![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Did you know that a man was hit by a plane while jogging on the beach with his i-pod? It happened in Hilton Head. Private Plane built by the pilot, apparently not that well, and had engine trouble - so the pilot opted to land on the beach of all places. Which normally would not be an issue...except, well you know the visiting business man jogging on the beach plugged into his i-pod. There were other people walking about, but they skeddaled when they heard the planes approach. The man unfortunately could not hear it, because of his ear-phones. Good news? He never knew, died on impact, no pain. Plus no other injuries. Bad news? Left behind a family with three kids. (Hmmm. So if he was single with no family it wouldn't be a huge loss? Good to know. Being single and all. How expendable I truly am.) Anyhow...apparently the odds of getting killed while running on the beach listening to your i-pod are higher than winning the lottery - who knew? Moral? Running on the beach is healthy. But you might want to leave the i-pod at home, along with the cell-phone. These gadgets are truly hazardous to one's health.
2. I've been compulsively scanning the internets for spoilers on the Buffy Comics. And there aren't any, well not any that I don't already know. Highly frustrating. The TV show had spoilers. Stupid comics don't. Interestingly enough, I don't always do this. I don't hunt nor want spoilers for Lost, Caprica, and 99% of the tv shows on. It's only Buffy, BattleStar Galatica (to a degree) and whatever soap opera I'm addicted to at the moment.
3. Saw Caprica this morning. This show works for me whenever Daniel Graystone and Zoe are on-screen. I'm bored whenever Amanda and Clarice Willow are onscreen. And the meandering of Josef Adama in Virtual Reality Land or New Cap City is equally boring to me, although his scene with his brother Sam, who is rapidly becoming one my favorite characters, is quite wonderful. Tamara wandering about New Cap City on the other hand was intriguing and gripping. I also find Lacey's story gripping and whenever she's on screen it is cool. So this show is unevenly written.
The match of wills between Daniel and Zoe in last night's episode was remarkable. She knew that the gun he gave her to shoot the dog was filled with blanks - the robot that she's inside could sense it. But she admits to Lacey that if it had been filled with actual bullets - she would have turned it on her father and shot him. I can't say I'd blame her. What Daniel does to her is horrific. He basically tortures her in the hopes that she'll slip up and reveal that she is alive and well inside the robot. He is willing to break any rule to retrieve "his" daughter as if she belongs to him. It's a rather interesting character thematic - the idea of ownership.
Josef and Daniel share that in common - that both see these girls as their property, theirs.
And this is true of many parents - they have tendency to see their children as belonging to them as part of them, as a projection of themselves. You are smart because I'm smart. Your accomplishments are a reflection on me, etc. When in truth this is not so. Children are individuals, unique. While parents do have an affect on who they become, they are not the sole or only factor and they do not own their children.
Stolz plays Daniel in a way that is sympathetic. He is vulnerable. You do care about him and you can see him going a bit crazy with grief. It is in some respects an amazing performance.
He raises the bar quite high.
Zoe also is quite well played - her battle of wills, her desire to tell but fear to do so, her inability to trust him.
That dynamic is well-played and an ironic take on a similar one between Gaius Baltar and the manipulative Six.
The other scene that I found interesting was a relatively small one between Josef Adama and his brother Sam, where he asks Sam - what goes through his head when he kills someone. The conversation and the ensuing holo game that Josef plays to find his daughter are commentaries to our own society's rather desensitizing take on violence. The woman that Josef meets in the game tells him that what happens in the game feels real and is real within its confines. Josef keeps stating it's not though. When he leaves the game after being unable to kill someone - at least initially - he asks Sam that question. Sam states - I don't think about it. It's not real. The person I kill is not real to me. To me they are just a target. Not human. Just something in the way. Something that I have to remove. That's it. I don't think of them as a living thing. The speech he gives Josef Adama reminds me a great deal of the speech that Spike gives Angel in Damage, where he tells Angel that he never saw his victims, they weren't real to him. Just a target. Just food. Just the rush of violence. He says the same to Buffy in numerous episodes - happy meals with legs, or to Wood, just a slayer. He in his head, rationalized killing people by making them targets. Not people. They aren't real. He didn't care about them because they weren't real or people to him. It's a different type of evil than say...the serial killer who targets people because they are real and he gets off on taking them apart, corrupting them, turning them into himself. It's also if you think about it - a commentary on us. Violent video games where we just kill things. Violent tv shows and blockbuster movies - where people are killed but we feel nothing. Even the news and media. And what, Caprica asks, is it doing to our children - who are watching and playing increasingly violent video games, where there are no consquences for killing someone, no remorse - it is not real. It's just a game. What happens, ask Caprica's writers, when the line between reality and makebelieve becomes blurred? Josef Adama wonders this very thing as he pursues his dead daughter's avatar in the makebelieve world, killing all who get in his way.
I'm guessing Marsters arc continues into next season, since the season final is next week and we've only seen Marsters for one episode. He's supposed to have a four episode arc.
4. While I was rather unimpressed by Lost this week...I did find a few bits worth noting.
Kate and Jin and Sawyer are clearly not completely on board with Team Smokey. Sawyer appears to playing Smokey and was not surprised when Not!Lock revealed himself to be Smokey. I'm guessing Sawyer knows quite a bit about who and what Smokey is - considering he was head of security at the Dharma Initiative for three years with Juliet, and they both knew the pylons kept Smokey out. Regarding Smokey - it was Smokey who manipulated Ben into killing everyone at the Dharma Initiative and into joining the Others. He appeared as Ben's mother and talked to him. It was not Richard Alpert who got him to do it - unless I remembered it wrong. Sawyer also did not lie to either Widmore or to Smokey - which is why he is the best liar Smokey had met. It may also explain why it is difficult for people to lie to Sawyer, he usually sees right through them.
He knew before anyone else did that Sayid Jarrah was a torturer who got off on it. And he
knew how to play him. He also knew right off the bat that Smokey wasn't Lock. Liars tend to know when others are lying. What makes Sawyer good is he doesn't really lie. He tells half-truths. And what people want to hear. He told Widmore that he'd bring Smokey to his doorstep. And he told Smokey that he told Widmore this and what Widmore was doing on the Hydra Island with the cages. He told both that he had no problem with them fighting one another, he just wanted off the island, along with everyone with him.
Another interesting tid-bit about Sawyer? He makes friends with other people. His friends with Jin, Hurley, Lock, and Miles. Jack doesn't. Not really. We see this in the islandverse and the sideways verse.
That's the only thing I thought was interesting in the Sideways verse - that Sawyer, after his confrontations with Charlotte and Miles, attempts to make amends with both. Charlott's reaction perplexed me - because she was clearly hunting that file on Sawyer and clearly knew that James Ford had it. She was thrilled when she found it. So why the uppity bit? Is she trying to convince him she was just fiddling about? What is she hiding and why do I get the feeling that they won't tell us? The fact that he tells Miles and informs him that he wants to kill Cooper for what he did - also intrigued me. That's the big difference between James Ford in islandverse and JAmes Ford in Sideways verse. In Sideways verse - he does trust people, he lets them in. Prior to Juliet - James Ford did not let anyone in. Not really. So they are being consistent in their depiction of the characters' lives being better in Sideways verse without manipulative Jacob and the island. Also, what the characters do in the sideways verse is organic to who they are in islandverse.
Ben is a teacher, who cares deeply for Alex - and struggles with a desire for control. He is manipulative in both worlds, but also in both - he cares deeply about those put in his care.
In Sideways - he helps them, he aides them, he chooses them over power. In Islandverse - he chooses power, and fails them miserably.
Locke - desperately wants to be someone, wants to believe in something, to find meaning, to find a purpose - if it is only being a teacher and being loved. In Sideways - he finds it.
In Islandverse - he can't.
Jack - desperately wanted his father's approval, to feel important, to feel sucessful outside of his father - he realizes in the Sideways verse that he always had it, and that it is not important, that it is not vital and it does not make him successful. He has a son and through his son - he realizes that his father's words which felt like darts meant to wound, were not deliberately so...he comes to an epithany of sorts. While in Islandverse - he's floundering, desperate, and suicidal, letting everyone down in the process - it's still about Daddy, with Jacob merely another representation, as is Smokey.
Kate - it's about bringing the mother and child together. She had a crazy mother who defended an abusive father. Kate wanted a relationship with her mother, and pursues it, with no luck.
So shifts to one with Claire's son, and when that falls through, shifts to finding Claire and reuniting Claire with Aaron. In Sideways verse - she succeeds. In Islandverse = she fails.
Sayid - wants to prove he is a good man and not the product of his actions, years spent as torturer in Iraq. That he is worthy of Nadia. In Islandverse he fails over and over again.
Each time when he is put to the test, he kills and tortures. In Sideways verse - he is equally forced to kill, but not quite for the same reasons. And he does not end up with Nadia, he stays away protecting her.
Sawyer - wants to find the man who destroyed his family. In Islandverse - he does, he kills him and has to live with it, is devasted by the act - and manipulated into it by Locke and by association Ben. In Sideways verse - he can't find Cooper, and is looking, while it eats away at him but has not turned him into Sawyer/Cooper. His love of others, need to help and protect others wins out in the end, as it does in Islandverse, but more so here.
All of this makes me wonder what I'm supposed to be thinking of Jacob, who feels more and more like a manipulative bastard. I'm hoping this is true. I'm hoping that the story isn't a simple one a la The Stand, with the good guys fighting the bad guys. But I'm skeptical.
Next week's episode gives me some hope...since we get to see Alpert's back story and perhaps some insight on Jacob. Alpert clearly doesn't like Jacob much. The only two things of interest in Jack's game of chicken with Alpert and the dynamite two weeks ago - was that a)Alpert had given up and sees Jacob as a manipulative bastard, just as Jack does. And b) no one touched by Jacob can die on the island. Note John Locke died off the island, so this was not a problem.
People can die off island if touched by Jacob, but not on. Which is what the boy meant when he told SMokey - you can't kill him - he can't kill Sawyer. It also may explain why Sayid came back from the dead. And Juliet was killed (not touched by Jacob.) Personally, I'd rather have Juliet...Sayid's story got stale a year ago. I love Sayid, but they just keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Plus we got too many male characters - I vote we ax a few of them to even up the tally. Also, as a side note - where are Rose and Bernard? Not dead, I hope.
I liked those characters.
Okay bedtime.
2. I've been compulsively scanning the internets for spoilers on the Buffy Comics. And there aren't any, well not any that I don't already know. Highly frustrating. The TV show had spoilers. Stupid comics don't. Interestingly enough, I don't always do this. I don't hunt nor want spoilers for Lost, Caprica, and 99% of the tv shows on. It's only Buffy, BattleStar Galatica (to a degree) and whatever soap opera I'm addicted to at the moment.
3. Saw Caprica this morning. This show works for me whenever Daniel Graystone and Zoe are on-screen. I'm bored whenever Amanda and Clarice Willow are onscreen. And the meandering of Josef Adama in Virtual Reality Land or New Cap City is equally boring to me, although his scene with his brother Sam, who is rapidly becoming one my favorite characters, is quite wonderful. Tamara wandering about New Cap City on the other hand was intriguing and gripping. I also find Lacey's story gripping and whenever she's on screen it is cool. So this show is unevenly written.
The match of wills between Daniel and Zoe in last night's episode was remarkable. She knew that the gun he gave her to shoot the dog was filled with blanks - the robot that she's inside could sense it. But she admits to Lacey that if it had been filled with actual bullets - she would have turned it on her father and shot him. I can't say I'd blame her. What Daniel does to her is horrific. He basically tortures her in the hopes that she'll slip up and reveal that she is alive and well inside the robot. He is willing to break any rule to retrieve "his" daughter as if she belongs to him. It's a rather interesting character thematic - the idea of ownership.
Josef and Daniel share that in common - that both see these girls as their property, theirs.
And this is true of many parents - they have tendency to see their children as belonging to them as part of them, as a projection of themselves. You are smart because I'm smart. Your accomplishments are a reflection on me, etc. When in truth this is not so. Children are individuals, unique. While parents do have an affect on who they become, they are not the sole or only factor and they do not own their children.
Stolz plays Daniel in a way that is sympathetic. He is vulnerable. You do care about him and you can see him going a bit crazy with grief. It is in some respects an amazing performance.
He raises the bar quite high.
Zoe also is quite well played - her battle of wills, her desire to tell but fear to do so, her inability to trust him.
That dynamic is well-played and an ironic take on a similar one between Gaius Baltar and the manipulative Six.
The other scene that I found interesting was a relatively small one between Josef Adama and his brother Sam, where he asks Sam - what goes through his head when he kills someone. The conversation and the ensuing holo game that Josef plays to find his daughter are commentaries to our own society's rather desensitizing take on violence. The woman that Josef meets in the game tells him that what happens in the game feels real and is real within its confines. Josef keeps stating it's not though. When he leaves the game after being unable to kill someone - at least initially - he asks Sam that question. Sam states - I don't think about it. It's not real. The person I kill is not real to me. To me they are just a target. Not human. Just something in the way. Something that I have to remove. That's it. I don't think of them as a living thing. The speech he gives Josef Adama reminds me a great deal of the speech that Spike gives Angel in Damage, where he tells Angel that he never saw his victims, they weren't real to him. Just a target. Just food. Just the rush of violence. He says the same to Buffy in numerous episodes - happy meals with legs, or to Wood, just a slayer. He in his head, rationalized killing people by making them targets. Not people. They aren't real. He didn't care about them because they weren't real or people to him. It's a different type of evil than say...the serial killer who targets people because they are real and he gets off on taking them apart, corrupting them, turning them into himself. It's also if you think about it - a commentary on us. Violent video games where we just kill things. Violent tv shows and blockbuster movies - where people are killed but we feel nothing. Even the news and media. And what, Caprica asks, is it doing to our children - who are watching and playing increasingly violent video games, where there are no consquences for killing someone, no remorse - it is not real. It's just a game. What happens, ask Caprica's writers, when the line between reality and makebelieve becomes blurred? Josef Adama wonders this very thing as he pursues his dead daughter's avatar in the makebelieve world, killing all who get in his way.
I'm guessing Marsters arc continues into next season, since the season final is next week and we've only seen Marsters for one episode. He's supposed to have a four episode arc.
4. While I was rather unimpressed by Lost this week...I did find a few bits worth noting.
Kate and Jin and Sawyer are clearly not completely on board with Team Smokey. Sawyer appears to playing Smokey and was not surprised when Not!Lock revealed himself to be Smokey. I'm guessing Sawyer knows quite a bit about who and what Smokey is - considering he was head of security at the Dharma Initiative for three years with Juliet, and they both knew the pylons kept Smokey out. Regarding Smokey - it was Smokey who manipulated Ben into killing everyone at the Dharma Initiative and into joining the Others. He appeared as Ben's mother and talked to him. It was not Richard Alpert who got him to do it - unless I remembered it wrong. Sawyer also did not lie to either Widmore or to Smokey - which is why he is the best liar Smokey had met. It may also explain why it is difficult for people to lie to Sawyer, he usually sees right through them.
He knew before anyone else did that Sayid Jarrah was a torturer who got off on it. And he
knew how to play him. He also knew right off the bat that Smokey wasn't Lock. Liars tend to know when others are lying. What makes Sawyer good is he doesn't really lie. He tells half-truths. And what people want to hear. He told Widmore that he'd bring Smokey to his doorstep. And he told Smokey that he told Widmore this and what Widmore was doing on the Hydra Island with the cages. He told both that he had no problem with them fighting one another, he just wanted off the island, along with everyone with him.
Another interesting tid-bit about Sawyer? He makes friends with other people. His friends with Jin, Hurley, Lock, and Miles. Jack doesn't. Not really. We see this in the islandverse and the sideways verse.
That's the only thing I thought was interesting in the Sideways verse - that Sawyer, after his confrontations with Charlotte and Miles, attempts to make amends with both. Charlott's reaction perplexed me - because she was clearly hunting that file on Sawyer and clearly knew that James Ford had it. She was thrilled when she found it. So why the uppity bit? Is she trying to convince him she was just fiddling about? What is she hiding and why do I get the feeling that they won't tell us? The fact that he tells Miles and informs him that he wants to kill Cooper for what he did - also intrigued me. That's the big difference between James Ford in islandverse and JAmes Ford in Sideways verse. In Sideways verse - he does trust people, he lets them in. Prior to Juliet - James Ford did not let anyone in. Not really. So they are being consistent in their depiction of the characters' lives being better in Sideways verse without manipulative Jacob and the island. Also, what the characters do in the sideways verse is organic to who they are in islandverse.
Ben is a teacher, who cares deeply for Alex - and struggles with a desire for control. He is manipulative in both worlds, but also in both - he cares deeply about those put in his care.
In Sideways - he helps them, he aides them, he chooses them over power. In Islandverse - he chooses power, and fails them miserably.
Locke - desperately wants to be someone, wants to believe in something, to find meaning, to find a purpose - if it is only being a teacher and being loved. In Sideways - he finds it.
In Islandverse - he can't.
Jack - desperately wanted his father's approval, to feel important, to feel sucessful outside of his father - he realizes in the Sideways verse that he always had it, and that it is not important, that it is not vital and it does not make him successful. He has a son and through his son - he realizes that his father's words which felt like darts meant to wound, were not deliberately so...he comes to an epithany of sorts. While in Islandverse - he's floundering, desperate, and suicidal, letting everyone down in the process - it's still about Daddy, with Jacob merely another representation, as is Smokey.
Kate - it's about bringing the mother and child together. She had a crazy mother who defended an abusive father. Kate wanted a relationship with her mother, and pursues it, with no luck.
So shifts to one with Claire's son, and when that falls through, shifts to finding Claire and reuniting Claire with Aaron. In Sideways verse - she succeeds. In Islandverse = she fails.
Sayid - wants to prove he is a good man and not the product of his actions, years spent as torturer in Iraq. That he is worthy of Nadia. In Islandverse he fails over and over again.
Each time when he is put to the test, he kills and tortures. In Sideways verse - he is equally forced to kill, but not quite for the same reasons. And he does not end up with Nadia, he stays away protecting her.
Sawyer - wants to find the man who destroyed his family. In Islandverse - he does, he kills him and has to live with it, is devasted by the act - and manipulated into it by Locke and by association Ben. In Sideways verse - he can't find Cooper, and is looking, while it eats away at him but has not turned him into Sawyer/Cooper. His love of others, need to help and protect others wins out in the end, as it does in Islandverse, but more so here.
All of this makes me wonder what I'm supposed to be thinking of Jacob, who feels more and more like a manipulative bastard. I'm hoping this is true. I'm hoping that the story isn't a simple one a la The Stand, with the good guys fighting the bad guys. But I'm skeptical.
Next week's episode gives me some hope...since we get to see Alpert's back story and perhaps some insight on Jacob. Alpert clearly doesn't like Jacob much. The only two things of interest in Jack's game of chicken with Alpert and the dynamite two weeks ago - was that a)Alpert had given up and sees Jacob as a manipulative bastard, just as Jack does. And b) no one touched by Jacob can die on the island. Note John Locke died off the island, so this was not a problem.
People can die off island if touched by Jacob, but not on. Which is what the boy meant when he told SMokey - you can't kill him - he can't kill Sawyer. It also may explain why Sayid came back from the dead. And Juliet was killed (not touched by Jacob.) Personally, I'd rather have Juliet...Sayid's story got stale a year ago. I love Sayid, but they just keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Plus we got too many male characters - I vote we ax a few of them to even up the tally. Also, as a side note - where are Rose and Bernard? Not dead, I hope.
I liked those characters.
Okay bedtime.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 01:24 pm (UTC)You do. While Smokey (or someone, but there hasn't been evidence so far that Jacob does the dead people impersonation gig, so chances are it was Smokey) appeared to child!Ben as Emily, thereby getting him to leave the Dharma compound for the first time (which led to his encounter with Richard), he had nothing to do with the next stop, Ben getting healed in the temple after Sayid shot him. If anyone is to blame for that one, it's Sayid. (Also Jacob if you like since Richard tells Charles Widmore who questions the decision to heal a Dharma child that Jacob wanted it done.) Smokey also had nothing to do (that we know of) with the Purge. This was ordered by Charles Widmore who was by then leader of the Others. Ben participated and personally killed his father, but as of our current state of knowledge, it was either his idea, nor Smokey's.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 01:55 pm (UTC)Have a good week.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 02:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 03:18 pm (UTC)Same here. Buffy, or, rather the prospect of Spuffy is the only thing that makes me hunt for spoilers. I'm afraid that by the time Buffy will finally meet Spike I will be too exhausted to care.
But I still follow all the spoilers I can find, as paltry as they are...
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 07:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 07:49 pm (UTC)I only saw that episode once when it originally aired, so admittedly have vague memories of it. I don't remember Charles Widmore. So was that brought up later? Or was he actually in that episode?
Also, do we have any firm evidence or confirmation that Sayid shot Ben in both Islandverse and Sidewaysverse? Or just Islandverse? Or just Sidewaysverse? (See, this is why I hate time-travel stories they cause anomalies to occur. In Sidewaysverse - Sayid never made it to the island. In Islandverse - Sayid goes back in time and does shoot Ben. Yet, is that undone by the bomb? So is Ben ever really shot? Does it ever happen? )
Assuming it did and does exist in both universes...how does Ben's actions become Sayid's fault? There's no "direct" causal relationship here. Sayid may have shot Ben, but after that point - there are five different possibilities: 1) Ben is evacuated by his Dad after he is healed by the others and returned to the Dharma Intiative (Sidewaysverse), 2) Ben is immediately, and when he is, he's a bit traumatized and doesn't trust the others, because an other shot him. He has no memory of them saving his life . 3) Ben
gets an infection and dies.. 4) Ben worships the others. 5) Ben is infected as Sayid was by a part of the Island...and it twists him up inside. 6) Ben would have done it regardless of Sayid shooting him, because has no memory of that event.
In short - you cannot draw a causal relationship between the two events. Sayid's shooting of Ben does not necessarily explain or lead to Ben's actions latter. If they did, Ben would be acting differently in Sideways verse (unless of course he wasn't shot in that verse - which doesn't make sense, since the shooting happened prior to the bomb going off and splintering off the verse. So it had to affect him in that universe.).
You can however draw a casual relationship between the ghost of his mother who kept talking to him on the other side of the pylons. (Which we've been told was Smokey by other episodes - his dead daughter, Eko's dead brother, Jack's dead Dad...all versions of Smokey). She kept appearing - telling him the Dharma Initiative was bad and to seek out the others. If it weren't for Smokey, Ben wouldn't have gone. We also don't know if the leader of the others, Widmore, chose to follow Smokey's advice or Jacob's or his own. (I'm betting his own and Smokey may have aided by getting Ben to him, much as he sent Sawyer to Widmore in the current timeline.)
Sigh. Now I have a headache. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 07:55 pm (UTC)This may explain my disappointment with the comic books. There is such a long wait between issues that expectation/anticipation often exceeds what the writer can actually and realistically deliver. They'd be much better off delivering these things every other week or in tradebook/graphic novel format. Instead they've teased the audience to the point that the audience is bound to be far more critical than they may have been if they got it a lot quicker.
Not sure that complaint would work. Personally, I'm having troubles understanding the long wait. Comics are not that hard to write and illustrate. Marvel puts out much higher quality issues far faster, granted they are a bigger house, but still.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 08:00 pm (UTC)At least the TV series would resolve it's story by May 5th. This damn thing...not so much.
Plus, expect another wait in Dec. You know - for X-mas vacation.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 08:08 pm (UTC)I can see why Whedon is enjoying writing the comics - he can control spoilers along with how the art is conveyed. No irritating actors to console, no networks to bribe and negotiate with, and no worries regarding spoilers (well for the most part in any event). If only tv writing were this easy. (Thank god it isn't. )
Same here. Buffy, or, rather the prospect of Spuffy is the only thing that makes me hunt for spoilers. I'm afraid that by the time Buffy will finally meet Spike I will be too exhausted to care.
Sigh. Me too. Unfortunately. I want to know what happened to Spike in this series. What his relationship with Angel and Buffy is at this juncture. And whether she even knows he's alive. (And if she has known all along, Whedon was a nitwit for not stating so sooner and telling us. Bad writing. And I can safely write the bloke off and wander on my way. Hee. See this is the wonderful thing about being a fan, the writer is dependent on you for his paycheck. You can stop reading and watching his/her stuff at any time.)
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 08:19 pm (UTC)elseyou'll burn."Josef Adama wonders this very thing as he pursues his dead daughter's avatar in the makebelieve world, killing all who get in his way.
Very well put. And I like your thoughts on Sam vis-a-vis Spike - ties nicely into a piece of Spike meta I may never get finished, about where that supposed vestigial soul and morality comes from pre-s7.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 08:21 pm (UTC)It was the only way to explain the coincidence of The Immortal being the enemy of both Angel and Spike. It made sense only if it was Buffy's little revenge. Of course, it was pretty non-sensical from the RL standpoint but the trick worked okay within the genre of "commedia all'italiana". Buffy showed her boys that she still can make them hurt in all the right places. :)
But, apparently, Joss' plans have changed drastically since 2004.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 08:23 pm (UTC)In Dark Horse's defense, coming up with plots this cracky must take a lot of hard work... ;-)
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 08:39 pm (UTC)And agreed. Those scenes with Daniel, really made me want her to blow him away. I even started rooting for his nemesis - Virgis (I think that's his name?)
Very well put. And I like your thoughts on Sam vis-a-vis Spike - ties nicely into a piece of Spike meta I may never get finished, about where that supposed vestigial soul and morality comes from pre-s7.
Oooh, you are doing a Spike meta? Cool. And on a topic that fascinates me as well. One of the many reasons that I'm still hooked on that character.
Sam in Caprica reminds me a lot of Spike. He's in some respects one of the more layered characters in the series...
When you compare Sam/Josef (Spike) to Daniel (Angel/Angelus), it's hard to really say who is the most twisted. Valid arguments could be posed for both. I know I've argued it both ways, at least in my head and at times online. But, personally, I prefer Josef/Sam and Spike to the Daniel/Angel ...because it's easier to argue with a man who sees you as just a target (get him to choose another one or make him see you aren't), then one who sees you as his creation and a product of his ego or the bolstering of his ego.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 08:50 pm (UTC)I don't know...people came up with the all penquine AU fairly fast. And seriously, have you been reading the reviews of Willingham's Angel comics? They sound pretty cracky to me, granted not as cracky as the Twilight arc...but then Willingham has only written four issues and no vacations, so give him time.
Sigh. I've read far too many Marvel comics - crack plot-lines are unfortunately fairly common. Good ones on the other hand...seem to be increasingly difficult to come by for some reason. Maybe that's why all the vacations - they keep trying, and keep coming up short?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 08:57 pm (UTC)I may never finish it, and it isn't exactly revolutionary, I think, but the gist of it is this: Spike's sense of morality isn't grounded in ethics but rather in esthetics. He acts according to what is narratively and romantically (in the literary rather than the emotional sense) correct. And therefore, as you say, the victims aren't important - his own actions, the artistic process is far more interesting. (The victims aren't part of his audience anyway.) Exactly because art, at least in the late 19th century and onwards, can tackle questions of morality without being moral in and of itself (William is roughly contemporary with Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, heh), a vampire based on those ideals may retain a secondary sense of meta-morality. Or something.
When you compare Sam/Josef (Spike) to Daniel (Angel/Angelus), it's hard to really say who is the most twisted.
Yup. I just finished watching Rome (where pretty much everyone is contemptible, but interesting and believable) and the way they pit Marc Antony and Octavian against not only each other but against what we know of what's going to happen - on the one hand, the passionate, chaotic, murderous lover, and on the other the cold, calculating schemer... it's hard to know exactly what to make of it, but it's definitely a similar dynamic. The dreamer vs the realist, the mass murderer vs the serial killer, the honorable vs the pragmatic, etc.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 09:02 pm (UTC)In Long Way Home - I wondered why they felt the need to set-up a decoy that would fool Angel, who I hadn't seen as a potential threat, but now...in retrospect....
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 09:08 pm (UTC)Yeah. It seems both DH and IDW have decided that since the stories are now told in comic book format, they somehow have to change them to become comic book stories - stuff like this (Spike regrowing limbs, Dawn turning into a centaur, Buffy flying) wouldn't have happened in the TV series, but it's happened in other comic books, therefore they must now happen in the Buffyverse or people might think it's (gasp, horror) not a proper superhero comic but something, I dunno, unique. Just like Allie seems to think Buffy fans are Twilight fans: the genre is the genre and they must stick to it at all costs.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 09:18 pm (UTC)And hopefully I can use the four month break to get some serious work done on my dissertation, so it's all good.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 09:21 pm (UTC)Gives you cookies as an encouragement to finish it.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 09:40 pm (UTC)I remember reading an interview with Brian Lynch - when he was writing Angel After the Fall. He said that he initially wanted to only do things that could have happened in the television series and not to do anything that could not have happened on it. But Whedon told him that he should make full use of the comic medium, and convinced him and by extension IDW to ignore the TV series.
To which, I thought to myself, uhm, Whedon, that statement in of itself is sort of contraditory to what you say you are attempting with the Buffy comics. If you want me to believe these are meant to be canonical to the television series - you have to at least try to make them fit with that verse. A little effort here, would be appreciated.
(When skinless Warren showed up, I knew that the comics had taken a left turn and they just kept on going...so was not all that surprised by Dawn turning into a Centaur or Angel becoming Twilight.)
IDW - I'd had hopes for until Kelly Armstrong took over from Brian Lynch, and I just gave up on them. Not that Lynch was fantastic or anything...but at least he stayed with the general gist of the series. Wish I could say the same of the ones who came after him.
Why anyone would think the majority of Buffy fans are Twilight fans is beyond me. I mean, hello, most Buffy fans hate the Twilight books (they are the complete opposite of Buffy) and most Twilight fans (including James Marsters niece apparently) don't like Buffy - it's too violent and scarey and how can you make vampires evil??? But then Allie doesn't strike me as all that bright. That elevator definitely does not quite go to the top. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 09:51 pm (UTC)My current obsession appears to be anti-hero television shows, with complicated moral themes.
I may never finish it, and it isn't exactly revolutionary, I think, but the gist of it is this: Spike's sense of morality isn't grounded in ethics but rather in esthetics. He acts according to what is narratively and romantically (in the literary rather than the emotional sense) correct. And therefore, as you say, the victims aren't important - his own actions, the artistic process is far more interesting. (The victims aren't part of his audience anyway.) Exactly because art, at least in the late 19th century and onwards, can tackle questions of morality without being moral in and of itself (William is roughly contemporary with Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, heh), a vampire based on those ideals may retain a secondary sense of meta-morality. Or something.
While I've certainly read the Victorian effeminate theory...this appears to be a new twist on it. And both Wilde and Twain are good examples. Twain made fun of romantics like Henry James, just as Spike would, yet Spike in a way was originally the Henry James sort or whoever it was that wrote Ivanhoe. Can't remember. Not being a huge fan of the Victorian Romantics...I find Wilde and Twain hugely entertaining.
I think what is interesting about Spike/William - is he started out as a Victorian Romantic and became over time quite Wildian.
And his morality sans soul changed as well, but unlike Liam - 1700s, and Darla, 1500s, his morality is bit more evolved...it's less in some respects black and white, which makes sense, because the Victorian Age was a type of Cultural Renaissance with a more elastic morality that was far less dependent on the Church or religious dictates.
Could be a rather interesting and cool meta. Also quite ambitious.
One thing about writing meta online - that I recently discovered, the readers seem to care more about how we present it than how it is written. So if you attach cool pictures and vids? You'll be adored.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 10:00 pm (UTC)But more importantly...and you don't have to answer, of course, completely understand...what's your dissertion on?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 10:26 pm (UTC)Sir Walter Scott. And exactly; Spike isn't a romantic character, he's a deconstruction of one - except Spike the character isn't aware of it, at least not up to a point. There's a reason he's styled himself a punk rocker, the perfect combination of romanticism and cynicism.
And his morality sans soul changed as well, but unlike Liam - 1700s, and Darla, 1500s, his morality is bit more evolved...it's less in some respects black and white, which makes sense, because the Victorian Age was a type of Cultural Renaissance with a more elastic morality that was far less dependent on the Church or religious dictates.
Again, exactly. Angelus is Villain, but at the same time a product of Enlightenment; he's evil and knows it, but he's also rational and static up to the point where there's a revolution that turns everything upside down. (He's not Wilde, he's Shelley - Mary, that is. MS's The Last Man is set hundreds of years in her future, yet everything looks like early-18th century England since progress hadn't been invented yet.) In contrast, Spike sees himself as Tragic Hero, and at the same time a product of the industrial revolution; he's bad, but he's good at being bad, and he can evolve - and he knows (or he's from a time that knows) that there's nothing moral in evolution, just gradual change. (See, I've got all these thoughts on it all a-jumble and I need to do some reading before I start putting it together.)
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 10:29 pm (UTC)Okay, I've checked the episode transcript. Here are the Smokey-as-Emily scenes:
ROGER: Wow... [Sees the wrapped present] It's your birthday. Sorry I forgot. Kinda hard to celebrate on the day you killed your mom. She was just seven months pregnant. We went for a hike, but you had to come early. Now, she's gone. And I'm stuck here on this island...with you. [Pauses, grunts] Happy birthday, Ben.
[Ben runs out, crying. He goes straight to the sonar fence, hearing whispers. His mother then appears in front of him, on the other side of the barrier.
BEN: Mom?
[Ben runs toward the barrier]
EMILY: Ben, don't!
BEN: Mom!
EMILY: It's not time yet, Benjamin.
[She leaves]
BEN: Mom!
[Ben begins to run, stumbling, back toward the Barracks]]
and:
[Ben heads to the sonar fence armed with the deactivation code. He enters it, turns the dial, and the sound of the fence buzzing dies down. He pulls out a white rabbit, and shoos it across the fence line to ensure it really is off, then runs through, collecting the rabbit as he goes. He heads into the jungle, hearing whispers]
BEN: Mom..? Mom? Mom! Mom! Mom!
[Ben hears the whispers, and then turns to see a long-haired Richard Alpert standing behind him]
RICHARD: Whoa whoa whoa whoa. Whoa. Whoa, hey, hey, whoa, I didn't mean to scare you. Wait, wait! Are you lost? Wait!
BEN: Are you one of them?
RICHARD: One of whom?
BEN: A hostile.
RICHARD: Do you even know what that word means? What's your name?
BEN: Ben.
RICHARD: Ben? So you wanna tell me what you're doing in the middle of the jungle all by yourself?
BEN: I left home, and...I'm looking for my Mom.
RICHARD: You think she's out here?
BEN: You wouldn't believe me.
RICHARD: Try me.
BEN: She's dead.
RICHARD: Did she die here, on the Island?
BEN: No. When I was a baby.
RICHARD: Did you see her, out here, Ben, in the jungle?
BEN: She talked to me.
RICHARD: What did she say?
BEN: That I couldn't come with her. She said it wasn't time yet.
RICHARD: You should go home now, your people will be looking for you.
BEN: I don't want to go back there! I hate it there! Take me with you.
RICHARD: Maybe that can happen, maybe. But if that's what you really want, Ben, if that's what you want, I want you to really think about that. And you're gonna have to be very, very patient.
End of quote. These are the only two times Ben sees Emily. You'll notice she never tells him Dharma = bad/ Others = Good. She does entire him to leave the compound, precisely by telling him it's not time for that YET, but Ben came to the conclusion that the Others were nifty and the Dharma Initiative rotten in other ways. The fact Richard was there, friendly and mysterious certainly helped. As did being healed from a lethal wound. As did living with Roger the abusive alcoholic chez Dharma, which nobody in Dharmaville seems to have done something about.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-22 02:00 am (UTC)"He basically tortures her in the hopes that she'll slip up and reveal that she is alive "
even before he suspected it was Zoe he was torturing her (having sex w/his wife in front of the robot and making the robot rip it's arm off)...
but now he thinks that torture is the way to make the robot soften towards him and believe he loves her? Makes me think that he was never a very good Father, or sensitive to other people...
He seems to spend all his time and energy on what he needs (we can see what a lousy husband he is).
These characters are richly flawed, and really interesting.... And I particularly love the ruthlessness with which that Nun character is manipulating Zoe's Mother (now SHE knows not to torture for information... instead to get the woman totally dependent upon her).
I was interested by James Marster's character and I'm looking forward to his return, as Zoe's friend tries to infiltrate his group.
I guess I should learn more character names, huh? And maybe look for a good 'Caprica' icon.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-22 04:24 pm (UTC)Smokey and Jacob tend to like to be subtle in their manipulations...I'll give them that.
But..
The fact Richard was there, friendly and
mysterious certainly helped. As did being healed from a lethal wound. As
did living with Roger the abusive alcoholic chez Dharma, which nobody in
Dharmaville seems to have done something about.
I don't think you can include the lethal wound in there - since there is still no causal evidence linking it to Ben's actions later. Or for that matter any evidence that it happened in the islandverse and not just the sidewaysverse.
Here's an argument against it:
1. Ben most likely does not remember being healed by the others. We have no evidence in the series that he would necessarily. And none that he doesn't.
2. His father may well have changed his attitude towards Ben because of the wound. Note the father shoots Sayid and in the Sideways verse - the father has a positive relationship with his son.
3. As demonstrated by Ben's initial trust in Sayid because Sayid is an other or hostile, it is more than likely Ben would have followed this course without Sayid's interference. The fact Sayid is a hostile and shoots Ben - would make Ben less likely to trust them.
But that fact is changed or rendered null and void, when Richard helps him. So Sayid's actions are a wash either way.
In short, it really doesn't matter that much in the islandverse whether Sayid shot Ben or not, has little to no effect on Ben's trajectory as far as I can see.
He would have gone down the same path regardless.
BUT...Sayid's actions do however affect Sayid's journey or arc. Because Sayid shot Ben, Ben's father fatally wounds Sayid - sending Sayid to the same healing waters that Ben was sent to. Except Sayid died, while Ben did not. And then came back to life.
But did he change? Not really. Sayid like Ben, would have more or less done the same things regardless of whether he'd been shot and died. He's consistent throughout - he kills to see Nadia again or to revenge her death.
So ultimately? Sayid's shooting of Ben does not create Ben or result in Ben doing what he does. It has little effect. Because all of that would have happened anyhow.
What does tell us - is what motivates Sayid, Sawyer, Juliet, Jack, and Richard Alpert. What they'd do if confronted with this choice. It also tells us something about Ben and his father's relationship - enough to potentially explain why it is positive in the Islandverse.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-22 04:56 pm (UTC)Have you ever seen the Gary Oldman film "Sid and Nancy"? I'm guessing that's what they were going for. And it is similar, except Spike resembles Billy Idol by way of Sid Vicious, more than Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols.
But you are correct...he has deconstructured himself or created a counter version to the Victorian Romantic. The degree to which the change was motivated by Angelus and Darla, remains to be seen. It's also in some ways the opposite of what Giles did, Giles started out punk rocker Sid Vicious and became Jonathan Starker or Van Heiseling straight out of Bram Stoker's Dracula, which much like Mary Shelley was Victorian Romanticism at its height. While William was definitely Jonathan Starker and became well Sid Vicious or Keifer Sutherland's character in The Lost Boys.
Whedon's Buffy feels at times like a commentary on Near Dark/Lost Boys vs. Bram Stoker Dracula/Mary Shelley.
Again, exactly. Angelus is Villain, but at the same time a product of Enlightenment; he's evil and knows it, but he's also rational and static up to the point where there's a revolution that turns everything upside down. (He's not Wilde, he's Shelley - Mary, that is. MS's The Last Man is set hundreds of years in her future, yet everything looks like early-18th century England since progress hadn't been invented yet.)
Exactly. What I haven't seen a lot of people do is contrast the historical period's effect on each character, because each is a man formed by their time period. William's actually easier in some respects - because the Victorian Age is more recent and there's more written. Angel - is pre-Victorian, his idea of breaking the rules is quite different. Note - he respects the significance of the Annoited One, is rather obsessed with prophecy, and big on the Master. Spike could care less. Part of that is due to the time period they came from. Angel's time period was far more authoritarian in tone, while the Victorian Age, particularly the latter portion ...was the start of the industrial revolution - it was about "rebellion" and "acquisiton of territory" as opposed to conquering/or invasion.
Sounds like a very interesting meta. But difficult, because the internet is filled with history experts. ;-) (As I discovered much to my chagrin. Get a fact wrong and...well..;-) )