|
Post by Rachael on Jun 24, 2004 7:53:17 GMT -5
Whups.. well, duh. I keep forgetting that he's a vampire.. I wasn't counting Angel in BtVS as "assimilated", so I must have a different read on the word than you do. . . .
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 24, 2004 8:20:04 GMT -5
Whups.. well, duh. I keep forgetting that he's a vampire.. No, not really a "duh". There is an argument to be made that he wasn't entirely assimilated - trusted by the Scoobies. But he was the first demon who they (Buffy) hesitated in killing because she could see the good in him. Hmm, other than Angel - maybe Anya - but she wasn't a demon when they "accepted" her. And Spike - that happened, kind of, in S7 - still Giles, not so much. And, so maybe it was Clem. Ok - still going to stand by Angel as the "first".
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jun 24, 2004 8:36:20 GMT -5
It's never been made completely clear. Public spaces, where there's an implied "come on in" (shops, for example) are open to vamps. Private residences aren't, obviously. Nor dorm rooms, but dorm halls are probably fine. As are apartment corridors. Willow's mistake in that episode was calling "come in" without asking "who is it". Jenny should have known that the school was public. . .for many reasons, not just about the sign in front. I've been angry with her for doing her research at night, in the high school, since the day she died. She should have known better. I'm betting that the nomad's tent is inviolate, but the camp itself is not. . .problem, though - you can break a window or a door and still you have to come in, which they can't. With a cardboard box or tent, it's such a flimsy structure. . .what prevents the vamp from destroying the "home" and then having free access to whoever's in it? We already knew a bit of this. . .we had a "good" demon in BtVS S3 - Whistler. So even there, not all demons were evil. But much more black and white than Angel ever was, I'll grant. Very interesting questions raised with the whole "can't enter your home" thing. Because I think I basically agree with you Rachael, I am now picturing a homeless guy surrounded by the invisible bubble of what was once his cardboard box. The box has been torn away, but the space remains, like the "force" that is blocking an open door. But if the guy stepped outside that "zone" - he's toast. I wonder if it would really work like that? Interesting. Lola
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jun 24, 2004 8:38:50 GMT -5
Doyle said "I'm just the messenger." And I thought, huh, so he's like Joan of Arc, then?
Shouldn't have been surprised at what happened to him later, then.
Lola
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Jun 24, 2004 8:39:27 GMT -5
Very interesting questions raised with the whole "can't enter your home" thing. Because I think I basically agree with you Rachael, I am now picturing a homeless guy surrounded by the invisible bubble of what was once his cardboard box. The box has been torn away, but the space remains, like the "force" that is blocking an open door. But if the guy stepped outside that "zone" - he's toast. I wonder if it would really work like that? Interesting. Lola Homeless guy by definition doesnt own the ground he is sleeping on. Box would be no more protection than his clothes. Neither of them constitute a home.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 24, 2004 8:41:47 GMT -5
Doyle said "I'm just the messenger." And I thought, huh, so he's like Joan of Arc, then? Shouldn't have been surprised at what happened to him later, then. Lola Oh, cool observation! Interesting how Angel pretty much trusted Doyle right off the bat. Must have been the accent.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jun 24, 2004 10:21:19 GMT -5
Homeless guy by definition doesnt own the ground he is sleeping on. Box would be no more protection than his clothes. Neither of them constitute a home. I guess I can see that homeless by definition means no protetction. But I don't think it would be having to own the ground - 'cuz we've seen people in apartments have the same protection, etc. So is it that it is a place dedicated just to being your home? Or is it just that you see it as your home? And does the protection reside in the, um, residence itself? Very intriguing questions. Now I am creating an imaginary scenario of an isolated house - vamps trap me inside during the night - put one of those big fumigation tents up all around it to block the sun so that I can't escape during the day. Then they tear the house down piece by piece. Would that be enough? Would they be able to tear down the house or would the protection stop them? If they could, would the protection be there like the invisible wall that holds them out of an open door or would it go poof the minute the house was all gone? We'll never really know/get the answers I know, but it's interesting to think about. Lola
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Jun 24, 2004 11:04:03 GMT -5
I guess I can see that homeless by definition means no protetction. But I don't think it would be having to own the ground - 'cuz we've seen people in apartments have the same protection, etc. So is it that it is a place dedicated just to being your home? Or is it just that you see it as your home? And does the protection reside in the, um, residence itself? Very intriguing questions. Now I am creating an imaginary scenario of an isolated house - vamps trap me inside during the night - put one of those big fumigation tents up all around it to block the sun so that I can't escape during the day. Then they tear the house down piece by piece. Would that be enough? Would they be able to tear down the house or would the protection stop them? If they could, would the protection be there like the invisible wall that holds them out of an open door or would it go poof the minute the house was all gone? We'll never really know/get the answers I know, but it's interesting to think about. Lola If they can have a fumigation tent why not let them have a wrecking ball? No mystical invite needed. But as long as it was your home it would be a castle. Or they could go the easy way and firebomb the place so you have to leave. basically the has to be invited thing isnt a protection I'd much like to rely on.
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Jun 24, 2004 11:22:22 GMT -5
From the Angel casefiles book
"Wolfram" is actually a mineral, also called wolframite, or, more commonly, tungsten.
Cut scenes- In the original script, Angel was going to taste Tina's blood after her death, but the scene was cut. The intention was to show that Angel is really on the edge, really struggling, but the production team decided that it was enough that he wasn't able to save Tina.
Pop culture- "You know I'm parched from all this yakkin', man. Let's go treat me to a Billy D." Doyle makes reference to the Billy Dee Williams (Lando Calrissian in Star Wars) commercials for Colt 45 Malt Liquor.
'Our Heroes' section, which is bits of interview David Greenwalt: "The question arises, 'Are these shows for children or not and how scary are they? And the WB gives a rating and some of the shows are for people fourteen and over and some of the shows are more for everyone."
be remarks- now that is fascinating, because in the UK the DVD collection for season one is 18 rated. Neither Buffy nor Angel ever drops below a 15 rating. The BBC shows Buffy at 6 or 7ish, heavily edited, then again unedited at around 11pm or later. Channel 4 tried showing Angel at similar times and had to edit so heavily it no longer made sense, then dumped it in a very late night slot for the rest of the season, mangling the viewing experience for most UK viewers. The fact that Angel managed to get fans anyway is a source of continuing amazement. I suspect most of them had Sky. Apparently Channel 5 is showing season 4 at just before midnight at the moment. I didnt watch it on 5 so I dont know if thats first run or not. Sky One showed them at 8 and 9 pm, mainstays of their prime time lineup, but Sky is a subscription satellite or digital channel and acts different than the main 5 terrestrial channels.
So, in the US Angel at its worst is considered suitable for 14 year olds unedited, but in the UK it is for 18 and over. Which is fascinating. What on earth makes the difference?
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 24, 2004 13:54:10 GMT -5
So, in the US Angel at its worst is considered suitable for 14 year olds unedited, but in the UK it is for 18 and over. Which is fascinating. What on earth makes the difference? I can't speak for the UK, but our local movie house chain is going to start issuing ID cards for kids under 18 that will let them be admitted to the R-rated movies if the parents agree. They've been getting calls, and the only thing the parents are worried about is if the movies have sex and nudity in them. They don't care about the language or violence. So, maybe that's the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jun 24, 2004 14:32:55 GMT -5
Another "things come full circle" moment.
City of ... has the fateful meeting between Angel and Lindsey. That great scene where Angel walks in and pushes the vamp thru the window. This time, as he passes by Lindsey and tucks the card back in his pocket, I thought to myself "well, that's the start of Lindsey's obsession".
The obsession that directly or indirectly led to brining back Spike, trying to take down Angel and the information/advice that, ultimately, brought about the final showdown with the Black Thorne.
So, another connection from first ep to last.
Lola
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 24, 2004 17:05:22 GMT -5
Another "things come full circle" moment. City of ... has the fateful meeting between Angel and Lindsey. That great scene where Angel walks in and pushes the vamp thru the window. This time, as he passes by Lindsey and tucks the card back in his pocket, I thought to myself "well, that's the start of Lindsey's obsession". The obsession that directly or indirectly led to brining back Spike, trying to take down Angel and the information/advice that, ultimately, brought about the final showdown with the Black Thorne. So, another connection from first ep to last. Lola I noticed that too - along with "Lindsey pretty". Gosh, he was so baby-faced back then. And those eyelashes!
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jun 25, 2004 5:23:32 GMT -5
I noticed that too - along with "Lindsey pretty". Gosh, he was so baby-faced back then. And those eyelashes! Oh, lordy, yes. So...just so sweet and pretty you could eat him up with a spoon. I remember saying over on the other review thread that he looked like he was wearing his first grown-up suit ever. All shiny new and trying so hard to impress. They all look so young and fresh here, don't they? And in Welcome to the Hellmouth? Man, they're like brand spankin' new innocent babes. Lola
|
|
|
Post by Cal on Jun 25, 2004 12:14:11 GMT -5
Another "things come full circle" moment. City of ... has the fateful meeting between Angel and Lindsey. That great scene where Angel walks in and pushes the vamp thru the window. This time, as he passes by Lindsey and tucks the card back in his pocket, I thought to myself "well, that's the start of Lindsey's obsession". The obsession that directly or indirectly led to brining back Spike, trying to take down Angel and the information/advice that, ultimately, brought about the final showdown with the Black Thorne. So, another connection from first ep to last. Lola I noticed that connection too, Lola. I had forgotten that Lindsey was even in the first episode, it had been that long since I watched it.
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Jul 14, 2004 16:28:34 GMT -5
I can't speak for the UK, but our local movie house chain is going to start issuing ID cards for kids under 18 that will let them be admitted to the R-rated movies if the parents agree. They've been getting calls, and the only thing the parents are worried about is if the movies have sex and nudity in them. They don't care about the language or violence. So, maybe that's the difference. Says a lot about American "values" that parents don't want their children to see nudity, but don't mind if they watch blood and gore.
|
|