|
Post by raenstorm on Jun 17, 2003 5:36:50 GMT -5
Movin' on up!
Let the posting begin...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Jun 17, 2003 5:47:56 GMT -5
Movin' on up! Let the posting begin... I can't believe it I'm first, second including Rae . Yay me! Why can't they have a snoopy dance emoticon?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Jun 17, 2003 5:51:45 GMT -5
Previously Sue asked me about which episode of BtVS was showing this week. Unfortunatekly, I was not sure if any were showing because of scheduling conflicts. But I learn today that BtVS is on at 11pm. So guess what? You've me for nearly 2 hours.
|
|
|
Post by Becky H on Jun 17, 2003 6:16:18 GMT -5
Well, this was dumb - somehow I posted without a message. I'll leave the modified message here so Rae's message will make sense.
|
|
|
Post by raenstorm on Jun 17, 2003 6:23:36 GMT -5
G'morning Becky And... G'evening Kerrie
|
|
|
Post by Becky H on Jun 17, 2003 6:25:31 GMT -5
What interesting discussions you all had last night. Nan, your statement about vampire/demons and their hells existing separately from the Christian concept got me to thinking about some of the things that were relegated to the Apocrypha instead of being included in the official Bible. Mainly, according to some legends, Adam had a first wife, Lilith, who was supposedly not human. Where did she come from? Was she demonic? If she and Adam had children, could they have been the first human-demon hybrids? Fun stuff to think about.
Gail, thanks for the info on The Wicker Man(and Nan, too): I'll have to rent it. The premise reminds me a little bit of Thomas Tryon's Harvest Home which I highly recommend. I read that and Mary Renault's The King Must Die when I was in high school and was inspired to go back and read Sir James Frazier's The Golden Bough, all about the Old Religion and the laws of magic; I'd bet Willow's copy is full of highlights and underlining.
I'm a Cardinals fan because of my husband. He grew up in Evansville, IN and when I met him, I realized I'd be spending large chunks of the summer alone unless I learned to like baseball. So, being me, I read all of the classics of baseball literature and now I do. The Royals are ok but they're American League and I think the DH is just plain stupid. Welcome to the board, Nickim!
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Jun 17, 2003 7:03:44 GMT -5
Nickim, there are very few old people (other than GILES!) appearing in BTVS. The impression I get is that vamps are pretty indiscriminate about who they drink from and, by extension, who they turn. They don't seem to be going, specifically, for the young and robust, that I can tell. It's just that there's nobody much else to bite that we're shown. Watching an ex- middle-aged grocer vamp do backflips vs Buffy somehow doesn't seem to be what ME wants to show. Your point is interesting but I don't know what to do with it, since as best I can tell, vamps don't show any preference at all--it's just whoever they come across, of the people shown to be available around town.
I agree with you that a truce, or some other working arrangement, would be more suitable than the apparent Watchers' Council/Slayer's policy of "shoot on sight." [/color]
|
|
|
Post by Micha on Jun 17, 2003 7:22:59 GMT -5
Well, I don't know about indescriminant. Sure we haven't seen all that many adults on BtVS but you would think that they are there, just invisible à la Charlie Brown. They're there, we just don't get to see them.
Vampires aren't indescriminant about who they turn. There are very few children vampires (other than the Annoying One). Nor do we see any elderly vampires, not even among the dust-fodder we see every week. I don't buy an argument based on "they weren't very strong in life and as such wouldn't live very long as vampires" either. Embued with vampire strength, I think that the older-humans-turned-vampire would live longer since older people tend to have more life experience and are therefore more savvy. Well certainly more intelligent than the average Sunnydale teen.
This line of reasoning would also explain why "Master Vampires" live so long. If a vampire is capable of making it through the first century or so chances are they have what it takes to make it through many more. Provided they can keep up with the changing times. (Anne Rice addresses the issue of vampires trying to keep up with the changing society around them quite nicely.)
In any event, I have rambled so long that I don't even remember what I started out wanting to say... I guess that is a sign to stop while I'm ahead. (Or at least before I dig myself in too deep.)
Micha
PS: Where do I find the spellcheck?
|
|
|
Post by LeeHollins on Jun 17, 2003 7:24:48 GMT -5
Hi guys! Just a quick post before I get back to work ( ). UPN is supposed to show "Showtime" tonight but, let's face it, who knows if we'll actually get it. Last week, several of us rewatched "Lessons" and then discussed on the board. Tonight's episode? One of my personal favorites from this past season - "Beneath You." I'll start a discussion thread in the morning for this episode. Must go back to work but I'll be peeking in.....
|
|
|
Post by LeeHollins on Jun 17, 2003 7:27:55 GMT -5
Don't know why I'm posting this but here we go. I just went by ScoopMe (wanted to see if they left a message or if I just got a "Page Not Found" message) and here is the message they left:
"Parting is such sweet sorrow."
So many ways to say goodbye but none easy. WBScoop, our original moniker, began reviewing shows in 1999 with Buffy and Dawson's Creek, and so our end in 2003 coincides with the series finales of both shows.
In the immortalized words once spoken by Giles, "There is a certain dramatic irony that's attached to all this. A synchronicity that borders on on predestination, one might say."
To our readers, we give praise. Your loyalty helped make ScoopMe a remarkable site and for that we thank you. May your continued enjoyment of television as entertainment and insightful discussions continue to thrive in another realm.
Happy trails, The Staff of ScoopMe.com
Like I said before, it's sad to see ScoopMe go but I'm loving this board!
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 17, 2003 7:31:59 GMT -5
Nickim, there are very few old people (other than GILES!) appearing in BTVS. The impression I get is that vamps are pretty indiscriminate about who they drink from and, by extension, who they turn. They don't seem to be going, specifically, for the young and robust, that I can tell. It's just that there's nobody much else to bite that we're shown. Watching an ex- middle-aged grocer vamp do backflips vs Buffy somehow doesn't seem to be what ME wants to show. Your point is interesting but I don't know what to do with it, since as best I can tell, vamps don't show any preference at all--it's just whoever they come across, of the people shown to be available around town.
I agree with you that a truce, or some other working arrangement, would be more suitable than the apparent Watchers' Council/Slayer's policy of "shoot on sight." [/color][/quote] Nan - kudos on the interesting topic! Exploring the nature of evil is certainly one of the main themes of the series. I would argue that vampires are evil . . . we may not have seen any of them (except Spike, temporarily) under direct control of The First, but they are animated by demons - they're members of the side of evil by definition (this makes me think of SchoolHard Spike calling Angel an Uncle Tom because he's switched sides). They aren't like wolves after prey. We see them take more than the natural pleasure of a wolf in a kill. They sometimes kill without feeding (SchoolHard again, Spike kills that older teacher, saying something about how he usually prefers younger kills to eat, but he doesn't have to eat him). He kills him by snapping his neck and then says (paraphrasing) "there, now I feel better." In other words, we see evidence that they enjoy killing for killing's sake, causing pain for the sake of causing pain - so yes, in my book, they are evil. Now, they are not all pure, absolute evil, ala Angelus. I think of Angelus as representing the vampire in its purest form (i.e., pure evil) - Liam ("I've always been weak") gets completely obliterated. Spike's on the other end, and he manages - with the assitance of his chip and his Buffy-love, to fight the demon (the evil) inside of him to the extent that he does truly good deeds, and eventually gets his soul. But I think this all speaks to vampires being essentially evil.
|
|
|
Post by John G on Jun 17, 2003 7:39:00 GMT -5
Well, I don't know about indescriminant. Sure we haven't seen all that many adults on BtVS but you would think that they are there, just invisible à la Charlie Brown. They're there, we just don't get to see them. Vampires aren't indescriminant about who they turn. There are very few children vampires (other than the Annoying One). Nor do we see any elderly vampires, not even among the dust-fodder we see every week. I don't buy an argument based on "they weren't very strong in life and as such wouldn't live very long as vampires" either. Embued with vampire strength, I think that the older-humans-turned-vampire would live longer since older people tend to have more life experience and are therefore more savvy. Well certainly more intelligent than the average Sunnydale teen. This line of reasoning would also explain why "Master Vampires" live so long. If a vampire is capable of making it through the first century or so chances are they have what it takes to make it through many more. Provided they can keep up with the changing times. (Anne Rice addresses the issue of vampires trying to keep up with the changing society around them quite nicely.) In any event, I have rambled so long that I don't even remember what I started out wanting to say... I guess that is a sign to stop while I'm ahead. (Or at least before I dig myself in too deep.) Micha PS: Where do I find the spellcheck? While I've been reluctant to jump in this debate (I'm tired), I have to agree. I think in Hush, although it may have just been witty banter, Spike indicated that he would have never bit someone like Xander. Further, we've been led to believe that Darla turning Angel and Dru turning Spike was "special," thus leading to the thought that it is not an indiscriminate act. Maybe the killings are random, but they select who they turn for whatever reason (I mean, why did Darla want to turn Angel, why did Angel want to turn Dru, why did Dru want to turn Spike?).
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 17, 2003 7:46:54 GMT -5
While I've been reluctant to jump in this debate (I'm tired), I have to agree. I think in Hush, although it may have just been witty banter, Spike indicated that he would have never bit someone like Xander. Further, we've been led to believe that Darla turning Angel and Dru turning Spike was "special," thus leading to the thought that it is not an indiscriminate act. Maybe the killings are random, but they select who they turn for whatever reason (I mean, why did Darla want to turn Angel, why did Angel want to turn Dru, why did Dru want to turn Spike?). Let's see, I know that these were meant to be rhetorical questions, but I think I'll try that last one . . . I've always noticed, in that alley scene between Dru and William, the way she tells him (paraphrasing) his strengths are "here and here" (I think she touches his head and heart), then pointedly glances down and does something off-screen that makes William react when she adds "and in your imagination." So I always thought she turned him because she noticed he had this really great imagination, and she wanted to know more about it.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 17, 2003 7:48:50 GMT -5
Spike's on the other end, and he manages - with the assitance of his chip and his Buffy-love, to fight the demon (the evil) inside of him to the extent that he does truly good deeds, and eventually gets his soul. I definitely see both sides of this debate, and am just throwing this into the mix. LMPTM seems to suggest that Spike was different from the very beginning, before the chip or the Buffy love. An anomaly, the writers say. I wonder if there are more like him out there, and how many? Mary
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 17, 2003 7:50:53 GMT -5
...then pointedly glances down and does something off-screen that makes William react when she adds "and in your imagination." So I always thought she turned him because she noticed he had this really great imagination, and she wanted to know more about it. His imagination was ebulgent, huh, Spring? LOL. Mary
|
|