Good episode. Not among the best this far, but neither among the worst. Although it’s possibly the worst of the episodes directly connected to the seaon arc, but that may only be because it was so… partial. I began as a continuation of a previous episode, and ended like the beginning of another, kinda.
Not a particularly fun episode. Certainly, there were some amusing comments, but nothing of the stuff Whedon et al. are capable of at their best. Neither were there any particular character moments, although it was somewhat neat when Willow bullied Andrew after running into him at the butcher’s shop. Dawn kicking evil minion ass, even if it only was for a time, was also well worth seeing.
Principal Wood also had a couple of scenes, where he did some thing that made me curious about his alignment. His actions made me lean heavily towards him being a baddie, although I’m still open for alternative interpretations on this one. In the grey zone, this episode also included some decent Spike vs. Buffy scenes. Especially the one where he came through the wall was entertaining.
Now, this episode was too scary for me to watch more Buffy tonight (I scare pretty easily), but it’ll be fun to find out the following in the next episodes:
- What will be the consequences of what happened to the Watchers?
- What will the Scoobies be able to do with Buffy’s little epiphany (neat word; I watched the Scrubs episode with the “epiphany toilet” just the other day) near the end?
- What’ll happen to Spike?
- What’ll that Übervamp be up to?
- And what in the Ninth Circle of Hell has happened to Giles? Because I refuse to accept that cliffhanger scene as a final confirmation of his fate…
Nice, little cogwheel… ![]()

Posts
Regarding Giles, I suggest you remain a skeptic (in ALL cases, not just the ones you want to be skeptical about), even when reassured and tempted not to…
OOH, CRYPTIC MUCH!
Also, which part of this one was scary? I scare easily too, but I don’t remember what part of this ’sode was frightening.
25. September 2006 @ 20:19 ( Permalink )
Oh, and if it is any comfort/makes you want to see another anyway, I can’t remember anything scary from the next one.
But, you know, I couldn’t from this one, either, so…
25. September 2006 @ 20:25 ( Permalink )
I’m not really sure if there was anything scary, but I nevertheless sat the whole episode through with my heart in my throat. In which case it’ll be more corect to say that “I was scared”, rather than “it was a scary episode”.
“Regarding Giles, I suggest you remain a skeptic”
I just hope we won’t have another “Giles as deus ex machina” situation…

25. September 2006 @ 21:11 ( Permalink )
As you said, I am allowed to do whatever I like, wherever I like. So I must ask of your definition of “gutu”. I see that you have quite another wiev at it than I do. As you seems to think it must go through the forest, I do not. A gutu is, from what I think, a…
Heck, I am also free to write Norwegian, and now I don’t find the right words.
Gutu er ett søkk i terrenget, en sti som er — ikke nedfelt, men — nede i terrenget, av naturlig årsaker. Altså sti/vei som går litt lavere enn terrenget rundt. Det trengs ingen skog.
25. September 2006 @ 21:24 ( Permalink )
“I just hope we won’t have another “Giles as deus ex machina” situation… ”
Well, we didn’t have that in season 6, either. They let us think we would, but then we didn’t. (And don’t you DARE say ANYTHING bad about “I’d like to test that theory”! That is the Coolness Scene of the century!)
25. September 2006 @ 22:23 ( Permalink )
“(And don’t you DARE say ANYTHING bad about “I’d like to test that theory”! That is the Coolness Scene of the century!)”
I agree on this, so I won’t.
“Gutu er ett søkk i terrenget, en sti som er — ikke nedfelt, men — nede i terrenget, av naturlig årsaker. Altså sti/vei som går litt lavere enn terrenget rundt. Det trengs ingen skog.”
Vel, i følge mora mi, som altså har dette navnet som slutter på “gutu”, er ei gutu en grovt uthogd vei gjennom en skog. Norsklæreren min fra vgs. påsto at det bare var en vei, rett og slett, og at det etymologisk var nært beslekta med “gate”. Jeg utelukker imidlertid ikke din forklaring, men velger heller å forsvare min oversettelse med at den forvirrer en del. Og det er jo flott, i og med at jeg ikke er veldig interessert i at folk vet hvem jeg er. Det at du har stalker-tendenser er ikke min skyld.
26. September 2006 @ 00:09 ( Permalink )
Så absotivt definilutt ikkje.
Du må slutte med den stalkinga, Sauefyr. Det er ikkje alle som er sauer du skal trakke etter, veit du.
26. September 2006 @ 00:18 ( Permalink )
“Det at du har stalker-tendenser er ikke min skyld. ”
Men ditt problem
Og ja, jeg skjønner jo at du ikke vil legge ut fult navn på nettet.
Forresten, gutu kan jo ha forskjellige betydninger forskjellige steder.
26. September 2006 @ 16:15 ( Permalink )
“Men ditt problem”
Det kan jo diskuterest, det er du som brukar livet ditt på det, ikkje han…
26. September 2006 @ 17:29 ( Permalink )