Talk:Restless (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleRestless (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
September 21, 2011Good article nomineeListed


Untitled[edit]

Please help complete the Angel/Buffy episode articles. See what needs to be done on this sub-page of WikiProject Buffy:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes

Also please help update any major changes made to episode articles on that page so that progress can be mapped.

________________________________________________________

The trivia in this episode is staggering and beyond my capacity to include in a first run. Also, I didn't pay attention during "Death of a Salesman" and am sure I missed a lot of hints there, too, like when Buffy tells Riley off. Wolf Deunan 00:04, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Dawn isn't in this episode (and shouldn't be in the cast list) and I'm also don't think Oz is in it (though I'm less sure). All the others are. Evercat 23:49, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oops, you are right about Dawn, that was a cut-and-paste error on my part. Oz is in Willow's dream: He and Xander meet her in the UC hall. Wolf Deunan 10:57, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Cheese Man[edit]

The Cheese Man seems to be a reference to the children's song/game The Farmer in the Dell, which culminates in the line "The Cheese Stands Alone". Now, considering the episode's theme of eliminating Buffy's friends, and The First Slayer's drive being that Buffy needs to be alone, it seems to me that Buffy IS the cheese.

BUFFY IS THE CHEESE.


Can somebody fix the link to David Wells, who played the cheese man, in the table in the upper right? The link points to the baseball player.

Done. The link is now David Wells (actor). If anyone wants to create a stub, I recommended getting some basic info from IMDb's "David Wells (I)" page and adding a disambiguation line to David Wells, along the lines of "For the character actor, see David Wells (actor)." ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Tidying up[edit]

"It is probably impossible to do the writing justice without a scene-by-scene, line-by-line analysis"... What the hell? Do you pay no attention to NPOV rules? Anyway, currently working on reorganizing the article (particularly, splitting the plot synopsis into the characters' different dreams because it seems more... readable this way), and touching some stuff here and there. Any comments, come hither. And God, please, watch with the "OMG RESTLESS BUFFY DREAMIN IS T3H GOOD"; I personally love the episode to bits but some of this is just inappropriate. Zeppocity 10:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Dawn at the ice cream truck[edit]

I've reverted the statement about Dawn in the ice cream truck crowd for two reasons:

  1. We have no official source for this information.
  2. I went over that scene a while back very carefully, and while I agree that might be Dawn's hair (ergo Dawn herself), it's hardly unique to Michelle Trachtenberg. (Believe me, I wanted that to be another clever bit of foreshadowing!)

Unless we get a (non-fansite) source, it's just speculation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

According to most reputable outlets, none of the primary actors ever did uncredited cameos; i.e., Michelle Trachtenberg isn't in any episodes until season 5, James Marsters isn't in that "Bargaining" airport scene, and Seth Green doesn't appear in the background of any UCSD classroom shots (except for episodes that Oz is actually in).
It seems incredible that Trachtenberg was visiting the set on the same day that someone who looks exactly like her (from the back) appears. She was not yet cast, so the above cameo thing wouldn't have applied. I think it's her; it's not just the hair, but the posture--I'm staring at the paused picture right now--but until and unless we find a source, it can't go in.--TEHodson 09:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree it looks like her, and it would fit in with the cleverness of this episode if they used her as an extra at the ice cream truck. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sapphic poem link[edit]

The link to the translation of the Sapphic poem written on Tara's back redirects now, and I'm not sure what, on the page it redirects to, is the correct one. If anyone's got another source for that, please update!--Hiraeth 05:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy422.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Buffy422.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sappho/sapphic[edit]

I put in the name of the poem, and attributed it to the poetess as "Sappho's Hymn to Aphrodite". I thought that it was more appropriate to link to the poetess herself, rather than to an adjective deriving from her name. The Sappho page is detailed and much more inspiring to someone who might be led there, than a brief page with a few links. It is also Sappho's only complete poem that we still have, and I think she deserves to have her name on it. I'll change Sapphic to Sappho soon, unless I can be convinced differently. Later: Oops I Didn't see that the link says Sapphic but goes to sappho. I still think her name should be here, though Max Quordlepleen (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The link goes to Sappho and only an idiot is incapable of making the link between "Sappho" and "sapphic". Also, the way that you changed it from "sapphic" to "Sappho" produced a sentence that made no sense. You had a noun where an adjective should have been. kingdom2 (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I take the point about the broken sentence. I left the article reading "a Sappho's", not "Sappho's". Corrected. I still think the "Sappho/Sapphic" link should go to the root, as it were, and refer to the person the adjective derives from, not the adjective. Aesthetically, I think this works better than the status quo. Do you have a reason to prefer "Sapphic"? 'Only an idiot is incapable of making the link between "Sappho" and "sapphic"' is arguable, but is that a reason to retain the status quo? Max Quordlepleen (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not read any farther in the sentence, so I just thought that it was referring to a generic Sapphic poem. Since I know see that the poem's title is given, it makes more sense to have "Sappho" written there. kingdom2 (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubbed French[edit]

It's quite funny to see that the dubbed french Xander hears is completely incorrect and almost impossiple to understand for french people. Also, the actor who is talking has a spanish accent, while the woman has a kind of a german accent.81.64.102.58 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Death of a Salesman[edit]

I'm pretty sure that is not a scene fom 'Death of a Salesman' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.19.63 (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but it is described as being one; that's part of the surreal nature of the episode. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

make-up[edit]

The phrase

cheesy make-up suited to porn-film "lesbians"

was changed to

heavy make-up

One can understand why; but, y'know, "heavy make-up" can mean a lot of things, particularly in a show with monsters. What language would be tasteful and yet adequately specific? (The script says only "dressed kinda trampy.") —Tamfang (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the language that was changed. Given the context (adolescent male fantasy about lesbians), the phrase I used was intended to describe what I believe to be authorial intent. However, I will concede that we are unlikely to find a reliable source to back up the obvious deduction. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

mundane[edit]

The dream finally ends the more mundane it gets.

I don't know what this sentence means. I may have to rewatch. —Tamfang (talk)

First of all, thanks for the copyedits, much appreciated! Basically, Buffy's dream ends when she begins talking about the first Slayer's hair, "Also, in terms of hair care, you really wanna say, what kind of impression am I making in the workplace? 'Cause-" then she wakes up. In the commentary, Whedon comments about that scene: "Some people found this to be somewhat anti-climactic. That was, of course, the point. That she defies the notion of climax. That she defies the notion of the 'tragic tale of the Slayer', and basically says 'Let's just put an end to this'. And the more mundane it gets, the closer she gets to waking up. Which actually makes perfect sense. So she sort of saved everybody, in that respect." Hopefully that helps. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe rephrasing Whedon's wording into something more like "the dream ends in a mundane way, as Buffy refuses to accept a tragic climax and instead insists on normalcy in her life" or something along those lines (maybe not that exact wording, just brainstorming a bit). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get around to copyediting this. Here are some comments; it would be good if they can be addressed before the GA review starts, although if they aren't done yet I can ask the GA reviewer to allow you some time to work on them since I only just pointed out these issues. (You might disagree with some of these points, in which case we can discuss them; these are mostly just my style opinions, not necessarily policy issues.)

  • The lede should be expanded to summarize the rest of the article, per WP:LEDE.
Lead has been expanded. Not sure if it needs more, might need a copyedit as well. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The Restless (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)#Filming techniques section seems mostly unreferenced. In the next section, The character Dawn appears in the next episode. Tara also says to Buffy, "You think you know who you are, what's to come. You haven't even begun." Dracula will say the same words to Buffy in "Buffy vs. Dracula", a foreshadowing of Buffy's ultimate sacrifice at the end of season five. is also unreferenced.
The filming techniques section was broken up in little paragraphs by another editor from what I originally had, so it looked like some parts were unreferenced, but they weren't - all of that section mainly comes from Whedon's commentary, so I added in the refs where necessary. Does, "The character Dawn appears in the next episode" need a reference? Can't the episode itself serve as a reference for that? I reworded that last bit to remove the foreshadowing of Buffy's death as I'm not sure that's the case, I left the bit about Dracula saying the same phrase to her in the next episode. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The fact that Dawn appears in the next episode doesn't need a reference, but I think the connection (i.e., the fact that Tara's line is a pun about that) needs one. Otherwise it looks like WP:OR. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Here I moved a detail from the lede into the body of the text. This is only a quick fix, though; I'm not sure if there's maybe a better place to integrate this bit of information. You might want to have a look and see where you can best work it in.
I might remove the Twin Peaks bit as Whedon him states the red curtains is not a direct homage to the series and I can't find much of where they said this episode has been compared to Twin Peaks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In the lede, bizarre dream settings which illustrate the four main characters' overall themes reads awkwardly to me, particularly the word choice of "themes". I haven't yet thought of a good way to reword it.
Lead has been reworked. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what is meant by a space in a location when there should not be. Does that refer to empty space (e.g., Giles' cleared-out apartment)?
It's meant to be the space of the red curtains which then leads to a classroom. I could easily remove that part if it's too confusing, given there's already enough examples there. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The Restless (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)#Episode structure section is very short. Can it be integrated into another section (such as just the main "production and writing" section--not being a subsection at all)? Unless "Episode structure" is a standard part of WP television articles.
I eliminated the subsection and included it with the main Production and writing section. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Overall I find the usage of would and where in the article a bit colloquial (e.g., in sentences like The scene is also an example of where Whedon would let the image sit for longer than usual before cutting). You might want to go through and reword places where these are used.
  • You might want to review this edit of mine. I tried to reword it to avoid "you", but I'm not sure what "you" was referring to so I'm not sure if "as it passes by walls" (referring to the camera) or "as one passes by walls" (referring to the actor) is better. Both sound a tiny bit redundant to me anyway, as of course there is motion if something is passing by walls...I wonder if there's a better way to word this.
This is a fine change. As it's referring to the camera lens used, the new wording makes sense. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • When Xander is driving the ice cream truck with Anya, the backgrounds outside the car intentionally look fake What about mentioning the technique that was used for this (I assume just showing the bad backgrounds on a bad screen behind the car on set)?
I have added to this section. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The "Filming techniques" section is basically a list of techniques used in various scenes, but it's broken into paragraphs in a somewhat arbitrary way. I wonder if this can be cleaned up a bit. One idea might be to group these by dream sequence--or, since Xander's sequence is the longest and uses the most of these, maybe it would make sense to have one paragraph on the various things in that sequence, and another paragraph on the techniques in other sequences.
Again, this was broken up by another editor from what I originally had. I went and grouped the two paragraphs about Xander's dream into one, and merged the paragraphs about Willow and Giles into one. Question: Is it necessary to use the same reference multiple times in a paragraph, or can you just use it once and place it at the end? Because if you use it multiple times in one paragraph, I'm unsure where all they need to placed. Because at the end of every sentence seems excessive if it's all coming from the same source. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
That's a tricky issue that I think not everyone agrees about. Personally, I think one reference at the end of the paragraph is sufficient it it's clear that it covers everything. (That is to say, if the various claims in the prose logically flow into each other; a good way to ensure this is add a little introduction or little transitions, e.g., "In the DVD commentary, Whedon describes several of the filming techniques used to give the episode a dreamlike effect. In Xander's dream, odd cutting effects...".) But it also means you should be vigilant in the future, just in case later on someone for instance adds a new claim in the middle of the paragraph, with a different ref; then you might have to do some reshuffling, or citing the original reference again before the new stuff. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Can the USA Today source (#13) link to the original source, rather than a reposting on whedon.info?
Found original article! Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the quoting in the Reception section is a little excessive (in particular, some places use long, full-sentence or multiple-sentence quotations rather than small snippets), but also I recognize this style is pretty common in WP television articles.
  • Very minor thing: when multiple references appear together, they should be ordered so the lowest-numbered one is first. (i.e., "making her the greatest Slayer ever.[4][2]" should be "making her the greatest Slayer ever.[2][4]".) I think this is only an issue with a few sentences that have both the audio commentary and the Slayage references.
 Done. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up the prose, as I told Rjanag I'd do a few days ago (I've been sick, sorry), and got more precise with the language regarding film techniques. The article looks good--you guys did lots of good work. I feel that there's still more that could be said about this episode, much more. I also changed back the point of Buffy's lecture about hair care--it's really about hair care for the purpose of making a more professional impression in the workplace, not hair care per se; a small point, but one I like, if no one minds. I also watched the ep to get Tara's words right. It doesn't matter if it's exactly what Drac says; it's the same essential phrase but for one word.--TEHodson 23:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Expansion and comments[edit]

I did not know this article was nominated for GA, or that anyone had been working on it until I saw it on the GAN list. So good for you for working on it.

I still have most of the books I used for other Buffy articles and I can help here. I can either add directly to the prose or offer material (like on this talk page) and let you folks sort it out. Actually, I think it's best to offer it here, and let you add to the prose so you can get the hang of doing it yourself. There are some other formatting and miscellaneous stuff I can suggest (sorting out the references, for example) that are standard in GAs and necessary for FAs.

Let me know what you want. --Moni3 (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Moni! Good to hear from you re this article. I wish you could put those books into the transporter and get them to me for a bit, as I'd like to read them myself. Can you tell me their titles? Maybe I can find used copies. Can you give me a few highlights of what you've got re: Restless? It would be nice if those of us who have been working on it could continue, but I think we definitely could use your oversight, too, for, as you say, formatting and other stuff, esp. if we can get it close to FA status.
This episode is special to me because of it being the sort of film I used to make, so the sorts of things that I'd like to add to it are sort of specific and have to do with the filmmaking itself; the symbolism, too. Jungian stuff, if it seems appropriate. There are interesting ways in which it intersects with work by Maya Deren, Bunuel, and of course, Un Chien Andalou. I haven't been too well, though, so I might be kind of slow. That's all I have to say for now. I hope the others will respond, too. Thanks for offering your help.--TEHodson 07:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. First, check Google Scholar for articles from the Online Journal of Buffy Studies. They're excellent sources, written by academics and scholars who are serious Buffy fans and analysts.

See:

"Restless" won't be the focus of these articles, but they discuss trends and themes the show addresses. All of them should be interesting to read, even if you can't add a whole lot to this one, you still get some interesting insight as to what critics see in the episode.

I no longer have access to an extensive newspaper database, unfortunately. That's where all the weekly reviews are going to be and it would be difficult indeed to get a television article passed at FAC without critical reviews. Find someone (probably at a college library) with access to a newspaper database. Searching Lexis Nexis or EBSCO will take several hours, but it's well worth it. If you absolutely can't, go to your local public library and ask them what their Interlibrary Loan terms are. They can request these articles with search parameters ("Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Restless" in any major newspaper), but it may come at a cost. Different libraries have different charges, so I don't know how much that would be for you.

Lastly, what I have:

  • Attinello, et al Music Sound and Silence in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (I see you have cited this already, but only one page and there are multiple references in this book).
  • p. 6: covers Four Star Mary, Giles' song, Christophe Beck's composition in this episode.
  • good point: "Giles is performing his usual role of explaining supernatural events, but this time through the medium of song, foreshadowing the musical episode in Season 6, in a performance that also provided the opportunity for the usually invisible band and composer to be made visible in a knowing nod to fans."
  • Turning point for Giles, who has sung in his home previously and will sing in public in season 5.
  • p. 88 (a footnote to a paragraph about "The Body"): "The verbal exposition in Buffy is a staple of its narrative structure, parodied so well in "Restless" as Giles sings rather than speaks his role as the primary expositor in the episode's long-form dream sequence."
  • p. 94-96: Willow's persistent fear of performing is mentioned, and it also covers the way silence is used throughout the series. Sustained silence is a repeated theme evident in "Restless", as is "deliberately dislocated" sound, such as Xander's dream in French. Silence that has been forced is also covered, and "Restless" is again mentioned; other narrative methods are necessary (such as a dream sequence show) when characters are unable to speak freely.
  • p. 193: Giles' dream sequence reiterates Willow's anxiety about performing but his focuses on singing, not acting; "Effectively, this song manages to be both diegetic and non-diegetic simultaneously. Although Giles does clearly know he is singing, he and everyone else fail to perceive what is clear ot us, the audience, namely the song itself is abnormal, the usual roles of diegesis having been suspended by the dream-state."
  • Stafford: Bite Me: The Unofficial Guide to Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
  • pp. 244-246: "unprecedented in television", "so jam-packed with information that we'll probably be seeing allusions to it for the rest of the series", "mysterious lead-in to the emotionally turbulent season five".
  • Willow's dream: Allusion to "Nightmares" in season 1, her dream makes little sense until 6th season events come to light, the "psychotic" production of Death of a Salesman is "hilarious", Tara keeps moving in and out of Willow's dream warning her that they're going to find out about her and Buffy keeps asking why Willow is wearing a costume. Willow's dream references Alice in Wonderland and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (Narnia--a world full of magic is not as wonderful as it seems) "Similarly, Willow has come out of her own closet on her relationship with Tara and has entered a world full of magic."
  • Xander's: References to Apocalypse Now/Heart of Darkness where the central character goes on a journey but the real journey is self-discovery. Xander encounters seduction in Joyce, and he is constantly trying to escape his personal demons...his alcoholic parents.
  • Giles': "funny and poignant", Giles figures out what the thing is trying to kill Xander and Willow. Buffy plays Giles' daughter but also the anchor keeping him in the U.S. "While he walks through his dream with a rather blase attitude, there are some jaw-dropping moments that make the viewer wonder what Giles has been keeping from everyone." Olivia is pregnant and asking him to go back to England? He worries he is no longer useful to Buffy, like Willow Giles worries he is late and has too much to do, Willow blames him for what's going on, Stafford suggests, because it was his suggestion to join them magically in "Primeval" which has stirred the thing chasing them all, recurring element in his dream is a watch (Stafford says "duh" re: the symbolism of that) that neither Slayer pays any attention to.
  • Buffy's: prediction of everything that will happen in the 5th season, Tara appears (Manus card from "Primeval"), "be back before Dawn", Stafford says Joyce in the wall is a foreshadowing of her death, Riley and Adam sitting together (Adam naming things is reference to Adam in the Garden of Eden), Buffy opening the bag and finding only mud alludes to her helplessness and the central theme of the 5th and 6th seasons of encountering things she cannot fight. Riley tells her she's on her own (he's going to leave her in season 5), and she meets the First Slayer finally, indicating there is much more about the Slayer line she doesn't know.
General: Cheese man means nothing.
  • Wilcox and Lavery: Fighting the Forces
  • p. 9: In "Primeval", Buffy is only able to fight and kill Adam when she is part of a spell performed by Willow that also involves Giles and Xander, who in the previous episode "The Yoko Factor" were driven apart by Spike. They are forced to come together to defeat Adam, which they do very successfully, and in light of their recent rift, quickly. Each of the dreams the characters have in "Restless" reflects the role each played in destroying Adam. Each dreamer is pursued by the phantom First Slayer, who insists to Buffy that she must slay alone (taken from the intro of the series opening "In every generation....etc, she alone will stand against the forces of darkness"). Buffy rejects this approach, insisting that she will have her friends with her to help her.
  • p. 63: Reiterating Buffy's rejection of the traditional role of a Slayer, analyst J. P. Williams asserts the Slayer models for Buffy, Kendra and the First Slayer, are insufficient. Kendra stays very close to the purpose of her role, doing exactly as she is instructed. In Buffy's comments to the First Slayer in "Restless", she mocks the First Slayer, thereby defeating her, telling her outright "You are not the source of me".
  • p. 66: Buffy's dream of Joyce in "Restless" means to Williams that Buffy considers her mother "enclosed in a small space, a small life". In contrast, Buffy's presence is large; she exhibits a common adolescent anxiety, hesitant to identify with her mother because it will confine her.
  • p. 78: Willow states she is "very seldom naughty" in her dream. (This is significant, but I read its significance elsewhere and I just wanted to make sure I cited this at least here.)
  • p. 106: Riley in Buffy's dream represents her anxiety that he may turn out to be a button-down corporate worker, which she finds boring. A humanized Adam sitting beside Riley, according to Mary Alice Money, is a reflection of Riley's anxiety that he and Adam are very similar, as they sit planning to take over the world.
  • p. 171: Riley calling Buffy "Killer", and being detached from her, represents his doubts about their relationship and foreshadows that he will leave her in season 5.
  • p. 173: Buffy's dream has references to Faith's dream in "This Year's Girl" and Buffy's previous dream in "Graduation Day". (p. 236: Faith and Buffy make a bed in "This Year's Girl", in "Restless" Buffy remarks she and Faith just made that bed.)
  • p. 177: Adam's conversation with Buffy suggests she may be part demon. Tanya Krzywinska asserts at the very least it means Buffy isn't entirely human.
  • p. 191: Krzywinska references Xander's prurient commentary on Willow's recent coming out; it represents similar male interest in the lesbian nature of Willow's relationship to Tara.
  • pp. 235-237: "Restless" requires viewers to be familiar with many elements of the series to understand it, and it specifically addresses issues to delight the fans and acknowledge their enthusiasm for the show. Justine Larbaleister states the episode is nearly meaningless for viewers who are unfamiliar with previous events and characters in the show. "The more knowledge you have of the show, the more meaning you can make." It's a counter episode to "Hush" (FYI from Moni--the DVD commentary for "Hush", Whedon said he was terrified of doing a show with that much silence, the same terror he felt contemplating doing a dream-sequence show.) "Restless" is unlike previous season finales for Buffy, as it follow the climactic destruction of Adam in "Primeval". Similar to "The Zeppo", the episode rejects the typical structure of a Buffy show. It introduces the themes for the 5th season: the Scoobies strengthening their bonds with each other, Buffy having to learn more about the Slayer lineage, and the introduction of Dawn. In Willow's, Xander's, and Giles' dreams, each of them dream about the Scoobies (I'm going to call them the core 4 here, just for clarity, but this is my wording.) but in Buffy's dream, she is searching for the other 3, underscoring the trials she has felt throughout the season dealing with being separated from her friends.
  • pp. 251-254: Whedon had not written the episode until a very few days before it began filming. A Rolling Stone writer visited the set and was surprised to learn that the actors had yet to read the script. Gellar told her that Whedon had it in his head already. David Lavery: "Restless" an "extraordinary hour of television, a kind of television , a postmodern, self-referential, diegesis-bending hour that would succeed in summing up Buffy's first four seasons and pointing to its future." Whedon divulged that the final episode would be dream sequences on the Internet. Lavery compares the episode to Twin Peaks, Whedon admits he is a very big fan of David Lynch's series. Xander's dream, where he moves between locales in Sunnydale with one long tracking steadycam shot, not only imbues the viewers with familiarity of the close proximity of unconnected things in dreams, but allows the audience to see how the stages are designed on the set. Giles' statement while watching the not-Apocalypse Now "I'm beginning to understand all this now. It's all about the journey, isn't it?" is more about the Buffy series than what they are watching. Similar to Tara's and Buffy's lines (both have the same line at different times in this episode) "You think you know ... what's to come ... what you are. You haven't even begun", says more about the series than it does about Buffy the character.
  • South, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy
  • p. 38: Buffy, as a superhero, exhibits a typical superhero trait: she is told she must work alone not only by Giles in the first season but fiercely by the First Slayer in "Restless". Buffy's identity, however, is not solitary. It is relational, and the Scoobies are integral to Buffy's identity
  • p. 73: Buffy learning that the source of her superhuman power is primal rage makes her anxious that she may not be very different from the evil she fights.
  • p. 101: the First Slayer is stalking the Scoobies for violating nature in the spell in "Primeval"--a spell Giles and Willow knew would be dangerous but decided to do anyway because the circumstances were so dire.
  • p. 133-135 (found it!): Willow's assertion that she is "very seldom naughty" belies what she is capable of in the 6th season. Willow's greatest fear, as evident in her dream, is that she has not changed at all from the same nerdy girl introduced in the first episode. Willow is obviously insecure in every role she takes, except for the schoolgirl role, according to James South. The inclusion of a play within Willow's dream underscores the fact that she has no faith that the changes she has undergone since the first season are real to anyone else or to her.


To be cont'd...

If you take this to FA--and really, for common sense--consider the fact that readers will come to this article not knowing anything about the series. Not its premise, who the characters are, or why they should care about them. Read this article over and over with this perspective: I don't know anything about this silly named show or why I should care because of its ridiculous title. You have to grab readers in the lead by showing them how important this article is to read.

I strongly believe you need to explain what this show is about and the dynamics of the characters in a background section, especially describing the spell all characters were under in "Primeval"--and what their roles were in the destruction of Adam. Other Buffyverse editors disagree with me about a background section in each episode article and have stated so strongly. I can understand their protest because it seems kind of silly to keep including the same or similar descriptions in each episode article. That's chaff right now, though. Concentrate on getting this article to be as good as you can possibly make it. If you're invested in writing this article, drag your complacent and apathetic readers along with you. Show them why it matters.

This is a wild thought, but I heart IAR so go nuts for a moment and consider this: remove the Plot section. Add a Background section and join the Plot and Analysis sections together, titling it "Synopsis and interpretation" so that the elements of the dreams and their significance appear in the same section. One paragraph for the dream, one for the analysis. If you want to get edgy, write one characters' dream this way here on the talk page just to see what it might look like.

I have to stop now, but I will continue tomorrow or later tonight. I'll chip away at the books I have. Most of them have indexes, but some of them don't and of course I have not marked all pages referencing "Restless". --Moni3 (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have access to LexisNexis, although it might be a little while before I have a lot of time to dig up much on it (and to be honest I'm not great at using it, I haven't had much luck with it in the past even for finding specific articles that I know the dates/titles/etc. of). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
After reading Moni's post, I'm so intimidated and daunted, I don't know what to say! I don't know if I have that kind of time to devote to this article, or any other. --TEHodson 09:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. Moni's suggetsions are all good, but I don't think they're all necessary for GA. When you guys get a review going you'll be able to see what the reviewer thinks. For now you can just focus on getting through that and addressing whatever issues are needed for GA. If you or any other editors are interested in further developing the article beyond that, then you can worry more about this stuff—I think the article is already at GA level, and if you make the improvements Moni is suggesting it'll be FA level as well. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Rjanag. It's not a monumental task and it can be worked on bit by bit. Except for finding reviews in newspapers, once I get most of this info summarized, I don't think it would take much to add to the article. If everyone involved really likes the material and has a common goal to improve the article, it's just fun. --Moni3 (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(Just dumping another resource here, maybe it'll be useful later...)

  • Pateman, Matthew (2006). The Aesthetics of Culture in Buffy The Vampire Slayer (PDF).

(By the way, it looks like this entry is now close to the top of its category in GAN, so you might finally get a reviewer soon! rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Restless (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk contribs count) 10:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be working on this today and tomorrow. Please be patient...though I can tell this page has been waiting a while. AstroCog (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting to the article! I'm working the next three days, with only leaving me the mornings to touch up the article from the review. Just to let you know. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem! This is one of my favorite shows, and it was painful to me to see this request just sitting there for so long.AstroCog (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Will be using this criteria (review is in bold and italics) AstroCog (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Overall, the writing is good. Just some minor work will satisfy me. The production and writing section contains some colloquial language, particularly the use of the word "big". For example, "...as all previous seasons had a big action climax..." and "...which was a big departure for Whedon..." This type of language use should be fixed. I'm not a copy-editor on this article, so I'm not going try to find every instance of this. Another example: "In the theater scene in Willow's dream, the Frazier lens provides a large depth of field, allowing the foreground and background to be in focus at the same time." - Should be something like "In the theater scene during Willow's dream, a Frazier lens was used to provide..." I know that in TV articles, you can talk about the show in the present tense, but really only for fiction and character arc stuff. I think for writing about how the episode was produced, you can use past tense. Perhaps this article could use another copy-edit?

I am happy to attend to this today.--TEHodson 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I've rewritten and reorganized that whole section; I think it reads much better now.--TEHodson 01:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it looks quite good and I'm happy with it. One nitpick: "Whedon again cites The Limey..." - Take out "again" because this is the first mention of "The Limey" in the article. Probably happened because of rearrangement.AstroCog (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
That's been fixed now. Huge props to TEHodson for his copy-editing work. Much appreciated! Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Happy to do it (and I'm a woman, not a man!). I should have been sleeping, but once started, couldn't stop. And back at you for doing all those bloody references! I still have to do the Background paragraph. I'm too tired today, but will do it on Sunday. Thanks to Astrocog for passing us!--TEHodson 01:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
* Don't thank me yet. I still want to see that series background in the Plot section. That's the last thing. AstroCog (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I know (I misunderstood something you wrote below, when you said "I'm passing it as is"). I have Sunday scheduled to do the Background section. I don't have time to do it properly till then. It'll be done when you come back on Monday.--TEHodson 19:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
* No worries. I'm patient.AstroCog (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys. I promised I'd do the background section today and I always keep my word, but I've taken sick and will be out of commission for a day or two. I have gotten off to a good start with a source re season four, etc., but can't think clearly enough to write. I'll be back, though. --TEHodson 05:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm still not up to par, but I did the Background section. Please let me hear your feedback and suggestions. Thanks.--TEHodson 07:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;


The citations here aren't all in the correct format. For journal articles, page numbers within a volume should be given. Also, the citation for "Entertainment Weekly" isn't correct. That article doesn't seem to have appeared in print. So make an appropriate citation to the EW website, not the magazine. The same is true of the USA Today citations. Are they print articles, or website articles? Where is the author attribution on these and the Onion AV Club citations?

So, what exactly needs to be changed for the Entertainment Weekly reference? Does it simply not have to be in italics, due to being an article on the website? It's in italics because EW is a magazine. The A.V. Club reference doesn't have a author attribution is because the article was written by 9 different authors, should I list them all anyway? Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I would call it EW.com, which is what it is, rather than Entertainment Weekly, which is the print magazine. If 9 authors wrote the Onion AV article, then all 9 authors should be listed. Here's a citation generator I use a lot for articles: citation generator I think it's also good form to use Wayback Machine to get an archived version of websites used as references, because sometimes those websites disappear. The aforementioned citation generator tool gives a place to put the archived URL.AstroCog (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll fix these now, but I want some clarification. Are the changes you looking for are, Entertainment Weekly -> EW.com, The A.V. Club -> The A.V. Club, USA Today -> USATODAY.com. I'll add the authors to one of the A.V. Club references as well. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and


According to the article's talk page, there could be more sources to use within this article. I'm particularly concerned about the use of so many websites as sources. It's the old-school academic in me, but I like to see more print sources, than website sources. I realize that this is not always possible, but for a popular and much-analyzed show like Buffy, I think there should be quite a bit more than some of these Top 10 webpages for critical reception. Other issues in the article with citations: in the Plot section, things that are not apparent from just viewing the episode should be referenced. One obvious example is the statement, "Willow's dream opens with Willow painting Sappho's love poem, Hymn to Aphrodite, in Greek onto Tara's back." It's been about a year seen I've last watched this episode, but I don't remember any characters identifying the poem. If it was identified in one of the commentaries or books, then that statement should be referenced. The same should be true of any other such instance in the plot section.

You're correct, the poem is not identified in the episode itself. That's from the commentary, I'll add the appropriate reference there. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
What about the other references mentioned in the talk page? Can those be incorporated?AstroCog (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The only book I have is "Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy" and it makes no mention of "Restless" in any of its articles. I'm sorry I can't help with this part.--TEHodson 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.


No problems with OR.


3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


Articles on Wikipedia should stand alone. If I were a person reading this article without having any knowledge about Buffy or the show, I would be almost completely lost in the plot section. The plot section assumes a lot of knowledge about the show and characters. My recommendation is not to rework the plot section, although that could be done, but to begin with a sub-section called Background, which gives a brief overview of what the television show is, its basic premise, who the characters are, and a bit of context leading up to Restless. I'm imagining something that's about two paragraphs.

There is just such a section (called Background) that is used on both the Hush and The Body episode articles. Can we just cut and paste it to here, or do we have to ask permission of whoever wrote that paragraph? I know Moni was one of the writers of those articles.--TEHodson 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
This is really the big change needed, I think. Text similar to the Hush and The Body episode articles can be used, but be sure to first read about copying within Wikipedia.AstroCog (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I will work on that tomorrow. Please see major rewrite to section mentioned above re 1) Well-written section.--TEHodson 01:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

This is where I have mixed feelings about the sources. Most of the sources are either from Whedon, scholar-fans who write for a journal specifically dedicated to Whedon, or are from websites already biased to be positive about fantasy/sci-fi/horror. Criticism is needed from more neutral sources, such as newspapers and magazines. Whedon is quoted in the article as saying "Most people just shook their head" or something like that. Who are these people? I'd like to see a sampling of the negative criticism of this article.

This will be a tough one, especially so many years after the show. Check out Hush and The Body, but I'm pretty sure they use the same kinds of sources (and The Body made it to FA status). Not sure what can be done.--TEHodson 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Those articles have many more print sources. I'm not so picky that I won't promote to GA without them, but to get FA status, this article will surely need them.AstroCog (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't have any of those books, so I can't do much about this part of the upgrade. You said you didn't want just stuff from Buffy scholars, though, even if they're print sources--do we understand you correctly? I will look for any articles that may be reprinted online, perhaps from archives of mainstream magazines, but that's all I can do. My specialty is prose, so I'll keep working on all matters relevant to the writing itself (inc. the paragraph about "Background"). I hope someone else can get at least a couple of sources. Sorry!--TEHodson 01:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, for this point, I'm going to pass you as it is for GA. Whedon scholars are fine to have in the article. However, for neutrality, you need neutral scholars or journalists, print or online. Also, any critical reviews that exist need to be included. All of that would be needed for FA in the future.AstroCog (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I also don't have any of those books, and like you said, those references would be needed for FA quality, but this is a GA review. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Seems quite stable. No major changes for over a month, after a copy edit was done.


6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

Images are appropriate and have fair use rationales. They are also low resolution, which is correct for non-free content.


(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

However, the images need alt-text.

Will do. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Final Comment: Pass. TEHodson and Drovethrughosts are to be congratulated for making good improvements to this article. I know I've been a pain in the ass reviewer, so thanks for being patient with me. Not everybody takes kindly to my nitpicking. I think the article looks better now. Let me know if it goes up for FA review in the future. I'll be in the cheering section, most likely. If you found this review helpful, consider doing a GA review for an article in need. For example, this little article ;-) Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Red curtains/Twin Peaks/cold open[edit]

As Whedon rejected this comparison somewhere, I've taken it out, but here it is in case someone thinks it should go back in.

Because of the dream sequences and the use of red curtains in Willow's, this episode has been compared to Twin Peaks.[1][2]

--TEHodson 23:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I did find a place for the subject.--TEHodson 08:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

And is this important? I think it's trivium, but we can put it back in if others disagree.

It is one of only two episodes of the series not to have a cold open, instead beginning with the opening credit sequence (the other is "Once More with Feeling").

It used to say this was the only ep without a cold open, but I realized that wasn't true, so corrected it, then took it out altogether.

Thanks for the correction, I guess I forgot about "Once More, with Feeling" because that had a unique opening credit sequence. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "BBC - Cult - Buffy - Episode Guide - Restless". BBC. Retrieved June 11, 2011.
  2. ^ Wilcox, Rhonda V (December 2002). "T. S. Eliot Comes to Television: Buffy's "Restless"". Slayage: The Journal of The Whedon Studies Association. 7. Retrieved June 11, 2011.

Foreshadowing[edit]

This seems more appropriate under "Production" given that it's written from the perspective that Joss did this on purpose and since he/we are pointing out the foreshadowing it's not really analysis. Just curious.

BTW, this statement: "but rather represent the safety and comfort of being with her girlfriend Tara, and are a sexual metaphor as well." is not sourced.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll think about the first question when my mind is sharper, and thanks for noting the absence of the source. I put it in.--TEHodson 20:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I just spent some time thinking about moving the Foreshadowing section, and I'm leaving it where it is. If it comes after the analysis, the reader has read a lot of details that then make the Foreshadowing information sensible. Putting it before all that detail would, in my opinion, confuse the reader, as there's no context for any of what is mentioned. I'd like Drovethrughosts' opinion on this, too, please.--TEHodson 21:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Side note[edit]

Is there a particular reason why a 42 minute episode has a longer plot summary than is generally alloted to 2 hour long movies? It's 827 words (and that doesn't include the almost equal size backstory). WP:MOSTV suggests no more than 500 words unless overly complicated. Now, this episode wasn't complicated, but it certainly had a lot going on so I could understand some extra wording. But, as I read it I am finding that there is just some unncessary descriptors added to sentences that could be dropped without really losing any substance and in a lot of cases without actually losing any detail about the episode. If you wouldn't mind I could work up a draft and bring it here that could trim some of the fat and get it more in line with MOSTV. I've seen the episode (have all the seasons) so it won't be new territory to me as far as what happens in the plot goes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You may not have noticed, but we've just received Good Article status after a lot of very hard work by Drovethrughosts and myself. One of the most important factors is article stability, and rewriting the whole plot section would destabilize the article considerably. I'm not sure why you think this isn't a "complicated" episode. It's one of the most intricately written and structured episodes in the entire series, is an extraordinary example of surrealistic filmmaking (by any standards, not just television show standards--I have been seriously considering writing a section at some point which explores the episodes relationship to other great surrealist classic, such as Un Chien Andalou); it has been thoroughly studied by Buffy scholars and others. What is in the plot summary is there because those plot elements are then discussed in detail later on in the article. It's also not unusual for Buffy plot summaries in either GAs or FAs to be a bit longer than usual, as those episodes are closer in relationship to feature films than most any other television episodes (though they're never too long). If the GA editor passed the plot summary at this length, there isn't a problem. I rewrote it while watching the episode, actually, so it's accurate and hasn't anything I consider to be "fat." I will take another look at it, but I am reluctant to mess with an article that just, last week, passed a pretty thorough examination. See the GA section if you want details. I rewrote and re-arranged every section, Drovethrughosts, who first expanded the article from practically nothing, found lots of citations, we both read a lot. The next step is to expand the article for consideration for FA status, but that's not something either of us is up to at the moment. I'm very glad you came here before just diving into making changes, and I hope you'll further acquaint yourself with this article's recent history. I'll take another look at the plot section; if you'll tell me what you are referring to as "fat" I can either explain my reasons, or consider trimming it.--TEHodson 00:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
First, there's no reason to get so defensive, I'm merely making observations. I congratulate you on getting the article to GA status. It certainly deserves it. That said, only 1 person reviews a GAC so it isn't like there is a ton of scrutiny involved with a GA review and every editor is different to begin with. That is why FAC is a full on peer review and GAC is done by a single person. As for things that could be trimmed, here are some that I see off hand.
"about to perform in Death of a Salesman, featuring Riley]] as "Cowboy Guy" (a part which does not exist in the actual play)." - The last part is a personal observation and doesn't need to be there. The accuracy of the episode's portrayal of "Death of a Salesman" is largely irrelevant. I don't know that there isn't a "Cowboy Guy" and reading it on this page means little to me with regard to that play. I don't think anyway would go see Death of a Salesman and say, "Hey, there isn't a cowboy here!"
"In the longest dream, Xander wakes on Buffy's..." - The "longest dream" part isn't necessary. It's another personal observation that does not lend itself to anything other than letting me know that on a timestamp Xander gets more dream time.
"Xander wakes on Buffy's couch to find an altered version of Apocalypse Now playing on the television." - I get that this is meant to foreshadow the latter part of his dream where he is actually acting out a scene from the film, but you could technically just drop the part of the film being on TV and not lose anything since you point out that he acts out a scene from the film later.
"She then finds herself in her room at home, where Tara tells her, "You think you know... what's to come... what you are. You haven't even begun" and then says, "Be back before Dawn" as Buffy leaves." - Again, this is about foreshadowing, but in the plot section is has no relevance because you haven't explained it (you actually won't explain it until the section on foreshadowing). As such, you can simplify the statement to "She then finds herself in her room at home, where Tara warns her about future events". Providing the specific dialogue doesn't help a reader to understand anything Tara is saying because you don't even get that explanation till later in the article (because it isn't even clear in the show till later episodes).
"She refuses to fight, walks away from the First Slayer and lectures her about making an impression in the workplace; with that, the First Slayer vanishes, and everybody wakes up." - The part about lecturing her about work impressions is a witty remark that has nothing to do with the overall plot of how Buffy actually beats the First Slayer. It can be removed without losing valuable information.
That's just a few things. There are other ways to just merge sentences for better flow and not be as wordy. The real problem is wordiness. I would guarantee if you put in a request at the League of CopyEditors the plot would get trimmed from a wordiness standpoint alone, with the editor merging statemens for flow. This is not a knock against the work you've done and you're not going to lose your GA status because you work on the article. Tweaking and trimming is not a major change to the article, which is what GAC was looking for to begin with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't being defensive, and didn't mean to sound that way--you can't hear my tone of voice, of course. He and I just did Hush, too, and got a bit interfered with and criticized there; everyone on Buffy pages has an opinion. It didn't seem as though you knew we'd just been through this process as you didn't mention it, just dove in with suggestions, and since stability is specifically mentioned, I had a concern. I worked on the Plot section for accuracy, but the initial writing was done by Drovethrughosts, so I've alerted him to your suggestions. I'd like him to weigh in before we make changes. He may have a reason for writing out the specific dialogue, for example, that I don't understand. I made sure it was accurate, but he wrote it and I assume he had a reason for doing so, so let's see what he says. I can certainly change the Death of a Salesman part to simply reflect that it's not the real play (just as it's not the real Apocalypse Now on the TV). I'll do a bit more now, but major changes I would like agreed to by Drovethrughosts. Thanks for your suggestions; they are good ones.--TEHodson 01:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I made a couple of trims, but I feel it is important that the alternate versions of familiar stories be in there--it signals that right off the bat nothing is making sense. Details may not be important but the instant disorientation is, so I'd argue to keep it in. As I said, it was Drovethrughosts' decision to write out the dialogue, and I won't change it without his knowledge and permission. I prefer to hear from him first. The article isn't going anywhere, so a day or two to catch up with him won't matter.--TEHodson 01:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
No, I knew you had just been passed at GAC, that's what brought me to the page because WP:TV was updated. I figured I'd read the page and see how it looked. I'm always curious as to how some episode pages turn out. It was just scanning the plot that it looked long to me and when I did a word count I realized that it was long. After that, it was more me actually reading it to see how it was written and why it was longer than normal plots. That's all. I wasn't trying to criticize the page or your guys' work. Just pointing out suggested changes that could help improve the page in the long run.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Your suggestions are good ones, as I said; we'll see what Drove thinks. I didn't know it got noticed someplace. This and Hush were my first 2 articles of any real note. I just write to improve the prose where I can, correct grammar, do housekeeping. I don't originate articles (at least not so far). I've actually spent what feels like lifetimes shortening and tightening up plot sections all over this place, but it's a losing battle for most films, as fans will just not leave them alone. I understand the impulse--'this bit is so important to me it just has to be in there'; explaining why it can't be gets very old very quickly. But I do still try. Glad to see someone else fighting the good fight.--TEHodson 03:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I think those are all the changes that need to be done to the plot section; it looks good. Thanks to Drove and Bignole.--TEHodson 19:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Necessary source[edit]

Just FYI, about half this book (or more) is about this episode: Pateman, Matthew (2006). The Aesthetics of Culture in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. ISBN 0786422491

--Moni3 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Moni, I've tried to get that book for less than $25, and it's impossible. I'm still looking, but may have to give in and just do it. It's very annoying (it retails for $35 at least). Thanks for the nudge, though.--TEHodson 20:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

730[edit]

There is a reference to "Little Miss Muffet counting down to 730" -- suggesting that it is foreshadowing two years until Dawn appears.

I'd like to pose an alternate suggestion - that it is nothing to do with Dawn, but instead to do with Glory.

Faith/Buffy's dream occurs at the END of Series 3, not the start. So two years from then would be the end of Series 5, when Glory attempts to go home by ripping the barriers down. If it was two years until Dawn appears, it should be at the start of Series 3.

In addition, Dawn is referred to as "curds and whey" by the insane man (brain sucked guy) at one point, suggesting that she is not Little Miss Muffet, but Little Miss Muffet's "food" or "prey" -- another thing that leads me to believe Glory is Little Miss Muffet, not Dawn.

(There's also a theory about the spider - eight legs controlled by one brain, for which you have Willow, Tara, Giles, Xander, Anya, Spike, the Buffy-Bot and Buffy, all working to the single goal of getting Dawn back - but I admit that might not have been entirely thought through).

But I would like to suggest that the 730 reference be changed to say "two years until Glory's plan to end the world" rather than "two years until Dawn's arrival".

80.192.232.123 (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a realible source that proves this, or is this just your own interpretation? Per the Slayage source in the article:

Don Keller points out that in Buffy's dream in the third season episode "Graduation Day" (part two), a second Slayer, Faith, refers prophetically to "Little Miss Muffet counting down from seven-three-o," and thus adumbrates the arrival of Buffy's heretofore nonexistent sister Dawn two years later, with 730 equalling two times 365 days, or two years (167; cf. Kaveney 24). Now, in "Restless," Buffy says, "Faith and I just made that bed," explicitly recalling the third-season dream (through the intermediate reminder of a dream in the fourth season's "This Year's Girl," [4015]) before we hear from another prophetic voice, Tara's. Buffy says that her friends need her to find them, and notes, "It's so late" (Xander and Willow have said the same). She looks at a clock which says 7:30 a.m.--showing the numeral seven-three-o, again; but now spirit guide Tara says, "That clock's completely wrong," because, in fact, Dawn will appear in the next episode, the first of Season Five; she is no longer 730 days away. And as Buffy leaves, Tara quietly tells her, "Be back before dawn," referring to a time of day and naming a character not yet in existence, but prepared for two years earlier.

Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Dawn's appearance is well less than two years away, but note that dream-Faith says the countdown is from 730, not at 730; so maybe the process to create her began circa "Anne" and took two years to complete. —Tamfang (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Restless (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)