Usually, when I’m watching a movie, a television show, or anything like that, I’m keep something of an ironic distance. I tend to laugh at things, to make fun, and to generally not take things seriously. Or, at least this applies when I’m watching something with others.
However, for a couple of nights now, I’ve been watching episodes from “Buffy”’s fourth season with Kalle and Håvard — the two of my flatmates I get along with best — and where I’m usually very eager at laughing at situations in other shows or movies, this is almost unthinkable when it comes to the Whedonverse.
I never laugh at, say, Buffy, unless an episode’s set up in a way that makes her do fun stuff. And whenever Kalle or Håvard — or, for that matter, Jonas, who occasionally joins us — make some sardonic or cynical comment, I find myself glaring at them.
Because there’s no ironic distance. There’s only love.

Posts
XD
It’s not that I don’t get what you mean, it’s just slightly on the sheeesh, that’s incredibly dorky-side.
16. May 2007 @ 11:31 ( Permalink )
Hei Terje, jeg klarer ikke å dy meg, men dette er godt ment: “Spoketh” blir helt feil. Jeg skjønner at du etterstreber en gammelmodig stil her, men endelsen “-eth” i verb ble før i tida brukt der hvor man i dag bruker “-s” eller “-es” for å markere tredje person entall i PRESENS, jamfør “speak - speaks”. Her ville man før brukt “speak - speaketh”. Når du sier “spoketh” blander du altså sammen tidene presens og preteritum. Resultatet blir at du, istedenfor å fremstå som språkkyndig, jeg antar at det var det som var intensjonen, blir seende ut som en som ikke har gjort leksa si. Ordet du leter etter er “spake”.
16. May 2007 @ 14:47 ( Permalink )
Eg trur faktisk han er klar over at det ikkje er rett, har antatt at det var ein bevisst tullete ironisk distanse-greie han forsøkte seg på, men eg kan jo ha tatt feil.
16. May 2007 @ 17:19 ( Permalink )
Jeg later også som jeg var klar over denne grammatiske feilen. Fy skam seg, Terje!
16. May 2007 @ 18:03 ( Permalink )
“Også”? Eh, eg tek avstand frå den implikasjonen, eg var faktisk klar over at det var feil. Eg kunne nok ikkje sagt kva han burde sagt i staden og forklart kvifor det var feil utan å slå opp litt, men eg såg på setningen at den var feil det sekund eg såg vloggen - og det er dermed òg difor eg alltid har gått ut i frå at det var bevisst.
Liker ikkje å bli beskulda for å lyge på meg ting, verken direkte eller indirekte. >: (
16. May 2007 @ 20:23 ( Permalink )
Merkelig greie: Navnet på denne bloggen er — naturligvis –ment å skulle referere til tittelen på Friedrich Nietzsches “Also Sprach Zarathustra”, som på engelsk heter “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”. (Uten sammenligning for øvrig.) Dette vet jeg — eller jeg burde i alle fall vite det — men da jeg lagde bloggen dukka det av en eller annen grunn opp en “-th”-endelse der et sted, og jeg må ærlig innrømme at jeg aldri har tenkt over at dette kan ha vært feil. I hvert fall ikke ofte eller mye.
I hvilken grad jeg prøver å framstå som språkkyndig ved å bruke denne frasen er jeg litt usikker på, det er vel mer det at jeg synes den høres kul ut, egentlig. Og selv om jeg nå vet at den er feil, synes jeg fortsatt det høres kulere ut med “Spoketh” enn både “Spoke” og “Spake”.
Men selv om jeg ikke kommer til å forandre noe, takker jeg for at du tok deg bryet med å korrigere meg. Opplysning er sjelden av det onde.
(Og bare for å ha nevnt det: Jeg er ikke særlig språkkyndig. Hvilket det bare er å lese et par av postene mine for å finne ut.)
“It’s not that I don’t get what you mean, it’s just slightly on the sheeesh, that’s incredibly dorky-side.”
That’s what eveyone else thinks, too, apparently. Furthermore, it is now the general consensus around here that I am almost too dorky, after being close to tears during one of the Tara-Willow scenes in “New Moon Rising”, and my other random ramblings about “Buffy”.
16. May 2007 @ 21:13 ( Permalink )
Kjærlighet gjør blind, eller hva?
16. May 2007 @ 21:15 ( Permalink )
There’s nothing wrong by being incredibly dorky, though. Or so I’m told.
16. May 2007 @ 21:41 ( Permalink )
Some might say that being very dorky is wrong, but seeing as I’d probably label the lifestyles of people who say such things as “wrong”, too, I guess things even out in the end.
“Kjærlighet gjør blind, eller hva?”
That it does. Or, almost, anyway. The last time we watched Buffy, I was actually able to admit that Tara’s shyness was a tad overplayed, for example. I’m making progress, no?
18. May 2007 @ 14:04 ( Permalink )
Taras skyhet overspilt? Tøv, den dama er bare sånn!
18. May 2007 @ 22:22 ( Permalink )
It’s not overplayed, it’s overrepresented (in the early seasons). She’s not too shy in her shy-scenes, she’s just getting too many of them, and too few scenes where she’s more comfortable (largely because they kept her scenes alone with Willow to a minimum…) so she seems that way to the viewer.
18. May 2007 @ 23:40 ( Permalink )
“Flatmate H.” and I watched “The Yoko Factor” and “Primeval” today, and what I saw there, Loki, might indicate that you’re right. She seemed much more at ease and less uncomfortable [on an almost entirely irrelevant sidenote: I just heard Anya sing "Look at me, I'm dancing crazy!" and I can't help but grin -- OMWF is priceless!
] than she did only an episode or two before. Of course, the shyness might have seemed overplayed in the earlier episodes because Tara was nervous about her relationship with Willow not being clearer, but overrepresented sounds like a good explanation, too.
Nice, though, that when I finally manage to be critical about Buffy, it turns out I might be in the wrong. Doesn’t exactly diminish my adoration of the show.
20. May 2007 @ 20:39 ( Permalink )
Lol, well, all things considered, Buffy’s first season isn’t all that good. It’s by no means bad, but compared to the first seasons of shows like Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, West Wing, Heroes, Veronica Mars or even Angel, it falls horribly short. Tons of good stuff and tons of potential, but as a whole, the series has a comparatively weak beginning compared to other brilliant shows.
20. May 2007 @ 23:31 ( Permalink )
There’s that, of course. Some rather silly episode plots in the first and second seasons — but beyond that? Not much to criticise. And even those cheesy early episodes are worth watching, because of the humour. And, later, when one’s watched the show once, because it’s fun to see the characters again in their more innocent incarnations.
But! The first season of Angel? It has some great episodes — most prominently “Hero”, “I Will Remember You” and the Faith arc — but I’m not sure if I think it’s all that much better than the first season of Buffy. But Hell, compared to what was to come, the first seasons of both shows were rather pale.
So in something resembling retrospect, I think I need to stay away from season 1 if I am to keep this uncynical relationship to the show intact.
By the way, I just started thinking of whether or not this mindset applies to Angel as well, and I suspect it does. However, the characters of Buffy are generally speaking much cuter, and so discourages cynicism, at least in my case. Then again, I’m not very pleased on the rare occasions when my sister makes an ironic remark about something in an episode of Angel, either…
21. May 2007 @ 00:21 ( Permalink )
I’d say the first season of Angel is much, much better than the first season of Buffy. The first season of Buffy has little in the way of character-development, save, maybe, for Giles growing attached to Buffy. Of course, there is SOME, and with almost every character, but for a Joss show, little.
Meanwhile, Angel’s first season shows an arc for Angel, finally becoming his “own” man, stepping out of his self-chosen role as Buffy’s obedient right-hand-man rather clearly in “Sanctuary”, dealing with growing attached to and losing Doyle in short order, having to socialize with his exact mood-wise opposite in Cordelia, and in dealing with having given up the love of his life. It also shows an arc, obviously, for Doyle. It shows development for Cordelia in her relationship with Doyle, with Angel, with Wesley, and her view of herself in her new, poor(ish) existance. And it shows the first steps of the massive development in Wesley. In addition to this, a *villain* of the season also has a considerable amount of development in its later episodes - Lindsey.
Second, the Buffy-season is short. Very short. The Angel-one isn’t. When you get to a certain level of quality, that’s a plus all on its own.
Third, there is humour. Yes, Bs1 has more of this than As1. And if you want to, you can count that in Bs1’s favour. I won’t, Angel has a much darker feel to it, if it had had much more humour than it has, it’d have impaired the mood. But I’ll let you count that one. 2-1, then, if you’re keeping score.
Fourth, there’s the plot. Buffy season one’s plot? “Evil vampire dwelling underground. Wants to get out. Does so in the season finale. Teenage heroine stops him, and in the process accepts the full extent of her role as the Chosen One.” Angel season one’s plot? I’d be hard-pressed to sum that up as quickly. But I can try. “Conflicted and tormented main-character having given up the only good part about his existance of his own free will tries to make penance for his former atrocities by fighting evil forces, and fails miserably as both his closest friend and the father of one of his other allies get killed without his being able to stop it, and struggles with an inner darkness as he in his fight agains the non-corporeal enemy of an evil law-firm that wants not to kill him, but make him attack them as viciously as possible - which he, by the season finale, does.” I’ll just say 3-1 and move on.
Season one of Buffy has the following episodes:
1.1: Welcome to the Hellmouth *
1.2: The Harvest *
1.3: The Witch
1.4: Teacher’s Pet
1.5: Never Kill A Boy On A First Date
1.6: The Pack *
1.7: Angel *
1.8: I Robot, You Jane
1.9: The Puppet Show
1.10: Nightmares
1.11: Out Of Mind, Out of Sight *
1.12: Prophecy Girl *
I’ve makred out the ones I consider to stand out as very good for the first season of a show with stars. I’m not saying the rest are bad, in fact, I consider season 1 to be far better at season 2 as far as the number of strictly less-than-mediocre episodes are concerned (one (Teacher’s Pet) against 4 (Inca Mummy Girl, Reptile Boy, Bad Eggs, Go Fish)) , but I’m saying that as far as episodes that really stand out to me goes, season 1 of Buffy has a share of 6/12.
Let’s look at Angel’s:
1.1: City Of *
1.2: Lonely Hearts
1.3: In The Dark *
1.4: I Fall To Pieces
1.5: Rm w/a vu
1.6: Sense & Sensitivity
1.7: Bachelor Party
1.8: I Will Remember You *
1.9: Hero *
1.10: Parting Gifts
1.11: Somnambulist *
1.12: Expecting
1.13: She
1.14: I’ve Got You Under My Skin *
1.15: The Prodigal
1.16: The Ring
1.17: Eternity *
1.18: Five By Five *
1.19: Sanctuary *
1.20: War Zone *
1.21: Blind Date *
1.22: To Shanshu In LA *
That’s 12 out of 22 - above half. Not FAR better, I agree, but still better. Again only one episode I’d call strictly less than mediocre (”She”). Probably just about the only Angel-episode ever to get that mark from me.
That’s another point for frequency of excellence, then. That makes 4-1 in Angel’s favour. If you have other criteria to judge by, feel free, but this is why I think Angel’s first season clearly beats Buffy’s.
21. May 2007 @ 00:45 ( Permalink )
I’m curently suspecting my subconsciousness of having made me write what I wrote so that it could see your reply. Which is another way of saying, “Awesome comparative analysis.”
I suppose some of my bad will against As1 came from it me just having finished As5 for the third time, and it being so brainspankingly amazing. Of course, compared to season 3, 4, 6 and 7 of Buffy, season 1 of that show is kinda mediocre, too, but it is also much shorter, meaning that, well, it doesn’t last that long. If you know what I mean.
23. May 2007 @ 13:51 ( Permalink )
Why did you leave out season 2and 5 of the Buffster in that listing, by the way?
23. May 2007 @ 14:30 ( Permalink )
Because, while both are great episodes by themselves, they don’t quite match my personal favourites — i.e. the ones I included. Some might scoff at me for including season 4 in my favourites list while leaving 5 out of it, but I just really like 4, you know? I mean, I just watched the second half of that season, and it didn’t have one single weak episode in it, not one. And it was fun, too. While 5, on the other hand, has Glorificus and a sorta slow moving primary plot arc, filled in with character arcs that… well, I’ll get back to that once I’ve seen it again. (Currently five or six eps in.) As you know, I have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to these things.
Which probably means that I’ll include season 5, too, once I’ve watched it again. After all, it has the Joyce arc. And the Troll episode. The again, it has the Riley arc, which I’m not too keen on, and it has “Listening to Fear” — perhaps the worst episode this side of “Go Fish”.
23. May 2007 @ 20:29 ( Permalink )
“Because, while both are great episodes by themselves”
That would be “seasons”, of course.
23. May 2007 @ 20:30 ( Permalink )
And I can’t believe I didn’t just edit that.
23. May 2007 @ 20:30 ( Permalink )
That is really funny, you know, as general opinion out there seems to hold either 5 or 2 as the best Buffy-season there was (me belonging in the former category, 5 just rocks) - with a good third-place-group saying 3. And you leave those two out, huh. Funny. ^^
23. May 2007 @ 22:46 ( Permalink )
Kommentar til Lokis komparative analyse av Buffy1 og Angel1:
Du nevner Angels personlige utvikling fra nyttig høyrehånd til selvstendig hevner i A1, og utelater totalt den prosessen av tilvenning som Buffy må igjennom i B1; fra å være en normal tenåring til å bære hele ansvaret forå avverge en apokalypse? The Master søker jo ikke bare sin egen løslatelse, men en del av poenget er at den dagen han slipper fri så åpnes The Hellmouth. Buffy får med andre ord vite at hun har ansvaret for å redde verden fra helvete og at hun samtidig skal dø, i en alder av 16 år. Jeg synes hun går gjennom en ganske tøff prosess av selvrealisering. Virkelig ekstrem faktisk. Og det på en overbevisende måte på kort tid. Seriøst: hvem klarer å la være å synes synd på den lille jenta i hvit kjole som går ned i grottegangene for å møte The Master med vissheten om at hun skal dø?
23. May 2007 @ 23:24 ( Permalink )
“That is really funny, you know, as general opinion out there seems to hold either 5 or 2 as the best Buffy-season there was (me belonging in the former category, 5 just rocks) - with a good third-place-group saying 3. And you leave those two out, huh. Funny. ^^”
2? Really? Now that’s what I call funny.
But hey, they’re both great seasons, like I believe I said. 2 has that Spike-Drusilla-Angelus arc, and a lot of momentous episodes deriving from that, and 5 is, I’m slowly remembering, a really wonderful season (you know, I’d completely forgotten how much ass “Fool for Love” kicks). But I still think they’re less good than 3, 4, 6 and 7 (I’d originally planned to just mention two of these here, but I found myself unable to choose two of them to raise above the rest; they’re just so close). 2 gets the foot because, while having a lot of character development and stuff, just doesn’t deliver, plot-wise. Or, it does that, too, in relation too both the arc and most of the stand-alones, but it still doesn’t compare. And 5… my main beef with that one is that I find Riley’s behaviour to be beyond irrational. I mean, when your girlfriend’s mother is dying, it’d seem like a good idea to cut her some slack, right? Also, again, I dislike Glory. The stuff surrounding the Glory arc is mostly splendid, but Glory herself… suffice to say, I actually prefer The Trio. A sociopathic genious is perferable to a god, you know? It’s close, though; if not for my intense dislike for the way they write and portray Riley, I’d just leave out 2 and 1, and most of the weaknesses in those come from the show still being rather undeveloped, comapred to what it would eventually be.
“i en alder av 16 år”
By the way, isn’t this an inconsistency? I mean, I distinctly seem to remember Buffy’s tombstone saying she was born in 1981, and the show began in 1996. So, if the in-show time followed the real time, wouldn’t she have been only 14 in the first couple of episodes, then 15 for a season?
24. May 2007 @ 00:59 ( Permalink )
svava: Joda. Men tingen er at Buffy allereie VAR ein relativt erfaren vampyrjeger når ho kjem til Sunnydale i 1.1 - som tydeleg fastslått i den episoden. Ok, ho har ikkje slåss mot noko heilt på størrelsesnivå med apokalypsen i 1.12 enno, men ho ER allereie ei jente som har akseptert at ho ikkje lengre er ein heilt normal tenåring. Ho går dog gjennom ein arc, det er rett - ho vil, i episode 1, slutte som vampyrjeger. Ho vil bli ei normal jente igjen. Og ho gjer nokre små forsøk på å fortsette forsøket utover sesongen (og serien forøvrig). Men eg vil påstå det er relativt halvhjerta. Ho er tilbake i full action-modus allereie i pilotepisoden, og før ho trur ho er garantert å dø i slutten av sesongen har ho igjen innfunne seg relativt problemfritt med rollen som Beskyttar Av Dei Svake og Uskuldige, etc.
Dog einig i at eg undersolgte personarcen hennar litt, særleg seint i sesongen, og det same gjeld Willow og Xander om enn i mindre grad, men tingen er at eg meinar Buffys einaste større arc i denne sesongen er eit halvhjerta forsøk på å framstille helten som motvillig helt fram til sesongslutten - og ein enkeltepisode der ho faktisk oppriktig har tvil og problemer aleine er ikkje nok til at eg vil kalle det eit særleg sterkt sesongplott. Men jepp, undersolgte nok karakterarcen hennar - totalt sett ligg sesongen der fortsatt svakere enn A1, men nok med mindre margin enn eg påstod over. Men ikkje på sesongplottet, det står eg ved at i B1s tilfelle er rimeleg tynt, Buffy i kvit kjole eller ei.
24. May 2007 @ 01:35 ( Permalink )
By the way, isn’t this an inconsistency? I mean, I distinctly seem to remember Buffy’s tombstone saying she was born in 1981, and the show began in 1996. So, if the in-show time followed the real time, wouldn’t she have been only 14 in the first couple of episodes, then 15 for a season?
How on earth do you do that math? She’d be 15 in 1996, not fourteen, and season 1 covers a full school term, meaning by the time of Prophecy Girl, she’s in spring 1997, and perfectly eligable for having turned sixteen.
If you even remember the tombstone correctly - don’t look at me, I haven’t memorized it.
24. May 2007 @ 01:37 ( Permalink )
“Komparativ analyse”, forresten, hjelp, begge to, eg påstod då aldri at kommentaren min var noko så seriøst. O.o
Terje:
I’ll leave character-arcs out of this, as they all develop so amazingly in every season, and I have to go into far more depth than a quick comment to do differentiating between seasons on that arena justice.
Season 1: Rather weak season-plot with a rather high number of filler-episodes, a couple of which are rather weak.
Season 2: Really strong season-plot, with a relatively high number of poor filler-episodes.
Season 3: Also strong season-plot, with a very low number of poor filler-episodes, making for very high quality on average, but in my opinion, the season-plot is a few notches weaker than 2’s.
Season 4: Weak season-plot, in my opinion the weakest the series ever had with the exception of the first season, and with a relatively high number of filler-episodes, and though some of these are very good (Pangs), others are rather bad (Beer Bad).
Season 5: Very strong season-plot, a lot of filler-episodes that manages not to feel as such due to being incredibly strong too. Weakest point this season had was “Buffy vs. Dracula”, and that one’s only weak if you dislike big amounts of cheese, and not weak by lack of merit.
Season 6: Very strong season-plot, but a lot of weaker filler-episodes again, though rarley, if ever, at the niveu of the weak ones in 1, 2 and 4.
Season 7: Mediocre season-plot, but generally solid and few filler-episodes.
So I’ll rank them
1. 5
2. 6/3 (it’s completely mood-based which one of them gets the higher rank on any given day)
4. 7/2 (ditto, though I think I tend to usually put 7 above 2)
6. 4
7. 1
Adding the Angel-seasons into it, it gets harder, and I’m probably writing stuff I won’t agree with myself on in just a few days now, but:
A5
B5
A3
B6/A2/B3
A4/B7
B2
A1
B4
B1
24. May 2007 @ 01:48 ( Permalink )
I’m already disagreeing with myself:
A5
B5
A3
A2/B6/B3
A4/B7
B2/A1
B4
B1
24. May 2007 @ 01:49 ( Permalink )
“How on earth do you do that math?”
By throwing rocks at my own head, by the look of it.
24. May 2007 @ 21:09 ( Permalink )