|
Post by Riff on May 12, 2004 6:08:30 GMT -5
Excellent review, Nan, and I couldn’t agree more. This ep did lack the sophistication we’ve come to expect from this season in particular. That’s not to say it had no layering, but what there was came across as heavy-handed. As far as the A plot is concerned, I haven’t been that much of a Spuffy or Bangel shipper (Okay, I was during BtVS seasons 2 and 3) – to be honest, I think they’re both too good for Buffy, anyway; just my little opinion here! – but I was nevertheless appalled at how brutishly the situation was handled. To “deal” with these ongoing and deeply important relationships in this way was pathetic. I have to confess I enjoyed some of the comedy, though. Spike and Drew (“Ciao”) in 1950s Rome was priceless! And what was the idea of introducing this Immortal character? Was it the demon head or The Immortal that was the McGuffin in this ep? I mostly agree with what’s been said about his role and two-dimensionality, though what we heard about him straddling good and evil and pursuing his own will was interesting and had tons of potential. And this character, who we’ve never heard of (and presumably never will again due to the cancellation ) appears now? The final comments of Andrew (who, while I like the character, was inadequate for his function in this ep) do still leave things open for Bangel or Spuffy. Angel still seems to think that when the baking is over he’ll be there – he’s just annoyed The Immortal is getting the cookie dough. The writers have thus allowed for possibilities (just), but there is no closure, and this does look like the end. Grrr. Frankly, my patience with Joss (and, by extension, the whole ME stable) is wearing thin. His insistence on preventing any good relationship from flourishing is starting to look more like a stubborn obsession than the work of the artist we know he is. There’s a tedious predictability about it. I suppose we’ve all been sucked into the Modernist conceit of finding unhappiness and negativity in fiction to be more realistic than its opposite. We’ve been conditioned to expect and accept this, so that expecting happiness in fiction is seen, even by those who do anticipate it, as a sign of emotional immaturity and arrested development. Even something as ludicrously contrived as having two characters with a long-term interest in each other get together only for one of them to die an episode later is considered by most of us to be realistic, where the statistically very likely outcome of their having a long (probably lifelong) and fulfilling relationship would seem silly and childish. As I said, we’ve all been indoctrinated into this artistic fashion, but one would expect something more radical, brave, and unexpected from a writer of Joss’s calibre, expect something mould-breaking. And just what does Joss’s wife think of this continual “all relationships are doomed stuff”? ;D I posted what I thought of the B plot on the main board, but here it is again: Okay. I know all we saw was Illyria pretending to be Fred, but things (appearances) aren’t so simple. Illyria seems to want to be Fred in some way. Why is this? We know that her persona is not that of the god she once was. Why? We know that she’s experiencing emotions that she shouldn’t be. Why? She wants to integrate into the world? Hah! It can’t simply be Fred’s memories, because memories are no more than information. Angel’s memories don’t affect Angelus like this, do they? It can’t be the “human” shell that’s doing this, because, apart from the external shape, it is not human at all but has been totally changed. And so, by a process of elimination… The most important thing here, though, is not to see things in the context of the episode’s “they must give up their lost love” theme, except as a red herring. Instead, think about how the “Fred” scenes work thematically in the context of the whole Fred/Illyria arc. A Hole in the World and Shells were bookmarked by images of Fred with her parents. I could never really work out exactly what the function of this was, but I got a vague sense that the issue was identity, was about what Fred was becoming. Now we see ”Fred” and her parents together again. Significantly, Illyria decides to “be” Fred after her power was drained in Timebomb. I thought at the time this might help Fred begin, slowly, to emerge. You’re right, Nan, this does signify something (crudely done), but what? When will Feigenbaum turn up?!
|
|
|
Post by KMInfinity on May 12, 2004 6:17:05 GMT -5
OT Highlander
--considerable lore> cool, like that
--seminaked martial arts> also cool
--pilosophical issues and Talmudic discussion with swords> way cool
--Stargate crossover actor appeal> bonus! Any chance Peter Williams show up?
I think I'm on board. ;-) Nan & Becca~ Thanks for all the info. I love this place.
Note to mods> as a relative newbie, I always wonder stuff, like, if something goes off topic like this should it remain "in context" here or get moved/responded to in a new thread, or moved,etc?
|
|
|
Post by KMInfinity on May 12, 2004 6:20:56 GMT -5
ITA with everything you said but especially the following! You expressed exactly what I was trying to say earlier. Joss isn't being honest with the story if this is how Bangel/Spuffy ends. Frankly, my patience with Joss (and, by extension, the whole ME stable) is wearing thin. His insistence on preventing any good relationship from flourishing is starting to look more like a stubborn obsession than the work of the artist we know he is. There’s a tedious predictability about it. I suppose we’ve all been sucked into the Modernist conceit of finding unhappiness and negativity in fiction to be more realistic than its opposite. We’ve been conditioned to expect and accept this, so that expecting happiness in fiction is seen, even by those who do anticipate it, as a sign of emotional immaturity and arrested development. Even something as ludicrously contrived as having two characters with a long-term interest in each other get together only for one of them to die an episode later is considered by most of us to be realistic, where the statistically very likely outcome of their having a long (probably lifelong) and fulfilling relationship would seem silly and childish. As I said, we’ve all been indoctrinated into this artistic fashion, but one would expect something more radical, brave, and unexpected from a writer of Joss’s calibre, expect some mould-breaking.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on May 12, 2004 8:36:36 GMT -5
OT Highlander --considerable lore> cool, like that --seminaked martial arts> also cool --pilosophical issues and Talmudic discussion with swords> way cool --Stargate crossover actor appeal> bonus! Any chance Peter Williams show up? I think I'm on board. ;-) Nan & Becca~ Thanks for all the info. I love this place. Note to mods> as a relative newbie, I always wonder stuff, like, if something goes off topic like this should it remain "in context" here or get moved/responded to in a new thread, or moved,etc? Moving something for being "off topic" is a very rare occurence in S'cubiedom. I suppose if it got wildly out of hand, and people were complaining, Vlad & The Technopagans would attempt to address the issue in their usual low-key, polite, and efficient way. If people have a well-defined, non-Jossverse topic they realize that they want to discuss in-depth, sometimes they start their own thread, like the Baseball one. I think we've had ones about Harry Potter, and . . . well, I can't remember. But we've had several. But mostly, do not worry about posting the occasional off topic post, and IM Vlad or one of the technopagans if you have a question about site protocol (check the FAQ also at . Also - KMInfinity - I always enjoy your posts, join us as often as you like! And thanks for taking the time to ask about this kind of thing.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on May 12, 2004 12:23:17 GMT -5
Frankly, my patience with Joss (and, by extension, the whole ME stable) is wearing thin. His insistence on preventing any good relationship from flourishing is starting to look more like a stubborn obsession than the work of the artist we know he is. There’s a tedious predictability about it. I suppose we’ve all been sucked into the Modernist conceit of finding unhappiness and negativity in fiction to be more realistic than its opposite. We’ve been conditioned to expect and accept this, so that expecting happiness in fiction is seen, even by those who do anticipate it, as a sign of emotional immaturity and arrested development. Even something as ludicrously contrived as having two characters with a long-term interest in each other get together only for one of them to die an episode later is considered by most of us to be realistic, where the statistically very likely outcome of their having a long (probably lifelong) and fulfilling relationship would seem silly and childish. As I said, we’ve all been indoctrinated into this artistic fashion, but one would expect something more radical, brave, and unexpected from a writer of Joss’s calibre, expect something mould-breaking. And just what does Joss’s wife think of this continual “all relationships are doomed stuff”? ;D I agree completely, Riff - I said something similar (although not nearly so eloquent and with much more raging in anger) the night Fred died. Because I'd said it, months before, when she started noticing Wes again. "Well, now one of them will have to die horribly." I was joking. I didn't think Joss would be that predictable. I was wrong, and I am angry, because it feels like manipulation - Joss knows that "the way to move people is to hurt Fred (or Willow)". So he goes for the easy way? Not what I've come to expect from him. Except, apparently, it is, in the realm of relationships.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on May 12, 2004 13:32:00 GMT -5
<snip> Frankly, my patience with Joss (and, by extension, the whole ME stable) is wearing thin. His insistence on preventing any good relationship from flourishing is starting to look more like a stubborn obsession than the work of the artist we know he is. There’s a tedious predictability about it. I suppose we’ve all been sucked into the Modernist conceit of finding unhappiness and negativity in fiction to be more realistic than its opposite. We’ve been conditioned to expect and accept this, so that expecting happiness in fiction is seen, even by those who do anticipate it, as a sign of emotional immaturity and arrested development. Even something as ludicrously contrived as having two characters with a long-term interest in each other get together only for one of them to die an episode later is considered by most of us to be realistic, where the statistically very likely outcome of their having a long (probably lifelong) and fulfilling relationship would seem silly and childish. As I said, we’ve all been indoctrinated into this artistic fashion, but one would expect something more radical, brave, and unexpected from a writer of Joss’s calibre, expect something mould-breaking. <snip> Have I asked you to marry me lately? Nah, it's been at least a week...
|
|
|
Post by Riff on May 12, 2004 16:49:34 GMT -5
Have I asked you to marry me lately? Nah, it's been at least a week... All I know is, it isn't often enough.
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on May 12, 2004 18:05:48 GMT -5
Excellent review, Nan, and I couldn’t agree more. This ep did lack the sophistication we’ve come to expect from this season in particular. That’s not to say it had no layering, but what there was came across as heavy-handed. As far as the A plot is concerned, I haven’t been that much of a Spuffy or Bangel shipper (Okay, I was during BtVS seasons 2 and 3) – to be honest, I think they’re both too good for Buffy, anyway; just my little opinion here! – but I was nevertheless appalled at how brutishly the situation was handled. To “deal” with these ongoing and deeply important relationships in this way was pathetic. I have to confess I enjoyed some of the comedy, though. Spike and Drew (“Ciao”) in 1950s Rome was priceless! And what was the idea of introducing this Immortal character? Was it the demon head or The Immortal that was the McGuffin in this ep? I mostly agree with what’s been said about his role and two-dimensionality, though what we heard about him straddling good and evil and pursuing his own will was interesting and had tons of potential. And this character, who we’ve never heard of (and presumably never will again due to the cancellation ) appears now? The final comments of Andrew (who, while I like the character, was inadequate for his function in this ep) do still leave things open for Bangel or Spuffy. Angel still seems to think that when the baking is over he’ll be there – he’s just annoyed The Immortal is getting the cookie dough. The writers have thus allowed for possibilities (just), but there is no closure, and this does look like the end. Grrr. Frankly, my patience with Joss (and, by extension, the whole ME stable) is wearing thin. His insistence on preventing any good relationship from flourishing is starting to look more like a stubborn obsession than the work of the artist we know he is. There’s a tedious predictability about it. I suppose we’ve all been sucked into the Modernist conceit of finding unhappiness and negativity in fiction to be more realistic than its opposite. We’ve been conditioned to expect and accept this, so that expecting happiness in fiction is seen, even by those who do anticipate it, as a sign of emotional immaturity and arrested development. Even something as ludicrously contrived as having two characters with a long-term interest in each other get together only for one of them to die an episode later is considered by most of us to be realistic, where the statistically very likely outcome of their having a long (probably lifelong) and fulfilling relationship would seem silly and childish. As I said, we’ve all been indoctrinated into this artistic fashion, but one would expect something more radical, brave, and unexpected from a writer of Joss’s calibre, expect something mould-breaking. And just what does Joss’s wife think of this continual “all relationships are doomed stuff”? ;D I posted what I thought of the B plot on the main board, but here it is again: Okay. I know all we saw was Illyria pretending to be Fred, but things (appearances) aren’t so simple. Illyria seems to want to be Fred in some way. Why is this? We know that her persona is not that of the god she once was. Why? We know that she’s experiencing emotions that she shouldn’t be. Why? She wants to integrate into the world? Hah! It can’t simply be Fred’s memories, because memories are no more than information. Angel’s memories don’t affect Angelus like this, do they? It can’t be the “human” shell that’s doing this, because, apart from the external shape, it is not human at all but has been totally changed. And so, by a process of elimination… The most important thing here, though, is not to see things in the context of the episode’s “they must give up their lost love” theme, except as a red herring. Instead, think about how the “Fred” scenes work thematically in the context of the whole Fred/Illyria arc. A Hole in the World and Shells were bookmarked by images of Fred with her parents. I could never really work out exactly what the function of this was, but I got a vague sense that the issue was identity, was about what Fred was becoming. Now we see ”Fred” and her parents together again. Significantly, Illyria decides to “be” Fred after her power was drained in Timebomb. I thought at the time this might help Fred begin, slowly, to emerge. You’re right, Nan, this does signify something (crudely done), but what? When will Feigenbaum turn up?! Hi, Riff. We're agreed on the thrust (pardon the word) of the B plot. It may very well mean something--but we haven't yet been given the data to even guess *what.* Strong feelings churning there, no doubt. We'll see if something comes of it in the episodes remaining, and then perhaps we'll be able to understand better what happened in this one, in terms of the B plot.
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on May 12, 2004 18:09:11 GMT -5
OT Highlander --considerable lore> cool, like that --seminaked martial arts> also cool --pilosophical issues and Talmudic discussion with swords> way cool --Stargate crossover actor appeal> bonus! Any chance Peter Williams show up? I think I'm on board. ;-) Nan & Becca~ Thanks for all the info. I love this place. Note to mods> as a relative newbie, I always wonder stuff, like, if something goes off topic like this should it remain "in context" here or get moved/responded to in a new thread, or moved,etc? KMI, I'm the moderator on this topic, and as long as it's not illegal, immortal, or fattening, I leave it alone. Your Highlander questions are apropos, and conceivably others puzzling about this ep, with its "Immortal," are doing likewise. I don't cull posts for being off topic, as long as there's a valid connection to the ep and review being discussed, and in this case, there certainly is. Only if a post was actively hateful or damaging would I cut it out arbitrarily; and if it were by a S'cubie, I'd request they delete it themselves rather than me cutting it out without their knowledge or consent. Just to clarify policy here. When in doubt, I leave things alone. "It if ain't broke, don't fix it," is a saying I tend to live by, when it comes to other people's words.
|
|
|
Post by bikisdad on May 13, 2004 1:35:25 GMT -5
Nan,
I love your Angel reviews and look forward to them every week. You always have the most clever, insightful reviews available anywhere - until this week. This one time, I'd have to say I'd rather go with Abigail's take on TGIQ. I think she hit the ball out of the park, and the bases were loaded.
Also, everybody seems to be confused/put off by the appelation "The Immortal". Folks, that is just an inside joke refering to a character by the same name from Ben Edlund's series, "The Tick". In that series, "The Immortal" was a similarly revered character - loved (and bedded) by women and envied by men. I got that joke right away, but I had just finished watching my new "The Tick" series dvd set. I can understand how anyone who hadn't previously watched that show wouldn't get the joke. I am kind of surprised that NO ONE seems to have gotten the joke. I guess "The Tick" was not widely followed. That's too bad because "The Tick" was to superhero shows what "Get Smart" was to spy shows. Really funny, if you like wacky parody - like the TGIQ A story, which I took for the wacky parody that it seemed to be intended. Granted, I still did not like the A story as much as...
...the B story. I loved the B story. It was gut wrenching and horrifying and I couldn't take my eyes off the screen for a second. Even for those of you who didn't like the story, you have to give credit to Amy Acker for one of the most incredible dual-personality roles ever filmed. When she switched back and forth between characters... I think I felt kind of like Wesley. And, by the way, also props to Alexis for his spot-on reactions. I may need the perspective of time for this, but right now I think that the TGIQ B story may be my favorite part of season 5.
OK, I'll stop now. I hope the info. regarding "The Tick" helped clarify the source of "The Immortal" for everybody.
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on May 13, 2004 1:41:58 GMT -5
Also, everybody seems to be confused/put off by the appelation "The Immortal". Folks, that is just an inside joke refering to a character by the same name from Ben Edlund's series, "The Tick". In that series, "The Immortal" was a similarly revered character - loved (and bedded) by women and envied by men. I got that joke right away, but I had just finished watching my new "The Tick" series dvd set. I can understand how anyone who hadn't previously watched that show wouldn't get the joke. I am kind of surprised that NO ONE seems to have gotten the joke. I guess "The Tick" was not widely followed. That's too bad because "The Tick" was to superhero shows what "Get Smart" was to spy shows. Really funny, if you like wacky parody - like the TGIQ A story, which I took for the wacky parody that it seemed to be intended. I got it, I just got it on the main board, not here. And I don't agree with 'just an inside joke', because its just as much all the reasons that made that character called The Immortal too. Except for the part where it was funny cause he was dead and Tick didn't get death at all. Also in that episode, borrowed clothes and imposture.
|
|
|
Post by bikisdad on May 13, 2004 2:39:05 GMT -5
OK, sorry. Hadn't seen that before.
|
|
|
Post by LostSoul on May 13, 2004 3:41:58 GMT -5
FRED I have been thinking, if impersonating Fred is a way for Illyria to exert her power over the A-Team, a way to 'compensate' her loss of physical power by using the psycholoical power of her 'Fred' shell to influence the team. This would imply Illyria consciously decide become more Fred like. Or, may be it's just that when Illyria's power is drained, she has less control over the Fred's persona which has always been there in subconscious level. Illyria had claimed that Fred's soul has been destroyed and Fred's memory was just some sparks left in the process. May be this has been a lie afterall.
Kind of OT, but for me who are also Highlander fans, I feel that Illyria's situation is also a bit similar to 'light quickening' which a good loser's (Fred's) memory is influencing the evil winner's (Illyria).
BUFFY I couldn't help thinking, if how would the storyline change if SMG is free to participate in this episode. However, I think it is very smart that Joss & Co., do not show us who the Immortal is, because from the Riley experience, we know that no matter how perfect the Immortal is, we still would not be happy. So, why not go the other way and make him as unrealistic as possible. Afterall, the focus should be on Angel & Spike, not Buffy & her new love.
The point is, Buffy is not the 'Holy Grail' for the boys to fight for. The two boys are immortal but Buffy is mortal with an expiry date. She is a living, breathing human being who has to move on and has already moved on. She may be on a different path from Angel & Spike but if the two boys move on, their path may still meet in the future. But if the boys still brood for the old Buffy, neither of them would have any chance.
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on May 13, 2004 4:39:56 GMT -5
Kind of OT, but for me who are also Highlander fans, I feel that Illyria's situation is also a bit similar to 'light quickening' which a good loser's (Fred's) memory is influencing the evil winner's (Illyria). yes! yes yes yes and an actual reason for the Immortal reference- is a hint (straw grasping is a good thing) or it could be that Illyria is just a dark quickening, the difference being that the power went into Fred and overwhelms her temporarily but is still basically Fred in there.
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on May 13, 2004 15:53:57 GMT -5
I've been reading Nan's reviews for most of this season but this is the first one I've seriously disagreed with. I found this episode fascinating; for me it worked on both levels. I should try to explain. Clearly there are two girls in question: Buffy and Fred. One is dealt with in comedy so broad it borders on farce, the other in tragedy that borders on melodrama. But from the moment Spike and Angel run off together without thinking or planning, as they did when they flew off to the UK to try to rescue Fred, the stories of the two girls intertwine. In both cases, the lover (or lovers) are faced with irrefutable evidence that the beloved has changed in ways that are irreversible while also being brought up short by memory and desire. In each story, the crux is how the one who loves the girl in question is going to deal with that change. It is better done in the Fred part, not because the Fred part is serious/tragic while the Buffy part is comic, but because Fred/Illyria actually appears on screen rather than just being talked about. Andrew explaining reality to Spike and Angel isn't as powerful as Illyria demonstrating how deeply changed what's left of Fred is. But I thought it was still well-done, and a worthy entrant in the final four! ITA. Very well stated Abigail. Come over to the Main Board and play some time.
|
|