(Advance) Five-Star Poll: 5x11
Tafka
around) but I tend not to visit abe unless I've seen the latest episode -
bit too many un-marked spoilers from Brannigan IMHO.
I say 4.65, but that's only because I've Lineage at 4.5 & Destiny at 4.6 -
and I felt this was better. Much.
-Tafka-
The details of my life are quite inconsequential.
Iain Clark
<tafka...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> wrote:
>Sorry I didn't do this earlier (I've noted all the other scores scattered
>around) but I tend not to visit abe unless I've seen the latest episode -
>bit too many un-marked spoilers from Brannigan IMHO.
>
>I say 4.65, but that's only because I've Lineage at 4.5 & Destiny at 4.6 -
>and I felt this was better. Much.
>
I don't like these 0.05 things, but I agree with you that this was
better than Lineage (4.4) and Destiny (4.6). On the other hand, it
wasn't quite as good as S3's Lullaby (4.7).
Gah! Maybe I should start using these 0.05 things :-)
(I'll stick with 4.6 for now.)
Iain
--
"He woke, tore the covers back,
Found he was empty inside"
Linda
And that's being generous.
Spoiler space
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The following is a post by George Grattan from ATA. I agree with almost all
of it and it expresses my feelings better than I can actually do.
Quote:
1 star, and only because Dana's story itself was compelling, the Fang
Gang continues to be set apart from The Good Guys in believable ways,
and for a nice bit of acting from DB and JM in the final moments.
But otherwise, man, was this craptastic. I didn't think they could do
another episode that would suck and blow quite as energetically as
"Destiny" did, but "Damage" proved me wrong. How did I hate this? Let me
count the ways:
1. Andrew. No use for him. Never understood the appeal--he crosses that
line between being annoying to other characters (funny) and being
annoying to the audience (dental work). He was even more poorly
portrayed here than in the last two seasons of Buffy because they
essentially did him by the numbers, making him almost a parody of himself.
2. Andrew. Why the hell isn't this useless idiot in jail for murdering
Jonathan, anyway? Do Buffy & Co. not believe in punishment as part of
redemption any longer, even for normal humans who murder other normal
humans? At least we didn't hear anything about Faith traipsing around
with Wood, so I can at least pretend that *she's* gone back to prison
where she belongs.
3. Andrew. I don't buy Giles spending five minutes alone in a room with
him, much less training him to become a Watcher, much less sending him
on a mission to corral a psychotic Slayer, much less that 12 Slayers
would follow orders from him.
4. Plot idiocies/hand waves. So, we're to believe that neither Spike nor
Willow nor Buffy nor Giles ever told either Angel or Wesley more about
the final battle against The First in Sunnydale? That Buffy and Angel
spoke about how she was going to Europe, but he never bothered to ask:
"Gee, how that thing with the First work out? What did you end up doing
to win?". That Spike, in all the weeks since his return, also never
mentioned any more than "we saved the world"? C'mon. I don't buy for a
second that Buffy or Giles, at least, wouldn't have told Angel the broad
details (Made army of Slayers, closed Hellmouth) prior to their concerns
about his involvement with W&H kicking in.
5. Flubbed executions. It makes perfect sense that Buffy, Giles, et al
would be leery to some extent of Angel's and Wesley's decision to run
W&H (though how much they each know about W&H is debatable, actually),
so the upshot here that Andrew used Angel as a cats paw but doesn't
trust him with the rehab works in the abstract. But the specifics were
flubbed--there was no need to say the orders came from Buffy
specifically (she'd be more likely than anyone else to give Angel the
benefit of the doubt). Better to have had Giles be the off-stage heavy,
not willing to cede traditional Watcher's Council control to anyone
else, with the undercurrent of distrust about Angel and W&H being played
more subtly.
6. Gratuitous Spike bashing. I liked the fact that Dana had conflated
the Spike in her dreams with her actual kidnapper/torturer, but the
cutting off of his hands was dramatically labored and forced. Given that
he's getting them *back*, there's going to be no lasting, long-term
effects of that scene, so it comes across pretty clearly as something
included merely to horrify, sicken, or shock us and lend the illusion of
significance to an otherwise MOTW episode.
7. Have I mentioned Andrew yet?
Seriously, the story concept was fine, but the plot details and that
character ruined it for me. Right after it finished, my wife offered an
observation which floored me: "Imagine how much better that all would
have worked had it been Xander."
Bingo.
I could buy *Xander* leading an army of Slayers into LA on a covert
mission to rescue one of their own and use Angel and W&H's resources to
do it. I could buy *Xander* deciding, perhaps on his own initiative at
the final moments, not to trust Angel or Wes to do the right thing. (I
could also buy Xander and Giles having decided to do that from the start
on their own but keeping Buffy off to the side of that part of the
plan.) I would have loved seeing *Xander* face off with Deadboy once
again, brining back some of the best moments of BtVS S2. I could buy
Giles working with and training *Xander* to rebuild the CoW. Throw in a
line about him checking in on Faith and Andrew in prison to make sure
they were safe and it'd have been perfect all around, Nick Fury eye
patch included. :-)
But building it all around Andrew? No thanks.
Unquote
Now my first thoughts were:
When I sat down to watch Angel tonight, I had no idea that what I was going
to end up watching was a Buffy episode sans Buffy. When I watched it again
at lunch I couldn't believe how much FF I was doing to get to the good
parts. This episode had all the bad parts of BtVS seasons 6 & 7 plus the
writers were both Buffy alums and it showed. When are we going to get a real
Angel episode?
(Insert normal I hate Spike rant here and add my annoyance at Andrew).
And again they dodged the question - "How many slayers has Angel killed?"
I may stop watching if what I heard about the next episode is true.
--
Best regards,
Linda
Mmmmmm......Angel
Iain Clark
To me, these arguments are largely trivial, easily overlooked things
that come down to highly subjective opinion.
>Quote:
>
>1 star, and only because Dana's story itself was compelling, the Fang
>Gang continues to be set apart from The Good Guys in believable ways,
>and for a nice bit of acting from DB and JM in the final moments.
>
>But otherwise, man, was this craptastic. I didn't think they could do
>another episode that would suck and blow quite as energetically as
>"Destiny" did, but "Damage" proved me wrong. How did I hate this? Let me
>count the ways:
>
Destiny was very good IMO, but what do I know? :-)
>1. Andrew. No use for him. Never understood the appeal--he crosses that
>line between being annoying to other characters (funny) and being
>annoying to the audience (dental work). He was even more poorly
>portrayed here than in the last two seasons of Buffy because they
>essentially did him by the numbers, making him almost a parody of himself.
>
Andrew is not my favourite part of the episode, but he works well
enough. I agree that he's a bit of a parody of himself, but it
doesn't really damage the episode. He was a parody to begin with. :-)
Luckily he really isn't in this episode a lot. The Dana/Angel/Spike
story is by far the most prominent part of the story.
>2. Andrew. Why the hell isn't this useless idiot in jail for murdering
>Jonathan, anyway?
But that's not really a criticism of this episode. There was no
indication in S7 Buffy that Andrew would go to prison, ergo he's not
in prison. It's irrelevant to understanding or enjoying this Angel
episode.
>3. Andrew. I don't buy Giles spending five minutes alone in a room with
>him, much less training him to become a Watcher, much less sending him
>on a mission to corral a psychotic Slayer, much less that 12 Slayers
>would follow orders from him.
>
Given that the Scoobies have a history of nerdy and comedic people
growing into confident and capable people, and given that resources
are immensely stretched in the absence of the Watcher's Council, I can
certainly believe that Andrew might be despatched to collect Slayers.
We already know that the scoobies are scattered to the four winds
doing this kind of work.
>4. Plot idiocies/hand waves. So, we're to believe that neither Spike nor
>Willow nor Buffy nor Giles ever told either Angel or Wesley more about
>the final battle against The First in Sunnydale?
It's not clear from the scene who already knew what. Andrew tells
them a lot of things they already know! Its definitely not clear how
much Angel knew, but it does seem to be news to Wes, Gunn and Fred.
It's a bit odd, but I can live with it.
Either way, this is a minor niggle which relates to the necessary evil
of backstory to catch up the viewers.
>5. Flubbed executions. It makes perfect sense that Buffy, Giles, et al
>would be leery to some extent of Angel's and Wesley's decision to run
>W&H (though how much they each know about W&H is debatable, actually),
>so the upshot here that Andrew used Angel as a cats paw but doesn't
>trust him with the rehab works in the abstract. But the specifics were
>flubbed--there was no need to say the orders came from Buffy
>specifically (she'd be more likely than anyone else to give Angel the
>benefit of the doubt).
And yet how much more damning that it *did* come from Buffy? It
removes all doubt that the suspicions are restricted to people who
don't know Angel.
In any case this comes down to personal reference and/or
second-guessing the writers. There's nothing actually *wrong* with
the order having come from Buffy IMO.
>6. Gratuitous Spike bashing. I liked the fact that Dana had conflated
>the Spike in her dreams with her actual kidnapper/torturer, but the
>cutting off of his hands was dramatically labored and forced. Given that
> he's getting them *back*, there's going to be no lasting, long-term
>effects of that scene, so it comes across pretty clearly as something
>included merely to horrify, sicken, or shock us and lend the illusion of
>significance to an otherwise MOTW episode.
>
Well, since he's a vampire it was always the case that the wounds
would not be permanent. I think this was slightly gratuitous, but
also very effective in showing us Dana's state of mind. The last
thing we needed was something half-hearted (like "Drusilla" torturing
Spike in buffy S7 by dunking his head under water a few times.) Spike
needed to be shocked and appalled by the depth of her descent, in
order to realise the depth of what he'd done to others..
>I could buy *Xander* leading an army of Slayers into LA on a covert
>mission to rescue one of their own and use Angel and W&H's resources to
>do it. I could buy *Xander* deciding, perhaps on his own initiative at
>the final moments, not to trust Angel or Wes to do the right thing. (I
>could also buy Xander and Giles having decided to do that from the start
>on their own but keeping Buffy off to the side of that part of the
>plan.) I would have loved seeing *Xander* face off with Deadboy once
>again, brining back some of the best moments of BtVS S2.
I think Xander might have worked. But is his absence really a flaw in
the episode?
It may even have weakened the episode. If it had been Xander they
would have needed to include a sub-plot about Xander and Angel, which
using Andrew neatly bypasses. We would also have doubted Xander's
dismissal of angel at the end since he hates Angel's guts. :-)
>But building it all around Andrew? No thanks.
>
It was hardly built *around* Andrew. He was largely dismissed as a
buffoon by the regular characters. He was a plot device for much of
the episode, which was actually focussed around Angel and Spike. And
very effective it was too IMO.
>Unquote
>
>Now my first thoughts were:
>
>
>When I sat down to watch Angel tonight, I had no idea that what I was going
>to end up watching was a Buffy episode sans Buffy.
I find this an odd statement. To me, this was by *far* the most
"Angel"-like episode in tone and content all year. The only Buffy
element was Andrew, and he didn't really fit the rest of the story.
>When I watched it again
>at lunch I couldn't believe how much FF I was doing to get to the good
>parts. This episode had all the bad parts of BtVS seasons 6 & 7 plus the
>writers were both Buffy alums and it showed.
Steve De Knight's been a buffy Alum since he started on Angel Season
4, but I don't know how this is relevant really? David Fury's Angel
episodes have been much more Bffy-like than Steve De Knight's.
> When are we going to get a real
>Angel episode?
>(Insert normal I hate Spike rant here and add my annoyance at Andrew).
>
Well, if you're not prepared to accept Spike as a part of Angel then
obviously you would see this episode as Buffy-like. Yet to me he was
perfectly integrated into the show this week, and indeed his presence
actually enhanced Angel's character.
>And again they dodged the question - "How many slayers has Angel killed?"
>
I got the impression he hasn't killed any, but I can't remember if
we've been told otherwise in the past.
>I may stop watching if what I heard about the next episode is true.
I'm mercifully unspoiled! I think it would be a shame if you
abandoned the show, but if you're not enjoying it then fair enough.
Iain
--
"you spend a year in a kitchen sink, grittily realistic drama
and then, without warning, your life turns into a sitcom..."
- Neil Gaiman
Tafka
Iain Clark <iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com>. alt.buffy.europe. Sun, 01 Feb
2004 20:59:44 +0000:
>On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 15:59:04 +0000, Tafka
><tafka...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> wrote:
>
>>Sorry I didn't do this earlier (I've noted all the other scores scattered
>>around) but I tend not to visit abe unless I've seen the latest episode -
>>bit too many un-marked spoilers from Brannigan IMHO.
>>
>>I say 4.65, but that's only because I've Lineage at 4.5 & Destiny at 4.6 -
>>and I felt this was better. Much.
>>
>I don't like these 0.05 things, but I agree with you that this was
>better than Lineage (4.4) and Destiny (4.6).
>On the other hand, it
>wasn't quite as good as S3's Lullaby (4.7).
Nah, 4.4 there for me :)
For me? I think it's been bettered by Untouched, Loyalty, Sleep Tight,
Forgiving, Benediction, Soulless, Calvary, Inside Out & Peace Out.
Boring stats make a post more 'fun' like normal :)
-Tafka-
I bet one legend that keeps recurring throughout history,
in every culture, is the story of Popeye.
Tafka
2004 21:08:06 GMT:
See, this is why I think alt.tv.angel has far too many "issues".
It's very much split into the old ata people who dislike Spike and those
Buffy-converts who love Spike IMO.
Look at the results for last season (polls)...
joint top? "Deep Down" and "Salvage" with 4.25.
ATA seem to have quite constant negative views of Angel these days.
>1. Andrew. No use for him. Never understood the appeal--he crosses that
>line between being annoying to other characters (funny) and being
>annoying to the audience (dental work). He was even more poorly
>portrayed here than in the last two seasons of Buffy because they
>essentially did him by the numbers, making him almost a parody of himself.
I disagree. Andrew here works well, although he does carry a little bit
too much of the "Storyteller" (Buffy 7x16?) vibe still. The LOTR
referencing with Spike? Good.
>2. Andrew. Why the hell isn't this useless idiot in jail for murdering
>Jonathan, anyway? Do Buffy & Co. not believe in punishment as part of
>redemption any longer, even for normal humans who murder other normal
>humans? At least we didn't hear anything about Faith traipsing around
>with Wood, so I can at least pretend that *she's* gone back to prison
>where she belongs.
Meh. Not relevant to the story. This is an Angel storyline borrowing a
character from Buffy. It doesn't require the audience to know the whole of
Andrew's backstory - just that he's there and being used in this way. The
punishment angle isn't needed and shouldn't be seen as even remotely
connected to how the episode plays out.
>3. Andrew. I don't buy Giles spending five minutes alone in a room with
>him, much less training him to become a Watcher, much less sending him
>on a mission to corral a psychotic Slayer, much less that 12 Slayers
>would follow orders from him.
As Iain says; there are so few people left that those with battle-time (as
Buffy says in "Checkpoint" about Xander) are much more valuable than ever.
Andrew's experienced and he's lived through the "final" battle. What else
is he going to do? He'd changed _so_ much by the end of S7 (even if the
whole ending was pap) that he's making a difference the way he can.
>Seriously, the story concept was fine, but the plot details and that
>character ruined it for me. Right after it finished, my wife offered an
>observation which floored me: "Imagine how much better that all would
>have worked had it been Xander."
>
>Bingo.
Not at all. Xander would've required the Buffy backstory (with Angel,
where was Cordelia?, relationship with Wes?) to have been a much more
integrated part of the episode, reducing it to a Buffy/Angel mismatch.
Andrew is the one character (bar Dawn, who would never be in this
situation) who doesn't have connections to any of Team Angel which need
detailing.
>I would have loved seeing *Xander* face off with Deadboy once
>again, brining back some of the best moments of BtVS S2.
Um, no thanks. I like to watch Angel for Angel: The Series. I don't want
to be jumping back 5/6 years - Angel (and, to a smaller extent Xander) has
changed completely since Buffy days. There is no need to reduce a _good_
Angel episode to some "witty" Buffy-styled "banter".
No thank you.
>I may stop watching if what I heard about the next episode is true.
I know one thing (casting related).
From what I do know (very, very little past next week) I'm looking forward
to the rest of S5 - but then I did like S4 quite a lot as well.
-Tafka-
We did so many terrible things together. So much destruction.
So much pain. We can’t make up for any of it.
Linda
"Iain Clark" <iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote in message
news:thsq109s1l3cj0iuh...@4ax.com...
That may be but it is what basically ruined this episode for me.
>
> >Quote:
> >
> >1 star, and only because Dana's story itself was compelling, the Fang
> >Gang continues to be set apart from The Good Guys in believable ways,
> >and for a nice bit of acting from DB and JM in the final moments.
> >
> >But otherwise, man, was this craptastic. I didn't think they could do
> >another episode that would suck and blow quite as energetically as
> >"Destiny" did, but "Damage" proved me wrong. How did I hate this? Let me
> >count the ways:
> >
> Destiny was very good IMO, but what do I know? :-)
I liked Destiny more than this episode. As I said above, I mostly agree with
this post but not all of it. This is the part where I did disagree.
>
> >1. Andrew. No use for him. Never understood the appeal--he crosses that
> >line between being annoying to other characters (funny) and being
> >annoying to the audience (dental work). He was even more poorly
> >portrayed here than in the last two seasons of Buffy because they
> >essentially did him by the numbers, making him almost a parody of
himself.
> >
> Andrew is not my favourite part of the episode, but he works well
> enough. I agree that he's a bit of a parody of himself, but it
> doesn't really damage the episode. He was a parody to begin with. :-)
>
> Luckily he really isn't in this episode a lot. The Dana/Angel/Spike
> story is by far the most prominent part of the story.
Well, I hate Spike so right there the story is ruined for me.
>
> >2. Andrew. Why the hell isn't this useless idiot in jail for murdering
> >Jonathan, anyway?
>
> But that's not really a criticism of this episode. There was no
> indication in S7 Buffy that Andrew would go to prison, ergo he's not
> in prison. It's irrelevant to understanding or enjoying this Angel
> episode.
It is to me. Andrew is Gile's right hand man now? I just hope that Andrew
was telling one of those g*d-awful stories of his about that. He should be
in prison right along side Faith.
>
> >3. Andrew. I don't buy Giles spending five minutes alone in a room with
> >him, much less training him to become a Watcher, much less sending him
> >on a mission to corral a psychotic Slayer, much less that 12 Slayers
> >would follow orders from him.
> >
> Given that the Scoobies have a history of nerdy and comedic people
> growing into confident and capable people, and given that resources
> are immensely stretched in the absence of the Watcher's Council, I can
> certainly believe that Andrew might be despatched to collect Slayers.
> We already know that the scoobies are scattered to the four winds
> doing this kind of work.
Andrew should be in jail, not out hunting for new slayers. Or in charge of
them.
>
> >4. Plot idiocies/hand waves. So, we're to believe that neither Spike nor
> >Willow nor Buffy nor Giles ever told either Angel or Wesley more about
> >the final battle against The First in Sunnydale?
>
> It's not clear from the scene who already knew what. Andrew tells
> them a lot of things they already know! Its definitely not clear how
> much Angel knew, but it does seem to be news to Wes, Gunn and Fred.
> It's a bit odd, but I can live with it.
>
> Either way, this is a minor niggle which relates to the necessary evil
> of backstory to catch up the viewers.
But the way they did it just made me cringe. I would rather Angel had told
Andrew instead of the other way around with the exception of the part of all
the potentials becoming slayers.
>
> >5. Flubbed executions. It makes perfect sense that Buffy, Giles, et al
> >would be leery to some extent of Angel's and Wesley's decision to run
> >W&H (though how much they each know about W&H is debatable, actually),
> >so the upshot here that Andrew used Angel as a cats paw but doesn't
> >trust him with the rehab works in the abstract. But the specifics were
> >flubbed--there was no need to say the orders came from Buffy
> >specifically (she'd be more likely than anyone else to give Angel the
> >benefit of the doubt).
>
> And yet how much more damning that it *did* come from Buffy? It
> removes all doubt that the suspicions are restricted to people who
> don't know Angel.
>
> In any case this comes down to personal reference and/or
> second-guessing the writers. There's nothing actually *wrong* with
> the order having come from Buffy IMO.
It is just more likely that the order came from Giles and that Andrew again
was lying. That would have been more believable to me.
>
> >6. Gratuitous Spike bashing. I liked the fact that Dana had conflated
> >the Spike in her dreams with her actual kidnapper/torturer, but the
> >cutting off of his hands was dramatically labored and forced. Given that
> > he's getting them *back*, there's going to be no lasting, long-term
> >effects of that scene, so it comes across pretty clearly as something
> >included merely to horrify, sicken, or shock us and lend the illusion of
> >significance to an otherwise MOTW episode.
> >
> Well, since he's a vampire it was always the case that the wounds
> would not be permanent. I think this was slightly gratuitous, but
> also very effective in showing us Dana's state of mind. The last
> thing we needed was something half-hearted (like "Drusilla" torturing
> Spike in buffy S7 by dunking his head under water a few times.) Spike
> needed to be shocked and appalled by the depth of her descent, in
> order to realise the depth of what he'd done to others..
It was still totally unnecessary. Even in Dana's state of mind she should
have just staked him instead of torturing him. It made no sense except that
the writers have to keep Spike around.
>
> >I could buy *Xander* leading an army of Slayers into LA on a covert
> >mission to rescue one of their own and use Angel and W&H's resources to
> >do it. I could buy *Xander* deciding, perhaps on his own initiative at
> >the final moments, not to trust Angel or Wes to do the right thing. (I
> >could also buy Xander and Giles having decided to do that from the start
> >on their own but keeping Buffy off to the side of that part of the
> >plan.) I would have loved seeing *Xander* face off with Deadboy once
> >again, brining back some of the best moments of BtVS S2.
>
> I think Xander might have worked. But is his absence really a flaw in
> the episode?
To me, yes. It would have made this whole episode a lot more interesting and
entertaining. After all, that eye patch is very becoming. :-)
>
> It may even have weakened the episode. If it had been Xander they
> would have needed to include a sub-plot about Xander and Angel, which
> using Andrew neatly bypasses. We would also have doubted Xander's
> dismissal of angel at the end since he hates Angel's guts. :-)
I still think Xander would have been the better story if the writers are up
to it. Apparently, they're not.
>
> >But building it all around Andrew? No thanks.
> >
> It was hardly built *around* Andrew. He was largely dismissed as a
> buffoon by the regular characters. He was a plot device for much of
> the episode, which was actually focussed around Angel and Spike. And
> very effective it was too IMO.
I couldn't stand Andrew on BtVS and can't stand him here. It makes the
episode totally unre-watchable for me.
>
> >Unquote
> >
> >Now my first thoughts were:
> >
> >
> >When I sat down to watch Angel tonight, I had no idea that what I was
going
> >to end up watching was a Buffy episode sans Buffy.
>
> I find this an odd statement. To me, this was by *far* the most
> "Angel"-like episode in tone and content all year. The only Buffy
> element was Andrew, and he didn't really fit the rest of the story.
And to me it was just an episode that would have fit well into BtVS season
8.
>
> >When I watched it again
> >at lunch I couldn't believe how much FF I was doing to get to the good
> >parts. This episode had all the bad parts of BtVS seasons 6 & 7 plus the
> >writers were both Buffy alums and it showed.
>
> Steve De Knight's been a buffy Alum since he started on Angel Season
> 4, but I don't know how this is relevant really? David Fury's Angel
> episodes have been much more Bffy-like than Steve De Knight's.
The two of them combined together just made it feel too much like Buffy for
me.
>
> > When are we going to get a real
> >Angel episode?
>
> >(Insert normal I hate Spike rant here and add my annoyance at Andrew).
> >
> Well, if you're not prepared to accept Spike as a part of Angel then
> obviously you would see this episode as Buffy-like. Yet to me he was
> perfectly integrated into the show this week, and indeed his presence
> actually enhanced Angel's character.
No I'm not accepting of Spike. I'm almost at the point of not watching the
show any longer. I'm definitely going to stop reading and posting to ATA
now.
>
> >And again they dodged the question - "How many slayers has Angel killed?"
> >
> I got the impression he hasn't killed any, but I can't remember if
> we've been told otherwise in the past.
We've never been told either way but after Spike killed the Chinese slayer,
Angel said "I guess that makes you one of us". He just doesn't like to brag
about it like Spike does.
>
> >I may stop watching if what I heard about the next episode is true.
>
> I'm mercifully unspoiled! I think it would be a shame if you
> abandoned the show, but if you're not enjoying it then fair enough.
Thankfully it wasn't true and the episode is a good one.
Linda
"Tafka" <tafka...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> wrote in message
news:8d6r109o07ivvkdvg...@4ax.com...
I'm one of the old posters who hate Spike and feel he completely ruins the
show for me. In my reply to Iain I stated that I would probably give up
posting to and reading ATA.
>
> >1. Andrew. No use for him. Never understood the appeal--he crosses that
> >line between being annoying to other characters (funny) and being
> >annoying to the audience (dental work). He was even more poorly
> >portrayed here than in the last two seasons of Buffy because they
> >essentially did him by the numbers, making him almost a parody of
himself.
>
> I disagree. Andrew here works well, although he does carry a little bit
> too much of the "Storyteller" (Buffy 7x16?) vibe still. The LOTR
> referencing with Spike? Good.
>
For me it's too much of the worst of BtVS.
> >2. Andrew. Why the hell isn't this useless idiot in jail for murdering
> >Jonathan, anyway? Do Buffy & Co. not believe in punishment as part of
> >redemption any longer, even for normal humans who murder other normal
> >humans? At least we didn't hear anything about Faith traipsing around
> >with Wood, so I can at least pretend that *she's* gone back to prison
> >where she belongs.
>
> Meh. Not relevant to the story. This is an Angel storyline borrowing a
> character from Buffy. It doesn't require the audience to know the whole of
> Andrew's backstory - just that he's there and being used in this way. The
> punishment angle isn't needed and shouldn't be seen as even remotely
> connected to how the episode plays out.
But it ruined to episode for me because I know Andrew's backstory. He should
be in jail as does Faith. I'm with you that I'm glad that Faith wasn't
mentioned because that's where I picture her.
>
> >3. Andrew. I don't buy Giles spending five minutes alone in a room with
> >him, much less training him to become a Watcher, much less sending him
> >on a mission to corral a psychotic Slayer, much less that 12 Slayers
> >would follow orders from him.
>
> As Iain says; there are so few people left that those with battle-time (as
> Buffy says in "Checkpoint" about Xander) are much more valuable than ever.
> Andrew's experienced and he's lived through the "final" battle. What else
> is he going to do? He'd changed _so_ much by the end of S7 (even if the
> whole ending was pap) that he's making a difference the way he can.
>
> >Seriously, the story concept was fine, but the plot details and that
> >character ruined it for me. Right after it finished, my wife offered an
> >observation which floored me: "Imagine how much better that all would
> >have worked had it been Xander."
> >
> >Bingo.
>
> Not at all. Xander would've required the Buffy backstory (with Angel,
> where was Cordelia?, relationship with Wes?) to have been a much more
> integrated part of the episode, reducing it to a Buffy/Angel mismatch.
> Andrew is the one character (bar Dawn, who would never be in this
> situation) who doesn't have connections to any of Team Angel which need
> detailing.
I think the story would have been much better with the character of Xander
if well written. Unfortunately, I'm more and more of the opinion that these
writers just aren't up to it anymore.
>
> >I would have loved seeing *Xander* face off with Deadboy once
> >again, brining back some of the best moments of BtVS S2.
>
> Um, no thanks. I like to watch Angel for Angel: The Series. I don't want
> to be jumping back 5/6 years - Angel (and, to a smaller extent Xander) has
> changed completely since Buffy days. There is no need to reduce a _good_
> Angel episode to some "witty" Buffy-styled "banter".
> No thank you.
And that's what I miss. It would have been so much better and believable
than what we were shown IMO.
>
> >I may stop watching if what I heard about the next episode is true.
>
> I know one thing (casting related).
>
> From what I do know (very, very little past next week) I'm looking forward
> to the rest of S5 - but then I did like S4 quite a lot as well.
Well, what I heard turned out to be untrue and the episode was a good one.
Dan Milburn
>>>2. Andrew. Why the hell isn't this useless idiot in jail for murdering
>>>Jonathan, anyway? Do Buffy & Co. not believe in punishment as part of
>>>redemption any longer, even for normal humans who murder other normal
>>>humans? At least we didn't hear anything about Faith traipsing around
>>>with Wood, so I can at least pretend that *she's* gone back to prison
>>>where she belongs.
>>
>>Meh. Not relevant to the story. This is an Angel storyline borrowing a
>>character from Buffy. It doesn't require the audience to know the whole of
>>Andrew's backstory - just that he's there and being used in this way. The
>>punishment angle isn't needed and shouldn't be seen as even remotely
>>connected to how the episode plays out.
>
>
> But it ruined to episode for me because I know Andrew's backstory. He should
> be in jail as does Faith. I'm with you that I'm glad that Faith wasn't
> mentioned because that's where I picture her.
And what about Angel? He's killed numerous humans this season.
Dan
Iain Clark
>> Andrew is not my favourite part of the episode, but he works well
>> enough. I agree that he's a bit of a parody of himself, but it
>> doesn't really damage the episode. He was a parody to begin with. :-)
>>
>> Luckily he really isn't in this episode a lot. The Dana/Angel/Spike
>> story is by far the most prominent part of the story.
>
>Well, I hate Spike so right there the story is ruined for me.
>
To me, if you hate Spike so much then you can't enjoy this season. If
even a good, Angel-centric episode is ruined because he's a part of
it, then you're bound to dislike even the good parts of this season.
>Andrew is Gile's right hand man now? I just hope that Andrew
>was telling one of those g*d-awful stories of his about that. He should be
>in prison right along side Faith.
>
Well of *course* Andrew isn't Giles' right-hand man - not in that
sense. In the context of that scene he's puffing himself up,
pretending to be a Watcher. We're not meant to take the way he
presents himself at face value (and the other characters certainly
don't <g>).
He should be in Jail. He isn't. That's a problem with Buffy in
general, not Andrew in particular, and not this episode at all.
>> >4. Plot idiocies/hand waves. So, we're to believe that neither Spike nor
>> >Willow nor Buffy nor Giles ever told either Angel or Wesley more about
>> >the final battle against The First in Sunnydale?
>> Either way, this is a minor niggle which relates to the necessary evil
>> of backstory to catch up the viewers.
>
>But the way they did it just made me cringe. I would rather Angel had told
>Andrew instead of the other way around with the exception of the part of all
>the potentials becoming slayers.
>
Yes, I agree that it's not a great scene, but at least it's only one
short piece of exposition in a long episode.
>> >there was no need to say the orders came from Buffy
>> >specifically (she'd be more likely than anyone else to give Angel the
>> >benefit of the doubt).
>> In any case this comes down to personal reference and/or
>> second-guessing the writers. There's nothing actually *wrong* with
>> the order having come from Buffy IMO.
>
>It is just more likely that the order came from Giles and that Andrew again
>was lying. That would have been more believable to me.
>
But this is a point to debate, surely? Not a big flaw.
>>
>> >6. Gratuitous Spike bashing. I liked the fact that Dana had conflated
>> >the Spike in her dreams with her actual kidnapper/torturer, but the
>> >cutting off of his hands was dramatically labored and forced. Given that
>> > he's getting them *back*, there's going to be no lasting, long-term
>> >effects of that scene, so it comes across pretty clearly as something
>> >included merely to horrify, sicken, or shock us and lend the illusion of
>> >significance to an otherwise MOTW episode.
>> >
>> Well, since he's a vampire it was always the case that the wounds
>> would not be permanent. I think this was slightly gratuitous, but
>> also very effective in showing us Dana's state of mind. The last
>> thing we needed was something half-hearted (like "Drusilla" torturing
>> Spike in buffy S7 by dunking his head under water a few times.) Spike
>> needed to be shocked and appalled by the depth of her descent, in
>> order to realise the depth of what he'd done to others..
>
>It was still totally unnecessary. Even in Dana's state of mind she should
>have just staked him instead of torturing him.
I didn't find it gratuitous - shocking, certainly, but with a point.
It's also a good way of exploiting the fact that some of your main
cast aren't human, meaning that you can do unusual things and still
have them come out okay. (Like the way Angel gets shot, stabbed and
run through on a semi-regular basis <g>). Personally I found the
whole sawing of the neck bit in the hospital *far* more nasty and
gratuitous. And we didn't even see that! :-)
The significance of the episode is not in the shock value but in the
meaning of the events for the characters.
>I still think Xander would have been the better story if the writers are up
>to it. Apparently, they're not.
I like Xander. But you might as well say they should have had Faith
in the episode because it would have made it much more entertaining.
Or Giles. It would, but it would also have made it a different
episode - presumably not the episode they wanted to make, or the
actors weren't available. Either way, it isn't a case the writers not
being "up to it".
>> >But building it all around Andrew? No thanks.
>> >
>> It was hardly built *around* Andrew. He was largely dismissed as a
>> buffoon by the regular characters. He was a plot device for much of
>> the episode, which was actually focussed around Angel and Spike. And
>> very effective it was too IMO.
>
>I couldn't stand Andrew on BtVS and can't stand him here. It makes the
>episode totally unre-watchable for me.
>
I think you have to keep Andrew in perspective. There are times I
like him, times he annoys me, but a character being unlikeable doesn't
make an episode poor. It means that a character is unlikeable.
I'd agree if we were talking about Harm's Way, purely because that
episode depended almost completely on Harmony being likeable - she
dominated the episode. Here, Spike and Angel dominated the episode.
Andrew plays a key, but small, role.
>> To me, this was by *far* the most
>> "Angel"-like episode in tone and content all year. The only Buffy
>> element was Andrew, and he didn't really fit the rest of the story.
>
>And to me it was just an episode that would have fit well into BtVS season
>8.
I can't imagine Buffy doing an episode that dealt with this subject
matter in this way. Also, the themes of the episode were centred
completely around Angel and Spike's past and their approaches to guilt
and redemption.
>No I'm not accepting of Spike. I'm almost at the point of not watching the
>show any longer. I'm definitely going to stop reading and posting to ATA
>now.
>
Probably a healthy decision. ;-)
Iain
--
"Buster Keaton and I
Danced out on the window-sill
Ten storeys high"
Linda
"Dan Milburn" <daniel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XG3Vb.8719$6C.79...@news-text.cableinet.net...
He killed a man who was ready to kill a class or more of children, had
already started on it without knowing that Angel got there first. A man who
was pointing a gun at him to wound him so that he could make Angel weak
enough to behead or stake. I'm glad Angel took him out.
As for the necromancer - was he human? Did they tell us that? Seems to me he
may not have been a human with that type of power. I really can't say either
way.
Werewolf guy was a werewolf, not human any longer.
So by my count he's killed one human in self defense.
Dan Milburn
Nonetheless, Angel didn't *have* to kill him. He chose to.
> As for the necromancer - was he human? Did they tell us that?
He looked human, he had the strength of a human. Given that he was a
longstanding client and they knew everything else about him, if he'd
been non-human I think they would've said something.
> Werewolf guy was a werewolf, not human any longer.
Which is why Buffy happily killed werewolf Oz in 'Phases' and why Angel
hunted down rather than helped Nina in that episode.. Oh, wait a minute.
> So by my count he's killed one human in self defense.
But here's the thing. Time was, Angel indirectly causing the deaths of
a roomful of W&H lawyers was considered the pivotal moment in his
turning toward the dark (or at least beige) side. I'm not saying there
weren't mitigating circumstances or that the people Angel killed didn't
deserve to die, far from it, but Angel apparently doesn't give it a
second thought these days.
Yes, Andrew killed Jonathan, but he was being manipulated by the First -
things are nowhere near as clear-cut as you seem to think.
Dan
Linda
It was self defense.
>
> > As for the necromancer - was he human? Did they tell us that?
>
> He looked human, he had the strength of a human. Given that he was a
> longstanding client and they knew everything else about him, if he'd
> been non-human I think they would've said something.
>
> > Werewolf guy was a werewolf, not human any longer.
>
> Which is why Buffy happily killed werewolf Oz in 'Phases' and why Angel
> hunted down rather than helped Nina in that episode.. Oh, wait a minute.
Angel didn't know werewolf guy and didn't have any other choice. He was in a
situation where he had to keep the guy from eating Nina. He made it a point
to keep the same from happening to Nina. Which is why he went hunting for
her.
I don't remember *Phases* so can't remember Buffy's reasoning for not
killing Oz.
>
> > So by my count he's killed one human in self defense.
>
> But here's the thing. Time was, Angel indirectly causing the deaths of
> a roomful of W&H lawyers was considered the pivotal moment in his
> turning toward the dark (or at least beige) side. I'm not saying there
> weren't mitigating circumstances or that the people Angel killed didn't
> deserve to die, far from it, but Angel apparently doesn't give it a
> second thought these days.
Angel didn't indirectly cause the deaths of those lawyers. Sure he locked a
door but Darla and Drusilla would have killed them even with the door
unlocked. I don't think we're going to agree on this.
>
> Yes, Andrew killed Jonathan, but he was being manipulated by the First -
> things are nowhere near as clear-cut as you seem to think.
LOL, yup more gray areas.