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
"Oh, look at my poor neck... all bare and tender and exposed."
11945 members | you are not logged in | 18 December 2014




Tweet







March 03 2010

Wolfram & Hart: Example of Bad Villain(s)? io9's Charlie Jane Anders specifically points out our favorite law firm of "Angel" as an example of the worst kind of villainy.

I am in a complete and total (and very respectful) disagreement with this. I loved Wolfram & Hart and hated Jasmine/Beast. Season 2 is my absolute favorite, while I find Season 4 (with the notable exception of Wes/Lilah story line) by far the weakest. To each their own. Nothing wrong with that.
Though I agree that it was frustrating to watch Wolfram & Hart yank Angel's chain, I don't see how Jasmine did any differently. She wanted Angel as an ally at first, and only tried to kill him after he brought her down.
I mostly favored season 4 (then a lesser extent 5) but I could get Jasmine's motivations more easily. She didn't need to make him stand with her since he was willing to do so beforehand. Plus I do enjoy that sort of twist ending where effectively Angel and gang were the antagonists of the story who still didn't want to outright kill those bringing about world peace. (I note they did leave out the weird Cordy possession thing though even if they did like the rest of it.)
I disagree with the article completely. I adored Wolfram Hart for the simple reason that they were the enemy of Angel, and there was pretty much nothing either side could do about the other. Jasmine is my least favourite villain of the entire Buffyverse - but I do like the Beast.
My feelings about W&H depended on who embodied them at the time. Holland Manners was really good evil.
I thought the Beast was quite boring and loved Wolfram & Hart and quite liked Jasmine, when she finally appeared. I recognise some of the frustations of these guys (this kind of thing can be terribly annoying) but don't agree with a lot of the examples given here (both with their specific instances and their more general type of excuses).

ETA: And Manners was an exceptionally great villain indeed.

[ edited by the Groosalugg on 2010-03-03 19:31 ]
I'm pretty sure it's really just a "monday" thing... if you don't have a reason not to kill the hero what's the alternative (except to actually kill the hero)? there's just two I can think of: a) one big battle in which the villain is killed or b) the villain tries to kill the hero over and over and over again and just fails every time.

so, no. I agree, the reason shouldn't be a lame one. but if you want to keep a villain around you definitely need one. and I personally liked the whole "we need angel for the apocalypse"-thing. it's clever, it doesn't give anything away, it keeps you guessing whether he'll be on the good or the evil side of it, it's exciting 'cause you know it's going to be big, it keeps both the villain and the hero around and in this case even without making it boring (because it feels too safe): they always had lawyers around you didn't give a damn about the apocalypse.

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