This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"I need my vicarious smoochies."
11945 members | you are not logged in | 30 October 2014




Tweet







December 10 2009

IDW to release an Andy Hallett/Lorne tribute comic by John Byrne. A final send-off for Lorne who will no longer be used in main Angel continuity after this and a fitting tribute to Andy Hallett.

Mark Lutz will also be contributing.

I have to say, IDW is very classy for doing this and while I'm going to miss the character from future stories,I understand why it's been decided to honor Andy and retire the character from use.

I shall be picking this up, although I've never cared for John Byrne.
When is this coming out? I have to have it.

I hope like hell this comic respects the character of Lorne and his story-arc better than Angel: After the Fall did.
This is a really nice thing IDW is doing. I have not been picking the Angel comics, but I will definitely pick this one up.
menomegirl,it comes out in March.
That's a very nice idea, sort of like holding a testimonial and then retiring Andy's shirt if he were a sportsman.

In that vein though (and not to sound cynical about what seems to me to be a sincere gesture from Chris Ryall and IDW) it'd be nice to know what's happening to the profits from the issue. A percentage donation to his family or a worthy cause that Andy supported strikes me as a way to honour his memory to the utmost.
Such a nice thing to do. Andy has been missed and so will Lorne.
Thank you, Buffyfantic.

Also, I agree with Saje. That would be nice if they did such a thing.
I love the idea of a tribute issue, but I hate the idea of retiring this character. Isn't the best (long term) tribute to Andy for his character to live on and play a meaningful role in the 'verse?
I think its great to honor Andy. He is really missed.

When you think about his role on the television show, it's impossible to think of another actor playing Lorne. And while that statement is true for many of the Verse actors, one has to remember that he made his amazing impact while wearing a million pounds of makeup and prosthetics. He was truly one of a kind.
This story choked me up. I shed tears when Andy passed and this is just an unfortunate reminder.

Let Lorne Live!
This seems a fitting tribute to Andy. And as Chris Ryall says (and as are many things in the 'Verse) it's not permanent permanent.

And yeah, Saje, I'm with you on this one - it would be very classy of them to donate some percentage of the profits (assuming that there will be any) to a cause that Andy supported. That was The Jason A Fedele Memorial Scholarship fund, dating back to his high school years:

The Jason A Fedele Memorial Scholarship
141 Winding Cove Road
Marstons Mills, MA 02648
I would be happier about this if Joss was writing it; I miss Andy and loved Lorne, but I'm not willing to accept that IDW knows what a "fitting send off" would look like.
John Byrne can pull off writing sometimes. The work will assuredly look very pretty anyway (unlike a lot of IDW's Angel fare, unfortunately). The cover is promising.
A final send-off for Lorne who will no longer be used in main Angel continuity after this

I'm having the opposite reaction, I'm afraid. Why are we forced to lose his fictional character as well? As Buffy says, "Live. For me." I don't think you honor loss by retiring their artistic creations - rather, let their art live on in remembrance and allow it to breathe new life.

The beauty of the show going to comics is that the characters are now freed of timely constraints once held by the actors - Lorne's voice can still ring true. We can still imagine in our minds Andy Hallett and his cheery spirit and wonderful pet names.

The beauty of these comics is they bring back characters, give them new life after the series finales of both BtVS and AtS. They are now separate from the actors in terms of limits. This isn't a TV show. The rules are different. Lorne can live on in the comics - so why "kill" him off? This isn't like Charisma's situation where personal issues impinged on the story - her character's sendoff was dictated more by outside influences than in-story ones. Lorne in the comics is purely Lorne's character - he can live on now, let him live on.

I'm afraid the cynic in me suspects that IDW just doesn't have a good idea on how to integrate Lorne into the main continuity and so it's better to retire him officially. I hope this official retirement is as official as Brett Favre's - that is, not so much.
I both love and hate this idea. Hate because I love the character and Andy and am still not ready to let go, love because it has been admittedly difficult seeing Lorne in the comics because I miss Andy and it reinforces the idea that I really will never see him play the character again. I knew that anyway of course, but I'm beyond pathetic in holding some shred of hope in the back of my mind.

And I agree with Embers that I'd prefer Joss writing it of course.
They are now separate from the actors in terms of limits.

Which cuts both ways Emmie. The more we see of Lorne apart from Andy Hallett the less of Andy Hallett is in Lorne. I want the character to live on too but I want it to be the character that Andy had such a big part in bringing to life, not an increasingly (unavoidably) diluted version, divorced from his influence. And that character does live on, in our hearts, minds and DVDs.

To me this is a nice way of saying that Lorne just isn't Lorne without Andy playing him. I can see the other viewpoint too though, it's down to individual perspectives at the end of the day.
Maybe they'll have Joss write an introduction or something like that.
Yeah, I'm torn on this one. While I certainly think that it's an awesome idea to give tribute to Andy Hallet, I really hate the idea of not seeing Lorne in the comics anymore. I know a lot of people haven't been picking up the Angel comics, but while the art was rough for a while, the story was solidly written and the character's all felt like themselves, and Lorne played a big role. I really hope they decide to reverse this somehow.
Saje, I've been pondering the words "this is the right thing to do". I think that from what's been shown of Andy and his indomitible spirit, he'd want his character to live on. Andy was an entertainer - he went throughout his days in pain from his costume with a smile on his face, never missing a beat. If Lorne can still bring joy and entertainment, I can't help but think that is more fitting with Andy's raison d'etre.

not an increasingly (unavoidably) diluted version, divorced from his influence.

That seems more like an argument against the comics all-together. Why have Angel, Buffy, Gunn, Willow, Xander, anyone in the comics then? If they're all just being unavoidably diluted?

The more we see of Lorne apart from Andy Hallett the less of Andy Hallett is in Lorne.

When I read a comic with Lorne in the scene, I hear and see Andy Hallett. His voice comes through the memories borne from the years watching him on AtS. And while there is a bittersweet, there's also something comforting to me in having this character of Andy's still existing. It's like what Andy created was larger than life, that he as this ultimate performer and entertainer who worked so hard to give others joy - that he gets to live on in this way.

To me, a tribute of Andy Hallett does not necessitate Lorne's burial. I think a more fitting tribute for Andy would be letting Lorne continue to entertain. That his creation can still bring joy and laughs and yes, even, tears. Because that is the beauty of art - the rising above the limits of the mundane restrictions of the world to live on in our hearts and imaginations. And maybe it'll bring an air of sadness to always watch or read Lorne and know the tragic loss of Andy, but I can't help but believe that there's something more beautiful in Lorne living on for Andy. Andy seemed to push aside his own personal limitations and even pain in order to serve the story, the character, the moment of creative joie de vivre.

Perhaps it's that I view Lorne as not being the same as Andy Hallet, but more like his creation, his child. And once born into the creative world, he can live on in other forms. So let the child live on, though we have lost the father.
If the comic book series were the tv show, Lorne would have to be written out because of Andy's death. This is no different.
Doesn't this: If the comic book series were the tv show

Contradict this: This is no different.

Because the comic book series is not the tv show, therefore they are different...? Hmm.
I'm sure Joss is on-board with the decision regarding the character fate. And if he thinks its an appropriate tribute, then I'm okay with it too. At least until I read it...

Also, it means we have to wait a little longer until they reveal that Twilight is Lorne. Lorne as The Big Bad. Now that's something Andy would have loved, imo.
What you all said.

Egotistical comemnts will not be included.
I just know reading it is going to make me cry.
Doesn't this: If the comic book series were the tv show

Contradict this: This is no different.


I don't think there's a contradiction in Riker's comment, Emmie. The key word here being "if".

[ edited by menomegirl on 2009-12-11 02:12 ]
Wow I can't believe I never considered IDW doing this. I just don't know if this is the right move or not. Excellent points have been made for both sides, but so far I think I am not ready/willing to let go. Maybe if it was Joss' idea and him writing it I could get behind it. I guess Lorne won't be getting that talk show I had always hoped for. I really miss Andy times like this, time to go hug my dvds.
Not really, Emmie. The comic book is just a paper version of Season Six.
Why have Angel, Buffy, Gunn, Willow, Xander, anyone in the comics then? If they're all just being unavoidably diluted?

To me it feels different because those actors are still around to create new things. Angel is less of a "legacy" for David Boreanaz because he's now (also) Booth for instance. Possibly if I knew Andy Hallett for a whole slew of other characters as well then i'd see the "dilution" aspect as less important but I only ever saw him play Lorne, so that's how I remember him.

When I read a comic with Lorne in the scene, I hear and see Andy Hallett.

With the very best will in the world, no, you don't. You hear and see your memory of Andy Hallett and your imaginings of how he would've played dialogue or situations based on that. I'm just as happy for it not to be my take (via John Byrne's take) of Andy's take on Lorne, i'd rather just stick with Andy's take directly. I guess I don't see continuation of the character in new stories as that important when, thanks to the DVDs, we'll always be able to watch (and, just as importantly, hear) Lorne as played by Andy Hallett i.e. the "true" Lorne (as I see it) will always live on.

As I say though, I get what you're saying Emmie, I don't in any way think your perspective is wrong or crazy, it's just down to different strokes (I don't know what Andy would've wanted and I don't know whether Joss approves or not, this is all just my take).
I understand this decision. It must be awkward for the writers to put words into a dead man's mouth. I think it would just be too much and unnecessary for them, when he can just easily not be in the main story. It's not like he's an integral integral character anyway, as he was basically written off in Not Fade Away. And he's always kind of a "live on" character anyway as per Spin the Bottle.

And actually, because of Andy Hallet's death, there's no suspense in that Lorne might be skewered horribly or something in some tense, threatening scene, because it would be so awful. So maybe since he's so untouchable, it's just easier for him to exist on the periphery of the Angel universe rather than write stuff for him month after month.
Since this is almost off the front page I'll allow myself the egotistical post and regret that my vision of Buffy and Angel's 2006 wedding is now unfilmable. (Lorne was second groomsman and therefore Mrs. Anya Harris's official escort.)
I guess I don't see continuation of the character in new stories as that important when, thanks to the DVDs, we'll always be able to watch (and, just as importantly, hear) Lorne as played by Andy Hallett i.e. the "true" Lorne (as I see it) will always live on.

Right, different strokes. So if the "true" Lorne is always available to you (your strokes), then any comic appearance that included Lorne didn't fly well, I'm assuming...? But then for my strokes, a potential future Lorne story would still be aces. I'm still having trouble untangling this argument from a "what's the point of the comics at all then?" line. Because the comics divorce all the characters from the actors in a way - it's unavoidable. And while it has its downsides, it also has good.

As for the imagination - what is knowing but a series of sensations? Is the image I can hear echoing as unreal as what my eyes perceive as bursts of light on the back of my retinas? Sight is a reflection, too, an echo. So when it comes to the reality of entertainment as perceived by light reception versus that which is triggered within the mind - how do you know the limits of my own mind? Maybe I have a crazy talented imagination, hmm... Or maybe my copier in my mind is working on the level of digital restoration while someone else's is merely degrading the signal. Maybe my imagination has HD playing with stereo surround sound versus the grainy glitches of a poorly downloaded copy. Just sayin' - subjectivity of reality here. This is TV and fiction - we've already gone past the realm of knowing reality by viewing the source through layers of "plastic". Perhaps my vision in my mind is truer to the soul than what can be manipulated and maneuvered on wires and waves in the air.
Perhaps. In which case you don't need new comics stories surely ?

But then for my strokes, a potential future Lorne story would still be aces. I'm still having trouble untangling this argument from a "what's the point of the comics at all then?" line.

As I say, it feels different to me cos the guy's dead and his potential to live on in our memories is limited (for me) to that one character. The more Lorne that's not Andy Hallett is in our headspace the less of a memorial the character is to him. Again though, that's just how I feel - you feel differently, cool. Ultimately of course, this is what's happening and what you or I feel about it is immaterial.

I guess I started to lose you when you seemed to claim that your imaginings of Andy Hallett playing Lorne might be closer to how he'd actually play him than him actually playing him would be (err, if you get what I mean ;). To me it's impossible for us to know how he'd play a line of dialogue, how he'd move, what syllables he'd emphasise etc. since I don't believe the "model" of Andy Hallett held in my head is as close to the real Andy Hallett as, well, the real Andy Hallett was. People are fuller, truer representations of themselves than our memories/imaginings of them are. That's true on its face IMO, again, you seem to disagree (and again, cool - harder to understand for me personally but still cool ;).

(sorry for the slow response BTW, busy weekend)

[ edited by Saje on 2009-12-13 13:39 ]

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home