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
"Carrots! Medicinal carrots! Personal use medicinal carrots that were here when I moved in and I'm holding it for a friend!"
11945 members | you are not logged in | 31 October 2014




Tweet







August 26 2010

(SPOILER) Preview for Buffy #36. It's the beginning of the final arc of Season 8.

So, where does that fit into the timeline, in terms of After the Fall presumably being considered (yes, here we go) canon?

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2010-08-26 22:38 ]
If Twilight is future Angel, where's past Angel in all this?
Huh. I hadn't thought of that.
Also I don't care if it's canon or not, I just want the Angels to meet and freak each other out. "My hair really looks like that?"
The way I see it:

AtF is (maybe) canon and Hell A is at the very least getting a nod, so a reality wipe this Power That Dog is going to start causing destruction until Twilight is born. I think Twangel has a serious shot at redemption here.
I don't think Hell-A is being mentioned here. This seems like a Future-Angel coming back, after losing some war that destroyed L.A. and probably more ("ruins").
I wonder if he's from the future that we saw in After The Fall.
Yep. A talking dog. In Buffy. Yep.
I know it's ridiculous. What next? A talking ventriloquist dummy or giant hamburger in the Buffyverse?
So excited for this....So glad to see that my concerns about Angel are to be addressed. I am, though, a little trepidacious that this may be meant to be Angel's return from a Hell-A...which is obviously different from what was actually included in After the Fall. Of course, it may be along the lines of what Simon suggests, or something else entirely. I'm looking forward to next Thursday!
Not a talking dog. A powers that be possessing a dog. (Does anyone else think he looks like "1" from we3?) And yes, the question is, when did all this take place?
That dog seems perfectly in keeping with the TV series to me....
Oh, and don't forget, for all you British readers out there, this Monday's a bank holiday, so we won't get this book till Friday. Sucks to be us. (Apart from the holiday on monday bit.)
Not having read ATF, I assumed that this was Angel post-ATF, but before Season Eight. That the destruction referred to was in ATF, but that version of LA has been overwritten by this PTD (see above ;). Does that not work? Potentially this could be quite confusing given that some readers of S8 will have read ATF and some not.

And yeah, despite the reasoning, I didn't care for a talking dog either.
Good catches Simon -- "talking dog" complaints would fit coming from a new member of the audience, but that's about it.

As for the preview... just more excuses. Angel is actually getting WORSE for me every time they try to dig him out of his hole. Because he obviously knows up front that it's stupid to take this seriously. The indications here are that he's come from some possible future or whatever where he expected LA to be completely destroyed, but... just because the talking dog is standing there talking about it doesn't mean he has any real information or power or authority. Angel KNOWS that, he does *remember* Skip, right?
Buffy TVS had an episode where teenagers zapped a character with an invisibilty ray gun. She then had lots of invisiosex for fun.
As for the preview... just more excuses. Angel is actually getting WORSE for me every time they try to dig him out of his hole.


Well Whistler said in the Riley one-shot that there's many time-lines. What if this future Angel is a slightly different Angel from the one we know.
Simon, at this point I might prefer it if Twilight is secretly an electric blue Angel and IDW Angel turns out to be an electric red Angel.
The Simpsons had a talking dog
If we can nitpick the logic of a talking dog in the Buffyverse then I can nitpick this: Contemporary TV and movies always show the modern Hollywood sign to be lit by large lights at the base. There are no lights in real life. Congrats to Joss and/or George and/or Scott for not including them here. Does make you wonder where all that light is coming from up there though...
Love that ref King. That was a Super low point for DC....
@Sparticus
I thought the same about we3!
@marvelknight616 Jeanty does draw quite like Morrison in some places. That's high praise seeing as Morrison is pretty much the best comic book artist of all time ever right now.
KingofCretins! A Superman reference! Kudos!

(And I actually liked the blue electric storyline, but when they split him in two and tried to put him back together it lost my interest completely. Which is sad because I had been collecting the series since pre-Death of Superman.)

[ edited by didifallasleep on 2010-08-26 23:39 ]
I'm confused myself.Is this a future Angel or an alternate Angel?
It's not the logic of the "talking dog" that I have an issue with, it's just pretty lame (though nowhere near as bad as the giant hamburger ;). Having animals talk is a very overused concept.

Can I ask why it seems like a future Angel rather than just post-ATF?
Well, I gotta say that I like the talking dog better than the telepathic fish. (also, I liked the talking hamburger. it was awesome)

And the artwork looked much better to me.

Hopefully, Joss can work miracles. But I'm not holding my breath.

Waiting to see.
Because in the context of ATF, Angel is returned to the normal timeline. Not in what follows, but in the actual text of "After the Fall." And if Dark Horse is making their Angel tales line up with IDW's, it's impossible that this picks up from ATF.

Also, the opening is very, very Donnie Darko.
I really liked the dog. He was funny. And I was digging the whole preview. The art was great. Still haven't the faintest idea in what the hells going on, but it's good to be finally getting new comics.
Very much so. And, no, this can't line up with anything we've already seen from IDW.

Assuming we're talking about the same Angel.

I wasn't choosing a reference to crappy comic storylines at random -- red Superman, blue Superman. Two Spider-Man(s). I think we're about to walk into that deep, dark place that is two of Angel.

Which actually means there *is* something you can tie this back to in "Angel: After the Fall", Issue #16 and $17.
Thanks, patxshand. Puzzling.
I thought Donnie Darko as well...
I have NO idea what's going on though with this, I guess we just have to wait and see
KingofCretins,
I don't specifically remembers issues 16 and 17 or AtF. Could you explain your reference?
Wouldn't the "Re-Set"{ mean AtF took *no* real time?
Well, in one instance we have Angel... killed. Or at least a version of him* that is being held out of time in the Partner's pocket dimension. So right there you have a vehicle for establishing a new or different Angel to go parallel to the other one. That, of course, and the nature of the pocket dimension itself. It is, in a manner of speaking, a collapsing timeline.

But the thing that sticks out to me... the building. The W&H office. What if it wasn't gone because it was gone, what if it was gone because everybody else was?

Upshot -- Electric Red Angel goes on with IDW's series as usual. Electric Blue Angel thinks the world has ended but surprisingly hasn't and he gets manipulated into being Twilight by evil forces to avert a future that wasn't happening. Meaning Electric Blue Angel is the amoral jackass I've been complaining about.
can't wait can't wait. this is the best thing to come home to from a long day of classes.

I understand if you're upset about the current story line... but saying the writers are trying to dig him out of a hole doesn't really make sense to me. I mean I get what you're saying, but digging out of a hole seems to be a reactionary thing, and I would think that some of this key Universe stuff was plotted long before fans freaked out.
KoC, this theory of yours does not line up. AtF Angel was human. There is no way human can survive shooting through the H-wood sign and remain standing. Thus this must be some post-post AtF event.
Well, the end of the preview suggests that we're about to see Angel's first actions as Twilight. The crashing plane, and the "dog" saying that he (well, he has balls) keeps waiting for Angel to "feel it".
I realize that introducing the possibility that the Angel from 8.34 is only "mostly" or "kinda" or "also" Angel sort of tips a sacred narrative cow, but the fact that "After the Fall" Angel was human means nothing. That guy, if you want to get metaphysical, died anyway. Angel that came out of Hell-A is already discontinuous with that human Angel in a way anyway, so the idea that there were two thereafter somehow instead of one is hardly impossible. If a stupid stick can make it happen, than being shoved into a pocket dimension that collapses could.
I agree with KoC -- and I personally love the idea that W&H got what they wanted: they keep pocket Angel alive and trick him into being Twilight, making him on their side of the Apocalypse without even knowing it. Who cares what stupid real Angel is doing? Then, it makes "Last Gleaming" not only the end of the Season 8 arc but also the capper to After the Fall, and possibly the fulfillment of Wesley's "Shan-shu" revelation will make more sense and absolves real Angel of both amoral turns. I nearly got chills with the "what if the W&H building wasn't gone, everybody else was."

Also, when you say "that Angel was human", your internal logic is flawed -- because neither Angel could fly, had superstrength, or, most importantly, could have sex with Buffy without losing his soul. That last one would point to this being human Angel, and that the real Angel is back in L.A. or some version thereakin still. It would make Allie and Joss's claims that Twilight did not interfere with IDW's continuity finally make sense.

The last possibility other than alternate timeline future Angel is that L.A. is about to burn to the ground in IDW's last arc, the thought of which is freaking me out a bit.
This was a really cool preview and like others, I have no idea what's going on yet but I am very interested to see it all play out. Otherwise, it's always kinda entertaining to see all the extreme reactions to any new information we get.

I keep getting a visual of some fans, clicking their ruby slippers together and whispering.."Angel is evil, Angel is evil, Angel is evil..." lol
So many interesting theories up thread... psyched about this next ep.

And I liked the dog. I just hope he says 'Squirr-l!' at some point too....
Don't need ruby slippers to think that. You need eyes and english fluency. There's no way out of the "evil", there's only possibly a way out of the "Angel". Whoever this is -- Angel, Electric Blue Angel, Future/Alternate Angel -- it's a person who has traded any sense of honor or heroism or, for that matter, common sense in exchange for vaguely defined prophecies and a completely self-serving vision of himself creating a new reality with his ex-girlfriend.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2010-08-27 02:52 ]
Angel is evil.

See? I don't need no stinking ruby slippers.
Am I going to be able to follow this since I have not been reading Angel ATF? It's kind of frustrating.

[ edited by luv4whedon on 2010-08-27 03:16 ]
I keep getting a visual of some fans, clicking their ruby slippers together and whispering.."Angel is evil, Angel is evil, Angel is evil..." lol

LOL! Yes, people have firmly established opinions that will not waver, no many what new information may come, in spite of the fact that we still CLEARLY have so little information to make any kind of really (*cough*unbiased*cough), informed opinion now, let alone later.

This issue just makes that more obvious to me - because we have NO CLUE what is happening here. But I am, like you, intrigued and eager to find out.

And I have both eyes AND English proficiency, so the snarky insults aren't necessary. Not surprising, but not necessary.

Also happy that once again an Angel pov has Buffy looming prominently for him. *heart*

[ edited by lmblack21 on 2010-08-27 03:34 ]
There has not been any new information that's actually making Angel look better off morally than the terrible. The fact that he doesn't want to lie to Buffy makes it worse. The fact that he knows listening to mysterious talking dogs is crazy makes it worse that he does.

The most absurdly biased of anybody in "Buffy" topics are the half dozen or so fans who are unironically treating Angel as though, in Season 8, he is still some clear-cut beacon of light and heroism.
I fully admit my opinion is biased. I've thought Angel was evil since he killed Drogyn and conspired to murder Lindsey. I have seen nothing since to alter my opinion.
I don't know ... when I first saw the Twangel reveal online, I thought it was a joke; and I thought he was wildly out of character in the spacefrakking issue and its aftermath. Actually I thought those whole two issues were completely ridiculous and annoying, and they kind of made me feel cheated--I've been buying these comics for three years, and *this* is the payoff?

But at this point I'm cautiously optimistic about the final arc. And the thing that made the difference, oddly enough, was the Riley issue.

As many people have noted, at great length, the idea of Angel being willing to let the whole world be destroyed just so he and Buffy could be together made no sense. It's not consistent with the Angel we know from five seasons of his own series, five seasons in which he was his own person, separate from Buffy, and had other people (esp. Connor) whom he cared for deeply.

But in the Riley issue, we saw things from Angel's POV for the first time in the whole "season." And we saw Angel--apparently near the beginning of the whole Twilight experience--tormented by doubts, being given a choice by Whistler: the girl or the world. And, to all appearances, judging from this issue alone, he chose the world over Buffy.

Which is exactly what she does, given essentially the same choice (happiness with Angel, or the world).

So I'm wondering .... what if we can't take anything Angel has said at face value? What if he was secretly hoping, all along, that Buffy would reject "Twilight" and all that it entailed? What if he knew that she had to make that choice, to save the world?

None of this would mean that Angel wasn't misled or lied to, or that he hasn't done some horrible, unforgivable things in the service of (what he thought was) the greater good. He could have been completely wrong--and even if he was partly right, some of the events he's implicated in are unjustifiable.

But ... Angel as a guy who's tortured, who fears his making the wrong decision, who feels trapped by destiny/fate, who chooses to save the world (which includes Connor) even at the expense of hurting wearing a stupid costume and hurting Buffy? A guy who goes lets innocent people die because he thinks it's necessary? A guy who thinks he's saving the world, but is actually maybe making things worse? A guy who, let's face it, plans stupidly? A guy with an at-best ambiguous role in events that are shaping up to be mega-apocalypsy?

Well, yeah. That's starting to sound like the Angel I know.
Why are people confused about which Angel this is? To me, it's pretty clear that since the Angel comics are going to be leading into season 8 (as per Chris Ryall and Scott Alie's recent interviews), this seemingly takes place sometime after the last issue of Angel: Aftermath (or whatever it's called now). Simple?

Also, there's no real indication that any time travel has happened. Could've been dimension-hopping.
OMG, this is great.

So, in the Riley one-shot that was not actually Whistler just the current dog inhabitant? Nice
There is never enough preview! and oh how i hate those combo names "TWangle"??? seriously. :P
Okay, the cover of this must have been previously posted and I missed it, because it seems impossible that nobody's commented on the hilariousness of it yet.
Agreed treenie, on both counts. Very little information is given in the preview and seems to serve to confuse rather than answer. Those combo names can become quite silly.

Luc...the thing with Angel being Twilight is that he was never going to be evil OR if somehow he was, he wasn't going to stay that way. I have been patiently waiting to see the why's and what's but always knew there was a dang good reason that Angel needed to do this.
From my persepective, which has very little bearing on anything other than my imagination at this point, it appears as if Angel has been trust forth into the future that transpired because he worked with Buffy and they lost...this dog seems to be implying that Angel can't do it Buffy's way because they lose and that would set up the perfect reason that he finally choses to become Twilight...he already did it the other way and lost.
Cheryl said:
From my perspective... it appears as if Angel has been trust forth into the future that transpired because he worked with Buffy and they lost...


My thoughts are right there with you! I can fully believe Angel was forced into the role of Twilight due to a previous attempt to work alongside Buffy and watched everything fall to ruins. This idea of a reset with Angel being thrust back also falls in line with what we've seen in regards to the Buffyverse rewriting itself (Dawn, "Will You Remember Me?", Connor after S4, and Hell-A) so this is nothing too new either.

I was never fully convinced about Twangel until reading these preview pages. Can't wait until the 1st of the month!
My pet theory is that he's come from the future, where he's been romantically involved with Future Dark Willow, ever since Joss decided to turn yet another convention on its head and made Willow turning evil also turn her heterosexual.

...or not?
The Angel in the Riley one shot hadn't seen all those futures; Whistler had to tell him about it. Angel's response: "Really? You've seen this?"

So I'm not seeing how to square that with the idea that before that Angel got back from the future having seen the timeline himself.

Menomegirl, how is it biased to think that ordering the murder of someone in cold blood is evil?
I meant that I'm biased against Angel being a hero because he did those things. Maybe biased is the wrong word.
I guess the evil/hero/villain angle is kind of lost on me in terms of response to Angel as Twilight. I feel like both Buffy and Angel kind of eschewed those lines quite ago on television.

At this point I just want to know what these really interesting, kind of awesome, kind of fucked up group of people are doing with the huge roles that they play in the world they're in. I mean from Buffy vs. Dracula, it was established that Buffy was a big player on a global scale and not just in the locality of good old Sunnydale. Now she's got this huge army and way more resources so this global/earthshaking/spacefrakkin' event kind of felt like a culmination of things. These guys are a big deal to both the world and the Powers that mess with it.

I don't know, I guess my emotional reaction is less "I am so upset with what Angel did!" -And I mean he has done quite a few, or is that a lot of things, that may be considered on the more naughty side of the moral scale... so is this new characterization? really? or just Angel trying to do what he thinks is right and messing up as per often?- I'm more just thinking "why?" and that's what I'm excited to see

menomegirl-- I completely understand why you're not down with all the Angel stuff considering your objection to his actions as a character/ not considering him a hero. Everyone consumes media for different reasons and are attracted to different kinds of characters, I get that.

[ edited by Cazador on 2010-08-27 07:25 ]
There have six glimpses of the future in Buffy Season 8 and After The Fall. The events that happened with Buffy and future Willow in Fray's time, Buffy lying in pain on the floor, Buffy and Spike fighting against an unseen monster, old (human?) Angel saying "I never expected to see that face again" (quoting from memory) and there's Spike holding a sycthe as well (with Spider?) and also vampire Angel and the apocalypse.
I admit, I don't understand what happens. Are there two Angels? The first, who talked to Whistler in Riley one-shot, didn't know about the future in which he loses the war; the second, who arrived through the wormhole, is from that future.

Or it's just a continuity error?

The dog from "Lost" is hilarious, but he (it?) makes BtVS too close to Simpsons. The story becomes - how to say it? - openly lampoon-ish. But maybe it's better - this way it's easier to accept these grotesque events.
Whatever has been building, as Simon points above, must be something about the future and alternate visions of it. I think this is going to be something like what happened when Buffy was flying. At first everyone was like "Flight?" and then you read back through the comics and realised how ridiculously foreshadowed it was.

Joss has always said that the reason this series exists is partially to explain how we can go from the end of Season 7 with 10,000 Slayers to Fray with it's no slayers. They could have either written a storyline that was in effect "the end of magic" or they could have shown has that was just one future vision that existed, that somehow Buffy avoided by creating 10,000 slayers. Maybe There are the two futures and Angel has been pushing for the third option because both suck. I don't know.
"Buffy lying in pain on the floor,
old (human?) Angel saying "I never expected to see that face again" (quoting from memory) and there's
Spike holding a sycthe as well (with Spider?)"


I don't remember those. Where are they from?
Buffy lying in pain was in issue 10 "Anywhere but Here", the Angel and Spike appearances were in After The Fall. I'm sure someone can fill you in on which particular issue as I don't have the tpbs to hand at the moment.
Spike holding an axe (which in a recent Q&A has been retconned to black scythe by Lynch) was in AtF #4, if I recall correctly. Can't remember the others... never had to look those up. But fairly certain that Spike's flashforward is in #4.
For what It's worth, my intial reaction to this is there goes my theory that things couldn't get any stupider....

Can't grasp fully whats going on in it (which I suspect is the point) and I have the feeling that even after I've read the whole issue things will still be just as unclear, and probabaly just as utterly ridiculous.

So, sad that the Buffyverse has come to this dross...:(

[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2010-08-27 12:31 ]
Luc...the thing with Angel being Twilight is that he was never going to be evil OR if somehow he was, he wasn't going to stay that way. I have been patiently waiting to see the why's and what's but always knew there was a dang good reason that Angel needed to do this.
From my persepective, which has very little bearing on anything other than my imagination at this point, it appears as if Angel has been trust forth into the future that transpired because he worked with Buffy and they lost...this dog seems to be implying that Angel can't do it Buffy's way because they lose and that would set up the perfect reason that he finally choses to become Twilight...he already did it the other way and lost.


Time flows forwards, still, right? Twilight did many evil things before he was unmasked. They didn't stop being evil when he turned out to be Angel, FFS.

The fact that Angel has been told (not shown, told) that what he did was the only thing he could do doesn't make it not evil, either. I mean, let's play the old time travel game, but instead of asking "if you could kill Hitler before he rose to power, would you", let's ask, if Hitler was told by a freaking talking dog that the 'final solution' was necessary to save the world and that everything else he could try would fail, would the Holocaust have suddenly become moral, or heroic? OF COURSE NOT. Unless I missed a rule where it's okay to torment, terrorize, persecute, and kill as long as you are drawn in a David Boreanaz likeness and will get to have photogenic sex with someone drawn in a Sarah Michelle Gellar likeness, then, no, nothing Twilight did suddenly becomes good or heroic.
Boom! Godwin strikes again.
If the Holocaust was necessary to prevent the destruction of the rest of the world then that doesn't make it heroic, but it does certainly make it a necessary and lesser evil of the two options.
But that's really not how our world works - killing innocents to prevent a greater evil. To reference the tangent the last posts went onto: Guernica, Coventry, Stalingrad, Dresden, Hiroshima. All. Completely. Unneccessary. To stop evil.

(And no, going off on the fascism thing isn't going to do a single good thing to this topic: While we may rant and rave, enjoy or loathe BtVS it is really not serious at all. Fascism, on the other hand, is really very serious, and very real.)
I would prefer if we didn't resort to using Hitler analogies during conversation about Buffy season 8. If we could restrict ourselves to talking about the preview and what it means for the characters then that would be smashing.
(I just lost my entire first post so I'm having to type this out again!)

Ok, I'm kinda confused. This is future/alternate timeline-Angel. It would make sense that he'd turn into Twilight seeing as he alreeady lost the war. But the one who becomes Twilight-Angel is our Angel since in the Riley one-shot he didn't know about other timelines. So there are two Angels. Or at least, there were at one point. Does that make sense?

My concern is - and I think that others may share this - that we haven't as yet gained an idea of what Joss is trying to say with this story. What is its purpose? In every season of Buffy and Angel it's been clear what he was exploring or what message he was trying to convey. That hasn't happened yet with the comics. I'm still really interested in the comics and since Joss is writing the final arc I'm hoping we'll undertsand at last. Joss still had a story to tell and he's been planning it for 3 years so I still believe there is something.

KoC. I certainly don't condone what Angel did, or seems to have done. Yes, they were evil and there's no way you can make them un-evil. But that doesn't mean that Angel himself is evil. At this point of confusedness, it seems clear that there is a reason behind this (however complicated, stupid or misguided it may be) and Angel just didn't go 'Mwhahaha! Let's go kill some folk!'. Knowing Angel, there'll probably be months of brooding and remorse later, too. We still don't have all the details, which is why I'm reserving an judgement on Angel until later and I'm not just going to go march to the beat of the 'Angel is irrevocably evil!!' drummer, or any other drummer, in fact.

And I really don't think that the Holocaust - the systematic and cold-blooded herding, torture and gassing of 6 million Jews, gypsies, disabled people, other non-'Aryans' because they were considered sub-human and not part of a 'master-race' - can be used as a way to support any argument about what's happening in Buffy.
I agree with norwie's opinion and would like to underline it.
Edited: Sorry, Simon, I haven't seen your request to avoid Hitler analogies when I wrote this post in the first place.

So, instead of arguing about validity of Angel's actions, I'd love to ask two questions.

One - about the timeline. I see the timeline this way.

Everything that happened on IDW happened before the flashback in #36 preview. On the preview pages of #36. Angel gets to BtVS from where he has been on IDW. PTB try to talk to him through dogs and birds. He doesn't agree to work for them. Then the flashbacks in Riley one-shot happened. PtB sent Whistler to convince Angel. He finally accepted and became Twilight. Then the current BtVS storyline starts: in issue 1 Twilight was spying on slayers when they attack the secret lab.

Do you see it differently? Are there any clues I have missed?

And the second question: could enybody provide the exact Joss quote: that he will never write a time-travel story because time-travel stories don't make sense? I know that it's a very old quote - fans discussed it back in 2004 when "Timebomb" aired.

But still - maybe somebody can point in the right direction?

[ edited by Moscow Watcher on 2010-08-27 13:52 ]
Maybe #36 Angel entering in the S8 universe, starts forgetting things? In the Riley one-shot he forgot he had seen the future, later he forgets his AtS and AtF time (no reference to any of those characters). I don't know, like a side effect of the time/alternate realms travel.
I'm getting the impression--from Whistler making excuses for Twilight in the Riley one-shot, from this preview--that there's some backtracking going on. I really do get the feeling that Joss, back when he was outlining season 8, didn't expect the reaction he eventually got to Twilight's behavior and is now trying to "retroactively justify" some things, which is helped along by the fact that (I would assume) the only way to really link his Twilight stuff with IDW's Angel is to start retconning anyway, at least to a degree. I think the talking dog is the normal amount of goofy for the Buffyverse. What I like is that Angel thinks the dog is stupid, as he should. My question is--why didn't he think the gimp outfit he would wear as Twilight was stupid? (Because, oh Lord, it is.) Why didn't he think the whole idea of destroying the world so he could boff his ex-girlfriend was stupid? Why didn't he think trusting vague prophecies handed down from various "Powers" was stupid, after what happened with Skip?
BEST COVER EVER!!!

I can't wait for this issue! Finally back to a Joss written arc:)
Re-posting from another forum here.

Future Dark Willow did exactly what she was telling - made sure that Fray future world existed. Killing Willow in the past was the event that triggered Buffy's decision to retreat to Tibet and decide to use Oz's method to loose all the magic - and that was that lowest of the low point - when the Slayers were attacked by Twilight at complete disadvantage and helpless when the final sublimation of anger into positive energy happened and Buffy transcended.

Makes sense that to Angel exact same transition happened sometime in one of the alternative futures - when he lost the war ( I assume in that future he was alone without transcended Buffy) and saw the world crumble before his very eyes - thats when the anger and the loss caused him to gain his superpowers. And that's when the PtBs snatched him and transported him back to the moment when the reversal was still possible - pulling him out of the timeline and basically repeating the same trick as the W&H did in AtF , only with no one but Angel being aware of what had happened.

Mind that even a vampire probably won't be strong enough to push up that fallen letter 'O' in HOLLYWOOD - but Twilight would. Which sort of proves that transcendence happened already - as result of that future event.

In one shot Whistler talks of many possible futures btw, and in one of them they would loose the same war 'together' - whereas as I see it Angel already had lost the war 'alone' in one of the alternative futures.
Not an analogy, but a historical fact; theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer didn't try to justify his participation in the plot to kill Hitler. He wrote that it remained murder and wrong but unavoidable. If Angel reads Sarte's Nausea maybe he's also read Letters and Papers From Prison. Maybe even Joss has.

Then again, I like the idea of Twilight being an Angel pulled out of soem low point in his past and given a separate life, except it reminds me too much of soem elements of Fritz Leiber's Change War stories which never made sense to me, and Joss may have also read those.

On the third hand, I only know the Frayverse from the crossvoer issues and didn't at all like what I saw of it so that acts as a "dis-enticer" for me, yes, I know I'm alone in that pretty much.

And hey, Sarah Michelle Gellar and talking dogs, a winning combo, right? And I'm not entirely being sarcastic, I'm half-serious here.
Not getting anything from this except for confuzo-brain and OOH A PUPPY. From the comments it looks like I'm not alone in that, though, so I'll keep waiting as planned.

To expand on my confuzo-brain, the Riley issue introduced a disagreement of philosophy between the Angel of #33 on and the Angel of....some point before that. The preview here is reinforcing the pre-#33 Angel, which is good because that's the one I like better, but I don't think it told us anything about how the one became the other.

Major gap. And if all of us see it, and we do, I think it's safe to assume that Joss did.

On the OOH A PUPPY side, I just want to take a moment to appreciate the dog, inasmuch as it looks like a dog. There are a lot of comic artists who unintentionally end up specializing in humans, and that can lead to a misshapen animal walking onto the otherwise beautifully drawn set (Watchmen immediately comes to mind). Jeanty's range of subject matter has me consistently impressed.
>>Then again, I like the idea of Twilight being an Angel pulled out of some low point in his past and given a separate life,

Except I don't think it is a 'separate life' - what I see happened was PtBs simply plugged that future superpowerful Angel that ascended to Twilight after loosing the war with demons alone - into the past to fix things . Sorta like W&H did in AtF - there was no second Angel upon return into the LA alley where it all started - only one and the same but with all the memories of the Hell-A. Except in this case no one else has the memories because the future of the lost war ( Shanshu vision anyone ?) is fragmenting.
For the first 33 issues, Season 8 read like the story of a unjustly persecuted minority being hunted to extinction. They were being hunted because a powerful, charismatic figurehead had turned disorganized antipathy into a powerful military, political, and cultural movement, complete with a monolithic symbol to rally around. Well, now that I think about it, there never was much of a historical allegory possible there at all. Not sure what came over me. In all seriousness, I'll be quiet as requested on the parallel, but because it's deemed inappropriate, not because it's inaccurate. It's almost as obvious a parallel as the original "V" miniseries was.

As for Angel's apparently conflicting memory or behavior, I've never said it has to be a different or additional version of Angel, just that it's now plausible in a way that it wasn't before. Certainly there's nothing textual to dismiss it. The only reason to take it off the board is that it might diminish or undercut the, heh, "romance and beauty" of 8.34. I actually don't know how to feel about the possibilities -- I said for months that having a "future" or "alternate" version of a character be Twilight would diminish the emotional impact of the reveal. But that was also back when I was assuming that those writing the book weren't going to just apply huge amounts of handwavium to everything Twilight has done. So I'm not sure it would bother me anymore.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2010-08-27 18:00 ]
And it's not like the comics referenced Hitler's bomb shelter or cattle cars or anything -- so obviously we shouldn't mention it. (Oh wait!)

New rule: The first issue of Retreat shall not be mentioned.

[ edited by Maggie on 2010-08-27 18:26 ]
Hmmmm... Now when you say it, I suddenly remembered that The Chain mentions fascism several times.

In that light Matt7325's Holocaust analogy sounds very apt.

[ edited by Moscow Watcher on 2010-08-27 19:12 ]
Arguments using Hitler and fascism inappropriately as a shortcut "I win!" debate strategy have become so prevalent that now we can't make comparisons to Hitler/fascism when it's very, very relevant.

I can understand the hesitancy though--it's an explosive topic.
Good point Moscow.

New new rule: Neither the Chain nor Retreat shall be mentioned.
If anyone does have issues with what I said do email me about it as per our rules and not comment about it on site. Thank you.
I doubt what Angel has done is going to be waved away. For one thing, it's peerless brooding material, and who is Angel if not the guy to make the most of that opportunity. But in seriousness, I think it's got the makings of a hefty arc for him. There should be some pretty interesting character moments for him coming up, all centered around his choices that led to Twilight.
I've given up trying to make sense of Angel's decisions and behaviour for the time being. As things stand, they don't make sense. In no way does anything done by season 8 Angel remotely fit with the Angel character we knew on the show or in the IDW comics. With that in mind, I figure that I'm wasting my time and effort in even attempting to make the pieces fit. I don't think they are supposed to. At least, I hope that they aren't.

Angel, the Angel we knew, would not make the choices he made in becoming Twilight. He has made his fair share of questionable decisions over the years, season 2 of his own show being a good example of how dark he can be even with a soul in place, but nothing even close to the choices he made as Twilight.

I'm reasonably confident that Joss can make sense of this for me. There are a good number of plot devices he could use to explain away what Angel has done. Insanity. Possession. Becoming an exec at FOX. Any reason offered though is going to have to come with the basic idea that Angel, as we knew him, was not in control of what he was doing, because only then will I accept such an unlikely, if not totally unbelievable, development in this character.

I'd rather have an Angel as the universe's butt-monkey than an Angel that would willingly do what we saw him do as Twilight. At least a butt-monkey can hope to redeem himself.
Sunfire, every time we see Angel anymore -- the Riley one-shot, this preview, they are trying to couch his decision as being reluctant, and in this context, even self-sacrificing or heroic. None of it changes what he ultimately did, though, what he became. I see that as handwaving. I don't think it's an accident that the Talking Freakin' Dog is setting Angel up for an iconic moment of Superman lore, announcing his presence by rescuing the airplane. It's an attempt -- I believe a conscious attempt -- to get the audience to associate his decision to go undercover as a noble one, and ignore everything he actually has *done*, and the fact that he apparently got absolutely nothing in terms of a decent explanation of why he was doing it, or that it should be done. Angel has acted like the eager soldier that "J" mocks in "Men In Black", who knows only that Zed is looking for the best of the best of the best, but having no idea why. We've seen him grumble, and brood, but we know that he ultimate dances to the organ grinder's tune.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2010-08-27 19:45 ]
I think it's pretty obvious--Angel is the head of Rossum.

Explains everything.
Pretty much what KingofCretins said. Which is why the only way that Angel as a character is salvageable for me is if his actions were not his own. Because there is no reasoning in the world that can justify a sane Angel allowing things to play out the way that he did. None whatsoever.

And I think that Hellmouthguy may actually be on to something. Most plausible possibility I've heard so far, actually! ;)
At this point of confusedness, it seems clear that there is a reason behind this (however complicated, stupid or misguided it may be) and Angel just didn't go 'Mwhahaha! Let's go kill some folk!'. Knowing Angel, there'll probably be months of brooding and remorse later, too. We still don't have all the details, which is why I'm reserving an judgement on Angel until later and I'm not just going to go march to the beat of the 'Angel is irrevocably evil!!' drummer, or any other drummer, in fact.


A thousand times WORD!

If only everyone could remember this or think about how much more willing they'd be to take a "wait and see approach" if it was THEIR favorite character (Xander, Spike, to name two) who'd been unmasked as Twilight, the fandom would be a more fun place. Instead, some people are determined, without all facts in evidence, to judge Angel as evil - and not just evil but IRREDEEMABLY EVIL - and get snarky, rude and judgmental of Angel fans who are not so willing to jump on that lopsided bandwagon.

Regardless, at least there are some of us still left who don't think Joss' message after all these years is that Angel is just evil. And while it's still confusing, I'm looking forward to the upcoming issue.
@Hellmouthguy For a long time I thought the same. Now more like "Angel=Alpha" and "Boyd" still to be revealed (or Giles).

Also I could live without other people judging my right to have a free opinion.
But if his actions are not his own, whose are they, and could they even resonate? For me, this would too much a deus ex machina, and thus meaningless.
Luc, I know I don't come across this way -- but I'm more than happy to wait and see about Angel. The reason I don't come across that way is because I'm replying to those who seem to think they ALREADY know that it must all be OK because it's Angel, and Angel is a hero. If what we know is all we are going to know, then Angel has yet again done things that I can't call "good". And because of my moral commitments, some arguments for why he's good (namely he had to do evil to prevent even worse things from happening) aren't helpful -- because I think that mentality can lead to some serious evil in the world. But it's entirely possible that Angel is being possessed or manipulated in some way that would make us understand his actions.

I just don't want to say "hey it's darned heroic to cause a bunch of deaths so that your true love can be so completely defeated she'll get swamped with superduper powers and fly to paradise with you". But I'd certainly welcome more story that changes the picture. As skeptical as I am of Angel's basic capacity for good, even I find season 8's Angel's actions to be OOC -- too quick to do evil for dubious reasons. So I'd think that more story is more likely than not.
What Dana said--if Angel is being controlled/manipulated by some outside agency (like the Powers That Be, or Wolfram and Hart--yawn, and double yawn) then it will reek of deus ex machina contrivance and all this sturm und drang will have been for nothing, as it simply won't resonate. But if it really is an unmanipulated, unadulterated Angel, then he is so wildly out of character that he might as well just be Bobby Ewing in the shower--retcon him out of existence and reboot him from scratch.
anca:
Also I could live without other people judging my right to have a free opinion.

I thought those of us who disagree with the bandwagon had the right to an opinion, too...
Luc, I know I don't come across this way -- but I'm more than happy to wait and see about Angel.


You're right you don't come across that way at ALL, but I'm happy to hear you say that you are willing to wait for more information, contrary to that image you put out.

I'm replying to those who seem to think they ALREADY know that it must all be OK because it's Angel, and Angel is a hero.


This, I think comes down to a basic difference in how people view the characters though. For example, if Buffy had been unmasked as Twilight (even though I know this is a bizarre idea because how COULD she be, but I'm using it just to make a point), then very FEW people would have a problem with fans saying that it will be okay because it's Buffy and Buffy is a hero and she always has been.

For you, I'd imagine seeing a souled and unmasked Spike as Twilight would have you saying there MUST be more to it because Spike is a hero, a good guy, someone who fought for his soul. NO WAY would Joss suddenly make souled Spike the big evil, so it'll be okay and Spike will still be that champion hero.

But because it IS Angel and you don't see him as good even PRIOR to Twilight, let alone a hero, you are relegating anyone who HAS seen him as a hero (albeit a fallible one, like any hero is) and a GOOD MAN for most of his run, to being a foolish fan eager to white-wash it away because it's ANGEL AND HE MUST BE GOOD.

It's the obvious double standard that I can't stand.

And so yes, I choose to believe that Joss will not destroy a character who's been a much beloved figure for more than a decade (and who will have a continuing story for season 9/Angel at Darkhorse), who is the titular lead of his own show/comic book and who has been a hero for most of his run. Call me crazy....

I just don't want to say "hey it's darned heroic to cause a bunch of deaths so that your true love can be so completely defeated she'll get swamped with superduper powers and fly to paradise with you".


I have never seen that to be the point of the story. In fact, the Riley one shot just points out ONCE AGAIN - as if Buffy/Angel having world destroying sex didn't do that again all by itself - that they CANNOT be together.

[ edited by lmblack21 on 2010-08-27 21:11 ]
I saw Angel as heroic prior to the spoiler -- he had gotten his heroic groove back in "Angel: After the Fall" after mostly sacrificing it throughout Angel Season 5. So at least in my case the accused bias wouldn't exist.

And I'm saying straight out, if you have no serious moral doubts and questions for Angel as of 8.33 of Season 8, then, yes, you are acting "eager to white-wash it away because it's ANGEL AND HE MUST BE GOOD".

Come at it another way -- would you be of the opinion that Willow is a poor judge of character because she is freely holding Angel's actions as Twilight against him?
You're right you don't come across that way at ALL, but I'm happy to hear you say that you are willing to wait for more information, contrary to that image you put out.


Considering Maggie was offering an olive branch, it's disappointing her hand got slapped. :-/
And I'm saying straight out, if you have no serious moral doubts and questions for Angel as of 8.33 of Season 8, then, yes, you are acting "eager to white-wash it away because it's ANGEL AND HE MUST BE GOOD".


I have plenty of questions, that's why *I* am not the one running around shouting for all to see that Angel is evil, irredeemable and that anyone who doesn't see it my way is wrong, stupid, flawed in English proficiency or just blind. I am, instead, waiting for all the cards to be dealt. I realize not everyone is able to do that.

As for Willow, while she is not happy with either Angel OR Buffy, she also seemed to think it wasn't their fault - that it was the UNIVERSE making them do this. I didn't see her go all flaming witch-fu on his ass after all. Maybe because Willow has been truly dark and murderous herself - and without the benefit of a lack of soul, etc - to judge Angel as you are so determined to do.

Considering Maggie was offering an olive branch, it's disappointing her hand got slapped. :-/


I don't believe that's what I was doing or at least, never intended doing, but if MAGGIE believes that's what I was doing, I apologize to her.

[ edited by lmblack21 on 2010-08-27 21:28 ]
Dana5140 and Hellmouthguy, I couldn't agree more. I'm not saying that revealing that Angel has been under the control of some unseen force and is therefore innocent of everything he did as Twilight is going to make for the greatest story ever told, and it would absolutely be a deus ex machina, get-out-of-jail-free card for Angel. It won't resonate in the slightest.

It is, however, the one and only option that I can think of to explain how the Angel we knew before Twilight can be reconciled with the Angel we are seeing now. Nothing short of a mental breakdown or some kind of possession is going to convince me that the Angel I have watched for all these years is capable of making such utterly out of character decisions, no matter what his reasons may have been.

Twilight isn't Angel, no matter what we have been told so far. There has to be some sort of twist around the corner or I'll be forced to believe that Joss has decided to completely disregard everything that has been previously established about Angel. Because that ain't him.
I actually tend to think, based on her very acerbic reaction, that if Willow wasn't preoccupied with the mess Angel made, she'd be inclined to busy herself with Angel. Would she be wrong?

Maybe it's because I'm now in love with Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, but the idea that friends and exes can have fight-to-the-death level beef with each other without any awkwardness with mutual friends and significant others makes sense -- I could see Willow, or Xander if he had the power necessary, ignoring Buffy's feeling for Angel and go "you're pretentious, this apocalypse sucks, I have beef, let's fight".
I was trying to be nice, and yeah, I'll take the apology.

[ edited by Maggie on 2010-08-27 21:32 ]
Maybe it's because I'm now in love with Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, but the idea that friends and exes can have fight-to-the-death level beef with each other without any awkwardness with mutual friends and significant others makes sense -- I could see Willow, or Xander if he had the power necessary, ignoring Buffy's feeling for Angel and go "you're pretentious, this apocalypse sucks, I have beef, let's fight".


Well lots of things that make sense in the movies (or comics) wouldn't make sense in real life. I can't see ANY scenario in real life where a beef of that magnitude between friends/family/lovers wouldn't cause a huge chasm/separation, often forever.

I also can't see Willow, who has gone full tilt evil over the loss of her lover, could be in a position to judge someone else in such a manner, considering how easily she got off on her crimes and attempted crimes. (I mean, she never spent a hundred years in a hell dimension or 3 months at the bottom of the ocean did she?) Xander? I like to think he's grown to the point that he doesn't see everything in black and white like he used to, but who knows.

I was trying to be nice, and yeah, I'll take the apology.


Honestly, I was too, so thank you for being gracious in accepting my apology. I was not intending to diss your attempt at reaching out.

[ edited by lmblack21 on 2010-08-27 21:36 ]
Twilight's actions have stood as a threat to the fundamental nature of Willow's existence. His choices are at the very least, based only one what we do know, a contributory cause of who knows how many Slayers dying, many of whom were under Xander's direct command and possibly even one with whom he was romantically involved. If the Buffyverse operated on the same conceits as the Pilgrimverse, it would in fact be on, in one or either instances. And I'm not sure that doesn't make more sense. In fact, for them to ignore whatever hostility they now have toward Angel would feel as fake as Buffy "convincing" Willow not to go after Glory.
Twilight's actions have stood as a threat to the fundamental nature of Willow's existence.


As Willow's attempt to end the whole world threatened everyone's existence. And she didn't have anyone telling her that she needed to SAVE THE WORLD. She was trying to end the world because of her own pain and the belief that such pain was pointless and everyone would be better off dead than suffering.

Also, I'm not trying to suggest that any of the Scoobies wouldn't be hostile towards Angel, knowing only what they know. That was never my point, so I'm not sure how it got around to that.
By this reasoning, Willow needs to retire. She is a hypocrite to get involved with stopping someone or holding any animosity to anyone who might ever try to destroy the world.
Sunfire, every time we see Angel anymore -- the Riley one-shot, this preview, they are trying to couch his decision as being reluctant, and in this context, even self-sacrificing or heroic. None of it changes what he ultimately did, though, what he became. I see that as handwaving.

Reluctant, definitely. Heroic, well that's up the reader. Whether or not Angel's actions are heroic or justified to me is a very different question than whether or nor his actions are believable and make for a compelling character arc. I don't need to agree with him for the arc to work, but I do need to understand his motivations. It's rare that I agree with Angel anyway, so I'm not exactly expecting it here. Experiencing a very bad future does seem like it would be compelling for him but Twilight's going to require some extraordinary motivation. Ah, Buffy dies uselessly fighting that future? Now we're getting somewhere interesting.

I don't see the text as downplaying the awfulness or trying to force me to accept his actions as heroic, just adding context so we can (maybe) see how he could become convinced the awfulness was his best path. I do agree that the Riley one-shot was laying that on a little thick, but I don't think it was forcing the ethics of the decision on anyone, just being a little heavy-handed with the context of his reluctance. It's too soon for me to decide what I think of his actions, since I've only seen some of the aftermath and not the decision points leading up to his role in S8. We don't know yet what the alternative was, or how much of what happened in S8 was due to his involvement. I'm intrigued by what's been hinted at about the back story so far and interested to see how the story plays out.
Unless Joss has gone absolutely clinically insane, there's no way he would disregard the character that has developed over five seasons. That's why I'm not keen on being on board with the handwavium idea, yet. Joss has been planning this for a very long time and so he must know that #35-Angel just doesn't make sense and wasn't going to sit well with the fans and therefore the explanations 'it wasn't really him' or 'it's for the greater good' alone aren't going to cut it. The fact that this has been stewing in his brain for three years makes me think that there must be a hell of a lot more to explain and Joss wouldn't just approve the writing of the Twilight arc just because he'd retcon everything later.

Of course, I could be completely wrong - Joss has been known to make mistakes but I'm not willing to give up hope yet. For a long time now I've wanted to see a giant Q&A with Joss. Just to be reassured that he knows what he's doing. I loved the Q&As with Allie and Jeanty but I think we really need a message from the Big Purple One himself. Maybe we will after the end of Season 8.
By this reasoning, Willow needs to retire. She is a hypocrite to get involved with stopping someone or holding any animosity to anyone who might ever try to destroy the world.


I'd call that an extremely radical interpretation of the text I put out there, but okay. In truth, it's not even remotely close to anything I said, which means (*looks at my watch*), yup, way past time for me to be away from Buffy boards today as I've used up my allotted time.

[ edited by lmblack21 on 2010-08-27 21:59 ]
By this reasoning, Willow needs to retire.

It's a big club, the Buffyverse characters who have done terrible things and are currently accepted as Buffy's allies. If they all give up their right to judge right from wrong and try to prevent apocalypses, then we're left with... Dawn? And some newbie Slayers. Who are all very nice, but the world is definitely doomed.
I really think there are more than 3 sides (1-Angel is ahero and I trust him in this 2-Angel was never a real hero and this proves it 3-Joss is going to pull a deus ex machina to recover from it) to this, and I think we've had at least 5 or 6 different spins on it here. Even tho I'm in camp 3, I'm glad we're coooling down from the middle aprt of thsit hread.

I know it's easy for me to "watch and mock and laugh" because I 1- stoped takign S-8 seriously with the "Harmony Bites" story 2- stopped beign a serious Jossfan after "You're Welcome" but I was seirously worried we were getting too hot about this. Heck, slippery as Joss's mind is, maybe he'll pull a deus ex machina that rings true.
From the bit with the power-as-dog being distracted from telling Angel what it is by the discovery of its junk, are we to probably assume that Joss isn't interested in telling us what is manipulating and/or advising Angel ? (at least not in this issue) Is it gonna be one of those times when we're to assume that what's really important to the story is that something is interfering here, the source of it isn't really important ? Character development and hopefully making sense of Season 8's storyline is most important, but it'd be nice if Buffyverse mythology and world building weren't ignored as well.

Did anyone else love this exchange (really just what the spirit says about Angel) ?

Angel: Not a fan of "complicated".
dog: I know. Even when things get the most complicated, you remain doggedly simple. [heh, who cringed-but-still-kinda-smiled at "doggedly"?] That's part of why you were chosen.

Is the power saying that Angel was chosen because he's simple ? (in which case, my reaction is kind of "Hah! Maybe spot on?" and kind of "Umm, gross character disrespect?")

Also--if singular, conscious powers ('cause it sounds like a group of 'em were involved in the choosing of Angel for Twilight) are behind all this, then doesn't that kinda contradict the explanation of "The Universe did it!" I'm pretty happy if it does, if Giles and Willow were simply wrong (but then again, ugh, pages of valuable Buffyverse dialogue space were used to explain false/misinformed prophecy and we already went through that a couple times on Angel).

When did Wesley beg Angel to get a shrink ? In one of the Angel TV seasons, or in the comics ? I can't recall that exchange, unless Angel is refering to an off-screen/off-page discussion.

I feel neither reassured nor less confident for the final arc of S8 after these preview pages (except by Georges' art, it's nice), but I did enjoy 'em.
Did anyone else think that Joss was sending up what people thought of the Buffy finale? Or is it that a bit too meta?
When did Wesley beg Angel to get a shrink ? In one of the Angel TV seasons, or in the comics ? I can't recall that exchange, unless Angel is refering to an off-screen/off-page discussion.


The first thing I did after reading the preview pages was running "shrink" through Buffyverse Dialogue Database.

According to it, in this reality Wesley didn't beg Angel to get a shrink.

Also--if singular, conscious powers ('cause it sounds like a group of 'em were involved in the choosing of Angel for Twilight) are behind all this, then doesn't that kinda contradict the explanation of "The Universe did it!"


PtB, Universe, Senior Partners are just the writers' self-inserts. I don't think that Joss takes it seriously.

Somebody up thread has mentioned "Men in Black". The last shot of that movie features a two-fingered alien "hand" that playfully puts a galaxy into a bag. This is the kind of God (PtB, Universe) Joss uses here. He openly toys with the concept of God for visual gags and wordplay. Dog is inversion of the word "God", we see letters O and D on one of the panels, the dog is male and Angel has always been destiny's bitch.

My guess is that the "dog owner" is a plot device like the Oracles in "I Will Remember You": they came into the plot out of nowhere, suddenly had huge influence on Angel's journey and then disappeared forever.


Simon
Did anyone else think that Joss was sending up what people thought of the Buffy finale? Or is it that a bit too meta?


I think that Joss has a very distinct goal: to get rid of the slayer army that burdens the narrative. But it's hard to do it without undermining his feminist message in Chosen. Can he pull it off? I don't know. So far, the further it goes, the more bizarre it looks. Buffy, an abuse victim (Twilight stalked her and beat the crap out od her), can't resist her abuser, has sex with him and accepts his motives of hurting her for her own good.

Please, don't get me wrong - I love Buffy, I love Angel, but I don't like what happens to them and how Joss handles the situation so far. Mabe he'll introduce a brilliant twist that will explain everything - but I doubt it.

[ edited by Moscow Watcher on 2010-08-27 23:22 ]
"I think that Joss has a very distinct goal: to get rid of the slayer army that burdens the narrative. "

Yes! I have been saying this in different ways from the inception of this comic. It is about ending slayers, always was. And the problems Moscow Watcher notes are real to me, and I don't see ways out of them. Loss of agency, failure to get consent, Angel as murderer, the universe as a sentient being intervening in human and not-so-human life, is any of this going to make any kind of sense? I no longer think this is possible, and I long for the human scale of Buffy before this all began- and I loath bringing Angel into this because I think the conceit of TPTB and of WRH allow for too much deus ex you know what- they can do whatever you need them to.

BTW, I think the feminist message is long gone.
Why all this doubt for the Joss?!? Where's the Joss love???

In a world with magic, anything can happen. Let's wait and see what he's come up with and then judge if he pulled it off or not. Joss is a pretty inventive critter, you know, and he has a twisted way of looking at things.
Guys, the shrink thing is the least likely to suggest that Angel is an alternate version of himself or something. I have always found it odd that people treat the characters' relationships as though they go into suspended animation when we aren't watching or reading. I take Angel saying that about Wesley as just... revealing a conversation they had off screen at some point. Kind of like Joyce, always talking about the ditches. We assume she did, right, that's not an unsettled canon question? :)

Moscow, I'm glad that you said that about Joss having his feminist icon embrace/succumb/submit/surrender -- sexually as well as emotionally -- to an abusive tormentor figure, which Angel-as-Twilight absolutely is. I mean, for a guy that that felt so strongly about the movie Captivity, he sure seems to have written Buffy into her own version of Captivity. How far off of Elisha Cuthbert apologizing to and ultimately (spoiler) her captor is it really for Buffy to confront her year-long nemesis, hear him out, decide that he knows better than her, and have sex with him?

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2010-08-28 01:52 ]
I think that's a valid question but I would have to had to have watched that movie to tell you how far off Buffy's actions were from Elisha Cuthbert's.

But I did not.

Has any one here?
There's a complete disconnect between what Angel set out to do - save the world, not Buffy - and what he apparently ended up trying to do - save Buffy, not the world. Until this is explained, there's no way we can pass any judgement on Angel's actions.

I generally really enjoy a story that reveals information at the end which turns your understanding of events on it's head, but the trouble here is that we don't have an understanding to be reversed. We just don't know what's going on. So close to the end of S8, I do find that unsatisfying. Going the vast majority of the season without being able to understand the main villain or what the stakes are, is a pretty odd way to structure a story. It's going to need to be one heck of an explanation to have everything make sense, but fingers crossed.
quantumac: You know, I just got back from my local Barnes and Noble, where I read the Riley one shot while there. With so few issues left, the answer to the story has to be embedded in the comments made by Whistler, and these all indicate that there are a number of possible time lines in play, and the one that matters is the one where Angel cannot hook up with Buffy- which he already has, or is going to, depending on the time frame of that Riley comic. I mention this because that being the case, that's the answer we will get- this will end with the setting of the right time frame (unless that is the point of S9, where it will put right then if not now), whatever that means, and all else is going to be canceled out. But I have to say, when I read the Riley issue, by end though after the 2 minutes it took me to read it was, oh for Pete's sake.

I am not a person who feels that Joss or anyone cannot make mistakes, and my experiences with his work runs hot and cold: Buffy- red hot; Firefly- hot; Angel-cold; Dollhouse- absolute zero. Trust is not the issue- whatever happens now, no matter how this ends, cannot make up for all the problems that precede that end- Buffy still had spacefrakking, whether it ends up not happening, just like Angel and Buffy had a very happy day before the Oracles wiped it all out at Angel's request. We saw it, and without us seeing it, it never existed, so to say. The act of viewing makes it real, even if it is later undone. I see no workable resolution here.
Variety Headline: Dog lays Egg, Audiences Say Enough to Time Travel, Bring Back Daleks.
Message from Space: Hold the Porn, Send More Chuck Berry.
I think that Joss has a very distinct goal: to get rid of the slayer army that burdens the narrative


I was actually thinking of the "and definitely twitchy about "Chosen"" line. Me in my "everything Joss says is really about the fandom" mode thinks this is a pointed comment to us or a private joke or something more than a throwaway line. Bit like Andrew's last speech in THIQ.
I guess for every fan that hates (cold or zero) something Joss does there are two that love (Hot) it. I have enjoyed all of Joss's creations, so I really can't identify with where you're coming from, Dana. We all have our own tastes though...

Space sex...I liked it- a lot. A whole lot. So there are those out there who woudn't wish to unsee it, if you will.
Cheryl, that's my point. We can't not see it, ever, because even if the end of the story is that it never happened, it did.

Simon:
I was actually thinking of the "and definitely twitchy about "Chosen"" line. Me in my "everything Joss says is really about the fandom" mode thinks this is a pointed comment to us or a private joke or something more than a throwaway line.


Oh, that's quite a possibility. Actually, I think that Spike's line "I wanna see how it ends" before he started to burn was a caustic comment on spoiler ho's. :)

I think that Joss' texts are incredibly multilayered. His "twitchy" line could be a comment on the fandom. Or on David Boreanaz, who, reportedly, was unhappy that SMG didn't make a guest appearance in the "his" finale, while he took part in "her" finale.

Maybe it was a good-natured wink to all parties involved.



KingofCretins:
Guys, the shrink thing is the least likely to suggest that Angel is an alternate version of himself or something. I have always found it odd that people treat the characters' relationships as though they go into suspended animation when we aren't watching or reading. I take Angel saying that about Wesley as just... revealing a conversation they had off screen at some point.


To me, the line was important, because I'm a big Wesley fan - so I tried to figure out if this line could foreshadow Wesley's return. If Angel arrived from another dimension, then it's possible that alterna-Wesley is alive there.

But if Angel arrived from the future, the question is - where is the present-day-Angel? And could that recent Allie-Ryall brainstorming session result in sending present-day-Angel into the future in the last issue of IDW comics?
I guess for every fan that hates (cold or zero) something Joss does there are two that love (Hot) it. I have enjoyed all of Joss's creations, so I really can't identify with where you're coming from, Dana. We all have our own tastes though...

Space sex...I liked it- a lot. A whole lot. So there are those out there who woudn't wish to unsee it, if you will.


I think when it comes to 8.34, it's more like "for everyone that hates it, there are exactly two that love it". Because, to be honest... that would pretty accurately reflect the amount of people between the Buffy sites I go to that actually loved it. I'm sure there are at least exactly two or a half dozen people that would have "loved" pretty much any plotline that culminated in a full issue of Angel and Buffy having sex, up to and including Angel popping out of Dawn's chest like an alien, singing "Michigan Rag", morphing into himself and killing every one of Buffy's friends. I can think of a small handful that would have been golfclapping at the genius and beauty of it.

You may have loved spacefrakking, but I'm sure someone loved "Ishtar". I'm sure someone loved the Fonz jumping over that shark.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2010-08-28 13:14 ]
I loved the space fuck. T'was hot.
Different definitions, I guess. I need context. If a married buddy of mine went out to a club with me, ignored any mention of his wife and hooked up with someone and had mechanically impressive sex with her, I wouldn't call it "hot". Something about Buffy having completely folded on self-respect, reason, perhaps even honor, IMO. Your mileage may vary. It's one of the only times in the entire franchise that Buffy did something that made me think less of her than I thought before it. But I don't really point it at Buffy as much as I do at Joss and Meltzer -- I mean, FFS, I can't stop comparing this to Captivity: at least Elisha Cuthbert Jennifer Tree 1, Buffy 0.

Give me the same scene in a context in which it's not mentally and morally nauseating for Buffy and Angel to be having sex at all, and it might have been pretty hot. Still a bit overblown, though.
"It's one of the only times in the entire franchise that Buffy did something that made me think less of her than I thought before it."


Again with the acting-completely-out-of-character nature of what we are seeing from characters we should know quite well by now. And moreso, characters that Joss should be able to write pretty damn consistently by this point.

Space-sex aside, mainly because I had no problem with the sex itself, only the lack of an actual reason why either were doing it (other than the obvious, naturally), this is just another example of why I can't believe that Joss isn't going to go with some sort of cosmic brainwashing excuse for why Angel (and Buffy, to a lesser extent) are acting in the manner we have seen them.

I'm certainly not one of those fans that believes Joss can do no wrong. The guy's only human, after all. I wasn't a big fan of Dollhouse. Didn't hate it, just didn't love it. I can totally believe that Joss is capable of making a bad writing decision. But completely disregarding the basic natures of two of his central characters? That makes no sense to me. He's a better writer than that. Hell, I'm a better writer than that, and I'm no Joss Whedon.

Nope, this isn't simply a case of changing Angel's personality. It's a complete personality overhaul, and one that we saw Buffy on the verge of imitating only a short time after she started developing the exact same abilities as Angel. That can't be a coincidence.
One of the great thing about fandom is almost everybody can look at the same episode of TV (or comic, or book) and have a different reaction. If you love a particular thing in one issue of comic, someone, somewhere, will hate that particular moment and say it betrays the story or the character(s). And the other way around.
I'm afraid I didn't find issue 35 'hot' at all. It did provoke a couple of emotional responses in me though, laughter tinged with sadness that the verse had come to this fiasco.

[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2010-08-28 18:48 ]
Is there anyone on this board willing to say that this Buffy, this S8 comic, is the greatest Buffy that ever was? Better than the TV show, better than any season broadcast?

This is not the same. It's weak.
Ah I miss being able to come talk about the thing that I love the most: Buffy.

I get it, you don't like Season 8, but there are those of us out there that genuinely enjoy the comic book run. Nah, I don't feel the morose despair that this beloved franchise of the ages has sunk into a pit of irreversible damage.

I really love Whedonesque, if I didn't I would still just be a lurker, but coming to this site sometimes makes me feel really negative about the fandom these days.
I just want to know how the story ends
Is there anyone on this board willing to say that this Buffy, this S8 comic, is the greatest Buffy that ever was? Better than the TV show, better than any season broadcast?


I'd rate it better than seasons 1, 6 & 7. Probably on a par with season 4.
I see it on par with season 4 as well, quality wise. Interesting how both seasons 4 and 8 involved changes in structure and cast of the show, creating a certain disconnect for some viewers. Granted Season 8 is a much bigger change, but I think that's part of the reason why it's more divisive.

[ edited by Cazador on 2010-08-28 20:09 ]
Really Simon? Not gonna lie, I'm a little shocked.

Maybe to a regular comic reader, it comes off a little better. But to me, Season 8, even if I imagine it filmed, is not better than any season, including Season one.

I would put After the Fall a little higher, enjoyable, and if it was filmed it might be one of my favorites.
Season 8 is miles above Season 7.
Fact is, I find it hard to believe- that is, all of you would prefer this to the broadcast Buffy we had? I would not. And can we all move past the trope of "we all have different opinions." Yes, we do and I understand many people quite enjoy this. It is in supporting those opinions, though, for bad or good, that we learn. I don't like S8, for many reasons. I would not rate it better than any TV season of Buffy- that is, if God gave me the choice, I would take any TV season over this. And I would not come here just to continually say that I dislike it (though I am sure to some it seems that is what I do); I am honestly interested in why people do or do not.
For 8.01 through 8.32, I'd have had Season 8 running maybe 3rd or 4th. After 8.33/8.34, it's kind of dropped into "unranked". If they can salvage it over 8.36 through 8.40, I could see it ending up still being better than Season 1 and Season 7.
I'd rate it better than seasons 1, 6 & 7. Probably on a par with season 4.


I'd go with the idea that it's better than seasons 6 and 7 as well (though not season 1) and I've had my issues/problems with the comic as well.
Fact is, I find it hard to believe- that is, all of you would prefer this to the broadcast Buffy we had?


Really Simon? Not gonna lie, I'm a little shocked.


These days I go by what Buffy I want to see again. Aside from several episodes from season 6 & 7, I have no real desire to watch those seasons again unless I'm doing a marathon Buffy session from the start. Season 8, on the other hand, I do like to re-read again and again. I enjoy it.
How come no one has mentioned how the picture of Buffy, Spike, and Angel is making fun of Stephanie Meyer's Twilight? Um, not that I care... *cough* *cough*
I like season 8 much better than 1 and 5.
What didn't you like about season 5, gossi?
I dislike this, and we all know how I feel about S6. I would take that over this, and I don't even like that.

Time passes on, and our interests change, and we move on in some ways, and that is what is happening here. There won't be a Buffy again, not with SMG and Aly and Amber and Nick and Anthony and all; the comic is all we have. And its new, so it gets a lot of attention. But if we could go back, and the show was on TV, and I asked if you would prefer to have it a TV show or as a comic, I doubt any but the most avid comic lover would opt for the latter.
Which, I suppose, leads to another question, Dana5140. Is the problem you have with the format or the story?

You ask if we would prefer to have another televised season or the comic? I'd have to agree with your assumption. Most, if not all, of the Buffy fandom would likely choose the tv option. But would that be enough to make the story okay by you? Assuming that this happened and Buffy Season 8 was adapted to television, with all the cast and crew back where they belonged, but the story played out just as it has done in the comic, with everything from Giant/Centaur/Doll Dawn and Buffy's lesbian fling to Twilight/Angel and the infamous space-sex, how would you feel about it then? Obviously, it never could have happened in exactly the same way if this season had been told with the limitations of a television budget, but for the sake of this argument, let's say that it could have. Would you have enjoyed this exact same story more if it had been in the format you prefer?

There's never going to be another live action season of Buffy, as you said yourself, but I'm of the opinion that it's better to have the comic version of Buffy than nothing at all. Even if I don't like everything that has happened so far, I'm still glad that I've got a new Buffy story to have an opinion on.
I wish I could sum up the feeling this gives me. Betrayal? Joss seems on his way to hurting so many people who have been fans for years. Mazeltov to those fans whose hopes seem on the way to being fulfilled. Am I a minority? For the sake of the Jossverse, I hope so. You can always dismiss a minority.
I can't rate season 8 til I see how it turns out. But I wanted to pipe up for season 6, which I think is brilliant, and especially for season 4 which, lame arc aside, is tightly written and indispensible. Season 6 will always be controversial, but season 4 ought not to be and it's painfully underappreciated.
I have to agree with those that are viewing S. 8 as better than 6 & 7. Sadly, I just can't watch the vast majority of episodes from those seasons. As for S. 8, yes I've had my issues with the season and there was a loll in the middle of the journey, but I'm enjoying the overall story. And like Simon mentioned I can revisit the past issues and still enjoy re-reading them, whereas with the last two television seasons I can't say that. I never thought I'd say that about a comic book as opposed to a live action show.
In defense of season four, it has some great episodes--just for "Hush", "Superstar", "This Year's Girl" and "Who Are You?" alone, season four is a great season, certainly head and shoulders above six or seven or eight in my opinion. And as far as lame villains, Adam isn't as lame as the First or Caleb, not by a long shot. (The First was a complete loss, though I enjoyed watching Sarah and Juliet play it; Caleb by contrast might have been great if the writers didn't require him to be an idiot in order to progress their ridiculous story.) And though I love Aly, Dark Willow came off more snarky than truly threatening, and I could have done without the "ink from all the spells in the magic books makes her hair and eyes black" ridiculousness.
When Buffy had sex with a soulless vampire I felt betrayed by Buffy and Joss. Some people love it. For a while I decided that Buffy ended with her death at the end of season 5. The comics have a similar air to season 4&5 or a mixture of the two seasons.
Say what you will about soulless Spike, Buffy had at least 1.5 points when she called him "harmless" and "helping" (half harmless). I'd say sleeping with Twilight, who is openly harming and no part helpful, is far worse.
I think it's a fair assumption to say that the great majority of Buffy fans would pick a televised season eight over a comic season eight - and that's a judgement on medium, not story.

But that being said I think that the choice of TV!Buffy over Comic!Buffy is not because TV is a better medium, or indeed not necessarily a better medium for Buffy; but rather because Buffy originated there. TV!Buffy is default Buffy - if Buffy had started as a comic, then done a few years as a TV show, I think there'd be a majority of people that'd prefer for the story to come back via comics rather than TV. Ask anyone who reads any comics that originated as comics (eg. anything by Marvel or DC) and I'm positive they'd say that they would prefer new Spiderman comics over Spiderman IV, even if it was all in the same continuity.
Angel isn't just Twilight. He's Angel.
I actually really like 6 and (most of) 7. I never had a problem with Buffy sleeping with Spike - poor choice for a boyfriend (bufffriend?), but then Buffy's choice of guys has always been terrible. Except Riley - Riley was a nice guy who made for terriblely boring story telling. Spike was a horrible guy who made for epic, as did Angel - and Twilight's got you all a'talkin, too.
Angel isn't just Twilight. He's Angel.


Which should actually only have made it less likely for a sane and self-respecting woman to sleep with him just then. Because in addition to the unambiguous evil of the mask, there was then the unambiguous betrayal of the man wearing it.

Edward Cullen, on his worst day, wasn't more manipulative, more provincial about his role in the lady's life than Angel was here. At least Bella had the good taste to get indignant about it occasionally. Buffy in Season 8? Instant sexual availability.
Edward Cullen, on his worst day, wasn't more manipulative, more provincial about his role in the lady's life than Angel was here. At least Bella had the good taste to get indignant about it occasionally. Buffy in Season 8? Instant sexual availability.


But the universe made her do it!

The universe is a dirty old man. I think the universe might have made a sex tape too.

(Wait...could the universe actually be...the head of Rossum???)

Yes, Buffy season 8 has got me talking. But so do car accidents and stock market crashes.
He's Angel, he's Angelus, he's Twilight, he's a breath mint AND a candy mint. Everyone who considered her to be 'demeaning' herself in S6 by boinking someone who was 'beneath her', take a good look at her now. And, while 16 year-old girls may believe that 'soul mates' conquer all, the woman Buffy is supposed to be now would be pretty far from that starry-eyed lack of maturity.
The reason I hated Buffy boinking Spike and the way the show had Spike be good for Buffy was because it undermined the very essences of Btvs. From the point of Spike I expected Buffy to do everything she could to get to vampires when they are young and reform them. Since they didn't need a soul to be good. I got over that by thinking ok Dru was a special girl before she was made and the vampires she make got some of that. It doesn't work exactly but it worked enough for me to continue watching. Although season 6 and 7 should never have been watched as seasons. They move much faster on DVD. Even though still a lot of Boring and/or eye rolling.

And I have no idea why Buffy had sex with Angel. I'm waiting to judge them both. Once I truly understand Twilight I will decide if it's acceptable to me. I have a feeling that a lot of people will retroactively enjoy the comics more once they are all out.
I really can't even fathom what's left to judge about Twilight. But in the situation of Buffy choosing to sleep with him, there is nothing left to find out. She already slept with him and already did so with only the knowledge she had of him at the time. At the time, there was absolutely no rational reason whatsoever to view him as anything other than (at worst) evil, or (at best) horribly insane.
I don't think it's clear yet whether she did choose to sleep with him. We still don't know if it was just the glowhypnol effect. I'm not saying that would be good writing but it would at least mean that neither of them were completely in control of their actions.
The Glowhypnol has been more desperation than actual text from the start. I don't think that 8.34 or 8.35 did much to validate it, since schmooping about over the Universe wanting them to be together could just as eagerly (and has been) feasted upon as a demonstration of the weirdness of them having gotten together in the first place.
My point is several really. First, the medium is really not conducive to the story. Here is one thing to remember: Buffy the comic will succeed only if it draws both new readers unaware of the TV show, and old readers who are cognoscenti. I do not believe that this comic is drawing too many of the former- none of this would make sense to them or would not resonate at all (not that it does for me). Second, had Buffy originated as a comic, I do not believe whedonesque would even exist. That is just opinion, of course, but there is no brilliance here, not like in the TV show. I do think the story itself is not very good, to be sure, but I do not think it is served well by the medium in which it is being told. Too many people are of the opinion that getting it this way is better than not getting it at all; I am not sure I agree, because I think the story is poor and the medium is too slow for a more televisually savvy readership. A better way to view this is to ask, how many of us are avidly reading comics for TV shows we never watched when they were on TV? I do read the few CSI comics that have been published, but I don't find them very good (though better and more true to the characters than this is). And an even better barometer is to note that this comic has led to more negative comments than anything I can think of that Joss did before, including Dollhouse, which had a mixed reception at best. This is not Joss' best work.
"Too many people are of the opinion that getting it this way is better than not getting it at all..."


I'd agree with that opinion if I thought that it followed that most of those who would prefer Buffy as a television series also think that the comic book story is not very good. I don't think it's as clear cut as all that. I'd prefer a television series, but I'm also enjoying Buffy as a comic. As I've said, there are parts of the comic storyline I haven't particularly liked but that was true on the tv show as well. I don't think anything has happened in the comics so far, the Twilight/Angel randomness included, that I've disliked more than the 'Buffy working at Doublemeat Palace' storyline of season 6. I'd take Twilight space-sex over fast-food Buffy any day of the week.

Is this Joss' best work? Not all of it, for sure. Some of Season 8 has been excellent though. In fact I'd go as far as to say that at least 90% of what I've read has been pretty damn good and all of it has been better than Bad Eggs, Life Serial or The Killer In Me. Which, to be fair, is not difficult.
Dana, when Firefly aired I remember the Buffy forums being full of outraged fans slagging it off. ('Fireflop', anybody?). At the time forums during season 7 were fun, too - if you went to some places you'd think Joss was personally kicking people in the face every week.
Dana5140
And an even better barometer is to note that this comic has led to more negative comments than anything I can think of that Joss did before

It would be a lot better barometer if it wasn't for the number of those negative comments that come from the same dozen or so posters. Some of those posters go from one site to another repeating exactly the same comments over and over on every site they can access with every single issue that's released, and have done since prior to Issue #1. Kinda reminds me of the "ballot-stuffing" that goes on in those godforsaken internet "polls". And this should be taken as representative of a majority of the audience exactly why, now?

[ edited by Rowan Hawthorn on 2010-08-30 01:24 ]
Dana said:
"had Buffy originated as a comic, I do not believe whedonesque would even exist. That is just opinion, of course, but there is no brilliance here, not like in the TV show."

Why do you believe Whedonesque would not have existed ? You might very well be right, but there are plenty of fansites devoted to talented comic book artists and writers (which Joss would've been, in this alternate Buffy-as-comic-first universe). Buffy having begun in comic book form would not preclude that. Also, if Buffy had begun as a comic (let's also pretend that we would've more or less gotten the same scripts and arcs, though the set-up of main creator continuing to oversee his creation while he lets others take a swing at writing it is extremely uncommon in comics), then we would've seen Seasons 1 to 7 play out in print. If the book had managed to stay in print, I think it would've been pretty successful, long as people found it (if it had been published at Dark Horse or Image--because I'm not gonna pretend it would've fit at Marvel or DC--then it probably would've been discovered. If a smaller publisher, then yeah, if word of mouth wasn't strong enough, it easily could've died on the vine).

The medium does not prevent the writers from telling stories that're just as well made and resonant as the TV series. Comics are just as capable of providing the same level of entertainment and emotional connection to characters as novels, TV, and film are. If Buffy Season 8 hasn't done that for you, then maybe that's a failing of the particular story and dialogue on offer in this particular comic book series, not the medium as a whole (I know I keep harping on this when you comment on the medium, but until you read a comic or graphic novel that connects with you significantly, and unless you stop coming off as dismissive of comics as a whole in your posts, I'm gonna keep defending the medium as one that's legitimate and just as capable of delivering on the intelligent story front as all the other entertainment media). Personally I think a lot of the earlier Season 8 stuff was true to the TV series, plus a few later issues and scenes. The Xander & Buffy conversations in the early #30s in particular, felt exactly like they would've if they'd been performed for TV. Comics do that, often! It's not all crazy costumes, flying around, and lifting trains. Some of my favorite comics have been small, non-genre, very human dramas. The medium is capable of that, the Season 8 writers simply haven't been interested in doing a whole lot of "talking heads"/getting-to-the-meat-of-the-characters, not as much as most readers would've liked. This was obvious when we got those awesome bits of main characters actually discussing things and having meaningful, familiar-feeling interactions. A chunk of the readership was fucking starved for it.

I miss the actors, the music, the filmography(not in a way that I was mourning the show after "Chosen"--it was definitely time for it to have ended--but now that we have new stories delivered to us monthly, it is kind of a tease for what could've been)...I'd take the TV series back in a heartbeat, although there is the freedom in the comic to go places with the exploration and presentation of themes that couldn't be touched, or told in the same way, were they attempted on TV. I hope we see Joss and company take further advantage of that in Season 9 to display why comics might be an advantageous format for the remainder of Joss' plan to play out across. Having seen it done before, as many here have, I know it's possible to tell quality, funny, tear-jerky, powerful Buffyverse tales without the aid of all the expensive trappings of TV. With the bare bones of what produced the TV episodes, the scripts.

The writers managed beautifully in Fray, Tales of the Slayer, Tales of the Vampires (to a lesser degree than Tales of the Slayer, but still well-made/worthwhile), and Jane Espenson's Season 3 & 4 bridge, the Faith & Mayor tale "Haunted". I might be forgetting some other pre-Season 8, canon comics that worked.
Gossi- thank you for the comments on Firefly. I don't think I was a regular poster here when Firefly first aired, so I was unaware of that negativity, and can only base my comments on the "now," in which there seems fairly universal acclaim for the show.

Rowan- this is the only site I post on regarding Buffy, so I cannot speak to whether or not people here post elsewhere and offer the same arguments. I can only speak about what I see here. And here, there is certainly some negativity, and I don't see that it matters that it comes from the same people; it comes from people, period. And just to take your point, if a few people post comments here, there and everywhere, that's probably worth noting.

Kris- yes, if Buffy began as a comic it is certainly possible a fansite would come up, withe devotees and acolytes, just as is the case for much in popular culture- but it would not be the whedonesque we know today. It would be different. I would never dismiss comics in general; I collect them and love many of them, and find some of them excellent (I like Joss work with Runaways, for example- though I am honestly more a fan of Silver Age and Justice League in particular), so because I don't like this comic, and comment on the medium here, don't assume I dislike them all or dilike the entire medium. I just am not sure this medium is serving this story well; changing the story from a human one to a larger one, and Buffy was always about the characters. Joss told great stories without using a cosmic pallet.

[ edited by Dana5140 on 2010-08-30 16:13 ]
Dana5140:
Rowan- this is the only site I post on regarding Buffy, so I cannot speak to whether or not people here post elsewhere and offer the same arguments.

I can. And they do. Every single issue, without fail. They're often among, if not the first to post, and it's not just the same "arguments", it's the same exact vitriolic phrases issue after issue.

I can only speak about what I see here. And here, there is certainly some negativity, and I don't see that it matters that it comes from the same people;

It matters because it gives the desired impression that those opinions are more uniform throughout the fandom than they might actually be. If 800 negative comments come from, say, eight people, then claiming that as a majority opinion would be wishful thinking, at best.
I am not claiming any such thing, only that there are many negative comments here, and I believe they are not from the same 8 people.
Then I suggest you pay closer attention to these threads. Eight was simply a number, but that wouldn't be far off for this site.

"Second verse, same as the first".

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