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
"It's a nativity scene, except nobody here is wise."
11945 members | you are not logged in | 22 November 2014




Tweet







January 19 2010

(SPOILER) Scott Allie Slayalive Q/A for Buffy #31 and the Twilight reveal. MAJOR SPOILERS for Twilightgate. Not surprising this was a major topic of the Q/A.

Scott Allie: So much remains to be seen about what Twilight really is.

Interestingly put.
I can deal with a tragic ending, but I hope Joss will not destroy certain characters. Can I trust, with Fred, Wesley and so many others in mind?
Pretty much confirms to me what I think this season has been all about- ending the multitude of slayers and returning the world to having just one.
Re: destroying characters, I don't think that Fred and Wesley are destroyed at all. Dead, yes. But they never had their characters destroyed in the way that many are fearful that Twilight's may be.
Shipper: I'm not sure that I trust Joss not to mistreat these characters.

English Translation: I'm worried Joss will do something that I don't personally like after which I be very cross and possibly create a Facebook group in protest.

I tease :) and that was in reference to the interview, not cleveland's post above. In regards to that, I believe that neither Fred nor Wesley were destroyed. I think that they had brilliant long running arcs that gave the actors a buffet of emotions and motivations to portray and they did it beautifully. As much as it pains me, nay because it pains me so much to watch their ends, it reinforces that the story had weight and depth and resonance. EPIC.
Perfectly put, z.
Yeah, pretty much WZS[tm] :)
I can deal with a tragic ending, but I hope Joss will not destroy certain characters. Can I trust, with Fred, Wesley and so many others in mind?


Tragedy I can accept, actually scratch that, tragedy I expect but what has me concerned is Angel NOT getting the same treatment of Fred and Wesley. They went out fighting the good fight, they went out heroes. If Angel's legacy is that of an irredeemable evil I will be crushed.

I don't truly believe Joss would do that to the character but I gotta admit, I'm nervous.
"If Angel's legacy is that of an irredeemable evil I will be crushed"

Same here, though I honestly think I could sink into depression if Joss kills Angel (even if he does it for a good reason and Angel is finally redeemed)!

Angel fans more than anyone need to hang in there
Ahh!! This is going to worry me for months!

[ edited by Shep on 2010-01-19 17:57 ]
If Angel's legacy is that of an irredeemable evil I will be crushed.

I kind of thought that's what happened in NFA -- but obviously it didn't tarnish his credentials with the vast majority of fandom. I would be surprised if you got anything more than NFA style darkness, and if that wasn't a problem for you then it's probably all good.
n/m

[ edited by Enisy on 2010-01-19 18:25 ]
I kind of thought that's what happened in NFA -- but obviously it didn't tarnish his credentials with the vast majority of fandom. I would be surprised if you got anything more than NFA style darkness, and if that wasn't a problem for you then it's probably all good.

Personally I saw NFA as a reaffirmation of Angel as a Champion and that he was still a warrior for the side of good, albeit a tarnished one. That being said I can think of few characters in either verse who aren't tarnished in their heroics.

[ edited by Kean on 2010-01-19 18:26 ]
@wenxina: Yes, you are completely right. I equated two different kinds of "loss".
The way I look at it, Angel's second only to Buffy in terms of Buffyverse investment in a complex character with his own history and his own reasons for doing things. Joss would not use Angel as Buffy's nemesis lightly. Oh no. It is the two heaviest of weights fighting a global war that's increasingly high in stakes. I doubt anyone comes out of it clean but I also doubt anyone gets underserved for a motivation and an arc. Joss would have picked anyone else if he just wanted someone to go bad and cause angst and get staked in a horrible way.
I'm starting to wonder how much Warcraft Joss ever played from hanging out with Felicia. The Twilight thing is starting to give off a bit of the ole Lich King vibe. Modified and made newer and fresher than the Blizzard modification and freshening of the Lucas modification and freshening of the same idea and so on, but still feels very Arthas Menethil to me after this Q&A.

For non-players --

Just a theory, probably wrong. Just what it reminded me of.
KingofCretins, I hope you're wrong about that. In addition to the references you made (got the Lord Of The Rings one and played Warcraft up until the third game, so I met Arthas--then had to abandon the franchise when it went World of Warcraft, 'cause I played the free 2-week Beta when Blizzard offered it and realized I would be addicted if I bought it), it also reminds me a little bit of Onslaught from Marvel comics. The "event"/crossover that made me stop reading superhero comics as a teen (though I suppose it had more to do with not being able to afford all the different titles just to get one complete story at the time, moreso than the idea of the villain).
I don't think this is as much of a suprise as most make it out to be, Angel always had this deep darkness inside of him. Especially in season5 of Angel.
I definitely do not believe he is or has ever been the perfect white-hat champion which is perhaps why i wasn't that shocked by it. Angel and Buffy have always been very different leaders, which also became more clear trough the seasons.
I see Spike as someone in the middle of both, he's also the only character to have been the righthand man to both Buffy and Angel.

Having Twilight revealed now has made me 100% believe that Joss will always do what's in the best intrest for the story regardless on wether it's a popular choice or not. And for that i'm very grateful. Some characters need closure. After season8 Angel will have come full circle.
I don't doubt that Angel will come out of this, a more tortured man sure, but he'll still survive.

Exellent to have Scott confirm that Spike will come, not that i doubted Joss. I wonder if he'll be changed in anyway? Or how he'll make his entrance, hopefully we'll get a Jo Chen Spike cover. Anyway, this is no doubt going to be the most exciting season finale.
Allie gains mad points here for his self effacing tone about the leak.
If Angel's legacy is that of an irredeemable evil I will be crushed.

I agree with Maggie. I thought that's what happened in NFA.

I think this was the most well-worded Q & A that Scott Allie has done this far. I enjoyed reading the thoughtful questions and his replies to them.

But dude...Biley?!? Please don't call Buffy/Riley that. Thank you. :)
Biley, or Ruffy... either one just sounds as stupid as Bangel, Spuffy, or Batsu. Or Brangelina, for that matter. Shippy names are usually, for the lack of a better word, silly. The more absurd, the better.
Are there spoilers beyond the identity of Twilight? I haven't read any comments or the article article, I'll skip it if so.
There are a few minor ones, but reading the questions where people are asking for spoilers you could skip those answers. There is another major one, which you know already if you've read all of Joss' CBR interviews. Other than that, I don't think so. Anyone else?

ETA that if you're spoiler-averse enough, I'd just recommend skipping it entirely. If you don't mind some minor spoilers, but don't want to know major plot elements in advance, then there's just that one other thing I mentioned to be wary of. I think :).

ETA again: just skimmed the article again. Skip it, I'd say ;)

[ edited by GVH on 2010-01-20 03:56 ]
"I kind of thought that's what happened in NFA..."

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but are people saying that the end of AtS showed Angel as irredeemably evil? That's not how I saw NFA at all....
dispatch, the Q&A tends to abound with spoilers. That being said, the spoilers specific to Twilight's identity have been spoiler-tagged so you don't have to read those. All other spoilers are up through the most recent issue of Season 8 - Issue 31 Turbulence. And Scott does speak a bit about some future developments in the story. So I'd read with caution...
mbeauparland-Yes, that's pretty much what I meant to say.
I guess we were watching a different NFA. I figured that's the one where he came back from the evil he did at the end of season four.
No, that's the one where he had Lindsey murdered and set Lorne up to do it.

Viewer perspective is everything, isn't it? :)
And you find that "irredeemable?" I thought one of the most positive messages of the Buffyverse is that you can come back from anything if you want to badly enough.

Lorne didn’t have to do it -- “I’ll do this one last thing for you and them I’m out.” Which means he’s just as culpable as Angel is. Nobody forced him to pull that trigger.

[ edited by vampmogs on 2010-01-20 08:07 ]
"No, that's the one where he had Lindsey murdered and set Lorne up to do it."

Lorne wasn't really set up, he walked into the situation with both eyes open and shot Lindsey 4 or 5 times point blank....

Now I could go with irredeemably evil if Angel had sent him to kill nuns, babies, or kittens, but Lindsey was far from an innocent. I would classify Lindsey as much closer to "irredeemably evil" than Angel!
In fact, I always felt the tragic part of that was that, had Angel been there in those final moments, he probably wouldn't have pulled the trigger. But I don't see why his sending of Lorne - anymore than him effectively killing other lawyers before - would make him irredeemably evil. Angel has always been dark-ish, and this was certainly one of his more extreme and dubious moments. But irredeemably evil? Nah.
I really doubt Angel can be too screwed up for the sheer fact that he is his own intellectual property and character in his own right. I mean having him explode like Spike in Buffy's season seven would sort of be problematic for further exploration of his character. (I sort of wish that Dark Horse had just decided to keep the Angel franchise in the first place since I do like Angel but I liked his supporting cast even more. I'm curious how this all works out regarding them despite how if anything we'd just get the characters who originated on BtVS.) Plus Angel always has been sort of the overlooked step-child franchise even though on the whole I thought it's last two seasons were still stronger than Buffy's respective ones.

Otherwise: I was sort of amused by that offhand mention of whether or not he was allowed to use the word "aftermath" and I hope that was in good humor rather than kind of mean-spirited teasing, since I do feel for IDW a bit more in this case. Plus it's not like this is quite as brutal as that NBC v. Leno v. Conan mishegehs.

Also, the teeny Dollhouse spoiler in 36. I mean I more or less expected that but still. (Though really I wonder if they could have possibly ended season seven in a satisfying way without Buffy sharing the power/burden/yada yada. I mean yeah maybe they wouldn't have turned the city into a sinkhole, but it seems important that if they're going to undermine the threats posed by The First and the Uber-Vamps that it serve a thematic purpose.)
I don't think Angel is irredemable. I didn’t realize until lately that I’m in the minority of my view on Angel: that he’s a fascinating character precisely because his sin is hubris and because he constantly makes decisions for other people’s “good”—decisions which I can’t in good conscience condone (see…most of AtS and half of BtVS, actually). So to me, having Angel come riding in on his white horse to save Buffy from having to tarnish herself or get blood on her hands by doing something he believes to be “necessary” (instead of recognizing that the thing that makes Buffy Summers so awesome is that, at the last minute, she always finds a way to get around what’s necessary but not good) makes absolutely perfect sense. I see it as completely compatible with his earlier characterization, especially Not Fade Away, which I believe to have presented Angel in a completely Machiavellian light (poor Drogyn! I cannot separate Alec Newman from Paul Atreides, and I’m always: OMG! ANGEL KILLED MUAD’DIB!). Does that make him irredemable? No. But it does say, to me at least, that he believes that that is his role, and that's the one he's going to keep fulfilling: the one who does things others can't or won't do (regardless of whether those things are morally wrong). And I think that's anything but noble, though clearly others would disagree.

Of course, I’m also one of those people who think if he ever actually got the Shanshu, he’d be totally and completely miserable, and that his real reward is Connor, and he should recognize that.

So clearly, my views are a little unorthodox.
GVH, Angel would have pulled the trigger but probably would have thought to put it between his eyes. The guy didn't even manage to look shaken up afterwards for having murdered Drogyn to pull off his plan, no reason why he'd hesitate over the murder he intended.
Of course he wasn’t going to look shaken up afterwards. He was in a room filled with people who were scrutinising his every move to see if he was acting or not. Why do you think they brought Drogyn there in the first place? It was to test him -- Angel had to act unaffected to keep his cover.

In regards to Lindsey, I thought he was the scum of the earth who would never amount to anything good. Lest we forget that he planned to take over Wolfram and Hart after Angel vacated the building. He was by no means an innocent or a good person and Lorne "heard him sing.” I can understand why people find it icky and wrong but I’ll never understand why they don’t hold Lorne to the same standards or why killing Lindsey of all people makes Angel “irredeemably evil.”

[ edited by vampmogs on 2010-01-20 16:34 ]
Well, some of us believe that killing Drogyn--or any innocent--in order to maintain his "cover" isn't morally justified. At all. The ends don't justify the means.

Also, who decides who's the scum of the earth? And who decides that that means that that "scum" doesn't deserve life? I have a major, major problem with that idea. Killing in self-defense or defense of another person who's under threat perhaps is justified. But I can't think of another reason that killing is justified. The idea that we can decide who is worthy of life and who isn't disturbs me greatly.

I do hold Lorne to the same standards, but I also hold Angel--his commanding officer, for want of a better term--responsible, in the same way I hold the higher ups in any situation responsible for the actions of their subordinates--especially when those subordinates are acting under their direct orders. That's what being a leader is.

[ETA] On the other hand, I'm a big believer in grace, so I don't believe that anyone is not redeemable. But you have to want to change and give up your former actions. So he's totally capable of redemption if that's what he decides he wants.

[ edited by Lirazel on 2010-01-20 16:47 ]
And he showed little to no remorse afterwards even when he wasn't with the circle anymore. Angel's reasoning for what he did was that he didn't have any other choice, which is bull. There are always more then two choices.
And the circle didn't just kidnap Drogyn, Drogyn was set up by Angel because he wanted to use him so that his team thought he was evil. But just like most of Angel's plans he didn't think things trough which brings with it huge ramifactions like killing an innocent(Drogyn) in cold blood, bringing about the apocalypse because he wanted to do "something".
I think Angel's messages are often right on the money, "everything we do matters","always keep on fighting",ect. The problem with Angel is how he transforms these messages into actions, and actions is where Angel falls short. I think the same will be with Twilight, message is sound, his actions are not.
I think Angel's messages are often right on the money, "everything we do matters","always keep on fighting",ect. The problem with Angel is how he transforms these messages into actions, and actions is where Angel falls short. I think the same will be with Twilight, message is sound, his actions are not.

I love that. So true.
Angel never intended for Drogyn to be placed in that position. And he’s completely right in what he said – if he didn’t they’d have killed them both. Now Angel can either die alongside Drogyn on principle and make Drogyn’s death totally meaningless, or he can survive and go through with his plan to take down the Circle. It’s horrible what he had to do but it was never part of his plan.

As far as Angel being ‘commanding officer’ I’m always a bit dubious about that. Firstly, nobody forced Lorne to pull that trigger so regardless of whether it was an “order” or not (which I don’t think it was) he’d still be just as culpable. Lorne could have walked away at anytime. Secondly, wasn’t an integral part of their final scene in PowerPlay about how this was a group decision and how they voted as a team on this plan? -- “I can’t order you to do this. I can’t do it without you. So we vote, as a team, if this is something worth dying for.”

Angel didn’t “order” any of these characters to do anything and when they raised their hands they were voting that this was something they believed was worth dying for.

In regards to Lindsey -- I was simply pointing out that he was nor innocent or a good person so it makes no sense to me to claim this act was an “irredeemable evil” in comparison to anything else Angel has ever done. And certainly if this is irredeemable than Willow can never come back from killing Warren and is going straight to hell as well. I don't believe anything is "irredeemable" if a person truly wants to change and I believe Angel does.

I call Lindsey scum because of how he used his poverty as an excuse to work for Evil Inc. (see Willow’s “poor you” speech to Faith in Choices) for how he took money over doing what was right, for how he tried to turn Angel dark, for how he came back to LA to take over Wolfram and Hart. IMO he’s a bad man who’s been nothing more than flaky and whose moral quandaries stemmed from boredom and restlessness, not some decency.

I don't believe Angel wanted him dead because he thought he was worthless -- if that were true he'd have killed him long ago -- and I don't believe Lorne would have went through with it if he didn't see something in Lindsey's singing that was bad news. I believe Angel wanted him taken out because he planned to take over Wolfram and Hart after Angel vacated the building. Now I think it's debatable about whether that was right or wrong but I don't believe he killed him just because he thought Lindsey was worthless. He's thought that from day one.

I believe Angel is a complex character who was actually my first pick for Twilight because I believe he was capable of becoming that guy. But I don’t believe he’s “irredeemable” or “evil” I just believe he’s someone who’s trying to make an amends and who stumbles along the way.

[ edited by vampmogs on 2010-01-20 17:15 ]
So clearly, my views are a little unorthodox.

I've never really thought of Angel in this light, Lirazel. But you and Vergil put a very interesting perspective on everything that has happened with him.

May have to re-watch AtS with that in mind. Thanks.
I cannot justify killing Drogyn or Lindsey (the right thing to do would be to die alongside Drogyn--I would rather die than take someone else's life, unless, again, they were directly threatening my life or the life of some other innocent person-and still, I'd pull a Shepherd Book and aim at the kneecaps. And killing Lindsey was Angel's idea, and I don't believe that punishing someone for something they might do is right, either). Period.

Again, I don't think anyone is irreedemable, but again, I think Angel has chosen to take on the role of "the one who does things others can't/won't do" because he believes himself to be already tainted--and he has convinced himself that the things he does will promote the greater good, and I completely reject that Machiavellian belief.

Also (and this is a bigger problem with the show's writers than Angel-the-character), I reject the idea the way to redeem yourself after centuries of violence is to--wait for it--commit more violence--instead of, say, going to work with Anne to help disenfranchised kids or something. But that wouldn't make for as interesting TV, I suppose. I guess I just have a worldview problem with AtS.

And thank you, korkster, for the very great compliment! These are conclusions I've been arriving at lately now that I've taken some time to actually think about the show on a deeper level instead of just enjoying it (or not!). The idea that it might inspire anyone to think about it in a new way makes me giddy!
I agree with Lirazel, while i don't think that Angel is irredeemable, he has gotten lots of undeserved second chances that many other character did not get.
But the best thing about Angel the show has always been how it's more complicated,dark. And the show did a great job of showing Angel as a very flawed,conflicted hero. And i'm really excited to finally see Angel again since the show ended. The showdown between Buffy and Twilight will be epic.
Oh, absolutely. I think it's interesting precisely because I have all these problems with characters' decisions and they make me think. Angel would be much less interesting as a flawless hero (again, unorthodox views: I think Buffy's at her most interesting in seasons 6 and 7 when she really has to struggle, you know?). I think the showdown will indeed be epic--and complicated.
Word to everything Lirazel and Vergil have said. Angel is a flawed hero who makes choices that are meant to unsettle us. He's always put in situations where there is no easy way out. If Angel were in Buffy's position in The Gift, who thinks he'd have killed Dawn? Angel is very akin to Giles in this way of doing what "must be done" - Angel would have killed Ben after he'd beaten him down with the troll hammer while Buffy walked away. Was it necessary to kill Ben? To remove Glory from power, it might have been. Was it heroic? No. What Giles did is akin to what Angel did in the latter half of Season 5.

For Angel, there are no easy answers. He's a character of doomed fate. He never gets to experience true happiness. He never gets to save everyone. He saves the world by killing Jasmine, but ends world peace...? He delays the Apocalypse (only delays) by killing the Circle of the Black Thorn and all of LA is sent to hell - and while he sacrifices himself to free them from hell, they still have months of hellish experiences in their memory (trauma!). There's always a "but" at the end of his heroism, a qualification that while it might have been the necessary thing to do, it wasn't perfect nor was it perfectly right.

Which is what makes what's to come so interesting in Season 8. Because Buffy is about triumphing over these impossible situations and finding a solution that saves the world without severe negative consequences to others while Angel is about saving the world by whatever means are necessary and said means often mean trampling over a few innocents.

[ edited by Emmie on 2010-01-20 18:09 ]
There's always a "but" at the end of his heroism, a qualification that while it might have been the necessary thing to do, it wasn't perfect nor was it perfectly right.

Oh, oh, oh! Yes! That's the perfect way of phrasing it! And I also love your summary of the two approaches that are going to come into conflict in S8 between him and Buffy. That could truly be awesome.

It's very much like Batman's decision at the end of The Dark Knight, and Gordon says: Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.

And, you know, I'm not sure that I think that's morally correct. But it's where Angel's at, and it certainly is interesting.


[ edited by Emmie on 2010-01-20 18:21 ]
Okay, you've now gone and distracted me with that epic ending to The Dark Knight which always gets me with the rising music as he runs off into the night. And Batman-Angel comparisons are always apt - right on.

That quote is perfect for what Twilight is turning Buffy into in the world's view, I think. Can't you hear Twilight saying: "[Buffy] is the hero the world deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt her because she can take it. Because she's no longer our hero."

That quote actually encapsulates them both. In Twilight's view, he's "the one [the world] needs right now [to make the tough decisions]...the silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight."

And just to toss this out there, Joss has spoken in interviews before about wanting to write a Batman movie.

[ edited by Emmie on 2010-01-20 18:21 ]
Lirazel, i think there's a small difference because Batman didn't kill those people. He becomes whatever the public needs him to be, because he is strong enough to handle it. His reputation/image is tarnished but his hands aren't. With Angel, those killings are on his hands, directly or indirectly he is partly/fully responsible.
Oh, definitely, Vergil. I just meant in the sense of taking on something that other people can't. It's not exactly the same thing, but it reminds me of both of them.
These are some very interesting and thought-provoking comments, which I will come back to read better and reply to after I've finished my Herald post for today.

Oh and fyi, you guys are awesome. :)
Great discussion! I've always thought that many of Angel's actions are very dark or evil. Murdering Drogyn and Lindsey are the obvious cases. I have huge problems with the mind wipes of his friends. And deliberately risking his soul when he fell into despair.

I agree that in the Buffyverse redemption is always possible. BUT. Redemption requires that the character acknowledge that they need redeeming. I think Angel probably defends himself the way many of his fans do. He had to do these things for 'justifiable' reasons. And if he thinks they were justifiable acts, then he's not looking for redemption in a meaningful way. Since I don't think they were justifiable, I look at him as a character who is dark and on the wrong path.

The great thing about Angel is how he's a portrait of how well-intentioned poeple can get stuck in very dark places. Whether Angel has the resources to get past his good intentions to really acknowledge the darkness that is there is a fascinating question -- which is why I'm very excited about seeing his story as Twilight unfold.

ETA: I should add that I hold my own favorable character -- Spike -- accountable for agreeing with Angel's plan in NFA and not really pushing back on Lindsey or Drogyn. I think he was wrong to do so and I'll be rooting for him to address that, and disappointed in him if he doesn't.

[ edited by Maggie on 2010-01-20 20:49 ]
Vampmogs, since Angel was not in the room with the Circle of the Black Thorn for the entire rest of "Power Play" and "Not Fade Away", I'm not sure what your point is. There was plenty of occasion to demonstrate it was weighing on him, and they didn't. Joss took the time, by contrast, to insert a moment like that in "Serenity" (the movie). On the other hand, when what happened to Drogyn came up, he didn't even manage to sound regretful.

Emmie, I think "The Dark Knight" metaphor would fit well for psycho-rationalization *by* Twilight, but not for Joss' message *about* Twilight. Twilight, after all, is a mass murderer several times over unless Joss is planning to spin faster than the televised Wonder Woman he was not going to base his movie on. I'd buy that Twilight would say he's the hero the world needs and Buffy isn't, etc, but if Joss tries to sell that to be the case about Twilight, he'll be a lot closer to having made a Joel Schumacher Batman movie than a Christopher Nolan.
I winced when he poisoned Sebassis' slave to get at Sebassis. Casualty of war I guess.
Good point, Simon. I never thought of that. Too focused on what happened to Lindsey and Drogyn, I guess.
Maggie, i agree about Spike. He's also my favorite character and i will definitely be watching his every move when he comes on Buffy. I like to believe that he'll stand opposite Twilight. I hope that Twilight's hatred for the "spike" that was found means that they are enemies again. NFA could have been the first sign for Spike that Angel is seriously starting to cross the line. I know there's a comic series that takes place after NFA. But i neither like the story or the way that it was written which isn't by Joss. It doesn't remind me in anyway of the Angel series.
I only read Buffy, i'm very curious as to see how these characters have evolved. Twilight we already know of, except the how or why which will be very intresting. Spike remains a total mystery except that Joss has said Spike will still be Spike.

Regarding the Batman/Angel comparisons. I find the likeness only superficial, i mean you can call Angel the dark avenger/knight,ect. Nolan's Batman is in a totally different league then Angel and imo a real fictional hero.
Joker said it best: "You truelly are incorruptible."
While Angel is very corruptible.
Yes, as you have guessed i'm a huge Batman fan too.
"If Angel were in Buffy's position in The Gift, who thinks he'd have killed Dawn?"

I sure hope he would have killed Dawn, otherwise countless thousands, perhaps millions, would have died as the worlds merged!

Unless the question is, would he have sacrificed himself if it would save Dawn and the world as we know it. In which case I think he would have....
Hey guys. I'm back....haha. Okay so, I have a lot of things I want to respond to so I'm going to start from where this discussion really took off.

vampmogs-I do think it was irredeemable, unlike what Willow did. Willow killing Warren can be justified; it was an act of passion, not an act of premeditated murder; it's not possible to justify the actions Angel took in "Power Play" and "Not Fade Away". And I'm not placing all the blame on him-Lorne is just as culpable as Angel is for Lindsey's death. The difference between the two is that Lorne clearly had both guilt and remorse stamped on his face in his final scene and those are two things Angel has not shown; not just for Lindsey's murder but for Drogyn's death as well. (And Sebassis' slave, as Simon pointed out) I understand you don't care for Lindsey. I never said he was an innocent but he was a character who was redeemable; Angel's treatment of him was at times callous, dismissive and fueled by anger. If you don't think so, I suggest you watch "Five by Five" & "Sanctuary", "Blind Date" & "To Shanshu in LA" back-to-back. Pay attention to the difference between Angel's treatment of Faith and Lindsey.

mbeauparland-I'm not saying that Lindsey was an innocent. I know he wasn't-but at the time of his death, no matter what his motives may have been, he was fighting on Angel's side; that's part of what makes what Angel did so wrong.

GVH-I don't think Angel would have pulled the trigger either ... but it didn't turn out that way. I would call his actions quite a bit more than merely "dubious", hence the evil that's not redeemable.

Lirazel, Emmie, Maggie-I pretty much agree with you. (Except I do think Angel cannot redeem himself. *g*)

If Angel were in Buffy's position in The Gift, who thinks he'd have killed Dawn?"

No. He couldn't kill Connor in "Home".
Some very interesting views on Angel here and I have to say I'm glad to be in the same boat as Vampmogs - and, I would say, the writers, including Joss in believing Angel to be a hero and champion, not some evil, irredeemable, never able to make amends creep.

NFA showed Angel as a true champion. And I'll go out on a ledge and suggest that Angel is hardly the only character who has made questionable choices or the only character who ever made decisions for other people. I'd say EVERY character is like that, in fact.

EVERY character in AtS chose to go with the deal at W&H, EVERYONE chose that fight in NFA, so blaming Angel for everyone's actions, while not surprising from some quarters, is not what I believe we were shown.

He never gets to experience true happiness. He never gets to save everyone. He saves the world by killing Jasmine, but ends world peace...? He delays the Apocalypse (only delays) by killing the Circle of the Black Thorn and all of LA is sent to hell - and while he sacrifices himself to free them from hell, they still have months of hellish experiences in their memory (trauma!). There's always a "but" at the end of his heroism, a qualification that while it might have been the necessary thing to do, it wasn't perfect nor was it perfectly right.

Sounds a lot like Buffy, though I'd argue *vehemently* that what Jasmine proposed was NOT world peace. I mean, come on, she was eating/killing people while the rest were under a FALSE sense of peace. Really? If that's world peace, you can have it, I'm sure the people she killed wouldn't see it that way.

But think about Buffy. She never gets to experience true happiness for any longer than Angel does. She saves the world one year only to have another bigger bad come along. She dies to save Dawn and the world only to come back to hell on Earth where the situation was worse than when she left it - and so is she. She unleashes slayer power and all kinds of bad things happen as a result. So really, I'd say that "but" at the end of heroism doesn't belong solely to Angel but is, instead, part of the problem with being the hero. Some people will always question the actions, the results, the methods. But in the end, it's still always Angel and Buffy who stand between the world and it's destruction by evil forces.
Willow killing Warren can be justified; it was an act of passion, not an act of premeditated murder;

Whether it was justifiable is debatable, but it was definitely premeditated. She spent the better part of an episode methodically preparing to kill him. She even told Buffy and Xander she was going to do it.

Which is what makes what's to come so interesting in Season 8. Because Buffy is about triumphing over these impossible situations and finding a solution that saves the world without severe negative consequences to others while Angel is about saving the world by whatever means are necessary and said means often mean trampling over a few innocents.

I think you're right here but I think Buffy's moral boundaries have been slowly shifting for awhile, maybe even ever since the arc where she was protecting Dawn. I think of her death at the end of that arc as both the epitome and the end of the Buffy you described so well. Since then she's become more willing to accept that innocent people will die and sometimes she can't avoid it, will even cause it. She still tries to contain and minimize it, and she's still got a distinct approach (healing the enemy's injured afterward, for example) but I do think her moral boundaries are no longer as you described. She lit that cooperative vampire on fire in Tokyo and had her team hunt and kill every demon retreating the final fight. Sure, they're demons, but Buffy was never one to wage a total war before. She kinda is on demon opponents now. And she's much more willing to use violence on human opponents, as we've seen in her fights against soldiers.
I think of her death at the end of that arc as both the epitome and the end of the Buffy you described so well. Since then she's become more willing to accept that innocent people will die and sometimes she can't avoid it, will even cause it. She still tries to contain and minimize it, and she's still got a distinct approach (healing the enemy's injured afterward, for example) but I do think her moral boundaries are no longer as you described. She lit that cooperative vampire on fire in Tokyo and had her team hunt and kill every demon retreating the final fight. Sure, they're demons, but Buffy was never one to wage a total war before. She kinda is on demon opponents now. And she's much more willing to use violence on human opponents, as we've seen in her fights against soldiers.

Well said. She also wasn't one to rush in and save the humans from the vampires either. Buffy as the perfect hero who makes no moral compromises has not been in existence since she dove off that tower in The Gift.
She spent the better part of an episode methodically preparing to kill him. She even told Buffy and Xander she was going to do it.

This is true; but it was still an act of passion that was borne of grief, not a methodically planned act of murder.
Glad this is mainly of academic interest to me now* or I'd be more upset than I am.

(The Children of the Dale sub-version of the 'verse having split off from canon ine arly 2005 before Harmony's TV show *grin)
Angel killing Drogyn, Sebassis slave, and Lindsey were all terrible acts in my opinion. I always assumed they would have been explained if the show had gone on, like that Drogyn was immortal or something so it was a big fake-out. Maybe they will be now.
On the other hand I always thought that one of the worst decisions Buffy ever made was letting Ben live. If Giles hadn't done it, Dawn, and many other people would be dead or brain sucked. Even if Glory missed the dimensional opportunity, she would still have been around, torturing, killing, brain sucking. Pretty sure she would have started with Buffy and co.
Ridiculous decision. Made me question Buffy's intelligence.
vampmogs-I do think it was irredeemable, unlike what Willow did. Willow killing Warren can be justified; it was an act of passion, not an act of premeditated murder; it's not possible to justify the actions Angel took in "Power Play" and "Not Fade Away".

I don’t think an action is judged redeemable/irredeemable based on whether it can be justified or not. If you’re seeking atonement for something than chances are what you did was not justified.

Secondly, Willow’s actions were premeditated as Sunfire said above and she took great lengths to draw it out as long as possible. She tortured him with the bullet. Lindsey’s death was far more “humane.”

And I'm not placing all the blame on him-Lorne is just as culpable as Angel is for Lindsey's death. The difference between the two is that Lorne clearly had both guilt and remorse stamped on his face in his final scene and those are two things Angel has not shown; not just for Lindsey's murder but for Drogyn's death as well. (And Sebassis' slave, as Simon pointed out)

I think they did a good job at showing Angel was remorseful of what he had to do in Powerplay. It’s no coincidence that they structured the episode by showing Angel killing Drogyn out of context at the start of the episode and then followed it up with the scene between Angel/Nina in bed when he states he doesn’t like what he’s become. And I thought DB played Angel very remorseful when he says to Spike that he killed Drogyn -- you can hear it in his voice.

I understand you don't care for Lindsey. I never said he was an innocent but he was a character who was redeemable; Angel's treatment of him was at times callous, dismissive and fueled by anger. If you don't think so, I suggest you watch "Five by Five" & "Sanctuary", "Blind Date" & "To Shanshu in LA" back-to-back. Pay attention to the difference between Angel's treatment of Faith and Lindsey.

Look Angel is flawed, no doubt about that. And he did treat Faith and Lindsey to different standards but Faith wasn’t busy making excuses in LA about how her sucky life justifies her mistakes. She tried that in Sunnydale and Willow told her how moronic and pathetic that was. And Faith, once wanting to atone, hasn’t flip flopped back and forth between good and evil every 5 seconds. I don’t really understand why you consider Lindsey redeemable but not Angel – when he’s the one who’s dedicated the last 5 years to helping the helpless and trying to atone. Yes he’s made a few mistakes along the way but he’s also made a lot of great choices as well and has helped countless people. Faith and Darla are testament to that.


And I have to agree with others that Buffy’s moral centre is askew. Not lifting a finger to help the innocents being killed by vampires was, IMO, just as bad as Angel letting Darla and Dru kill the lawyers in S2. Buffy and Xander also mind wiped the guards Simone attacked and robbed banks.
And I have to agree with others that Buffy’s moral centre is askew. Not lifting a finger to help the innocents being killed by vampires was, IMO, just as bad as Angel letting Darla and Dru kill the lawyers in S2. Buffy and Xander also mind wiped the guards Simone attacked and robbed banks.

IMO, Buffy's actions were worse. Because they WERE innocents. Angel didn't kill the lawyers. The lawyers - the EVIL LAWYERS - brought that on themselves. Angel didn't try to save him and that can be argued as gray, but the writers also went out of their way to show that he wouldn't have been able to save them anyway.

And also, word to your whole post. Lindsey didn't WANT redemption. And when it was shown that there might be a chance, Angel DID help him - he helped him leave W&H. But Lindsey still chose the evil path and a return to W&H. So unlike Faith.
Couple thoughts:

1) I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up, but, for me the biggest Twilight mystery is why he didn't try talking to Buffy about it. Seems like a reasonable measure before starting a worldwide extermination campaign.

2) Scott Allie says he doesn't think Xander would be good for a one-shot like Willow's, but I disagree. The Zeppo, anyone?
Oh, that's definitely my biggest beef with Angel/Twilight right now too, dispatch, that he never tried to talk to Buffy before resorting to rather melodramatic measures. I can easily believe that he's working towards a worthy and not evil goal, and even that Buffy herself might turn out to be the bigger villain (inadvertently) because of her elitist "Slayers vs. the world" mindset, but talking to her could have saved a lot of lives on both sides and in general would have made much more sense. Unless, I dunno, it was part of his plan all along for her to get superpowers (which I still think have no place in the Buffyverse the shows set up) or something, and the only way for that to work was to do it the absurdly hard way.
lmblack21, Angel did not help Lindsey leave Wolfram & Hart. He quit on his own; saved Lilah's life doing it, too, if I recall correctly.
I think they did a good job at showing Angel was remorseful of what he had to do in Powerplay.

I don't think he showed one iota of remorse.

I don’t really understand why you consider Lindsey redeemable

Because Angel never really gave Lindsey a fair chance at it and I think he deserved that chance.

But not Angel

Because when you are on a path of redemption, you do not repeatedly, willfully commit acts that are morally wrong. How can you honestly say you're trying to redeem yourself if you do?
Yeah, he did actually, even if it wasn't asked for and wasn't Angel's intention. He even saved Lindsey's life in "Dead End". He tried to help him the first time Lindsey ASKED for help too in "Blind Date" - that epiphany Lindsey had lasted all of one episode. Not even, since by the end, Lindsey had gone full on evil with W&H again.

So to say that Angel never tried to help is factually incorrect. I wish Lindsey hadn't been evil, I loved his character and had hoped he was back to give Angel a kick in the pants because when Lindsey left he told Angel not to play their game...but sadly it's not the path the writers took with Lindsey. He had no desire for redemption.

And Angel believed he was going to die in that final battle in NFA and that Lindsey would take over as CEO of W&H, making it even worse with nobody to protect the citizens of L.A. So he made a decision to kill the evil guy. Boo hoo, let me wipe away my tears with my plastic hand. I saw Angel's order to take out Lindsey - with Lorne's full endorsement and cooperation - as a necessary thing to do to prevent further evil and mayhem in the event that Angel died. And I say, go Angel!

Because when you are on a path of redemption, you do not repeatedly, willfully commit acts that are morally wrong. How can you honestly say you're trying to redeem yourself if you do?

*cough*Lindsey*cough*

And redemption is an ongoing process. We fall, we get back up again. Doesn't mean we don't ever make mistakes again. It's like Buffy's epiphanies in season 6. She made them, she fell, she made them again...it's a process. Like life. And that was Joss' message in that the fight always goes on.

[ edited by lmblack21 on 2010-01-21 08:07 ]
No, actually, he didn't. Lindsey quit of his own free will.

*cough*Lindsey*cough*

That paragraph was about Angel, not Lindsey.

You see Angel as a hero. I don't.

I think the two of us should just agree to disagree.

[ edited by menomegirl on 2010-01-21 08:13 ]
You see Angel as a hero.

Unequivocally, yes. I'm thankful to believe Joss does as well since that's how he writes him, imo.

That paragraph was about Angel, not Lindsey.

Yes, but if you're going to claim that Lindsey is redeemable while Angel is not, the same standards should apply to him and it clearly does not. That was my not so veiled point.

I think the two of us should just agree to disagree.

Happily! :-)

[ edited by lmblack21 on 2010-01-21 09:33 ]
Well I know you guys have just agreed to disagree but if you don’t mind I’d like to just respond to the reply of my post :)

I don't think he showed one iota of remorse.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree then, but – how do you interpret the scene between Angel/Nina when he says “he doesn’t like what he’s becoming” if you don’t see it as a sign of remorse or guilt?

Because Angel never really gave Lindsey a fair chance at it and I think he deserved that chance.

I’m baffled because I think Lindsey was given plenty of chances and turned back to evil Every. Single. Time. Holland Manners offered him a way out in Blind Date but he chose the pay rise and fancy new office instead -- even after he saw what they were willing to do to those kids. After leaving in S2 (again after seeing his company’s fine work) he comes back in S5 to steal Angel’s job because “it’s everything he worked for.” Nobody but Lindsey is to blame for him constantly turning back to evil. IMO you’re using Angel as a scapegoat instead of placing the blame where it really belongs.

Because when you are on a path of redemption, you do not repeatedly, willfully commit acts that are morally wrong. How can you honestly say you're trying to redeem yourself if you do?

Of course you do, because you’re only “human” and make mistakes :) That’s the great thing about Angel -- he’s so very real. He falls down and he screws up but I don’t think you can honestly claim he isn’t trying to atone. He’s dedicated years to helping the helpless, to starting up AI, to living the world as how it should be. In Epiphany he states that he wants to help “because he doesn’t think people should suffer.” Does that sound like somebody who’s “irredeemably evil” to you? For every bad thing Angel has done he’s done 10 wonderful things. I’m not saying that nullifies his mistakes because it doesn’t but I’m not sure why his mistakes should cancel out all of the good things he’s done either.
Wow, sorry but no, a lot of Angel fans seem to want to bring Buffy down to his level. Buffy was never as dark,bad,evil as Angel has shown to be.
Season8 is a whole new ballgame, Twilight is the villian and we know from his words that he views Buffy as the hero and knowns perfectly well how to defeat her. By making her doubt the side she's on, which is the good side. And so far it seems to be working perfectly.
Because of all the heavy weight on her small shoulders she has started doing some questionable actions. Robbing banks,not saving those humans in the future, willing to kill humans now. Top that all off with having to fight a very smart enemy that has been able to manipulate humans into viewing slayers as the bad guys. Buffy is finally faltering, but in no way is it comperable to Angel, who often makes his mistakes voluntary.
Xander seems to be Buffy's greatest support at the moment, when Buffy and Twilight first fought, he already started to make her doubt there. It was Xander that convinced her of the righteousness of their cause.
Any way this was to be predicted when Twilght was revealed, the fandom very well maybe split in half, or perhaps Buffy 2/3 and Twilight 1/3, because there will always be more Buffy fans.
Wow, sorry but no, a lot of Angel fans seem to want to bring Buffy down to his level. Buffy was never as dark,bad,evil as Angel has shown to be.


I'd call that a radical interpretation of the text! I'm one of the biggest Buffy fans around, I know vampmogs is as well - though I'm not trying to speak for him.

NOBODY has said that Buffy is evil or bad - we're just saying we also don't see soulled Angel as evil or bad, which is what a lot of people (many clearly not fans of Angel) are claiming. We are saying that Buffy has made a lot of morally questionable decisions, JUST LIKE ANGEL and pointing out that that doesn't make a person "evil", "bad", or "irrideemable" as some have claimed Angel is. But it is a fact that a lot of the decisions made by one have been mirrored in the other and I personally think that can be the result of being THE ONE - THE hero/champion. The result of being the lead.

By comparing some of the choices we've seen Buffy make to ones Angel's made we are showing that Buffy is no longer this perfect ideal of a hero that she was in seasons 1-5. That changed after she jumped and has gotten, in some ways, progressively more obvious.Doesn't mean she isn't still a hero. Ditto for Angel. They are complex characters who are flawed and imperfect but strive for the best. That is the material point.

I'm sorry if you felt we were bashing Buffy in our defense of Angel but I can tell you that is certainly not something I'd have any desire to do since she is and will forever remain my favorite character.
Thank you for that lmblack21.

Regardless i still don't agree that Buffy and Angel are a like in that manner. And i think Twilight will in the end prove that. There are too many things wrong with his point of views and how he goes to achieve these views of his.
Fray's future has shown us that ending magic isn't the all end solution Twilight is making it out to be. It's humanity that is responsible for that dystopia future.

I don't think Buffy was ever this perfect ideal of a hero, but her mistakes were always far less grave and disturbing then Angel's. But most importantly like some have said, she is unwilling to betray her own ideals, so far. I do see that the pressure is very much rising for our sweet little Buffy and the scene with her broken and crying could be the breaking point for her. Like in season5 when she lost Dawn.
Regardless i still don't agree that Buffy and Angel are a like in that manner.

Not *exactly* alike, no. Of course Buffy, as a person who is not a vampire with a soul that can be removed, is going to be much less geared towards darkness. But I do think they have made a lot of similar life choices.

I've seen people condemn Angel for trying to lose his soul by having sex with Darla. That is tantamount to Angel trying to commit suicide. Juxtapose that with Buffy being suicidal and turning to Spike. Is it exactly the same? No, of course not, because Angel dying unleashes Angelus which is worse. But they are similar and make them both characters deserving of sympathy and compassion, imo, because it WAS motivated by a suicidal despair - not a desire on either part to hurt anyone.

I've seen people condemn Angel for not saving the lawyers from Darla and Dru, in fact say he killed them which is, strictly speaking, not true. He just didn't save them. And we found out later he would not have been able to at any rate. And then we juxtapose that with Buffy not trying to save the innocent humans from being killed by vampires. Which is worse in that scenario? IMO, it was Buffy's choice that was worse because the humans WERE innocents, not evil lawyers who unleashed Dru and Darla and then were surprised that they turned on them.

I've seen people condemn Angel for making decisions for other people, but Buffy (and others) have done that as well. Does it make them less heroic?

I've seen condemnation of Angel for mind-wiping his friends. Buffy has employed mind-wipes, so has Willow. Willow did it to her friends, does that make her evil and not redeemable? I don't think so.

I just don't see any of Angel's actions as being worse than many of the actions we've seen in other characters, including Buffy, and yet we still view them (the characters) as being overall heroic. Imo, Angel is no different.

Twilight might change that, it might not. Scott Allie has said we aren't asking the right questions because we don't have enough information and I'm inclined to give him (and Joss) the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. I can't believe Joss would throw away Angel's character and his entire redemptive arc, reaching back from season 1 of Buffy and through season 5 of Angel just to make him an irredeemable bad guy for Buffy to once again defeat.
I've seen people condemn Angel for trying to lose his soul by having sex with Darla. That is tantamount to Angel trying to commit suicide. Juxtapose that with Buffy being suicidal and turning to Spike. Is it exactly the same? No, of course not, because Angel dying unleashes Angelus which is worse. But they are similar and make them both characters deserving of sympathy and compassion, imo, because it WAS motivated by a suicidal despair - not a desire on either part to hurt anyone.


Not in the least comperable, both are very different situations.
Buffy wasn't suicidal, not there nor in season5 the gift as some people try to claim is the reason for her jumping. She was depressed when she started her relationship with Spike, but not suicidal. If Buffy wanted to die, she could have found a much better and easier method. The closest she came to doing that was in Once more with feeling and it was Spike that saved her. Buffy was with Spike in season6 because he was the only one that made her feel alive in the beginning.
Angel's situation was just plain selfish and arrogant. If he really wanted to die he should have just staked himself and not play russian roulette by risk unleashing Angelus. Wich again proves my point that he doesn't think things trough on what the consequences of his actions are.

I've seen people condemn Angel for not saving the lawyers from Darla and Dru, in fact say he killed them which is, strictly speaking, not true. He just didn't save them. And we found out later he would not have been able to at any rate. And then we juxtapose that with Buffy not trying to save the innocent humans from being killed by vampires. Which is worse in that scenario? IMO, it was Buffy's choice that was worse because the humans WERE innocents, not evil lawyers who unleashed Dru and Darla and then were surprised that they turned on them.


Again huge difference, first see where the characters are in their lives. Angel has barely started, only being in season2. Buffy is in season8 and is in the biggest fight of her life.
Angel folded quickly under the pressure, Buffy has been doing this a long time and the last two seasons(7,8), she has been put in a position Angel has never been. Grand general of an army. The Darla/Dru situation was also caused in part because of him and he didn't have anywhere urgently else to be. Hell he even showed up to give those people hope that they will be saved which he in turn crushes by walking out. Are they innocent? No. Does Angel have any right to decide who lives and who dies? No.
Buffy not saving those humans is totally different, she already has so much on her plate in the present, she can't be the savior of both the present and the future world. That's Fray's world. As a slayer she did wrong, as a girl she was just scared and alone and wanted to return to her time. Where her friends and family are. And lastly Buffy didn't cause that situation, it was by Harth or the vampires of that time. Buffy did want to fix it, but only by returning to the present. She just couldn't accept how badly the world turned out.

I've seen people condemn Angel for making decisions for other people, but Buffy (and others) have done that as well. Does it make them less heroic?


Buffy has never done this in as much as Angel has done or tried to control people,situations. And even so, it's been made clear several times, especially in season7. That Buffy is the slayer, that makes her the police of the supernatural.

I've seen condemnation of Angel for mind-wiping his friends. Buffy has employed mind-wipes, so has Willow. Willow did it to her friends, does that make her evil and not redeemable? I don't think so.


When did Buffy mind wipe her friends? Willow doesnt matter, she isn't the leader of the group, Buffy is. Just like how Angel was for his gang.
If you are the leader then you are subject to a whole lot of more critism,scrutiny,ect.
Just like how Xander is in a leader position this season and so far he's doing great.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree lmblack21. Because i definitely do not see Angel that way.
You are right tough, i can't speak for the rest of season8 and can only comment on what we know so far, so we'll see.
I agree that Angel fans can still hope, especially after Scott's very optimistic q&a question.
Buffy wasn't suicidal, not there nor in season5 the gift as some people try to claim is the reason for her jumping. She was depressed when she started her relationship with Spike, but not suicidal. If Buffy wanted to die, she could have found a much better and easier method. The closest she came to doing that was in Once more with feeling and it was Spike that saved her. Buffy was with Spike in season6 because he was the only one that made her feel alive in the beginning.
Angel's situation was just plain selfish and arrogant. If he really wanted to die he should have just staked himself and not play russian roulette by risk unleashing Angelus. Wich again proves my point that he doesn't think things trough on what the consequences of his actions are.


I never said Buffy was suicidal in season 5. But in season 6, yes, she was. She even says to Spike in "Gone" that she wants to be "free of this life" and by the end of the episode, she admits to Willow that while she once would have welcomed it, finally, she "doesn't wanna die". That was progress for her. Because previously she DID want to die. She wanted that peace of heaven back again. In short, she WAS suicidal. She was with Spike because feeling something - even if it ultimately was worse for her - was better than feeling *nothing*.

I've already said that Angel's action was worse because of Angelus, but it's no less sympathetic imo. So no, I don't agree that he was selfish and arrogant anymore than Buffy was. Rather, he was just as depressed and suicidal as Buffy was. Neither made great choices during that time of their life. Ironically, they both even mirror each other in what they say/discover/do. Angel finds out that hell is on Earth and says he wants to feel something "other than the cold", Buffy discovers that hell is on Earth, says her friends can't "face the cold" and just wants to feel something. Both turn away from their friends and to a soulless blonde vampire, using them. Of course I am sympathetic to them both. Wrong actions were taken by both but for both it was due to severe depression and suicidal actions.

Again huge difference, first see where the characters are in their lives. Angel has barely started, only being in season2. Buffy is in season8 and is in the biggest fight of her life.

No, Angel had been in the fight since season 1 of Buffy. So he hasn't barely started. And Buffy is ALWAYS in the biggest fight of her life. They just get bigger as her life goes on. And suggesting that she shouldn't try to save human lives from vampires (hello, vampire slayer here) because it's "not her world" and therefore not her problem is wrong on an epic grand scale imo. Why is it okay for Buffy to ignore the plight of innocent humans but wrong for Angel to ignore the plight of evil lawyers? After all, that wasn't his fight either, he didn't bring it on.

Buffy has never done this in as much as Angel has done or tried to control people,situations. And even so, it's been made clear several times, especially in season7. That Buffy is the slayer, that makes her the police of the supernatural.

So because Buffy hasn't done it "as much", it's okay? Buffy is not the only character to do this. My point was that it's not fair to condemn one character for having a trait that many, many characters - not just Buffy as I've said - have. It doesn't make Angel less heroic. It makes him the person - LIKE BUFFY - who has to make those choices. Just as Buffy is "the chosen one", so is Angel chosen for a higher purpose, by TPTB. That is exactly what I mean when I say they are so similar.

When did Buffy mind wipe her friends? Willow doesnt matter, she isn't the leader of the group, Buffy is. Just like how Angel was for his gang.

Buffy mind-wiped the guards - see vampmogs post. And so, it doesn't matter if Willow or anyone else does it as long as the leaders don't do it? It's okay for Buffy to mind-wipe people as long as they aren't her friends? Double standards run amok.

And point of clarification cause it bugs me....what happened with Angel's friends was not a "mind-wipe". The only thing that happened was that the memory of Connor was removed from their memories. This was not some sort of mystical lobotomy for heaven's sake. No other alteration was made, no harm brought to his friends as a result. This is more like Buffy and the gang having their memories altered by the insertion of Dawn, only with them it has been a lasting effect. With Angel's gang it lasted less than a season. I just don't see that as being all that evil, nor evil at all. Wrong, perhaps. But not evil. Especially not when taken into consideration with the fact that he did it to save Connor. A parent's love knows no bounds.

If you are the leader then you are subject to a whole lot of more critism,scrutiny,ect.
Just like how Xander is in a leader position this season and so far he's doing great.


Clearly by some people, yes. Xander is no more in a leader position than Willow, so why do we not hold Willow to the same high standards? Xander has encouraged Buffy to do some of these morally questionable things - like bank robbing - while Willow has questioned it.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree lmblack21.

And that, as with other posters, I can very happily agree with. :-)

[ edited by lmblack21 on 2010-01-21 18:54 ]
And that, as with other posters, I can very happily agree with. :-)


Yeah definitely, there's not a single point i would agree with you on.
Cheers tough for the disscusion.
Yeah definitely, there's not a single point i would agree with you on.

Cheers though for the discussion.


Ditto! :-)
Hey guys. I made a poll on my livejournal about some of the things we've been discussing here. If you have an LJ and would like to express your opinion through a vote, please drop by.
As if the writer lurks here, today's Ecocomics entry is Externalities: Angel Edition. It's brief but good stuff. Includes images from Angel #29.
Scott Allie said:
"I don't count as canon those early comics we did with Jane and Doug, before Joss was working directly with us, like Ring of Fire and Haunted."

There's absolutely no reason to disregard "Haunted" (the Faith/Mayor 4-issue mini-series that was later collected as a trade paperback and takes place between Buffy Seasons 3 and 4). There've never been references made to it in the show/on Angel/in the Season 8 comics, but it was written by Jane and there is a nice bit of value in it in bridging the gap between the final highschool year and the first college year. The Initiative getting set up under Sunndydale and giving us a glimpse of who Adam was and what he meant to Professor Maggie Walsh (he was her right hand man...maybe more?).

I agree that Doug Petrie's "Ring of Fire" graphic novel needs to be considered outside of continuity (even though it's the first Buffy comic I really liked, Ryan Sook's art was very fitting too), but only because of what happens with Drusilla and how I don't think Angelus and Spike would be so forgiving of her betrayal. It is a really cool piece of Season 2 Mutant Enemy-written fan-fiction though.

I'm not sure Joss has ever commented on those two titles though (Jane's and Doug's), so who knows what they count as. Because nothing about Jane's doesn't fit, I see no reason not to include it, since she made the effort to both make it fit (Petrie could've avoided the Drusilla inconsistency) and bothered to reveal new info to us.

I forgot about that "Broken Bottle of D'jinn" Tales of the Slayers one-shot (not the same as the Tales of the Slayer graphic novel that included that story about The First, Nikki Wood, the Fray coda, and whatnot). I know at least Jane contributed to it (can't remember who wrote the first story in it), but I can't remember if it was any good and whether it fit comfortably between episodes of the show.

There was another story, I forget which one-shot it was contained in, that was called something like "Bad Dog" (I think Doug Petrie wrote it) and featured a Season 3 (no, maybe Season 2?) story featuring Oz and Willow. I think that one fit okay, though it was unremarkable (was skimming old Buffy comics recently to pick out ones for a friend who's making his way through the show--he only wanted ones by the show's writers that fit into the show or are any good, so "Haunted" was what I first thought of, before I later give him Tales of the Slayer, Fray, Tales of the Vampires, and Season 8...when it's time, when each series won't spoil him).

[ edited by Kris on 2010-01-22 07:22 ]

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