Angel 4x03 - [SPOILERS]
Niall Harrison
> Spoiler space for Angel 4x03
> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
> Right, that's
> his obligatory appearance out of the way. Why did they make him a regular
> again?
So that we don't get another Pylea, one assumes.
Actually, I thought the scene worked, because...
> Really, this scene is about Angel.
Exactly.
> And we discover that Angel apparently hung out with the Rat Pack,
'Hung out with' is something of an overstatement, I think. Staggered into
a few parties whilst drunk and was mistaken for a member of the band is
more like it, which actually fits pretty well with how I imagine him post
AYNOHYEB.
As HGH pointed out on ata, those lines had the ring of Spike's speeches to
Buffy in 'Fool For Love'.
> We get a full rendition of 'Lady Marmalade'
You'd think they could have given us something else. We've already had
that one once! :)
> Anyway, it turns out that Lorne is being held captive and forced to read
> the destinies of audience members who sing. The casino owner has a wheel
> that can steal said destinies, which are then sold on the black market.
Mmmm...metaphor. And actually a neat way of making Lorne's powers into a
plot.
Actually, given the obvious Cordy/Lorne parallels, I'm wondering how much
we can infer about Cordy's situation...
> Meanwhile Angel has been off investigating, and well, what do you know,
> they can steal vampire destinies as well.
Between this and the vamping out hallucinations in 'Deep Down', is anyone
else seeing foreshadowy goodness?
> There's also a completely unconnected Wesley scene,
You want to talk characters who shouldn't be regulars? Connor fit in in
this episode better than Wesley did.
> And back to Vegas. Fred, Gunn and Lorne try to escape. We get another of
> Lornes high-pitched screams which seem to incapacitate everyone who's not
> one of our heros.
I thought it was the exploding light show more than the voice, but there
you go.
> His friends are about to get killed and Angel's not
> going to do anything. Except he is, obviously.
This was weak. I get that it's the 'Angel wants to rebuild his family'
theme they've had going every week so far, but it was still weak.
> Guess who's waiting for them? Yeah, it's Cordy.
Congratulations to everyone who bitched about Cordelia last season and
said they wanted Queen C back. You got her.
Hope you're happy.
(Bitter? Me?)
> Well, that was bloody awful,
Nah, it was fine. Better than last week, anyway.
Conspiracy theory: Cordy didn't get booted out as punishment for helping
Angel, she got pulled out by whatever funky package Wesley was assembling.
This would mean that the Wesley scene had a point beyond showing us him
having sex with Lilah, which I would really like to be the case.
Niall
--
Verbing weirds langauge.
Dan Milburn
'The House Always Wins'
written by David Fury
Well, guess what, it's Vegas baby!
But first, we get Connor. This is the same Connor, you will recall, who
was formerly known as 'The Destroyer'. Over the summer, his fighting
skills seem to have dropped off sharply, because now he's having a lot of
trouble killing one vamp. Fortunately daddy's there watching him from a
rooftop, and handily distracts it so he can get it staked. Right, that's
his obligatory appearance out of the way. Why did they make him a regular
again? Really, this scene is about Angel. With Cordelia gone, and having
kicked his son out, he's feeling a little directionless. Oh, and Cordy is
still up in her higher dimension, watching over them and desperate for
Angel to rescue her.
So, yes, Angel, Gunn and Fred decide to go on a spiritual retreat. To Las
Vegas. There's a little reference back to 'Heartthrob' where, of course,
much was made of the point that Angel should have gone there instead of
the demon monastery in Tibet. And we discover that Angel apparently hung
out with the Rat Pack, which is certainly not how *I* pictured him having
spent his time between walking out of that hotel and ending up on the
streets feeding off rats. Of course, Lorne is in Vegas, and Angel needs
to get his destiny read, so they find him, headlining at a large casino of
course. We get a full rendition of 'Lady Marmalade', complete with a
troupe of Lornettes, and Fred smiles a lot, which may not be of interest
to anyone else, but damn she's cute. But wait! Something's wrong. Lorne
seems to be ignoring them. He walks straight past them during his
performance, and also when they join the queue of autograph hunters
afterwards.
Anyway, it turns out that Lorne is being held captive and forced to read
the destinies of audience members who sing. The casino owner has a wheel
that can steal said destinies, which are then sold on the black market.
Why Lorne was ignoring them, we never actually discover, since when Fred
manages to sneak into his dressing room in a truly awful bit of undercover
work, he seems very pleased to see her. Meanwhile Angel has been off
investigating, and well, what do you know, they can steal vampire
destinies as well. Cue Angel sitting blankly at a slot machine, and being
strangely convincing as a being which has no destiny.
There's also a completely unconnected Wesley scene, wherein he has phone
sex with Lilah, and appears to have set up in competition with AI, only
his operation is much more efficient than they ever were.
And back to Vegas. Fred, Gunn and Lorne try to escape. We get another of
Lornes high-pitched screams which seem to incapacitate everyone who's not
one of our heros. They eventually get captured, and evil casino boss is
going to kill them. Angel is still sitting there, sticking quarters into
a slot machine. Cordy is sat there getting very frustrated that she can't
intervene... can she? Oh, she can. The slot machines are rigged never to
pay out, but somehow, on his last quarter, the pictures line up, and Angel
has won $300,000. This is all to get him in the back room with the
others, but even then, apart from the room looking strangely familiar,
there's no spark. His friends are about to get killed and Angel's not
going to do anything. Except he is, obviously. No, really, Fury, you had
us going for a moment there. Honest. Vamp face, big fight, I'm sure one
of the guards gets shot in the head, but hey, let's not worry about that
right? The destiny storing thing gets broken, and all the people sat at
slot machines get theirs back. Angel realises that he has been in the
room before, when he got mistaken for a member of Elvises band or
something. There's a thing where we discover that Gunn is Angels friend,
which rather seems to contradict an episode I remember from a season ago.
They head back home with Lorne.
Guess who's waiting for them? Yeah, it's Cordy. But get this, there's a
twist, you just won't believe it. In a truly stunning and original turn
of events, she seems to have lost her memory. 'Who are you guys?'
Well, that was bloody awful, and next week we get amnesiac Cordy, so I
really can't imagine that's gonna be any better. What the hell's
happened to this show?
Dan
Chris Ashby
"Dan Milburn" <daniel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.10.22.12...@hotmail.com...
> Well, that was bloody awful, and next week we get amnesiac Cordy, so I
> really can't imagine that's gonna be any better. What the hell's
> happened to this show?
Season 3.
Dan Milburn
>> And we discover that Angel apparently hung out with the Rat Pack,
>
> 'Hung out with' is something of an overstatement, I think. Staggered
> into a few parties whilst drunk and was mistaken for a member of the
> band is more like it, which actually fits pretty well with how I imagine
> him post AYNOHYEB.
Possibly. Still, like most name-dropping, it all seemed a bit pointless.
>> We get a full rendition of 'Lady Marmalade'
>
> You'd think they could have given us something else. We've already had
> that one once! :)
Andy Hallett probably wanted to try and outdo Moulin Rouge. I'm sure I
remember him saying how much he hated that version when I saw him. :)
>> Anyway, it turns out that Lorne is being held captive and forced to
>> read the destinies of audience members who sing. The casino owner has
>> a wheel that can steal said destinies, which are then sold on the black
>> market.
>
> Mmmm...metaphor. And actually a neat way of making Lorne's powers into a
> plot.
>
> Actually, given the obvious Cordy/Lorne parallels, I'm wondering how
> much we can infer about Cordy's situation...
Obvious? None spring to mind.
>> There's also a completely unconnected Wesley scene,
>
> You want to talk characters who shouldn't be regulars? Connor fit in in
> this episode better than Wesley did.
Yeah, but, well, Wesley already was a regular. Connor hasn't done
anything so far which justifies him being one - and yes, I know the same
applied to Gunn at this point in S2, and Fred in S3, but this really does
feel to me like one too many.
>> And back to Vegas. Fred, Gunn and Lorne try to escape. We get another
>> of Lornes high-pitched screams which seem to incapacitate everyone
>> who's not one of our heros.
>
> I thought it was the exploding light show more than the voice, but there
> you go.
Well, both if you like, but it's not like we haven't seen that particular
power before..
>> His friends are about to get killed and Angel's not going to do
>> anything. Except he is, obviously.
>
> This was weak. I get that it's the 'Angel wants to rebuild his family'
> theme they've had going every week so far, but it was still weak.
I don't see what it even had to do with any theme.
>> Guess who's waiting for them? Yeah, it's Cordy.
>
> Congratulations to everyone who bitched about Cordelia last season and
> said they wanted Queen C back. You got her.
>
> Hope you're happy.
>
> (Bitter? Me?)
I don't know that we are getting her back, and personally I wouldn't have
been bothered if she'd just left the show altogether. But *anything* is
better than the Cordy at the end of last season.
>> Well, that was bloody awful,
>
> Nah, it was fine. Better than last week, anyway.
It was the Cordy-ness which really made it suck.
> Conspiracy theory: Cordy didn't get booted out as punishment for helping
> Angel, she got pulled out by whatever funky package Wesley was
> assembling. This would mean that the Wesley scene had a point beyond
> showing us him having sex with Lilah, which I would really like to be
> the case.
Cos that'd, like, show Wesley being the only character in the entire show
capable of getting anything done *again*. And you'd probably still
complain that he did it for the wrong reasons. ;P
Dan
Niall Harrison
"You knew the rat pack?"
"*Knew* them?...No. Met them once, twice...or was it three times? Hey, I
had a life before I met you guys, you know."
"...Seemed to think I was a member of the band, possibly because I was all
drunk and surly"
> Still, like most name-dropping, it all seemed a bit pointless.
I dunno, it felt appropriate. Last time Angel was in Vegas, he was also
somewhat lost.
>> Actually, given the obvious Cordy/Lorne parallels, I'm wondering how
>> much we can infer about Cordy's situation...
>
> Obvious? None spring to mind.
Well, there's the cry for help that nobody picks up on, for starters. Both
are held against their will. Both thought they were going to do something
they really wanted, then found out it wasn't all that.
And whilst we're on parallels, did the end of the episode remind anyone
else of the end of 'There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb'?
>>> There's also a completely unconnected Wesley scene,
>>
>> You want to talk characters who shouldn't be regulars? Connor fit in in
>> this episode better than Wesley did.
>
> Yeah, but, well, Wesley already was a regular. Connor hasn't done
> anything so far which justifies him being one - and yes, I know the same
> applied to Gunn at this point in S2, and Fred in S3, but this really does
> feel to me like one too many.
If they were shoe-horning him in without a reason, I'd agree with you, but
I haven't felt like that yet. Well, maybe last week. But this week, it was
a nice way of establishing Angel's mood and aimlessness. Yes, they *could*
have done it without Connor, but it works perfectly well (arguably better)
with him, so it's fine by me.
>>> And back to Vegas. Fred, Gunn and Lorne try to escape. We get another
>>> of Lornes high-pitched screams which seem to incapacitate everyone
>>> who's not one of our heros.
>>
>> I thought it was the exploding light show more than the voice, but there
>> you go.
>
> Well, both if you like, but it's not like we haven't seen that particular
> power before..
Well, um, yeah. So Our Heroes know what to expect, for one thing (and they
were covering their ears and ducking just like everybody else). As a joke,
not particularly funny, as a plot point, I buy it.
>>> His friends are about to get killed and Angel's not going to do
>>> anything. Except he is, obviously.
>>
>> This was weak. I get that it's the 'Angel wants to rebuild his family'
>> theme they've had going every week so far, but it was still weak.
>
> I don't see what it even had to do with any theme.
'Deep Down' opens with Angel's 'the family is back together' wish
fulfillment hallucination. 'Ground State' has the "what do you do if
something isn't where you left it?"/"you go and find it" exchange. THAW
tried to tell us that the reason Angel snapped out of it was that he was
fighting for his friend's destinies, that they're part of his destiny.
So yes, I'm sensing a theme. Theme at the expense of logical plot, even.
(There seems to also be a 'the world sucks, but we'll fight for it anyway'
vibe, but that's less explicit)
>>> Guess who's waiting for them? Yeah, it's Cordy.
>>
>> Congratulations to everyone who bitched about Cordelia last season and
>> said they wanted Queen C back. You got her.
>>
>> Hope you're happy.
>>
>> (Bitter? Me?)
>
> I don't know that we are getting her back,
I'm not sure how deep the amnesia is going to go. The fact that she
doesn't know who Angel is might imply that she doesn't remember anything
about Sunnydale, even - she might not know who she is, at all. Or, they
might just have erased knowledge of Angel Investigations. Does she
remember demons and vampires? Is she still part-demon?
But yeah, I'm thinking we're going to get Cordy's 'basic nature' shining
though. And if that happens, I promise you'll all be feeling my pain. :)
> But *anything* is better than the Cordy at the end of last season.
I'll hold you to that.
>>> Well, that was bloody awful,
>>
>> Nah, it was fine. Better than last week, anyway.
>
> It was the Cordy-ness which really made it suck.
Bizarrely, this one seems to be going down best at TWoP, where the
liked/disliked ratio is about 65/35 in favour. Everywhere else, it's
pretty much 50/50.
>> Conspiracy theory: Cordy didn't get booted out as punishment for helping
>> Angel, she got pulled out by whatever funky package Wesley was
>> assembling. This would mean that the Wesley scene had a point beyond
>> showing us him having sex with Lilah, which I would really like to be
>> the case.
>
> Cos that'd, like, show Wesley being the only character in the entire show
> capable of getting anything done *again*. And you'd probably still
> complain that he did it for the wrong reasons. ;P
You misrepresent me! I'm thrilled that Wesley is doing things for the
wrong reasons. I think it's a fantastic plot. I just think the constant
sex is getting dull.
It would be wonderfully ambiguous, though. We don't know whether Cordy was
actually in trouble, or just bored. If the amnesia is a side-effect of
pulling her out, you could have a very interesting debate about whether it
was worth it...and that's without starting on how Wes could have found out
about Cordy, or whether he was only getting her back because she, too, is
'necessary' for something.
But I suspect it was probably a punishment from TPTSY.
Niall
--
When memes collide.
Chris Ashby
> >>> much we can infer about Cordy's situation...
> >>
> >> Obvious? None spring to mind.
> >
> > Well, there's the cry for help that nobody picks up on, for starters.
> > Both are held against their will. Both thought they were going to do
> > something they really wanted, then found out it wasn't all that.
>
> find out about Cordys situation. There has to be some bigger reason
> behind her being higher being-ified, but they're being very slow to tell
> us what it was.
They never explained Darla's pregnancy. What makes you think they'll even
try to explain anything anymore?
Dan Milburn
>>> Actually, given the obvious Cordy/Lorne parallels, I'm wondering how
>>> much we can infer about Cordy's situation...
>>
>> Obvious? None spring to mind.
>
> Well, there's the cry for help that nobody picks up on, for starters.
> Both are held against their will. Both thought they were going to do
> something they really wanted, then found out it wasn't all that.
Well, when you put it like that.. :) I do wonder how much we'll actually
find out about Cordys situation. There has to be some bigger reason
behind her being higher being-ified, but they're being very slow to tell
us what it was.
> And whilst we're on parallels, did the end of the episode remind anyone
> else of the end of 'There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb'?
Slightly, yes.
>>>> His friends are about to get killed and Angel's not going to do
>>>> anything. Except he is, obviously.
>>>
>>> This was weak. I get that it's the 'Angel wants to rebuild his family'
>>> theme they've had going every week so far, but it was still weak.
>>
>> I don't see what it even had to do with any theme.
>
> 'Deep Down' opens with Angel's 'the family is back together' wish
> fulfillment hallucination. 'Ground State' has the "what do you do if
> something isn't where you left it?"/"you go and find it" exchange. THAW
> tried to tell us that the reason Angel snapped out of it was that he was
> fighting for his friend's destinies, that they're part of his destiny.
>
> So yes, I'm sensing a theme. Theme at the expense of logical plot, even.
And there was me thinking it was just a typical 'Angel kicks ass and saves
the day' resolution to the episode.. ;)
>>>> Guess who's waiting for them? Yeah, it's Cordy.
>>>
>>> Congratulations to everyone who bitched about Cordelia last season and
>>> said they wanted Queen C back. You got her.
>>>
>>> Hope you're happy.
>>>
>>> (Bitter? Me?)
>>
>> I don't know that we are getting her back,
>
> I'm not sure how deep the amnesia is going to go. The fact that she
> doesn't know who Angel is might imply that she doesn't remember anything
> about Sunnydale, even - she might not know who she is, at all. Or, they
> might just have erased knowledge of Angel Investigations. Does she
> remember demons and vampires? Is she still part-demon?
I have read the preview for next weeks ep on the WB website (not
deliberately, I was trying to look up who wrote and directed this one),
which sheds at least some light on the matter. I wasn't entirely thrilled
with what I read, I must say..
> But yeah, I'm thinking we're going to get Cordy's 'basic nature' shining
> though.
Hey, we could have her being all attracted to Wesley. Wouldn't *that* be
fun.
> And if that happens, I promise you'll all be feeling my pain. :)
But she was fun back in season 1! Still, I really don't think we'll be
going back to that, at least not completely.
>> But *anything* is better than the Cordy at the end of last season.
>
> I'll hold you to that.
Feel free. Or, well, if she annoys me *more* than she did in 'Tomorrow',
that may very well be grounds to give up entirely
>>> Conspiracy theory: Cordy didn't get booted out as punishment for
>>> helping Angel, she got pulled out by whatever funky package Wesley was
>>> assembling. This would mean that the Wesley scene had a point beyond
>>> showing us him having sex with Lilah, which I would really like to be
>>> the case.
>>
>> Cos that'd, like, show Wesley being the only character in the entire
>> show capable of getting anything done *again*. And you'd probably still
>> complain that he did it for the wrong reasons. ;P
>
> You misrepresent me! I'm thrilled that Wesley is doing things for the
> wrong reasons. I think it's a fantastic plot.
Kidding, mostly. It has potential to be an interesting plot. Right now,
it's just making what's left of AI look like total amateurs..
> I just think the constant
> sex is getting dull.
Agreed. Can we have some progression on the Wes/Lilah thing please?
> It would be wonderfully ambiguous, though. We don't know whether Cordy
> was actually in trouble, or just bored.
There's been no indication of the former that I've seen. But then, if she
was just bored, what was the point in the whole thing?
> If the amnesia is a side-effect
> of pulling her out, you could have a very interesting debate about
> whether it was worth it...
But that'd be a little similar to the whole pulling Buffy out of heaven
thing.
> and that's without starting on how Wes could have found out about Cordy,
Hey, maybe Angel did do the decent thing and let him know what he'd
discovered.
> or whether he was only getting her back because she, too, is 'necessary'
> for something.
I still don't believe he was being that cold in his reasons for recovering
Angel. The problem is, the only person he talks to about any of this is
someone we know he's probably lying to about most things.
> But I suspect it was probably a punishment from TPTSY.
/me had to think a while to get that acronym. :)
Dan
Dan Milburn
Well, when I say some bigger reason, I don't necessarily mean finding out
why Skip/the PTBs/whoever did it, although I'll be disappointed (but
sadly, not surprised) if we don't. I mean what purpose it serves
dramatically - basically, there has to be *some* pay-off for having to sit
through those scenes in 'Tomorrow'. If all it means is we get amnesiac
Cordy for an ep or two, then that episode, indeed everything they've done
with the character from 'Birthday' onwards, will go even further down in
my estimations, and that's really not something I thought possible until
now...
Dan
Niall Harrison
> "Dan Milburn" <daniel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2002.10.22.15...@hotmail.com...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
> They never explained Darla's pregnancy.
What part of 'it was a miracle' is difficult to understand?
> What makes you think they'll even try to explain anything anymore?
"Nothing human can move that fast. What are you?"
"Don't know yet."
Niall
--
Does it take the fireworks to make you look in wonder?
Niall Harrison
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:30:03 +0100, Niall Harrison wrote:
>> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:24:47 +0100, Niall Harrison wrote:
>>
>>>> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>>>>> Spoiler space for Angel 4x03
Plus writers for the next couple of episodes.
I don't really think three episodes qualifies as 'very slow'. Now, if we
haven't had a clue by the end of november sweeps, I'll be with you.
Outside the story, my gut is telling me they've aborted whatever story
they were going to tell 'cause of the reaction to 'Tomorrow'.
>> 'Deep Down' opens with Angel's 'the family is back together' wish
>> fulfillment hallucination. 'Ground State' has the "what do you do if
>> something isn't where you left it?"/"you go and find it" exchange. THAW
>> tried to tell us that the reason Angel snapped out of it was that he was
>> fighting for his friend's destinies, that they're part of his destiny.
>>
>> So yes, I'm sensing a theme. Theme at the expense of logical plot, even.
>
> And there was me thinking it was just a typical 'Angel kicks ass and saves
> the day' resolution to the episode.. ;)
Well, it's that too.
>> I'm not sure how deep the amnesia is going to go. The fact that she
>> doesn't know who Angel is might imply that she doesn't remember anything
>> about Sunnydale, even - she might not know who she is, at all. Or, they
>> might just have erased knowledge of Angel Investigations. Does she
>> remember demons and vampires? Is she still part-demon?
>
> I have read the preview for next weeks ep on the WB website (not
> deliberately, I was trying to look up who wrote and directed this one),
David Fury and Marita Grabiak. </geek>
Next up: Jeff Bell. Then the new girls, IIRC.
>> And if that happens, I promise you'll all be feeling my pain. :)
>
> But she was fun back in season 1!
No, she was annoying!
>>> Cos that'd, like, show Wesley being the only character in the entire
>>> show capable of getting anything done *again*. And you'd probably still
>>> complain that he did it for the wrong reasons. ;P
>>
>> You misrepresent me! I'm thrilled that Wesley is doing things for the
>> wrong reasons. I think it's a fantastic plot.
>
> Kidding, mostly. It has potential to be an interesting plot. Right now,
> it's just making what's left of AI look like total amateurs..
I'm assuming part of the resultion will be that it's the personal touch
that matters, which Wes ain't really providing.
>> I just think the constant sex is getting dull.
>
> Agreed. Can we have some progression on the Wes/Lilah thing please?
I'm thinking it's not likely until sweeps, now.
>> If the amnesia is a side-effect
>> of pulling her out, you could have a very interesting debate about
>> whether it was worth it...
>
> But that'd be a little similar to the whole pulling Buffy out of heaven
> thing.
It would, but Buffy was brought back by her friends. This would be being
brought back for some specific purpose.
>> and that's without starting on how Wes could have found out about Cordy,
>
> Hey, maybe Angel did do the decent thing and let him know what he'd
> discovered.
That's not what I was getting at. I'm sure Wes knows, or could find out
what Angel knows. I don't think he could know that Cordy still wanted to
be rescued, though - in fact, I think the story made it pretty clear that
he can't know. So if he brought her back, it's entirely possible he pulled
her out of somewhere she thought she was happy because she was needed.
>> or whether he was only getting her back because she, too, is 'necessary'
>> for something.
>
> I still don't believe he was being that cold in his reasons for recovering
> Angel. The problem is, the only person he talks to about any of this is
> someone we know he's probably lying to about most things.
I dunno. My gut says he wasn't lying about this one - not entirely,
anyway.
>> But I suspect it was probably a punishment from TPTSY.
>
> /me had to think a while to get that acronym. :)
Pfft. And you call yourself a Fred fan.
Dan Milburn
It just feels slow cos of the way they've been using her I think. Sat up
there, bored, wanting to escape, we have no clue why..
> Outside the story, my gut is telling me they've aborted whatever story
> they were going to tell 'cause of the reaction to 'Tomorrow'.
Hmm, I suppose that's possible. Kinda sucks if they have, though. My
reaction to 'Tomorrow' was pretty negative, but I'd hate to think they had
something planned and scrapped it.
>>>> Cos that'd, like, show Wesley being the only character in the entire
>>>> show capable of getting anything done *again*. And you'd probably
>>>> still complain that he did it for the wrong reasons. ;P
>>>
>>> You misrepresent me! I'm thrilled that Wesley is doing things for the
>>> wrong reasons. I think it's a fantastic plot.
>>
>> Kidding, mostly. It has potential to be an interesting plot. Right
>> now, it's just making what's left of AI look like total amateurs..
>
> I'm assuming part of the resultion will be that it's the personal touch
> that matters, which Wes ain't really providing.
But then, who is?
>>> I just think the constant sex is getting dull.
>>
>> Agreed. Can we have some progression on the Wes/Lilah thing please?
>
> I'm thinking it's not likely until sweeps, now.
Damn those pesky sweeps.
>>> and that's without starting on how Wes could have found out about
>>> Cordy,
>>
>> Hey, maybe Angel did do the decent thing and let him know what he'd
>> discovered.
>
> That's not what I was getting at. I'm sure Wes knows, or could find out
> what Angel knows. I don't think he could know that Cordy still wanted to
> be rescued, though - in fact, I think the story made it pretty clear
> that he can't know. So if he brought her back, it's entirely possible he
> pulled her out of somewhere she thought she was happy because she was
> needed.
Ah, I see. Which would imply that he thought his purpose was greater than
the PTBs. It's an interesting way to think about it, although it does
seem unlikely.
>>> or whether he was only getting her back because she, too, is
>>> 'necessary' for something.
>>
>> I still don't believe he was being that cold in his reasons for
>> recovering Angel. The problem is, the only person he talks to about any
>> of this is someone we know he's probably lying to about most things.
>
> I dunno. My gut says he wasn't lying about this one - not entirely,
> anyway.
I guess we'll see..
Dan
Chris Ashby
"Niall Harrison" <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:10353071...@urchin.earth.li...
What part of 'it was a cop-out' is difficult to understand?
Is that like 'a wizard did it'?
Dan Milburn
But, well, so what? The fact of Darlas pregnancy wasn't especially
important. The consequences of it were.
Besides, any explanation they did offer would be unsatisfactory, would
contradict previously established facts, or most likely, both. You might
argue that in that case they shouldn't have done it, I suppose, but
ultimately I think telling the story they want to tell should take
precedence.
Dan
Niall Harrison
Indeed. And along those lines, I think that at this point the vagueness is
actually serving the story.
I presume by 'explanation' what is really wanted is a *who* rather than a
*how*. Mostly because I can't imagine why anyone would think a quick
magicbabble infodump about vampiric biology would be useful or
interesting. But imagine if the writers had come out and said 'the PTSY
did it', or 'the First Evil did it.' That would cast Connor's current
situation in a very different light. Not necessarily better or worse, but
'boy struggles with his destiny as metaphor for the journey through
adolesence' is a different story to 'boy seeks to discover own destiny as
a metaphor for the journey through adolesence.'
_Buffy_ has done the first metaphor pretty comprehensively. It touched on
the second in S5, but was more about an adoption metaphor in that
instance. In other words, I think the way they've set things up leaves new
ground for _Angel_ to cover, which is always a good thing.
Niall
--
Rockin' the suburbs.
Chris Ashby
But it already contradicts established facts, i.e. vampires can't have
children. What's to stop the writers doing whacky "story-serving" stuff in
the future, and just say "It's a miracle" to gloss over it all. It sets far
too great a precedent.
> I presume by 'explanation' what is really wanted is a *who* rather than a
> *how*. Mostly because I can't imagine why anyone would think a quick
> magicbabble infodump about vampiric biology would be useful or
> interesting.
I agree with that. The *who* is what interests me. I don't have a problem
with it happening, as the writers can invent any magical mcguffin they want
to, but *who* and *why* is what i think is lacking here.
> But imagine if the writers had come out and said 'the PTSY
> did it', or 'the First Evil did it.' That would cast Connor's current
> situation in a very different light. Not necessarily better or worse, but
> 'boy struggles with his destiny as metaphor for the journey through
> adolesence' is a different story to 'boy seeks to discover own destiny as
> a metaphor for the journey through adolesence.'
>
> _Buffy_ has done the first metaphor pretty comprehensively.
And the second with Dawn, or at least potentialy. and obviously girl not
boy.
> It touched on
> the second in S5, but was more about an adoption metaphor in that
> instance. In other words, I think the way they've set things up leaves new
> ground for _Angel_ to cover, which is always a good thing.
OTOH, not everyone who watches Buffy watches Angel and vice versa, and both
shows have covered similar themes before, but from different angles.
Niall Harrison
> What's to stop the writers doing whacky "story-serving" stuff in
> the future, and just say "It's a miracle" to gloss over it all.
[...]
>> I presume by 'explanation' what is really wanted is a *who* rather than a
>> *how*.
>
> I agree with that. The *who* is what interests me. I don't have a problem
> with it happening, as the writers can invent any magical mcguffin they want
> to,
So does the fact that it's a miracle bother you or not? Because I don't
see any logical difference between 'oh, it was a miracle' and 'oh, it was
magical macguffin x'.
Your point about 'what's to stop the writers...' applies exactly as much
to every plot development they've ever used as it does to this specific
case. I don't accept that it's a contradiction because they spend several
episodes of S3 saying 'this is impossible'. It's perfectly clear that it's
not a revision of established mythology, it's an exception to it (or
rather: the fact that it is contradictory is *a plot point*). An exception
of the sort ME have used dozens of times before.
What matters to me is, as Dan said, how they handle things once they've
introduced a given development. If they cheat their way out by introducing
more miracles to explain the first - as I fear is currently happening with
Cordelia - then I'll be unhappy. If they follow the implications of their
plot to their logical conclusion - as seems to be happening with Connor -
I've got no complaints.
>> But imagine if the writers had come out and said 'the PTSY
>> did it', or 'the First Evil did it.' That would cast Connor's current
>> situation in a very different light. Not necessarily better or worse, but
>> 'boy struggles with his destiny as metaphor for the journey through
>> adolesence' is a different story to 'boy seeks to discover own destiny as
>> a metaphor for the journey through adolesence.'
>>
>> _Buffy_ has done the first metaphor pretty comprehensively.
>
> And the second with Dawn, or at least potentialy.
I did go on to say that, you know. :-)
But I still think that was more focused on the adoption side of things.
>> It touched on
>> the second in S5, but was more about an adoption metaphor in that
>> instance. In other words, I think the way they've set things up leaves new
>> ground for _Angel_ to cover, which is always a good thing.
>
> OTOH, not everyone who watches Buffy watches Angel and vice versa, and both
> shows have covered similar themes before, but from different angles.
Well, yes. So what? Given the choice, would you rather see greater overlap
or lesser overlap?
Basically, my confusion boils down to this: They're using Connor's
mysterious origins as a part of the story. Virtually every time he appears
on screen, we get an ominous remark about how nobody knows who or what he
is. That's about as far from glossing it over as you can get, surely?
Niall
--
But is it art?
Chris Ashby
It's not the fact that "it's a miracle" that bothers me. Pay attention. It's
the lack of any reason for it to happen beyond the writer's wanting to make
Angel a father in double quick time.
For example, Angel and Darla have a baby, for no other reason than to
explore stories about Angel being the father of a baby. uh-huh. right.
They also want to explore him dealing with being a father to a teenager. Do
they make the baby "miraculously" grow up? No, they create a storyline
involving an old enemy bent on revenge, who kidnaps said baby, and
ultimately flees to a hell dimension. It's an already established fact in
the show that time moves differently in other dimensions, so when said son
returns a few days/weeks later he is all grown up.
The second scenario plays by the rules, the first scenario just ignores any
attempt to make it fit.
FFS they took a whole season to justify Dawn popping out of nowhere!
> Your point about 'what's to stop the writers...' applies exactly as much
> to every plot development they've ever used as it does to this specific
> case. I don't accept that it's a contradiction because they spend several
> episodes of S3 saying 'this is impossible'. It's perfectly clear that it's
> not a revision of established mythology, it's an exception to it (or
> rather: the fact that it is contradictory is *a plot point*).
A plot point? You mean, people repeatedly saying things like "he shouldn't
be here", "this shouldn't be happening", like a mantra?
I also happen to think that there was much story potential within the "who"
and "why".
Shuggie
Soulless vampires can't. Who's to say what en-solued vampires are capable of? We
can't just assume that Angel is just like any other vampire in all respects when
we know of at least one in which he isn't.
>What's to stop the writers doing whacky "story-serving" stuff in
>the future, and just say "It's a miracle" to gloss over it all. It sets far
>too great a precedent.
>
Actually it was less "it's a miracle" and more "ancient prophecy" - Connor's
birth was the <word I can't remember that Wes had at least 3 different
translations for>. Is this an important distinction? Yes - miracle is "something
unexplained happened", prophecy is "something (currently) unexplained is
happening".
>> I presume by 'explanation' what is really wanted is a *who* rather than a
>> *how*. Mostly because I can't imagine why anyone would think a quick
>> magicbabble infodump about vampiric biology would be useful or
>> interesting.
>
>I agree with that. The *who* is what interests me. I don't have a problem
>with it happening, as the writers can invent any magical mcguffin they want
>to, but *who* and *why* is what i think is lacking here.
>
Point is they're still telling this story. If we'd been told last season who or
why the pregnancy happened then we'd know more about Connor than we do and I
think it's deliberate that we don't. See Connor's "I don't know who/what I am"
exchange with the vamp in this episode. Clearly the unfolding of the Connor
storyline will involve more about who/what he is. So it's not surprising that we
haven't been given all the facts.
This is not the first time that ME have left questions unanswered for a season
or more (have you seen BtVS 7.05?).
--
Shug
Niall Harrison
> For example, Angel and Darla have a baby, for no other reason than to
> explore stories about Angel being the father of a baby. uh-huh. right.
That's way too simplistic. The pregnancy plot does a whole bunch of
things.
(1) It follows through a logical consequence of real-world one-night
stands, thus making 'Reprise' that much more resonant. Sure, in the end
this wasn't dealt with as well as it might have been, but the idea was
there.
(2) It gives a valid and different reason for Darla to come back and
finish her story, and allows us to see another side of the character.
(3) It sets up the Angel/Holtz parallels. Holtz wouldn't have had half the
power he did as an antagonist if Angel hadn't had something comparable to
lose.
> They also want to explore him dealing with being a father to a teenager. Do
> they make the baby "miraculously" grow up? No, they create a storyline
> involving an old enemy bent on revenge, who kidnaps said baby, and
> ultimately flees to a hell dimension.
In the same way, beige Angel's spiral of despair leading to a one-night
stand feeds into the pregnancy story. And the fact that the baby exists at
all feeds into the Holtz story. I don't see any meaningful distinction
between the two cases.
>> Your point about 'what's to stop the writers...' applies exactly as much
>> to every plot development they've ever used as it does to this specific
>> case. I don't accept that it's a contradiction because they spend several
>> episodes of S3 saying 'this is impossible'. It's perfectly clear that it's
>> not a revision of established mythology, it's an exception to it (or
>> rather: the fact that it is contradictory is *a plot point*).
>
> A plot point? You mean, people repeatedly saying things like "he shouldn't
> be here", "this shouldn't be happening", like a mantra?
Yes. It's a bit pointless to bitch about something being impossible if the
characters are wandering around going 'hey, this is impossible!'
I mean, you can do it, but it looks like you're ignoring what's on the
screen. The fact that it's impossible establishes a reason for W&H to have
an interest in Connor. It means that when characters start finding
prophecies and such relating to Connor it makes sense because hey, we knew
he was impossible. Makes sense he'd be important. It means that the story
comes with an instant edge of danger: Everyone wants to get their hands on
the miracle child.
It was a plot point. They didn't just say 'this is impossible. deal with
it'. They said 'this is impossible. Here is what would happen if you think
through the implications of an impossible event.'
> I also happen to think that there was much story potential within the
> "who" and "why".
Still is. But there's more potential in a story about Connor's origins
when Connor is walking around and thinking for himself than there is when
he's a baby.
Chris Ashby
Yes, the pregnancy storyline sets up these things, but it still doesn't
change the fact that it essentially appeared out of thin air.
> > They also want to explore him dealing with being a father to a teenager.
Do
> > they make the baby "miraculously" grow up? No, they create a storyline
> > involving an old enemy bent on revenge, who kidnaps said baby, and
> > ultimately flees to a hell dimension.
>
> In the same way, beige Angel's spiral of despair leading to a one-night
> stand feeds into the pregnancy story. And the fact that the baby exists at
> all feeds into the Holtz story. I don't see any meaningful distinction
> between the two cases.
I know you don't.
> >> Your point about 'what's to stop the writers...' applies exactly as
much
> >> to every plot development they've ever used as it does to this specific
> >> case. I don't accept that it's a contradiction because they spend
several
> >> episodes of S3 saying 'this is impossible'. It's perfectly clear that
it's
> >> not a revision of established mythology, it's an exception to it (or
> >> rather: the fact that it is contradictory is *a plot point*).
> >
> > A plot point? You mean, people repeatedly saying things like "he
shouldn't
> > be here", "this shouldn't be happening", like a mantra?
>
> Yes. It's a bit pointless to bitch about something being impossible if the
> characters are wandering around going 'hey, this is impossible!'
> I mean, you can do it, but it looks like you're ignoring what's on the
> screen.
What? Are you saying that any old bullshit can be thrown up on the screen,
as long as the writer's have the characters excusing it by being self aware?
> The fact that it's impossible establishes a reason for W&H to have
> an interest in Connor. It means that when characters start finding
> prophecies and such relating to Connor it makes sense because hey, we knew
> he was impossible. Makes sense he'd be important. It means that the story
> comes with an instant edge of danger: Everyone wants to get their hands on
> the miracle child.
But it still casts no light on why it happened.
> It was a plot point. They didn't just say 'this is impossible. deal with
> it'. They said 'this is impossible. Here is what would happen if you think
> through the implications of an impossible event.'
>
> > I also happen to think that there was much story potential within the
> > "who" and "why".
>
> Still is. But there's more potential in a story about Connor's origins
> when Connor is walking around and thinking for himself than there is when
> he's a baby.
You'll notice that, that's the part I don't object to.
Chris Ashby
"Shuggie" <Shuggie...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ap6c5...@drn.newsguy.com...
Who's to say, indeed. But that angle is not being explored, or has even been
considered as presented on the show, so far.
> >What's to stop the writers doing whacky "story-serving" stuff in
> >the future, and just say "It's a miracle" to gloss over it all. It sets
far
> >too great a precedent.
> >
>
> Actually it was less "it's a miracle" and more "ancient prophecy" -
Connor's
> birth was the <word I can't remember that Wes had at least 3 different
> translations for>. Is this an important distinction? Yes - miracle is
"something
> unexplained happened", prophecy is "something (currently) unexplained is
> happening".
prophecy is "what's going to happen". Fer instance. The "Shanshu" prophecies
indicate that Angel will become human (if Wesley's translation is to be
believed). I doubt it's just going to pass without some external influence.
If he wakes up one morning saying "I'm human! It's a miracle!" then it would
be cheating. Although technically that prophecy already happened, before AI
knew about it (IWRY)
> >> I presume by 'explanation' what is really wanted is a *who* rather than
a
> >> *how*. Mostly because I can't imagine why anyone would think a quick
> >> magicbabble infodump about vampiric biology would be useful or
> >> interesting.
> >
> >I agree with that. The *who* is what interests me. I don't have a problem
> >with it happening, as the writers can invent any magical mcguffin they
want
> >to, but *who* and *why* is what i think is lacking here.
> >
>
> Point is they're still telling this story. If we'd been told last season
who or
> why the pregnancy happened then we'd know more about Connor than we do and
I
> think it's deliberate that we don't. See Connor's "I don't know who/what I
am"
> exchange with the vamp in this episode. Clearly the unfolding of the
Connor
> storyline will involve more about who/what he is. So it's not surprising
that we
> haven't been given all the facts.
>
> This is not the first time that ME have left questions unanswered for a
season
> or more (have you seen BtVS 7.05?).
Yes, I have seen it. I'm not objecting to the idea that it will take time
for all the threads to unravel. I object to the notion that it's not
important, it's just a miracle, etc. I think it's a bigger deal than
Xander's Lie.
I've actually only seen 4x01, and it was OK, but still perpetuated a lot of
the problems I had with S3. So I'm prepared to be spoilered to see if it's
worth d/l-ing episodes.
Tafka
+0100 in alt.buffy.europe said:
Those two sentances of yours...
Intentional or coincidence?
-Tafka-
No one needs to know about this except you, me and
Mr.-soon-to-be-living-the-rest-of-his-short-ass-life-in-agonizing-pain-rapist
here
Dan Milburn
LOL Complete coincidence, and well, since AH did a tour of the
country earlier this year, and when I did see him it was in a room
with about 1000 other people, I hardly feel it was terribly exclusive
or boastworthy...
Dan
Iain Clark
>
>Well, that was bloody awful, and next week we get amnesiac Cordy, so I
>really can't imagine that's gonna be any better. What the hell's
>happened to this show?
>
>
Just (finally!) saw this.
I was more underwhelmed with this than I have been with any Angel
episode since Provider. A completely uninvolving, awkward,
workmanlike effort on the whole. There was actually more about
Tomorrow that I enjoyed.
An uninteresting Plot of the Week, painfully expository scenes, and
really awkward "Cordy talks to herself" interludes. Angel himself
meandered both as a character and an actor in the proceedings, and
basically it didn't gel for me. Not one little bit.
On the good side, we got some nice character touches, and great Fred
moments. The "futures" trading was a nice conceit even if it was
poorly executed.
The Wes scene was shoehorned in, but it was far superior to the rest
of the episode. I'd have been happy to stick with him and leave the
Vegas bit as a brief interlude :-)
Similarly the Connor scene I thought was surprisingly strong. I like
the idea of Angel skulking around thinking good thoughts and trying to
be a parent in absentia.
It's a real shame that the rest of the episode was so clunky because I
really enjoyed the last two weeks, and being the forgiving sort I'd be
looking forward to next week if the whole "Cordy has amnesia" plotline
weren't so inherently fraught with potential crapness.
Still, don't prejudge, think positive thoughts.....
Iain
--
"Caught a bolt of lightning
Cursed the day he let it go"
Iain Clark
<snip huge debate>
>> Yes. It's a bit pointless to bitch about something being impossible if the
>> characters are wandering around going 'hey, this is impossible!'
>> I mean, you can do it, but it looks like you're ignoring what's on the
>> screen.
>
>What? Are you saying that any old bullshit can be thrown up on the screen,
>as long as the writer's have the characters excusing it by being self aware?
>
No, but done sparingly then a single, major inexplicable event can
work.
It works as long as it's designed to enhance the story rather than
patch up a hole in it, and as long as they deal with the impossibility
of it, acknowledge its exceptional nature, make an issue of it, make
it internally consistent, and have repercussions from it. The very
fact that they did this means that they can't keep doing it, because
it would become very obvious.
The real test for me is whether it was a lazy deus ex machina that
solved a problem (bad), or whether it actually gives rise to *more*
difficult situations, good drama and interesting character dynamics
than if they hadn't done it (good).
Jonathan Dupont
> >
> >
> >"Niall Harrison" <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:10353730...@urchin.earth.li...
> >> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:40:18 +0100, Chris Ashby wrote:
> >> >> "Niall Harrison" <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >> >> news:10353071...@urchin.earth.li...
> >> >>> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Chris Ashby wrote:
> >> >>> > "Dan Milburn" <daniel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>> > news:pan.2002.10.22.15...@hotmail.com...
(Buffy 7.05 reference too)
That's my opinion too (although does it mean Spike and Buffy have to
be careful?).
I want them to explain it sometime, preferably by the end of the last
ever episode but I'm not really bothered when. {Warning - crazy
speculation coming up) I've always been of the opinion that there's
something very, very special about the quartet of Angel, Darla, Spike
and Dru. Is it really a coincidence that ME's given three of them
souls?
(In my especially speculating-with-no-proof-whatsoever moments, I get
round the 3/4 thing by considering Buffy to have taken Dru's place,
seeing as she's near enough a vamp with a soul anyway. This also gives
a neat end in that after the apocalypse the four / three left can be
made human - Angel and Spike the obvious way, Buffy losing her slayer
powers and completing her destiny. This all of course requires way too
many crossovers).
Anyway, back to something actually related to canon, I don't think
they've broken too many rules over making Darla pregnant. Nobody
complained when Angel when into Kate's apartment uninvited, did they?
I did think, for example, that they needed to clarify Anya's status,
which they did, and I'm similarly hopeful that they'll sort out
Cordy's higher power-ness.
> >What's to stop the writers doing whacky "story-serving" stuff in
> >the future, and just say "It's a miracle" to gloss over it all. It sets far
> >too great a precedent.
> >
>
> Actually it was less "it's a miracle" and more "ancient prophecy" - Connor's
> birth was the <word I can't remember that Wes had at least 3 different
> translations for>. Is this an important distinction? Yes - miracle is "something
> unexplained happened", prophecy is "something (currently) unexplained is
> happening".
This also helps. If all else fails, make up a thousand prophecies.
> >> I presume by 'explanation' what is really wanted is a *who* rather than a
> >> *how*. Mostly because I can't imagine why anyone would think a quick
> >> magicbabble infodump about vampiric biology would be useful or
> >> interesting.
> >
> >I agree with that. The *who* is what interests me. I don't have a problem
> >with it happening, as the writers can invent any magical mcguffin they want
> >to, but *who* and *why* is what i think is lacking here.
> >
>
> Point is they're still telling this story. If we'd been told last season who or
> why the pregnancy happened then we'd know more about Connor than we do and I
> think it's deliberate that we don't. See Connor's "I don't know who/what I am"
> exchange with the vamp in this episode. Clearly the unfolding of the Connor
> storyline will involve more about who/what he is. So it's not surprising that we
> haven't been given all the facts.
Your argument convinced me - it would affect the story in a way they
don't want to do if we knew why Connor existed, so we don't. I'm happy
with that.
Jon
Mark Evans
You never know any vampire who is staked, magically resurected
(as human), then sired by a vampire of her own bloodline
might be capable of getting pregnant. Assuming she sleeps
with a childe who has spent a while in a hell dimension.