Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BtVS rewatch : SEASON 5

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BtVS rewatch : SEASON 5

    Yep, it's the Season 5 rewatch thread. I know I'm super-organised and well ahead of time, but I was sat with an apple/blackberry crumble and a spare 10 minutes.

    All is the same as ever, below is the reference list of those signed up to do the initial reviews and I'll keep an episode list at the bottom of this post that links to each review when they have been posted.

    A guide date for the weekend the reviews are due within is beside each one. Shout up if you notice any errors. Otherwise, I'll see you over on the S4 thread for a bit more talk on Primeval and then our season finale with Local Max. We'll be back here when we have finished S4 and MikeB is ready to post our first S5 review Buffy vs Drac (the weekend of 28th Aug).



    ____

    *post each weekend* Fri date given as a guide

    5.01 : Buffy vs Dracula - MikeB (28 Aug)
    5.02 : Real Me - kimothyschma (4 Sep)
    5.03 : The Replacement - King (11 Sep)
    5.04 : Out of My Mind - Stoney (18 Sep)
    5.05 : No Place Like Home - King (25 Sep)
    5.06 : Family - PuckRobin (16 Oct)
    5.07 : Fool for Love - American Aurora (23 Oct)
    5.08 : Shadow - DanSlayer (20 Nov)
    5.09 : Listening to Fear - Local Max (13 Dec)
    5.10 : Into the Woods - Clavus (26 Dec)
    5.11 : Triangle - Dipstick (13 Jan)
    5.12 : Checkpoint - DanSlayer (29 Jan)
    5.13 : Blood Ties - Rihannon (5 Feb)
    5.14 : Crush - Clavus (12 Feb)
    5.15 : I Was Made to Love You - Sosa (26 Feb)
    5.16 : The Body - SoS97 (4 Mar)
    5.17 : Forever - Local Max (25 Mar)
    5.18 : Intervention - Stoney (8 Apr)
    5.19 : Tough Love - PuckRobin (13 May)
    5.20 : Spiral - American Aurora (3 Jun)
    5.21 : The Weight of the World - Dipstick (05 Aug)
    5.22 : The Gift - Local Max (26 Aug)



    SEASON 1 thread
    SEASON 2 thread
    SEASON 3 thread
    SEASON 4 thread
    SEASON 6 thread
    SEASON 7 thread


    SEASON 5 episode links
    Last edited by Stoney; 19-10-19, 09:09 PM.

  • #2
    To begin, in my opinion, Joss Whedon at the 2015 Comic Con Joss Whedon Panel essentially stated that Season 10 is Dark Horse's version of the Buffyverse and is not actually part of the Whedonverse. Given that, given so relatively little of Season 10 makes sense, given this SA Q&A http://slayalive.com/showthread.php/...y-Season-10-18 didn't include (in my opinion) a single mention of Joss as currently relates to Season 10, I'm not going to include anything from Season 10 in my analysis of "Buffy vs. Dracula" (B 5.01) and I'm not going to include anything of Season 10 in my analysis of anything outside of Season 10.

    Given Giles didn't even know Dracula actually was ever a vampire, given it seems Dracula kept a relatively low profile, given he came to Sunnydale because Spike was there or he came to Sunnydale for Buffy, it doesn't even make sense that Dracula would suddenly want to be super famous, super worshiped, considered 'King of the Vampires', etc.

    Anyway, even though it's great, I won't be including stuff from Spike vs. Dracula given it's not canon. I will be including Tales of the Vampires: "Antique" as well as maybe others. I will be including Season 8 stuff and Season 9 stuff.

    Edit: In my opinion, it seems Season 10 is not actually canon.
    Last edited by MikeB; 21-08-15, 01:47 AM. Reason: added the edit part.

    Comment


    • #3
      BtVS 5.01 “Buffy vs. Dracula” bullet points and analysis


      DISCLAIMERS

      Within the episode itself, Dracula is mostly a plot device to get Giles to stay, to get Xander to no longer be a “butt monkey”, to get further hint that the Slayer’s power comes from a demon spirit, to begin the breakup of Buffy/Riley, and to further the notion of Buffy/Spike. Nonetheless, I will try to actually ‘make sense’ of “Buffy vs. Dracula”. Given that Season 10 may not actually be part of the Whedonverse, I’m not discussing Season 10 and will ignore everything in Season 10; which given some stuff in Season 10 is directly opposed to previous established canon, it’ll make analysis easier anyway.

      Even though almost nothing in Spike vs. Dracula is opposed to canon, it’s not canon; consequently, I won’t be discussing that. Tales of the Vampires : “Antique”, and BtVS S8 each are important regarding Dracula.

      - My review is based on the US version DVDs of BtVS. The US version (full screen) format is what is canon.

      - For Tales of the Vampires , I’ll be using the Trade Paperback/graphic novel. The TPB is what is canon.

      - Regarding BtVS S8, I’ll be using the BtVS S8: Volume 2 Library Edition. “Wolves At the Gate” for the individual Issues is from BtVS 8.12 through BtVS 8.15. The Trade Paperbacks and/or Library Editions are what is canon as various mistakes from the individual Issues would have been fixed.

      - Regarding the relative power of Dracula, there’s this thread: http://www.buffyforums.net/forums/sh...B-WR-amp-H-etc.



      TIMELINE:

      * The timeline is likely mid-to-late August given Buffy is soon to be going back to college and hasn’t done all her college shopping.


      * Dawn’s arrival happens sometime during the episode. The exact timing is ambiguous but it seems the memory spell begins exactly when Joyce first gets the idea that, “Buffy if you’re going out, why don’t take your sister?”



      PRODUCTION:

      * Like Spike’s 1880 C.E. flashbacks in “Fool For Love” (B 5.07) as compared to “Lies My Parents Told Me” (B 7.17), perhaps budget is a factor regarding Dracula’s clothing in “Buffy vs. Dracula” (B 5.01) and regarding Dracula’s house in “Buffy vs. Dracula”. I reason it’s reasonable to reason that Dracula is actually wearing nicer clothing than he wears in the episode and that his house is bigger and nicer than the one in the episode.

      - I also reason the same is true of Glorificus’s clothing and housing (the housing to a lesser extent if one simply reasons she owns or his renting the entire apartment building, but certainly the clothing as it makes less than zero sense that Buffy would have nicer shoes than Glory does).



      OPENING SCENE: BUFFY’S BEDROOM:

      * Given Buffy’s dressed, she didn’t have sex with Riley the night before. It seems they are in Buffy’s room. Given Dawn doesn’t know if Buffy’s had sex with Riley, it is possible Buffy and Riley have not been having much sex with each other since “Primeval” (B 4.22). That also connects with Buffy’s going out every night to hunt.



      OPENING SCENE: GRAVEYARD:

      * Buffy can run fast enough to catch up to a fleeing vampire.

      The scene is shot in likely a ‘sped-up’ way to indicate how fast Buffy is moving during the chase and the fighting.



      BEACH SCENE:

      * Why would Riley say Buffy “throws like a girl”? The football was a perfect spiral and made it to him. Does he actually want her to throw the football her hardest?

      - Perhaps this is foreshadowing that Riley is already heavily taking the meds and is trying to ‘keep up’ with her and/or is trying to be able to ‘outdo’ her. Although, Riley later in the episode has a difficult time lifting Giles out of the ‘3 Sisters pit’.

      - Perhaps Buffy is intentionally throwing soft because she reasons Riley is off the meds and may not be fully healed yet.


      * Buffy obviously didn’t throw the football her hardest.


      * Willow can create fire and Buffy and Co. don’t automatically suggest Willow could easily kill vampires. For some bizarre reason, Willow in “Bargaining Part I” (B 6.01) decided to simply be ‘overall surveillance’ instead of killing vampires herself.

      - Willow says she’s a sidekick even though she’s clearly many times more powerful than Riley is. Willow in “Bargaining” instead of fighting the vampires allows Xander, Anya, and Giles to fight. Essentially, in “Bargaining” only the Buffybot and Spike were useful in killing the vampires.

      - Even after knowing Willow can easily create fire, the Scoobies later in the episode decides it is reasonable for Riley and Giles to look for and fight Dracula instead of having Willow be involved in that purpose.


      * Most of Dracula’s powers almost certainly come from magic. It’s very telling that Dracula doesn’t appear in Season 9. Essentially, it’s likely his hypo-beams, strength, claws, etc. are his own power and everything else – including being able to reform after being staked – is because of his magical powers.


      * It’s likely Dracula caused the rainclouds because of the ‘sunlight protection’ aspect of darkening skies.



      DRACULA’S SUNNYDALE HOME:

      * Riley’s not noticing a ‘castle’ in Sunnydale doesn’t mean there wasn’t one there. The movers didn’t notice anything strange about the house. It’s possible the house was recently built simply because Dracula was going to arrive in Sunnydale to see Buffy.


      * Does Dracula actually need the dirt? Probably not. He likely simply likes the idea of having part of his ancestral land with him.



      GILES’S HOME:

      * Giles is going to leave Buffy and Co. merely because he doesn’t feel important enough in the group.

      Remember Giles in his “Restless” (B 4.22) dream is married to Olivia with a child on the way and Buffy is his grade-school daughter who is dependant upon him.



      DRACULA MEETS BUFFY:

      * In “Real Me” (B 5.02), we learn Spike regularly patrols simply for fun. Has Buffy come across Spike while she’s been ‘hunting’? Have they worked out a system regarding which graveyards to patrol?


      * How long did it take Dracula to find which graveyard Buffy’s in? Did Dracula see Spike on patrol?

      - Dracula read Buffy’s mind regarding her bite marks; therefore, he knows Angel bit her? Dracula clearly considers Angel unworthy of Buffy and unworthy to have tasted her. Would Dracula consider Spike unworthy of her? Does Dracula by Tales of the Vampires : “Antique” or by BtVS S8 know about Buffy/Spike?


      * Anyway, why now does Dracula decide to meet Buffy? She was famous in the supernatural world already in and after BtVS S1, especially after killing the Master. She had killed Lothos in The Origin . Dracula arrives after the Initiative is gone (his house could have been built in the time after the Initiative left) and before Glory is about to become a power in Sunnydale and before Spike owns to being in love with Buffy. Dracula wants Buffy to leave town with him.

      - So, does Dracula know about the Initiative? Does he know about Glory? Does he know about Buffy/Spike?


      * Buffy senses Dracula and that is a clear sign Dracula wants her.


      * We know from BtVS S8 that Dracula actually looks like an old man and that Dracula actually died an old man. His young appearance is clearly a glamour or he has something like Illyria’s ability to change his appearance (it’s likely a glamour).


      * It’s interesting that Dracula’s kept such a low profile that not only does Giles and Buffy not know about him, there wasn’t much (if any?) Watchers stuff on Dracula. And Dracula is an historical figure, the books and movies on him exist, etc. In addition, Anya used to date him and Dracula and Spike are ‘old rivals’.


      * Willow seems slightly afraid of Dracula, but less than Buffy does and Willow doesn’t move backward upon learning Dracula’s in front of her.



      GILES’S HOME:

      * This meeting takes place directly after the Dracula meeting so somehow Riley, Anya, and Giles were contacted and met up at Giles’s place.


      * Already, it’s conspicuous in the episode that Spike hasn’t appeared yet. Given later only Riley checks in with Spike, it’s obvious the other Scoobies (unless Willow got info from Spike) don’t even think to see if Spike could be useful and/or valuable regarding the Dracula situation.


      * Buffy’s clearly at least somewhat attracted to Dracula.

      - It’s likely Buffy would have tried to set him afire and killed him if he didn’t use the glamour and/or if Dracula appeared ugly.

      -- This is clearly beyond Angel territory pre-BtVS 8.40 given Angel actually had been helping Buffy but it’s not at Spike territory given Dracula within the episode and after never tries to kill Buffy, Dracula doesn’t kill as much as Spike did, Dracula doesn’t have the Drusilla situation, etc.


      * Willow’s at least somewhat attracted to Dracula.

      - Willow is a lesbian but as we see in “Him” (B 7.06), she can have a limited attraction to a man.


      * Anya ‘hung out’ with Dracula “one or twice” and is clearly fond of those memories. Anya was at least somewhat attracted to Angel (“Pangs” (B 4.08)) and Anya was attracted to Spike.


      * Riley couldn’t beat Angel in “The Yoko Factor” (B 4.20). Riley’s simply so insecure regarding Buffy’s regard for Buffy/Riley that he recklessly wants to try to kill a vampire clearly very powerful and clearly that BUFFY AND WILLOW COMBINED didn’t try fighting together.


      * Giles and the group (aside from the jealous boyfriends) decide to research Dracula yet only Riley thinks to see if Spike has any useful info regarding Dracula.

      - I can maybe understand not calling Angel simply because the group would be aware of Riley’s issues regarding Buffy/Angel and Riley’s clear jealousy of Buffy’s regard for Dracula.



      DRACULA’S HYPO-BEAMING XANDER:

      * Why Xander? Riley is closer to Buffy and hypo-beaming Riley ensures Riley isn’t with Buffy whenever Dracula wants to see Buffy. Does Dracula not know about Riley? Does Dracula choose Xander simply because Xander was in the graveyard in the earlier scene, Xander is alone can Dracula approaches him, and Xander doesn’t have Willow’s magical powers?



      SPIKE’S CRYPT:

      * First off, I’ve always reasoned Spike didn’t ‘stick around’ in “Primeval” (B 4.21) after getting out of the Initiative. The cost-benefit analysis regarding Spike sides with keeping Spike alive given he hasn’t removed the chip yet and with no access to the Initiative there’s little reason to consider he can remove the chip.


      * Is Spike staying up all night every night or is Spike sleeping lightly enough that he knows if anyone has entered his crypt?


      * Given Dracula is wealthy and it’s almost certain he didn’t need to borrow money from Spike, the 11 pounds sterling that Dracula owes Spike is almost certainly the result of Dracula’s damaging or breaking something of Spike’s.


      * Spike and Dracula are “old rivals”. “Old” here seems to mean “former” or “in the past” as well as “longtime”. This was before Dracula got famous. The “old rivals” part could have been before or after 1900 C.E. given historically novel wasn’t an immediate huge success.

      - I’ve always considered the rivalry perhaps had something to do with Drusilla given her beauty and powers and given the timing (i.e. Dracula wanted Drusilla). Angel left in 1898 C.E. so in Buffyverse time, Spike and Dracula could have been rivals when Spike and Dru were away from Angel and away from Darla. Dracula didn’t become super famous until the movies about him started coming out, so the rivalry could have happened sometime after 1900 C.E. And it kinda doesn’t make sense that Spike could be rivals with Dracula before 1900 C.E. given before Spike killed Xin Rong aka the Chinese Slayer, Spike still felt he had to prove himself compared to Angel.

      Also, in 1896 C.E. (the year before the novel was published), Spike was a full member of The Fanged Four and Drusilla and Darla that year has a ménage a trios with the Immortal.

      - Woodstock (which happened in 1969 C.E.) is the first mention I’m aware of that Spike was in The New World. Spike’s rivalry with Dracula was likely over Europe at the end of the Victorian Era and perhaps during the Edwardian Era. Perhaps the rivalry extended until the 1931 C.E. movie starring Bela Lugosi came out as that is when Dracula got worldwide fame.

      - If the rivalry wasn’t over Drusilla, it was likely simply about who is the most powerful, who’s the coolest, and perhaps about class and nationality. Dracula is very class-conscious and given William Pratt wasn’t royalty and wasn’t even noble when he died, Dracula would consider Spike lesser. Spike is a proud Englishman and he lived and died at the height of English power in the world. During the Victorian and Edwardian eras, he wasn’t likely to consider a Romanian as superior to himself. Would they have actually fought over territory?


      * Spike isn’t afraid of Dracula.


      * Spike essentially says that Dracula’s powers are Gypsy magic. If Spike knows Dracula can die by fire, there’s no reason for Spike to be scared of Dracula.


      * Spike says Dracula “has to have his luxury estate, his bug eaters, and his special dirt.”


      * Spike essentially in a relatively super nice way tells Riley that Riley stands around zero chance against Dracula and at best would be ineffective in any confrontation with Riley and at worst Dracula would simply kill Riley. Riley responds to such advice by deciding to try to threaten Spike.

      - Given Riley didn’t kill Spike after BtVS S4, the only way Riley’s response to Spike makes any sense is Riley suspects Buffy is perhaps ‘into’ Spike and Riley is trying to ‘alpha male’ Spike.


      * Is Spike actually intimidated by Riley? Spike in one blow could probably kill Riley or at least could incapacitate Riley. Spike would have to leave town after doing such a thing.


      * Riley doesn’t pay Spike.


      * Is Spike actually concerned about Buffy? If he is, it’s certainly not enough to try to fight Dracula. Actually, Spike decides not to help against Dracula even for selfish purposes regarding the old rivalry and scoring points with the Scoobies.



      BUFFY’S BEDROOM: DRACULA AND BUFFY:

      * Dracula says Buffy and he are “kindred”.

      - Buffy could actually be a blood relation of Dracula.

      - Kindred also means “similar in kind; related”. All Slayers before Buffy had demon spirits inside them and Dracula doesn’t seem to have approached any of the prior Slayers. Dracula could mean that Buffy is partly evil and that fits with his later telling her, “I have searched the world over for you. I’ve yearned for you. For a creature whose darkness rivals my own.”

      -- Perhaps telling is Drusilla’s darkness far outmatches and far outpaces Dracula’s.


      * Buffy isn’t 100% under the control of Dracula. It’s interesting that she doesn’t protest to Dracula’s saying Angel was unworthy of tasting her and essentially that Angel was unworthy of her.



      THE MORNING AFTER SCENE:

      * Buffy wakes up with ‘sex hair’. Compare her hair to her hair in beginning scene with Riley and the scene of Dracula and Buffy in her bedroom.



      GILES’S HOME:

      * Essentially, Riley didn’t actually get any information out of Spike that Willow didn’t get.

      - It’s possible Willow saw Spike and got information from him. Although it seems Willow and Giles together researched Dracula.


      * Willow kinda implies that Dracula doesn’t need to feed as much as other vampires do.

      - The 3 Sisters are the only ones we know Dracula turned into vampires. And they are likely mere playthings and muscle for him. We don’t actually know if the Mina Harker and the Lucy sirings happened. Or Mina and Lucy each could have been one of the 3 Sisters.


      * Willow says Dracula “can read and control minds. Appear in dreams.” That sounds like Drusilla. We never see Dracula appearing in Buffy’s dreams and we never see him appear in anyone’s dream.


      * Regarding Riley’s attitude about Buffy/Angel and Buffy/Dracula and his describing them as “they’re both broody immortals”, Riley’s attitude toward Spike makes sense. What is odd is BtVS S6 regarding the Scoobies not knowing Buffy/Spike is happening. After “Crush” (B 5.14), the Scoobies know Spike wants to be with Buffy. In BtVS S6, Buffy is hardly ever around, they know she’s with Spike a lot, and they don’t make the connection. Buffy was with Angel, she was attracted to Dracula himself, and now she’s rarely around, Spike’s rarely around, she’s with Spike a lot, Spike came to her birthday party (“Older and Faraway” (B 6.14)), Buffy is clearly unhappy that Spike brought a date to the Xander/Anya wedding (“Hells Bells” (B 6.16)), and the Scoobies don’t suspect anything.


      * Giles decides that Riley and he should look for Dracula while Willow merely puts a protection spell around Buffy’s house.

      - Does that make ANY sense? No. None of the Scoobies suggesting Spike help look for Dracula is bizarre enough, having the non-powered Riley and non-powered Giles looking for Dracula instead of having Willow and Tara (and Spike) looking for Dracula makes very little sense.

      -- Regarding their daytime search, if Dracula didn’t have that particular house, how would Riley and Giles possibly know where Dracula lives? Dracula would have to answer the door and if he did, he’d easily be able to do any of the following: hypo-beam them, incapacitate them, and kill them.



      INSIDE DRACULA’S HOUSE:

      * Other than the 3 Sisters and Xander, Dracula has no minions in the house. Why? Can Dracula not inspire loyalty? Does he not want minions?


      * Dracula implies that Buffy will still be a Slayer even after he sires her.


      * Did Buffy get more powerful after drinking Dracula’s blood?


      * Dracula is clearly stronger than Buffy is.


      * Dracula is instantly afraid of Buffy after Buffy wields the torch. Buffy clearly comprehends this.


      * Buffy didn’t try to actually kill Dracula. She could have used the torch to try to burn Dracula to death. Instead, she simply stakes him knowing he’ll reform. It’s possible she simply did that as a punctuation mark of her not wanting to ‘be with’ him and so Dracula wouldn’t be visible when the friends of hers arrive to see her.


      * It’s possible and very likely that Dracula simply can’t be dusted by a staking, decapitation, etc. Dracula likely simply did a glamour or a spell to pretend he was dusted. Tellingly, his reforming is simply his mist/fog reforming into his form instead of reforming from dust.

      - It seems Dracula can only be killed by fire and he can be killed by sunlight.



      GILES’S HOME:

      * It is bizarre that “Fool For Love” (B 5.07) is the first time Buffy seems to get the mere idea to see if Spike knows anything about Slayers. In “Get it Done” (B 7.15), it’s clear Spike already knows the origin of the Slayer and already knows Slayers have demon spirits inside them. Yet the most Buffy perhaps ever asks Spike about Slayers is how he killed the two he killed.

      Buffy’s training with Giles makes sense. Buffy’s learning about Slayers from Giles makes sense. Not getting information from Spike on the subject doesn’t make sense.



      MAIN QUESTIONS:

      * Why was Spike so absent from this episode given the Scoobies should have considered he'd perhaps be useful regarding the Dracula situation?


      * Given Buffy never dates Dracula and given she doesn't contact him for help until over 4 years after "Buffy vs. Dracula" (B 5.01), why didn't Buffy kill Dracula?


      * Did Dracula know Spike was in Sunnydale? Would he care?


      * Why does Dracula 'give up' so easily regarding Buffy/Dracula? Dracula essentially has been searching for Buffy for perhaps over 550 years. Especially if Dracula knew about Buffy/Spike, why wouldn't Dracula try again sometime after "Chosen" (B 7.22)?


      * Why doesn't anyone protest the plan to have Giles and Riley find and fight Dracula instead of having Willow and Tara help or do such?




      I'll do a full bullet points and analysis on Tales of the Vampires : "Antique", and on the relevant parts of BtVS S8: "Wolves at the Gate" (again, I'll be using the graphic novel and the BtVS S8: Volume 2 Library Edition, respectively) later Friday (Pacific Standard Time, United States) or perhaps more likely during Saturday (Pacific Standard Time, United States). Given I'm not going to be participating in the Season 10 stuff as much as I did for Season 9 and Season 8, I'll likely be involved in the re-watch (to some and various extents) going forward.

      Comment


      • #4
        Hey MikeB,

        Thanks for kicking off the rewatch!

        Some great points in your Buffy vs. Dracula rewatch review. I've read Season Eight Dracula mini-arc but don't know much about the Tales of the Vampires story "Antique" - looking forward to your analysis. I'll pull out my big-ass hardback book now and look at it.

        I agree that the 2006 comic book Spike vs. Dracula is most likely un-canonical.

        I'll write a detailed response later to your rewatch - after you've finished your continuation of the bullet points and analysis.

        But welcome aboard the Buffy Rewatch thread! Nice job - some really interesting speculation. Lots to think about!
        Last edited by American Aurora; 28-08-15, 11:56 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MikeB View Post
          Given that Season 10 may not actually be part of the Whedonverse, I’m not discussing Season 10 and will ignore everything in Season 10; which given some stuff in Season 10 is directly opposed to previous established canon, it’ll make analysis easier anyway.
          Sorry MikeB that is personal preference sticking its head above the parapet. Season 10 is absolutely canon until Joss says otherwise. There isn't anything I can think of in it that contradicts significant events. I am sure it may contradict how you picture things should/could be from what I've seen you post before so I'm certain it contradicts your fanon, but that doesn't remove its canonical status. Perhaps it is time to reconsider your reading of the things that you feel it contradicts?? No worries though, in terms of disregarding it for your review, it certainly isn't needed.

          Tales of the Vampires : “Antique”, and BtVS S8 each are important regarding Dracula.
          I have this and haven't read it yet, I'll dig it out and read it too.

          - My review is based on the US version DVDs of BtVS. The US version (full screen) format is what is canon.
          What other versions are there? I'm sure that everything in the other versions is also canon, I can't imagine they contain different episodes/details?

          I'm going to watch the episode tonight so hopefully will get to respond to your review later today/tomorrow. Thanks for starting S5 off for us.

          Comment


          • #6
            I think the question "what is canon?" is a very complex one. I don't consider the comics canon, so let me explain why.

            I'll start at the very beginning and probably make this annoyingly simple. I think we'd all agree that canon certainly consists of a "single work" by a "specified author". With a book, that makes it easy in the first instance. The Lord of the Rings is a 3-volume work, but Tolkien alone wrote it. When we analyze those books, that's our canon.

            But now it gets harder. The Silmarillon was based on notes by Tolkien but wasn't written entirely by him. Even less connected would be The Children of Hurin. Should we consider as canon works that the author didn't write and never approved? Not in my view, no. I don't consider either one to be canon, though I think others can reasonably disagree.

            Movies and television shows are harder still. For one thing, they are never the product of a single person. No matter how much someone may guide the overall themes, there's input from lots of sources: other writers, directors, actors, censors, etc. Though it's a bit dubious, because we've departed from the idea of a "specified author", I'm willing to call a show like BtVS "canon", taking all 144 episodes together.

            I doubt many would disagree on this point, but I'm not sure if anyone could articulate a precise reason why we agree. It's intuition as much as anything else. And then it gets more complicated. We get spin-offs: AtS and the comics. They have even less connection to the "supervising creator" than the original show. Worse yet, there are different demands made by the different stories told and the different art forms (in the case of the comics). Different writers were employed, different artists, different actors, etc.

            For me personally, that's enough of a separation that I don't consider either AtS or the comics to be "canon" when it comes to BtVS. This probably puts me in a minority with respect to AtS, but I suspect I'm in the majority when it comes to the comics. Again, I'm not sure I could articulate a precise reason why.

            I'd be very interested in others' thoughts on this.

            Comment


            • #7
              Sorry for the extreme delay; I had quite a Friday. I'll now do a bullet points and analysis for the BtVS S8 stuff presently.



              Bullet points and analysis for Tales of the Vampires: “Antique”



              * The most conspicuous thing is WHERE IS WILLOW?

              - Willow has ranged attacks so even the possibility of Buffy’s considering that Dracula may be able to hypno-beam Willow isn’t a valid excuse regarding why Willow wasn’t there to try to save one of her Best Friends Forever (BFFs).

              - The most reasonable and likely reason Willow wasn’t there is Buffy simply wanted to fight Dracula. Maybe Buffy was bored. Less likely, but maybe Buffy was looking to see if Dracula was dating material. A huge possibility is Buffy was looking for funding for her Slayer Organization and that Dracula was one of her sponsors in BtVS S8.

              -- I consider it’s likely that the United States Government (through ‘The Initiative’ or whatever) was one of Buffy’s sponsors. If not money, it could have provided various military equipment (the helicopters, etc.)

              --- Maybe Buffy was robbing banks to pay for perpetual food, clothing, supplies, sundry, taxes, etc. for her worldwide organization.


              * At this point, it doesn’t seem Dracula has servants. There isn’t any indication that Buffy and the other 2 Slayers had to go through any guards or minions to get to Dracula.


              * Dracula probably uses magic or his superspeed (if he has superspeed) to clean the castle.


              * Given how depressed Dracula is, the castle is essentially a giant tomb for him.

              - Dracula is literally staring into a huge deadly fire when Buffy and Co. enter the room.


              * Given how bored and depressed Dracula is, his changing into various things and is fight with Buffy is probably simply his having a little fun, having some levity, etc.


              * Buffy is slightly afraid of Dracula.


              * Why does Dracula make Xander his “manservant”?

              - Does Dracula not actually want a friend?

              - Dracula clearly has very little respect for Xander given Dracula made Xander a “manservant”. And The 3 Sisters he now refers to as “harpies”.

              -- A “harpy” is a “grasping, unpleasant woman”. Essentially Dracula is calling them ‘unpleasant gold-diggers”.


              * It’s perhaps interesting that the “harpies” were trying to dress Xander “up like a bobby”. “Bobby” is obviously an English term.


              * Would Dracula actually try to kill Buffy merely to keep Xander? No. Dracula is stronger and more powerful than Buffy. If he actually wanted to kill her, he would have.


              * Dracula is sweating and drooling as Buffy is choking him.


              * Those three skulls in Dracula’s lawn were either trespassers and/or food.


              * That fall onto grass wouldn’t have killed Buffy and Dracula very likely knows that.


              * Dracula’s advice to Buffy is incorrect. Dracula’s problem is that he clearly was ‘living in the past’ and hasn’t ‘changed with the times’. In addition, he’s obviously an unlikable loner.

              - Buffy’s problem regarding Simone Doffler and regarding the Slayers in general is that she was ‘living in the past’. Buffy should have allowed Slayers to use modern weapons. Buffy herself has used modern weapons when it suited her and/or was necessary. Buffy simply prefers stakes and crossbows to guns but she shouldn’t have imposed such views on 100s of Slayers. Even the Angel situation post-BtVS 8.39 was Buffy’s living in the past. She clearly didn’t want to be with Angel and she still could have had her Slayer army if she simply killed Angel and explained to the Slayers that she was magically influenced into having sex with AngelTwilight.

              - Even the Harmony Rules situation was Buffy ‘living in the past’. If vampires overall were no longer killing because of Harmony Rules, Buffy could have and should have had a public conference and even signed a treaty with Harmony saying Slayers would no longer kill a vampire unless a vampire killed a human post-Harmony’s Rules or some such compromise was made between Buffy and Harmony.

              The Slayers could better focus on killing other demons.

              - Dracula himself probably could have been a member of the Scoobies. It’s Dracula’s personality and feelings of superiority that isolate him and make him friendless.

              -- Dracula’s living in the past to the extent he doesn’t seem to use electrically, he has a carriage instead of luxury car, in BtVS S8 we see he rides in an old ship instead of having a yacht, a private jet, etc.


              * Dracula allows Xander to leave with Buffy very likely because Dracula’s relationship with Buffy – who he considers at least almost equal to himself – is more important to him than Xander is.


              * Dracula clearly doesn’t like the movies and TV shows interpretation of him and his still upset about the 1931 C.E. Bela Lugosi movie on him.

              - It could be that Dracula’s rivalry with Spike didn’t so much end as Dracula retired back to his castle and stayed there while Spike and Dru continued painting towns red across Europe and eventually The New World.

              -- Last Angel in Hell is probably not canon given the residents of Los Angeles have forgotten about Hell-LA. If Twinkle is canon, the main possible consequences would be Buffy’s knowing Spike’s alive and that he probably ‘was with’ Maria Harley aka Spider. And Spike’s ex who is clearly still fully in love with him is now even richer.

              That was one movie, the Spike character was essentially a Spike version of Edward Cullen (i.e. a much better version), and that Spike version has a likely much better version of Bella Swan.

              The actual Spike has Illyria, the Scoobies, Buffy, Drusilla, (and later Morgan) all of whom he respects and Spike is important to. Spike was the supreme monarch of an advanced alien civilization. Spike still has Maria Harley (if canon).

              Dracula had searched for ‘an equal’ for over 550 years and then Buffy rejects him and only visits him to get Xander back (and then probably solicits money from Dracula). The 3 Sisters are perhaps only with him because he sired them and spends a lot of money on them. Somehow, Xander’s being his manservant “has been on of the best years of [Dracula’s] life.” Dracula has perhaps never had a friend. And being popular because of movies based on pathetic and crappy versions of himself (in his opinion) likely made Dracula feel even worse.


              MAIN QUESTIONS:

              * How did Dracula become a vampire?

              - Dracula died an old man. He doesn’t have a ‘vampire face’. He clearly sired The 3 Sisters. Who sired Dracula?

              -- In The Origin , we see that Lothos has fangs even in human face, we see Lothos has long sharp fingernails, and Lothos has powerful hypno-beams. Lothos would have been 100s of years old when Vlad Tepes died. Therefore, Lothos seems the perfect fit to be Dracula’s sire.


              * Why is Xander so important to Dracula?

              - Ultimately, it’s probably because Xander is so important to Buffy and Xander’s dealing with Angel and with Spike perhaps more easily allows Xander to tolerate Dracula.


              * How powerful are The 3 Sisters?

              - They are almost certainly more powerful than most vampires are. Dracula did keep them away from Buffy and the other 2 Slayers; therefore, perhaps Dracula may consider Buffy and Co. could have killed them.


              * Did Dracula help sponsor Buffy’s Slayer organization?

              - Dracula does have a shipping company, he probably bought the land and built the Sunnydale house, so he’s not averse to moneymaking. In the Bram Stoker novel, Dracula does have an interest in moneymaking. Simply with interest, not needing to pay taxes at home (Dracula almost certainly is still royalty), not having any heirs or family that would dilute his personal wealth, Dracula could easily have at least 100s of MMs of dollars/pounds sterling/Euros and probably billions.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sophist View Post
                For me personally, that's enough of a separation that I don't consider either AtS or the comics to be "canon" when it comes to BtVS. This probably puts me in a minority with respect to AtS, but I suspect I'm in the majority when it comes to the comics. Again, I'm not sure I could articulate a precise reason why.

                I'd be very interested in others' thoughts on this.
                I think it is quite simple personally. The creator is the person who has the call on the story/characters that they have created. Joss even makes clear statements on occasions about canon. Anything the author didn't write or approve isn't canon. I don't think we get to pick and choose whether Joss is right or not, it is his story.
                Last edited by Stoney; 30-08-15, 03:23 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Sophist:

                  I think the question "what is canon?" is a very complex one.
                  I agree. The whole obsession with "Canon" or "authenticity" in our society seems to be a modern one - as our culture becomes more and more divorced from narrative sources, the more important an "authentic" experience becomes. This is not only true of the arts, but other related skills as well like food and woodworking. There seems to be a real need in our society to pronounce this and that the ONLY REAL version of so-and-so - very telling in an age of mechanical reproduction and virtual reality. And it often seems to merit a very f**ing important capital C - as if the word canon were not enough. And so in that spirit, I capitalize it throughout this post.

                  But if we break down the idea, we find even more mirrors within mirrors. Take Shakespeare's Hamlet - we have the First Folio version supervised by fellow actors who might have compiled them from sides and who knows WTF and then there's the Second, Third and Fourth Folios in addition to two Quartos - 1 & 2 - small pamphlets containing various different versions of the play. Originally, the Quartos were thought to be corrupted - now scholars believe they are seeing various drafts of Shakespeare's Hamlet - which continued to evolve. Then there is the problem of Authorial Identity and Intent - most scholars now believe Shakespeare wrote his plays with a group of people - within a theatrical collective - and so rather than being the hand of one person - there are multiple authors involved.

                  So whenever Hamlet is performed, do we take from the First Folio with things inserted from the Quartos? Often. Is any production of Hamlet absolutely non-Canonical in the sense that we don't know what Shakespeare intended, what variations of Hamlet he approved of and how much of Hamlet he actually wrote.

                  Of course, the whole idea of Canon comes from the Biblical Canon - and I'm not even going to get into that kettle of fish. Let's just say the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and all the rest have been massively edited and swapped out like cards over centuries to the point where the Catholic Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Lutheran Bible and various other versions all exclude or include different works. And let's not even go into the dozens of gnostic texts and multiple Christianities that existed at the same time. Not to mention the battle between the two different versions of the Talmud. I don't even want to get into other religions - or even readings of the law - but it's pretty much the same.

                  So one person's Scriptural Canon is another person's Wastebasket.

                  So when we get to modern times and the crazy desire in the 20th Century to declare this and that Canon, it just seems like it's utterly arbitrary. Some people still debate whether Sherlock Holmes stories after The Final Problem should be considered Canon. What is interesting about all this is not the supposed Canon itself, but the desire to declare this or that Canon in fandom.

                  And then there are the constant "revised versions" of famous novels - ah, this is what the author REALLY would have published if they hadn't been constrained by an evil publisher or public morality or financial considerations. So we get the "corrected text" of James Joyce and others - and then find out that these aren't EXACTLY what the author had in mind - but the copyright holders sure made a bundle off of promoting them as the REAL version of Dubliners and what not.

                  So I think Canon is different for everyone - you feel that it's just the Buffy show and I respect that. In my opinion, I would say that AtS HAS to be considered Canon - or all those crossovers bizarrely make no sense at all to me. I can't understand how Fool For Love could be considered Canon - but not Darla. Or Angel's crossovers into Buffy to apologize for a non-Canonical happening - that doesn't make sense to me. But that's just a personal opinion - it's not a fact - there IS no factual basis to declaring what is Canon. It's almost different for every era depending on what they need to believe.

                  Now I could understand also if one considered only BtVS Seasons 1-5 and AtS 1-2 Canon - and then everything afterwards uncanonical considering the two shows were torn apart by the network change and everything from the budget to the camerawork to the move from Whedon to Noxon affected Buffy and Angel to the point where they felt a bit like different television shows. I don't understand fans of Spike, for example, who proudly declare they have never seen Angel - and vice versa. That just seems bizarre to me considering they were both conceived as part of the same universe by the same creators.

                  I don't consider the comics canon, so let me explain why.

                  I'll start at the very beginning and probably make this annoyingly simple. I think we'd all agree that canon certainly consists of a "single work" by a "specified author".
                  Sophist, I see your point - but I can't agree. Because then you're saying that the works of Shakespeare are not Canonical - since we now know that he developed his plays with various authors. And there are many other authors who also worked with groups of fellow artists, publishers, directors, producers - who had their work radically changed during the development of a piece. Some very famous author-publisher relationships resulted in very different work than the author with another publisher. So where do we place these works? And when an author returns to a universe after many years like Anne Rice - do we consider her latest work on Lestat to be Canonical (a lot of fans do not) J.K. Rowling is developing a play about Harry Potter - will that be Canonical? Are we limiting the idea of Canon to works in the same medium? Then what to do about authors who work in several different art forms - but limit themselves to the same universe?

                  I'm just saying - the whole idea of Canon is kinda cannon fodder, if you know what I mean.

                  With a book, that makes it easy in the first instance. The Lord of the Rings is a 3-volume work, but Tolkien alone wrote it. When we analyze those books, that's our canon.
                  Well, but is it? When Tolkien wrote The Hobbit, many, many chapters were RADICALLY different from the revised version that he wrote AFTER The Lord of the Rings. Which The Hobbit is Canonical? The one that was originally published - or the one that was rewritten to accommodate the new version of Gollum and Gandalf and the Ring? See what I mean?

                  And then if his heirs published "The Corrected Text" that has something shocking that was left out due to a prevailing morality - like Frodo and Sam doing the nasty - what then becomes of the original text?

                  But now it gets harder. The Silmarillon was based on notes by Tolkien but wasn't written entirely by him. Even less connected would be The Children of Hurin. Should we consider as canon works that the author didn't write and never approved? Not in my view, no. I don't consider either one to be canon, though I think others can reasonably disagree.
                  I agree with you about The Silmarillon completely. That was a money grab by his son, plain and simple.

                  Movies and television shows are harder still. For one thing, they are never the product of a single person. No matter how much someone may guide the overall themes, there's input from lots of sources: other writers, directors, actors, censors, etc. Though it's a bit dubious, because we've departed from the idea of a "specified author", I'm willing to call a show like BtVS "canon", taking all 144 episodes together.
                  I agree - but I hope I've shown that no work of art is the product of a single person - after they get through the hands of editors, publishers, directors and such, they're usually radically changed from the original draft.

                  I doubt many would disagree on this point, but I'm not sure if anyone could articulate a precise reason why we agree. It's intuition as much as anything else. And then it gets more complicated. We get spin-offs: AtS and the comics. They have even less connection to the "supervising creator" than the original show. Worse yet, there are different demands made by the different stories told and the different art forms (in the case of the comics). Different writers were employed, different artists, different actors, etc.
                  True - but you could say that about almost any universe - again - quartos or folios? Who knows? And when Canons are extended through a long period of time, don't the changes in the author's lifetime constitute strange additions to the text - if I started My Little Pony at a time of relative piece - and then I'm chased by the Nazis through various countries until I emigrate to the US and write hack films about My Little Pony in Hollywood - does that affect the idea of Canon?

                  The problem is that an artist's life is never stagnant - and political or personal upheaval changes everything. Suppose I wrote about werewolves and vampires - and then became a born-again Christian and wrote a future novel where all my characters die in a grease fire because my view had changed and I now considered them Satanic? Would that novel be considered Canon - or just a last crazy work from a once popular author?

                  Go to any Comic Convention and talk with Buffy fans and they'll all give you a different answer as to what is Canon. Interestingly enough, I found that most people actually saw the show in radically different ways - and so their head Canon is probably vastly different from what the creators intended. But that's another question that involves the multiple meanings of art as created by the audience that may even supersede authorial intent - how valid are they - and when are they considered more Canonical than Canon?

                  For me personally, that's enough of a separation that I don't consider either AtS or the comics to be "canon" when it comes to BtVS. This probably puts me in a minority with respect to AtS, but I suspect I'm in the majority when it comes to the comics. Again, I'm not sure I could articulate a precise reason why.
                  You don't have to articulate one - it's such a personal response that everyone will have a different answer. My personal opinion is that BtVS and AtS are Canon - and Seasons 8/9/10 comics are quasi-Canon - and everything else including Angel AtF and weird novels are WTF you want them to be.

                  I'd be very interested in others' thoughts on this.
                  Ha! Maybe after reading this, you'll take that back!

                  Seriously, great question, Sophist! I'd love to hear anyone else's take on this.
                  Last edited by American Aurora; 30-08-15, 03:37 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by American Aurora View Post
                    So when we get to modern times and the crazy desire in the 20th Century to declare this and that Canon, it just seems like it's utterly arbitrary. Some people still debate whether Sherlock Holmes stories after The Final Problem should be considered Canon. What is interesting about all this is not the supposed Canon itself, but the desire to declare this or that Canon in fandom.

                    And then there are the constant "revised versions" of famous novels - ah, this is what the author REALLY would have published if they hadn't been constrained by an evil publisher or public morality or financial considerations. So we get the "corrected text" of James Joyce and others - and then find out that these aren't EXACTLY what the author had in mind - but the copyright holders sure made a bundle off of promoting them as the REAL version of Dubliners and what not.
                    Well luckily Joss is around to get to decide. I seriously find this a bizarre conversation because we don't have to guess what to pick and choose and the idea that we get to overrule what Joss says I find odd. Isn't this what terms like fanon, headcanon etc are all about?
                    Last edited by Stoney; 30-08-15, 03:44 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Stoney:

                      I think it is quite simple personally. The creator is the person who has the call on the story/characters that they have created. Joss even makes clear statements on occasions about canon. Anything the author didn't write or approve isn't canon. I don't think we get to pick and choose whether Joss is right or not, it is his story.

                      Well luckily Joss is around to get to pick. I seriously find this a bizarre conversation because we don't have to guess what to pick and choose and the idea that we get to overrule what Joss says I find odd. Isn't this what terms like fanon, headcanon etc are all about?
                      I can see where you're coming from, Stoney. I was just going over the big questions that the idea of canon represents in literary circles. Sorry if it got too broad and far away from the topic at hand.

                      Personally, I follow Whedon's direction in determining canon myself for the purposes of discussing the show. Although I have a tendency myself to believe that Angel After the Fall is somewhat more quasi-canonical in some parts than others believe (because I find them interesting, I guess) and not at all in other parts. The weird outliers like Spike: Into the Light are also WTF for me.

                      The only thing that holds me back from declaring the Season 8/9/10 comics canon has nothing to do with continuity or anything like that.

                      It's Whedon's statement that if he decided to reboot Buffy that he wouldn't have any problem throwing out the whole storyline of the comics and starting over again. So I put them in the quasi-canonical category - because I'm unsure about whether their canonical status will last.

                      I'm working on the Fool for Love rewatch review and within that context, I consider everything from Season 2-7 of Buffy, Season 1-5 of Angel, and Season 8 and Season 9 through the latest issue of Season 10 as absolutely canonical when searching for clues about Spike's life and motivations.

                      I will mention some things from Angel After the Fall and other assorted Spike stories outside of the above, but also mention their likely uncanonical status. Then again, isn't one of the IDW comics the source for Spike's last name, Pratt? And that came from Joss Whedon himself. So it's hard to determine what they really are in the whole scheme of things. Would love any input here! (hint, hint)
                      Last edited by American Aurora; 30-08-15, 04:14 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Stoney View Post
                        Well luckily Joss is around to get to decide. I seriously find this a bizarre conversation because we don't have to guess what to pick and choose and the idea that we get to overrule what Joss says I find odd, isn't that what the term fanon is all about?
                        Ah, the canon wars. I knew that eventually BuffyForum would be engulfed in the global battle raging in comic book, Doctor Who and Star Trek forums.

                        I believe Brecht and Weil wrote a song about this in Threepenny Opera -- using the idea of western imperialism as a cunning metaphor for debates over how Klingon foreheads changed.

                        http://youtu.be/vCfxB4twM-c

                        Seriously though, I do understand the conflict. Especially with the licensed products -- some comics or novels while officially licensed aren't canon but others are. These works may be less than canon, but more than fanon.

                        It can get especially divisive if the show in question goes away and comes back. For example, between the original Star Trek and the Next Generation several professional science fiction writers wrote officially licensed novels that fleshed out the backgrounds of the Klingons and Romulans. There was outrage when the Next Generation came along and ignored the novels that many had taken as canon.

                        Star Wars had published a kadzillion novels in an expanded universe canon, until Star Wars' new corporate masters decanonized the novels to prepare for their new film. It's the literary equivalent of creating anti-popes.

                        And if Buffy ever comes back to the TV screens, I wouldn't be surprised if seasons 8-10 are promptly decanonized. I can't imagine episodes flashing back to the bug ship or pregnant robot Buffy, for example. Maybe they'll be revealed as all just robot scenarios created by Andrew. (In Marvel Comics, when a writer doesn't like what another writer did with Doctor Doom, he / she just writes off Doom of the previous story as being a DoomBot imposter.)

                        It's tempting to want to excise unpleasant things from the canon -- say, "Beer Bad" didn't really happen -- but then in some ways that's cheating. People might not like Angel, but it's canonical status is hard to question. (Now the comic where Spike got a lot of hack screenwriters to warp reality by writing crazy prophecies about Angel as an evil supervillain with a poncy name like Dusk or End of Day, that might not be canon. And yet, the comic does exist.)

                        Of course, this whole episode is non-canonical as it doesn't quite adhere to Bram Stoker's novel Dracula.

                        And in some senses, with the last couple of minutes of this episode, Buffy seasons 1-4 as we know them become non-canon for our characters.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I think a big reason a lot of people turn to the creator to decide what is or isn't canon isn't just that they are responsible for the story (though that's certainly why we respect their 'authority' on the matter) but because in order to discuss these stories we need some basic rules about what is or isn't "real." For instance, if I were to write a fanfic where Buffy is an anti-Semitic Nazi sympathiser and then declared it canon, just because I can, my interpretation of the character is going to be so radically different from somebody else's version of her that discussing her is practically impossible. Another example is if I were to state that Buffy has never been guilty of infidelity and then another fan tells me I am wrong because in some random Darkhorse comic written back in 1999 she cheated on Angel with someone at the Bronze. How do we reconcile the two? We can't. So turning to Joss to know what stories are officially part of these character's timelines and histories gives us a foundation where we can discuss them and analyse them based on episodes/seasons/comics that are deemed canonical and those which are not.

                          Which isn't to say that I think fans have to completely ignore their own 'personal canon.' If someone doesn't want to acknowledge S8's existence than they're perfectly free to do so. Just like there are some fans who apparently stop the story after The Gift and don't really factor S6 or S7 into their own personal canon. But there's a big difference between doing that and then trying to argue with fans that they're wrong for accepting S8 (or S6/S7) canon and that they have more authority over what is real than the creator who writes the story. I freely admit that when I think about these characters I very rarely, if ever, take into consideration their S9 or S10 journeys because I've found both comics so disappointing and so far removed from the series that I loved that it's difficult for me to consider anything 'real.' What they do in those seasons just hasn't really changed my opinion of them one bit. BUT I would never claim I have more authority over Whedon or tell fans that those seasons aren't canon. Objectively speaking they absolutely are until Joss says otherwise.

                          But the thing I've enjoyed most about this rewatch thread is a separation from the comics and the show. It's been refreshing to discuss the show after being so dismayed by the comics for the last few years because it reminds me of how fantastic the series was. Far be it for me to stifle other people's conversations and that's certainly not my intention but I hope we don't sidetrack to far into discussing the comics. I don't think Antique has much to do with Buffy VS Dracula personally.

                          ~ Banner by Nina ~

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Bullet points and analysis for BtVS S8: “Wolves at the Gate” and maybe other relevant BtVS S8 stuff.



                            * Buffy sent Xander to Dracula instead of going herself likely because she’s leading Buffy and Co., she didn’t want Dracula thinking she wanted anything romantic from Dracula, and she didn’t want Dracula thinking it was a solicitation for money. In addition, Xander is more vulnerable, Buffy essentially uses Xander as a bargaining chip to get Dracula’s help, and Buffy is asking Dracula to actually fight for her.


                            * Dracula changes his eye color between blue and hazel.


                            * This old man version is probably what Dracula actually look like. The historical Dracula actually died in his mid-40s.


                            * Dracula has an empty throne chair for a Queen (probably Buffy).


                            * Dracula’s castle seems a little nicer and better built than the Tales of the Vampires : “Antique” one. Dracula now has servants when before he only had The 3 Sisters and he had Xander as a manservant for a year.


                            * Dracula has paintings of blonde-haired women (maybe thinking of Buffy?)


                            * Dracula’s racism is perhaps a product of Dracula’s living ‘behind the times’.


                            * Interestingly, either Buffy didn’t tell Andrew that Dracula essentially enslaved Xander for a year or Andrew is lying to the Slayers regarding that. Andrew also says Xander was with Dracula “for a few months”.

                            - This is perhaps a seed of the Slayers not trusting Buffy regarding her regard for evil vampires as Andrew tells them Buffy let Xander “hang out” with Dracula.


                            * For some reason, Dracula and Xander have ‘mancrushes’ on each other.


                            * Why would Renee think Dracula would “sell his powers to the highest bidder”?

                            - Dracula’s gambling for a motorbike is probably a result of his drunkedness and his thinking about times with Xander. Certainly Dracula can afford a motorbike.


                            * Dracula to Xander: “These powers you speak of—they’re part of the ancient magics. I risked by very soul to attain them. I am their worldly guardian.”

                            - First off, does Dracula still have part of his soul?

                            - Secondly, this is one example of BtVS S10 going against previously established canon. Dracula didn’t simply ‘will’ himself to have powers. His powers come from magic, they are very likely Gypsy magic, and the Gypsies didn’t teach such magic to others.


                            * There doesn’t seem to be any paintings of Dracula’s children on the walls. Dracula clearly didn’t sire any of his children. There doesn’t seem to be any paintings of Dracula’s wife on the walls.


                            * Dracula’s dresses in what he probably considers ‘cool and stylish’. He didn’t exactly ‘dress up’ for Xander. But he does when he knows he’s about to see Buffy again.

                            - Does Dracula actually loathe Buffy? Clearly not. His resentment of Buffy and the Slayer army makes sense if Dracula is partly financing it.


                            * Dracula asks if he can eat the dead Slayer. Insensitive and gross sure, but Dracula may know that Buffy allowed Spike to feed on people ‘who were going to be dead anyway’, Dracula is probably testing the limits of what Buffy will allow Dracula to do, etc.


                            * This is probably the first reference to the Slayer Organization having a private plane as that is likely what Xander and Dracula flew on.


                            * Dracula doesn’t yet understand time zones, which is another sign of his ‘living in the past’. In addition, he still refers to people as peasants.


                            * Buffy’s eyes change from hazel to blue. Maybe that’s a Dracula connection?


                            * So, why are Xander and Andrew there in the fight?

                            - Andrew at least has the surveillance excuse. Xander is actually fighting among super-powered people (Willow, Dracula, Buffy, the other Slayers, and Dawn).


                            * The Scythe like Dracula’s special sword is “bound with demon spirit”.


                            * It’s possible Dracula became a vampire because he got some of the demon spirit from his special sword.


                            * While Dracula kept his powers after the Japanese vampires became ‘normal’, he probably lost his magical powers after the Seed was broken unless he could get such powers back from his special sword or some other artifact he has.

                            - However, given he’s not in BtVS S9, it’s likely he simply lost his magical powers. In addition, that also helps explain Buffy and Co.’s money problems after BtVS 8.39. Dracula was upset at his lost powers and maybe even demanded some money from the Slayer Organization (or at least got some assets).



                            The Main Takeaway

                            * Dracula would probably happily join the Scoobies if Buffy didn't only go to him for selfish purposes. He clearly would like to be friends with Xander but Xander only went to him for help.

                            - Consider how Spike felt those 3 weeks in the basement in the beginning of BtVS S7 when Buffy only went to him for help and/or information. He was very miserable, he wasn't bathing (other than went he went out to kill, etc.)

                            Dracula's melancholy makes sense if he helped Buffy's Slayer Organization financially yet Buffy and Xander never even visited him after that. Now, after Dracula's helped in BtVS S8, Buffy and Xander don't seem to want him around anymore. In Dracula's mind, Buffy's is his eternal 'soulmate' and Xander is his BFF. Yet Buffy even though she's been single for years and was clearly at least partly attracted to him never even visits him and "Wolves at the Gate" (BtVS S8) is almost certainly the first time since Tales of the Vampires : "Antique" that Xander's contacted Dracula.


                            I'll respond to the thread after someone posts something so as not to have a 'double post' and so I won't have to edit this one.

                            I consider it makes sense Dracula is one of Buffy's benefactors in BtVS S8. She needed money, Dracula owed her after enslaving Xander for a year. The largess could be Dracula bought the various homes the Slayer Organization uses and the deeds were in his name. And her saving Angel helps explain why she's so broke after BtVS 8.39.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by American Aurora View Post
                              The only thing that holds me back from declaring the Season 8/9/10 comics canon has nothing to do with continuity or anything like that.

                              It's Whedon's statement that if he decided to reboot Buffy that he wouldn't have any problem throwing out the whole storyline of the comics and starting over again. So I put them in the quasi-canonical category - because I'm unsure about whether their canonical status will last.
                              But that doesn't change the fact that, as it stands, Joss sees them as the official continuation.

                              I'm working on the Fool for Love rewatch review and within that context, I consider everything from Season 2-7 of Buffy, Season 1-5 of Angel, and Season 8 and Season 9 through the latest issue of Season 10 as absolutely canonical when searching for clues about Spike's life and motivations.

                              I will mention some things from Angel After the Fall and other assorted Spike stories outside of the above, but also mention their likely uncanonical status. Then again, isn't one of the IDW comics the source for Spike's last name, Pratt? And that came from Joss Whedon himself. So it's hard to determine what they really are in the whole scheme of things. Would love any input here! (hint, hint)
                              Ha, yes I think you are right 'Pratt' came from elsewhere. I can't remember if it was ever used outright in canon but I think Joss said he was happy to go with it, I don't remember unfortunately.

                              After the Fall is difficult because Joss worked on them with Lynch, but then Lynch went and added to them beyond what Joss had outlined with him. I take the rough outline of them as canon because Joss' name is on them and he was involved but there is some question mark over all the details. Into the Light isn't canon. They have confirmed that it isn't and Joss' name isn't on it (and that confirmation came after Dylan appeared in the official story, so presumably on the IDW basis, only whatever they confirm about her is canon). I think Joss said at one point that they would pick and choose if they wanted to lift anything from IDW but would otherwise leave it so that fans could have it as their personal canon if they wished, but if it contradicted something he wanted to write then he would simply overrule it. I think Joss' stance is traceable by what he puts his name to, it is his official seal if you will.

                              Originally posted by PuckRobin View Post
                              Seriously though, I do understand the conflict. Especially with the licensed products -- some comics or novels while officially licensed aren't canon but others are. These works may be less than canon, but more than fanon.
                              See I just really don't get it. If Joss never said anything about it I'd see the debate, but that isn't the case.

                              And if Buffy ever comes back to the TV screens, I wouldn't be surprised if seasons 8-10 are promptly decanonized. I can't imagine episodes flashing back to the bug ship or pregnant robot Buffy, for example. Maybe they'll be revealed as all just robot scenarios created by Andrew. (In Marvel Comics, when a writer doesn't like what another writer did with Doctor Doom, he / she just writes off Doom of the previous story as being a DoomBot imposter.)
                              Ha for sure. But it would be Joss' call yes? And it would be decononising them because, yep, they are canon.

                              It's tempting to want to excise unpleasant things from the canon -- say, "Beer Bad" didn't really happen -- but then in some ways that's cheating. People might not like Angel, but it's canonical status is hard to question. (Now the comic where Spike got a lot of hack screenwriters to warp reality by writing crazy prophecies about Angel as an evil supervillain with a poncy name like Dusk or End of Day, that might not be canon. And yet, the comic does exist.)
                              The further IDW stories aren't canon, Joss had nothing to do with them. Their existence in and of itself is just a matter of fact, not canon.

                              And in some senses, with the last couple of minutes of this episode, Buffy seasons 1-4 as we know them become non-canon for our characters.
                              Ha, well no, not really. The facts of S1-4 as we know them just become an incomplete picture. Mentally insert some stroppy stances and a whine or two. If you must, give the occasional shrill piercing tantrum and you are probably there.
                              Last edited by Stoney; 30-08-15, 04:42 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X