PDA

View Full Version : Twilight Identity, Part Tres



KingofCretins
08-04-09, 04:51 AM
So, I had this whole new epiphany about Twilight's identity. I've been trying to think of something that could shock, shame, anger, amaze, and all that other stuff Jeanty said. I think most of us agree that no matter who it is, it won't do all of those things. So I started trying to think of characters that would still have *some* emotional impact without contradicting the story we have so far.

Giles and Xander... out. It is just beyond idiotic for a storyteller to expect us to believe that either of these guys, as Twilight, would willingly put themselves in danger so often for no good reason as he'd have to for either of them to be Twilight.

Angel and Spike... out. Emotional impact, yes. Carefully protected choice to use them, yes. Anything resembling a reason to be Twilight? None.

Riley... out. The Part Deux prediction turned out to be the inside man instead.

Hank... out. It's archetypal, time tested... and sorta lame.

Pike... out. Cool to movie fans, most of the audience don't care at all.

So, what are we looking for in someone to be Twilight?

Someone who has the knowledge and ability to obtain superpowers, probably through magical props of some kind.
Someone with some level of personal connection to Buffy upon which the reveal would be shocking.
Someone who could realistically have the personal insights into Giles, Faith, and Buffy that Twilight has had.
Someone who could believably have a motive to want to rid the world of demons, Slayers, magic, the whole shooting match.
Someone who has a proven and believable record of being able to play multiple parties against each other.
Someone who isn't committed to the story elsewhere (as in, they're alive but not in a story, or dead but can be brought back without being completely unbelievable.
Someone who could, if revealed as Twilight, justify a guest appearance by Angel and/or Spike for a reason other than to try to get together with Buffy.

Anybody feelin' this yet? Or at least see where the crazy idiot is going, if that's how you react to the theory?

My new official prediction for Twilight's identity is...



... Wesley.

Vampire in Rug
08-04-09, 05:12 AM
[Cyvus Vail] "Well, you make a very persuasive argument." [/Vail]


Very interesting, and it's certainly one I havn't thought of.

In the other thread I was mostly joking when I suggested it might be Xander. Because Y'know everyone was complaining that Xander wasn't on the cover for #26 and I thought it would be funny if he really was on the cover... under the mask.

Interesting observations about Wesley. If Harmony is a puppet of Twilight it makes sense that it could be Wesley pulling her strings. She's already worked with him after all.

I guess the main problem with that theory is that he's dead and we've had a ridiculous ammount of resurections already. Also, the end of After the Fall implied that he'd been released from his contract and found peace in the afterlife.

And while I agree that Wesley is certainly capable of playing both sides against each other for the greater good, Twilight has done some outright nasty stuff that I don't think Wesley would do. Blowing up the castle and killing dozens of Slayers is one thing. And I can't see Wesley distributing the Vampy Cats.


I'm still leaning towards Hank. I know that the "evil father" has been done to death before, but I can't think of any other candidates it could realisticly be.

Nina
08-04-09, 06:38 AM
Wesley was my suspect until he died, but he fits perfectly indeed. And he is the only good guy who is tragic enough to become a person like Twilight. The only problem I could've with this, is that Wesley being a bad guy would be ten times more shocking to Angel and Gunn than to the Scoobies.

Chace
08-04-09, 06:57 AM
I still think "Twilight" is the subconscious manifestation of Giles's subverted personas of Ripper + Glory combined into one entity. :2party:

blue_peroxide
08-04-09, 08:14 AM
It can't be Wesley. After all, he is dead.
Actually, Andrew fits that description as well (minus the reason for Angel/Spike to visit of course). But I do hope it's not him because I'm liking the guy more and more and I really don't want his character ruined.

vampmogs
08-04-09, 09:23 AM
I still think Angel and Spike are possibilities. Sure they don’t have any motivation *right now* but if the character is anyone we know, something had to happen to them that we haven’t seen yet to make them want to do this. So that means very little to me.

Xander I still can’t completely scrap either, but it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. When the bomb hit’s the castle in ‘Time of Your Life’ he looks shocked and horrified. Who is he acting to? No one was around him to be fooled, he was alone on the hill. If he was Twilight he should be happy, and expecting it.

I don’t think Hank would be lame at all. Sure it’d mean there’s been some exaggeration about our reactions but that doesn’t mean much to me. I still think he could fit the bill, we still have Joss’ suspicious namedrop of Hank in that interview. I’d actually like Hank to be Twilight I think it would be good to give his character some back-story and I think Buffy/Hank interaction would be very interesting.

Wes has been well thought out but we still have the problem that he’s dead, and that I’m not sure he’s a likely character to use in Btvs. If we were going to use any Ats characters, I still think Angel and Spike are a bigger chance. Being dead means very little in the Buffyverse though, so it doesn't rule Wes out. And the fact Allie/Cliff were talking about canon for both series and how we'll only know what really is canon in "hindsight" seems to suggest one or more Ats character is going to be appearing in season eight.

Andrew’s also an option, but I’m still not sure. I don’t think it will be him, though I agree the goodness we got in ‘Predators and Prey’ could easily be to deceive us.

Wolfie Gilmore
08-04-09, 10:01 AM
Ok, so, there was a mention in another thread that it had been confirmed that it's someone we know. Could someone point me in the direction of the confirmation? I totally missed it!

Josh
08-04-09, 10:27 AM
It could be Hank... But why would it? What does Hank has to do with it? He doesn't have ANY relation to the slayer world/mystical world. He was out of the picture, and as far as we know out of the loop concerning Buffy's full time job, no?

While it could be thrilling, I don't see any reason it would be him. If Hank had something to do with Twilight, we would have seen him get exposed to that world in the first place... But we didn't. Get what I'm going at?

It could be anyone we know, so it might be such little character with such little indication in the Buffyverse, that there's no chance in hell we would foreseen it. Have you thought about characters from Angel that might be suspicious?

Ravynnia
08-04-09, 10:28 AM
'Twilight' is the reverse of 'Dawn'. So if there are always consequences to magic, what was the aftereffect of the monks' creation of Dawn & all the fake memories involved? some repository of the real pre-Dawn memories?

vampmogs
08-04-09, 10:39 AM
It could be Hank... But why would it? What does Hank has to do with it? He doesn't have ANY relation to the slayer world/mystical world. He was out of the picture, and as far as we know out of the loop concerning Buffy's full time job, no?

I think the words "as far as we know" pretty much sum up my position on this. Hank would probably require the least amount of explanation in regards to his characterisation, because we simply don't know almost anything about him. There's basically a blank canvas to work with.

We were led to believe (as was Buffy) that Hank was unaware of her other full time job. But they could easily write it that he found out at some point? Becoming Twilight could explain his absenteeism throughout the majority of the seasons as well.

Turning Hank into Twilight would actually require probably the least amount of effort out of any character that got a substantial amount of screen time. Because you can basically make the character be whoever you want him to be. We always had sketchy details about where he was supposed to be and who he was as a person.

Until 'Halloween/Dark Ages' as "far as we knew" Giles had never been a rebel. Had never been partially responsible for the death of somebody. But all it took was an episode to give him back-story and we suddenly have a whole new side to Giles. Hank could be no different.

Wolfie Gilmore
08-04-09, 10:47 AM
'Twilight' is the reverse of 'Dawn'. So if there are always consequences to magic, what was the aftereffect of the monks' creation of Dawn & all the fake memories involved? some repository of the real pre-Dawn memories?

Or the anti-Dawn? Dawn's evil twin! Meaning Twilight is made out of Buffy....

Ravynnia
08-04-09, 11:46 AM
Or the anti-Dawn? Dawn's evil twin! Meaning Twilight is made out of Buffy....

Or out of Counter-Buffy.

I can't believe that Joss would name the new BB without noticing its relation to the pivotal character that altered the show. If 'Dawn' inaugurated the complete revision of memory in the show, then 'Twilight' must somehow signal some form of change in that revision.

Or Joss just plain missed it :roll::2party:

Wolfie Gilmore
08-04-09, 04:31 PM
Or out of Counter-Buffy.

Mystical birth out of a mystical birth. My head, she is spinning.


I can't believe that Joss would name the new BB without noticing its relation to the pivotal character that altered the show. If 'Dawn' inaugurated the complete revision of memory in the show, then 'Twilight' must somehow signal some form of change in that revision.

So, are you suggesting that there's some connection between Dawn and Twilight...? :D

(If Joss et al didn't notice it, then everyone must have been very stoned)

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 06:00 PM
Dawn is a specific event, twilight occurs twice every day.

Worth pointing out, I did account for Wes being dead -- he's a W&H guy. We assume his contract voided by virtue of W&H clearing out of our dimension for the time being, but that doesn't quite put him in the Uncle Ben category of "dead".

Emmie
08-04-09, 06:35 PM
Dawn is a specific event, twilight occurs twice every day.

Worth pointing out, I did account for Wes being dead -- he's a W&H guy. We assume his contract voided by virtue of W&H clearing out of our dimension for the time being, but that doesn't quite put him in the Uncle Ben category of "dead".

Yep, we need only look at Lilah in Home to know this. I'm liking this theory, it makes for fun thinky thoughts.

So playing with it a bit more, if it is Wesley do we assume he's working as an agent of W&H since they presumably still own his contract? And what would they offer to make him cooperate? He wasn't exactly in a giving mood during After the Fall.

Maybe they offered him his freedom from his contract or even a way to restore Fred's soul (if they played with the "burned up in the fires of resurrection" card).

But why would W&H be working towards ending magic, unless Twilight saying this has always been a cover all along? W&H and Resurrected Wes are kinda a package deal at the moment.

blue_peroxide
08-04-09, 06:52 PM
'Twilight' is the reverse of 'Dawn'. So if there are always consequences to magic, what was the aftereffect of the monks' creation of Dawn & all the fake memories involved? some repository of the real pre-Dawn memories?


Or the anti-Dawn? Dawn's evil twin! Meaning Twilight is made out of Buffy....

I'm slow. I honestly never thought about the Dawn-Twilight connection! Since powerful magic can have nasty side effects maybe really some sort of Anti-Dawn was created as well.
Only why would that Anti-Dawn want to end all magic? Well, it could be just out of pure evil-ness. :)

In any way, that would be much more interesting than Hank being Twilight. Hank had just zero connection with the world of magic, I can't see any reason why he'd want to end it. On the other hand, maybe he blames magic for him growing apart from his family? And, as Vampmogs pointed out, he is pretty much white canvas, you could paint anything on him.

Twilight cannot be Angel or Spike. Not only because the intrinsic or character related reasons but also because I guess they are needed as main characters as some comic books :)

I hope it's not Andrew, because I love him.
I don't want Xander be Twilight either (although I wouldn't loose much sleep if he were). And I am still hoping that Riley is not double agent for Twilight but for Buffy. I wouldn't have minded him being Twilight himself, but a lackey... nah.

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 07:34 PM
Yep, we need only look at Lilah in Home to know this. I'm liking this theory, it makes for fun thinky thoughts.

So playing with it a bit more, if it is Wesley do we assume he's working as an agent of W&H since they presumably still own his contract? And what would they offer to make him cooperate? He wasn't exactly in a giving mood during After the Fall.

Maybe they offered him his freedom from his contract or even a way to restore Fred's soul (if they played with the "burned up in the fires of resurrection" card).

But why would W&H be working towards ending magic, unless Twilight saying this has always been a cover all along? W&H and Resurrected Wes are kinda a package deal at the moment.

The W&H aspect would be the hook for him to exist at all, is more my thinking -- if he were Twilight, I'd assume that ending magic would be his own agenda, and at least in part for the reasons that Twilight has already given.

It's a tenuous sort of prediction, but considering I nailed the villainy of Riley, I'm willing to keep it on the pass line for this bet.

Wesley's one of the few characters who can and has used "girl"-speak -- usually "in character", it's the sort of tone he took in "Untouched" when testing his theory of Bethany's trauma -- he does have the personal insights into Faith and Giles and Buffy that Twilight would need. There's something even a bit circular about it since he was the symbolic "obstacle" of Buffy's graduation into independence, he was the one she told off. And, we know Wesley is just badass enough to find a reason to justify all this to himself.

I think the "white canvas" is part of the weakness of it being Hank, or Pike for that matter. It's a rorschach of motivation. Moreso even for Hank -- father vs. child doesn't really even *require* motivation, you just leverage the emotion and ignore the reason. "Lineage" confirms that to some extent.


I'm slow. I honestly never thought about the Dawn-Twilight connection! Since powerful magic can have nasty side effects maybe really some sort of Anti-Dawn was created as well.
Only why would that Anti-Dawn want to end all magic? Well, it could be just out of pure evil-ness. :)

In any way, that would be much more interesting than Hank being Twilight. Hank had just zero connection with the world of magic, I can't see any reason why he'd want to end it. On the other hand, maybe he blames magic for him growing apart from his family? And, as Vampmogs pointed out, he is pretty much white canvas, you could paint anything on him.

Twilight cannot be Angel or Spike. Not only because the intrinsic or character related reasons but also because I guess they are needed as main characters as some comic books :)

I hope it's not Andrew, because I love him.
I don't want Xander be Twilight either (although I wouldn't loose much sleep if he were). And I am still hoping that Riley is not double agent for Twilight but for Buffy. I wouldn't have minded him being Twilight himself, but a lackey... nah.

Angel or Spike are unlikely, but I don't consider their roles in other titles as part of the reason. I tend to treat "Aftermath" (and no, I will not be chasing that rabbit on this thread) as canon, but for argument's sake, "Aftermath" was not planned at the time Joss did his "After the Fall" outline, and as of Issue #17 of that arc, he may consider the characters available for his use in Season 8 (which is legally true, despite the abuses of copyright law and licensing committed on so many threads). The timeline permits it. The masked villain makes it plausible without spoiling the other story. Personally I'd much rather have them appear as allies in a fight, such as against a newly megalomaniacal dead/undead/resurrected Wesley, than as the villain themselves or, worst of all, just there for another "Girl in Question" distraction from the main plot.

Xander as Twilight would be an incoherent hot mess. Absolutely beyond the pale of shitty continuity editing, since Xander and Twilight have already been in different places at the same time TWICE in Season 8, including once, as vampmogs noted, looking horrified without an audience at a missile attack he (as Twilight) would have launched. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

And yet, and making it even stupider, is that Xander is this ridiculously *obvious* way to go with Twilight, precisely because he has been Buffy's most close and loyal comrade for the entire series. Indeed, almost to the point of being given no other characteristics at times. It would be the most lazy and obvious possible way for Joss to go with Twilight, made all the worse because of the continuity sodomization it would require to achieve.

I'm holding on to the idea that Xander is the "prince" that Buffy will have to save.

Emmie
08-04-09, 07:39 PM
King, you missed my point a bit. I meant if Wesley is back, it's because W&H brought him back and have a vested interest in him. One can also assume that the powers of Twilight were provided by W&H also. So for Twilight!Wes to want to end magic, that means that W&H wants to end it too. Package deal. They aren't so easy to separate. I don't think W&H would bring Wes back and let him run around off the leash doing things counter to their interests. The contract ensures that they could just yank him back if he went against their plans.

So why would W&H want to end magic?

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 07:45 PM
Well, I'm not sure I agree that's the *only* reason he could be back -- there's just too much we don't know about the animating force behind their contracts. Do Holland and Lilah just go "poof" when W&H bails on our dimension? We don't know.

But, accepting for argument's sake that it would require W&H's active involvement and approval, it doesn't mean that "end magic" has to be their agenda... just his. The Slayers themselves might be their agenda. I'd buy that, because maybe there's too much PTB-good-white hat power in this dimension right now for them to regain their hold. Wiping out the Slayers, getting the world to think relativistically about vampires, to embrace the nasty evil monsters, might be what they need to punch back into our world. But ending magic may be the secret agenda of an exhausted, weary man who's tired of being used?

Just for argument's sake.

Y'know, I have half a mind to send that little rant about Twilight as Xander to Slay the Critics or Allie directly -- see if I can shame them out of it in case it really is the plan :)

Emmie
08-04-09, 07:58 PM
Well, I'm not sure I agree that's the *only* reason he could be back -- there's just too much we don't know about the animating force behind their contracts. Do Holland and Lilah just go "poof" when W&H bails on our dimension? We don't know.

It was just the LA branch that poofed, though. There are still branches running elsewhere in the world. It's only the LA branch that wasted all their resources in the Hell-A attempt. The other branches appear to have separate finances and while they cooperate, they also seem to work independently.


But, accepting for argument's sake that it would require W&H's active involvement and approval, it doesn't mean that "end magic" has to be their agenda... just his. The Slayers themselves might be their agenda. I'd buy that, because maybe there's too much PTB-good-white hat power in this dimension right now for them to regain their hold. Wiping out the Slayers, getting the world to think relativistically about vampires, to embrace the nasty evil monsters, might be what they need to punch back into our world. But ending magic may be the secret agenda of an exhausted, weary man who's tired of being used?

I think it would require that Twilight!Wes keep his "ending magic" plan from W&H then.

As for punching back into our world, what proof do we have of their absence besides the LA branch being gone and no records of it existing? There are presumably still other branches.

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 08:07 PM
I don't think there's any textual commitment (or in interviews either, for that matter) on how much W&H still does or doesn't exist in our dimension. Good idea, since it frees them up to consider ideas such as this.

The phlebotenum isn't really what drives this theory so much as the character angles... we've got the right guy to have the right insights. He, unlike Xander or Giles, or Angel or Spike, doesn't have the personal awkwardness with Riley that would make the exchange about "young love" in 8.19 seem implausible (I can't picture any of those men quipping with Riley like that -- Wesley, though, not knowing Riley personally, would be a better bet to have those kinds of small-talkish remarks). We've got someone with emotional resonance for the audience and the characters -- multiple characters (Buffy, Faith, Giles, to a lesser degree Willow and Xander). I think Wesley would satisfy the list of adjectives Jeanty gave about the Twilight reveal. And, most important to me, Wesley wouldn't mean abusing the continuity of Season 8 horribly like other suspects would.

Emmie
08-04-09, 08:12 PM
I agree, it's a great new likely suspect.

I just would like it to measure up well. I think fan reaction has shown clearly in the past that when it doesn't quite measure up, the fans aren't as completely on board. This is mostly true when the story goes with a complicated set-up (I think Twilight of Season 8 qualifies) like AtS Season 4 and BtVS Season 7 when the continuity of The First got a bit jumbled and the question of Jasmine/Cordy during the first half gets a bit confusing also. Clarity of concept is key because I'd rather not be arguing about little nitpicks, but enjoying the story because it holds up to scrutiny.

Compare this to the clarity with which Glory's Big Bad scenario was established or the Mayor. Each have a clearly established set-up for how they function, and Glory even has a well-understood mythos behind her.

tiger_fan
08-04-09, 08:21 PM
Wesley is an interesting idea. I had thought about him earlier in the season (who haven't we thought of? lol At this point, I'm one step away from considering Clem. :lol:) but the thing that's a downfall for me on Wesley is that I don't think he knows Buffy as well as Twilight seems to. The Wes that was in S3 is a very different Wes that was on Angel. And I don't think he really ever got that close with Buffy and one of the problems they had was that they weren't close and he didn't really know her well. Not enough to say the line about hating to see her cry and knowing that move and other hints he's given that he knows her so well. Plus, if (or when) Twilight pulls off his mask, I expect the reaction not only to be a shock to the system for us, but for Buffy and the Scoobies as well. And I don't think Wesley ever had a big impact on them as he did when he was on Angel. The biggest reaction I could see Buffy and co. having if it were him would be.... "Wesley?? Huh." Right before they gave Angel a call to see if they have permission to kill him or fight him or whatever needs to be done.

That said, I do think that out of all the contenders that Wesley is the easiest peg to fit the hole, so to speak. The others all have fairly big hurdles to overcome to be Twilight and while not impossible, still big enough that there would have to be some considerable lead up or explanation for the reveal. Wesley they could easily pop in and out of the story with a retcon or quick explanation on what happened to him and his agenda. Or at least, quicker than Xander, Giles, Angel, or Spike would be.

Hank to me just seems to be the least emotional punch audience wise. While Buffy's Daddy issues still haunt some of her actions today, I don't think Hank actually holds that big of a emotional pull for the audience. I think Daddy Issues would be held more over Giles head at this point than Hank. Buffy's reaction to her father seems to be, yeah he's a deadbeat dad off flaunting in Europe, lets move on to the next option. And if its Hank than I'm seriously going to wonder what Joss has against Dads.

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 08:21 PM
No matter who Twilight ultimately is, it will require the mother of all monologues. The type of expository monologue the type the Buffyverse has not had to produce since "Inside Out" for "Angel" and "Spiral" for "Buffy" (when General Forehead Guy was able to finally sell and explain the whole Glory-key thing). We're talking a full Veronica Mars "Spit and Eggs" type monologue -- Mercer's explanation of the rape angle was one of the most clever and dexterous writing and acting jobs to explain a complex plot and motivation in a single scene I've ever seen.

Twilight's reveal will need exposition and son of exposition to clarify *why*, and the why will be so critical that the how will almost certainly become somewhat incidental. I don't expect more than literally a single line to deal with his powers, for instance ("... with the help of some supernatural relics I found..." type thing). Why is going to be hardest part to sell. If it's a prominent character, the why has to be super SUPER believable, and if it's a less prominent character, the why would have to be super SUPER compelling for us to believe the character matters enough.

sueworld
08-04-09, 08:24 PM
Wesley?


Honestly? I can't believe you'd even think a dead man from a completely different series of comics, produced by a different company would be a viable proposition.

So, imo, no, just no, on so many levels. :roll:

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 08:33 PM
You're one of the people under some serious misconceptions over the rights issues involved between the two production houses -- the walls between them for specific characters, could be stepped over. Especially characers who are not actual title property characters, of which there were only two when any deals were made (and we already know that Joss does, in fact, have permission to use the one he's hypothetically barred from using in Season 8). So the "production houses" thing is just... a non-existent triviality.

That reduces the reasons not to use Wesley to the purely narrative, since there are no legal or contractual reasons. And, considering that people with W&H contracts are decidedly not dead in the "mop" kind of way Xander explains to the zombie in "The Zeppo", it's hardly much of a leap. Indeed, I'm not sure that the fact that he was dead last we saw him would even make the top 3 of best arguments against using him as Twilight (especially since being dead didn't prevent him from appearing in 16 issues of "Angel: After the Fall").

sueworld
08-04-09, 08:36 PM
Sorry It''s one of the most ridiculous theories that I've heard so far. You seriously think they'd bugger up Wesley's character by making him the big bad on a Buffy comic?

Sorry I can't believe even Joss has become desperate/daft enough to even consider that, let do it.

Maggie
08-04-09, 08:38 PM
Someone who has the knowledge and ability to obtain superpowers, probably through magical props of some kind.
Someone with some level of personal connection to Buffy upon which the reveal would be shocking.
Someone who could realistically have the personal insights into Giles, Faith, and Buffy that Twilight has had.
Someone who could believably have a motive to want to rid the world of demons, Slayers, magic, the whole shooting match.
Someone who has a proven and believable record of being able to play multiple parties against each other.
Someone who isn't committed to the story elsewhere (as in, they're alive but not in a story, or dead but can be brought back without being completely unbelievable.
Someone who could, if revealed as Twilight, justify a guest appearance by Angel and/or Spike for a reason other than to try to get together with Buffy.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but my gut reaction is that while this is super interesting, I get lost at the notion that the reveal would be shocking or in any way painful to Buffy. Buffy doesn't care about Wesley. She never did. And that's a real problem because in BtVS EVERYTHING is about Buffy. There's just no foundation there for this to be the vehicle that brings on the pain for her. Anger, no doubt. But no pain. And I don't see it as causing an uproar in the fandom. The Wesley fans are over in the Angel part of the fandom, and I don't think they are legion. (Lots of people like him a lot, but how many are invested in him?)

All the rest of it does fit. But since Joss is more about the emotion than about the plot working, I don't think it can be Wesley.

I think the reason it seems impossible for anyone to be Twilgiht is that everyone is assuming that Twilight must be an enemy of some sort. I think there's room for a story where Twilight thinks he's acting for the greater good, or even the good of Buffy. It's going to be something twisty and grey like that. I think it'll be not 100% clear who we should be rooting for. That's the only way we can get to all that pain that I can think of. For it to be Xander or Giles, it'd almost certainly have to connect with the FDW story line, which is otherwise just dangling there. (FDW might also figure in if it's Angel or Spike -- she did have that line about the most important people in Fray and Buffy's lives being vampires).

sueworld
08-04-09, 08:41 PM
Someone who has the knowledge and ability to obtain superpowers, probably through magical props of some kind.

That is the only one that works imo. The rest for me don't fit.


I haven't read the whole thread yet, but my gut reaction is that while this is super interesting, I get lost at the notion that the reveal would be shocking or in any way painful to Buffy. Buffy doesn't care about Wesley. She never did. And that's a real problem because in BtVS EVERYTHING is about Buffy. There's just no foundation there for this to be the vehicle that brings on the pain for her. Anger, no doubt. But no pain. And I don't see it as causing an uproar in the fandom. The Wesley fans are over in the Angel part of the fandom, and I don't think they are legion. (Lots of people like him a lot, but how many are invested in him?)


Very good point. You're looking at it as a writer would methinks.

Zathraas
08-04-09, 08:46 PM
Giles and Xander... out. It is just beyond idiotic for a storyteller to expect us to believe that either of these guys, as Twilight, would willingly put themselves in danger so often for no good reason as he'd have to for either of them to be Twilight.

Unless, of course Twilight is from the future. Then he'd know exactly when, say, Xander just so happens to not be in the castle for a missile strike. Because he remembers not being in the castle and that Dawn is going to save him.

Makes perfect sense to me.


Xander I still can’t completely scrap either, but it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. When the bomb hit’s the castle in ‘Time of Your Life’ he looks shocked and horrified. Who is he acting to? No one was around him to be fooled, he was alone on the hill. If he was Twilight he should be happy, and expecting it.

He hasn't become Twilight yet, so he isn't acting.


Xander as Twilight would be an incoherent hot mess. Absolutely beyond the pale of shitty continuity editing, since Xander and Twilight have already been in different places at the same time TWICE in Season 8, including once, as vampmogs noted, looking horrified without an audience at a missile attack he (as Twilight) would have launched. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Again, no one that I'm aware of has even remotely suggested that Present-Xander is Twilight. It's Future-Xander, whom our Xander is completely unaware of.

Seriously, why is everyone sticking their head in the sand?

Here's a list of reasons why I think Future-Xander is Twilight.

1. Twilight is always one step ahead of the Scoobies. How? He's from the future. HE REMEMBERS.

2. Who would be the most shocking reveal, both to us in the audience, and to the Scoobies? Xander, that's who.

The Scoobies don't even trust Wesley, why would they care if he's Twilight or not? The last they heard he was working with the Forces of Darkness, so I doubt they would be particularly surprised at that revelation.

3. Twilight had a chance to kill both Satsu and Buffy, but passed on it. Why? Because if he is from the future he has to make sure things go as he remembers, and Buffy and Satsu clearly have roles in whatever is going to happen.

4. Twilight can fly. How? Well, if he is from the future like i hypothesize, then he'll have access to hover technology. (Flying cars anyone?)

Now here are some reasons to doubt that Twilight is Future-Xander.

1. Xander doesn't have superpowers, so he wouldn't be able to kick a Slayer's ass.

2. Xander is a good and loyal man. He wouldn't kill people and betray the Scoobies to achieve his goals.

3. How would Xander live long enough to get hover technology? He's not immortal after all... Unless, of course, he's...

A Vampire. That would explain all 3 points above perfectly, no? It would also explain why he has to wear a suit that covers every inch of skin.

So yeah, I definitely think Twilight is Future-Xander. I think this is the best theory by far. It could still be Future-Angel or Future-Giles, but they are less likely for a variety of reasons.

I also have a feeling that the 'hook-up' Jeanty was refering to for Xander might actually be Future-Xander's hook-up. And I think it will be Dawn, though that's just wild speculation on my part.

Really, I don't get why everyone is so resistant, or scared of Future-Xander being Twilight. It doesn't automatically "ruin" the character as long as he has a good reason for doing what he's doing. (Like being a Vampire for instance).

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 08:47 PM
Sorry It''s one of the most ridiculous theories that I've heard so far. You seriously think they'd bugger up Wesley's character by making him the big bad on a Buffy comic?

Sorry I can't believe even Joss has become desperate/daft enough to even consider that, let do it.

And precisely which character do you think it would make more sense for Joss to "bugger up" then? Hate to break it to you, but whoever Twilight is, it's going to be someone who has been to some extent "buggered up" by the process to most of the audience, particularly fans of that character. Do you have any reason why Wesley should be specially immune from that?


I haven't read the whole thread yet, but my gut reaction is that while this is super interesting, I get lost at the notion that the reveal would be shocking or in any way painful to Buffy. Buffy doesn't care about Wesley. She never did. And that's a real problem because in BtVS EVERYTHING is about Buffy. There's just no foundation there for this to be the vehicle that brings on the pain for her. Anger, no doubt. But no pain. And I don't see it as causing an uproar in the fandom. The Wesley fans are over in the Angel part of the fandom, and I don't think they are legion. (Lots of people like him a lot, but how many are invested in him?)

All the rest of it does fit. But since Joss is more about the emotion than about the plot working, I don't think it can be Wesley.

I think the reason it seems impossible for anyone to be Twilgiht is that everyone is assuming that Twilight must be an enemy of some sort. I think there's room for a story where Twilight thinks he's acting for the greater good, or even the good of Buffy. It's going to be something twisty and grey like that. I think it'll be not 100% clear who we should be rooting for. That's the only way we can get to all that pain that I can think of. For it to be Xander or Giles, it'd almost certainly have to connect with the FDW story line, which is otherwise just dangling there. (FDW might also figure in if it's Angel or Spike -- she did have that line about the most important people in Fray and Buffy's lives being vampires).

I'll admit Buffy, personally, being freaked over Wes being Twilight is a stretch. It's the sort of thing that typically gets glossed over in big ensemble things -- like Chekhov remembering Khan without actually having ever met him. He has the impact with the audience, is what I expect Joss will care about more.

You're right, presuming Twilight to be evil is part of what makes it hard, but Twilight has done some things that are pretty manifest in their evil -- the missile attack on the BHC, the Roden set up that involved an attempt on Buffy's life. Things that I don't see any friend of Buffy being able to reconcile while still thinking they're friend.

Besides which, it's not the *only* reason. In Xander's case, there's the whole "he shot a missile... at himself?" thing -- not only was Xander freaked out (with no one to perform for) by the attack, he ran toward it and was injured as a result. Why would Twilight do that? And Giles standing down an army of vampires with two Slayers and a bunch of lame-ass townsfolk when he could, in his full power, probably pummel most of them into mulch. Why would Twilight do that? So, there are reasons unrelated to Twilight's moral direction that take the believability of some characters.

EDIT: Zathraas, I should go back to add "character from the future... out -- Future characters in the Buffyverse are always more or less written as 'oracles' of sorts, there to reveal events for the direction of the characters. FDW is the most recent example. A future character being used as an end-run around the continuity reasons why the same character in the present couldn't be the villain would be a cheap device."

sueworld
08-04-09, 08:51 PM
And precisely which character do you think it would make more sense for Joss to "bugger up" then? Hate to break it to you, but whoever Twilight is, it's going to be someone who has been to some extent "buggered up" by the process to most of the audience, particularly fans of that character. Do you have any reason why Wesley should be specially immune from that?

Read my post above. He's dead. He's not a Buffy comic character, he's In another comic and doesn't have the motive, and as Maggie wisely pointed out he's not at all important to Buffy.

Do you really think Wes would be released from the back of beyond to start a war against Buffy and demonkind? Please. :lol:

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 08:53 PM
Read my post above. He's dead. He's not a Buffy comic character, he's In another comic and doesn't have the motive, and as Maggie wisely pointed out he's not at all important to Buffy.

Do you really think Wes would be released from the back of beyond to start a war against Buffy and demonkind? Please. :lol:

So... no real answer to why Wesley, of any character, shouldn't be "buggered up" to be Twilight. "Buggering up" other characters to be Twilight is fine, though. Got it.

Do you have an actual suspect, or is it easier to just snipe ideas from the cheap seats?

Maggie
08-04-09, 08:59 PM
I'll admit Buffy, personally, being freaked over Wes being Twilight is a stretch. It's the sort of thing that typically gets glossed over in big ensemble things -- like Chekhov remembering Khan without actually having ever met him. He has the impact with the audience, is what I expect Joss will care about more.

But I don't think that Wesley can have that impact with the audience, either -- especially since we all know it's not an emotional blow to Buffy. On the contrary, she already doesn't like the guy.

If Joss has to choose between avoiding plot problems (assuming you are right about the lameness of future guy), and getting emotional punch, he's going to go for getting the emotional punch and assuming it'll pull us over any plot discomfort. And I don't think it has to be so lame. If the last part of the season is also about the traumatic events that puts some character onto the road of becoming Twilight, it could work very well dramatically, I think.

Zathara, Welcome to the boards. I think you've got a really interesting theory there. I shy away from it emotionally because I'm not vested enough in Xander to be super interested. I say that to say that I had thought that when Willow gave that line about vampires in Buffy's life that it was a red herring -- pointing us at Angel and/or Spike -- when it really was telling us that Xander is going to get turned. I have never stuck with that thought because moving Xander front and center that way isn't my first choice. But I really can see why Joss would want to do it. And you know, despite my initial reluctance, I can see it as being interesting in lots of ways.

Fray-related spoiler below.

ETA: Xander-vampire and his relationship to Buffy would also have strong parallels to Harth/Fray. Indeed it was while Fray was robbing that Harth got turned. And Buffy is now a robber too. I can totally see Joss grooving on that sort of mirror.

Koos
08-04-09, 09:01 PM
Again, no one that I'm aware of has even remotely suggested that Present-Xander is Twilight. It's Future-Xander, whom our Xander is completely unaware of.

I've been considering this plot ever since around issue 10. Problem with the whole theory is that Xander need to know about how Buffy had killed Caleb. Afterall, Twilight knows that move. This has been a typical Joss clue, which can't be disregarded. Of course it is possible that Xander or futureXander also know about it, but this has never been shown.

Maggie
08-04-09, 09:03 PM
I've been considering this plot ever since around issue 10. Problem with the whole theory is that Xander need to know about how Buffy had killed Caleb. Afterall, Twilight knows that move. This has been a typical Joss clue, which can't be disregarded. Of course it is possible that Xander or futureXander also know about it, but this has never been shown.

We didn't see Amy in the bushes watching Warren (or however that explanation went). That move is in Joss's portfolio.

sueworld
08-04-09, 09:05 PM
So... no real answer to why Wesley, of any character, shouldn't be "buggered up" to be Twilight.

I've already said your idea doesn't fit hun. I've listed the reasons why already. Did you not read them?

Quite frankly it's such a ludicrous theory it's not worth even attempting to poke anymore holes in it as far as I'm concerned. :roll:

I have no idea who Twilight is, but I do understand which characters aren't a good fit, and Wesley's one of them.

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 09:07 PM
Future-Vampire-Xander just seems like a monumental cop-out. Any future character being used in so direct a role seems like a cop-out. It robs the present-day relationship of its emotional resonance, it creates a completely unfair mystery element for the audience. Hell, if Joss was going to go with a Vampire Xander vs. Buffy story, he'd just... vamp him. Vampire Xanders from the Future are just a trite way of doing it without any real consequences.

As for turning present Xander against Buffy... that's both the most lamely obvious thing Joss could try and the steepest logical hill he'd have to climb. As I've noted, Xander's loyalty to Buffy has been, in the thinner times of the writing for the character, his sole identifiable trait. Turning that on its head isn't complex so much as it's gimmicky.

Maybe we should have an "If _____ was Twilight..." thread, where people pitch a way for it to work and what they would want out of that plot line.


I've already said your idea doesn't fit hun. I've listed the reasons why already. Did you not read them?

Sure I did. They didn't answer the question. The question (attempt three) was why is Wesley specifically impermissible to you to be "buggered up" to be Twilight? Any character used as Twilight is, in essence, being "buggered up" in terms of their established character. The question was (attempt four, for clarity alone) is why is Wesley more deserving to be spared "buggering up" than is Giles, Xander, Angel, Spike, Connor, frickin' Parker, Whistler, Graham or anyone else that they could imagine turning into Twilight?

sueworld
08-04-09, 09:16 PM
Sure I did. They didn't answer the question. The question (attempt three) was why is Wesley specifically impermissible to you to be "buggered up" to be Twilight? Any character used as Twilight is, in essence, being "buggered up" in terms of their established character. The question was (attempt four, for clarity alone) is why is Wesley more deserving to be spared "buggering up" than is Giles, Xander, Angel, Spike, Connor, frickin' Parker, Whistler, Graham or anyone else that they could imagine turning into Twilight?

He's dead for start. It's pointless me talking about this any further as your criteria for how viable it is for a character to be Twilight is very different to mine.

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 09:21 PM
He's dead... same as Holland Manners was before his last appearance and Lilah Morgan were before her last appearance. He's dead... prior to the 16 issues of "Angel: After the Fall" he appeared in.

So, yes, clearly that's not a definitive problem. I already said, it's a reason, but probably not even in the top 3 reasons not to keep him in play. He has a Wolfram & Hart contract. We have already seen in his own case that that didn't stop him from turning up.

And even THEN, that is NOT THE QUESTION I ASKED in plain english. There is continuity futzing and character changing in EVERY answer to who Twilight is. Your initial answer suggesting that Wesley, precious Wesley, is specially immune to that kind of treatment. I've asked five times now why and you haven't answered.

Zathraas
08-04-09, 09:24 PM
EDIT: Zathraas, I should go back to add "character from the future... out -- Future characters in the Buffyverse are always more or less written as 'oracles' of sorts, there to reveal events for the direction of the characters. FDW is the most recent example. A future character being used as an end-run around the continuity reasons why the same character in the present couldn't be the villain would be a cheap device."

Sahjann wasn't an Oracle. He directly screwed with events in the time-line to get what he wanted.


Future-Vampire-Xander just seems like a monumental cop-out. Any future character being used in so direct a role seems like a cop-out. It robs the present-day relationship of its emotional resonance, it creates a completely unfair mystery element for the audience. Hell, if Joss was going to go with a Vampire Xander vs. Buffy story, he'd just... vamp him. Vampire Xanders from the Future are just a trite way of doing it without any real consequences.

You're assuming that the mystery is meant to be solved. It isn't. It can't be. In order for the Twilight reveal to have ANY impact, it has to be someone we believe would NEVER turn on Buffy. The only one that fits that criteria better than Xander is Dawn, and she's certainly not Twilight.

I really don't get your 'cop-out' view. It has to be a good guy, or what's the point of keeping the audience in the dark?

I'm not 100% convinced that Xander is Twilight, however, I am mostly convinced that Twilight is from the Future, whoever he is. The way he's manipulating everyone, both good and bad, not to mention the entire world, indicates he's from the future. Or else he's Grand Admiral Thrawn. One of the two.

blue_peroxide
08-04-09, 09:26 PM
Tiger_fan is very right on this one I think. Pulling off the mask really should be shock for Buffy as well. And seeing Wesley would really have a reaction of "Huh?". Absolutely no pain there. And Twilight being Hank would be great source of pain for Buffy but the audience would go "Huh?". Also they'd have to make him wear sign with "Hank, Buffy's dad" written on it.
So I'm guessing the character we are looking for would be someone because of who both the audience and Buffy would feel shocked and hurt and anger. Unfortunately, Xander fits that description perfectly. And he would have reasons for being angry and wanting to end all the magic.
The very reason that it's impossible doesn't matter of course, since the guy who forgot (or didn't think it's important) that Warren is dead is actually supervising that whole thing :)



Maybe we should have an "If _____ was Twilight..." thread, where people pitch a way for it to work and what they would want out of that plot line.
Ha. That's actually a great idea. We could also list reasons "If Buffy was Twilight" or Clem indeed. Would be fun :lol:

sueworld
08-04-09, 09:27 PM
*sigh* I give up..of course you're absolutly right hun. It must be Wesley.

I'm sure Wesley motivations have changed radically since being, you know, dead n'all, and that somehow since passing away as a hero he's suddenly become incredibly important to Buffy's life somehow. :roll:

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 09:29 PM
Sahjann also wasn't from the future.

I think you're presuming that Twilight, himself, will have to constitute a personal betrayal of Buffy of the highest order. I don't see it. Twilight is a past character with a new agenda. Buffy will care, but there's nothing to suggest that is the central betrayal that has been told. Odds are that's Riley at this point. Twilight *is* the Grand Admiral Thrawn of this mythology, I think -- at least, he is for the audience. Everything is Twilight's master plan for us as readers just like everything became Thrawn's master plan for the gang on Coruscant.


*sigh* I give up..of course you're absolutly right hun. It must be Wesley.

I'm sure Wesley motivations have changed radically since being, you know, dead n'all, and that somehow since passing away as a hero he's suddenly become incredibly important to Buffy's life somehow. :roll:

It's like a pathological need to just skip discussion in exchange for snot-nosed comments, isn't it? Didn't say it "must be Wesley". You just won't defend your implication that it's not allowed to be Wesley because HIS character doesn't deserve to be "buggered up" and apparently, it's okay to "bugger up" others. You won't address the point that he has already been used after having died while simpering "but he's dead but he's dead" as though that was some sort of definite deal breaker for characters with W&H contracts.

Koos
08-04-09, 09:29 PM
We didn't see Amy in the bushes watching Warren (or however that explanation went). That move is in Joss's portfolio.

The difference is that this time it was a clue given by Joss during S8. The move is a clue that is on the same level as the cinamon lipstick clue. It's important to Joss.

On the same note, perhaps you are right. Satsu gave Buffy her cinamon lipstick, while she wasn't even in the same room while she supposedly gave Buffy the true kiss of love. So, even important clues from Joss don't really hold.


In order for the Twilight reveal to have ANY impact, it has to be someone we believe would NEVER turn on Buffy. The only one that fits that criteria better than Xander is Dawn, and she's certainly not Twilight.

What about Buffy herself?



I'm not 100% convinced that Xander is Twilight, however, I am mostly convinced that Twilight is from the Future, whoever he is. The way he's manipulating everyone, both good and bad, not to mention the entire world, indicates he's from the future.

I tend to agree with this. But I don't think that even someone from the future could have foreseen that people would trust vampires more than Slayers. Twilight also goes with the flow and is the moment of things. It hard for that when you're from the future and you think you have seen it all.

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 09:38 PM
I could almost... *almost* buy Xander having reasons for wanting magic gotten rid of... but not killing Buffy, not that, not ever. Like I said -- it would be the most lamely obvious thing Joss could do (Xander is loyal to Buffy, therefore I shall surprise them all by making him DISloyal! Mwuhahahah) and also the most logically insurmountable obstacle for any character.

Twilight has overseen at least one attempt on Buffy's life and the wholesale murder of however many Slayers were killed at the BHC. And that's all assuming that he wasn't also behind the plot in "Wolves at the Gate" and any Slayers that have died due to the events of "Predators and Prey".

Maggie
08-04-09, 09:49 PM
Sahjann wasn't an Oracle. He directly screwed with events in the time-line to get what he wanted.



You're assuming that the mystery is meant to be solved. It isn't. It can't be. In order for the Twilight reveal to have ANY impact, it has to be someone we believe would NEVER turn on Buffy. The only one that fits that criteria better than Xander is Dawn, and she's certainly not Twilight.

I really don't get your 'cop-out' view. It has to be a good guy, or what's the point of keeping the audience in the dark?

I'm not 100% convinced that Xander is Twilight, however, I am mostly convinced that Twilight is from the Future, whoever he is. The way he's manipulating everyone, both good and bad, not to mention the entire world, indicates he's from the future. Or else he's Grand Admiral Thrawn. One of the two.

It would also work if FDW is the mastermind behind Twilight/Xander. (Cause for me the biggest drawback on the Xander theory is that he doesn't have that kind of strategic, big-picture mind and I don't think that's the sort of thing that changes upon vamping.)

There are just a lot of meta-dramatic reasons why this looks plausible to me. The irony is that I don't really want this theory, because Xander-centric anything is not my cuppa. King really doesnt' want this theory because Xander-centric anything is his cuppa.

Anyway, here's what I've got:

1. In the very first episode of the series, Xander kills his best friend Jesse. How resonant if the Scoobies end up having to wrestle with that same dilemma in the guise of Xander? Among other things, it would force recognition that the "vampire = whole different person" theory is not exactly right. More of that added complexity thing.

2. The first Scoobie to go 'dark' was Xander, in The Pack. Joss says that episode was a breakthrough because that's where we see that the line between good and evil can't be neatly drawn. But dark Xander never got more exploration that that one episode. It's his turn. Especially interesting if Xander's dark is more complex than Willow's wanting to end the world style of dark.

3. Much as I hate to admit it, I think it is obvious that at least through the first two seasons and possibly further they were laying groundwork for Buffy/Xander. I think the first idea (which obviously got abandoned) was a Xander-Buffy-Angel triangle. Anyway, there are a lot of cards that never got played that are available to be played now.

4. Xander's importance to Buffy in the present has been stressed at every turn. Much as I hate to admit it, what else would cut deeper than losing the only person she feels she can really confide in?

5. It gives us some way of making Dracula relevant. Mind you, I thought Xacula was delightful as crack!fic. But I never could figure out where it fits into fic!fic. I still don't see how it goes, but that's a piece that could easily get woven in here.

6. I've already mentioned the Fray angle.

7. (ETA): I forgot one: Gunn. Gunn presents the interesting notion of a vampire who thinks he wants good things but who no longer has any measure of the problem with the means he chooses. This was Joss's idea. But it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't want to do it himself. (Lynch did not do with it the things I thought Joss would have). Anyway, that sort of vamp does form a mirror for Buffy who is presently tempted to look at the big picture and not be so focused on the means. Interesting tension and dynamic. (Granted, you could use this to argue that it's been done. And maybe so. But it hasn't been done by Joss. And he could use it to form interesting contrasts between Buffy and Angel on the side).

So today I think you're right. I'll be interested to see how the idea holds up to challenge.

sueworld
08-04-09, 09:49 PM
You won't address the point that he has already been used after having died while simpering "but he's dead but he's dead" as though that was some sort of definite deal breaker for characters with W&H contracts.

Sorry I always find it's a pointless activity arguing with you hun, particularly as you obvioulsy have a completely different idea of Wesley's characters compared to mine to even consider him to be a suspect.

IMO He would have absolutely no motivation to do anything that we've seen so far in season 8 and so I'll be very surprised If you turn out to be right. :lol:


4. Xander's importance to Buffy in the present has been stressed at every turn. Much as I hate to admit it, what else would cut deeper than losing the only person she feels she can really confide in?

Good point.

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 09:56 PM
It would also work if FDW is the mastermind behind Twilight/Xander. (Cause for me the biggest drawback on the Xander theory is that he doesn't have that kind of strategic, big-picture mind and I don't think that's the sort of thing that changes upon vamping.)

There are just a lot of meta-dramatic reasons why this looks plausible to me. The irony is that I don't really want this theory, because Xander-centric anything is not my cuppa. King really doesnt' want this theory because Xander-centric anything is his cuppa.

Anyway, here's what I've got:

1. In the very first episode of the series, Xander kills his best friend Jesse. How resonant if the Scoobies end up having to wrestle with that same dilemma in the guise of Xander? Among other things, it would force recognition that the "vampire = whole different person" theory is not exactly right. More of that added complexity thing.

2. The first Scoobie to go 'dark' was Xander, in The Pack. Joss says that episode was a breakthrough because that's where we see that the line between good and evil can't be neatly drawn. But dark Xander never got more exploration that that one episode. It's his turn. Especially interesting if Xander's dark is more complex than Willow's wanting to end the world style of dark.

3. Much as I hate to admit it, I think it is obvious that at least through the first two seasons and possibly further they were laying groundwork for Buffy/Xander. I think the first idea (which obviously got abandoned) was a Xander-Buffy-Angel triangle. Anyway, there are a lot of cards that never got played that are available to be played now.

4. Xander's importance to Buffy in the present has been stressed at every turn. Much as I hate to admit it, what else would cut deeper than losing the only person she feels she can really confide in?

5. It gives us some way of making Dracula relevant. Mind you, I thought Xacula was delightful as crack!fic. But I never could figure out where it fits into fic!fic. I still don't see how it goes, but that's a piece that could easily get woven in here.

6. I've already mentioned the Fray angle.

So today I think you're right. I'll be interested to see how the idea holds up to challenge.

All of which goes also in support of my "could Joss be any more lamely obvious than to go that route?" critique of the idea. Would you not agree that far, that there really isn't a lazier way for him to go if he tried?

EDIT: Gunn makes more sense than almost anyone, actually, after the trauma of Season 5 and being a vampire. But Twilight is apparently caucasian, based on 8.11

I also sorta resent the "I don't want anything that isn't Xander-centric" comment... based on what?


Sorry I always find it's a pointless activity arguing with you hun. You obvioulsy have a completely different idea of Wesley's characters compared to mine to even consider him to be a suspect.

IMO He would have absolutely no motivation to do anything that we've seen so far in season 8 and so I'll be very surprised If you turn out to be right. :lol:

Every reason Maggie just rattled off about darkness, moral relevance, and all that could also apply to Wesley. It doesn't require a "different idea about the character" anyway -- just (as in my original post) a list of traits that make plot and character sense in general.

I probably won't be right about this, but it's called "discussion". It's this thing that good-humored, rational people do about the shows, novels, movies, and comics they enjoy. I'm glad, though, that it gave you fodder to mock and criticize, since that is truly all you seem to be good for as a fan. Nobody seems to work harder or longer to make discussion less fun for other people than you do.

Maggie
08-04-09, 10:01 PM
All of which goes also in support of my "could Joss be any more lamely obvious than to go that route?" critique of the idea. Would you not agree that far, that there really isn't a lazier way for him to go if he tried?

There are far, far lazier ways to go. Xander as ever-loyal right hand man who ends up with the girl, for example. Or Twilight being some evil Caleb like villain. etc. And I don't think my list is lame at all. We've been reading this story for two years now, and it's not like people have been saying "well, it's probably going to be Xander for all the reasons I listed above, but that's so obvious it would be totally lame". The way Joss works is that the details laid down earlier on take on different resonance with the unfolding. I don't go from the details to the conclusion that it's Xander. I go from the possibility that it's Xander to noticing that there are these details that would suddenly look more interesting. That's classic Joss. Or at least, it's the classic Joss that I love.

And I still don't really know how he'd bring it off. I expect lots of twists and turns. Maybe something coming out of a Buffy-Xander-Dawn complex.

Zathraas
08-04-09, 10:02 PM
I tend to agree with this. But I don't think that even someone from the future could have foreseen that people would trust vampires more than Slayers. Twilight also goes with the flow and is the moment of things. It hard for that when you're from the future and you think you have seen it all.

Twilight doesn't have to 'for-see' anything. That's the entire point of him being from the future, he already SAW nearly everything. Past-tense.

All he had to do to turn the public against the Slayers was make sure Harmony got her reality show and then got attacked, thus getting the ball rolling.

Twilight doesn't have to try and steer the avalanche, he just has to start it.


Maggie, I agree with everything you said there. I definitely think FDW could be behind everthing, and I also think Buffy killing her will be very significant later on.

sueworld
08-04-09, 10:03 PM
Gunn makes more sense than almost anyone,

Oh what? *is stunned* :roll: You're really grasping at straws now I think.

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 10:06 PM
There are far, far lazier ways to go. Xander as ever-loyal right hand man who ends up with the girl, for example. Or Twilight being some evil Caleb like villain. etc.

Nice 'shippy cheap-shot, there, but I was thinking about Twilight. As for what's lazy 'shippy wise, I can already think of the two laziest answers, and both take 5 spaces on the crossword.


And I don't think my list is lame at all. We've been reading this story for two years now, and it's not like people have been saying "well, it's probably going to be Xander for all the reasons I listed above, but that's so obvious it would be totally lame". The way Joss works is that the details laid down earlier on take on different resonance with the unfolding. I don't go from the details to the conclusion that it's Xander. I go from the possibility that it's Xander to noticing that there are these details that would suddenly look more interesting. That's classic Joss. Or at least, it's the classic Joss that I love.

Your list of observations isn't lame, it's just that they are all pretty obvious things to observe. It's the first, simplest thing to do, is the point. It's the most obvious way to do Twilight, and *that* is the lameness.

The reason I think it can't be a future version is that it takes lame/obvious and compounds it with "safe" -- because using future versions of a character is an emotional distance that protects the present version or the present relationships from any real consequences. If Joss was that guy, Angelus would have been a MOTW that was neatly resolved by the end of "Innocence".


Oh what? *is stunned* :roll: You're really grasping at straws now I think.

I said... in the exact post... why Gunn would make a lot of sense. He's never been a fan of magic, never been a fan of big creeping superpowerful badness, and he's had his ears boxed by the experience first with Wolfram & Hart and later with becoming a vampire and trying to destroy all existence. If that's not a reason for him to have had done with it and want to destroy magic, what is?

And the "straws" I'm "grasping at" would probably require that I HADN'T SAID IN THAT EXACT POST THAT IT CAN'T BE GUNN.

Maggie
08-04-09, 10:15 PM
You deliver plenty of cheap shots yourself. Personally, I don't think there's going to be a shippy outcome of any sort.

It's not the simplest thing to do. You are going to have a major melt-down for one. For second, every time the idea gets raised people say it's impossible. For third, even if Joss told us right now that this was the outcome (which he hasn't), he's going to surprise us with how we get there. This development has layers Joss hasn't explored yet. So it'd be interesting to see how he explores them. I, for one, can't predict at all HOW the themes will be developed if Joss goes down this road. All I can see is that it would be interesting to see what Joss does with them. And this is the sort of move that counts as "taking a risk" -- which is what we expect from Joss. I have yet to see any theory from you that is that sort of big risk.

And I say this as someone who'd much rather it be Spike than Xander. Sniff, sniff.

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 10:19 PM
You deliver plenty of cheap shots yourself. Personally, I don't think there's going to be a shippy outcome of any sort.

It's not the simplest thing to do. You are going to have a major melt-down for one. For second, every time the idea gets raised people say it's impossible. For third, even if Joss told us right now that this was the outcome (which he hasn't), he's going to surprise us with how we get there. This development has layers Joss hasn't explored yet. So it'd be interesting to see how he explores them. I, for one, can't predict at all HOW the themes will be developed if Joss goes down this road. All I can see is that it would be interesting to see what Joss does with them. And this is the sort of move that counts as "taking a risk" -- which is what we expect from Joss. I have yet to see any theory from you that is that sort of big risk.

And I say this as someone who'd much rather it be Spike than Xander. Sniff, sniff.

Me being mad about it is hardly something Joss or anyone else would consider a complication to making Xander Twilight. But, yes, I would gladly launch broadsides into the laziness, the obviousness, and the wanton abuse of continuity within the season it would take (unless they sidestepped it with future Xander, which would merit a whole lot of different criticism). But my anger doesn't make it a risk -- my anger would be because of the complete lack of riskiness to it, because it would be about the most paint-by-numbers thing Joss could possibly do with who Twilight is. AND he'd have to break continuity at a "Warren-was-dead-for-a-few-seconds" several ways to do it at this point.

I don't think 'shipping has anything to do with Twilight. My point was, there's Twilight laziness and there's shipping laziness in writing, and my ship isn't the most lazy of the latter by far.

Maggie
08-04-09, 10:23 PM
EDIT: Gunn makes more sense than almost anyone, actually, after the trauma of Season 5 and being a vampire. But Twilight is apparently caucasian, based on 8.11

I also sorta resent the "I don't want anything that isn't Xander-centric" comment... based on what?

I didn't say you don't want anything that isn't Xander-centric. I said that you want Xander-centric, but that hardly entails that you'd be upset by anything else. And you do want Xander centric, don't you?

(My sentence may have been unclear, but the idea was that you do want Xander-centric, but that's actually why you are against this Xander-centric idea... behind that was the implication that while you want Xander-centric you have definite ideas about how that should go.)

Zathraas
08-04-09, 10:26 PM
The reason I think it can't be a future version is that it takes lame/obvious and compounds it with "safe" -- because using future versions of a character is an emotional distance that protects the present version or the present relationships from any real consequences. If Joss was that guy, Angelus would have been a MOTW that was neatly resolved by the end of "Innocence".

Um, that's EXACTLY what the soul was for. To make Angel not responsible for Angelus' actions, and to protect his relationship with Buffy. You really think he wouldn't do that again? Joss is the poster-boy for eating his cake and having it too. Angel and Spike with their souls. Willow with Magi-crack. Xander with the Hyena. And many more examples I can't think of right now.

If Twilight is indeed Future-Xander, or any other good guy for that matter, the fact that they are from the future will protect them from any scorn, just like Angel's soul protected him.

sueworld
08-04-09, 10:26 PM
Nobody seems to work harder or longer to make discussion less fun for other people than you do.

Cheers. I'll remember that when I see you throwing snark my way in future. :lol:

And Maggie I think you've hit the nail on the head here with your points so far.

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 10:43 PM
That sort of contradicts itself -- nothing could be more Xander-centric (including Buffy/Xander, since her romantic partner is only occasionally part of the A-plot) than him being the Big Bad. But it is still an incoherent hot mess from a continuity standpoint, and it's just sort of trite and obvious from a writing standpoint.

Now, I do have some hopes for Xander's arc this season (not 'ship-related). I enjoy the restored physicality of the character and the idea that he's believable in a fight. This was part of the show up through early Season 3 when the word came down that Xander had to be more of a stooge and Angel had to get a bigger superhero push if he was going to get a spinoff. As such, I am hoping to see him mix it up some more, have the same sort of fighting credibility of a Gunn or Wesley. Given his personal friendship with Riley and his investment in Riley back in Season 5, I actually sort of hope that Xander vs. Riley is part of the "undercard" while Buffy is kicking Twilight's ass. So, I acknowledge bias in favor of Xander and any of my favorite characters (Buffy, Faith, Xander, Wesley -- I know, right? --, Angel, Spike, Dawn). But that's not behind the Twilight thing.

tiger_fan
08-04-09, 10:48 PM
I think at this point, whoever Twilight is, there's going to be some kind of let down or criticism. There's too many open holes to fall into with ALL the characters possible, so in that sense its hard to debate who it is when we really don't know how Joss is playing the game. Joss likes those emotional punches which pretty much leaves a lot of options on the table, all of which will have to have some kind of good explanation and build up to. Rather its someone from Buffy's realm or someone from Angel's.

I do find the Future-Vampire Xander theory interesting. That would explain the necessity of the mask and why the reveal has taken this long, besides for story plotting purposes. And while it would really be a staggering blow for many Xander fans and Buffy/Xander fans (friendship or romance) I think it would make for an interesting turn. However, it would be killer to know that Buffy was let down by everyone she ever knew. That's a little too morbid and depressing. I've said it before, but I'm very on the fence for the Xander-Twilight-evil theories. On one hand, its a storyline that has been a long time coming for the character. OTOH, its some heartbreaking betrayal to take.

Who's to say that, if it is some kind of form of Future Xander, that he isn't somehow working with Buffy or for Buffy in the future. I know he seems to be pretty keen on killing Buffy, but maybe something happens in the future where Buffy needs to change things in the past. Maybe Xander has agreed to come back to the past to guide Buffy in the right steps in a totally back-asswards way. To take things to the most drastic level to push Buffy in the direction she needs to go for whatever the agenda is. Or in other words, maybe Twilight isn't as evil as we're thinking, or at least, not on the same road as normal evil follows.

Emmie
08-04-09, 10:53 PM
The funny thing about the Twilight!Wes idea to me is that Wes has always been known for his incredible arc of character development. And fans have been wanting him and Cordy to come back to show the Scooby gang how much they've both changed. So that reveal in itself would be funny, to give the fans what they wanted but not in the way they wanted it. Buffy and the gang finally see how Wesley has changed.

I think there are less obstacles to Wes (W&H contract shows dead people can return, Wes has the sort of mind that would manipulate like Twilight) returning than they are for Xander being Twilight (Xander would need to be a vamp and from the future for it to properly fly, plus have FDW orchestrating events), but it's an inescapable fact that Wes isn't going to be as emotionally hard hitting as Xander. That would hit closer to home for Angel, but again it's already been done to Angel so that's repetitive.

The most interesting point to me is that Xander really has been the only one to not go dark or have a dark side explored besides Dawn.

Buffy - Normal Again, all of Season 6. Though of course she's still the hero. Some would argue she's gone dark in Season 8 in a moral sense.
Willow - duh
Giles - Ripper
Faith - duh
Anya - returning to her vengeance days
Oz - always battling with his wolfy side
Riley - vamp sucking in Season 5, now he's working with Twilight
Cordy - AtS Season 4, though it technically wasn't Cordy. Cordy going bad was still the idea.
Wes - AtS Season 3 and 4
Gunn - After the Fall
Angel - duh.
Spike - duh.
Fred - becoming Illryia.


The only main characters not on the dark list are Tara (who's dead from natural causes), Lorne (who's green), Dawn (who's a girl, duh) and Xander. If we're looking for someone to be Twilight who we the audience wouldn't expect, it seems right that Xander gets to wear the Grey Morality Jersey finally. And it also might explain why Xander is finally getting all this character development that he rightly deserves as the ever loyal guy who's in charge of the Slayers. This would serve to dramatically contrast a reveal of his future self as a villain.

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 10:59 PM
Maggie's own argument turns in part on the idea that "The Pack" was the first "character-goes-dark" episode. Emmie, I think you'd find a lot of people disagreeing with you on whether he's been dark. I'm not sure if I agree or not. He hasn't done full on evil before like many others, but has he been dark?

What I find most odd is that I bet I could find people willing to accept, simultaneously, that he's never been dark and is due for a turn (agreeing with you), but ALSO saying that he was dark and unsympathetic and bad in, for instance "Becoming" and "Revelations". Were those "dark" for him? Was that as far as Joss was willing to go on the Season 4 Wesley, Season 6 Willow road at the time?

Emmie
08-04-09, 11:05 PM
What I find most odd is that I bet I could find people willing to accept, simultaneously, that he's never been dark and is due for a turn (agreeing with you), but ALSO saying that he was dark and unsympathetic and bad in, for instance "Becoming" and "Revelations". Were those "dark" for him? Was that as far as Joss was willing to go on the Season 4 Wesley, Season 6 Willow road at the time?

King, what Xander did is very different from flirting with evil. Those most definitely don't apply as they're more brief flirtations with a dark side rather than a true exploration of it. Becoming is controversial enough to be considered a good or bad thing depending on who's talking about it. Revelations is just more of the same and again revolves around Angel and his rivalry there. Xander has never truly flirted with evil or embraced a dark side, especially in light of his past development from Season 4 onward. That's four entire years of no dark side in sight compared to all the other characters who have a dark side emerge and remain ever-present.

Every other main character on either show has had a serious dark period. All of them except the four I mentioned - Tara, Dawn, Lorne and Xander. And of the four, Xander imo is the most important and central character in the verse.

I'll rephrase it to ask instead has Xander ever had a dark arc? All the characters I've listed above would of course qualify as a "yes". Xander remains a resounding "no".

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 11:10 PM
Oh, I don't think he's ever really been "dark" of his own choice. I just saw that there is a contradiction you probably can find in the fandom on that idea, depending on context.

I just don't think there's anything so worth doing with an evil Xander that would justify the continuity problems of present Xander (as in, the flat-out logical and physical impossibility of present Xander) or the very-un-"Buffy"-like device of a Future Evil version.

Emmie
08-04-09, 11:12 PM
I just don't think there's anything so worth doing with an evil Xander that would justify the continuity problems of present Xander (as in, the flat-out logical and physical impossibility of present Xander) or the very-un-"Buffy"-like device of a Future Evil version.

I imagine the same would be said if we were living back around the time that AtS Season 4 was about to come around and started wondering if Cordy had gone dark. (Not regarding continuity problems)

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 11:19 PM
I imagine the same would be said if we were living back around the time that AtS Season 4 was about to come around and started wondering if Cordy had gone dark. (Not regarding continuity problems)

I was pretty quick to suspecting Cordy at the time. "We do the work", as Boyd would say :) The possessed by demon/power thing also wasn't very far outside the norm of Buffy things. And, most importantly, it was Cordy -- by which I mean, there wasn't another, separate Cordy who could just observe these things and learn from them but ultimately be unaffected. It's not a Vamp Willow vs. Willow thing. A Future Xander would basically be a way to play out the emotional drama of Buffy vs. Xander without it affecting "our" Xander. On one hand, I'll admit, I'd much prefer a "Future Xander" to an "actual Xander" for precisely that reason.

Maggie
08-04-09, 11:20 PM
Every other main character on either show has had a serious dark period. All of them except the four I mentioned - Tara, Dawn, Lorne and Xander. And of the four, Xander imo is the most important and central character in the verse.

I'll rephrase it to ask instead has Xander ever had a dark arc? All the characters I've listed above would of course qualify as a "yes". Xander remains a resounding "no".

I agree. And the point about The Pack, was that it visited the issue, but only briefly. It just was a signal *that* the good guys have dark sides, not an exploration of Xander's dark side. And I don't think you really count as a serious character in the 'verse if you don't have a dark side -- because Joss thinks people as a rule are complex.

Also, that the traces of darkness we've seen from Xander stem from his hatred of vampires just ups the irony if vamping is the vehicle for visiting Xander's dark. Again, this traces Gunn a bit. But Gunn generically hated vampires. Xander hates them because he's jealous of them. That's what would give the story edge.

However it goes, I think emotional impact is what Joss is driving at. As I've said before, all the high impact players are implausible for a variety of plot-related reasons. So I stand by my claim that I'd be very surprised if the guy isn't: Xander, Giles, Angel, or Spike. It's the how and the why that will be surprising.

And Emmie, I rather suspect that Dawn's complexity will be explored as part of the story.

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 11:28 PM
But Gunn generically hated vampires. Xander hates them because he's jealous of them. That's what would give the story edge.

Or incoherence, since that is not any substantial part of his problem with vampires. Seriously, he stated his position on vampires long before he had anything to act jealous over, and his jealousy about vampires (or vampire, since it was only ever just Angel) didn't have to do with Angel *being* a vampire -- he was jealous of Angel before even knowing that. Angel being a vampire didn't have a damn thing to do with jealousy, and the thing that most people put down to jealousy, the lie in "Becoming", Joss has already plainly stated was not the case.


However it goes, I think emotional impact is what Joss is driving at. As I've said before, all the high impact players are implausible for a variety of plot-related reasons. So I stand by my claim that I'd be very surprised if the guy isn't: Xander, Giles, Angel, or Spike. It's the how and the why that will be surprising.

I think the former two are by far harder to get sell the how and why of, mostly because in the case of Angel or Spike, his hands aren't tied as to what they were doing at certain times and places. But, that conversation as Riley just rings completely false from *any* of them. So it comes to the table lacking credibility with any of them.


And Emmie, I rather suspect that Dawn's complexity will be explored as part of the story.

I don't know what about Dawn will be explored as part of the Twilight story, although there was at least one panel that suggested she might be a traitor, as she rode off into the setting sun just before the missile attack in 8.16. But... that feels sort of lazy too. She's jealous of Buffy and all her new sisters. She wasn't over that in "Potential"?

Emmie
08-04-09, 11:33 PM
And Emmie, I rather suspect that Dawn's complexity will be explored as part of the story.


Exactly. I was trying not to get too far away from Xander, but it's obvious that Dawn's storyline is already in motion.

Zeppo224
08-04-09, 11:39 PM
Also, that the traces of darkness we've seen from Xander stem from his hatred of vampires just ups the irony if vamping is the vehicle for visiting Xander's dark. Again, this traces Gunn a bit. But Gunn generically hated vampires. Xander hates them because he's jealous of them. That's what would give the story edge.



I don't think its fair to say that Xander hates vampires because he's jealous of them. I mean its obvious how you don't care for the character but its been rather well established that Xander hates vampires for a number of reasons. Sure, there is the old jealousy he had of the B/A relationship but he is also someone who lost one of his best friends to a vampire. To makes matters worse he had to stake him, accidentally or not that had to leave scars. On top of that Xander is shown as someone who sees things in black and white and not shades of gray. To his mind vampires are all evil because they are demons and not human.

Wheteher or not you agree with his assesment is another matter, but please try to give him more credit.

um, being new to posting here i'm not sure how to get the person who's post i'm quoting to appear so I apologize for that.

Maggie
08-04-09, 11:46 PM
Or incoherence, since that is not any substantial part of his problem with vampires. Seriously, he stated his position on vampires long before he had anything to act jealous over, and his jealousy about vampires (or vampire, since it was only ever just Angel) didn't have to do with Angel *being* a vampire -- he was jealous of Angel before even knowing that. Angel being a vampire didn't have a damn thing to do with jealousy, and the thing that most people put down to jealousy, the lie in "Becoming", Joss has already plainly stated was not the case.

Incoherent to you, I suppose. Xander was jealous of vamp!Jessie's mojo with the girls. The A/B/X triangle that got discarded had Xander's jealousy of vampires mixed in with it. The lie in Becoming might well have been something else. But you lose a lot of Xander's story in the first few seasons if you take you take out his vampire issues, which have a strong dose of jealousy thrown in. See, e.g. The Pack, and from Prophecy Girl:

XANDER: Nah. Forget it. (gets up) I'm not him. I mean, I guess a guy's gotta be undead to make time with you.

BUFFY: That's really harsh.

It's in the mix. That's all I'm saying.

Meanwhile, I guess I hope you're right. Unlike you, I'd really rather not have Xander get centric. And this would obviously do that.


ETA: Zeppo, I think characters have multiple motives that are all tangled up. Saying that Xander is jealous of vampires isn't the same thing as saying that Xander's entire attitude towards vampires is nothing but jealousy. My saying this has nothing to do with my feelings about the character. Ironically (since I obviously have a different scoring system than you), Xander's complex attitude towards vampires was one of the most interesting things about him, IMO. So from my POV, Joss would be doing the character a favor by devleoping it more. My feelings about Xander have been shaped a lot by interactions with the fandom. The actual Xander can be very warm and wise, and very petty and small. He's funny. He's loyal He's brave. He's a butt-monkey. He's a lot of things. He should be more interesting than he is. He just got sidelined is all. And so I was more interested in Buffy's other relationships, all of which were more developed and more complex. And now you all are screaming about the possibility that Joss might actually start to explore Xander some more. It's kind of funny how much we are talking past each other here.

KingofCretins
08-04-09, 11:55 PM
Jealous of vamp Jesse's mojo... what? He never even saw Jesse interact with any "mojo" with anyone -- he only found him as he was about to kill Cordy. The only other time he even saw Jesse as a vampire he was trying to kill him and Buffy -- no mojo there either.

And the comment to Buffy... it was a crappy thing to say, but nobody whose ever been in that situation could possibly think it was this very specific "I'm jealous of vampires" comment. If the guy he lost out to had been Owen, he'd have cracked on something about Owen. It's a defense mechanism, not a reveal of a deep jealousy. He wanted to say something mean and pithy to cover his embarrassment. Angel isn't jealous of army guys because he said he didn't like Riley in "The Yoko Factor".

Maggie, would the rather minor things I said I hope for in my ideal Xander arc be too Xander-centric for your tastes? Just curious -- it basically consists of A) he gets to be as 'hands on' as Wes or Gunn or Wood on any given day, and B) he gets to be the "I'll deal with him, you go after Twilight" guy with Riley (sorta like Riley was the "I'll deal with Forrest, you go after Adam" guy).

EDIT: Zeppo, there is a button that says "quote" at the bottom of each post. If you click that, it will pre-fill the post with the other person's comments. There is also a button next to it with a quotation mark, that's for quoting more than one poster at once. Or, if you want, you can just use
and (without any spaces).

Zeppo224
09-04-09, 12:35 AM
Thanks for the tip King.:)

Maggie
09-04-09, 12:51 AM
Jealous of vamp Jesse's mojo... what? He never even saw Jesse interact with any "mojo" with anyone -- he only found him as he was about to kill Cordy. The only other time he even saw Jesse as a vampire he was trying to kill him and Buffy -- no mojo there either.

That's how I saw it. Jessie is able to make moves on Cordy he never would have been able to make otherwise. I'm pretty sure Xander saw it. But if he didn't, he also got Jessie's new man speech. I don't know how to say see what seems to me to be obvious. Not everything needs to be spelled out. Xander insecure. Jessie insecure. Vamp!Jessie can get Cordy to dance with him, boasts about it. Xander gets Hyena'd and says to Buffy that now he's got power or danger or whatever so now he should have an in with her. He says what he says in Prophecy Girl. If they give it at least two airings, the writers mean for it to be established that this is an issue for Xander. And I don't see how to read Revelations as anything other than a strong expression of jealousy.

Now, I can say all of this and ALSO say that it's not hardly the only thing going on. You have this odd logic that if a motive isn't the only motive then it's no motive at all. But in the world I live in, people are a complex mass of mixed emotions. This is one of Xander's.


Maggie, would the rather minor things I said I hope for in my ideal Xander arc be too Xander-centric for your tastes? Just curious -- it basically consists of A) he gets to be as 'hands on' as Wes or Gunn or Wood on any given day, and B) he gets to be the "I'll deal with him, you go after Twilight" guy with Riley (sorta like Riley was the "I'll deal with Forrest, you go after Adam" guy).

No that'd all be ducky by me. But I still think the future!Xander theory is the best one going, and so I'm getting ready to deal with the fact that Xander is arguably going to step into the "most important person in Buffy's life" camp. And maybe this is an other difference between us -- I don't think the role you spell out would mean that Xander is at the top of her charts. Important, to be sure. But not one of the key players. You obviously feel otherwise.

KingofCretins
09-04-09, 01:04 AM
That's how I saw it. Jessie is able to make moves on Cordy he never would have been able to make otherwise. I'm pretty sure Xander saw it. But if he didn't, he also got Jessie's new man speech. I don't know how to say see what seems to me to be obvious. Not everything needs to be spelled out. Xander insecure. Jessie insecure. Vamp!Jessie can get Cordy to dance with him, boasts about it.

Xander wasn't even at the Bronze yet when Jesse got Cordy to dance with him, and didn't enter until after Buffy had already started the fight. When he came upon Jesse and Cordy, it was when the former was going to eat the very terrified latter, which was not a show of mojo.

Jesse's speech about being a new man wasn't a speech at all -- it consisted of one line --


Okay... Let's deal with this. Jesse was an excruciating loser who couldn't get a date with anyone in the sighted community! Look at me. I'm a new man!

But all he was being asked to look at was super-strength and the ability to kill. Nothing about the "new man" Jesse was displaying was a polished ladies man. This dog doesn't even remotely hunt as a way for Xander to be "jealous" of vampires. It's just not there, not in the text, not in the subtext.


Xander gets Hyena'd and says to Buffy that now he's got power or danger or whatever so now he should have an in with her.

Which was prior to him or anyone else knowing Angel was a vampire, in point of fact. So, again, not jealous of vampires.


And I don't see how to read Revelations as anything other than a strong expression of jealousy.

I'd think Joss' unambiguous rejection of the jealousy accusation about "Becoming" would logically just be assumed to apply here, especially since Xander rejects it, Cordy rejects it, and even Buffy doesn't put much energy behind it and nobody present even remotely agrees with her on it.


Now, I can say all of this and ALSO say that it's not hardly the only thing going on. You have this odd logic that if a motive isn't the only motive then it's no motive at all. But in the world I live in, people are a complex mass of mixed emotions. This is one of Xander's.

Mixed emotions, yes, that one, no. I'm not sure it even rises up to the level of fandom urban legend like Riley's mythical Slayer insecurity.


No that'd all be ducky by me. But I still think the future!Xander theory is the best one going, and so I'm getting ready to deal with the fact that Xander is arguably going to step into the "most important person in Buffy's life" camp. And maybe this is an other difference between us -- I don't think the role you spell out would mean that Xander is at the top of her charts. Important, to be sure. But not one of the key players. You obviously feel otherwise.

If you're coming at it not realizing that he is already in that camp, has been in that camp for years, and isn't ever leaving, I'm not sure how you got there. Buffy herself says it explicitly in "End of Days", and it's heavily implied in the reconciliation scenes in both "Seeing Red" and "Primeval". If those didn't firmly establish that he is one of the most important people in her life, what ever could?

I suppose my role for him doesn't reinforce that because, to me, and to the canon itself, it's already a settled question that he's one of the most important people in her life.

Here's another question, for you or for anybody really -- a lot of speculation about Twilight not actually being a villain before it's over, that Buffy will ultimately agree with his perspective to some extent. This has usually accompanied speculation about Angel or Spike, like a safeguard. Would you see this as a required element, or even a welcome element, to Twilight's story if they did somehow make him Xander?

Maggie
09-04-09, 01:37 AM
We just don't watch the show the same way. My brother and I have been rewatching together very slowly over the last year (just now starting season 4), and he's always harping on what's going on with Xander. And the stuff he says always makes sense to me. People see what they see. Or they don't see what they don't see. I think you're blind as a bat. You think me and my brother are imagining things. [shrugs]



Here's another question, for you or for anybody really -- a lot of speculation about Twilight not actually being a villain before it's over, that Buffy will ultimately agree with his perspective to some extent. This has usually accompanied speculation about Angel or Spike, like a safeguard. Would you see this as a required element, or even a welcome element, to Twilight's story if they did somehow make him Xander?

By far the most interesting way for Twilight to go would be for him to be NOT an unambiguous villain. That's true if it's any of the four who seem most likely to cause Buffy the most pain.

vampmogs
09-04-09, 01:49 AM
Xander has a lot of continuity problems. That should be the big red stop sign in this discussion.

In 'The Long Way Home' Xander is giving orders to Buffy from the BHC, but we see that Twilight was watching her from the sky up above.

In 'No Future For You' Xander was with Buffy and Willow when Twilight was with Lt Molter.

In 'Time of Your Life' Xander is alone on the hill, and looks shocked and horrified with Warren's missile hits the castle. He's also with Dawn when Twilight is with Amy and Warren.

It would be really hard to explain how all of this is possible. Now it's not as if the story couldn't be flawed. EvilCordy was done in a very cheap way when she awakens from sex with Connor and looks horrified at what she had done. But who was she acting to? She was turned around, facing the camera. So that never made much sense. Nor did her nightmares of the Beast. But Xander would require even more fanwank, a lot more.

The only way I could see it being Xander is if we had some Future Xander plot. We got 'Time of Your Life' which could have actually been the set up for all of that. It'd be a Xander from the future, angry and pissed at Buffy and the world. It would also give current Xander a great arc because he would see what he had become and would hate himself. I know I've seen people think it would be a lame idea, but I think if done well it wouldn't be that bad. And I'd prefer Future Xander to current Xander, at least then it's something the guy could try and avoid becoming.

I’ve decided not to put much stock into Jeanty’s comments about all the emotions we should feel when Twilight is revealed. That’s not an objective view, Jeanty may have felt all those emotions but it doesn’t mean all the fans will. Sometimes editors, artists, writers, directors.. Can all get carried away with hyping up a story or an episode/issue. So I wouldn’t use that as a strict guild line when looking at characters.

KingofCretins
09-04-09, 01:51 AM
We just don't watch the show the same way. My brother and I have been rewatching together very slowly over the last year (just now starting season 4), and he's always harping on what's going on with Xander. And the stuff he says always makes sense to me. People see what they see. Or they don't see what they don't see. I think you're blind as a bat. You think me and my brother are imagining things. [shrugs]

I don't think you're imagining things, I know you are on this specific topic. I'm even demonstrating it with evidence from the shows themselves. Seriously, you based his jealousy on events he neither witnessed nor was told about and didn't back down off it when that was pointed out. I will go through "The Harvest" frame by frame right now with you if you'll show me where this "jealousy of vampires" takes hold. You also rely on his remarks about Angel in "The Pack"... an episode before he learns that he's a vampire. I'm blind as a bat? It can't even be rationally theorized that he obtained jealousy of vampires from "mojo" that he has never once seen put into practice, not just in Season 1 but ever.

Is he jealous of Angel? Yes. Is it because Angel's a vampire? Nonsense, unsupportable by any fact ever presented on the show. He's jealous because Angel is tall dark and handsome, he's jealous that Buffy goes for what's dangerous. All being a vampire brings to it is Xander's distrust of the man.

At least, it seems, you've accepted the comments about the textual, canonical, umambiguous and in all other ways completely indisputable fact that Xander is already one of the most important people in Buffy's life. That's one thing that even using him as Twilight couldn't change.

vampmogs
09-04-09, 02:00 AM
I don't think Xander's jealous of vampires either. He loathes and resents them ever since they killed Jesse. "I don't like vampires. I'm going to take a stand and say they're not good."

I agree with King, Xander was jealous about Angel long before he even found out he was a vampire. That just added distrust and dislike to the mix, but it was already there. He was jealous because Buffy loved Angel and not him. Which is understandable and kind of expected. The jibes about Angel being "undead" don't sound to me like he was secretly wishing he was undead to. Far from it. More "how on earth could you love a vampire over me."

Look at how Xander describes Spike in ‘Entropy.’ “You let that evil soulless thing touch you. I look at you and I feel sick. Because you had sex with that” He’s repulsed by vampires, he loathes vampires. I don’t see why he would be jealous of something he hates so much.

EDIT: He didn't see Jesse/Cordy because they were dancing before the Scoobie's stormed into the Bronze and before Luke got up on stage. All he saw of Jesse/Cordy was when Jesse had her pinned down, ready to bite.

Maggie
09-04-09, 03:53 AM
Look at how Xander describes Spike in ‘Entropy.’ “You let that evil soulless thing touch you. I look at you and I feel sick. Because you had sex with that” He’s repulsed by vampires, he loathes vampires. I don’t see why he would be jealous of something he hates so much.

Sigh. I said people have many mixed motives. It is what makes us very interesting. Sometimes those motives are even conflicting. People can despise things they envy. It is good that Joss could create characters almost as complex as real people. It is why some of us watch this show. It is why some of us think Joss is a very good writer. Shakespeare wrote complex characters also. There are many interpretations of Shakespeare. There are many interpretations of Joss. People sometimes say what they think. People sometimes say what they do not think. People sometimes change. That is why there are many interpretations. It is what makes life interesting.

The argument about Twilight!Xander began with Zathraas excellent post which addresses your arguments about the impossibility of Xander as Twilight.

KingofCretins
09-04-09, 04:14 AM
Future Xander does override the continuity problems that are insurmountable with Present Xander. Future Xander does create problems of its own, of course, namely in that... it's preposterously silly. It would be as though Brad Kern had jumped in for Joss to plot out this season. Plus there's still the nearly-insurmountable problem of motive. The mere notion of "but he's from the future" doesn't give any credible *reason* for Xander to do such a thing, or a reason to believe he would choose these particular means.

Here's a few counterpoints on the Future Xander thing --

If *anyone* from the future were to come back in time to undo the Slayer "race" and end magic, why would they choose the time and place Twilight did? Why not stop the spell? Why not just stop Buffy from preventing Toru's plan?
Xander is the guy who saved the world by talking; why wouldn't he just come back in time and talk it out with Buffy, who has ever considered him a confidant?
Why wouldn't Xander try to put things right for himself in general? He could have saved Anya, saved Renee, done any number of things. Saved his eye. Hell, in his full power as Twilight he could have pounded Caleb into the damn ground and held a good deal of the charging Turok-han himself, giving Spike enough time to go active and making the spell itself unnecessary.

And so on -- why would Joss introduce all these new and weirder unanswered questions in the *reveal* of the central unanswered question of the season?

The point about mixed motives is all well and good, but *this specific* emotion can not be credibly placed in that mix based on anything that was ever told or shown in the series about Xander.

vampmogs
09-04-09, 04:16 AM
Sigh. I said people have many mixed motives. It is what makes us very interesting. Sometimes those motives are even conflicting. People can despise things they envy. It is good that Joss could create characters almost as complex as real people. It is why some of us watch this show. It is why some of us think Joss is a very good writer. Shakespeare wrote complex characters also. There are many interpretations of Shakespeare. There are many interpretations of Joss. People sometimes say what they think. People sometimes say what they do not think. People sometimes change. That is why there are many interpretations. It is what makes life interesting.

What's with the "sigh." I wasn't nasty or disrespectful to you so I don't need that kind of attitude. That was completely unprovoked and doesn’t contribute to a friendly and productive discussion/debate. If it frustrates you so much that I have a different opinion to you, just don't respond to me. If the "some of us remarks" are trying to insinuate I don't watch the show for the “complexities,” I could also do without the elitist attitude. Thanks.

The crabbiness is becoming pretty unbearable.

As you say, there’s many different interpretations to Joss’ work. This is just one of those cases. I don’t think Xander was ever jealous of vampires. I think he was jealous of Angel, who happens to be a vampire, but I don’t believe his vampirism was the source of that jealousy. Or even part of it. What other vampire was he jealous of? Xander resents vampires for what they did to his friend and is repulsed by what they turned him into. I don't believe it goes any further than that. He expresses no jealousy towards Dracula, and after what Toru did to Renee I'm guessing he's even more repulsed by them than ever before. And why would he be? Buffy's greatest nightmare was that she was turned into a vampire. Angel believes Darla "damned him." And for good reason. It's not something to be jealous about, it's a curse.

It's actually Angel who I'd argue is jealous of Xander because of what he is, and not who he is. On the surface Angel was jealous of Xander because Buffy "practically mated with him" on the dance floor. Buffy admits she did this to drive Angel crazy. However, at the end of 'Some Assembly Required' Angel openly confesses that his jealousy goes deeper than that. Xander gets to see Buffy in the light, he gets to eat with her and hear her complaints. Xander's the human man Angel desperately wants to be.

King-

You make valid points about the problems a Future Xander raises but I’m not sure if they’re problems Joss will take into consideration. Especially the “why not come back before the spell?” He could easily write it that Xander didn’t have the power to go back further.

What I disagree with you about is that it’s a silly idea. I don’t think it’s anymore silly than Future Willow was. Time Travel really isn’t any more preposterous than the other outlandish things in the Buffyverse. Take travelling between dimensions for example. ‘Time of Your Life’ set a precedent for the season. It gave us an example of one of Buffy’s best friends and their dark future alter ego. It could have easily been a foreshadowing for Xander.

Although in saying that, wouldn't Buffy just rationalise FutureXander the same way she did Future Willow. She "doesn't care about Fray's world" and ran Willow through with the scythe to get back to hers.

Ravynnia
09-04-09, 04:25 AM
Dawn is a specific event, twilight occurs twice every day

In what language? Twilight refers to the evening light as in "In Twilight Time" or "The Twilight of Life" -- iot NEVER refers to pre-dawn light.

vampmogs
09-04-09, 04:33 AM
Actually I did find this definition for "Twilight"

The diffused light from the sky during the early evening or early morning when the sun is below the horizon and its light is refracted by the earth's atmosphere.

There was also one definition that it means "state of ambiguity or obscurity." Which fits the description for Twilight's character pretty well, and the season in general. Is Twilight right or wrong or somewhere in the middle? When Buffy changed the world did it have good or bad consequences? Is the age of magic coming to an end or a new beginning?

KingofCretins
09-04-09, 05:37 AM
Excellent with the help there Vampmogs -- that is exactly what I was going to point out. The word may refer to the evening particularly in its poetic connotations, but it is in fact a time both before dawn and after sunset.

I do think Future Xander, as active participant in the past, mover and shaker, big bad, is much sillier and much less Joss than FDW, who was basically just an oracle-like figure, there to give knowledge or caution about a specific course of action. Getting into a full blown, "Back to the Future, Part II", change the past time travel arc would be waaaaaay outside the scope of the type of storytelling Joss has done, particularly in the Buffyverse.

Plus, again, the emotional safety of it. How like Joss is it to play that so safe? It's funny, because I criticize the odds of Joss doing that while at the same time hoping -- hell yes, if Twilight is Xander I want him to be some future, avoidable Xander and for the consequences to present Xander and his arc and relationships to just not be a factor. But how Joss is that, really? I find it much more like him to ignore the practical -- namely, the completely continuity and logic ignoring idea of it being present Xander -- than sneaking past the big emotional resonance.

Better still, how about just use one of the much less implausible ideas that won't send up a lot of completely justifiable criticism over bad continuity (Present) or false emotion (Future).

vampmogs
09-04-09, 05:51 AM
I agree with you about the emotional resonance. Whilst I'm not exactly itching for Twilight to be Xander myself, I'd actually prefer a Current Xander Twilight over a Future Xander. Continuity problems aside of course.

As I said above. I’m not sure how emotionally crippling Future Xander could be to Buffy. She’s already managed to pretty much exclude Fray’s future and everyone in it from her own world. That kind of rationale left her pretty desensitised to Future Willow so it should for a Future Xander also. It’d have much more impact and resonance if Twilight was Current Xander and not some Future Xander so distanced from our own. And as you say, Joss is a sucker for that kind of story.

I agree that it is a pretty complicated plot, just that we now have precedent for such a plot to be possible. A part of season eight’s overall arc does lend itself to this kind of story though. ‘Time of Your Life’ was an inevitable “crossover” because the arc for this season is dealing with the events of ‘Fray’ and the end of magic. It’s unavoidable that these two stories were going to collide, when a lot of this story seems to be about wether or not Buffy’s fate is already sealed, or such a future is avoidable. Having the Big Bad be someone from that time and someone who is trying to avoid that future, is a interesting parallel with the protagonist of the story. Who’s also trying to avoid that future and that fate.

Though, if Twilight is someone from the future trying to avoid what happens down the line, wouldn't they be trying to save magic? Not end it?

KingofCretins
09-04-09, 06:07 AM
I agree with you about the emotional resonance. Whilst I'm not exactly itching for Twilight to be Xander myself, I'd actually prefer a Current Xander Twilight over a Future Xander. Continuity problems aside of course.

See, we disagree here -- I'd much rather have the hollow emotional writing so that we don't risk the integrity and ongoing story of the current, actual Xander character and to hell with the continuity.


As I said above. I’m not sure how emotionally crippling Future Xander could be to Buffy. She’s already managed to pretty much exclude Fray’s future and everyone in it from her own world. That kind of rationale left her pretty desensitised to Future Willow so it should for a Future Xander also. It’d have much more impact and resonance if Twilight was Current Xander and not some Future Xander so distanced from our own. And as you say, Joss is a sucker for that kind of story.

True, Buffy was already FutureShock girl in terms of no human investment in the people of Fray's time, and we already know she'd kill FutureBuddy to get through a door she had to go through. Every emotional challenge a Future Xander could present to her has literally already been addressed this very season.


Though- if Twilight is someone from the future trying to avoid what happens down the line wouldn't they be trying to save magic? Not end it?

So really there's logic problems in every part of the theory of a future character being Twilight.

People can mock (and clearly will) my most recent attempt at identifying Twilight, but I was able to come up with a theory that doesn't create serious continuity problems -- even with the character being dead, because of the W&H factor. It may have iffy emotional resonance, but it doesn't have completely manufactured emotional resonance. I think suspecting Wesley is the next logical step from my previous speculation that Marcus Hamilton would make sense (W&H liaisons being immortal anyway). He may not mean as much directly to Buffy, but it's well established that fans tend to expect every character to have the same feelings toward every other character that the fans do.

vampmogs
09-04-09, 06:23 AM
The more I think about it, the more I just have to rule out Xander. I was going to come up with some cheesy retcon such as “astral projection” to explain Xander being in two different places at once. But then I thought, why would he need to be? Why would Xander need to be hovering in the sky watching Buffy’s mission in ‘The Long Way Home’ when he’d have a better view watching it on the monitors back at the castle? Why would he need to see it twice? He wouldn’t. It doesn’t make sense.

There’s just two many things that don’t add up with Xander. Sure you could say he led Buffy to the encounter with Twilight in ‘A Beautiful Sunset.’ You could also say he was the one responsible for orchestrating the battle between Buffy and the demons in ‘The Long Way Home.’ But the massive inconsistencies constantly win out in the end.

Besides who else could be "the prince" Buffy has to save but Xander? He's the leading male in the series right now. The "Queen's" closest confidant. He was second in command at the castle. He fits the "prince" description better than anyone could. Unless by “save” they mean from internal darkness, the same way Xander saved Willow in ‘Grave.’

I wouldn’t mock your Wesley idea at all, and judging by this thread pretty much every single person agrees that your reasoning is well thought out. I do remember people like Nina speculating a while back that it could be Wes. And I’m sure I’ve seen it elsewhere as well. It does make sense on a number of levels.

Wes being a character in another book (who isn't being used anymore) isn't a deal-breaker. Scott and Cliff were talking about crossovers because it seems like it's going to inevitably happen. Why get into that conversation if it's not on the cards?

Wes being dead is probably one of the least problematic reasons there is. When has that stopped anyone in the Buffyverse? I mean, it’s not even really an issue. Though I wish sometimes it was. And out of all the characters, Wes has more reasons to be able to come back (he’s under contract) then most characters would.

The only problem with Wes is the emotional hit. It wouldn’t upset Buffy in any real major way. When she’s lying wounded and crying on the floor that would have to be the “man on the inside.” Not Twilight if he was Wes, because that reaction would be totally unbelievable. Riley could be the “man on the inside” and could get that reaction out of Buffy. So could Xander, so could Dawn. I doubt it’s Willow because we already had the flat out denial and Buffy suspecting her.

My two biggest contenders have always been Hank or Ethan but I’ve had to do some revaluating. I still think Hank is a possibility (and honestly I hope for him more than anyone) but I’m pretty much discarding Ethan now.

Xander’s always been nagging me, he’s a character I can’t shake loose. But he’s also the one character which it would make the least sense for. Both in regards to continuity and characterisation.

It’s the same problem for Giles really. He’s been joined at the hip with Faith for months. Could he really have got the time to run off and put his cape on and play big bad?

Angel and Spike are still contenders as far as I’m concerned. Both characters would be big hitters emotionally for the character and for the fans. He fits Angel’s appearance more so than Spike’s, but both characters could probably find a way to gain the extra power.

Rowan Hawthorn
09-04-09, 12:42 PM
The more I think about it, the more I just have to rule out Xander. I was going to come up with some cheesy retcon such as “astral projection” to explain Xander being in two different places at once. But then I thought, why would he need to be? Why would Xander need to be hovering in the sky watching Buffy’s mission in ‘The Long Way Home’ when he’d have a better view watching it on the monitors back at the castle? Why would he need to see it twice? He wouldn’t. It doesn’t make sense.

That same argument also applies to "Future Xander" as well; if he knew when to bomb the BHC because he remembered being outside when the bomb hit it (which actually doesn't make sense when you think about it, because if Future Xander caused the bombing, he wouldn't need to remember the bombing, because the bombing didn't happen until he caused it but then he would remember it happening and remember causing it and... see where that ends up?) then he'd also have the memories of monitoring Buffy and the Alpha Team in TLWH and so wouldn't need to be watching them from the air (which also brings up the question of why the 'copter pilots didn't spot him. Can he also go invisible?)

vampmogs
09-04-09, 01:16 PM
Very valid points Rowan Hawthorn. And you've pretty much demonstrated why a Future Xander Twilight would be very confusing..
which actually doesn't make sense when you think about it, because if Future Xander caused the bombing, he wouldn't need to remember the bombing, because the bombing didn't happen until he caused it but then he would remember it happening and remember causing it and... see where that ends up? :lol: That's why I don't watch Doctor Who :p

Another nay to the Xander idea is this particular moment in A Beautiful Sunset;

XANDER: This is bad for us, Buffy. Andrew’s wiccans wiped the guards’ memories, but anybody finds out a Slayer’s packing boom-sticks – forget about what she’s planning to *use* them for – and your Twilight bunch is gonna go ape-feces.

XANDER: So we find her. She peeps that little mo-hawk out, we’ll play whak-a-mole -- *before* she starts something.

Why would Xander be encouraging Buffy to stop Simone before she pisses off Twilight? Why would he be working so hard to keep Twilight's organisation, or the world, from finding out about Simone attacking those guards? Twilight wouldn't do that. Part of Twilight's entire agenda has been getting the media on his side, portraying the slayers as untrustworthy individuals. He wouldn’t be working to cover it up.

And why would Xander be working so hard to mislead Buffy and reassure her that everything will be ok? In their graveyard fight Twilight does the exact opposite. He asks the hard questions, tries to make Buffy face up to the hard truth. He's a conniving son of a bitch but he genuinely seems to be worried about the world and what the slayers are doing to it. If he's really just wanting an excuse for a war by playing Buffy hot and cold, then he looses any complexity. That's basically giving Twilight his edge right now. That he’s not just “mwuhahaha! evil.” He genuinely believes the slayer are a danger to the world and wants to restore the balance. If he's really got no genuine concern for the world then he goes from behind a really interesting big bad to a cartoon-villainy big bad.

So he wouldn’t be reassuring Buffy the slayers are good people one minute, then putting the cape on and telling her they’re not. He’d be talking in Buffy’s ear the entire time trying to tell her she needs to stop what she’s doing. Not giving her pep speeches about how the slayers are so filled with purpose and meaning like Xander did at the end of that episode. He's her closest confidant, her right hand man. He's in the position no one else is to talk in her ear, filling her head with god knows what. She even uses him as her counsellor in her dreams for crying out loud :roll: Why would he put on a mask and then try and get through her to when her defences would naturally be up?

............Unless of course he’s got one hell of a multiple personality disorder :p

sueworld
09-04-09, 01:28 PM
He fits Angel’s appearance more so than Spike’s, but both characters could probably find a way to gain the extra power.

Okay, I'll bite. What makes you think Angel would be such a good fit for being Twilight then? What on earth would be his motive, especially seeing he's a vampire n'all.

vampmogs
09-04-09, 01:39 PM
Okay, I'll bite. What makes you think Angel would be such a good fit for being Twilight then? What on earth would be his motive, especially seeing he's a vampire n'all.

I never said he'd "be such a good fit." I simply said that he fits the appearance of Twilight. Solid chin, tall, similar build ect.

But if I was going to get into it, he’d also fit the “closest, most unexpected” line regarding Buffy’s betrayal. He’d also have a huge emotional impact on not only Buffy but the audience.

Twilight’s only ever been seen in the night as well. The end image of him in ‘NFFY’ bares a striking resemblance to the shot of Angel at the end of ‘In the Dark’ when the sun’s glow is just visible over the horizon. So Twilight could be a vampire.

As far as his motives go, well we know what they are. Rid the world of magic and slayers because Twilight feels the imbalance is doing harm not good. Angel is capable of that big picture thinking. The end of magic idea doesn’t rule Angel out. Somehow the vampires survive and stay in this dimension according to the ‘Fray’ story and even if they didn’t.. Angel’s been willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good on multiple occasions. If he truly believed he was doing what was right for the world, he’d take his own life in a heartbeat.

I don’t know why Angel would want to end magic or come to these motivations, that would be for Joss to fill in.

My reasons for thinking Angel is a candidate are more superficial and practical than that. Like his appearance, emotional resonance for Buffy and the audience, shock factor ect. I never claimed anything like "oh it's so obvious it's Angel!" or "it makes complete sense!" Just that there's enough links to at least make him a possible candidate. And unlike Xander, we don’t have any big continuity contradictions to wiggle our way through.

sueworld
09-04-09, 01:47 PM
So all in all a wee bit of a stretch then.

The artists rendering of the character could be anyone really, especially as the the character could be using a glamor, or some other aid to disguise himself.

Also gotta say basing too much on individual panels of art can often lead to disappointment, just like if anyone puts too much stock in the front covers. There there to mislead half the time.


If he truly believed he was doing what was right for the world, he’d take his own life in a heartbeat.

I agree with that, but in this instance it would have to be a very changed/insane Angel to contemplate such a thing. Also to try and hurt either Buffy or her friends, again he'd have to be insane/pod Angel to try it.

Also the fact he's staring in his own comic that another company has purchased the franchise for to print and sell might complicate matters just a tad.

vampmogs
09-04-09, 01:57 PM
So all in all a wee bit of a stretch then.

Everything is a stretch right now. Whoever Twilight is, something had to happen to him to make him be that way. So it's pretty much impossible to work out a flawless argument for anybody when we're going in blind.


The artists rendering of the character could be anyone really, especially as the the character could be using a glamor, or some other aid to disguise himself.

He could be, but why would he? Doesn't that render the mask completely pointless if he's used a glamour to change his appearance anyway? Unless he's really, really overcompensating. Why wear a mask if you’ve altered your face?


Also gotta say basing too much on individual panels of art can often lead to disappointment, just like if anyone puts too much stock in the front covers. There there to mislead half the time.

Yeah but some things have remained the same. He's been tall every time, he's been the same build every time ect. If he lifted up his mask and had a ginger beard, would you still be arguing that the art could be misleading and it could still be Angel?


I agree with that, but in this instance it would have to be a very changed/insane Angel to contemplate such a thing. Also to try and hurt either Buffy or her friends, again he'd have to be insane/pod Angel to try it.

Agreed. Something would have had to happen to make him change in this way.


Also the fact he's staring in his own comic that another company has purchased the franchise for to print and sell might complicate matters just a tad.

I suspect that's what Scott and Cliff were mulling over. They weren't talking about canon for nothing. They've already confirmed like a gazillion times that Joss can use Angel and Spike as much as he likes. And seeing as how Joss has had no part in 'Aftermath' whatsoever, the likelihood of this happening is far greater now than it would have been if it happened during 'After the Fall.' Which is canon and which Joss did have a part in.

Really it wouldn't even be like he's using "Angel" all that much. I'm guessing Twilight's identity is revealed in either 'Retreat' or even after that. That doesn't leave many issues left for the season. They'd only be using Angel's face for a smallish amount of time anyway. Besides they could have used Angel for every single issue if they had wanted. Joss and Allie really couldn't say that anymore than they already have.

Wolfie Gilmore
09-04-09, 02:01 PM
Everything is a stretch right now. Whoever Twilight is, something had to happen to him to make him be that way. So it's pretty much impossible to work out a flawless argument for anybody when we're going in blind.

That's what has always bothered me about the TWilight-is-someone-we-know scenario - that something would have had to happen "off stage" at some point that's key to them becoming Twilight....when interesting drama, to me, is what happens on screen (with some exceptions obviously, especially in different kinds of shows or stories, but in Buffy, there's a great sense of presence and immediacy that I can't help would be lost if we need to go into a flashback/backstory to explain someone's motives.

vampmogs
09-04-09, 02:05 PM
It could indeed be problematic. I guess it just depends on how well the "exposition" is written. If it flows smoothly and coherently over some interesting imagery, than it should be a delight to read. If it's kind of disjointed and bogged down by too many words then it could fail miserably.

I’d prefer it if Joss did it. He did a great job with the slayer Decoy’s speech in ‘The Chain’ over some brilliant imagery. That was very wordy and was chock full of ideas but it was easy to read. And it emotionally resonated with a good portion of the audience. I've even seen some season eight haters love that one.

It's doable, it'll just require a lot of skill. Another option would be having Twilight reveal where he’s coming from (and his past) over an action sequence. That worked well in ‘A Beautiful Sunset’ when Twilight revealed his agenda to Buffy over the smack down. When you think about it, we actually learnt a hell of a lot about Twilight and season eight’s themes over those few precious pages. Once again that was a Joss script though. When you think about it, it really didn't feel like we were being bombarded with a lot of new info. But we actually were.

sueworld
09-04-09, 02:06 PM
I suspect that's what Scott and Cliff were mulling over. They weren't talking about canon for nothing. They've already confirmed like a gazillion times that Joss can use Angel and Spike as much as he likes.

Saying that they can use them, isn't the same as saying that they will. I suspect that if either of these characters tun up it will be along time in the future, unless it's in the form of a flashback etc.

Wolfie Gilmore
09-04-09, 02:13 PM
It could indeed be problematic. I guess it just depends on how well the "exposition" is written. If it flows smoothly and coherently over some interesting imagery, than it should be a delight to read. If it's kind disjointed and bogged down by too many words then it could fail miserably.

I’d prefer it if Joss did it. He did a great job with the slayer Decoy’s speech in ‘The Chain’ over some fantastic imagery. That was very wordy and was chock full of ideas but it was easy to read. And it emotionally resonated with a good proportion of the audience. I've even seen some season eight haters love that one.

Yeah, all depends on the execution - where they choose to break off the action/intercut with the action, how they script it, whether they work at keeping it feeling like part of the present (eg the flashbacks in Fool for Love are very well done on this score).

If it's just Twilight explaining his (presumably his?) origin story....meh. Though if they manage a nifty Rorschach-from-Watchmen style "voiceover" that could work...maybe....oh, I'm not sure. I'll have to wait and see I suppose!

It could be a moment for some really exciting use of the medium in the end. Ok, you've made me more hopeful :)

vampmogs
09-04-09, 02:20 PM
If it's just Twilight explaining his (presumably his?) origin story....meh. Though if they manage a nifty Rorschach-from-Watchmen style "voiceover" that could work...maybe....oh, I'm not sure. I'll have to wait and see I suppose!

:roll: I love how you don't censor yourself. I literally just saw how your brain jumped from one thought to another!

The "Rorschach style" is a nifty idea. Kind of like what they did with Buffy in the opening for 'The Long Way Home.' That's another great example of getting a boat load of information, but it feeling easy and nice to read. In fact it's one of my favourite scenes so far. And again.. Joss at the helm. :lol: As long as they don't do it too much. I don't want a 'Sin City' kind of overload.. god all that voice over crap got old fast.


It could be a moment for some really exciting use of the medium in the end. Ok, you've made me more hopeful :)

I'm glad :) Though I did just think of one scene where Joss failed miserably at giving us exposition in the comics..... That clunky scene in 'Time of Your Life' when Willow is explaining the whole time travelling, portal dealio. But lets not dwell on that! :D He did a bloody brilliant job in the other three examples (TLWY, Chain, A Beautiful Sunset.)

Wolfie Gilmore
09-04-09, 02:24 PM
:roll: I love how you don't censor yourself. I literally just saw how your brain jumped from one thought to another!

It's the joy of the forum...I can slap the contents of my brain down on the page and people won't (usually) mind! Sadly I can't get away with the same thing at work...though maybe I should try it some time?



The "Rorschach style" is a nifty idea. Kind of like what they did with Buffy in the opening for 'The Long Way Home.' That's another great example of getting a boat load of information, but it feeling easy and nice to read. In fact it's one of my favourite scenes so far.

Yes, it's fluency I'm looking for, a sense of things just flowing.




I'm glad :) Though I did just think of one scene where Joss failed miserably at giving us exposition in the comics..... That clunky explanation in 'Time of Your Life' when Willow is explaining the whole time travelling, portal dealio. But lets not dwell on that! :D He did a bloody brilliant job in the other three examples (TLWY, Chain, A Beautiful Sunset.)

I think the idea itself was just so twisty perhaps there *was* no ideal exposition? That is, it's the sort of story that would work in another series, that takes time and space seriously, that's more focused on the mechanics of things... but in the context of Buffy, it just felt....well, a bit boring and flat and confusing. Buffy should zip off the page (or off the screen).

vampmogs
09-04-09, 02:28 PM
It's the joy of the forum...I can slap the contents of my brain down on the page and people won't (usually) mind! Sadly I can't get away with the same thing at work...though maybe I should try it some time?

Right there with ya! Apparently it doesn't work in History papers either.. grumble, grumble.. oh how I loathe University. I digress...


I think the idea itself was just so twisty perhaps there *was* no ideal exposition? That is, it's the sort of story that would work in another series, that takes time and space seriously, that's more focused on the mechanics of things... but in the context of Buffy, it just felt....well, a bit boring and flat and confusing. Buffy should zip off the page (or off the screen).

Agreed. I think they could have made it work well in one of the televised seasons. But for a comic book, it's really hard to explain the mechanics of time travel when we have no pre-established lore in the series. Joss had to come up with all the specifics in that issue, then had to try and fit it all into the limited space he had. Comic Books are tricky creatures. I don't envy the man.

Not that I disliked 'Time of Your Life' mind you. Once we were *in* the future it was fine.. it was just getting there that was the difficulty....

Wolfie Gilmore
09-04-09, 02:38 PM
Right there with ya! Apparently it doesn't work in History papers either.. grumble, grumble.. oh how I loathe University. I digress...

Academia's silly sometimes. Occasionally, a chatty style would actually put a point across better than a rigid one.



Agreed. I think they could have made it work well in one of the televised seasons. But for a comic book, it's really hard to explain the mechanics of time travel when we have no pre-established lore in the series. Joss had to come up with all the specifics in that issue, then had to try and fit it all into the limited space he had. Comic Books are tricky creatures. I don't envy the man.

Also, Joss (etc) are at a disadantage compared with "normal" comics writers, because there is a process of translation that has to be gone through with the Buffy comics - a comic that started off as a comic can set its own perameters and form the "language" of the story in a way that suits a comic.

Btvs as a tv show relied a lot on quick fire dialogue, and much of its humour relied on intonations - which is something you can't replicate in comics. I think for most of the characters, most of the time, they've done a great job capturing the voices, but it must be hard. Where a character's created entirely within a comic, the reader has always had to imagine the exact accent/pitch/intonations, so there's no problem with that - as with novels. But if you come to a comic having experienced the telly version, there is a process of adjustment that both the writer and the reader have to go through.

I do thing season 8's done some things that the tv show couldn't, in terms of juxtaposition, composition of images, physical structure of narrative. Things like Buffy's dreamspace was brilliant - so detailed that you want to explore all the little bits of it, which you wouldn't have the leisure to do on a tv show. Or the conversation with Giant Dawn and normal size buffy which plays with the panels to create a conversational sequence by replicating Buffy while only really having one picture of Dawn.

I think the time travel thing suffered partly because of the concept in the context of Buffy. But you might be right, that it could've been more easily explained visually through TV narrative.

vampmogs
09-04-09, 02:48 PM
Yup I very much agree with you. Joss and the writers have such a difficult task because they were TV characters, not comic book characters. It's not only a testament to their abilities when you hear fans say "I could hear the voices in my head" but it's a sign that, that's what people are looking for.

I must say that I've been really impressed with the dialogue and how I can "hear" the characters saying the lines. On the commentary for 'Earshot' Espenson said how once she had wrote a piece of dialogue for a character. However, she decided to give it to another character instead. Joss was reading over the script and knew instantly what she wrote was intended for another character and said she couldn't do that. Each character has their own individual voice and speech pattern. After seven years each character had been given their own voice so well, that I think it made the transition to the comic medium much easier. I gotta say.. I think the voices are more spot on in season eight than they were in season seven. Comic or not.

It’s interesting you bring up that great Buffy/Dawn scene in ‘The Long Way Home’ when they use the imagery to show Buffy slowly descend up the stairs as they talk. That was the scene that actually convinced me I was going to enjoy season eight. Before the season had begun and before I had seen anything but a cover, I was worried I wouldn’t enjoy it. I was never a big comic book fan and wasn’t sure it’d translate well. They released that one page and I was convinced instantly. I love that page for so many reasons. For the brilliant use of the art as you say, and for the dialogue. The medium has never been used better.

I also thought the medium was put to good use in ‘Wolves At The Gate’ when we see the world from Renee’s perspective as she’s fading out. Each panel progressed the story, Xander inched closer, Willow slowly gets thrown through the window ect. It was brilliant.

Bubblecat
10-04-09, 05:21 PM
All this talk of Twilight and Dawn...makes me think it could be Ben.

We never did get to see what happened to him after Giles let him go. The only thing is, I can't see Buffy seeing it as an epic betrayal though.

Zathraas
10-04-09, 06:00 PM
Giles killed Ben, he didn't let him go.

Charles
10-04-09, 11:19 PM
I could almost... *almost* buy Xander having reasons for wanting magic gotten rid of... but not killing Buffy, not that, not ever. Like I said -- it would be the most lamely obvious thing Joss could do (Xander is loyal to Buffy, therefore I shall surprise them all by making him DISloyal! Mwuhahahah) and also the most logically insurmountable obstacle for any character.

Twilight has overseen at least one attempt on Buffy's life and the wholesale murder of however many Slayers were killed at the BHC. And that's all assuming that he wasn't also behind the plot in "Wolves at the Gate" and any Slayers that have died due to the events of "Predators and Prey".

At the risk of point out the obvious.

Future Dark Xander (hereafter FDX), would know exactly how far he could push things because he has both the memories of his younger self and experience in how the Scoobies operate. He knows for example, that the vast majority of the Scottish Slayers would escape from the Castle and you could make a credible theory that whatever he had Amy & Warren do to the missile was done to achieve exactly the result he wanted, the destruction of his past self's symbolic home, NOT the death of all those slayers.

That would also be why he didn't step in during the Toru fight, he knew how it would resolve itself (and perhaps more intriguingly, he might be manipulating his younger self into a situation similar to how Holtz did with Connor and re-using old plots is also a Joss trait).



Future Xander does override the continuity problems that are insurmountable with Present Xander. Future Xander does create problems of its own, of course, namely in that... it's preposterously silly. It would be as though Brad Kern had jumped in for Joss to plot out this season. Plus there's still the nearly-insurmountable problem of motive. The mere notion of "but he's from the future" doesn't give any credible *reason* for Xander to do such a thing, or a reason to believe he would choose these particular means.

Here's a few counterpoints on the Future Xander thing --

If *anyone* from the future were to come back in time to undo the Slayer "race" and end magic, why would they choose the time and place Twilight did? Why not stop the spell? Why not just stop Buffy from preventing Toru's plan?


See above. FDX may need Toru's plan to happen and be stopped by Buffy for his own ends.



Xander is the guy who saved the world by talking; why wouldn't he just come back in time and talk it out with Buffy, who has ever considered him a confidant?

Because Buffy as pointed out, will ignore him, his advice and usually be rewarded for it as demonstrated both with "He has a soul now" and "I wish I could see your point Buffy but its a bit to the left".




Why wouldn't Xander try to put things right for himself in general? He could have saved Anya, saved Renee, done any number of things. Saved his eye. Hell, in his full power as Twilight he could have pounded Caleb into the damn ground and held a good deal of the charging Turok-han himself, giving Spike enough time to go active and making the spell itself unnecessary.


Obviously because he wants a specific outcome to occur. The end of all Magick may not even be his 'real' goal, just his stated one.



And so on -- why would Joss introduce all these new and weirder unanswered questions in the *reveal* of the central unanswered question of the season?

The point about mixed motives is all well and good, but *this specific* emotion can not be credibly placed in that mix based on anything that was ever told or shown in the series about Xander.

And again, Joss is not a very good writer. Warren and Batsu are prime examples of that. Joss even ignored the relative strengths of the Turok-han enough so ANDREW could fight and presumably kill them.

Joss writes for the most pain he can, Xander fits that description more then anyone else. Presently Wesley as the big reveal would engender a big "meh" from people because nobody cares about him.

The only other thing is the notion of FDW's involvement. Mastermind? Eh, no. Willow's profoundly intelligent but has no common sense, nor does she have wisdom as her drabbles in dark magick continue to show. Xander's the opposite, he isn't the smartest person there is but he is more quick-witted and able to improvise then she is. Remember, he's the one that plans and cordinates the group's patrols until Buffy returns in S3. He's also the one that likely trained the other HS students in how to fight as a unit in Graduation Day.

Bubblecat
10-04-09, 11:58 PM
Giles killed Ben, he didn't let him go.

Yep - okay I went temporarily mad! Carry on everyone.

Maggie
11-04-09, 12:06 AM
The only other thing is the notion of FDW's involvement. Mastermind? Eh, no. Willow's profoundly intelligent but has no common sense, nor does she have wisdom as her drabbles in dark magick continue to show. Xander's the opposite, he isn't the smartest person there is but he is more quick-witted and able to improvise then she is. Remember, he's the one that plans and cordinates the group's patrols until Buffy returns in S3. He's also the one that likely trained the other HS students in how to fight as a unit in Graduation Day.

FDW seemed to be masterminding quite a bit in ToYL, manipulating people hither and yon with great skill. Though I suppose you could say that FDX is behind FDW. I'd be surprised, though, if Joss decided that the girl with the super-get-into-any-college brain who was clearly the leader of the Scoobies in the summer of S6 needed the boy who barely graduated from high school to do the big picture thinking stuff for her. But you never know.

vampmogs
11-04-09, 01:44 AM
FDW seemed to be masterminding quite a bit in ToYL, manipulating people hither and yon with great skill. Though I suppose you could say that FDX is behind FDW. I'd be surprised, though, if Joss decided that the girl with the super-get-into-any-college brain who was clearly the leader of the Scoobies in the summer of S6 needed the boy who barely graduated from high school to do the big picture thinking stuff for her. But you never know.

Well Xander is the guy who "sees everything" so perhaps his perspective wouldn't be so bad? He's doing a pretty fine job running Slayer Inc. as well. Not everyone is great at academia, some people don’t test well ect. But they can be very resourceful and smart when they apply their skills to something else. He wasn't passionate about school but he seems very passionate about running the slayer organisation. And when he puts his mind to it (like carpeting) he becomes quite successful.

Not that I think it's Future Xander mind you- I'm just sayin'

Zeppo224
11-04-09, 02:30 AM
I don't believe thats who it is neccessarily, but if it was it would have some serious impact... for Xander at least. Buffy wouldn't be too bothered by it, altough I suppose it might wig here out to see that someone she trusts that much could turn on her. For Xander though I think it would be devastating. He feels things very strongly, even though he's usually good at hiding his emotions. We all saw how he reacted to the fake visions showed to him in Helle's Belles. I think seeing a vision of himself as the big bad would be a hundred times worse.

Again, not saying I buy into the whole Xander as twighlight idea, past, present or future, but it could have some good impact for the character if it did turn out to be true.

Maybe Twilight isn't the big bad afterall, perhaps he's just the red herring to keep our attention diverted. I mean the troika was supposedly the big bad in season 6 but instead it turned out to be Willow. Maybe they are doing the same thing here?

Charles
11-04-09, 02:56 AM
FDW seemed to be masterminding quite a bit in ToYL, manipulating people hither and yon with great skill. Though I suppose you could say that FDX is behind FDW. I'd be surprised, though, if Joss decided that the girl with the super-get-into-any-college brain who was clearly the leader of the Scoobies in the summer of S6 needed the boy who barely graduated from high school to do the big picture thinking stuff for her. But you never know.

Not really. If anything that appearance reinforced the notion that it was meant to be Dru (who is a much more capable manipulator) that was shoe-horned to being FDW because JW wanted to create more of an emotional impact on the story.

And Super girl with the big brain was arguing quite passionately on the side of murderous native American spirit killing people as opposed to not good enough for college who summarily agreed that murderous demons or ghost are always a bad thing.

Again, a fine demonstration of common sense > intelligence.

Willow was never a leader and she's not capable of getting anyone to follow her unless some severe character mangling (see S6) happens. Xander is, that's why he rose to being in charge fairly quickly at the construction company as well.

Charles
11-04-09, 03:00 AM
I don't believe thats who it is neccessarily, but if it was it would have some serious impact... for Xander at least. Buffy wouldn't be too bothered by it, altough I suppose it might wig here out to see that someone she trusts that much could turn on her. For Xander though I think it would be devastating. He feels things very strongly, even though he's usually good at hiding his emotions. We all saw how he reacted to the fake visions showed to him in Helle's Belles. I think seeing a vision of himself as the big bad would be a hundred times worse.

Again, not saying I buy into the whole Xander as twighlight idea, past, present or future, but it could have some good impact for the character if it did turn out to be true.

Maybe Twilight isn't the big bad afterall, perhaps he's just the red herring to keep our attention diverted. I mean the troika was supposedly the big bad in season 6 but instead it turned out to be Willow. Maybe they are doing the same thing here?

That's one of the things I've been pointing out is the comparison and parallels to S6. That Xander will do his version of Dark and Vein-y, Kill Twilight and become the 'prince' (as King says) that needs to be saved. If that means killing an evil and twisted version of himself from the future, Xander would do it in a heartbeat.

vampmogs
11-04-09, 03:07 AM
Willow was never a leader and she's not capable of getting anyone to follow her unless some severe character mangling (see S6) happens.

Huh? Season six wasn't the first time Willow took the leadership role in the group. She did so in 'Earshot' in season three, and she did it again in 'The Dark Ages' in season two. Since when is it “character mangling” to put Willow in the position of leader, when the Scooby’s had automatically turned to her on two other occasions as well? In fact she also took on the leadership role in 'Weight of the World' as well. So that's three episodes from three different seasons, off the top of my head, where she's taken up that role.

KingofCretins
11-04-09, 04:21 AM
Willow's best times in terms of leadership, pragmatism, common sense were points of Season 3 and late in Season 5/early in Season 6. Also, so far, early in Season 8. But, yeah, she was a gibbering moron in "Pangs".

I honestly still can't think of a sillier way for this to unfold than "Evil Xander from the Future", so it's hard to engage that as though it's a serious suggestion. Honestly, Evil Super-Powered Hank/Parker/Pike/frickin' Owen is more believable to me.

I was thinking about the things present Xander, if he were Twilight (ignoring that we'd have to have him in two places at the same time *three times*), is that he would have done a lot, a *lot* of evil crap. Forget sending Buffy into at least two different traps, nearly snapping Satsu in half, and killing a bunch of Slayers in a missile strike. If Xander were Twilight, it's almost impossible not to hold him responsible for what happened to Renee. Consider -- if Toru's plan was Twilight-backed, he'd have been hip to the trap, and therefore would have walked her right into it. Even if it wasn't Twilight-backed... he's frickin' Twilight, I have a feeling he'd have been hip enough to the idea of a trap going in, and more than powerful enough to save her from it. So you'd have the pure sadism of sacrificing Renee just to make himself look more invested in Buffy's cause. That sound *anything* like Xander? To *anybody*?

Maggie
11-04-09, 04:47 AM
Not really. If anything that appearance reinforced the notion that it was meant to be Dru (who is a much more capable manipulator) that was shoe-horned to being FDW because JW wanted to create more of an emotional impact on the story.

And Super girl with the big brain was arguing quite passionately on the side of murderous native American spirit killing people as opposed to not good enough for college who summarily agreed that murderous demons or ghost are always a bad thing.

Again, a fine demonstration of common sense > intelligence.

Willow was never a leader and she's not capable of getting anyone to follow her unless some severe character mangling (see S6) happens. Xander is, that's why he rose to being in charge fairly quickly at the construction company as well.

1. So you're saying that in ToYL the apparent manipulation was done so we'd think it was bat-shit crazy Drusilla, but it wasn't *really* manipulation because that sort of smarts is beyond Willow's capacity. So if it was only apparent manipulation, how come everyone got manipulated? And if it was real manipulation, how could incompetent Willow have pulled it off?

2. Common sense is what it takes to figure out time travel, get portals opened in the right place and all the rest of it? Cool. We should stop paying people with Ph.D.s for our science and engineering and replace them with construction workers who have common sense. Oh, and we should write #10 out of canon also, because Joss screwed up and showed Willow being the sort of Geek who knows how all that works. It should have been Xander there with Buffy explaining about time-space warpage or whatever it was she was talking about in #10.

3. General theory: if characters don't act how *you* think they should act, it's the writers who don't understand the characters, and the offending material doesn't count.

I guess you'll have to color me unpersuaded.

Zeppo224
11-04-09, 05:03 AM
I honestly still can't think of a sillier way for this to unfold than "Evil Xander from the Future", so it's hard to engage that as though it's a serious suggestion. Honestly, Evil Super-Powered Hank/Parker/Pike/frickin' Owen is more believable to me.*?


King, do you really think that an evil Xander from the future would be the silliest thing they've ever done on the show? I'm not saying it would be a good way to go, or even make that much sense. But IMO, it would hardly be the first, or even greatest example of them jumping the shark or just doing something that was flat out stupid.

KingofCretins
11-04-09, 05:15 AM
No, and I'm sorry, I'm not trying to just disrespect the contribution -- I just personally see it as something well outside the *sort* of silliness Joss has done on his shows. Joss has very carefully avoided time travel because it brings with it a whole new set of phlebotonous rules. The only brushes with time travel Joss has given were A) "Get It Done" and B) "Time of Your Life". In both cases, while he could, theoretically, have had a lot "happen" in different times, but he didn't, and confined the use of the device to gain information for Buffy. I really don't think he wants to take it farther than that.

It's silly in a much more "Heroes", "Doctor Who" (both shows I like) way, and not in a "Buffy" way.

Zeppo224
11-04-09, 05:25 AM
No, and I'm sorry, I'm not trying to just disrespect the contribution -- I just personally see it as something well outside the *sort* of silliness Joss has done on his shows. Joss has very carefully avoided time travel because it brings with it a whole new set of phlebotonous rules. The only brushes with time travel Joss has given were A) "Get It Done" and B) "Time of Your Life". In both cases, while he could, theoretically, have had a lot "happen" in different times, but he didn't, and confined the use of the device to gain information for Buffy. I really don't think he wants to take it farther than that.

It's silly in a much more "Heroes", "Doctor Who" (both shows I like) way, and not in a "Buffy" way.


I have to admit though, I've always wanted to see them explore Xander's darkside and this last in the series I'm not sure I would want them toi do anything too extreme, such as Xander working for twilight or going temporarily bad or anything like that

As much of a cop-out as future-xander would be, it would allow the exploration of dark-xander without there being any long term consequences.

That said, I honestly don't think Xander in any form is twlight or works for him or anything like that.

KingofCretins
11-04-09, 05:39 AM
If they wanted to explore Xander's darkside they could always, well, let him just... be a badass. He was on his way to becoming something of a badass back in Season 2 and even into Season 3. I'm okay with him just... being back to that. A while back we thought Renee's death would kickstart a darker turn for him -- maybe not a Season 4 Wes thing, but some darker thing. Hasn't come up yet. But, what the hell? I already said what I want for his arc -- let him mix it up and kick Riley's ass (seriously, I hope that Joss and the other writers wouldn't overlook Xander and Riley's friendship, especially since Riley seems to think that HE is the big trusted guy for Buffy now). And, if there's time and his hand isn't hurt too badly, let him finish his solo and kiss Buffy like she's never been kissed before ;)

Zeppo224
11-04-09, 06:13 AM
If they wanted to explore Xander's darkside they could always, well, let him just... be a badass. He was on his way to becoming something of a badass back in Season 2 and even into Season 3. I'm okay with him just... being back to that. A while back we thought Renee's death would kickstart a darker turn for him -- maybe not a Season 4 Wes thing, but some darker thing. Hasn't come up yet. But, what the hell? I already said what I want for his arc -- let him mix it up and kick Riley's ass (seriously, I hope that Joss and the other writers wouldn't overlook Xander and Riley's friendship, especially since Riley seems to think that HE is the big trusted guy for Buffy now). And, if there's time and his hand isn't hurt too badly, let him finish his solo and kiss Buffy like she's never been kissed before ;)


I have this theory that the writers have a serious aversion to letting Xander be badass, like it will somehow change who he is and he won't be the comfortador or anything anymore. I mean it seems to me that losing ones eye would make a person take a turn for the darker, but that didn't happen. Anya's death should have broken something inside of him to make him more dark and yet again a no go. Heck, I think Buffy's death at the end of season 5 should have set something off in the guy. Whether you believe he still loves her like that or not, which for the record I don't, she's clearly someone he's always cared for very deeply and seeing her dead should have had more of an impact on him.

I also have this theory that the writers won't allow any male character on BTVS be badass or even particularly capaable as a fighter unless they are a vampire or are taking super-steropids or something. Wesley was a complete ponce before he went ovet to Angel and then he winds up being able to take vampires on no sweat. Gunn was a certified badass demon-hunter when he first showed up Heck, Angel and even Spike seemed to me to be much better fighters when they were no Longer in Sunnydale. Maybe its a hellmouth thing


For the record, I am a total B/X fan, one of the last remaining ones it seems. That said I do think Xander has come to terms with Buffy's feelings for him and is no longer pining after her. I do think he'll always have that love for her though and given the right circumstances I can see it coming back.

Thomas
11-04-09, 06:31 AM
"Wait, aren't you one of the good guys? I'm confused..."

That's what I'm expecting Buffy's reaction to be if Wesley is Twilight. It'd have almost zero emotional impact on Buffy. And that's why I don't think it's him. If anyone, it'd affect Faith the most (not counting the characters on "Angel.") And we couldn't have that, could we?

The only characters from "Angel," on the top of my head, that would have an emotional impact on Buffy would be Angel, Spike, or Connor. Connor because I'd imagine Angel's own son being behind the mask would hurt her on many different levels. Could you imagine the conversation? "Um, Angel? Your son is currently my biggest enemy, how do you feel about that?"

I honestly don't know who it could be that'd make any sense. Xander? Angel? Spike? Giles? Riley? Connor? Hank? Pike? Those are the only men that I can think of that could have the potential to crush Buffy.

How sure are we that it's someone we already know? Nothing makes any sense.

Skippcomet
11-04-09, 06:47 AM
At this point, it might as well be the other Xander from "The Replacement" who didn't get re-combined but has been watching from afar.

KingofCretins
11-04-09, 07:07 AM
I still don't see the need for Twilight's identity to have a huge emotional impact specific to Buffy. It just needs to hit the audience.

What's my proof? How many threads have you ever seen that talked about how "unfairly" one character treated another? Example -- how everybody treated Buffy, or how Xander treats Angel or Spike, or Anya treats Buffy. Universal feature of all these arguments is the presumption, mostly unspoken, that the "offending" character should act in accordance to what you, the audience, understand about the "victim" character. It's completely irrelevant that Anya has very little personal reason to like Buffy or Xander has little personal reason to trust Angel or Spike -- the standard Anya or Xander is held to is that the audience likes Buffy and trusts Angel or Spike.

That's exactly what will happen with Twilight's reveal -- it'll be immaterial if Buffy, personally, would think that Wesley constitutes a huge personal betrayal. As long as the audience does, people will project it onto her.

If one is convinced because of Buffy crying over her betrayal... well, that could just as easily be Riley's doing, or the combination of Riley and whoever Twilight is turning on her, that creates that impact. It's just bad reasoning to figure that Twilight, alone, has to cause that kind of impact on her.

Skippcomet, flaw with your "The Replacement" idea -- where is "geeky" Xander? All we'd have are "smooth" and "smoother" or "bad" and "superbad".

Koos
11-04-09, 07:55 AM
Twilight doesn't have to 'for-see' anything. That's the entire point of him being from the future, he already SAW nearly everything. Past-tense.

All he had to do to turn the public against the Slayers was make sure Harmony got her reality show and then got attacked, thus getting the ball rolling.

Twilight doesn't have to try and steer the avalanche, he just has to start it.


I don't think Twilight was involved in making sure Harmony got her own show. Not at all. It just happened and he took advantage of it.

Maggie
11-04-09, 05:47 PM
I still don't see the need for Twilight's identity to have a huge emotional impact specific to Buffy. It just needs to hit the audience.

(a) Wesley isn't going to hit the audience either. Not least of which is because it has zero dramatic impact on Buffy. But also, he's dead so who cares what happens to him next? Lots of people like Wesley, but not so many are invested in him. And his whole story has really been over on Angel, not Buffy -- so again, minimal impact for *anyone*.

(b) It would raise the huge question of why all the bother with the mask. Buffy couldn't care less if it's Wesley or random evil guy. She's *that* indifferent to Wesley. The mask implies that the identity matters *in* the story. It would make a difference to the *chacters* if they knew who it was. To make Twilight be Wesley would be to say that the mask was never for the people in the show -- it was just for the audience. No way.

A Wesley reveal pays off nothing. If Joss has done all this build-up to do nothing but create a drama-free puzzle for the audience... well, ... it's really hard to imagine Joss doing all this build-up to do nothing but create a drama-free puzzle for the audience. So I'll spare myself the labor now of trying to figure out how the guy who's delivered BtVS, AtS, Firefly, and last night's episode of DH could have so badly miscalculated the dramatic effect of the central element of season8.

Zathraas
11-04-09, 06:03 PM
I don't think Twilight was involved in making sure Harmony got her own show. Not at all. It just happened and he took advantage of it.

Possibly. But why introduce a wacky coincidence, when 'on purpose' serves the story so much better?

I think it's going to be revealed that Twilight was behind everything. Harmony, Toru and his gang, Vampy Cats, Everything that's happened has been about attacking the slayers in some way. I doubt that's a coincidence.

KingofCretins
11-04-09, 06:08 PM
I think it's a vast overstatement to declare Buffy completely indifferent to Wesley as you imply. Yes, it's a stretch as a huge emotional impact, but I don't really get the basis for this absolute indifference -- you're making him sound like her confronting the Trio in "Gone", which he most certainly is not and would not be. And as for no emotional impact for the audience... yeah, right. Beloved character = emotional impact, period. Your entire (a) ignores the demonstrated facts I provided -- emotional impact to the character does not dictate emotional impact to the audience. Quite the opposite has been repeatedly shown to be true. (Anticipated) emotional impact to the audience leads the writing toward emotional impact for the character, and projection takes care of the rest. It's wouldn't be irrelevant to the audience because it's "irrelevant" to Buffy; it would be relevant to Buffy because it's relevant to the audience. Far from anything that could be called "drama-free", seeing beloved character A brought into conflict with beloved character B is, by definition, drama-rich.

By contrast, take Hank -- Buffy's father, huge emotional impact on Buffy. Audience could not give less of a damn about Hank, though. Indeed, we've been coached and retconned into not liking him anyway. Theoretically, this should be your prototype of the right kind of pick for Twilight, because, again -- huge emotional impact on Buffy.

But where is the enthusiasm for this? Nowhere. The audience doesn't give a hoot about Hank, and Buffy's emotional investment isn't creating an excitement for that character or that plot development. Whereas taking a beloved character -- even one in whom Buffy is not that emotionally invested, like Wes -- would be a sure-fire, take-over-the-internet 500+ post thread discussion fodder. Which is a better measure of what Joss is going to want to do? It's not Buffy's emotional investment in Angel, or Spike, or Xander, or Giles that make them the most polarizing picks... it's ours. That's why Wesley also fits, at least better than Hank would.

Zathraas, Koos -- there is at least some indication from the solicitation for the "Predators and Prey" TPB that Twilight is, in fact, behind what happened with Harmony. To what extent isn't mentioned though. We also know that Twilight will have some major development in 8.25, which will probably be what explains his involvement, if nothing else.

Maggie
11-04-09, 09:14 PM
I think it's a vast overstatement to declare Buffy completely indifferent to Wesley as you imply.

I really don't think I'm overselling her indifference. She never took him seriously. Did she have any kind of interaction with him when she went to LA after Faith? Any emotional anything going on there? Not that I could see.


And as for no emotional impact for the audience... yeah, right. Beloved character = emotional impact, period.

He is already dead. So he gets used as a tool by W&H or whatever? Doesn't matter. He's dead. If they bring him back how much more can we be troubled by what happens to him. We have already mourned him. Twice, even. There's no more blood to be squeezed from that turnip. And as for moral slippage? Wesley was already hanging by a thread. It was hard to see how we wasn't going to go over the edge one way or another. So we learn that upon being restored from permanently dead AGAIN he's gone over the edge. Somehow I'm not seeing that as a shock that will resonate for ages.


[Aside: One of my many grievances with AtF is that it failed to attend to just how fragile Wesley's thread was at the end.... so that somehow he could bounce back with no issues that affected the story in any serious way.]


Your entire (a) ignores the demonstrated facts I provided -- emotional impact to the character does not dictate emotional impact to the audience. Quite the opposite has been repeatedly shown to be true.

I didn't see that any of your examples had any relevance. Pretty much cause I can't see there being any kind of big fan reaction to this. See above.


(Anticipated) emotional impact to the audience leads the writing toward emotional impact for the character, and projection takes care of the rest. It's wouldn't be irrelevant to the audience because it's "irrelevant" to Buffy; it would be relevant to Buffy because it's relevant to the audience. Far from anything that could be called "drama-free", seeing beloved character A brought into conflict with beloved character B is, by definition, drama-rich.

You're waving your hands here. How would this story be emotionally impacting to you? Spell it out. It would break your heart to see Wesley betray Buffy? Except, how can you betray a virtual stranger? It would break your heart to see Wesley be a bad guy? How? You've already seen him do dark things for good reasons. This would be more of the same. Or if he's doing dark things for bad reasons, you say well -- he was dead. Now they brought him back to tell us that he really did snap under the pressure of all the bad things that happened to him. I don't see the impact. I already knew that things were uber-bleak for Wesley when he died.

The truth is I think the real reason you want Wesley and not any of the four whe get bandied about is precisely because you DON'T think Wesley would have any emotional impact. It wouldn't upset anyone. Not the way any one of the four would.


By contrast, take Hank -- Buffy's father, huge emotional impact on Buffy. Audience could not give less of a damn about Hank, though. Indeed, we've been coached and retconned into not liking him anyway. Theoretically, this should be your prototype of the right kind of pick for Twilight, because, again -- huge emotional impact on Buffy.

I agree with you that the Twilight has to impact both the audience and Buffy. It therefore can't be Hank (or rather, I don't see that working). But I'd see Wesley as pretty darned close to Hank. In fact, Hank might impact the audience more. Cause while I don't care about Hank, I do care about Buffy, and it obviously would upset her. If it's Wesley, well -- Buffy doesn't care. Nobody else in the story has been affected by it (with the exception of Faith -- which as someone above said is all the more reason to think it can't be Wesley). And I've already seen Wesley get pushed into existential no man's land and given an apparently permanent send-off twice.

Skippcomet
11-04-09, 10:23 PM
Skippcomet, flaw with your "The Replacement" idea -- where is "geeky" Xander? All we'd have are "smooth" and "smoother" or "bad" and "superbad".

Well, I actually wasn't being serious with it so...*shrugs*. It's just that I was spitballing a suggestion for how Xander could be Twilight AND RightHandMan Xander at the same time without resorting to FutureEvilXander. Besides, the subtext of "The Replacement" sometimes seems to be "Oh, Xander's confident, capable, side? That's the side the Scoobies don't apparently think is the 'real' Xander because those are the qualities certain segments of the audience absolutely hated about him. Or they get in the way of presenting our feminist heroines. Or something. Look, Shiny!"

Mostly, though, I was being facetious.

SlayerFest 98
11-04-09, 10:40 PM
I honestly don't know who it could be that'd make any sense. Xander? Angel? Spike? Giles? Riley? Connor? Hank? Pike? Those are the only men that I can think of that could have the potential to crush Buffy.

Not all the men. What about the first vampire that got away? If you think about it, the huge emotional impact does not necessarily have to be betrayal but suprise, shock...fear? Maybe she still remembers how the first vampire gave her big smack down during her first graveyard shift? Maybe the outfit is to shield him from the sunlight which he could only tolerate during the twilight time of the day?

We know nothing about the first vampire other than that he got away.

KingofCretins
11-04-09, 10:53 PM
I agree with you that the Twilight has to impact both the audience and Buffy. It therefore can't be Hank (or rather, I don't see that working).

Oddly enough, Hank is the only guy we actually have a reason, from Joss, to suspect -- shortly after 8.12 and all the BS that went with it, he mentioned something, completely apropros of nothing, about Buffy's relationship with her father. Remember how the mention of Riley back in 8.10 seems random and tacked on, and then he showed up?


Well, I actually wasn't being serious with it so...*shrugs*. It's just that I was spitballing a suggestion for how Xander could be Twilight AND RightHandMan Xander at the same time without resorting to FutureEvilXander. Besides, the subtext of "The Replacement" sometimes seems to be "Oh, Xander's confident, capable, side? That's the side the Scoobies don't apparently think is the 'real' Xander because those are the qualities certain segments of the audience absolutely hated about him. Or they get in the way of presenting our feminist heroines. Or something. Look, Shiny!"

Mostly, though, I was being facetious.

Well, I'd actually take some twist on the farula-gemina over future-version as a way to have two Xanders.

It's hard to know when people are being serious or not :)


Not all the men. What about the first vampire that got away? If you think about it, the huge emotional impact does not necessarily have to be betrayal but suprise, shock...fear? Maybe she still remembers how the first vampire gave her big smack down during her first graveyard shift? Maybe the outfit is to shield him from the sunlight which he could only tolerate during the twilight time of the day?

We know nothing about the first vampire other than that he got away.

Actually, all we know is that she missed the heart on her first try. Unless you're referring to something from "The Origin" that I don't remember. If so, while that's canon, most people aren't familiar with it. Plus, apparently, many people aren't willing to buy into a vampire from someone's first night of Slaying getting away as a source of lasting trauma or self-doubt.

I'm almost tempted to go through every damned episode and find any plausible character that could be connected. Doc? Giles' creepy Shaman buddy?

NileQT87
11-04-09, 11:52 PM
Buffy absolutely did stake Robert Berman (her first vampire). It just took her two stakings to do it. In fact, the staking of Robert Berman is right in Becoming, pt. 1. "You see. You see your power now." Robert Berman had a dusty ending in Becoming, pt. 1, Joss' script, The Origin and the film. There is no discrepancy there.

Wesley is much beloved. But the mistake being made here is that Wesley's 'hanging on by a thread' was not him being a borderline bad guy. In fact, quite the opposite. Even under W&H's threats and control, Wesley was still trying to help Angel and was getting reprimanded for it. As a ghost, he was more sad than anything. He actually seemed to be less volatile than he had been, say, right after Fred died.

Wesley is without a doubt, IMO, NOT a candidate. Angel is more of a candidate and I'm saying this with him being my favorite character in the 'verse. I'm not blind that a lot of the facts add up to him (the only viable candidate we know saw Caleb's death). In fact, Angel and Giles are probably my prime suspects with maybe Hank as the third. Giles is more likely to work with Riley than Angel is, though--and I can't see Angel popularizing vampires to get rid of the world of magic. We also have massive amounts of missing time for Giles, even in the last two years of the show. The set-up is there for him, too.

Wesley is a no-show on my list and it has nothing to do with him being dead or still under the control of W&H.

I agree with the idea that this person must have a personal impact on both Buffy and the audience. Angel and Giles fit that. Hank has a personal impact on Buffy and perhaps not as much on the audience, but it still would be a personal betrayal. Angel and Giles would be the worst.

And I'm sorry, but I don't think Xander is remotely a candidate. He's as blinded by the Slayer organization as Buffy is (including having no problem with her morals).

Giles has clearly not been trusting Buffy's decision-making, ability to fix her own mistakes (like Dana and Gigi) and has been off doing his own thing for a while now. Which is another reason I think that Andrew came from Giles in Damage (which was stated). It would also explain the phone call for Fred. Giles is acting for Buffy without her knowledge and has been since the series.

Actually, I would say he's the prime candidate.

Nina
12-04-09, 12:02 AM
Why would Angel want to end the time of magic? It will kill Connor, which means for me that Angel is quite a no-go for me. Maybe if Connor stayed dead in ATF, but even than it was a huge stretch.

But yes, that my whole problem with this Twilight being a known character, I can't picture any living (good) character doing what Twilight does, while wearing a real mask.

Charles
12-04-09, 01:44 AM
1. So you're saying that in ToYL the apparent manipulation was done so we'd think it was bat-shit crazy Drusilla, but it wasn't *really* manipulation because that sort of smarts is beyond Willow's capacity. So if it was only apparent manipulation, how come everyone got manipulated? And if it was real manipulation, how could incompetent Willow have pulled it off?

Its Joss. Willow's his favorite character. See also Deus Axe Machina, he'll make the story fit his ideals.



2. Common sense is what it takes to figure out time travel, get portals opened in the right place and all the rest of it? Cool. We should stop paying people with Ph.D.s for our science and engineering and replace them with construction workers who have common sense. Oh, and we should write #10 out of canon also, because Joss screwed up and showed Willow being the sort of Geek who knows how all that works. It should have been Xander there with Buffy explaining about time-space warpage or whatever it was she was talking about in #10.

Common sense guy was able to rally and create a decent fighting force from his fellow graduates in high school and rose from new guy on the construction crew to fairly important person within the company.

High IQ girls didn't finish college and neither can hold a steady job.

Now which set of people do you think is more productive and more important to society as a whole?





3. General theory: if characters don't act how *you* think they should act, it's the writers who don't understand the characters, and the offending material doesn't count.

I guess you'll have to color me unpersuaded.

General Theory: Joss isn't a very good writer. He makes his plots and stories work to fit whatever his idea is as opposed to trying let them go where they need to. Evidence: 2 of 3 series canned on his watch for which he blames other people and the string of box office flops he's penned.

Final point: There is still an unexplained time gap between the time Xander disappears and the time Buffy goes to reclaim him in TotV. In theory something could have happened in that period of time (ie Xander is cloned or his memories and other things are taken from him and used to create Twilight).

SlayerFest 98
12-04-09, 02:17 AM
NinaWhy would Angel want to end the time of magic? It will kill Connor, which means for me that Angel is quite a no-go for me. Maybe if Connor stayed dead in ATF, but even than it was a huge stretch.

The fact that Twilight pulled up his mask because it was "itchy" rules out that he could be a vampire since they don't feel pain or itching sensations.

However, if the writers ignore that detail, and it is a vampire, then its definately Angel and he could of went back to the sewers and put on that "Gem of Amara" to be invincible.

Skippcomet
12-04-09, 02:35 AM
NinaWhy would Angel want to end the time of magic? It will kill Connor, which means for me that Angel is quite a no-go for me. Maybe if Connor stayed dead in ATF, but even than it was a huge stretch.

The fact that Twilight pulled up his mask because it was "itchy" rules out that he could be a vampire since they don't feel pain or itching sensations.

However, if the writers ignore that detail, and it is a vampire, then its definately Angel and he could of went back to the sewers and put on that "Gem of Amara" to be invincible.


Except that Angel destroyed the Gem of Amara at the end of In the Dark.

Quick question: where is this "vampires don't feel pain or itching sensations" thing coming from?

NileQT87
12-04-09, 02:59 AM
Vampires feel pain ("Hurts like hell, but...", bullets feel like a "bee sting" and the vampires acting like babies when getting bullets pulled out of them--particularly by Lorne) and itching (the Judge's burning trick according to Angelus "kind of itches"). Then there was a burning sensation with the demon filled with 'Tabasco' that caused Angel to rush off to his shower. ;) Burning by sunlight, fire and holy water has obviously been shown to be very painful (and there are numerous examples of it).

Vampires absolutely feel those sensations.

The only ones that are arguably not as severe are feelings of severe hot and cold. Or they feel it, but it doesn't cause them harm.

KingofCretins
12-04-09, 02:59 AM
General Theory: Joss isn't a very good writer. He makes his plots and stories work to fit whatever his idea is as opposed to trying let them go where they need to. Evidence: 2 of 3 series canned on his watch for which he blames other people and the string of box office flops he's penned.

As opposed to how many of your series that are still on the air?

Even if the Gem of Amara hadn't been destroyed, it's irrelevant -- Twilight is covered head to toe, and if the Buffyverse can have necro-effin'-tempered glass, surely there's a fabric that can duplicate the effect. And, we haven't actually seen Twilight about in full daylight, just at dawn in 8.11.

Zeppo224
12-04-09, 03:14 AM
As opposed to how many of your series that are still on the air?

Even if the Gem of Amara hadn't been destroyed, it's irrelevant -- Twilight is covered head to toe, and if the Buffyverse can have necro-effin'-tempered glass, surely there's a fabric that can duplicate the effect. And, we haven't actually seen Twilight about in full daylight, just at dawn in 8.11.


Are you saying that only successful writers are allowed to critique other writers?

KingofCretins
12-04-09, 04:08 AM
By no means. But when the criticism becomes pure ad hominem, when it is gratuitous, when the critic appears to draw no enjoyment from the entire work of a writer other than the criticism itself, and when the criticism is so sharply focused on cancelled shows or poor box office, it becomes worth asking exactly what qualifies the critic to be so harsh.

Thomas
12-04-09, 04:45 AM
The fact that Twilight pulled up his mask because it was "itchy" rules out that he could be a vampire since they don't feel pain or itching sensations. Even so, at the risk of sounding like Charles, it's Joss Whedon we're talking about. That could have meant absolutely nothing and was just him messing with us. Something he overlooked and will just be like, "Opps, I forgot about that" when the big reveal happens.

KingofCretins
12-04-09, 04:47 AM
Well, I'm with Skipp on this -- where is the text on vampires not feeling pain or itching sensations? I can think of literally countless times when vampires quite obviously felt pain. Off-hand, Spike post beatdowns in Season 5, 6, and 7 (wow, he got beat to hell three years in a row), Darla and Dru after Angel set them on fire (Dru even says it hurts, I think), Angel after Bethany Chaulk TK'd a rebar through him.

Itching sensations? I have no text that leaps to mind, but surely there must be some reference to itchy clothing or something.

NileQT87
12-04-09, 05:59 AM
It's not in the text. It's easily-dispelled fanon.

As can also be seen in the numerous examples I just gave of itching (the Judge), pain (bullets feeling like bee stings/"hurts like hell", Drusilla saying her burns hurt) and various kinds of burning sensations that are felt (both of the specifically vampire-harming and washable Tabasco-like skin-inflammatory varieties).

As I went back to add: the only thing that doesn't affect vampires quite as much is feelings of intense hot and cold. However, it's not clear if it's just not felt (like the way vampires can't taste human food other than feeling the texture of it), or it's felt, but not harmful or affecting in any way. I assume the latter, as it would match the other sensations other than the dulled/altered taste buds. Though, going by the burning Tabasco comment about a variety of demon blood, I'd imagine that while something very spicy would not be tasted (the flavor of it), the spicy, burning feeling would register.

Zeppo224
12-04-09, 06:29 AM
By no means. But when the criticism becomes pure ad hominem, when it is gratuitous, when the critic appears to draw no enjoyment from the entire work of a writer other than the criticism itself, and when the criticism is so sharply focused on cancelled shows or poor box office, it becomes worth asking exactly what qualifies the critic to be so harsh.


Point.

I don't hate everything Joss has done, I mean he did create the characters I love, even if most of them didn't stay that way. I'm more frustrated with him and the wasted potential of the characters and show.

Hoping season 8 goes a long way to correcting that.

Vampire in Rug
12-04-09, 07:49 AM
Nile, I think it's worth noting that Spike's bar snack of choice is spicy chicken wings. So I think you are correct in that spicy food would register more with vampires than non-spicy food.

Vampires absolutly do feel pain and there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't itch. In fact, as Nile has pointed out, the Judge's touch caused Angelus to experience a slight itch.


Now as for the identity of Twilight, my main guess is Hank. Second place for me is some duplicate of Xander, possibly a time-traveler or a vampire doppleganger. I don't think it will be Wesley, but I think the theory is one of the more credible ones.

I guess the biggest problem for me is that Wesley is dead. As Maggie has pointed out, we've mourned him twice. I'd be a happy man if we never saw another resurection in the Buffyverse again. It's gotten to the point where it's laughable. Doyle, Tara and Anya are the only characters not to re-appear in some form. Even Joyce shows up all the time in hallucinations, dream-sequences and as the First Evil.

Also, Buffy and Angel have always been pretty independant of each other. Whenever something was relevant to a crossover, the necessary info from the other show gets told as briefly as possible and only the stuff that's absolutly relevant to the situation at hand. When Angel showed up in Sunnydale in "Pangs", Giles references a vision that Angel's friend had. We don't have the explanation that Angel's friend is named Doyle and that he's half Brachen demon and he get's headache inducing visions from the PTB. We don't get told that stuff because it's irrelevent to the story. Same with the crossover between "Darla" and "Fool for Love". In "FfL", all the stuff to do with Angel having a soul during the Boxer Rebellion is unimportant. All Buffy (and the audience) needs to know is how Spike killed his two Slayers and the kind of reaction/respect that inspired in other people.

If Twilight were to be revealed as Wesley, it would mark the first time where the audience absolutly has to know what's going on in the other title in order to understand the story. The last we saw of Wesley was in season three where he was kind of a wuss. Having him gradually turn into a badass, then get involved with Wolfram and Hart and all the losses he's experienced in between would require a ton of explanation. It would mark the first time where something majorly important, requires knowlege of stuff that never happened in BTVS. And all that Wesley info is relevent before he's even become Twilight and donned the boots and mask.

vampmogs
12-04-09, 08:10 AM
Regarding Wesley,

I think some people have seriously underestimated his popularity in the fandom. I've seen comments saying he was well liked but not loved. I'd definitely disagree there. I mean really, is there anyone here who would go “hmmm, don’t really care” if Twilight took off his mask and Wes was revealed to be the culprit? He’s always been a fan favourite as far as I’m concerned. He’d get a reaction.

Though I agree with Vampire in the Rug about it being problematic due to requiring so much information about Ats. Most fans watch both shows anyway but some probably don’t. And it’s unfair to expect them to if they just want to watch Btvs. ‘Sanctuary’ and ‘Five By Five’ did kind of do that over on Ats though. If you had never watched Btvs and had no intentions to, it was expecting a hell of a lot for you to understand who the hell Faith was, or why Buffy was so pissed at her. So it’s not unheard of.

Just something I wanted to bring up about what Nina said about Angel/Connor. I don't think if magic ended Connor would have to die. Vampires clearly survived it as they're in 'Fray' and Connor's far more unique than those human/demon hybrids. I think as long as he's got humanity in him, which he does, he'd be fine. Same for Buffy and Willow (who'd I'd argue is counted as a supernatural being now.)

.... in regards to the vampire's feeling pain thing.. of course they do. We don't even need to quote any text to tell us that. Just look at the actors when they're doing a fight scene. Both DB and JM show pain on their faces when they get hit. That should be a big hint straight away. And then just look at the more obvious scenes. Buffy kicking Angelus in the balls as for example? He quite clearly felt a hell of a lot of pain. He wasn't moaning, and on his hands and knees because it tickled...

Nina
12-04-09, 09:25 AM
I always thought that the vampires returned after a while (somehow), and that this is why there was called a new slayer. I did never read Fray, so I could be wrong. But if all the demons and magic are gone, it feels weird that vampires can party on.

Connor is a hybrid, always been. It's not something that is activated or something. He always had extra powers, and he is seen as a demon by Lorne's spell. I'm not sure if he is human enough to survive it. And I doubt that Angel would take the risk.

vampmogs
12-04-09, 09:31 AM
I could be wrong also. It's been a while since I've read 'Fray' but the impression I got was that they'd been around for quite sometime. The populace has a name for them afterall, "lurks" so that should suggest they've been around at least a little while.

Though perhaps it explains itself in the story and I've just forgot?

Vampire in Rug
12-04-09, 09:44 AM
It's never made clear in "Fray" exactly what the deal with vampires is. Urrkon says that there was an apocalypse that banished all magics and all supernatural creatures. Thus there was no need for a Slayer for several hundred years.

The radiation from the sun is causing people to mutate and evolve so we get weirdos like Loo and Gunther. I don't think Gunther is supposed to be a demon, just some mutant. And when you think about it, we've already got mutants in the Buffyverse. We've seen Gwen and Bethany and I'm sure there might be others that I've missed.

Anyway, I'm guessing that at some point vampires came back to this dimension, thus creating a need for the Slayer. Because if vampires were there all along surely there would always need to be a Slayer?

There was one line of dialogue that always jumped out at me when I was reading Fray. I don't have the book in front of me, but Urrkon's superiors say that the portal (presumably a portal to our dimension) has been breached twice. I take this to mean that it was breached the first time by vampires returning to Earth from other dimesntions, and breached the second time when they sent Urrkon to train Melaka.


However Time of Your Life creates a problem when we've got even more supernatural creatures thrown into the mix. We've got Willow and the green slimy demon that trades places with Buffy.

Nina
12-04-09, 09:46 AM
I don't know, but it doesn't really matter because as far as we know (although, why aren't there new slayers when there are vampires also the name Lurks makes it sound like it are not the original vampires. Can you see Angel or Spike call himself a Lurk?) ... Twilight probably doesn't want that to happen. He wants everything gone, it must be another spell/plan. It also doesn't make sense if Angel wants vampires to live on ("I want to kill them all") but that he kills the slayers, Groo, Illyria, Connor (?) and Lorne.


edit:
So there is a big chance that also the vampires were gone? Than I really doubt that it is Angel ... Connor (his son), Spike (his kind of brother) and Lorne (one of his best friends) would be killed.

Koos
12-04-09, 01:15 PM
Possibly. But why introduce a wacky coincidence, when 'on purpose' serves the story so much better?

I disagree. Taking advantage of a situation is just as brilliant. Maybe even better than having planned everything. It shows flexibility. It's like the Joker Batman The Dark Knight. A mastermind in planning and 'go with the flow'.


I think it's going to be revealed that Twilight was behind everything. Harmony, Toru and his gang, Vampy Cats, Everything that's happened has been about attacking the slayers in some way. I doubt that's a coincidence.
Twilight was clearly behind the Vampy Cats. I call that taking advantage of what Harmony had accomplished.

About five years ago (at the end of S7) have written a fanfiction, mostly Faith-centric. It was season 3 based. It ended at the end of S3. I wanted to continue this by the following plot. (Never really got the time and inspiration to actually write it). I wanted to have EndofS7Xander going back in time as a vampire. (He became a vampire in a world where Buffy didn't win from the First. Instead of losing his eye he was vamped by an Ubervamp). Inspired by the First, knowing everything about Buffy and her friends he could do than a lot of damage. Of course because of his powers, his strength, nobody would suspect that he's Xander. (He was masked too :)) My vision on this was not to use Xander's knowledge of *his* past, but to use his knowledge on his opponents characters. On their thinking. On how the world thinks.

In my view Twilight acts the same. He's not about the details. He knows that Buffy would do a lot of damage all by herself. Twilight doesn't need to have the knowledge of what is going to happen. He just needs to know the players in the field. This includes also how people would react to the Slayers. And the beautiful irony is that it even works better than he thought.

And the reason why I think this is the case is in the fact that he let Buffy live. He wants to show Buffy what *she* did. Not what *he* did.

Problem with this whole theory is that Twilight doesn't necessarily need to be from the future. He doesn't need to know what is going to happen. However for him to be Xander, the only way it would work was from him to be from the future. Simply, because he need to have the motivation (having lived through a bad future) and it needs to be worked out (to be on different places at the same time, for example).

Rowan Hawthorn
13-04-09, 12:56 AM
I don't know, but it doesn't really matter because as far as we know (although, why aren't there new slayers when there are vampires also the name Lurks makes it sound like it are not the original vampires. Can you see Angel or Spike call himself a Lurk?)

By Melaka Fray's time, people had forgotten about vampires and demons. They were assuming that the "Lurks" were just another type of mutation. I doubt that the vampires were ever truly gone, just seriously reduced in number and stayed out of sight until they began surfacing again after humanity had forgotten them.

KingofCretins
13-04-09, 01:05 AM
Lurks are vampires, same demon, same weaknesses, same everything. All "lurk" is is a linguistic change, just like Manhattan becomes "Haddyn". Fray-speak is what results from all verbs turning into nouns, and "lurk" is a perfect example. I actually think it would make perfect sense to Angel and Spike. Consider Angel's answer when Buffy asked how he knew stuff about career week --

"I lurk".

oneslikeme
14-04-09, 06:39 PM
isn't oz suppose to come back? do we have any theories on twilight being oz? he may never have played anyone against each other, but he's a smart cookie, i think he could do it. the werewolf has destroyed his life so there's a plausible reason for him to want magic gone.

i hope this isn't the case though. oz was perhaps my favorite character.

Charles
14-04-09, 11:21 PM
As opposed to how many of your series that are still on the air?


My series? I'm neither nor am I a Hollywood blueblood that can directly trace their 'big break' back to who they know and were friends with (Gail Berman) as opposed to their actual talent.

As far as series I like... I remain a big fan of the Power Rangers series which lasted 17 years in the US (or more in Japan) and despite it being a glorified toy commercial some respects, still managed to create numerous interesting and memorable characters and stories. Now the people involved with it will never receive half or quarter of the praise showered on Joss for what they created but I think they surpassed him in terms of impact and cultural change. But again it being called a kids show or a toy ad or whatever are still going to be held against it.

My point being, and the reason I consistently and constantly criticize Joss is in direct response to the immense and over-the-top praise he gets for what I view as being substandard work that is aided and abetted by various people with the entertainment industry who agree with him. Witness the introduction the Paley reunion where the MC announced "This is TV heaven."

That sort of thing bothers me, especially when you look at Whedon objectively and realize that he hasn't done very much in terms of writing and what he has done has largely bombed because the general population and viewers at large don't like it. I mean I tried really hard to like Titan AE and in the end I just couldn't. Fireflop was so boring, Fox had to show the episodes out of order to try to generate some interest in it (and failed, which is probably why Gail got fired, that and cancelling Dark Angel as a favor to Joss, which in hindsight was an amazingly stupid move).

Buffy the Vampire Slayer was the one time Joss hit the jackpot in terms of writing, working a partner he respected (Greenwalt), casting, premise, all of that. And ever since then he's failed over and over again. Yet no one calls him on it, no one points that out, and no one really tries to give anyone else the credit for Buffy to anyone else BUT Joss by and large.

Its like watching a one-hit wonder try to make a follow-up album. You know they're never going to recapture the magic and energy in that one massive hit, but you still pay attention because you're not sure just how desperate they're going to become trying to.

Rowan Hawthorn
15-04-09, 02:54 AM
As far as series I like... I remain a big fan of the Power Rangers series which lasted 17 years in the US (or more in Japan)... I think they surpassed him in terms of impact and cultural change... the general population and viewers at large don't like it...
None of which means jack squat in terms of quality in any shape, form, or fashion. Which should be obvious when you look at all the idiotic fads and reality shows that take the world by storm. The old maxim that no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public holds true for the rest of the world. Sometimes even more so...


My point being, and the reason I consistently and constantly criticize Joss is in direct response to the immense and over-the-top praise he gets for what I view as being substandard work that is aided and abetted by various people with the entertainment industry who agree with him.
In other words, it just gets your goat that other people actually like his work and you can't make them see your enlightened point of view. You know, man, your grapes get sourer...er with every post. If I were you, I'd get over it - one's personal view of anyone's work as "substandard" doesn't really carry any weight for anyone else in the best of times, and as it is, you just sound invidious.

vampmogs
15-04-09, 06:22 AM
Charles, you’re just factually wrong about so many things you just stated that I don’t even know where to begin.

Gail Berman and Joss Whedon were not “buddies” and had never even met each other before. After the Buffy Movie Joss had put Buffy behind him and planned to move on. He’d never intended to revisit that character or even do television. He planned to do movies instead. Berman approached him after she saw an opportunity to develop the concept into a television series, not the other way around. They had never met prior to that.

The things you’ve said about Gail Berman are nasty and untrue. Saying Firefly is probably the "reason Gail got fired” is such a ridiculous, uninformed comment. It’s quite embarrassing. Buffy wasn’t a one hit wonder for the woman, she was also behind other hits such as Roswell and Malcolm in the Middle. She helped develop American Idol, The OC, Arrested Development and The Simple Life, all which premiered in 2003. Arrested Development garnered huge critical praise, as did The OC which became another cultural phenomenon. And no one can deny the ratings powerhouse that is American Idol. Berman didn’t even leave the Fox network until 2005, well after Firefly had been and gone. So to suggest she got fired for Firefly flopping is so nonsensical. If you’re going to make comments and suggestions about someone, do your homework first.

Whedon’s Buffy and Angel had reportedly made over one billion dollars for Fox. Buffy in particular has became a pop culture phenomenon, and the character has become an icon. That’s no small feat. Whedon continues to have success with the franchise with Buffy Season Eight being Darkhorse’s best selling comic. It’s regularly the only non- Marvel or DC comic to feature in the top ten best selling comics of the month and is featured on the New York Times Best Seller’s list. It also recently won a Spike TV Scream award for ‘Best Screen to Comic Adaptation.’ And the Paley Fest Reunion sold out with record-breaking speed.

Firefly bombed on television but then went on to do remarkably well in DVD sales. It debuted at number #2 on Amazon, which is incredible for a 13 episode series that hardly anyone had even seen. It’s amazing sales and word of mouth prompted the networks to green light the movie, which is a pretty great accomplishment for a television show that was axed after just a few short weeks on television. Now the series has an extremely loyal fan base, the cast appears at numerous panel events, has continuing great DVD sales for both Firefly and Serenity, and has had a DVD documentary released on the success of Firefly and its fans. Not to mention getting critical praise and constantly being on lists for TV series that should be brought back. You finding it boring means diddly squat in regards to it's success.

Dr Horrible again broke records. The Itunes sales alone, helped Joss gain back all of the $200,000 it costed to create the fifteen minute production. Both Itunes and Hulu’s servers *crashed* because the demand was so high. It was Itunes #1 seller and remained that way for five weeks, and after 3 weeks of its release on Amazon it became the third best selling movie making it more popular than both The Dark Knight and Wall-E. The internet servers were getting over 200,000 hits an hour to watch the series online. Dr Horrible went on to win a People’s Choice Award and Time Magazine called it the 4th best television show of 2008, *when it didn’t even air on television.* It’s went on to be released on DVD, has had a boat load of merchandise, and has been credited as proof that free web-based distribution is the future for television. Even masterminds like J.J Abrams responsible for award winning success's such as Alias, Lost Cloverfield and Fringe have publicly praised Whedon for the production and it's groundbreaking achievements in pointing the way for the future. It was a ground-breaking production, that had both critical and financial success.

The man even co-wrote the screenplay for Toy Story which did amazingly well for Disney Pixar, and he was the script doctor for Twister. He’s also got his own film coming out, Cabin in the Woods which he co-wrote with Drew Goddard. He's also guest-directed on 'The Office' and can be found on the season three DVD features about his episode. He's also ambassador for 'Equality Now' and only just this month received the 'Outstanding Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism.' His shows are studied in University lectures across the world. He’s done *very* well for himself.

So to say that Joss Whedon hasn’t had any other success since Buffy is so completely wrong. Your dislike for the man and his work is based largely on very incorrect information. He has managed to create and sustain a huge loyal cult fan base which is a testament to his success. Whilst also making a name for himself in the industry which is well-earned.

Your defence that “not everyone likes his work” means very little. So what? A lot of the public watch ‘Big Brother’ and ‘American Idol’ does that mean they’re therefore better shows? I mean honestly. And I’m sorry but the fact that you’re saying Power Rangers is better kind of makes me laugh.

Joss isn’t incapable of making mistakes and people don’t have to worship the ground he walks on. I don’t often agree with some of his decisions or his opinions on the show but that doesn’t mean he’s not a talented man. You seem bitter and jealous of his achievements and punish yourself by continuing to support the man you claim doesn’t deserve support in the first place. That is what you’re doing by the way..... you’re participating on forums and in threads based on Whedon’s work, you’re helping to keep his fan base and his following alight. If you wanted the Joss-craze to burn out the best thing you could do is quit helping it go on. Your hatred for the man colours all your views, even ends up with you slandering other people like Gail Berman who have links with Whedon. You're just so very bitter...

KingofCretins
15-04-09, 08:05 AM
I have thought about how to answer this without just being openly mean-spirited. The best I can do is point out that Power Rangers was some of the worst production quality and worst writing in the history of Saturday Morning TV even to the 10 or 12 year olds watching it when it hit the screen in America. For boys of a certain age, it was "live action Voltron, except it sucks".

Now, I'm sure that surviving more than a decade in the cutthroat, high rating market of saturday morning TV is quite an accomplishment, but I'm pretty sure that there's not a single objective measure (ratings?) or consensus measure (critical acclaim) that exists by which any rational person could say that "Power Rangers" is better than "Firefly" or "Dollhouse".

Charles
15-04-09, 10:37 AM
None of which means jack squat in terms of quality in any shape, form, or fashion. Which should be obvious when you look at all the idiotic fads and reality shows that take the world by storm. The old maxim that no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public holds true for the rest of the world. Sometimes even more so...


No I think the maxim is you never what people want until they get it. Then everyone rushes to copy it.



In other words, it just gets your goat that other people actually like his work and you can't make them see your enlightened point of view. You know, man, your grapes get sourer...er with every post. If I were you, I'd get over it - one's personal view of anyone's work as "substandard" doesn't really carry any weight for anyone else in the best of times, and as it is, you just sound invidious.

Uh no. I would say its the other way around. People who are fans of Whedon are so determined and bent on supporting him that they view any and all criticism in the worst possible light that they go after the critic. I don't consider myself enlightened in the slightest bit, but then again I don't pay attention to things like the Oscars which I view as being worthless.

Vamp, Berman and Joss were friends and associates for a very long time. She was EP on BtVS for a period and axed DA, while greenlighting Fireflop only after Joss agreed to re-tool it and it still bombed. Firefly itself, despite its impressive sales numbers, has generated 0% interest in a revival. Now in a day and age where Hollywood is busy remaking and re-imagining every old proven property available, one would think that a supposedly 'strong' property like Firefly would be high on the list.

Since it isn't, and no one seems to care about it outside of the hardcore dedicated fans, I would guess it isn't.

King, considering it has to balance toy/sponsor concerns as well as editing around footage shot in another country and deal with the more restrictive formats of children's format vs what Dollhouse faces, I'd say it's written better and consistently delivers a stronger product then what Whedon's churned out. Watch some episodes of it or the Japanese shows from which its derived and decide for yourselves.

vampmogs
15-04-09, 10:48 AM
Charles, your flogging a dead horse.

I’ve given you hard cold facts, from a range of sources, all proving Whedon has been successful since Buffy. You can claim he hasn’t been until the cows come home but I really couldn’t care a less. I’m going to trust facts over your desire to think the worst of him. The numbers clearly disagree with you.

Firefly did generate interest in a revival, and it got it.. in the form of Serenity. So I don't know what world you live in....

I’ll tell ya right now, coming onto a *Buffy forum* only to criticise Joss Whedon as being a talent-less, unsuccessful hack, isn’t going to do you many favours. And I’ll doubt you’ll find many people who’d agree with you. Basically everyone here likes something that he’s done, which is why they’re here. I'm not sure why you're here, but that's probably why the rest of us are. You’re not going to convince people so you might as well quit trying. And I doubt many people are going to believe Power Rangers is better than any of Joss’ work, sorry. Somehow lines like "Jungle Beast, Spirit Unleash!" don't quite live up to, "Giles I'm sixteen years old, I don't want to die." For someone who apparently thinks Joss sucks at everything he does, he's clearly got you interested enough to come on forums about his work and talk about it.

Rowan Hawthorn
15-04-09, 12:43 PM
No I think the maxim is you never what people want until they get it. Then everyone rushes to copy it.
And again - if I read that incomplete sentence correctly - that relates to quality in no fashion whatsoever.


Uh no. I would say its the other way around. People who are fans of Whedon are so determined and bent on supporting him that they view any and all criticism in the worst possible light that they go after the critic. I don't consider myself enlightened in the slightest bit, but then again I don't pay attention to things like the Oscars which I view as being worthless.
Since Joss has been resolutely ignored by the Oscars other than a single (shared) nomination for Toy Story, I'd tend to view them that way myself. If, y'know, I viewed them at all...

Even Joss Whedon's biggest fans feel free to criticize areas of his work that they feel deserve it - if you think not, then you aren't paying attention, which, given the level of venom you direct toward Joss personally, doesn't really surprise me any.


when you look at Whedon objectivelyIronic, that. You might try it sometime. But, here, I think, is the whole thing in a nutshell:


My point being, and the reason I consistently and constantly criticize Joss is in direct response to the immense and over-the-top praise he gets for what I view as being substandard work that is aided and abetted by various people with the entertainment industry who agree with him.
In other words, posting with no intent to add anything substantial to any discussion, just to irritate other posters. You know what they call that, right?

Josh
15-04-09, 01:48 PM
My point being, and the reason I consistently and constantly criticize Joss is in direct response to the immense and over-the-top praise he gets for what I view as being substandard work that is aided and abetted by various people with the entertainment industry who agree with him.

Oh, alright... And this comes from the guy who claims that the Power rangers, no less, are better than dollhouse or firefly... Isn't that over praising?

I do not think Joss is over praised. He gets the amount of praises he deserves. Just cause things got canceled, doesn't mean they are not good. I mean, look at Reality shows. Are they good? probably not... But they are a major success. Aren't they?

The thing is, I don't really know what's your problem. Joss is not over praised. Look how he was over and over ignored at the Emmy's.

Nina
15-04-09, 02:16 PM
I don't agree with Charles' standpoint, but I can see why he thinks that Joss is over praised. Of course there are enough fans that do have problems with Joss' work and are critical. But there are also enough places where Joss is god. He can't do no wrong and nobody is more perfect. He made mistakes, his shows (at least the ones that survived the first season) are not even close to being a tightly planned and written show; too many bad episodes, plotholes, OOC moments, fanservices etc. So there is enough reason to be critical, no matter the amazing episodes and the great and creative ideas. He deserves credit, but some fans go too far in their praise.

That said, I enjoy his shows a lot (well BtVS and Ats) and I see him as one of the better writers at the moment.

Rowan Hawthorn
15-04-09, 03:54 PM
his shows (at least the ones that survived the first season)

While we're at it, though, let's also mention that something like 90% of all TV shows fail to make it past their first season, according to Variety. So the premise that Joss is somehow a TV "flop" is disingenuous at best, seeing that even if Dollhouse doesn't make it, that still puts him beating the average, at 50% of his shows going beyond Season One. Damn, there are those pesky facts rearing their ugly heads again... :twak:

tiger_fan
15-04-09, 07:07 PM
There's a line between criticizing and hate posts for the sake of hating. Charles, I'm sorry but you're not winning any debates with your constant whining. I tend to skip over your posts because I know it will be the same old song and dance. You hate Joss, You think he's a hack, You think he's a failure, etc.

I do agree that some fans over praise Whedon. There have been times where Whedonesque is a little gag-worthy over how they fall to his feet, but its to be expected considering its his main site that he posts at. You get that at every official website. And as much as it can get old, you do the exact same thing with your constant ranting. As much as they're blinded by their love for him, you're blinded by your rage and hate. And most times than not, those two opinions fall to the way side because of the extremity of them.

I don't see anyone here overly praising him. People here have always been objective about the work of Buffy, Angle, and the rest of Joss' work. They give praise when praise is due in their eyes and they criticize things when they see things they don't like or enjoy as much. If not, clearly there wouldn't be nearly as many debates on Joss work. And if anything is true, I think we can all agree we know how to debate. lol

But to debate you need a little sense of objectivity.

oneslikeme
15-04-09, 07:33 PM
yes, as much as i love a good debate, perhaps we should take this issue to its own thread? or perhaps drop it all together? joss is not perfect, no one is. and sure he's open to criticism, every artist is. but i don't really see the relevance to this topic, and its become very dull to listen to (or read, as the case may be).

so to pose the question i asked earlier, that got very lost, lol: are there any theories about oz being twilight? i have not seen this so far, but i hadn't been checking the twilight threads until now.

if we use the criteria that King of Cretins set forth, which i agree was a wonderful list, then oz could definately qualify.


-Someone who has the knowledge and ability to obtain superpowers, probably through magical props of some kind.
-Someone with some level of personal connection to Buffy upon which the reveal would be shocking.
-Someone who could realistically have the personal insights into Giles, Faith, and Buffy that Twilight has had.
-Someone who could believably have a motive to want to rid the world of demons, Slayers, magic, the whole shooting match.
-Someone who has a proven and believable record of being able to play multiple parties against each other.
-Someone who isn't committed to the story elsewhere (as in, they're alive but not in a story, or dead but can be brought back without being completely unbelievable.
-Someone who could, if revealed as Twilight, justify a guest appearance by Angel and/or Spike for a reason other than to try to get together with Buffy.

not sure about a guest appearance of angel or spike, but otherwise the only thing of that list that oz doesn't qualify for is pitting people against each other. and i'm sure he could do that if motivated, he was a smart guy. and for me, being a werewolf could give someone motivation enough to want to rid the world of magic.

i'm aware that oz is on the cover of the next issue. i hope this is because oz is fighting alongside buffy, but who knows what it could mean.

for the record, oz is a favorite character of mine, perhaps my favorite even over spike. i would hate to see him be twilight. i don't really think this is in his character at all, but i think he is as likely a candidate as anyone at this point.

thoughts?

Rowan Hawthorn
15-04-09, 08:20 PM
One of the major things against it being Oz is his height. Twilight looks to be quite a bit taller than Buffy, instead of just a couple inches at most like Oz.

KingofCretins
15-04-09, 08:57 PM
I should say, for me, the *first* qualifications for a suspect are the physical and obvious.

Twilight is male. Twilight is about a full head taller than Buffy.

Just like describing the guy who snatched a purse or something. He was a tall caucasian male, officer. That's what drives me nuts about the "maybe Twilight is a woman" theories because he so very obviously is not -- there's so much we have that we don't know about Twilight to speculate about, we shouldn't overlook what we *do* know. And Oz is at best the same height as Buffy. Twilight is significantly taller.

Rowan Hawthorn
15-04-09, 09:46 PM
Just like describing the guy who snatched a purse or something. He was a tall caucasian male, officer. That's what drives me nuts about the "maybe Twilight is a woman" theories because he so very obviously is not

Kinda reminds me of a suspect description in the original "Angel and the Ape" comic: "He was tall and thin in a short, fat way and had a clean-shaven mustache!" :roll:

One of the things that strikes me about Twilight is his speech patterns. Sometimes they're very formal and pompous, and at others, they're very casually slang-y.

tiger_fan
15-04-09, 10:10 PM
Watch Twilight be a future kid of Buffy's and the second half of the series we can play "who's the daddy" game. Wouldn't that be fun? Just imagine the ships wars then. :lol:

Nina
15-04-09, 10:20 PM
Which wars? the Biley fans versus the Bander fans? :lol: Angel and Spike can't have kids. (They can raise Connor, or -you know- Connor can raise them ... )

KingofCretins
15-04-09, 10:36 PM
Well, that was what was going to be funny if that (false) rumor about a Buffy-as-a-mom movie were true. The arguments over who would have a kid with Buffy would drive Buffy/Angel and Buffy/Spike fans crazy.

Of course, Buffy and Connor could have a kid. Heh.

Rowan Hawthorn
15-04-09, 11:10 PM
Well, that was what was going to be funny if that (false) rumor about a Buffy-as-a-mom movie were true. The arguments over who would have a kid with Buffy would drive Buffy/Angel and Buffy/Spike fans crazy.

Of course, Buffy and Connor could have a kid. Heh.

Or to make it worse for a section of the fans, Buffy and Satsu could hook up for real and adopt... :lol:

Or Buffy and Willow -- :rotflmao:

Oddly enough, that same crowd would probably be okay with Buffy and Faith... :confused3:

vampmogs
16-04-09, 02:48 AM
From memory I actually saw a number of people get into the idea of Buffy/Willow being a possibility after Willow's attitude in 'Wolves At The Gate.' I thought that was one of the more "daring" things they've done this season, a lot more than having Buffy end up in bed with Satsu. It took a lot of people by surprise to hear Willow fancied Buffy at all. Many declared it couldn’t possibly be true. I found it quite funny really, if Xander’s allowed to notice both Buffy and Willow on the hotometer why can’t Willow?

I agree the only thing ruling Oz out about Twilight is his height.. but he could be wearing lifts? :roll: Seriously I'm not gonna rule him out just yet. It could be oddly suspicious he comes back into the fold.

KingofCretins
16-04-09, 03:04 AM
There's always the Buffy/Willow/Xander OT3 crowd, which probably would be the most believable of the options.

It was hilariously funny to have Xander admit to dreaming of group sex with Buffy, Willow, Satsu, and Renee in front of three of the four women in question, two of which were naked.

Oz in lifts doesn't work. It would take Oz in *jumping stilts* to be the same height as Twilight. For me, the physical qualifications are the most non-negotiable -- there's really no logical reason to doubt them -- therefore I eliminate Oz.

Rowan Hawthorn
16-04-09, 03:29 AM
I didn't have a moment's difficulty believing that Willow would at least wonder about Buffy after she came to terms with her own sexuality. That's not to say that she'd actively have the hots for Buffy, necessarily, but I'd be more surprised if it hadn't at least crossed her mind on occasion.

ETA: Xander's admission is even funnier when you think back to "Restless" and "Dirty Girls" and notice just how many times Xander's fantasies ran to multiple women...

vampmogs
16-04-09, 04:51 AM
Yup. The Willow thing was fairly complicated anyway and looking back on it, it's definitely one of the highlights of 'Wolves At The Gate.' She's always been a fairly complex creature, it makes me think back to 'Consequences' when she's crying in the bathroom over realising Xander and Faith had slept together. It’s not like she liked Xander anymore and it seemed as if she’d “gotten him out of her system” after their affair but it still cut her deep. In ‘Wolves’ I think a part of it was about wondering what Buffy would be like, looking out for Satsu, feeling neglected that if Buffy wanted to experiment she didn’t ask her best friend, and resentment that Willow’s special thing wasn’t so special anymore.

Wolfie Gilmore
16-04-09, 09:57 AM
I don't agree with Charles' standpoint, but I can see why he thinks that Joss is over praised. Of course there are enough fans that do have problems with Joss' work and are critical.

"Joss is god" is a very annoying attitude. But I don't tend to hear it all that much around here.

The thing that's getting my goat at the moment is "the wire is the best tv show ever". When will people stop saying that? They don't do that with novels, do they? Except maybe in trashy reviews. Grow up, tv reviewers.

Oz as Twilight...doesn't work at all. Quite apart from the height issue, surely he'd be more...laconic? Otherwise he's not Oz in any meaningful sense :D

oneslikeme
16-04-09, 12:32 PM
doesn't take much to convince me on this issue. lol. the height thing is definately against him. and i agree that the whole thing would be out of his character in general. twilight is rather talky sometimes.

vampmogs
16-04-09, 02:20 PM
Oh how could I not even think of that! You're right, Twilight is way too wordy for Oz. Unless of course we're talking about the way Oz thinks, because Twilight actually sounds a lot like Oz does in 'Earshot.' :D

Come to think of it, Oz could be a really hit or miss character when translating him into the comic medium. On the one hand he works very well because he doesn't say a lot, which is good because there isn't a lot of space in a comic. However, his deadpan, straightforward lines could come off horribly robotic and unfamiliar without Seth's delivery. Unlike someone like Xander, who has very familiar speech patterns, Oz is very limited.

Fingers crossed he's recognisable.

Charles
16-04-09, 10:29 PM
In other words, posting with no intent to add anything substantial to any discussion, just to irritate other posters. You know what they call that, right?

Oh that would be providing a different opinion in a reasoned manner. That's kind of why forums like this one and others exist. To provide an outlet where different opinions can be expressed, debated or ignored as a person wishes. Now you may interpret that as Olaf, just as I may interpret the 'fair' criticism Joss receives as being anything but.

tiger_fan, I would submit that given the circumstances (meaning the advantages and disadvantages as well as other factors) that Power Rangers, Super Sentai and similarly themed programs, showcase a level of dedication, crafting and artistic care that is at worst comparable to what Joss has done. There are frequently stories of love, jealousy, suicide, murder, theft and in one case, global genocide, that PR tackled and for the most part handled as well as what Joss has done. I would humbly submit that if a person doesn't believe me, then they should investigate for themselves.

As for Twilight's identity, I tend to ignore the physical clues simply because they're most likely irrelevant to who his final identity is. Joss's words in I believe an MTV interview still ring as the most important clue and those "Where's the most pain?" I interpret that to mean he's looking for something that hasn't been done yet in BtVS and its something designed to stir up the fandom (See also Batsu). That and the very, very disjointed and questionable tone of the season harkens back to Season Six in my mind which further increases the likelihood that the stated goal of Twilight (to end all Magick) isn't going to play a factor in the final battle between Buffy and whomever the villain is.

Rowan Hawthorn
16-04-09, 11:15 PM
Oh that would be providing a different opinion in a reasoned manner.

Dude, so far as Whedon is concerned, your opinions have been presented in anything but a reasoned manner. We get it, you don't like him, it burns you no end that people actually like his work, and you have a personal grudge against him because of it. All the pretentious claims to superlative arguments and discriminating taste are just window-dressing for a whole lot of posts which boil down to nothing more than repeating "Whedon sucks!" every chance you get. Sorry.

oneslikeme
18-04-09, 05:20 PM
Oh how could I not even think of that! You're right, Twilight is way too wordy for Oz. Unless of course we're talking about the way Oz thinks, because Twilight actually sounds a lot like Oz does in 'Earshot.'
lol! i did think about that actually. but he's never made an effort to put those thoughts in to spoken words. even when oz gets highly upset over something, he showed it through action rather than words.

Josh
18-04-09, 06:51 PM
tiger_fan, I would submit that given the circumstances (meaning the advantages and disadvantages as well as other factors) that Power Rangers, Super Sentai and similarly themed programs, showcase a level of dedication, crafting and artistic care that is at worst comparable to what Joss has done. There are frequently stories of love, jealousy, suicide, murder, theft and in one case, global genocide, that PR tackled and for the most part handled as well as what Joss has done. I would humbly submit that if a person doesn't believe me, then they should investigate for themselves.


We are talking about the Power Rangers, right? I'm not confusing this argument with some other show? Are you for real? IT'S THE POWER RANGERS. the POWER RANGERS.

The story lines are stupid, childish and predictable. Know why? Cause they are meant for 5 years old!!! I mean, seriously. Do you have real, grown up perception on this world?

I think I was ten when I saw the new season of the power rangers, where the Zords were like ancient animals when I realized how stupid it got for my age. How are you not in that stage already?

You say dedication, I say repetition. heh.


Sorry if I sound offensive, but to be fair, IT IS THE POWER RANGERS. GEEZ.

Michael
18-04-09, 10:19 PM
I think Angel would cause Buffy "the most pain" if that is going to be the criterion.

Zeppo224
19-04-09, 12:54 AM
I think Angel would cause Buffy "the most pain" if that is going to be the criterion.


Would he really though? Certainly Angel was Buffy's first love and you never forget your first love, but its been many years since they were together. I don't think she feels that way about him anymore, and since they were never really friends I would say that while she would certainly be upset if it did turn out to be Angel, I don't think she would be completely devasated.

No for that I think we have to look at two possibilities. Dawn and Xander. Say what you will, and I'm not talking about in a shippery way at all here. I think as things stand now Dawn and Xander are the two most important people in her world. Xander as the one guy who never left her or turned on her and Dawn of course as her sister. It may hurt when a lover turns on you, but nothing stongs quite so badly as the betrayal of family.

Granted, I don't think it will be Xander, or Dawn, or Spike or Angel or anyone we've thouught of so far. I personally have no idea who it might turn out to be, but I have a feeling its going to take everyone by surprise.

vampmogs
19-04-09, 05:11 AM
I don't know if Angel would cause her the most pain, but he'd certainly cause her a great deal of pain. She obviously still loves him, she's smitten with him in 'After These Messages' and apparently that's what the threesome panel in 'The Long Way Home' is supposed to symbolise. You've also got Willow's comments in 'Time of Your Life' about vampires being the most important men in her life, which means she's referring to either Angel or Spike or both of them.

I don't know if it would cause her the most pain though. I think that I have to agree that either Xander or Dawn would cause her the greatest pain. I'd even think Giles would probably cause her more pain than Angel. Angel would be a very different kind of pain, but I think it would hurt Buffy beyond the telling of it if it were one of her closest friends. Just because they've been with her for so long, whereas with Angel he's been out of her circle for a while now.