|
Post by wenxina on Jun 30, 2010 11:01:55 GMT -5
Government cover-up =/= government saying that vamps are peachy. More likely that they're operating behind the scenes, making sure that whatever evidence they want to be found gets found, etc. As I pointed out before, yes, it's generally hard to rally people towards a cause. Unless there's a crisis of sorts. That usually gets a majority of people in one boat or the other. But then again, who said anything about all the world necessarily being wrapped up in this Slayer vs. vampire deal? That's assuming that everyone has gone fanatical. Which, in the real world, is generally not the case. There are tons of apathetic people on every issue. Even countries where fanaticism is prevalent have their fair share of people who just don't give a damn. Or can't give a damn. But you never hear about these people for the most part. Because they're not doing anything except going on their day to day lives. It's the fanatics that make the news, that make lasting impressions that outsiders will have of a particular nation. Apathetic people don't go out of their way to get bitten, but neither are they going to a pro-Slayer rally. Especially given the social pariah status of Slayers at the moment. So while you're arguing that the people who don't buy the cute vampire schlock must automatically be anti-vampire and/or pro-Slayer, I think you're forgetting the majority of which are probably neither. And given the degree of fakeness of reality TV these days... I don't think you'd be hard-pressed to find a bunch of people who just think that the whole thing is baloney anyway. I mean... vampires? What have you been smoking, and do you have a prescription for it?
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Jun 30, 2010 11:24:25 GMT -5
The magical explanation just requires far less fanwankery in order to explain why people are behaving in season 8 in a way that real people just don't behave.
If you went on the news right now and told people that vampires were real, that they do need to drink people's blood to survive, and they live right among us and look just like us, the first reaction would be disbelief. Then, when in was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, growing panic, leading to violence.
Vampires are the very textbook definition of the "dangerous Other among us." They fit the definition far better than Slayers.
While a mundane "good vamps, bad Slayers" sentiment makes no sense at all to me, no matter how many times we turn it over and over, the magical explanation makes every bit of sense. The Universe needs Buffy desperate, isolated, and angry in order to push her into Twilight. What better way than to turn the world against her by subtly warping people's perceptions of reality and their own welfare?
With magic, I buy this storyline. Without magic, I don't. (That is, if you can define the Universe's influence as "magic" and not just some aspect of "nature.")
|
|
rogue11
Potential Slayer
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 197
|
Post by rogue11 on Jun 30, 2010 13:34:18 GMT -5
Look, I'm at the point where I wish Buffy would just tell Angel and Spike to eff off. Neither of them were able to love her the way she deserved to be loved. Xander shouldn't even be with her cuz he settled for her sister. She needs a new love interest..and it would be nice if she was all independent woman, but like everybody needs love. Just not with the two vampires!
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Jun 30, 2010 15:48:20 GMT -5
Was bored, so I decided to ask Espenson via Twitter (gotta love it for some things) if the tone of "Harmony Comes to the Nation" was meant to be satirical. Her RESPONSE.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Jun 30, 2010 16:04:31 GMT -5
Was bored, so I decided to ask Espenson via Twitter (gotta love it for some things) if the tone of "Harmony Comes to the Nation" was meant to be satirical. Her RESPONSE. I'm not sure how to take that. Does that mean Harmony and Colbert were doing the whole thing as a put-on, with Harm's statements to be interpreted as humorous lies? Because Harmony was certainly being truthful with her replies. But Colbert and the audience were assuming she wasn't? I'd really like to know exactly what the general population thinks vampires are. Obviously vampire literature exists... everybody knew who Dracula was as soon as his name was mentioned, and Stephanie Meyer's books exist in the Buffyverse. Do people ignore 100+ years of "vampires are evil" pop culture and just assume they're regular people with special dietary needs and vulnerabilities? Do people realize they have no souls? Does their reaction to crosses and holy water not bother anyone? And most importantly, how are they processing the very large body of evidence of past vampire attacks, and the ones that are doubtless still going on now?
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Jun 30, 2010 16:19:58 GMT -5
The Colbert Report is not a news source... nor is it meant to be taken seriously. At least that's my understanding of it. The entire show is satirical, with Colbert parodying pundits. The best comparison I can think of is that the Colbert Report is kinda like what The Onion is to newpapers.
|
|
|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Jun 30, 2010 16:30:00 GMT -5
Stephanie Meyer's books exist in the Buffyverse?
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Jun 30, 2010 16:30:55 GMT -5
The Colbert Report is not a news source... nor is it meant to be taken seriously. At least that's my understanding of it. The entire show is satirical, with Colbert parodying pundits. The best comparison I can think of is that the Colbert Report is kinda like what The Onion is to newpapers. I would say it's closer to "Weekend Update" on Saturday Night Live, or its parent show, "The Daily Show"... it derives humor from real news stories rather than made-up ones. The things he was asking Harmony indicated that there was some common concept of vampires being evil and killers. His mock(?) nervousness at her kidding(?) offers to bite him show that there is a notion of vamps being dangerous. Which makes it harder to believe their universal acceptance. Colbert was the only public figure we've seen show any sort of discomfort around vampires or any hint of skepticism... whether it was real or feigned. Colbert is famous for cutting through BS, often getting politicians to embarrass themselves through their own ignorance or hypocrisy... so if there's magic at work here pumping said BS into the brains of humanity, he would be among the people best equipped to see through it. Especially if it's just a "nudge" as I theorized, and not a flat-out mass brainwashing.
|
|
The Girl In Question
Ensouled Vampire
Lumpy Space Princess
"It eats you starting with your bottom."[Mo0:33]
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by The Girl In Question on Jun 30, 2010 18:42:33 GMT -5
Stephanie Meyer's books exist in the Buffyverse? Yeah. Right before the big Twangel reveal, they made a Twilight (books) joke. implying that they exist in the Buffyverse.
|
|
The Night Lord
Wise-cracking Sidekick
The Long Kiss Goodnight
There can be no love. Only pain exists[Mo0:1]
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by The Night Lord on Jul 1, 2010 0:01:09 GMT -5
That would explain why everyone accepts vampires as 'good guys', cuz they think all the vampires are like Edward. Tortured, romantic, lonely and good. Works on preteens
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Jul 1, 2010 7:24:04 GMT -5
Well, it would explain why tween girls accept vampires as good guys...
|
|
|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Jul 1, 2010 8:39:37 GMT -5
I have a little spoiler-ish tidbit from Jeanty that might give hope to Spuffy-fans: Jeanty just told me in a e-mail that he had drawn Spike with his shirt off several times. "Depending on the page is how the pricing usually goes. That last page of Spike I'm asking $700, but like I said, Spike will be around and already I've drawn him with his shirt off a couple of times!" Why was his shirt off? Maybe it got dirt and he changed it? Maybe there was a threesome between Angel, Buffy and Spike? what, a girl can dream. Is it weird that I get excited that a fictional two dimensional character takes his top off?
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Jul 1, 2010 10:08:07 GMT -5
Heck, a gratuitous shower scene... why not? Might as well objectify the men too...
|
|
moscowwatcher
Potential Slayer
You're the one, Buffy[Mo0:0]
Posts: 106
|
Post by moscowwatcher on Jul 1, 2010 11:21:11 GMT -5
Technically, Spike is naked on the threesome panel in Buffy's dreamspace in issue 3, so it could be one of these "couple of times"... But, knowing Joss, I won't be surprised if he'd actually go for a threesome. Jeanty's latest interview is pretty ambiguous - "Spuffies and Bangels will have cause to rejoice, or is it despair?"
|
|
zamolxis
Novice Witch
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 210
|
Post by zamolxis on Jul 1, 2010 11:21:51 GMT -5
Well, if he's living in a steampunk ship that doesn't have any automatic laundry machine. And now I'm thinking at shirtless Spike ironing his t-shirts.
|
|
Hellbound Hyperion
Bad Ass Wicca
$20 per soul, no refunds[/B]
Dude, you just rescued a puppy![Mo0:18]
Posts: 2,268
|
Post by Hellbound Hyperion on Jul 1, 2010 14:26:21 GMT -5
Isn't "shirtless" Spike's natural way of being? That IS an interesting tidbit, Sky, thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Jul 1, 2010 14:31:22 GMT -5
*checks National Geographic*
Yeah, experts say the Spikeus Vampiris lives in a natural state of the upper torso.
And Xi, I'm all for objectifying the men. Just for the love of god, objectify both sexes equally! Whatever happened to equal opportunity evil? I tells ya.
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Jul 1, 2010 14:36:37 GMT -5
I have never complained about gratuitous male nudity. Ever. Period. Full stop. Still pissed we didn't get that scene of shirtless Topher. After Simon Tam, Topher's my biggest Whedonverse crush. Sopher? Timon? Either way, nerd pairing made in gay geek heaven.
|
|
veiriti
Potential Slayer
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 170
|
Post by veiriti on Jul 1, 2010 15:04:32 GMT -5
Thanks for the tidbit, Sky! Well, Spike was shirtless when he has been tortured by the First Evil... Anyway - a shirtless Spike sounds nice for me! Yummy! Yep, I'll check it for sure, Emmie!
|
|
|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Jul 2, 2010 15:35:50 GMT -5
You guys are too much fun. In this thread at another forum there's a mention that we've been promised three porn issues by Joss, (one of them obviously issue 34), two starring Spike. www.buffy-boards.com/showthread.php?t=49895Anyone who can confirm? I think we've had enough sex for this season. I'd rather have plot than sex. Okay, maybe one or two naked-Spike-panels... Or five... But seriously, I hope this isn't true. I want plot, not sex, and I still think we didn't needed all that skin in issue 34. It felt like waste of space. I'm not objective tough, since I don't want Buffy & Angel to end up together. EDIT- moscowwatcher, I don’t think the dream-panel is what Jeanty meant, since we we’re talking about upcoming issues. I just noticed that it was you who posted in that BB-thread. So I might as well have asked you to confirm.
|
|