|
Post by Jinxieman on Jul 19, 2008 1:23:58 GMT -5
Thanks to everyone who welcomed me into the fam! I know there are holes in my theory...but its always fun to cause mayhem! Get people thinking....thanks to everone who agrees...and i totally BOW DOWN to Jinxie...i honourably give you all credit if its him! LOL! I do not deserve all credit for this theory and you will not hear me take it. Ethan is who I think Twilight is but I was not the first one to post it, I know I read it from someone before I was able to post my theory, but like you, I developed this inclination from reading the comics and not from other's influence. Another thing to note is that Ethan is wearing the same style of outfit in the dream space as Twilight wears later. And as angelmonster said, I also believe that the dead should remain dead, but in this case I do not think that Ethan was ever dead, I think we were just lead to believe he was dead.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on Jul 18, 2008 15:48:31 GMT -5
I absolutely agree with you. But you do not get first credit because it has been said by others...and I am one of them But good on you for coming up with so much to support it. If Ethan is Twilight, then that means that he's been keeping tabs on Buffy while he was captured by the government. How could he do such a thing? Well, we know that Twilight has been working with the government so if it is Ethan then the questions is when and how did he get in good graces with the government that was holding him. It is quite possible that he has not been in confinement by the government for quite some time and that he has been doubling as Twilight for a while now only using the government at a base. He could have planted a fake of him self (he does know magic) in cell 30 and instructed General Voll to kill the decoy.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on Jul 14, 2008 19:43:35 GMT -5
The article reveals that Heroes next story arc, Villains, will be 13 episodes. That does not necessarily mean that the season will only be 13 episodes. I would bet they will go onto another story arc for the last half of the season.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on Jun 25, 2008 13:37:57 GMT -5
I agree with those who have said that a Slayer's power is tied into her soul, and when a vamp turns a human, the soul goes poof and the demon is inserted. Jinxieman: I get what your saying about a Slayer's blood being able to replenish, but I don't think its's neccessarily true. Just look at what happened to Buffy after Angel fed off her in S3. She was put into the hospital, and was in a coma because he drained her so much. She was on deaths door, and if she hadn't kicked him off at the last minute, he would've killed her. While Buffy did recover more quickly than a normal human would've, it still took her the better part of (at least) a few hours to do so. IF he had continued to feed she would have died, I'm not saying it is hard to kill a slayer by draining her but that it is hard to turn a slayer because a vampire needs to drain a person enough so that they will die but then feed them their blood before they die. If the Vampire does this to a slayer and leaves them to die and raise as a vampire I think there is a strong chance that the slayer will not die since their body will heal itself and replenish the blood loss where a normal human would not be able too. It doesn't matter how long Buffy was out...she didn't die. I would imagine that if Angel had drained that much blood from a normal person they would have died before getting to the hospital. I think there is a smaller window of time for the vampire to turn a slayer, their chances of either not draining them enough and they heal or killing them before getting them to drink their blood is probably higher.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on Jun 25, 2008 13:04:31 GMT -5
Even if the slayer turned vampire didn't have double strength it would have the added benefit of having the slayer memories making it a much stronger opponent than a regular vampire.
I really do think that it is mentioned somewhere in the show that turning a Slayer into a vampire is possible but it is hard to do. My assumption based off that would be that because of the slayers healing abilities it is hard to drain her to the point of death then feed her their blood without her body healing itself enough not to die...does that make sense? In other words, I could see the slayer's body healing itself, or replenishing her blood, before or while she ingests the vampire blood and not actually dieing where a normal human would not be able to replace their lost blood fast enough to survive.
Personally I always thought a Slayer turned Vampire would have made a great season Big Bad. That's what I though Sunday was before Buffy slayed her.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on Jun 4, 2008 14:16:25 GMT -5
This issue was due to be released today, and no websites like TFAW.com or Darkhorse have listed it as being for sale, and we still have no full cover title shot yet.....does anybody have this issue yet? Darkhorse has it listed as for sale now and TFAW has it listed as pre-order even though it shows it being available on June 4th.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on Jun 4, 2008 13:18:26 GMT -5
I heard he would re-write his lines and completely mis-interpret Joss's meaning in them when he delivered them...I can only imagine how frustrating that must have been for Joss.
And Merrick wasn't just mentioned in season 2 he was shown in a flash back....played by a completely different looking actor...I thought it was funny that they didn't even TRY to match Donald Sutherland's look.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on Jun 3, 2008 15:02:26 GMT -5
I always think that the movie could be saved by a good FanEdit, not to be in the same league as the show, but become a much better film. The timing is so off throughout that scenes that are supposed to be intense fail miserably. The acting is mediocre, not that bad, the script is fine, it's really the editing that kills that film. That is so funny...not in a haha way, but in an ironic kind of way! My wife and I were talking about how cool it would be if they did a Writer's Cut of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If Joss himself took the movie, any unused footage, etc. and re-cut the film with Vampire dusting effects, new edits for each scene to give the right "mood" and a new score...maybe by Christophe Beck. He could do a commentary talking about the original and the changes he made to make it more in line with his original vision. I would love to see that!
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on Jun 3, 2008 14:39:43 GMT -5
The WC didn't go insane, it was "held together only by fanatics and fools. Those that believed the demons would return." The WC wasn't waiting for another Slayer they were waiting for the demons to return so they could find and train the Slayer. Obviously most believed they were banished for good except for those "fanatics and fools." Who then found Fay...and lit himself on fire. So maybe there was a little insanity there.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on Jun 3, 2008 14:24:23 GMT -5
Umm...do the people behind the comics actually read them. In the original series it is said that the line still existed just that none of the slayers were sought out and trained. Fray was the first one in a couple hundred years that was "called" or trained...but there were still girls with the slayer power.
I would suspect that banishing the magic from the world would either mean that the spell performed by Willow was broken and all Slayers except Buffy and Faith lost their powers, or all the girls kept their powers but the spell stopped so future girls would stop being activated and eventually as the generation died away the Slayer line returned to a single girl in all the world...actually that may have happened anyway...we don't know if Willow's spell continues to activate potentials or if it only activated all potentials at the time of the spell and once they all die the line would return to a single line.
Edit: Here is the text quoted from Fray issue 3:
Urkon: They were gone. All demons, all magicks, banished from this earthly dimension.
Fray: And the Slayer? Did she...
Urkon: I do not know if she lived. But, the demons being gone, she was the last to be called. The line continued...there were girls with the power, but they were never called, never trained. Which may be why you have no memories of your heritage. The council of watchers fell to ruin, held together only by fanatics and fools. Those that believed the demons would return.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on May 25, 2008 15:01:29 GMT -5
My best friend Mary is a Mormon. And she's absolutely fine with my opinion on her religion and it's leader. It's not my fault that I don't believe in religion. Oh... well if Mary is OK with it, then it would follow logically that all peoples who believe in a religion wold be fin with your opinions. My best friend is Hispanic. Does that mean I can make outrageous racial comments about Hispanics if he is OK with it.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on May 25, 2008 13:02:25 GMT -5
Now you are going to start insulting Mormonism....Wow!
If I made a statement that even implied that Homosexuality was a mental disorder I would be, excuse the terminology, Crucified on here.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on May 25, 2008 12:36:27 GMT -5
Yeah. I kinda do feel that it was a tool created to get people to behave a certain way and believe certain things. I believe some of them may have truly believed in what they were writing, but I would call those people delusional or schizophrenic. Schizophrenic?!?!?!?! Because they believe in God and a code of morals? Are you serious? You say you come from an "open minded" part of the country, but you have got to be the most closed minded person I have ever corresponded with.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on May 25, 2008 12:17:53 GMT -5
That's my opinion though. I believe it's all fables. That's why I'm an Atheist. Of course it has names of real people and places thrown in, they'd have to be fools not to put in a historical trail. I'm not alone with this belief. According to that Gallup poll only 28% believe the Bible is literal. So my opinion isn't as outrageous as you guys hysterically pointed out. LOL! "They'd have to be fools not to put in a historical trail." You make it sound like the Bible is some giant conspiracy theory mapped out over thousands of years rather than a collection of books written over time by people who actually believe in what they are writing about. Wow!
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on May 25, 2008 12:06:23 GMT -5
Most fables are written with fact in them. Based around something. But they're made to tell a story and teach morals. Just like the Bible, in my opinion. I only know of like 2 or 3 people who literally believe in Noah, Adam, Eve, etc...and they're all nuts. LOL The rest of my Christian friends are all rational. And they take the lessons from the Bible, but they don't believe Moses split the sea and such. I think it's a generational thing, more and more younger people are becoming more rational when it comes to the Bible. Well, if you're in an open minded area like Maryland. It's probably different if you're living in the south, or in the sticks in West Virginia. There are a lot of Christians that look at the early chapters of Genesis and some of the other stories in the early Old Testament as stories that may have been altered through time because those stories were told orally for hundreds of years before they were written down. Through this oral traditions it is understandable if a story changes over the years. If you look at the two Creation stories you can see that they don't quite fit together, most noticeably in the first, Man was created last, in the second Man was created before the animals. I think it would also be feasible that these Creation stories were created to show the relationship that God wants to have with his people rather than a record of how God actually made the earth (although I believe the people telling these stories believed them to be true and accurate) making the belief of evolution completely compatible with Christianity if you believe this. But to make the assertion that the entire Bible is a book of fairytale with no historical significance really shows ones ignorance of reality. There are many non-Christian Scholars who understand the historical significance of, not only the Bible itself, but the accuracy of many of the accounts in the Bible. There is also a lot of archaeological discoveries that back up many of the stories and happenings in the Bible. Do you read what others write for comprehension or do you just skim it to find something to argue about and/or disagree with? I agree that some of the early OT stories are presented more for the truth of the story rather than the fact of the events in the story, but to say the Bible is a book of Fables is a blanket statement that includes the ENTIRE Bible not just select stories that were passed on for hundreds of years through oral tradition.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on May 25, 2008 11:44:03 GMT -5
I know plenty of Christians. And almost none of them believe that the Bible is a record of actual history. They believe it is a book of morals (aka fables). Maybe where you're from it's different. I'm from Earth. Where are you and your friends from? Any Historian (Christian or not) will tell you that the history recorded in the Bible corresponds with the History of the world...this world, the one we live on. They might be recorded through the point of view of a people who believe in God but they are historically accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on May 25, 2008 10:44:52 GMT -5
There are a lot of Christians that look at the early chapters of Genesis and some of the other stories in the early Old Testament as stories that may have been altered through time because those stories were told orally for hundreds of years before they were written down. Through this oral traditions it is understandable if a story changes over the years. If you look at the two Creation stories you can see that they don't quite fit together, most noticeably in the first, Man was created last, in the second Man was created before the animals. I think it would also be feasible that these Creation stories were created to show the relationship that God wants to have with his people rather than a record of how God actually made the earth (although I believe the people telling these stories believed them to be true and accurate) making the belief of evolution completely compatible with Christianity if you believe this.
But to make the assertion that the entire Bible is a book of fairytale with no historical significance really shows ones ignorance of reality. There are many non-Christian Scholars who understand the historical significance of, not only the Bible itself, but the accuracy of many of the accounts in the Bible. There is also a lot of archaeological discoveries that back up many of the stories and happenings in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on May 25, 2008 10:22:18 GMT -5
Most of the Christians that I know of don't believe the Bible is a reference of historical events. They think of the passages as fables (FAIRYTALES!) meant to teach lessons. They don't really believe the stories. Then you don't know very many Christian... You are really starting to make me laugh, not because of funny, but because of your lack of understanding and tolerance of other opinions is laughable.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on May 23, 2008 16:31:11 GMT -5
The bible doesn't flat out condemn gay marriage but it condemns gays having sex with each other. Just like it condemns adulterers. Why should someone who cheated on his girlfriend be allowed the right to marry her, following that logic? They're picking and choosing which things to believe strongly in, they're not basing it on anything solid. Just like when they did the exact same thing regarding interracial marriage. Did you have crazy flakes this morning?! Did you even read what I wrote? Having a discussion with you is like talking to someone with their fingers in their ears saying "Lalalalalalalalaala" It's frustrating! I think I have made my point clearly for others to read and I am done trying to explain a concept to you that you are obviously unable to grasp.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxieman on May 23, 2008 15:40:48 GMT -5
But why consider it a sin if it's not in the bible? Are you thinking that if the STATE made gay marriage legal then all FAITH ORGANIZATIONS would suddenly accept Homosexual Acts in a Marriage as non-sinful? The Bible doesn't flat out condemn Gay Marriage because it condemns men "laying" with men and women "laying" with women...it doesn't need to talk about men marrying men and women marrying women because the condemnation of sexual acts between same sex was pretty much covered... I know you are going to attack me on this, but I'm just a little baffled at you expectations here. This condemnation goes back to the early books of the Old Testament and, more importantly, is reiterated in the New Testament. (Please don't anyone pull up all the little rules like tattoos and such from the OT, there is a lot of theology about Christs Sacrifice abolishing the old laws and establishing the new covenant. That is why I mention that it is reiterated in the NT).
|
|