it's the worst thing ever then Buffy gives a speech and that's pretty much it for those episodes. Not till 16 does something happen and even then it's about Andrew, who I despise almost as much as the Potentials but who others might like.

Silver1
10-02-19, 08:11 PM
I don't despise Andrew, but I seriously have no idea why Joss and co were so obssed with him. I get kinda get why he was turned into a Xander replacement for season 7 because of Nicks 'health' issues, but lord, he did grate on me.

BtVS fan
10-02-19, 08:47 PM
I don't despise Andrew, but I seriously have no idea why Joss and co were so obssed with him. I get kinda get why he was turned into a Xander replacement for season 7 because of Nicks 'health' issues, but lord, he did grate on me.

That and Joss loved Tom Lenk is all I can think of.

Then he was brought back for Angel S5. Apparently Giles made him a Watcher ... Wait What :o

I'm still not sure why Angel wasn't throttling him in The Girl In Question either, considering his double cross in Damage ?

As for his role in the comics and him drugging Buffy and replacing her with a Robot the least said the better.

Sosa lola
11-02-19, 06:23 AM
I'm not a S7 fan, but I'd much rather watch a S7 review by someone who loves the season than someone who hates it, so I really hope he grows to love the season eventually.

HardlyThere
11-02-19, 06:58 PM
I'm not a S7 fan, but I'd much rather watch a S7 review by someone who loves the season than someone who hates it, so I really hope he grows to love the season eventually.

The same thing happened when it aired. TWoP was unreadable.

I contend the show never jumped any sharks, however--perhaps there's a term for it--S6 marked a turn when many stopped watching the show for what happens and only watched to see what they want to happen. If it didn't, then it sucked. Folks were hating on those episodes from the previews. Maybe it's a final season thing.

Sosa lola
13-02-19, 04:02 AM
The same thing happened when it aired. TWoP was unreadable.


I remember reading the TWoP recaps. They were tedious. The only character the viewers liked was Giles. They simply hated everything and everybody. I don't enjoy reading and listening to those kinds of reviews anymore.

To be fair, I used to be as sour about S7, and made it absolutely clear that I despise the season. Now... it just feels tiring. I'd rather find the positive.

HowiMetdaSlayer
13-02-19, 08:11 PM
I remember reading the TWoP recaps. They were tedious. The only character the viewers liked was Giles. They simply hated everything and everybody. I don't enjoy reading and listening to those kinds of reviews anymore.

To be fair, I used to be as sour about S7, and made it absolutely clear that I despise the season. Now... it just feels tiring. I'd rather find the positive.
Me too...I'm glad it's over. :D

Silver1
24-02-19, 01:40 PM
February Patreon Hangout: Revelations and Lovers Walk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nrEaR8853c

Interesting views, but lord some of them do go on. :lol:

BtVS fan
24-02-19, 06:45 PM
February Patreon Hangout: Revelations and Lovers Walk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nrEaR8853c

Interesting views, but lord some of them do go on. :lol:


It was some interesting views and think its great that they are so enthused about it. Discussing a TV show they enjoy it's all good :D

flow
22-03-19, 02:11 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZWNGq70Oyo&fbclid=IwAR2XUu4Whp4KcS3Kn57hKvDXW4ltk-rysq1Fp0Lq3VzIh3jWO3wAc9UFkI8

flow

Silver1
22-03-19, 02:42 PM
God that remaster stunk!