Skip to content

Oh boy, a Web site to delve further into.

Oh boy, a Web site to delve further into. published on 1 Comment on Oh boy, a Web site to delve further into.

With sections on vampires, werewolves, demons, etc., Queer Horror [] appears to be a comprehensive overview of queer characters and themes in various media, well worth a long look when I have some time. Mmmm, queer vampires…

I am seeing this movie because David Bowie’s in it.

I am seeing this movie because David Bowie’s in it. published on 3 Comments on I am seeing this movie because David Bowie’s in it.

And he plays an evil arachnid. Arthur and the Invisibles is animated, but previews show that the Malthazard character maps very well onto DB’s facial expressions. Whooooooooo hoo!

For your stranger-than-fiction perusal…

For your stranger-than-fiction perusal… published on 2 Comments on For your stranger-than-fiction perusal…

Read gory stories of crime and mayhem here at My favorite case, the 1955 matricide perpetrated by Pauline Rieper and Juliet Hulme [inspiration for the movie Heavenly Creatures], has a nice overview on this site. Lots of fun reading for vacation…

1:6 unloading, 1:3 reloading

1:6 unloading, 1:3 reloading published on 1 Comment on 1:6 unloading, 1:3 reloading

My 1:6 collection is drastically reducing. I successfully got rid of 90% of my parts bin and some miscellaneous food this week. Later I will get rid of some pink [gaaaaack] furniture and whole dolls. If all goes well, I should have <15 dolls hanging out at home. [I’m not including dolls at work. Maybe I should bring more to work. I currently have 4 1:6ers and 1 action figure.]

My 1:3 population is planning to increase. If all goes well, SARDONIX [remember her?] will be back. I should be getting a 2006 Luts Juri head [picture], which I want to put on a Domuya Flexi girl body [picture]. This time, I plan to leave her unpainted and unwigged so that I can show off her construction and articulation. In this incarnation, she will be less of a hellish succubus and more of a devilish cyborg. She will have antennae coming off the points of her ears. I’d also like to put a small watch in one of her eye sockets and a “control panel” in her abdomen.

Happily N’Ever After will n’ever make you happy.

Happily N’Ever After will n’ever make you happy. published on 4 Comments on Happily N’Ever After will n’ever make you happy.

Coming out on January 5, 2007, Happily N’Ever After contains an interesting premise — a fairy tale rewrite in which Cinderella leads resistance against her evil stepmom who’s trying to take over — as well as two people we know to be talented actors, Sigourney Weaver and Sarah Michelle Gellar. But it will be horrible.

Do you know why it will be horrible? Well, first of all, the presence of both SMG and her husband Freddy Prinze Jr. tells you that it will tank. Despite possessing talent, the two have no business and career acumen, as evidenced by their previous collaborations Scooby Doo I and II. [In fact, SMG’s entire movie career, like Tim Curry’s, is pretty much a string of disappointments, and I think they both need really smart agents to get them in showcases for their special gifts, but I digress.]

Second of all, the producers of Shrek are behind this one. Now, for all that I laughed when I saw Shrek I [not II or III so much], I don’t think that it was as attractive or subversive as people claim. The franchise tries too hard to be clever, but it just ends up reinforcing stupid gender and sexual stereotypes. I smell the same problem emanating from Happily N’Ever After, particularly in its problematic recycling of characters from Shrek. That purple cat thing in HNA looks like Donkey, while the blond prince in HNA looks like the blond prince in Shrek, and even Ella in HNA reminds me of Fiona. Such uncreative recycling cannot be saved even by the flamboyant evil genius of Sigourney Weaver and any acting talent SMG may happen to evince.

I feel sad for SMG. BTVS provided such a star vehicle and showcase for her, but her brainless career choices since then slide her further into disrepute. I respect her acting talent, but I can’t respect her as a person because she’s really not that smart. She strikes me as someone with talents who doesn’t know how to use them, rather than an artist that has knowledge and craft of his or her art. She stands in opposition to David Bowie, who [besides having way more experience than she does] just emanates wit, intelligence, insight and a dry sense of humor in relation to his art. He would be a perfect example of an exemplary celebrity, except that he smokes.

Buffy + Spike

Buffy + Spike published on 2 Comments on Buffy + Spike

In further explication of my thoughts on season 5, I have to say that I started watching BTVS with season 6. The first part of 6, during which Buffy tries to deal with her resurrection, has always fascinated me for its nuanced depiction of her grief cycle. People tell me that The Body is the single best BTVS ep about grief. I wouldn’t know; I haven’t seen it [yet], but I have to say that all the mooding, brooding and grieving in the early part of 6 sound psychologically convincing and revealing notes. As we watch all the characters deal with Buffy’s death, absence and rebirth, the specter of death, always a presence in a series about the undead, becomes real, substantive and irrevocable. For such a fantastical premise [dead one comes back], this story arc is the most realistic and compelling of all the BTVS arcs for me, which probably demonstrates more about me and my preoccupations with death, mourning, grief, maturation, cemeteries, memories, vampires, ghosts, epitaphs than it does about BTVS itself.

So, if 6 is the high point for me, I like 2, 3 and 4 next best, but I really dislike 1 and 7. 1, a short, experimental season, provides only glimmers of the juicy richness that the show would later develop into. Plus there’s no Spike, so I ignore it. And I am currently refusing to watch 7. I don’t want to see Buffy as a motivational speaker to the Potentials; I don’t want to see Willow basically squashed, mousy and regressed after 6’s drama; and I don’t want to see Spike die. I don’t care that he comes back in 5 of Angel. I don’t want to see him die! I’m just pretending 6 is the end, okay? La la la, I’m not listening to you….

So, in answer to the comments, I like Spike too anyway, abbagirl, and the icon is hilarious. :p

LoreMistress, I recommend watching well past 4 and into 6, but avoiding 7. In other words, don’t break off. In my opinion, some of the best eps are coming up.

RedCountess, having read tons of synopses and analyses, I agree that you have a point about the development of Buffy + Spike over time. I still maintain that Crush and Intervention crank up the schmoopiness at the expense of the characters’ personalities. I have no problem with them having a relationship; I just wish that the portrayal in those two eps was true to the characters.

And a link to my favorite BTVS site, a critical journal of “Buffy studies” with an archive of meaty analyses of all things BTVS.

I have looked upon the schmoopiness, and lo, it was revolting.

I have looked upon the schmoopiness, and lo, it was revolting. published on 3 Comments on I have looked upon the schmoopiness, and lo, it was revolting.

I finally broke out the BTVS DVDs last night. Having watched bits of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, but no 5 or 7, I delved into season 5. I wanted to investigate the beginnings of Buffy and Spike’s twisted affection for each other, before it became the season 6 tango of revulsion. To that end, I checked out Crush, in which Spike has one on Buffy, and Intervention, in which the BuffyBot makes its first appearance to satisfy the lovelorn Spike.

Wow, those eps were flaccid! The repartee, linguistic inventiveness and deep emotional responses that I associate with BTVS just didn’t exist in these eps, even though they were supposedly about lerve. The characters appeared brainwashed, with Spike saying, “I lerve you; I suffer for you,” and Buffy saying, “Bleeecccch,” like zombies of pop song lerve rather than consistent, multi-dimensional characters. It wasn’t funny; it wasn’t interesting; it wasn’t in character. It was just really painful and boring to watch.

The only moment in which the true characters surfaced was at the end of Intervention, when Buffy acted like the willing BuffyBot because she was trying to determine if Spike, under torture, had told Glory that Dawn was the Key. So Buffy plays the willing sex slave until she gets the info [e.g., that Spike kept Dawn’s secret]; then she switches back to herself and leaves him. Both Buffy and Spike seemed incredibly sad and regretful in this scene, Spike probably because his dedication got him pounded and plus his robot’s gone, Buffy because she realized the depths of Spike’s infatuation and then played along with it for a bit. Buffy’s ambivalence toward Spike [heartless manipulation and reluctant gratitude] and his ambivalence toward her [slavish crush and violent, stupid frustration] are transmitted clearly without platitudes. The truth comes through: their relationship isn’t pursuing guy vs. retreating girl, but squeamishly fascinated guy vs. squeamishly fascinated girl, a theme developed much better in season 6.

So, anyway, I’ve found the perfect application for the word schmoopy: season 5 Spike. Oh, how drab and disappointing. I’ll take the characterologically consistent season 6 Spike instead. Stereotypically pining vampires make me want to vomit vomit vomit. If I ever write about them, someone please shoot them.

Comics news

Comics news published on No Comments on Comics news

LHF is back! See the latest ep here.

In other news, I have a few more comics to recommend.

Kawaii Not juxtaposes cute little fruits, tuna cans, farts, etc., with silly or unexpected text. It is very amusing.

Wondermark juxtaposes Victorian clip art with digressive, erudite dialog. I enjoy its absurdity, which is a balm to my soul since Alien Loves Predator stopped being funny a while ago.

Primary Sidebar