|
Post by WinterDreamer on Feb 2, 2004 23:46:01 GMT -5
Logic? Oz? Oz has his own logic, and maybe he could rescue Angel from something. Julia, who just wants to be told an involving story, and hopes the writers can get every character they need to tell it. I suppose the main problem with having Buffy stars guest on Angel is not that they unbalance the relationships between the continuing characters, which they sometimes do, but that the writers often don't get to decide if a certain actor is going to make an appearance. The actor is signed, then the writers have to make the character fit into the storyline that's happening. It amazes me that they are able to do as well at fitting them in as they do. It can't be an easy job. Another problem is that the writers can have a difficult time finding the guest character's voice. For example, last season's Willow on AtS. It wasn't so much that she didn't sound like Willow, it was that she didn't sound like the Willow we were seeing on Buffy at the same time. I felt the same way about Angel on BtVS last season. If you were watching AtS at the same time, it was hard not to find his demeanor on Buffy a little jarring. I guess since there is no BtVS to compare them to, this might not be so much of a problem. Andrew certainly seemed to be very much in character, even while he was doing something that no one would have thought he had the guts to do--stand up to Angel.
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Feb 2, 2004 23:58:39 GMT -5
Andrew certainly seemed to be very much in character, even while he was doing something that no one would have thought he had the guts to do--stand up to Angel. I've been rereading all the scripts with Andrew in and what that standing up to Angel bit reminds me of is when he tells Jonathan 'He's Picard. You're Deana Troi. Get used to the feeling, Betazoid.' Andrew isnt assertive on his own account, but once he chooses a side he is real proud of it. Buffy is Andrew's side, she says Angel is out, therefore Angel is out. Real simple in Andrew world. Follower. Goes where led. But also brave to stand up to him face to face like that, cause Angels about twice the size of Jonathan.
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Feb 3, 2004 0:02:15 GMT -5
I don't know if Spike will wind up w/ Buffy in the end or not - I'm just not ruling out a possible off-screen reunion. I really don't understand the "let's move on" attitude, tho'. There were times I wanted to shake Buffy til her teeth rattled, but I still like her. I like the references to her. She was important to both Angel and Spike, and not referencing her would seem strange. I see it the same way as removing the Twin Towers from movies shot before 9-11. Just because someone you love is gone, doesn't mean you cut them out of all the family photos. B/S was an especially important relationship for both parties. You don't just get over the woman for whom you won back your soul. OTOH, I really want Angel to sh*t or get off the pot. He has done nothing by way of removing the great barrier coming btwn him and the woman he claims to love. If Spike moves on in time, so be it, but Angel can't risk losing his soul. He needs to deal, but he can't or won't and I don't see the great, shining love there. If Buffy really meant so much to him, wouldn't he make more of an effort?
|
|
|
Post by Angels Champion on Feb 3, 2004 3:27:18 GMT -5
Technically Angels Champion she was the show but I see what you're saying. I'd love to see Oz come back for an episode sometime but there is no logical way to write him into Season 5 I don't think. If there is a season 6 a sort of 2 - 5 episode run with Buffy guest staring to bring an end to the whole B/S & B/A thing would be good. She may have been THE SHOW on BtVS, but she certainly wasn't or isn't the show on Angel. It me, on Angel, she's a blip on the radar . . . that's it.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Feb 3, 2004 8:26:02 GMT -5
Buffy is Andrew's side, she says Angel is out, therefore Angel is out. Real simple in Andrew world. Follower. Goes where led. . And she does have shiny hair. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 3, 2004 14:15:16 GMT -5
She may have been THE SHOW on BtVS, but she certainly wasn't or isn't the show on Angel. It me, on Angel, she's a blip on the radar . . . that's it. I suppose, but to continue playing Devil's Advocate ('cause Len is so much with the absent of late), Angel (the Series) wouldn't exist without Buffy. The character himself wouldn't exist, and certainly wouldn't be as interesting without the playing off Buffy. Actually, one of the flaws in AtS, which explains why it took me to long to become a fan, is that Angel was one of the less interesting characters (to me). But the most expendable, in the sense of a spin-off, at the time.
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Feb 3, 2004 14:32:10 GMT -5
I suppose, but to continue playing Devil's Advocate ('cause Len is so much with the absent of late), Angel (the Series) wouldn't exist without Buffy. The character himself wouldn't exist, and certainly wouldn't be as interesting without the playing off Buffy. Actually, one of the flaws in AtS, which explains why it took me to long to become a fan, is that Angel was one of the less interesting characters (to me). But the most expendable, in the sense of a spin-off, at the time. ITA. I was shocked when I read an AtS fan's comment referring to Spike as a "Buffy cast-off." I was, like, HELLO! I've been watching AtS all along, but I'm not as familiar with the nuances of every ep as BtVS. AtS has only recently come out in syndication, and I watch the occasional rerun, but it isn't something I make time to watch. If I catch it, great. If not, that's ok too.
|
|
|
Post by Angels Champion on Feb 3, 2004 14:33:40 GMT -5
Actually, one of the flaws in AtS, which explains why it took me to long to become a fan, is that Angel was one of the less interesting characters (to me). But the most expendable, in the sense of a spin-off, at the time. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you there. I find Angel's character quite interesting in the present and his back story. The only reason I started watching Buffy to begin with was to get some of the backstory on Angel and Cordy. I stuck around cuz I liked Cordy and then Willow. The only reason I continued to watch Buffy til the end was cuz of Spike.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 3, 2004 14:52:42 GMT -5
I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you there. I find Angel's character quite interesting in the present and his back story. The only reason I started watching Buffy to begin with was to get some of the backstory on Angel and Cordy. I stuck around cuz I liked Cordy and then Willow. The only reason I continued to watch Buffy til the end was cuz of Spike. Valid reasons, all. And lots of folks disagree with me on the whole Angel as an interesting character issue. To me, at the time, he was (apologies to Angel fans) an irritating brooder. I've been waiting for eight years for what happened last week - someone told him to get over it. Now, I understand that getting over it might be very difficult, and different kinds of folks deal better. But I've always been in the camp that doesn't hold either Angel or Spike responsible for their soulless actions, so the persistent guilt bugs me, even though I understand it in my more charitable moments. No one can help the way they feel, whether it makes sense or not (rarely does), and Angel's character has been written a certain way - Spike's is refreshingly different. But we all gravitate toward certain personality types and away from others, and for me the broody, dark, sensitive type just provokes irritation. On the other hand, Buffy, Xander, Willow, and to a degree Cordelia, I loved. Willow was my hands-down favorite, and Giles ran a close second.
|
|
tkent
S'cubie
"Angel and I have never been intimate...well except that once..." --New fodder for fanfic!
Posts: 21
|
Post by tkent on Feb 3, 2004 15:57:51 GMT -5
Again a great Nanalysis! and terrific, insightful comments by everyone as well!
Forgive me if I repeat anything that's already been discussed. I just read through this entire thread and am trying to get my thoughts in order but I'm sure I'll repeat what others already have said anyway!
I am also of the camp that I'd rather not see Buffy reappear on Angel for a few reasons: 1. Buffy's story has pretty much been completed (in my eyes anyway). 2. Angel as a show has always been fairly independent of Buffy (someone else may have already mentioned that). 3. My own, "kinda tired of her" thoughts as well... 4. In order for both Angel and Spike to get wherever they're going I think they both need to leave Buffy behind. Move on, as it appears she has done to them.
The Duster... When Dana pulled it off I thought exactly what others have thought...The slayer is taking it back! Yes, Robin tried to strip him of it as well and that didn't work so well. Not sure how I feel about whether he should give it up for good. To me, I see it as a symbol of his strength and power, not just a symbol of his "evil" or as a trophy.
The Hands... This was my take: All I could think of was Shakespeare, "Out Damn spot!." Basically I saw it as Spike can't wash the blood off his hands even if you take his hands away. (totally didn't catch the forearm thing). As was discussed before he was forced to see his victims for perhaps the very first time as real people.
Two things I didn't see the same way. The first was that I never for an instant thought that Spike was the one who tortured Dana. As soon as they showed his face in her "memory" I immediately just assumed she was mixing her reality and her dementia. I think that was based solely on knowing that would be out of character for Spike to do the long drawn out torture thing.
The other was Spike's comment at the end: "More’n I’d like. But not as much as you would [like me to be in]. Just what I deserve." When I watched that scene I took it as Spike implying that Angel would want to suffer even more: "But not as much as you would [want to suffer]." I thought he was commenting on Angel's self punishment. Now I think "But not as much as you would [like me to be in]." makes more sense.
I did love the comment someone made about Spike being all in white at the end. Anybody have more comments on that? That hadn't really registered with me. I guess I was just finding it odd to see a vampire as a patient in the hospital!
I also agree the end of the ep felt like a beginning.
Interesting comments about Andrew, looking like William. It was nice to see someone being truly happy to see Spike. I also noticed how he never told Andrew to bugger off or anything. Just told him to shut up once or twice.
In the scene when Spike and Andrew were walking...
Anybody catch the similarity in that scene to the one in Angel (Forgot the ep name!) when Spike went to try and get the Gem of Amara from Angel and Spike was watching from above doing a "voiceover" as Angel saved the girl?
I also found it interesting that Andrew stuck with Spike. Was it because he doesn't trust Angel & Co., simply because he "knows" Spike but not the others, because he was more sure of who could find the girl or some other reason?
Just my two cents on all of it! My favorite ep this season so far. I think they've really hit a good stride.
|
|
|
Post by Angels Champion on Feb 3, 2004 16:06:44 GMT -5
Valid reasons, all. And lots of folks disagree with me on the whole Angel as an interesting character issue. To me, at the time, he was (apologies to Angel fans) an irritating brooder. I've been waiting for eight years for what happened last week - someone told him to get over it. Well that's what I liked best about him. Now that I look back at him on Buffy, and I find I like his character better away from her and on his own. I just rewatched Sanctuary from Season 1 and I loved his standing up to Buffy and telling her off, especially in the Police Station. I was pissed off at him that he wanted to apologize ot her and then to see he did go to Sunnydale and do just that. I do hold them both responsible for things they've done while soulless, same as I hold responsible others who do wrongs things, but yet try to come of with some defense for it like you read about all the time in the papers. While I do love the character Spike, I was growing wearing of him in Season 6 being Buffy's lap dog and punching back and just wish he would have stood up to her. I like him this season, but the snark wears thin at times. I think I liked him best in Season 2, 4, and 5. Xander is okay, but I found I got quite bored with him at time with his petty jealousies and whoa is me. I have to say my favorite character was Faith, followed by Buffy and then Giles.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 3, 2004 16:36:43 GMT -5
Well that's what I liked best about him. Now that I look back at him on Buffy, and I find I like his character better away from her and on his own. I just rewatched Sanctuary from Season 1 and I loved his standing up to Buffy and telling her off, especially in the Police Station. I was pissed off at him that he wanted to apologize ot her and then to see he did go to Sunnydale and do just that. I'll agree with some of that - Angel is a much more interesting character without Buffy - and Buffy was a much more interesting character without Angel. That relationship was just hard to watch, because it was so obviously unhealthy, and yet there it was. Ah, but some reasons are valid - a person who is a violent schizophrenic and is unmedicated isn't responsible for their actions, necessarily, because they didn't have the capacity to choose whether or not to behave the way they did. And they didn't choose to be schizophrenic. Now, once a person knows they need to be medicated, and has a medication that works for them, they are wholly responsible for anything they do when off the drug(s), just as a person who kills someone while drunk is entirely responsible. I view soullessness the same way - neither Angel nor Spike really chose to become a vampire, and once the soul was gone, they had no moral "compass" to make them do what's right and not do what's wrong. How can they be responsible for things that they had no real ability to control? So, in my view, as long as they now make right choices, and Angel doesn't do anything that will cause him to lose his soul again, the slate is clean for both of them. There's a lot more to Xander than petty jealousies, though - he was a beautiful example of a person who was special not because of what he could do, but of who he was. He was the most loyal friend you could ask for - he'd drop anything if Buffy, Willow, or Dawn needed him. He came from a horrible background to become a man who I, at least, would be proud to know, and flattered if he displayed "petty jealousy" over me. (Irritated, mostly, but flattered way back where no one could see it.) I gotta defend Xander - because, short of Spike, a better job of characterization of a "secondary" character I've never seen.
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Feb 3, 2004 18:41:01 GMT -5
<big snip> There's a lot more to Xander than petty jealousies, though - he was a beautiful example of a person who was special not because of what he could do, but of who he was. He was the most loyal friend you could ask for - he'd drop anything if Buffy, Willow, or Dawn needed him. He came from a horrible background to become a man who I, at least, would be proud to know, and flattered if he displayed "petty jealousy" over me. (Irritated, mostly, but flattered way back where no one could see it.) I gotta defend Xander - because, short of Spike, a better job of characterization of a "secondary" character I've never seen. With you, Rachael: I feel I must leap to the defense of Xander, and not just because Rob would hit me if I didn't. Xander is the single most witty character on BtVS, not excepting Cordelia. He uses humor all the time; he uses it as a defense. He's both on the same page as the other Scoobies (they understand his humor) and apart from them, coming at life from quite a different direction because he has no superpowers or special skills, other than loyalty and carpentry. Anybody who's ever tried to write good Xander dialogue in fiction (as I have) comes to a very sharp appreciation of his wit and style. And if for no other reason than that, in that witty, stylish series, he's a standout and the series would be much poorer without him. Doesn't mean every viewer has to like the chraracter personally--I find Tara much more persuasive in theory than in person--but the series would have been quite different without Xander's high level of verbal hijinks as the standard.
|
|
|
Post by ldelrossi on Feb 3, 2004 18:53:54 GMT -5
Another thoughtful review Nan. Of course my favorite part as always is whatever passes between Spike and Angel. I have always known that they cared for each other but were too hurt, stubborn, whatever, to admit it. No one is so snarky or annoying or pissed off with someone if they are totally unimportant to you. Why bother?
I liked how you developed A/S differences. They each have strengths and flaws. If they put their strengths together, their flaws might soften as well.
Angel tried to convince Spike not to go after Dana once they learned she was a slayer. But as you said, Spike is impatient; always a man of action first, thought later. In "In the Dark," he "had a plan, a good plan, but I got bored..." and initially was defeated by Angel.
Angel is thoughtful and broody and although he does act, he worries that he has not done the best that he could do; not enough to make up for his viciousness. The perfect example of that is in "Hero." I'm sure he believed that he should have acted quicker, that he should have overpowered Doyle, so that he, the vampire with so much to atone for, would die to save the demons. I remember thinking much later after the tears, sobs, and anger, about Spike's words to Buffy about being "a little in love" with death. In that situation, Angel might have been a little in love with death, in part to atone and perhaps in part, like Spike to be able to finally "rest."
Even in "Sanctuary" when he had good reason to yell at Buffy, he felt guilty for his feelings and his actions. As Spike said, Angel needs to stop his guilt ponderings because it's making him look old. (We should all look that good at 250!)
We saw the deepening connection between Angel and Spike at the end. Angel didn't have to go see Spike. I'm sure he was getting the best of care at a W&H state of the art facility. He did go. Spike didn't have to confess what was troubling him to Angel, but he did so.
Once upon a time they were both innocent. Once upon a time they lived together in a family. Little by little, they are allowing those once upon a time memories to infiltrate the years of anger, pain, envy, frustration, etc that they have been holding onto.
And since I believe in fairy tales, once upon a time they will live "somewhat" happily ever after at the end of the show - but hopefully we will get to watch their snarky interaction for a long, long time.
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Feb 3, 2004 19:04:16 GMT -5
With you, Rachael: I feel I must leap to the defense of Xander, and not just because Rob would hit me if I didn't. Xander is the single most witty character on BtVS, not excepting Cordelia. He uses humor all the time; he uses it as a defense. He's both on the same page as the other Scoobies (they understand his humor) and apart from them, coming at life from quite a different direction because he has no superpowers or special skills, other than loyalty and carpentry. Anybody who's ever tried to write good Xander dialogue in fiction (as I have) comes to a very sharp appreciation of his wit and style. And if for no other reason than that, in that witty, stylish series, he's a standout and the series would be much poorer without him. Doesn't mean every viewer has to like the chraracter personally--I find Tara much more persuave in theory than in person--but the series would have been quite different without Xander's high level of verbal hijinks as the standard. ITA. Xander isn't my favorite character, but he was very important to BtVS. Humor makes the worst situations bearable and Xander saw the funny side of things.
|
|