Discussion:
[I] Terestrial Buffy
(too old to reply)
X Kyle M Thompson
2003-12-09 21:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Hang on a mo...

.




.




.




.




.




.

I thought Angel sired Spike? At least that's what Spike said to Angel
back in Series (?) When they were in the school shortly after Spike's
arrival in sunnydale and Angel revealed himself as a good guy by not
taking Xander?

Or am I totally wrong yet again?

kt.
CCA
2003-12-09 22:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
I thought Angel sired Spike?
I thought Angel sired Drusilla, Drusilla sired Spike.
CCA:)
--
Family Bites Website and sample chapter at http://www.falboroughhall.co.uk
Live Journal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/ciciaye
Marie-Gwen
2003-12-10 16:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by CCA
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
I thought Angel sired Spike?
I thought Angel sired Drusilla, Drusilla sired Spike.
Yup, and as Angel was sired by Darla, you can also say Darla sired Spike.

:)

Marie-Gwen (BuffyFanlander)
Speaker-to-Customers
2003-12-10 16:48:10 UTC
Permalink
"Marie-Gwen" wrote ...
Post by Marie-Gwen
Post by CCA
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
I thought Angel sired Spike?
I thought Angel sired Drusilla, Drusilla sired Spike.
Yup, and as Angel was sired by Darla, you can also say Darla sired Spike.
And as the Master sired Darla, you can also say the Master sired Spike.

I win.
--
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Hopelessly devoted to Tara
Marie-Gwen
2003-12-10 16:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
"Marie-Gwen" wrote ...
Post by Marie-Gwen
Post by CCA
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
I thought Angel sired Spike?
I thought Angel sired Drusilla, Drusilla sired Spike.
Yup, and as Angel was sired by Darla, you can also say Darla sired Spike.
And as the Master sired Darla, you can also say the Master sired Spike.
I win.
Damn ! Should have thought about that one... :::sob sob sob:::

Am I still a BuffyFanlander you think ?

:)

Marie-Gwen (PotentialBuffyFanlander)
Tim Crumpton
2003-12-10 18:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
"Marie-Gwen" wrote ...
Post by Marie-Gwen
Post by CCA
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
I thought Angel sired Spike?
I thought Angel sired Drusilla, Drusilla sired Spike.
Yup, and as Angel was sired by Darla, you can also say Darla sired Spike.
And as the Master sired Darla, you can also say the Master sired Spike.
What? Dr Who cross thread?

Tim
Gary N.
2003-12-10 20:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
"Marie-Gwen" wrote ...
Post by Marie-Gwen
Post by CCA
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
I thought Angel sired Spike?
I thought Angel sired Drusilla, Drusilla sired Spike.
Yup, and as Angel was sired by Darla, you can also say Darla sired Spike.
And as the Master sired Darla, you can also say the Master sired Spike.
I win.
No you don't. Cos Drusilla and Darla, being female(?), couldn't sire
Spike. They would have to have dammed him[1] - which would disrupt the
siring line!

gary
[1]A pune, or play on words...IGMC
--
"What you gonna do when it doesn't matter anymore?
What you gonna say when it's all too late?"
'Never The Bride'
Use garyn at ciderspace dot org dot uk for reply
Torak
2003-12-16 10:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
"Marie-Gwen" wrote ...
Post by Marie-Gwen
Post by CCA
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
I thought Angel sired Spike?
I thought Angel sired Drusilla, Drusilla sired Spike.
Yup, and as Angel was sired by Darla, you can also say Darla sired Spike.
And as the Master sired Darla, you can also say the Master sired Spike.
I win.
But if we muddy the waters even more by mixing the WoD into it, a
vampire's Sire is only the immediate antecedent. Of course, the term
"Sire" as an honorific would also be properly used when referring to the
prince of a ci...

Oh, right. OK, I'll shut up. ;-)
The Stainless Steel Cat
2003-12-17 21:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
"Marie-Gwen" wrote ...
Post by Marie-Gwen
Post by CCA
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
I thought Angel sired Spike?
I thought Angel sired Drusilla, Drusilla sired Spike.
Yup, and as Angel was sired by Darla, you can also say Darla sired Spike.
And as the Master sired Darla, you can also say the Master sired Spike.
And the Doctor was at school with the Master and you know what goes on at
those Gallifreyan public schools, so Doctor Who sired Spike.

*I* win... oh wait, wrong series.

(Sorry, but AS Head's in both series and I get so easily confused...;o)

Cat.
--
Bah! Humbug!
Beth Winter
2003-12-09 22:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
I thought Angel sired Spike? At least that's what Spike said to Angel
back in Series (?) When they were in the school shortly after Spike's
arrival in sunnydale and Angel revealed himself as a good guy by not
taking Xander?
Or am I totally wrong yet again?
Retcon. Spike does call Angel his sire in the "You were my yoda" speech
in School Hard, but Joss retconned it. Right now I think it's Angelus as
Spike's mentor and surrogate sire since Dru wasn't exactly up to it.

*sighs* What season of Angel are you people on, anyway? Because there's
this lovely bit of Angel's thoughts in season five that just begs to be
referenced here.

(and um, it's not a spoiler that there's a character called Angel in the
fifth season of a show called Angel?)
--
Beth Winter
The Discworld Compendium <http://www.extenuation.net/disc/>
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods and the season of mists."
-- Neil Gaiman
X Kyle M Thompson
2003-12-09 22:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
What happend here? I left 5 spaces between between dots, but sudenly
there's only 1 space. That made the message clearly visible in my none
too high resolution screen.

Odd.
Robert Carnegie
2003-12-10 07:31:52 UTC
Permalink
In article <br5jhs$27v8i4$***@ID-142568.news.uni-berlin.de>, X
Kyle M Thompson <***@spamgourmet.co
m> writes
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
What happend here? I left 5 spaces between between dots, but sudenly
there's only 1 space. That made the message clearly visible in my none
too high resolution screen.
Odd.
Either Beth, or "X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)", doesn't
respect multiple spaces between paragraphs, and I'm not sure if
Google Groups does either.

I think one of afp's FAQs discusses techniques, and the style I
use these days is to announce "spoiler space" and then count

1

2

3

up to 7 or 8 and then back down to 1. For users with impaired
vision, using screen-reading software, this ought to create a
sense of anticipation - although, given it's only me, maybe not...

Robert Carnegie at home, ***@excite.com at large
--
"Are you sure you want to post?" - my software, every time
Speaker-to-Customers
2003-12-09 23:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beth Winter
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
(Snip)
Post by Beth Winter
*sighs* What season of Angel are you people on, anyway? Because
there's this lovely bit of Angel's thoughts in season five that just
begs to be referenced here.
Season 4 is the most recent season to be shown in the UK, and that was only
on satellite. Terrestrial TV is on mid Season 3. No-one seems to know
when, or if, or on what channel, Season 5 will be shown.

Everybody I know is eagerly awaiting it (although we intend to tape it so we
can fast-forward through the bits actually featuring Angel).
--
"Bother!" said Pooh. "Angel's lame. His hair goes straight up, and he's
bloody stupid."
David Chapman
2003-12-09 23:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beth Winter
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
(and um, it's not a spoiler that there's a character called Angel in
the fifth season of a show called Angel?)
How not? It's a spoiler that there isn't a character called Blake in the
third series of Blake's Seven.
Peter Znamenski
2003-12-10 03:19:54 UTC
Permalink
David Chapman wrote...
Post by David Chapman
Post by Beth Winter
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
(and um, it's not a spoiler that there's a character called Angel in
the fifth season of a show called Angel?)
How not? It's a spoiler that there isn't a character called Blake in the
third series of Blake's Seven.
Hey! What happened to spoiler space then?!

PZ, off to the angry dome [1]

[1] ... to find out what Blake's Seven is all about and who the hell Blake is.
Robert Carnegie
2003-12-10 07:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Znamenski
David Chapman wrote...
Post by David Chapman
Post by Beth Winter
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
(and um, it's not a spoiler that there's a character called Angel in
the fifth season of a show called Angel?)
How not? It's a spoiler that there isn't a character called Blake in the
third series of Blake's Seven.
Hey! What happened to spoiler space then?!
PZ, off to the angry dome [1]
[1] ... to find out what Blake's Seven is all about and who the hell Blake is.
He's a character on UK Gold television. (That is to say, reruns.)

Anyway, there /is./ Or - and although - oh, what/ev/er.

Robert Carnegie at home, ***@excite.com at large
--
"Are you sure you want to post?" - my software, every time
Beth Winter
2003-12-10 06:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Chapman
Post by Beth Winter
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
(and um, it's not a spoiler that there's a character called Angel in
the fifth season of a show called Angel?)
How not? It's a spoiler that there isn't a character called Blake in the
third series of Blake's Seven.
But Angel is a) Merkin TV, which does not play those games that often,
and b) the ONLY title character. Knowing nothing about Blake's Seven, I
can hazard a guess that season three still features at least some of the
people you could call "Blake's Seven". It's just the ambigiously-names
series where they can get away with replacing the main cast after season
one (and won't mention which one that was so as not to spoil people).

Oooh, and just thought about a different excuse. Buffy/Angel always does
flashbacks galore...
--
Beth Winter
The Discworld Compendium <http://www.extenuation.net/disc/>
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods and the season of mists."
-- Neil Gaiman
Speaker-to-Customers
2003-12-10 11:24:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Chapman
Post by Beth Winter
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
(and um, it's not a spoiler that there's a character called Angel in
the fifth season of a show called Angel?)
How not? It's a spoiler that there isn't a character called Blake in
the third series of Blake's Seven.
Is it a spoiler that there hasn't been a character called Taggart in
'Taggart' for many years?
--
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Author of "Pandora's Boxer": a rollicking tale of adventure, love, blood,
Modesty Blaise, more blood, a very different 'Hostile 17', the songs of
Richard Thompson, Gilbert and Sullivan, and a bit more blood.
Alec Cawley
2003-12-10 19:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
Is it a spoiler that there hasn't been a character called Taggart in
'Taggart' for many years?
Is it a spoiler to say that there was never a character called Monty
Python in Monty Python's Flying Circus?
--
Alec Cawley
Brian Howlett
2003-12-10 19:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alec Cawley
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
Is it a spoiler that there hasn't been a character called Taggart in
'Taggart' for many years?
Is it a spoiler to say that there was never a character called Monty
Python in Monty Python's Flying Circus?
*And* it didn't fly, and there wasn't even a circus.

Anyone got the number for the Trades Descriptions people?
--
Brian Howlett
-------------------------------------------------------------------
When I told the folks back home that I was coming to Auchtermuchty,
they said "Wear the fox hat"...
Jon
2003-12-10 20:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Howlett
Post by Alec Cawley
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
Is it a spoiler that there hasn't been a character called Taggart in
'Taggart' for many years?
Is it a spoiler to say that there was never a character called Monty
Python in Monty Python's Flying Circus?
*And* it didn't fly, and there wasn't even a circus.
Anyone got the number for the Trades Descriptions people?
Is it a spoiler to say Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead?
And Godot doesn't turn up?
That there are no tangoes in Last Tango in Paris?
No trains in Trainspotting?
No Led Zep numbers in Dazed and Confused?
Paradise is lost?
No Rebecca in Rebecca?
No bondage in Of Human Bondage?
No mice in Of Mice and Men?
And very little Tolkien in those rotten films?
Speaker-to-Customers
2003-12-10 20:59:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon
Post by Brian Howlett
Speaker-to-Customers writes
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
Is it a spoiler that there hasn't been a character called Taggart
in 'Taggart' for many years?
Is it a spoiler to say that there was never a character called Monty
Python in Monty Python's Flying Circus?
*And* it didn't fly, and there wasn't even a circus.
Anyone got the number for the Trades Descriptions people?
Is it a spoiler to say Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead?
Yes if you're talking about Shakespeare, no if you're talking about Tom
Stoppard.
Post by Jon
And Godot doesn't turn up?
Yes.
Post by Jon
That there are no tangoes in Last Tango in Paris?
The jury is still out on that one.
Post by Jon
No trains in Trainspotting?
Yes. Probably a useful one, it will stop trainspotters going to see a film
that will make them extremely ill.
Post by Jon
No Led Zep numbers in Dazed and Confused?
Yes.
Post by Jon
Paradise is lost?
No.
Post by Jon
No Rebecca in Rebecca?
Yes. Especially if you point out that there is also no Sunnybrook Farm.
Post by Jon
No bondage in Of Human Bondage?
Yes.
Post by Jon
No mice in Of Mice and Men?
Yes.
Post by Jon
And very little Tolkien in those rotten films?
No. That's a public service.

I'm not going to bother seeing 'Return of the King', after the pathetic mess
they made of 'The Two Towers'.
--
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
answering rhetorical questions since 2003
Jon
2003-12-10 21:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
Post by Jon
And very little Tolkien in those rotten films?
No. That's a public service.
I'm not going to bother seeing 'Return of the King', after the
pathetic mess they made of 'The Two Towers'.
I've heard it's actually /worse/, if you can concieve of such a thing. It
seems Gandalf beats up Denethor with his staff, FFS. And then they wonder
why that nice Mr. Christopher gets a bit huffy at them.

We sometimes speculate as to the shape a Discworld movie might take; well,
consider these an Awful Warning. Shudder.
Robert Carnegie
2003-12-12 08:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
Post by Jon
And very little Tolkien in those rotten films?
No. That's a public service.
I'm not going to bother seeing 'Return of the King', after the
pathetic mess they made of 'The Two Towers'.
I've heard it's actually /worse/, if you can concieve of such a thing. It
seems Gandalf beats up Denethor with his staff, FFS. And then they wonder
why that nice Mr. Christopher gets a bit huffy at them.
This is the film that no one's seen yet, isn't it? Except a few
reviewers.

Having said that, and not wishing to spoil, I consider reliable
some of the reports that they've left out some things that I would
very much have liked to see kept in. Heigh-ho.
Post by Jon
We sometimes speculate as to the shape a Discworld movie
might take; >well, consider these an Awful Warning. Shudder.
Books are not enhanced by having movies made out of them.
A good movie doesn't necessarily have a good book behind it, and
a good book does not guarantee a good movie - may have no
bearing on it at all. And basically what goes into the beginning of
the scriptwriting process (i.e., the original book, or original script)
is severely beaten and probably has had literal dozens of
beginning-to-end rewrites by the time it reaches cinema screens.

However, we probably could stand to have one or two Discworld
movies made, even as travesties, if it raises the profile of Pterry.
Not that Pterry's profile is low, particularly, amongst readers, and
it's not as though he's about to give up writing either and needs
the encouragement to stick at it. But it would be fun to see moving
pictures of the Discworld outside our heads... of course, there are
the adaptations we've already got.

Robert Carnegie at home, ***@excite.com at large
--
"Are you sure you want to post?" - my software, every time
Jon
2003-12-12 10:30:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Jon
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
Post by Jon
And very little Tolkien in those rotten films?
No. That's a public service.
I'm not going to bother seeing 'Return of the King', after the
pathetic mess they made of 'The Two Towers'.
I've heard it's actually /worse/, if you can concieve of such a
thing. It seems Gandalf beats up Denethor with his staff, FFS. And
then they wonder
why that nice Mr. Christopher gets a bit huffy at them.
This is the film that no one's seen yet, isn't it? Except a few
reviewers.
Having said that, and not wishing to spoil, I consider reliable
some of the reports that they've left out some things that I would
very much have liked to see kept in. Heigh-ho.
It's not so much the takings-out that bothered me[1], it's the
puttings-in[2]. I've just read a very thorough review of ROTK, and although
the reviewer strove hard to be fair to it, and wasn't on the whole hostile,
I was appalled to read how the story has been hedgehogged. If I had any
money, I'd be keeping it in my wallet. TTT wasn't just a bad adaptation, it
was a bad /film/ .... Claire certainly thought so, and she's never read the
books.

[1] Cutting out Tom Bombadil could never bother me ... it's kind of like
that track on Sergeant Pepper that always gets skipped ...

[2] Although one omission does bother me. Um, a little space for the spoiler
here ...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 spaces for Mortal Men doomed to watch bad movies ...

OK. The review (as I said, very thorough) said that the confrontation
between the chief Nazgul and Gandalf at the fallen gate of Minas Tirith
isn't in it. I mean, what? That's one of the two or three central, pivotal,
really dead important scenes in the book. Makes the horns of the Rohirrim at
cockcrow a bit of a non-event, without that scene to play off.
SteveD
2003-12-12 10:36:05 UTC
Permalink
[snippage]
Post by Jon
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
I'm not going to bother seeing 'Return of the King', after the
pathetic mess they made of 'The Two Towers'.
I've heard it's actually /worse/, if you can concieve of such a thing. It
seems Gandalf beats up Denethor with his staff, FFS. And then they wonder
why that nice Mr. Christopher gets a bit huffy at them.
Hmm. Actually, this sounds like quite a fun idea. If we're going to have
wild speculation, let's have the hairiest, scariest, most skin-crawling
speculation possible about what RotK is going to have in it.



Note to those who will cry "spoilers" - the book has been available and
famous for how many decades now? As you were.




I shall start the ball rolling (or should that be trolling) by saying:

"Your films cannot harm me, my fanfic habit is like a shield of steel!"

This means that merely implausible items (Sam/Frodo/Gollum love
triangle, Sauron advertises Visine, Aragorn looks neat for more than
five seconds) don't have much shock value.

I want to hear about Aragorn saying he never wanted to be king, or Eowyn
and Faramir never getting together. Gandalf killing Saruman in single
combat. The hobbits returning to a joyful Shire. Gollum wrestling the
Ring from Frodo instead of amputating his finger. Frodo living happily
ever after.

You know. Hollywood Duz Tolkien.

<Takes out little starter's pistor, points it into the air, shouts
BANG!, scurries off to find new trousers.>

-SteveD
--
"The thought of walking past a shop and seeing Granny Weatherwax with a
kung-fu grip and rocket launcher in bendable plastic does somehow not
actually appeal to me." - Terry
Eric Jarvis
2003-12-12 12:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveD
Hmm. Actually, this sounds like quite a fun idea. If we're going to have
wild speculation, let's have the hairiest, scariest, most skin-crawling
speculation possible about what RotK is going to have in it.
Note to those who will cry "spoilers" - the book has been available and
famous for how many decades now? As you were.
"Your films cannot harm me, my fanfic habit is like a shield of steel!"
This means that merely implausible items (Sam/Frodo/Gollum love
triangle, Sauron advertises Visine, Aragorn looks neat for more than
five seconds) don't have much shock value.
I want to hear about Aragorn saying he never wanted to be king, or Eowyn
and Faramir never getting together. Gandalf killing Saruman in single
combat. The hobbits returning to a joyful Shire. Gollum wrestling the
Ring from Frodo instead of amputating his finger. Frodo living happily
ever after.
You know. Hollywood Duz Tolkien.
<Takes out little starter's pistor, points it into the air, shouts
BANG!, scurries off to find new trousers.>
the Nazgul do the Can Can

the Frodo and Shelob kung fu scene (fight choreography by Jackie Chan)

and the inevitable pony and trap chase sequence on the return to the Shire
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Jon
2003-12-12 12:28:47 UTC
Permalink
þus cwæð Eric Jarvis ;
Post by SteveD
Hmm. Actually, this sounds like quite a fun idea. If we're going to
have wild speculation, let's have the hairiest, scariest, most
skin-crawling speculation possible about what RotK is going to have
in it.
"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!" cried Eowyn, brandishing her sword. The
Witch-King sighed.
"You know," he said, as strings started up in the background, "wouldn't it
be nice if we could all just get along ....." <segue into "Wouldn't it be
Nice if Everyone was Nice", duet for Nazgul and shieldmaiden, with full
supporting singing and dancing chorus of Uruk-Hai, Rohirrim, Gothmogs, etc.
With a thousand Oliphaunts!>
C. Cooke
2003-12-13 12:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon
þus cwæð Eric Jarvis ;
Post by SteveD
Hmm. Actually, this sounds like quite a fun idea. If we're going to
have wild speculation, let's have the hairiest, scariest, most
skin-crawling speculation possible about what RotK is going to have
in it.
Sauron realises that he is just angry and feeling abandonment issues,
and goes into therapy. By the time anyone gets to Mordor, everything
has been dismantled and Sauron is waiting for them with a nice pot
of tea and a bouquet of flowers, looking slightly sheepish and nervous
because he isn't sure they will forgive him.

Saruman, however, is revealed as being secretly Muslim, and so the
combined forces of Gondor and Mordor hunt him down with huge amounts
of pyrotechnics.
--
Charles Cooke, Sysadmin
Say it with flowers, send a triffid
CCA
2003-12-13 20:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon
þus cwæð Eric Jarvis ;
Post by SteveD
Hmm. Actually, this sounds like quite a fun idea. If we're going to
have wild speculation, let's have the hairiest, scariest, most
skin-crawling speculation possible about what RotK is going to have
in it.
"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!" cried Eowyn, brandishing her sword. The
Witch-King sighed.
"You know," he said, as strings started up in the background, "wouldn't it
be nice if we could all just get along ....." <segue into "Wouldn't it be
Nice if Everyone was Nice", duet for Nazgul and shieldmaiden, with full
supporting singing and dancing chorus of Uruk-Hai, Rohirrim, Gothmogs, etc.
With a thousand Oliphaunts!>
The Ringwraiths get a job doing Wraith-O-Grams
CCA:)
--
Family Bites Website and sample chapter at http://www.falboroughhall.co.uk
Live Journal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/ciciaye
Catja Pafort
2003-12-21 13:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by CCA
Post by Jon
"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!" cried Eowyn, brandishing her sword. The
Witch-King sighed.
"You know," he said, as strings started up in the background, "wouldn't it
be nice if we could all just get along ....." <segue into "Wouldn't it be
Nice if Everyone was Nice", duet for Nazgul and shieldmaiden, with full
supporting singing and dancing chorus of Uruk-Hai, Rohirrim, Gothmogs, etc.
With a thousand Oliphaunts!>
The Ringwraiths get a job doing Wraith-O-Grams
Nine immortal Nazgul gallop up the hill, pull up outside my house.
Flowers are mercilessly trampled.

The foremost rings the doorbell with the tip of his sword, his voice
booming from deep inside his shadowy robe:

"We are here to do the reckoning. You forgot to send your Christmas
Cards."


Catja
aka PerditaX

(maybe I'd better make an effort, eh?)
paul cooke
2003-12-22 18:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Catja Pafort
Nine immortal Nazgul gallop up the hill, pull up outside my house.
Flowers are mercilessly trampled.
The foremost rings the doorbell with the tip of his sword, his voice
"We are here to do the reckoning. You forgot to send your Christmas
Cards."
more like...

"We are from the BSA... show us your receipts for Microsoft software..."

"Don't have any..."

"What do you mean 'Don't have any"???"

"I use Linux..."

"OK... we also represent SCO... show us your SCO Binary Licences..."
--
COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD!
SteveD
2003-12-23 12:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by CCA
Post by SteveD
Hmm. Actually, this sounds like quite a fun idea. If we're going to
have wild speculation, let's have the hairiest, scariest, most
skin-crawling speculation possible about what RotK is going to have
in it.
The Ringwraiths get a job doing Wraith-O-Grams
CCA:)
[FRODO, SAM and GOLLUM are lurking outside the Black Gate.]

FRODO: Mordor!

SAM: Mordor!

GOLLUM: Mordor!

PETER JACKSON: It's only CGI.

AUDIENCE: Shh!

FRODO: Come, Sam. We shall enter Mordor.

[Cut to the RINGWRAITHS, presumably somewhere in Mordor]

RINGWRAITHS:
We're Wraiths of the Ring powers,
We ride out from black towers
We terrorise those of half-size
It's great when Frodo cowers
We waste away in Gorgoroth, and our
Boss was servant to Morgoth

[Much dancing on tables etc]

We're Wraiths of the Ring powers,
Our bladespells dulled by flowers
Kingsfoil's a pest, it saved the Quest
Kept Frodo live for hours.
We're Mordor-based, in Barad-Dûr
But often ride out on a tour.

[More dancing, general destruction of the area]

Our swords your soul devours,
Our minds no longer ours
Enslaved by rings, we once were kings, but not found in elf-bowers.
Our new life is just as gruelling,

It's part of all this Nazgûling.

[Cut back to FRODO, SAM and GOLLUM]

FRODO: On second thought, let us not go to Mordor. It is a silly place.


-SteveD
Dom
2003-12-23 16:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveD
[FRODO, SAM and GOLLUM are lurking outside the Black Gate.]
<snip much foolery which causes strange images of Lego hobbits>

Bravo! Splendiferous! (and other words of well deserved praise).

There are not enough 20p[']s to cover that one ;-)
--
Dom
afpSlave to CCA
cMAD
2003-12-23 17:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveD
Post by CCA
Post by SteveD
Hmm. Actually, this sounds like quite a fun idea. If we're going to
have wild speculation, let's have the hairiest, scariest, most
skin-crawling speculation possible about what RotK is going to have
in it.
The Ringwraiths get a job doing Wraith-O-Grams
CCA:)
[FRODO, SAM and GOLLUM are lurking outside the Black Gate.]
FRODO: Mordor!
SAM: Mordor!
GOLLUM: Mordor!
PETER JACKSON: It's only CGI.
AUDIENCE: Shh!
FRODO: Come, Sam. We shall enter Mordor.
[Cut to the RINGWRAITHS, presumably somewhere in Mordor]
We're Wraiths of the Ring powers,
We ride out from black towers
We terrorise those of half-size
It's great when Frodo cowers
We waste away in Gorgoroth, and our
Boss was servant to Morgoth
[Much dancing on tables etc]
We're Wraiths of the Ring powers,
Our bladespells dulled by flowers
Kingsfoil's a pest, it saved the Quest
Kept Frodo live for hours.
We're Mordor-based, in Barad-Dûr
But often ride out on a tour.
[More dancing, general destruction of the area]
Our swords your soul devours,
Our minds no longer ours
Enslaved by rings, we once were kings, but not found in elf-bowers.
Our new life is just as gruelling,
It's part of all this Nazgûling.
[Cut back to FRODO, SAM and GOLLUM]
FRODO: On second thought, let us not go to Mordor. It is a silly place.
In the ashen land of Mordor, they were forced to eat their minstrels.

cMAD <- And there was much rejoicing.
Brion K. Lienhart
2004-01-06 18:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveD
[Cut back to FRODO, SAM and GOLLUM]
FRODO: On second thought, let us not go to Mordor. It is a silly place.
You owe me for one keyboard, ruined by Coca-Cola(R) spewed out my nose.
Bart
2003-12-18 00:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon
þus cwæð Eric Jarvis ;
Post by SteveD
Hmm. Actually, this sounds like quite a fun idea. If we're going to
have wild speculation, let's have the hairiest, scariest, most
skin-crawling speculation possible about what RotK is going to have
in it.
"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!" cried Eowyn, brandishing her sword. The
Witch-King sighed.
"You know," he said, as strings started up in the background, "wouldn't it
be nice if we could all just get along ....." <segue into
Or:
"Foolish warrior, no mere man can kill me!" taunted the Witch-King.
Eowyn (taken of her helmet): " got you, i'm a woman"
*sigh*
Bart

Btw, hi
Robert Carnegie
2003-12-21 23:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bart
Post by Jon
þus cwæð Eric Jarvis ;
Post by SteveD
Hmm. Actually, this sounds like quite a fun idea. If we're going to
have wild speculation, let's have the hairiest, scariest, most
skin-crawling speculation possible about what RotK is going to have
in it.
"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!" cried Eowyn, brandishing her sword. The
Witch-King sighed.
"You know," he said, as strings started up in the background, "wouldn't
it
Post by Jon
be nice if we could all just get along ....." <segue into
"Foolish warrior, no mere man can kill me!" taunted the Witch-King.
Eowyn (taken of her helmet): " got you, i'm a woman"
*sigh*
Bart
That's the one Tolkien pulled? If I'm not missing something.

I don't know if there's much of that in the ancient literature that
inspired Tolkien. I gather that specifically Celtic heroes are
unusually liable to (1) have extraordinarily difficult conditions set
on how it is possible for them to die and (2) either to be surprised
by these conditions coming about, or to be whammied whilst
demonstrating all of the conditions at once. Although I don't think
Celtic stuff comes over in Tolkien, particularly. And of course
there's Oedipus, and Macbeth's demise.

There's probably a Ph. D. or at least a little something in that line -
probably already taken, though - in exploring how far Tolkien may
have been analysing a tendency for gimmicks like that to get
added into stories in the oral tradition to make them more
interesting, and to dramatise that in LOTR. The book is, after all,
ostensibly based on the version of the story recorded in hobbit
lore afterwards; the book as written or edited by Frodo. Despite
the gravity of the situation, I can imagine Merry afterwards
embroidering the tale in the telling, I think - if not to Frodo, then in
inns around the Shire, and it getting back to Frodo or to Sam, and
getting into the book. And scenes with no hobbit present...
perhaps we aren't meant to believe that spirits of dead warriors
actually were recruited by Aragorn to fight for Minas Tirith, but that
descendants of exiled betrayers, whose territory Aragorn's party
passed through for reasons of speed, joined in the mission for
various reasons of their own. And did they swing the outcome of
the battle? And... I forget, is there a bit there where the embattled
armies see ships' sails approaching and it is a matter of great
concern whose sails they are, and how worn by way of a signal?
That comes up in ancient Greek stories one or more times, too -
now is it Jason and the fleece, or the matter of the minotaur (that
is two different stories?)...

The minotaur itself, of course, is said to be a slur on the
civilisation of Crete, which used bulls ritually, but did not ever
cross-breed with them - likewise the matter of Catherine the
Great's horse. (I've been told that the business of Caligula's
horse is grossly exaggerated, too - that in fact it was a throwaway
joke, on the lines of the opposition party being as much use as a
chocolate fireguard.)

Robert Carnegie at home, ***@excite.com at large
--
"Are you sure you want to post?" - my software, every time
Robert Carnegie
2003-12-15 01:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveD
[snippage]
Post by Jon
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
I'm not going to bother seeing 'Return of the King', after the
pathetic mess they made of 'The Two Towers'.
I've heard it's actually /worse/, if you can concieve of such a thing. It
seems Gandalf beats up Denethor with his staff, FFS. And then they
wonder
Post by Jon
why that nice Mr. Christopher gets a bit huffy at them.
Hmm. Actually, this sounds like quite a fun idea. If we're going to have
wild speculation, let's have the hairiest, scariest, most skin-crawling
speculation possible about what RotK is going to have in it.
Note to those who will cry "spoilers" - the book has been available and
famous for how many decades now? As you were.
"Your films cannot harm me, my fanfic habit is like a shield of steel!"
This means that merely implausible items (Sam/Frodo/Gollum love
triangle,
Come on, that /is/ in the book.

Apparently the guy who plays Sam has a video tape of all the
tender scenes with Sam and Frodo, with romantic music playing.
Post by SteveD
Sauron advertises Visine, Aragorn looks neat for more than
five seconds) don't have much shock value.
I want to hear about Aragorn saying he never wanted to be king, or Eowyn
and Faramir never getting together. Gandalf killing Saruman in single
combat.
Only on the DVD; Saruman's been cut right out of the third picture.
Seriously. Never seen again. Not at the premieres either,
obviously. And a couple of months ago he was saying that his
was the best bit. Which is why I was saying a month ago that they
only cut him out so that they could put him back into the DVD. And
save on catering for the party. You should see that man go at a
buffet. And you wouldn't think it, he's thin as a rake. Okay, some
of this is not true. But I think the part about the DVD may be. What
is it with Deleted Scenes, are we supposed to believe that
modern directors don't know what scenes will work and what
won't? And then we have to pay extra to see the ones that weren't
good enough? Argh. Look, I don't /mind/ having a richer fan
experience on the take-home medium than on the standard
version that everyone goes to see in the cinema, but can't there be
a better term for this?

I needed that.
Post by SteveD
The hobbits returning to a joyful Shire.
Check, from what I hear, actually.
Post by SteveD
Gollum wrestling the
Ring from Frodo instead of amputating his finger.
Don't know, but the risk of children imitating the action while play-
acting the scene may be an issue.
Post by SteveD
Frodo living happily
ever after.
Again possibly Check.
Post by SteveD
You know. Hollywood Duz Tolkien.
<Takes out little starter's pistor, points it into the air, shouts
BANG!, scurries off to find new trousers.>
Shelob isn't in it. Instead it's the Balrog again.

And Gollum doesn't betray Frodo and Sam to it, he's just
paralysed with fear because it allows him to recover the buried
memory of when he came to Mordor before and was caught and
tortured with horrible burning flameseses, they burns, yes they
burns. When it jumps on Frodo, though, Gollum overcomes his
fear and jumps onto its back and he and Sam tag-team it down.
Gollum dies from his burns.

I think the bit where Gandalf, killed in battle at Minas McTirith, is
resurrected /again/ as Gandalf the Golden so that he can turn up
with Aragorn and the boys and single-handedly rip down the walls
of Hamas Burgular and bust Frodo and Sam out of the place and
fly them to fiery Mount Bara-Bakiu on his pet eagle Makkno-Gatz is
a bit deus ex machina.

Then in the climax when the Ring slips out of Frodo's grip and
flies away from them and round and round the crater of the
volcano, and all of the Nazgul are trying to catch it but Frodo has to
ride Gandalf's walking-stick and catch the golden Ring before the
Nazgul do and win the House Cup - that, as I'm sure the video
game reviews will say, is /way/ too derivative.

So is the bit tagged on to the film credits where all of the animated
characters perform Abba's "Ring! Ring! Why don't you give me a
call" on the terrible smouldering fiery mountainside.

Robert Carnegie at home, ***@excite.com at large
--
"Are you sure you want to post?" - my software, every time
s***@suespammers.org
2003-12-10 21:28:14 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
Post by Alec Cawley
Is it a spoiler to say
[...]
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
Post by Alec Cawley
No Rebecca in Rebecca?
Yes. Especially if you point out that there is also no Sunnybrook Farm.
I was going to mention The Other Rebecca here, but realise that I can't
do so for reasons I can't even talk about. Damn, gave it away!
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
Post by Alec Cawley
No mice in Of Mice and Men?
Yes.
Well there is, only it's a dead one.
g***@hotmail.com
2003-12-12 22:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Hi there,
Post by s***@suespammers.org
Post by Jon
No mice in Of Mice and Men?
Yes.
Well there is, only it's a dead one.
But it's not really dead! It's fictional!!

Cheers,
Graham.
s***@suespammers.org
2003-12-12 22:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@hotmail.com
Hi there,
Post by s***@suespammers.org
Post by Jon
No mice in Of Mice and Men?
Yes.
Well there is, only it's a dead one.
But it's not really dead! It's fictional!!
Oh no, it's really, dead. But it doesn't exist.
Jenny Radcliffe
2003-12-14 18:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alec Cawley
Is it a spoiler to say
<snip stuff>
Insert spoiler space for Daphne du Maurier's "Rebecca"

1

3

5

7

9

That's more than enough, 's a blooming classic, *but*
Post by Alec Cawley
No Rebecca in Rebecca?
Yes, that would be a spoiler, I'd say.

I'd also argue that it was in a manner of speaking wrong, too. Just because
she's dead when the action happens doesn't mean she's not effectively there.
I mean, the whole point is that her shadow's so long she's functionally not
dead in a way ...

Jenny
Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
2003-12-10 21:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beth Winter
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
I thought Angel sired Spike? At least that's what Spike said to Angel
back in Series (?) When they were in the school shortly after Spike's
arrival in sunnydale and Angel revealed himself as a good guy by not
taking Xander?
Or am I totally wrong yet again?
Retcon. Spike does call Angel his sire in the "You were my yoda" speech
in School Hard, but Joss retconned it. Right now I think it's Angelus as
Spike's mentor and surrogate sire since Dru wasn't exactly up to it.
Retcon is, I assume, some sort of shorthand. "retracted inconsistency"?

speaking of which, can anyone tell me why the episode that was shown
on Aunty beeb yesterday is not inconsistent? I'll leave some spoiler
space before I put down my complaint ("whinge"?)
15
14
13
12
10
09
08
07
06
05
04
03
02
01
00
People who get turned into vampires are supposed to not
be that person anymore, but a demon instead, yes?
How is it possible, then, for the recently sired vampire William
(Spike to be), to still love his mummy?
Subsequently we turn the thing the other way around,
his newly sired mummy does *not* love William, just
because it is not mummy, but the demon vampire.

To me, that looks about as consistent as a tory crying
for government interference. (mind, it say "for", not
"about").


TTFN,

Reinier.
Beth Winter
2003-12-10 21:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
Post by Beth Winter
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
<about recent Buffy episode>
Post by Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
Post by Beth Winter
Retcon. Spike does call Angel his sire in the "You were my yoda" speech
in School Hard, but Joss retconned it. Right now I think it's Angelus as
Spike's mentor and surrogate sire since Dru wasn't exactly up to it.
Retcon is, I assume, some sort of shorthand. "retracted inconsistency"?
Retroactive Continuity. When you get an idea once you've already made a
series/comic/serialized novel/other serial form of entertainment
available to the public, and then you go on and pretend it was that way
all along. Season five of Buffy is a wonderful example of Joss playing
with this idea (you'll see...), but he's also guilty of committing it
sometimes, like with Spike.

The word and the phenomenon originated with comics - each time a new
writer came on, they'd change the whole thing around, ignore setups and
create their own, so on. Often changing character history while they
were at it.
Post by Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
speaking of which, can anyone tell me why the episode that was shown
on Aunty beeb yesterday is not inconsistent? I'll leave some spoiler
space before I put down my complaint ("whinge"?)
15
14
13
12
10
09
08
07
06
05
04
03
02
01
00
People who get turned into vampires are supposed to not
be that person anymore, but a demon instead, yes?
How is it possible, then, for the recently sired vampire William
(Spike to be), to still love his mummy?
Subsequently we turn the thing the other way around,
his newly sired mummy does *not* love William, just
because it is not mummy, but the demon vampire.
To me, that looks about as consistent as a tory crying
for government interference. (mind, it say "for", not
"about").
I think the whole "turning" really only removes a person's inhibitions,
and the "demon" stuff is actually Watcher bullshit designed to make the
slayer do her job without asking inconvenient questions. William/Spike
was a bit wet for quite a while after being turned, until Angelus
managed to warp him into his image. Other evidence to corroborate this
theory is that Angel, soul in control, is aware of everything that
happened while he was Angelus. The same way, being a vampire does not
mean that you're automatically evil - there's other examples for
non-souled vampires performing good, or at least decent deeds in the
series.

...aw hell. Talk to me in two years, okay? Because otherwise I'll spoil
everything.
--
Beth Winter
The Discworld Compendium <http://www.extenuation.net/disc/>
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods and the season of mists."
-- Neil Gaiman
g***@hotmail.com
2003-12-12 22:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Hi there,

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:37:17 +0100, Beth Winter
<***@astercity.net> wrote:

Buffy spoiler space...
15
14
13
12
10
09
08
07
06
05
04
03
02
01
00
William/Spike was a bit wet for quite a while after being turned, until Angelus
managed to warp him into his image.
Eh? AFAIR from the "flashback" episodes Angelus was deeply
disappointed in Spike's behaviour because he went around slaughtering
indiscriminately and causing so much trouble they had to keep moving
on.

Cheers,
Graham.
Beth Winter
2003-12-12 22:44:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@hotmail.com
Hi there,
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:37:17 +0100, Beth Winter
Buffy spoiler space...
15
14
13
12
10
09
08
07
06
05
04
03
02
01
00
William/Spike was a bit wet for quite a while after being turned, until Angelus
managed to warp him into his image.
Eh? AFAIR from the "flashback" episodes Angelus was deeply
disappointed in Spike's behaviour because he went around slaughtering
indiscriminately and causing so much trouble they had to keep moving
on.
Wrong flashback episodes then. That happened once Spike got into the
"Angelus junior" act.

...and no, I refuse to spoil Angel season 5 once again. Though that's
what I'd have to do to explain. Damn the Powers That Be for giving so
much exposition in the recent episodes >_<
--
Beth Winter
The Discworld Compendium <http://www.extenuation.net/disc/>
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods and the season of mists."
-- Neil Gaiman
Speaker-to-Customers
2003-12-10 21:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
Post by Beth Winter
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
I thought Angel sired Spike? At least that's what Spike said to
Angel back in Series (?) When they were in the school shortly after
Spike's arrival in sunnydale and Angel revealed himself as a good
guy by not taking Xander?
Or am I totally wrong yet again?
Retcon. Spike does call Angel his sire in the "You were my yoda"
speech in School Hard, but Joss retconned it. Right now I think it's
Angelus as Spike's mentor and surrogate sire since Dru wasn't
exactly up to it. Retcon is, I assume, some sort of shorthand.
"retracted inconsistency"?
speaking of which, can anyone tell me why the episode that was shown
on Aunty beeb yesterday is not inconsistent? I'll leave some spoiler
space before I put down my complaint ("whinge"?)
15
14
13
12
10
09
08
07
06
05
04
03
02
01
00
People who get turned into vampires are supposed to not
be that person anymore, but a demon instead, yes?
How is it possible, then, for the recently sired vampire William
(Spike to be), to still love his mummy?
Spike has always, since his very first appearance in the Season 2 episode
'School Hard', been shown to be capable of love, compassion, and tenderness.
And the willingness to disembowel on a whim people he *doesn't* care about,
but that's another story.

He's the exception, not the rule. The vampire who saved the world while he
was still evil, because the world being sucked into Hell would have wrecked
Manchester United's chances in the Champions' League. Who became friendly
with Buffy's mother long before he fell for Buffy.

It might be inconsistent with many other vampires, but it's the way he's
always been portrayed. Maybe because he was sired by a raving nutcase, or
because of the state of his emotions at the time of his siring. Note that
Drusilla is insane as a vampire because she was driven mad while human, and
that was established a *long* time ago. There is obviously a degree of
carry-over from human to vampire. Oh, and Angel's deep resentment of his
father was carried over to his vampire form - why not love?
Post by Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
Subsequently we turn the thing the other way around,
his newly sired mummy does *not* love William, just
because it is not mummy, but the demon vampire.
That's the norm. Although the norm is also for the new vampire to have an
emotional attachment towards the sire; odd that that didn't happen.
Actually it implies that Vamp Mummy's resentment of William is genuine, and
that she didn't really love him while human at all.

Or perhaps it is just because a lot of Season 7 is total bollocks.
--
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
"Bother!" said Pooh. "A public service announcement followed me home the
other day; I paid it never mind. Go away."
Reinier Sjouw
2003-12-11 22:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Leaving spoiler space for the Buffy episode in season seven
which was broadcast by the BBC on the 9th of December (2003).
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
Post by Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
15
14
13
12
10
09
08
07
06
05
04
03
02
01
00
[snip bit of conversation about vampires no longer being
their old selves but effectively replaced by demons and
how this is or is not inconsistently handled by the Whedon
company]
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
Post by Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
Subsequently we turn the thing the other way around,
his newly sired mummy does *not* love William, just
because it is not mummy, but the demon vampire.
That's the norm. Although the norm is also for the new
vampire to have an emotional attachment towards the
sire; odd that that didn't happen. Actually it implies that
Vamp Mummy's resentment of William is genuine, and
that she didn't really love him while human at all.
but at the end of the episode he is rid of his old fears
and the "First-implanted" trigger, because he has come
to realise that the horrible person was the demon, not
his dear mummy, who would not have behaved so horrible
toward him.

One could, of course, argue that he's proving himself
even more of a wuss by deluding himself that way, but
I think that would go against occam's razor.
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
Or perhaps it is just because a lot of Season 7 is total bollocks.
indeed.

TTFN,

Reinier.
Lady Kayla
2003-12-12 23:05:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reinier Sjouw
Leaving spoiler space for the Buffy episode in season seven
which was broadcast by the BBC on the 9th of December (2003).
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
15
14
13
12
10
09
08
07
06
05
04
03
02
01
00
[snip bit of conversation about vampires no longer being
their old selves but effectively replaced by demons and
how this is or is not inconsistently handled by the Whedon
company]
[Spike's mummy]
Post by Reinier Sjouw
Post by Speaker-to-Customers
That's the norm. Although the norm is also for the new
vampire to have an emotional attachment towards the
sire; odd that that didn't happen. Actually it implies that
Vamp Mummy's resentment of William is genuine, and
that she didn't really love him while human at all.
but at the end of the episode he is rid of his old fears
and the "First-implanted" trigger, because he has come
to realise that the horrible person was the demon, not
his dear mummy, who would not have behaved so horrible
toward him.
I see it and "read" it as more that she didn't want this, she wanted
out, and the only way she could get out was to turn Spike so
thoroughly against her that he would destroy her in rage/fury. The
look on her face the split second before the dusting seemed to me as a
"Thank you" more than anything else.

Or perhaps that's just me.

It seemed to me that the trigger was negated by the character's
realisation that his mother hadn't hated him. Yes, I know he says
stuff about how it wasn't his mother, but "the demon", but what does
he know :)

I only started watching the blasted shows because K was hooked on
them. I preferred the film to the first couple of seasons. It got
much better when they started being silly.
--
Lady Kayla http://designs.ladykayla.org/
"Cheese crawling across the table is a sure sign that it is alive,
too, but we don't have to eat it..." Terry Pratchett in AFP.
Reinier Sjouw
2003-12-13 10:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lady Kayla
I only started watching the blasted shows because K was hooked on
them. I preferred the film to the first couple of seasons. It got
much better when they started being silly.
Can't say I liked the film much, but a large part of the appeal of
the series is that it always has been silly (to me, anyway).
Originally, that only achieved me to be annoyed with the
series. It took a while before I saw that was the exact appeal.

And yet, even with all the mirth, I still would like the
storylines to be consistent.

TTFN,

Reinier.
Beth Winter
2003-12-13 22:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lady Kayla
Leaving spoiler space for the Buffy episodes in season one
15
14
13
12
10
09
08
07
06
05
04
03
02
01
00
<snip about Buffy>
Post by Lady Kayla
I only started watching the blasted shows because K was hooked on
them. I preferred the film to the first couple of seasons. It got
much better when they started being silly.
Um, you mean the preying mantis lady and the hyena thing from season one
weren't silly? Never mind the scanned demon?
--
Beth Winter
The Discworld Compendium <http://www.extenuation.net/disc/>
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods and the season of mists."
-- Neil Gaiman
g***@hotmail.com
2003-12-12 22:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Hi there,

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:05:16 +0100, "Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw"
Post by Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
speaking of which, can anyone tell me why the episode that was shown
on Aunty beeb yesterday is not inconsistent? I'll leave some spoiler
space before I put down my complaint ("whinge"?)
15
14
13
12
10
09
08
07
06
05
04
03
02
01
00
People who get turned into vampires are supposed to not
be that person anymore, but a demon instead, yes?
No.

IIRC the quote when Evil Willow turns up is something on the lines of
Buffy saying to Willow (IIRC when Willow thinks her counterpart was
gay!) "What you're like as a person doesn't affect what you're like as
a vampire".

To which Angel says "Well, actually that's..." <pauses, thinks twice
about what he's about to say> "a good point..."
Post by Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
How is it possible, then, for the recently sired vampire William
(Spike to be), to still love his mummy?
Just because he's evil doesn't mean he's not an evil mummy's boy!
Post by Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
Subsequently we turn the thing the other way around,
his newly sired mummy does *not* love William, just
because it is not mummy, but the demon vampire.
Actually it's because vamp mummy finally gets to say all the things
about William that she would never have said when she was alive.
Post by Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
To me, that looks about as consistent as a tory crying
for government interference. (mind, it say "for", not "about").
Nope, it looks entirely consistent to me.

Cheers,
Graham.
Damien R. Sullivan
2003-12-13 18:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
Post by Beth Winter
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Hang on a mo...
.
.
.
.
.
.
I thought Angel sired Spike? At least that's what Spike said to Angel
back in Series (?) When they were in the school shortly after Spike's
arrival in sunnydale and Angel revealed himself as a good guy by not
taking Xander?
Or am I totally wrong yet again?
Retcon. Spike does call Angel his sire in the "You were my yoda" speech
in School Hard, but Joss retconned it. Right now I think it's Angelus as
Spike's mentor and surrogate sire since Dru wasn't exactly up to it.
Retcon is, I assume, some sort of shorthand. "retracted inconsistency"?
speaking of which, can anyone tell me why the episode that was shown
on Aunty beeb yesterday is not inconsistent? I'll leave some spoiler
space before I put down my complaint ("whinge"?)
15
14
13
12
10
09
08
07
06
05
04
03
02
01
00
People who get turned into vampires are supposed to not
be that person anymore, but a demon instead, yes?
Actually, this is lots of a fun from a cognitive science perspective.

The person, qua soul, is gone -- soul goes off to limbo or something. Demon
moves in, fixes the body, takes over what's left of the brain... which still
carries the *personality* and memories. This was all stated in "Angel", key
first season Buffy episode. The personality gets warped, possibly through
inhibition removal (releasing evil desires) or through a direct injection of
Evil. Especially sadism. Although some people, like the Gorch brothers,
don't seem to change that much, having been homicidal maniacs to start with.
Post by Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
How is it possible, then, for the recently sired vampire William
(Spike to be), to still love his mummy?
Supposedly William-the-human was dead. But William-the-vampire had all his
memories, and much of his personality, and affection for his mother. This
wasn't new -- one of the Gorch brothers was probably sired by the other, who
still cared for him, even though he was an idiot. (Second season Buffy.)

On the other hand, Angelus's first act was to torture and kill his family. Is
this because Liam secretly hated them all, or because Angelus got an
extra-evil demon? We really can't tell.
Post by Jennifer en Reinier Sjouw
Subsequently we turn the thing the other way around,
his newly sired mummy does *not* love William, just
because it is not mummy, but the demon vampire.
Well, her behavior could have been never-really-loving-him, or from indulging
in the new taste for sadism.

Looking beatifically grateful when staked, that's less consistent with the
theology. Well, the show's not perfectly consistent, not by a long, long
shot.

-xx- Damien X-)
X Kyle M Thompson
2003-12-17 08:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beth Winter
Retcon.
Great, now if you'll explain to me what "retcon" means, it'll be dandy.

kt.
--
.sig is in the post
Añejo
2003-12-17 08:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Post by Beth Winter
Retcon.
Great, now if you'll explain to me what "retcon" means, it'll be dandy.
Short for 'retroactive continuity' - altering the past to make it fit with
what you want to do now.

Excessively common in the comics industry. After all, when a character's
been appearing for thirty years, with side breaks into other universes,
there have to be some changes.

Lena
--
http://www.anejo.nu \\ http://derry.anejo.nu
http://www.livejournal.com/~anejo
"I love your nosering. Did that hurt or is it ethnic?" - Fame!
Karen
2003-12-24 18:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Añejo
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Post by Beth Winter
Retcon.
Great, now if you'll explain to me what "retcon" means, it'll be dandy.
Short for 'retroactive continuity' - altering the past to make it fit with
what you want to do now.
Excessively common in the comics industry. After all, when a character's
been appearing for thirty years, with side breaks into other universes,
there have to be some changes.>
Not restricted to the comics industry either - there is no
shortage of RL exponents of retcon :^}
--
Karen/hypatia ***@lspace.org
New? Check http://www.lspace.org
Confused? Mail the Clue Fairies at afp-***@lspace.org
August 20th-23rd, "2004: Discworld" http://www.dwcon.org
Matthew Seaman
2003-12-17 09:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Post by Beth Winter
Retcon.
Great, now if you'll explain to me what "retcon" means, it'll be dandy.
Retroactive Construction -- generally a later attempt to explain or
patch up a glaring (or otherwise) inconsistency in the plot.
eg. History Monks.

Cheers,

Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks
Savill Way
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow
Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK
Beth Winter
2003-12-17 13:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Post by Beth Winter
Retcon.
Great, now if you'll explain to me what "retcon" means, it'll be dandy.
Um, I did. MSGID <***@astercity.net> in reply to Reinier,
reposted here for your convenience:

Retroactive Continuity. When you get an idea once you've already made a
series/comic/serialized novel/other serial form of entertainment
available to the public, and then you go on and pretend it was that way
all along. Season five of Buffy is a wonderful example of Joss playing
with this idea (you'll see...), but he's also guilty of committing it
sometimes, like with Spike.

The word and the phenomenon originated with comics - each time a new
writer came on, they'd change the whole thing around, ignore setups and
create their own, so on. Often changing character history while they
were at it.
--
Beth Winter
The Discworld Compendium <http://www.extenuation.net/disc/>
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods and the season of mists."
-- Neil Gaiman
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...