Brief notes on Angel 5x01-5x06 (S5 spoilers)
Niall Harrison
So I get all caught up, and I come to abe, and what do I find? No
goddamned discussion, that's what I find. Y'all suck.
So here's my thoughts.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5x01, 'Conviction' (written and directed by Joss Whedon)
_Angel_ premieres always seem to have to do more work than most.
'Heartthrob' had to redeem the show after Pylea; 'Deep Down' had to redeem
the show after 'Tomorrow'; and 'Conviction' has, if not exactly the job of
redemption, certainly the task of explanation of 'Home'.
It does this job adequately, but not exceptionally. The right things are
said; the right questions are asked; the right moves are made. Harmony
works reasonably well; Spike's appearance made my heart sink. As a
premiere, I think it has a lot in common with 'Lessons' - it does the job,
and it provides a solid base for the rest of the season to launch from,
but it's not a classic. 3.75.
5x02, 'Just Rewards' (written by Ben Edlund and David Fury)
Yeesh. Just...yeesh. This one is all kinds of horrible.
Where to start? The plot, which is as contrived and as irritating a cheat
as 'Blood Money'? The dialogue, which is stale and repetitive and most of
all *dull*? The fact that next to _Angel_'s cast, and under _Angel_'s
lights, Marsters is painfully exposed as short and pallid, draped in an
animal skin that just seems to *hang* there? I mean, I get the withdrawn
body language thing, but Spike just doesn't look right.
There are bright spots. The necromancer is a decent bad guy. Fred gets
some good lines. But that's about it.
Yeesh. 2.
5x03, 'Unleashed' (written by Sarah Craft and Elizabeth Fain)
And now, for those coming over from _Buffy_ to watch Spike, we have the
obligatory 'Angel is a man with a demon inside' explanatory episode. And
for extra recognition points, they make it about a werewolf.
'Unleashed', spectacularly misjudged closing usage of Ryan Adams' 'La
Cienega Just Smiled' aside (it's a great, great song, but really not an
_Angel_ song), isn't bad. It's kinda neutral. Nina is a passable victim of
the week; Angel's reactions to Nina are decently played, if nothing new to
long-time viewers. The culinary villain is a nice touch, as is Our Heroes'
initial secret meeting at the start of the episode.
Overall, mostly harmless. 3.
5x04, 'Hellbound' (written and directed by Steven S DeKnight)
Now, *that* is much better. Much, much better. Who'd have thought that the
first really good episode of S5 would be a Spike episode, eh?
'Hellbound' does a couple of important things. It establishes Spike on
_Angel_ as more than just someone we should resent for taking screen time
away from the other characters. In fact, it does a better job of
demonstrating who and what Spike is now than the entireity of season 7.
The reason I know this is that by the end of the episode I was warming up
to the character a little, rather than being lost in apathy.
The other crucial thing 'Hellbound' does is establish the new set. The
Hyperion had character oozing out of its pores; the W&H set was a faceless
office. The W&H set is now a slightly less faceless office. There's a
sense of the place, what it stands for, and what it means to work there
that is engendered by this episode more effectively than by a dozen 'we
work for an evil law firm' speeches.
All this, and a really *very* nice scene between Angel and Spike.
*That's* the potential of their relationship, not the forced sniping of
'Just Rewards'. 4.25.
'Life of the Party' (written by Ben Edlund)
I know Ben Edlund is supposed to be a good writer, and all, but I'm
starting to think he really just does not get _Angel_.
To be fair, this is a step up from 'Just Rewards'. Lorne's unease and
tension is nicely played (the teaser is excellent), and there are some
good gags scattered throughout. But the party plot is flat and uninspired,
coming across like a warmed-up, second-rate, never-used _Buffy_ script,
and that's definitely not a good thing.
2.5.
'The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco' (written and directed by Jeff Bell)
You can always tell when sweeps starts, can't you?
This one works. This one works *very* well, coming on like the bastard
offspring of 'Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been' and 'Clyde Bruckman's
Final Repose'. Jeff Bell flashes his _X-Files_ heritage, but in a uniquely
_Angel_ story that flits from offbeat humour to noir to moments of genuine
sentiment to the bizarre genius of the mexican wrestling segments.
The episode is also plastered with foot-high neon letters, and they say
'THIS IS IMPORTANT, SO LISTEN UP!' It's All About Angel, and starts giving
us the kind of insight into his position at W&H that 'Conviction' and
'Hellbound' only hinted at. The epiphany, Connor, shanshu, Spike...it's
all in the mix, and it's framed by a story that, depending on how you're
feeling, is either a simple warning or complex foreshadowing. I'm leaning
towards the latter camp, and it's going to be very interesting to see how
it all plays out.
4.5.
CONCLUSIONS:
When S5 is tackling the material specific to S5 - the deal with W&H and
the implications thereof - it's strong. When it's telling tangental
stories that could have been placed in any previous season, it's weak. So
far, the quality is wobbling about so much that it's hard to tell how
things are going to pan out.
Niall
--
When memes collide.
Jonathan Dupont
news:10684658...@urchin.earth.li:
>
> So I get all caught up, and I come to abe, and what do I find? No
> goddamned discussion, that's what I find. Y'all suck.
I know!
(Says he who kept putting off posting his own original thoughts, but
still...)
The only problem with doing it like this is I've half forgotten the
first few already...
(Not a good sign that, come to think of it).
> 5x01, 'Conviction' (written and directed by Joss Whedon)
>
> _Angel_ premieres always seem to have to do more work than most.
> 'Heartthrob' had to redeem the show after Pylea; 'Deep Down' had to
> redeem the show after 'Tomorrow'; and 'Conviction' has, if not exactly
> the job of redemption, certainly the task of explanation of 'Home'.
>
> It does this job adequately, but not exceptionally. The right things
> are said; the right questions are asked; the right moves are made.
> Harmony works reasonably well; Spike's appearance made my heart sink.
> As a premiere, I think it has a lot in common with 'Lessons' - it does
> the job, and it provides a solid base for the rest of the season to
> launch from, but it's not a classic. 3.75.
A lot of people seem to like comparing it to Lessons, and I guess it
does have the same semi-competent mild Jossian feel. However, it lack
the two classic scenes that episode had (the teaser, and Spike &
friends).
Solid but not classic sums it up pretty well. I just wish it hyped me up
more for the coming season.
> 5x02, 'Just Rewards' (written by Ben Edlund and David Fury)
>
> Yeesh. Just...yeesh. This one is all kinds of horrible.
Really?
> Where to start? The plot, which is as contrived and as irritating a
> cheat as 'Blood Money'?
Hey! I haven't seen Blood Money for ages, but I remember it being fun...
> The dialogue, which is stale and repetitive
> and most of all *dull*? The fact that next to _Angel_'s cast, and
> under _Angel_'s lights, Marsters is painfully exposed as short and
> pallid, draped in an animal skin that just seems to *hang* there? I
> mean, I get the withdrawn body language thing, but Spike just doesn't
> look right.
> There are bright spots. The necromancer is a decent bad guy. Fred gets
> some good lines. But that's about it.
>
> Yeesh. 2.
I can see your points, but I think you're being a little harsh.
> 5x03, 'Unleashed' (written by Sarah Craft and Elizabeth Fain)
>
> And now, for those coming over from _Buffy_ to watch Spike, we have
> the obligatory 'Angel is a man with a demon inside' explanatory
> episode. And for extra recognition points, they make it about a
> werewolf.
I've never actually thought about it that cynically before, but it makes
sense.
> 'Unleashed', spectacularly misjudged closing usage of Ryan Adams' 'La
> Cienega Just Smiled' aside (it's a great, great song, but really not
> an _Angel_ song), isn't bad. It's kinda neutral. Nina is a passable
> victim of the week; Angel's reactions to Nina are decently played, if
> nothing new to long-time viewers. The culinary villain is a nice
> touch, as is Our Heroes' initial secret meeting at the start of the
> episode.
>
> Overall, mostly harmless. 3.
Now, see, this was *awful.* Absolutely nothing happened in it that was
in any way new or intereting. Complete time waster.
> 5x04, 'Hellbound' (written and directed by Steven S DeKnight)
>
> Now, *that* is much better. Much, much better. Who'd have thought that
> the first really good episode of S5 would be a Spike episode, eh?
Well, me. Spike's always been complicated and JM's a good actor. :)
> 'Hellbound' does a couple of important things. It establishes Spike on
> _Angel_ as more than just someone we should resent for taking screen
> time away from the other characters. In fact, it does a better job of
> demonstrating who and what Spike is now than the entireity of season
> 7. The reason I know this is that by the end of the episode I was
> warming up to the character a little, rather than being lost in
> apathy.
Really? I thought S7 had him down as a fairly fascinating interesting
character (see Beneath Me, some other stuff when he isn't too busy being
tortured.)
> The other crucial thing 'Hellbound' does is establish the new set. The
> Hyperion had character oozing out of its pores; the W&H set was a
> faceless office. The W&H set is now a slightly less faceless office.
> There's a sense of the place, what it stands for, and what it means to
> work there that is engendered by this episode more effectively than by
> a dozen 'we work for an evil law firm' speeches.
Yeah, but I still prefer the Hyperion. The new place is still a little
bland to me.
> All this, and a really *very* nice scene between Angel and Spike.
> *That's* the potential of their relationship, not the forced sniping
> of 'Just Rewards'. 4.25.
Best episode of the season to me so far, although I have mildly positive
hopes for the upcoming Drew Goddard ep.
> 'Life of the Party' (written by Ben Edlund)
>
> I know Ben Edlund is supposed to be a good writer, and all, but I'm
> starting to think he really just does not get _Angel_.
I haven't liked his past stuff, but Jaynestown is fun and I really
actually liked this. The first time an Angel comedy episode has worked
for me for aaages - since "Guise will be Guise"?
> To be fair, this is a step up from 'Just Rewards'. Lorne's unease and
> tension is nicely played (the teaser is excellent), and there are some
> good gags scattered throughout. But the party plot is flat and
> uninspired, coming across like a warmed-up, second-rate, never-used
> _Buffy_ script, and that's definitely not a good thing.
>
> 2.5.
<shrug> I enjoyed it. Some good lines, and nice to have the focus on
Lorne for once.
> 'The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco' (written and directed by Jeff
> Bell)
>
> You can always tell when sweeps starts, can't you?
Apart from last year where nearly every ep did...
> This one works. This one works *very* well, coming on like the bastard
> offspring of 'Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been' and 'Clyde Bruckman's
> Final Repose'. Jeff Bell flashes his _X-Files_ heritage, but in a
> uniquely _Angel_ story that flits from offbeat humour to noir to
> moments of genuine sentiment to the bizarre genius of the mexican
> wrestling segments.
I don't know. It was atmospheric and all, but I'm not quite sure the
content and themes were absolutely there.
> The episode is also plastered with foot-high neon letters, and they
> say 'THIS IS IMPORTANT, SO LISTEN UP!' It's All About Angel, and
> starts giving us the kind of insight into his position at W&H that
> 'Conviction' and 'Hellbound' only hinted at. The epiphany, Connor,
> shanshu, Spike...it's all in the mix, and it's framed by a story that,
> depending on how you're feeling, is either a simple warning or complex
> foreshadowing. I'm leaning towards the latter camp, and it's going to
> be very interesting to see how it all plays out.
>
> 4.5.
Well yes, but it did it all so simplistically, and really told us
nothing that Angel was supposed to have learnt at Reprise-ish time. It
just didn't feel all that profound to me.
> CONCLUSIONS:
>
> When S5 is tackling the material specific to S5 - the deal with W&H
> and the implications thereof - it's strong. When it's telling
> tangental stories that could have been placed in any previous season,
> it's weak. So far, the quality is wobbling about so much that it's
> hard to tell how things are going to pan out.
>
> Niall
Hellbound and Life of the Party to me were solid, good stuff. Some of
the rest is interest, some shaky normal modern ME fare. We'll see how
the season develops, but I'm not completely convinced that without a
running storyline this is going to end as a vintage year.
Jon
Linda
"Niall Harrison" <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:10684658...@urchin.earth.li...
It also made use of *all* the characters which is of the good in my book. It
gave us a sense off "what the hell am I doing here?". But I marked it down
because it gave us an actress (ST who tries to play Eve) who can't act and
Spike. I gave it a 4.5.
>
> 5x02, 'Just Rewards' (written by Ben Edlund and David Fury)
>
> Yeesh. Just...yeesh. This one is all kinds of horrible.
>
> Where to start? The plot, which is as contrived and as irritating a cheat
> as 'Blood Money'? The dialogue, which is stale and repetitive and most of
> all *dull*? The fact that next to _Angel_'s cast, and under _Angel_'s
> lights, Marsters is painfully exposed as short and pallid, draped in an
> animal skin that just seems to *hang* there? I mean, I get the withdrawn
> body language thing, but Spike just doesn't look right.
>
> There are bright spots. The necromancer is a decent bad guy. Fred gets
> some good lines. But that's about it.
>
> Yeesh. 2.
Wish I had given it a 2 but I was so excited by a shirtless Angel for the
first time in two years that I scored it higher. 3.75
>
> 5x03, 'Unleashed' (written by Sarah Craft and Elizabeth Fain)
>
> And now, for those coming over from _Buffy_ to watch Spike, we have the
> obligatory 'Angel is a man with a demon inside' explanatory episode. And
> for extra recognition points, they make it about a werewolf.
>
> 'Unleashed', spectacularly misjudged closing usage of Ryan Adams' 'La
> Cienega Just Smiled' aside (it's a great, great song, but really not an
> _Angel_ song), isn't bad. It's kinda neutral. Nina is a passable victim of
> the week; Angel's reactions to Nina are decently played, if nothing new to
> long-time viewers. The culinary villain is a nice touch, as is Our Heroes'
> initial secret meeting at the start of the episode.
>
> Overall, mostly harmless. 3.
Hmmm... it was a so-so episode. I just hope they don't try and bring Nina
back for another episode. I really didn't care much for her. But I liked
that Angel was trying to spend more social time with his friends. 3.75
>
> 5x04, 'Hellbound' (written and directed by Steven S DeKnight)
>
> Now, *that* is much better. Much, much better. Who'd have thought that the
> first really good episode of S5 would be a Spike episode, eh?
>
> 'Hellbound' does a couple of important things. It establishes Spike on
> _Angel_ as more than just someone we should resent for taking screen time
> away from the other characters. In fact, it does a better job of
> demonstrating who and what Spike is now than the entireity of season 7.
> The reason I know this is that by the end of the episode I was warming up
> to the character a little, rather than being lost in apathy.
>
> The other crucial thing 'Hellbound' does is establish the new set. The
> Hyperion had character oozing out of its pores; the W&H set was a faceless
> office. The W&H set is now a slightly less faceless office. There's a
> sense of the place, what it stands for, and what it means to work there
> that is engendered by this episode more effectively than by a dozen 'we
> work for an evil law firm' speeches.
>
> All this, and a really *very* nice scene between Angel and Spike.
> *That's* the potential of their relationship, not the forced sniping of
> 'Just Rewards'. 4.25.
Sorry, I didn't like this one at all. What a waste of an episode. AFAIAC
this is the season with only 21 episodes. And yes, it has everything to do
with my dislike of Spike. 1/2 star.
>
> 'Life of the Party' (written by Ben Edlund)
>
> I know Ben Edlund is supposed to be a good writer, and all, but I'm
> starting to think he really just does not get _Angel_.
>
> To be fair, this is a step up from 'Just Rewards'. Lorne's unease and
> tension is nicely played (the teaser is excellent), and there are some
> good gags scattered throughout. But the party plot is flat and uninspired,
> coming across like a warmed-up, second-rate, never-used _Buffy_ script,
> and that's definitely not a good thing.
>
> 2.5.
We totally agreed on this one. I thought being a Lorne episode would make it
funny but it turned out to be boring. I scored it a 2.5 just because it was
average and that's half way between 0 and 5.
>
> 'The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco' (written and directed by Jeff Bell)
>
> You can always tell when sweeps starts, can't you?
>
> This one works. This one works *very* well, coming on like the bastard
> offspring of 'Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been' and 'Clyde Bruckman's
> Final Repose'. Jeff Bell flashes his _X-Files_ heritage, but in a uniquely
> _Angel_ story that flits from offbeat humour to noir to moments of genuine
> sentiment to the bizarre genius of the mexican wrestling segments.
>
> The episode is also plastered with foot-high neon letters, and they say
> 'THIS IS IMPORTANT, SO LISTEN UP!' It's All About Angel, and starts giving
> us the kind of insight into his position at W&H that 'Conviction' and
> 'Hellbound' only hinted at. The epiphany, Connor, shanshu, Spike...it's
> all in the mix, and it's framed by a story that, depending on how you're
> feeling, is either a simple warning or complex foreshadowing. I'm leaning
> towards the latter camp, and it's going to be very interesting to see how
> it all plays out.
>
> 4.5.
Agreed. This is the best episode of the season so far. I would love to be
able to change my poll rating as I only gave it a 4 but on re-watch I think
it should have been higher - on par with *Conviction*.
>
> CONCLUSIONS:
>
> When S5 is tackling the material specific to S5 - the deal with W&H and
> the implications thereof - it's strong. When it's telling tangental
> stories that could have been placed in any previous season, it's weak. So
> far, the quality is wobbling about so much that it's hard to tell how
> things are going to pan out.
I think it's the affect of the suits at the WB wanting more stand-alone
episodes to try to draw in new viewers. The thing is those new viewers
should have already been drawn in by now.
--
Best Regards,
Linda
I miss Kate Lockley.
Niall Harrison
[...]
> It also made use of *all* the characters which is of the good in my book.
It did. Although to be honest, I don't think any of the other episodes
have really been that bad in this regard; certainly not when you take
behind the scenes factors (AD's wedding) into account.
> But I marked it down
> because it gave us an actress (ST who tries to play Eve) who can't act
Hmm. I know there's enormous antipathy for Eve, but I don't see it myself.
I mean, I'm not blown away by the character, but she does the job well
enough.
>> CONCLUSIONS:
>>
>> When S5 is tackling the material specific to S5 - the deal with W&H and
>> the implications thereof - it's strong. When it's telling tangental
>> stories that could have been placed in any previous season, it's weak. So
>> far, the quality is wobbling about so much that it's hard to tell how
>> things are going to pan out.
>
> I think it's the affect of the suits at the WB wanting more stand-alone
> episodes to try to draw in new viewers. The thing is those new viewers
> should have already been drawn in by now.
Yes. But I think you can see that ME realise that; 5x06 is a definite step
up in terms of complexity and plot advancement - it's the first episode
you couldn't watch 'cold'.
Niall
--
Verbing weirds language.
Niall Harrison
> Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in
> news:10684658...@urchin.earth.li:
>> So I get all caught up, and I come to abe, and what do I find? No
>> goddamned discussion, that's what I find. Y'all suck.
>
> I know!
>
> (Says he who kept putting off posting his own original thoughts, but
> still...)
Bah. :)
>> 5x01, 'Conviction' (written and directed by Joss Whedon)
>
> A lot of people seem to like comparing it to Lessons, and I guess it
> does have the same semi-competent mild Jossian feel. However, it lack
> the two classic scenes that episode had (the teaser, and Spike &
> friends).
'Lessons' had a classic teaser? What was it?
I thought the teaser of 'Conviction' was pretty good, myself (W&H
undercutting Angel's heroic rescue). And that long, long tracking shot
early in the episode gets cool points form me. But yeah, nothing to match
Spike's friends.
>> 5x02, 'Just Rewards' (written by Ben Edlund and David Fury)
>>
>> Yeesh. Just...yeesh. This one is all kinds of horrible.
>
> Really?
Yes.
>> Where to start? The plot, which is as contrived and as irritating a
>> cheat as 'Blood Money'?
>
> Hey! I haven't seen Blood Money for ages, but I remember it being fun...
I hate it. With a passion. It's like 'Enemies', but more so. You can't
have plots where the characters decide on actions behind the audience's
back; once you start doing that, you can't trust *anything* you see.
> I can see your points, but I think you're being a little harsh.
Admittedly, there was a healthy dose of Spike-irritation colouring my
perceptions. But I still don't think it was a great episode.
>> 5x03, 'Unleashed' (written by Sarah Craft and Elizabeth Fain)
>>
>> And now, for those coming over from _Buffy_ to watch Spike, we have
>> the obligatory 'Angel is a man with a demon inside' explanatory
>> episode. And for extra recognition points, they make it about a
>> werewolf.
>
> I've never actually thought about it that cynically before, but it makes
> sense.
I think there's a lot of that through the first five episodes. As I said
to Linda, I think it's very obvious that 5x06 is the episode they've
decided 'well, if they're not watching now, they won't be.'
>> Overall, mostly harmless. 3.
>
> Now, see, this was *awful.* Absolutely nothing happened in it that was
> in any way new or intereting. Complete time waster.
For me to rate an episode as less than 3, it has to be actively bad. It
has to have something *wrong* with it. 'Unleashed' didn't, really, other
than repetition. Nina was a decent character, the points made about Angel
were valid enough; it's just that we've seen it before. OTOH, the presumed
new audience wouldn't have done. This is an episode for them, not for us.
Yeah, it could have been both, but it wasn't.
>> 5x04, 'Hellbound' (written and directed by Steven S DeKnight)
>>
>> Now, *that* is much better. Much, much better. Who'd have thought that
>> the first really good episode of S5 would be a Spike episode, eh?
>
> Well, me. Spike's always been complicated and JM's a good actor. :)
Eh. I find watching him on _Angel_ that he's not blowing me away.
>> 'Hellbound' does a couple of important things. It establishes Spike on
>> _Angel_ as more than just someone we should resent for taking screen
>> time away from the other characters. In fact, it does a better job of
>> demonstrating who and what Spike is now than the entireity of season
>> 7. The reason I know this is that by the end of the episode I was
>> warming up to the character a little, rather than being lost in
>> apathy.
>
> Really? I thought S7 had him down as a fairly fascinating interesting
> character (see Beneath Me, some other stuff when he isn't too busy being
> tortured.)
When was that, exactly? :)
There were a few episodes at the beginning of S7 when I was interested.
But about midseason the whole thing went into a nosedive, and I never
really regained interest in Spike. It didn't help that 'Lies My Parents
Told Me' was the Holtz arc in one episode with the serial numbers filed
off...
>> The other crucial thing 'Hellbound' does is establish the new set. The
>> Hyperion had character oozing out of its pores; the W&H set was a
>> faceless office. The W&H set is now a slightly less faceless office.
>> There's a sense of the place, what it stands for, and what it means to
>> work there that is engendered by this episode more effectively than by
>> a dozen 'we work for an evil law firm' speeches.
>
> Yeah, but I still prefer the Hyperion. The new place is still a little
> bland to me.
Oh, absolutely. My point is that 'Hellbound' helped, not that it did all
the work that needs to be done.
>> All this, and a really *very* nice scene between Angel and Spike.
>> *That's* the potential of their relationship, not the forced sniping
>> of 'Just Rewards'. 4.25.
>
> Best episode of the season to me so far, although I have mildly positive
> hopes for the upcoming Drew Goddard ep.
Is that this week's?
By the way, any idea if we're getting ten eps before christmas? Epguides
only has information up to 5x08.
>> 'Life of the Party' (written by Ben Edlund)
>>
>> I know Ben Edlund is supposed to be a good writer, and all, but I'm
>> starting to think he really just does not get _Angel_.
>
> I haven't liked his past stuff, but Jaynestown is fun and I really
> actually liked this. The first time an Angel comedy episode has worked
> for me for aaages - since "Guise will be Guise"?
'Jaynestown' *is* fun, but I didn't think this was, which is what makes me
say maybe he doesn't really get this show. _Angel_ doesn't really do
'comedy' episodes - I think S&S, GWBG, 'Disharmony', 'Carpe Noctem' and
maybe 'Spin the Bottle' are the only other examples. This isn't on a par
with most of those, although it's better than CN.
>> 'The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco' (written and directed by Jeff
>> Bell)
>>
>> You can always tell when sweeps starts, can't you?
>
> Apart from last year where nearly every ep did...
:)
>> This one works. This one works *very* well, coming on like the bastard
>> offspring of 'Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been' and 'Clyde Bruckman's
>> Final Repose'. Jeff Bell flashes his _X-Files_ heritage, but in a
>> uniquely _Angel_ story that flits from offbeat humour to noir to
>> moments of genuine sentiment to the bizarre genius of the mexican
>> wrestling segments.
>
> I don't know. It was atmospheric and all, but I'm not quite sure the
> content and themes were absolutely there.
What do you think was missing?
> Well yes, but it did it all so simplistically, and really told us
> nothing that Angel was supposed to have learnt at Reprise-ish time. It
> just didn't feel all that profound to me.
Hmm. I don't see reiteration, I see development. For one thing, it's a
test of Angel's resolve; this is the first time since the epiphany that
his worldview has been *tested*, and what with Spike and W&H, it's quite a
test.
>> CONCLUSIONS:
>>
>> When S5 is tackling the material specific to S5 - the deal with W&H
>> and the implications thereof - it's strong. When it's telling
>> tangental stories that could have been placed in any previous season,
>> it's weak. So far, the quality is wobbling about so much that it's
>> hard to tell how things are going to pan out.
>
> Hellbound and Life of the Party to me were solid, good stuff. Some of
> the rest is interest, some shaky normal modern ME fare. We'll see how
> the season develops, but I'm not completely convinced that without a
> running storyline this is going to end as a vintage year.
I think 5x06 was the start of a running story. We'll see, I guess.
Dan Milburn
>>>cheat as 'Blood Money'?
>>
>>Hey! I haven't seen Blood Money for ages, but I remember it being fun...
>
>
> I hate it. With a passion. It's like 'Enemies', but more so. You can't
> have plots where the characters decide on actions behind the audience's
> back; once you start doing that, you can't trust *anything* you see.
I seem to recall that was my problem with 'Inside Out', only far more so..
The plotting would've made more sense if Angel hadn't been in on the
plan - Spike would like nothing more than to piss off Angel some more
then save the day, but my main problem with it wasn't that it was a
cheat, but that it was stupid, from Angel deciding to go to the
necromancer without backup onwards. I still quite enjoyed it though.
>>>Overall, mostly harmless. 3.
>>
>>Now, see, this was *awful.* Absolutely nothing happened in it that was
>>in any way new or intereting. Complete time waster.
>
>
> For me to rate an episode as less than 3, it has to be actively bad. It
> has to have something *wrong* with it. 'Unleashed' didn't, really, other
> than repetition. Nina was a decent character, the points made about Angel
> were valid enough; it's just that we've seen it before. OTOH, the presumed
> new audience wouldn't have done. This is an episode for them, not for us.
> Yeah, it could have been both, but it wasn't.
I thought the ending was actively bad. The presumed new audience would
just be wondering why the werewolf story was done so poorly compared to
the ones in 'Buffy'.
>>>5x04, 'Hellbound' (written and directed by Steven S DeKnight)
>>>
>>>Now, *that* is much better. Much, much better. Who'd have thought that
>>>the first really good episode of S5 would be a Spike episode, eh?
>>
>>Well, me. Spike's always been complicated and JM's a good actor. :)
>
>
> Eh. I find watching him on _Angel_ that he's not blowing me away.
Nothing about this season so far's blowing anyone away. Your point?
>>>'Hellbound' does a couple of important things. It establishes Spike on
>>>_Angel_ as more than just someone we should resent for taking screen
>>>time away from the other characters. In fact, it does a better job of
>>>demonstrating who and what Spike is now than the entireity of season
>>>7. The reason I know this is that by the end of the episode I was
>>>warming up to the character a little, rather than being lost in
>>>apathy.
>>
>>Really? I thought S7 had him down as a fairly fascinating interesting
>>character (see Beneath Me, some other stuff when he isn't too busy being
>>tortured.)
>
>
> When was that, exactly? :)
>
> There were a few episodes at the beginning of S7 when I was interested.
> But about midseason the whole thing went into a nosedive, and I never
> really regained interest in Spike. It didn't help that 'Lies My Parents
> Told Me' was the Holtz arc in one episode with the serial numbers filed
> off...
And with a number of really rather large differences. At least I don't
remember any babies showing up in LMPTM, or Angel and Holtz supposedly
being allies, or..
>>>'Life of the Party' (written by Ben Edlund)
>>>
>>>I know Ben Edlund is supposed to be a good writer, and all, but I'm
>>>starting to think he really just does not get _Angel_.
>>
>>I haven't liked his past stuff, but Jaynestown is fun and I really
>>actually liked this. The first time an Angel comedy episode has worked
>>for me for aaages - since "Guise will be Guise"?
>
>
> 'Jaynestown' *is* fun, but I didn't think this was, which is what makes me
> say maybe he doesn't really get this show. _Angel_ doesn't really do
> 'comedy' episodes - I think S&S, GWBG, 'Disharmony', 'Carpe Noctem' and
> maybe 'Spin the Bottle' are the only other examples.
'Couplet'?
>>>This one works. This one works *very* well, coming on like the bastard
>>>offspring of 'Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been' and 'Clyde Bruckman's
>>>Final Repose'. Jeff Bell flashes his _X-Files_ heritage, but in a
>>>uniquely _Angel_ story that flits from offbeat humour to noir to
>>>moments of genuine sentiment to the bizarre genius of the mexican
>>>wrestling segments.
>>
>>I don't know. It was atmospheric and all, but I'm not quite sure the
>>content and themes were absolutely there.
>
> What do you think was missing?
It's hard to place exactly, but overall I just didn't find the episode
all that interesting.
Oh, and what is it with every single writer getting to direct episodes?
I thought Jeff Bells attempt was pretty poor.
>>Well yes, but it did it all so simplistically, and really told us
>>nothing that Angel was supposed to have learnt at Reprise-ish time. It
>>just didn't feel all that profound to me.
>
>
> Hmm. I don't see reiteration, I see development. For one thing, it's a
> test of Angel's resolve; this is the first time since the epiphany that
> his worldview has been *tested*,
What, you mean apart from 'Inside Out' and the Jasmine arc?
> and what with Spike and W&H, it's quite a
> test.
How? I honestly don't see how either of those things are doing that. I
mean, him becoming CEO of a law firm was always a ridiculous idea, given
he's not terribly bright and his leadership qualities are lacking, but
it's not testing his worldview that I can see. And what on earth does
Spike have to do with his worldview?
Dan
Niall Harrison
> Niall Harrison wrote:
>> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Jonathan Dupont wrote:
>>>Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in
>>>news:10684658...@urchin.earth.li:
>>
Do you honestly not see the different between the two scenarios?
[Unleashed]
>> For me to rate an episode as less than 3, it has to be actively bad. It
>> has to have something *wrong* with it. 'Unleashed' didn't, really, other
>> than repetition. Nina was a decent character, the points made about Angel
>> were valid enough; it's just that we've seen it before. OTOH, the presumed
>> new audience wouldn't have done. This is an episode for them, not for us.
>> Yeah, it could have been both, but it wasn't.
>
> I thought the ending was actively bad.
It was a little cheesy, certainly (and the award for most inappropriate
usage of a song goes to...), but not unwatchable.
> The presumed new audience would just be wondering why the werewolf
> story was done so poorly compared to the ones in 'Buffy'.
I honestly don't believe it was. It was hugely better than, say, 'Beauty
and the Beasts'...
What all the werewolf stories on _Buffy_ had going for them was Oz. Oz was
great. As a one-shot character, Nina obviously comes off worse, but I
thought they made a reasonable stab at it.
>>>Well, me. Spike's always been complicated and JM's a good actor. :)
>>
>> Eh. I find watching him on _Angel_ that he's not blowing me away.
>
> Nothing about this season so far's blowing anyone away. Your point?
I don't like Spike. Or James Marsters. Quite fond of Jeff Bell and Steve
DeKnight, though. :)
[Spike]
>> There were a few episodes at the beginning of S7 when I was interested.
>> But about midseason the whole thing went into a nosedive, and I never
>> really regained interest in Spike. It didn't help that 'Lies My Parents
>> Told Me' was the Holtz arc in one episode with the serial numbers filed
>> off...
>
> And with a number of really rather large differences. At least I don't
> remember any babies showing up in LMPTM, or Angel and Holtz supposedly
> being allies, or..
Well, that's my point. It was the cliff notes version, all emotional
weight and storytelling verve excised.
>>>I haven't liked his past stuff, but Jaynestown is fun and I really
>>>actually liked this. The first time an Angel comedy episode has worked
>>>for me for aaages - since "Guise will be Guise"?
>>
>> 'Jaynestown' *is* fun, but I didn't think this was, which is what makes me
>> say maybe he doesn't really get this show. _Angel_ doesn't really do
>> 'comedy' episodes - I think S&S, GWBG, 'Disharmony', 'Carpe Noctem' and
>> maybe 'Spin the Bottle' are the only other examples.
>
> 'Couplet'?
Arguably, yes. Still, that's, what, an average of 1.5 a season over the
first four seasons? _Buffy_ was always more like 3 or 4 a season.
> Oh, and what is it with every single writer getting to direct episodes?
> I thought Jeff Bells attempt was pretty poor.
I meant to mention that, actually, because yes, it did bring down the
episode a little. Mind you, everyone's gotta start somewhere...
>>>Well yes, but it did it all so simplistically, and really told us
>>>nothing that Angel was supposed to have learnt at Reprise-ish time. It
>>>just didn't feel all that profound to me.
>>
>> Hmm. I don't see reiteration, I see development. For one thing, it's a
>> test of Angel's resolve; this is the first time since the epiphany that
>> his worldview has been *tested*,
>
> What, you mean apart from 'Inside Out' and the Jasmine arc?
Those things undermined Angel's epiphanied view how, exactly?
>> and what with Spike and W&H, it's quite a
>> test.
>
> How? I honestly don't see how either of those things are doing that. I
> mean, him becoming CEO of a law firm was always a ridiculous idea, given
> he's not terribly bright and his leadership qualities are lacking,
...and law firms don't have CEOs. Bad writers... :)
> but it's not testing his worldview that I can see.
If 5x06 didn't paint that clearly for you, there's not a lot I can say
about it that's going to help. But, you know, having to question his every
move because it might be what the senior partners want, not believing he's
a hero any longer, starting to not believe in the good he's doing. That
sort of thing.
> And what on earth does Spike have to do with his worldview?
You mean, a second vampire with a soul who might actually be more of a
hero than Angel is?
Yeah, can't see any potential for disillusionment there. :)
Dan Milburn
Of course I do, or I wouldn't have reacted to 'Inside Out' so strongly.
I just found it a strange criticism to be making when you have no
objection to an episode whose entire point is that we can never trust
anything we see. It seems you actively like it when they do it on a
huge scale, but not on a micro level.
>>>For me to rate an episode as less than 3, it has to be actively bad. It
>>>has to have something *wrong* with it. 'Unleashed' didn't, really, other
>>>than repetition. Nina was a decent character, the points made about Angel
>>>were valid enough; it's just that we've seen it before. OTOH, the presumed
>>>new audience wouldn't have done. This is an episode for them, not for us.
>>>Yeah, it could have been both, but it wasn't.
>>
>>I thought the ending was actively bad.
>
> It was a little cheesy, certainly (and the award for most inappropriate
> usage of a song goes to...), but not unwatchable.
>
>
>>The presumed new audience would just be wondering why the werewolf
>>story was done so poorly compared to the ones in 'Buffy'.
>
>
> I honestly don't believe it was. It was hugely better than, say, 'Beauty
> and the Beasts'...
Ah, I wasn't thinking about that one, although there's a fair bit more
than just the werewolf stuff, but yes, it's pretty poor.
>>>>Well, me. Spike's always been complicated and JM's a good actor. :)
>>>
>>>Eh. I find watching him on _Angel_ that he's not blowing me away.
>>
>>Nothing about this season so far's blowing anyone away. Your point?
>
>
> I don't like Spike. Or James Marsters. Quite fond of Jeff Bell and Steve
> DeKnight, though. :)
All I'm saying is that James Marsters isn't blowing me away either, but
when given the right material, I do think he's capable of it. Far more
so than certain other actors I can think of playing souled vampires..
>>>There were a few episodes at the beginning of S7 when I was interested.
>>>But about midseason the whole thing went into a nosedive, and I never
>>>really regained interest in Spike. It didn't help that 'Lies My Parents
>>>Told Me' was the Holtz arc in one episode with the serial numbers filed
>>>off...
>>
>>And with a number of really rather large differences. At least I don't
>>remember any babies showing up in LMPTM, or Angel and Holtz supposedly
>>being allies, or..
>
>
> Well, that's my point. It was the cliff notes version, all emotional
> weight and storytelling verve excised.
Well, I think it's a broadly similar story with completely different
intentions. I do actually agree with you that it's not all that great -
it could and should have been better, but I don't put it down to any
comparison with Holtz.
>>>>Well yes, but it did it all so simplistically, and really told us
>>>>nothing that Angel was supposed to have learnt at Reprise-ish time. It
>>>>just didn't feel all that profound to me.
>>>
>>>Hmm. I don't see reiteration, I see development. For one thing, it's a
>>>test of Angel's resolve; this is the first time since the epiphany that
>>>his worldview has been *tested*,
>>
>>What, you mean apart from 'Inside Out' and the Jasmine arc?
>
>
> Those things undermined Angel's epiphanied view how, exactly?
>
>>>and what with Spike and W&H, it's quite a
>>>test.
>>
>>How? I honestly don't see how either of those things are doing that. I
>>mean, him becoming CEO of a law firm was always a ridiculous idea, given
>>he's not terribly bright and his leadership qualities are lacking,
>
>
> ...and law firms don't have CEOs. Bad writers... :)
>
>
>>but it's not testing his worldview that I can see.
>
>
> If 5x06 didn't paint that clearly for you, there's not a lot I can say
> about it that's going to help. But, you know, having to question his every
> move because it might be what the senior partners want,
I see that as a continuation of what happened in 'Inside Out' though.
You can never know in the big picture who's manipulating you or for what
reasons.. And in fact, he *hasn't* been questioning his every move
because it might be what the senior partners want. He's talked about
it, sure, but there hasn't actually been a single specific case where
he's wondered "Should I be doing this?". That they're telling and not
showing might be part of the problem..
> not believing he's
> a hero any longer, starting to not believe in the good he's doing. That
> sort of thing.
Yes, I got all that, but it was all so blindingly obvious it would
happen that the only puzzle is why Angel is at all surprised by it.
>>And what on earth does Spike have to do with his worldview?
>
>
> You mean, a second vampire with a soul who might actually be more of a
> hero than Angel is?
>
> Yeah, can't see any potential for disillusionment there. :)
I didn't say anything about disillusionment, I asked how it challenged
his worldview. If you're saying part of that worldview is that no-one
else is allowed to be a hero, except for maybe Buffy, because it makes
him feel less special (and now that I think about it, his resentment of
Groo in S3 fits here), then Angel is just an egotistical loser who never
learnt anything from his epiphany anyway. I'd actually like to believe
that that's not the case.
Dan
Niall Harrison
> Niall Harrison wrote:
>>>>I hate it. With a passion. It's like 'Enemies', but more so. You can't
>>>>have plots where the characters decide on actions behind the audience's
>>>>back; once you start doing that, you can't trust *anything* you see.
>>>
>>>I seem to recall that was my problem with 'Inside Out', only far more so..
>>
>> Do you honestly not see the different between the two scenarios?
>
> Of course I do, or I wouldn't have reacted to 'Inside Out' so strongly.
> I just found it a strange criticism to be making when you have no
> objection to an episode whose entire point is that we can never trust
> anything we see. It seems you actively like it when they do it on a
> huge scale, but not on a micro level.
I think it's one thing to reveal that what we saw had other meaning behind
it. I think it's quite another to reveal that we didn't actually see the
crucial plot points.
>>>but it's not testing his worldview that I can see.
>>
>> If 5x06 didn't paint that clearly for you, there's not a lot I can say
>> about it that's going to help. But, you know, having to question his every
>> move because it might be what the senior partners want,
>
> I see that as a continuation of what happened in 'Inside Out' though.
> You can never know in the big picture who's manipulating you or for what
> reasons.
Sure, it builds on it. But it's the current situation that crystallised
Angel's doubts.
> And in fact, he *hasn't* been questioning his every move
> because it might be what the senior partners want. He's talked about
> it, sure, but there hasn't actually been a single specific case where
> he's wondered "Should I be doing this?".
Sure he has. Everything the character has been doing this season has been
hesitant and slow.
>> not believing he's
>> a hero any longer, starting to not believe in the good he's doing. That
>> sort of thing.
>
> Yes, I got all that, but it was all so blindingly obvious it would
> happen that the only puzzle is why Angel is at all surprised by it.
You thought Angel was acting surprised? When?
Like the beige-Angel arc of S2, this isn't the sort of plot twist that's
supposed to catch viewers off guard, it's supposed to be a creeping,
slippery slope that Angel is well aware of but sliding down regardless. We
all knew Darla was bad news; we all saw Angel's fall coming. We all know
W&H is bad news; we all see Angel's fall coming. But in both cases, we
also see that he thinks the potential gains - there, saving Darla; here,
helping more people in a month than AI helped in a year - are worth the
risk.
>>>And what on earth does Spike have to do with his worldview?
>>
>> You mean, a second vampire with a soul who might actually be more of a
>> hero than Angel is?
>>
>> Yeah, can't see any potential for disillusionment there. :)
>
> I didn't say anything about disillusionment, I asked how it challenged
> his worldview. If you're saying part of that worldview is that no-one
> else is allowed to be a hero, except for maybe Buffy, because it makes
> him feel less special (and now that I think about it, his resentment of
> Groo in S3 fits here), then Angel is just an egotistical loser who never
> learnt anything from his epiphany anyway. I'd actually like to believe
> that that's not the case.
Oh, c'mon. There's a slight difference between 'no-one else is allowed to
be a hero' and 'somebody else is doing everything I can do, so are my
actions still worthwhile?'
Because yes, Angel likes being a hero. Not likes thinking of himself as a
hero; likes *being* a hero. Likes doing the good that nobody else can do.
That gives him job satisfaction.
Yeah, he's a loser, alright. :-p
Dan Milburn
I'm sorry, but I consider the fact that Skip was merely posing as a good
guy in 'That Vision Thing' to be a far more crucial plot point in the
scheme of things than that Spike turned out to be posing as a bad guy in
this episode.
>>>>but it's not testing his worldview that I can see.
>>>
>>>If 5x06 didn't paint that clearly for you, there's not a lot I can say
>>>about it that's going to help. But, you know, having to question his every
>>>move because it might be what the senior partners want,
>>
>>I see that as a continuation of what happened in 'Inside Out' though.
>>You can never know in the big picture who's manipulating you or for what
>>reasons.
>
>
> Sure, it builds on it. But it's the current situation that crystallised
> Angel's doubts.
>
>
>>And in fact, he *hasn't* been questioning his every move
>>because it might be what the senior partners want. He's talked about
>>it, sure, but there hasn't actually been a single specific case where
>>he's wondered "Should I be doing this?".
>
>
> Sure he has. Everything the character has been doing this season has been
> hesitant and slow.
Except for: dealing with werewolf girl, dealing with the necromancer,
attacking the demon in 'Just Rewards' who turned out to be his 3
o'clock, going out to find the demon in 'Cautionary Tale..'. Once
they'd find out what it was that needed doing, he didn't hesitate in
'Conviction' either. Actually, I really haven't noticed Angel being any
more hesitant than in the past at all.
>>>not believing he's
>>>a hero any longer, starting to not believe in the good he's doing. That
>>>sort of thing.
>>
>>Yes, I got all that, but it was all so blindingly obvious it would
>>happen that the only puzzle is why Angel is at all surprised by it.
>
>
> You thought Angel was acting surprised? When?
>
> Like the beige-Angel arc of S2, this isn't the sort of plot twist that's
> supposed to catch viewers off guard, it's supposed to be a creeping,
> slippery slope that Angel is well aware of but sliding down regardless. We
> all knew Darla was bad news; we all saw Angel's fall coming. We all know
> W&H is bad news; we all see Angel's fall coming. But in both cases, we
> also see that he thinks the potential gains - there, saving Darla; here,
> helping more people in a month than AI helped in a year - are worth the
> risk.
And maybe it is, but I think we need to see Angel demonstrating more
awareness of the risk, and doing more to guard against it. Unlike with
Darla, he *chose* to be in this situation.
>>>>And what on earth does Spike have to do with his worldview?
>>>
>>>You mean, a second vampire with a soul who might actually be more of a
>>>hero than Angel is?
>>>
>>>Yeah, can't see any potential for disillusionment there. :)
>>
>>I didn't say anything about disillusionment, I asked how it challenged
>>his worldview. If you're saying part of that worldview is that no-one
>>else is allowed to be a hero, except for maybe Buffy, because it makes
>>him feel less special (and now that I think about it, his resentment of
>>Groo in S3 fits here), then Angel is just an egotistical loser who never
>>learnt anything from his epiphany anyway. I'd actually like to believe
>>that that's not the case.
>
>
> Oh, c'mon. There's a slight difference between 'no-one else is allowed to
> be a hero' and 'somebody else is doing everything I can do, so are my
> actions still worthwhile?'
But both are incredibly childish and self-centred ways to look at
things. In my line of work, I *know* that there are thousands of people
out there who could do my job as well or better than I do. It doesn't
stop me from believing my contributions are worthwhile, or make me think
I should give up and do something else.
> Because yes, Angel likes being a hero. Not likes thinking of himself as a
> hero; likes *being* a hero. Likes doing the good that nobody else can do.
> That gives him job satisfaction.
Which is all fine, apart from the 'that nobody else can do' part. You
don't do the good because only you can do it, you do it because it's
worth doing.
Dan
Linda
> >>
> >> When S5 is tackling the material specific to S5 - the deal with W&H and
> >> the implications thereof - it's strong. When it's telling tangental
> >> stories that could have been placed in any previous season, it's weak.
So
> >> far, the quality is wobbling about so much that it's hard to tell how
> >> things are going to pan out.
> >
> > I think it's the affect of the suits at the WB wanting more stand-alone
> > episodes to try to draw in new viewers. The thing is those new viewers
> > should have already been drawn in by now.
>
> Yes. But I think you can see that ME realise that; 5x06 is a definite step
> up in terms of complexity and plot advancement - it's the first episode
> you couldn't watch 'cold'.
I sure hope you're right.
Dan Milburn
>>
>>There were a few episodes at the beginning of S7 when I was interested.
>>But about midseason the whole thing went into a nosedive, and I never
>>really regained interest in Spike. It didn't help that 'Lies My Parents
>>Told Me' was the Holtz arc in one episode with the serial numbers filed
>>off...
>
>
>
> Firstly, the Holtz arc is Kate Lockley with the serial numbers filed off - or
> what Kate Lockley would have become if she'd stayed with the show.
Good point. Damn, it's so long since I watched any S1 (yes, I know
she's in S2 as well) that I'd forgotten about her, must do something
about that..
> Secondly, Lies, if it is a similar story, is a much better one. You have a
> much better actor for a start and a more complex character. The story takes a
> more in-depth look at that character whereas Holtz struggles to be
> multi-dimensional. Simply saying "here's a basically good guy who's fighting
> another basically good guy because he can't recognise that he's changed" is an
> interesting premise but it needs developing.
>
> In Lies on the other hand we get more layers about why Spike is who he is
> which is also relevant to who he's becoming. Holtz is never examined in that
> kind of detail, neither is Connor (who remains virtually to the end the sullen
> teenager). Justine-Holtz had some potential but it was under-exploited in my
> view. Neither do they use Holtz to bring out more depth in Angel - they merely
> make him the emotional mangle to put him through the wringer.
>
> Lies also entwines the themes it's exploring regarding Spike with the other
> characters Wood, Buffy and Giles.
>
> I'll be the first to admit that many of the reasons Lies is a better story are
> in-built advantages - the work already done creating Spike,
Maybe I'm misreading, but you seem to be comparing Holtz with Spike all
the way through here. They're not in the same roles. For the purposes
of comparison, Wood == Holtz, Spike == Angel. Of course, the comparison
doesn't hold up very well - Wood wants vengeance but isn't consumed by
it, he's still basically a good guy, whereas Holtz no longer knows how
to be. Angel is truly sorry for what he did, Spike really isn't. Throw
in the trigger, Buffy, Giles etc and you have a rather different story.
But while Wood is a good character, he's examined in less detail than
Holtz, and you can hardly say the work hasn't already been done creating
Angel.
Dan
Shuggie
says...
[snip]
>> Secondly, Lies, if it is a similar story, is a much better one. You have a
>> much better actor for a start and a more complex character. The story takes a
>> more in-depth look at that character whereas Holtz struggles to be
>> multi-dimensional. Simply saying "here's a basically good guy who's fighting
>>another basically good guy because he can't recognise that he's changed" is an
>> interesting premise but it needs developing.
>>
>> In Lies on the other hand we get more layers about why Spike is who he is
>> which is also relevant to who he's becoming. Holtz is never examined in that
>>kind of detail, neither is Connor (who remains virtually to the end the sullen
>> teenager). Justine-Holtz had some potential but it was under-exploited in my
>>view. Neither do they use Holtz to bring out more depth in Angel - they merely
>> make him the emotional mangle to put him through the wringer.
>>
>> Lies also entwines the themes it's exploring regarding Spike with the other
>> characters Wood, Buffy and Giles.
>>
>>I'll be the first to admit that many of the reasons Lies is a better story are
>> in-built advantages - the work already done creating Spike,
>
>Maybe I'm misreading, but you seem to be comparing Holtz with Spike all
>the way through here. They're not in the same roles. For the purposes
>of comparison, Wood == Holtz, Spike == Angel.
I was comparing the quality of the stories not the roles. Spike is the central
character in Lies and Holtz is in the Holtz arc. At least that's how I interpret
what's meant by the phrase 'Holtz arc'. Even if we consider that it's still
Angel's story, as I say, they don't use Holtz to say anything particularly new
about Angel in the way that they use Wood to bring out new aspects of Spike or,
to a lesser degree, Spike to bring out aspects of Buffy.
(Aspects of Buffy - a new Whedon/Lloyd-Webber production, coming to a theatre
near you soon!)
>Of course, the comparison
>doesn't hold up very well - Wood wants vengeance but isn't consumed by
>it, he's still basically a good guy, whereas Holtz no longer knows how
>to be. Angel is truly sorry for what he did, Spike really isn't. Throw
>in the trigger, Buffy, Giles etc and you have a rather different story.
>
>But while Wood is a good character, he's examined in less detail than
>Holtz, and you can hardly say the work hasn't already been done creating
>Angel.
Actually I could make a case for Spike having had more character development
than Angel, since Angel was so underdeveloped in S1-3 of Buffy. But I won't.
What I will say is that the problem with Angel is the constant RE-creating of
him - particularly in S3 & S4. Of course this happened with Spike too - but the
changes seemed more organic with him.
--
Shug
Andrew Hogg
we've previously seen in the series, isn't it? And it hasn't exactly
been followed up in terms of Angel showing no mercy.
> 5x02, 'Just Rewards' (written by Ben Edlund and David Fury)
>
> Yeesh. Just...yeesh. This one is all kinds of horrible.
>
> Where to start? The plot, which is as contrived and as irritating a cheat
> as 'Blood Money'? The dialogue, which is stale and repetitive and most of
> all *dull*? The fact that next to _Angel_'s cast, and under _Angel_'s
> lights, Marsters is painfully exposed as short and pallid, draped in an
> animal skin that just seems to *hang* there? I mean, I get the withdrawn
> body language thing, but Spike just doesn't look right.
>
> There are bright spots. The necromancer is a decent bad guy. Fred gets
> some good lines. But that's about it.
>
> Yeesh. 2.
>
Now now, only you would mock his height. :D
> 5x03, 'Unleashed' (written by Sarah Craft and Elizabeth Fain)
>
> And now, for those coming over from _Buffy_ to watch Spike, we have the
> obligatory 'Angel is a man with a demon inside' explanatory episode. And
> for extra recognition points, they make it about a werewolf.
>
> 'Unleashed', spectacularly misjudged closing usage of Ryan Adams' 'La
> Cienega Just Smiled' aside (it's a great, great song, but really not an
> _Angel_ song), isn't bad. It's kinda neutral. Nina is a passable victim of
> the week; Angel's reactions to Nina are decently played, if nothing new to
> long-time viewers. The culinary villain is a nice touch, as is Our Heroes'
> initial secret meeting at the start of the episode.
>
> Overall, mostly harmless. 3.
>
Yeah, it's just... there. They'll never get the werewolf right, will
they? Not that most movies do better.
> 5x04, 'Hellbound' (written and directed by Steven S DeKnight)
>
> Now, *that* is much better. Much, much better. Who'd have thought that the
> first really good episode of S5 would be a Spike episode, eh?
>
> 'Hellbound' does a couple of important things. It establishes Spike on
> _Angel_ as more than just someone we should resent for taking screen time
> away from the other characters. In fact, it does a better job of
> demonstrating who and what Spike is now than the entireity of season 7.
> The reason I know this is that by the end of the episode I was warming up
> to the character a little, rather than being lost in apathy.
>
> The other crucial thing 'Hellbound' does is establish the new set. The
> Hyperion had character oozing out of its pores; the W&H set was a faceless
> office. The W&H set is now a slightly less faceless office. There's a
> sense of the place, what it stands for, and what it means to work there
> that is engendered by this episode more effectively than by a dozen 'we
> work for an evil law firm' speeches.
>
> All this, and a really *very* nice scene between Angel and Spike.
> *That's* the potential of their relationship, not the forced sniping of
> 'Just Rewards'. 4.25.
>
Yeah, there's some nice bits. End still narks slightly.
> 'Life of the Party' (written by Ben Edlund)
>
> I know Ben Edlund is supposed to be a good writer, and all, but I'm
> starting to think he really just does not get _Angel_.
>
> To be fair, this is a step up from 'Just Rewards'. Lorne's unease and
> tension is nicely played (the teaser is excellent), and there are some
> good gags scattered throughout. But the party plot is flat and uninspired,
> coming across like a warmed-up, second-rate, never-used _Buffy_ script,
> and that's definitely not a good thing.
>
> 2.5.
>
Dude, we found out Angel likes it doggy style. How can you not love that?
> 'The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco' (written and directed by Jeff Bell)
>
> You can always tell when sweeps starts, can't you?
>
> This one works. This one works *very* well, coming on like the bastard
> offspring of 'Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been' and 'Clyde Bruckman's
> Final Repose'. Jeff Bell flashes his _X-Files_ heritage, but in a uniquely
> _Angel_ story that flits from offbeat humour to noir to moments of genuine
> sentiment to the bizarre genius of the mexican wrestling segments.
>
> The episode is also plastered with foot-high neon letters, and they say
> 'THIS IS IMPORTANT, SO LISTEN UP!' It's All About Angel, and starts giving
> us the kind of insight into his position at W&H that 'Conviction' and
> 'Hellbound' only hinted at. The epiphany, Connor, shanshu, Spike...it's
> all in the mix, and it's framed by a story that, depending on how you're
> feeling, is either a simple warning or complex foreshadowing. I'm leaning
> towards the latter camp, and it's going to be very interesting to see how
> it all plays out.
>
> 4.5.
More importantly Mexican Wrestler Superheroes fought a devil robot.
--
Andrew Hogg
Jonathan Dupont
> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Jonathan Dupont wrote:
>> Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in
>> news:10684658...@urchin.earth.li:
>>> So here's my thoughts.
Chase in Istanbul was interesting, if not amazing, but I still absolutelty
love the scene between Buffy and Dawn in the graveyard.
> I thought the teaser of 'Conviction' was pretty good, myself (W&H
> undercutting Angel's heroic rescue).
Good idea, poor execution.
> And that long, long tracking shot
> early in the episode gets cool points form me. But yeah, nothing to
> match Spike's friends.
The tracking shot did nothing for me, seeing as it seemed to be mostly
there for the sake of it (the one in Anne is far more effective).
Spike need a better resurrection, IMHO. I wish Joss didn't have such a
thing for easy resurrections, long consequences.
>>> 5x02, 'Just Rewards' (written by Ben Edlund and David Fury)
>>>
>>> Yeesh. Just...yeesh. This one is all kinds of horrible.
>>> Where to start? The plot, which is as contrived and as irritating a
>>> cheat as 'Blood Money'?
>>
>> Hey! I haven't seen Blood Money for ages, but I remember it being
>> fun...
>
> I hate it. With a passion. It's like 'Enemies', but more so. You can't
> have plots where the characters decide on actions behind the
> audience's back; once you start doing that, you can't trust *anything*
> you see.
Well yes, if you do it all the time. Occasionally I think you can get away
with. I also am rather fond of Enemies and Dad, so there you go.
(However, in a semi-related matter, what really annoys me is what 24 is
doing at the moment (2nd season). Keeping on introducing new levels of
conspiracy and then having the Producers admit that they don't have a clue
what they're doing and they're just making it up as they go along just gets
on my nerves. Then you can never trust any thing you see on the show, say
the way Nina is acting at a particular moment, 'cause they just might
randomly retcon her as a mole later. At least Inside Out wasn't quite so
gratuitous as some of the stuff 24's been doing).
>>> 5x03, 'Unleashed' (written by Sarah Craft and Elizabeth Fain)
>>>
>>> And now, for those coming over from _Buffy_ to watch Spike, we have
>>> the obligatory 'Angel is a man with a demon inside' explanatory
>>> episode. And for extra recognition points, they make it about a
>>> werewolf.
>>
>> I've never actually thought about it that cynically before, but it
>> makes sense.
>
> I think there's a lot of that through the first five episodes. As I
> said to Linda, I think it's very obvious that 5x06 is the episode
> they've decided 'well, if they're not watching now, they won't be.'
I don't remember any "Hey Angel, boss of our evil law firm which we
undertook and maybe it'll turn us evil and we can't trust anything we don't
and I aren't so being clever by obviously doing expostion thus postmodernly
making it alright" sentences, so that's for the good.
(And yes, I have slight issues with a part of Conviction... :) )
>>> Overall, mostly harmless. 3.
>>
>> Now, see, this was *awful.* Absolutely nothing happened in it that
>> was in any way new or intereting. Complete time waster.
>
> For me to rate an episode as less than 3, it has to be actively bad.
> It has to have something *wrong* with it.
So 3 is average? Not quite seeing the logic, but your scale I guess.
> 'Unleashed' didn't, really,
> other than repetition. Nina was a decent character, the points made
> about Angel were valid enough; it's just that we've seen it before.
> OTOH, the presumed new audience wouldn't have done. This is an episode
> for them, not for us. Yeah, it could have been both, but it wasn't.
It felt like a wasted opportunity to me, and worst of all like ME weren't
even trying. That's what I can't forgive.
>>> 5x04, 'Hellbound' (written and directed by Steven S DeKnight)
>>>
>>> Now, *that* is much better. Much, much better. Who'd have thought
>>> that the first really good episode of S5 would be a Spike episode,
>>> eh?
>>
>> Well, me. Spike's always been complicated and JM's a good actor. :)
>
> Eh. I find watching him on _Angel_ that he's not blowing me away.
Some people have been complaining that Spike hasn't been written well. I
don't know, but I do think the role he's been given (annoying Angel)
doesn't have that much potential to show off.
>>> 'Hellbound' does a couple of important things. It establishes Spike
>>> on _Angel_ as more than just someone we should resent for taking
>>> screen time away from the other characters. In fact, it does a
>>> better job of demonstrating who and what Spike is now than the
>>> entireity of season 7. The reason I know this is that by the end of
>>> the episode I was warming up to the character a little, rather than
>>> being lost in apathy.
>>
>> Really? I thought S7 had him down as a fairly fascinating interesting
>> character (see Beneath Me, some other stuff when he isn't too busy
>> being tortured.)
>
> When was that, exactly? :)
Well, yeah :)
But NLM, and a lot of the end of S7 were up there. In the middle his
character was fairly dull.
> There were a few episodes at the beginning of S7 when I was
> interested. But about midseason the whole thing went into a nosedive,
> and I never really regained interest in Spike. It didn't help that
> 'Lies My Parents Told Me' was the Holtz arc in one episode with the
> serial numbers filed off...
Others are more than covering that, so I'm not even going to try and
intervene.
>>> The other crucial thing 'Hellbound' does is establish the new set.
>>> The Hyperion had character oozing out of its pores; the W&H set was
>>> a faceless office. The W&H set is now a slightly less faceless
>>> office. There's a sense of the place, what it stands for, and what
>>> it means to work there that is engendered by this episode more
>>> effectively than by a dozen 'we work for an evil law firm' speeches.
>>
>> Yeah, but I still prefer the Hyperion. The new place is still a
>> little bland to me.
>
> Oh, absolutely. My point is that 'Hellbound' helped, not that it did
> all the work that needs to be done.
I suppose a corporate office is supposed to be bland. Still...
>>> All this, and a really *very* nice scene between Angel and Spike.
>>> *That's* the potential of their relationship, not the forced sniping
>>> of 'Just Rewards'. 4.25.
>>
>> Best episode of the season to me so far, although I have mildly
>> positive hopes for the upcoming Drew Goddard ep.
>
> Is that this week's?
Yeah.
> By the way, any idea if we're getting ten eps before christmas?
> Epguides only has information up to 5x08.
I hope not. Better to have them more spread out.
>>> 'Life of the Party' (written by Ben Edlund)
>>>
>>> I know Ben Edlund is supposed to be a good writer, and all, but I'm
>>> starting to think he really just does not get _Angel_.
>>
>> I haven't liked his past stuff, but Jaynestown is fun and I really
>> actually liked this. The first time an Angel comedy episode has
>> worked for me for aaages - since "Guise will be Guise"?
>
> 'Jaynestown' *is* fun, but I didn't think this was, which is what
> makes me say maybe he doesn't really get this show. _Angel_ doesn't
> really do 'comedy' episodes - I think S&S, GWBG, 'Disharmony', 'Carpe
> Noctem' and maybe 'Spin the Bottle' are the only other examples. This
> isn't on a par with most of those, although it's better than CN.
I'd completely forgotten about StB (the Joss one, obviously...). The Angel
cast aren't really used to doing comedy (expect perhaps for AD), but I
still think ME should try. It helped Buffy a lot.
>>> 'The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco' (written and directed by Jeff
>>> Bell)
>>>
>>> This one works. This one works *very* well, coming on like the
>>> bastard offspring of 'Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been' and 'Clyde
>>> Bruckman's Final Repose'. Jeff Bell flashes his _X-Files_ heritage,
>>> but in a uniquely _Angel_ story that flits from offbeat humour to
>>> noir to moments of genuine sentiment to the bizarre genius of the
>>> mexican wrestling segments.
>>
>> I don't know. It was atmospheric and all, but I'm not quite sure the
>> content and themes were absolutely there.
>
> What do you think was missing?
Some depth. Detail. Intricacy. That sort of thing. More than "it's hard
being a hero". It reminds me of the line about black & white & grey last
year - that's early Smallville level of discussion, and I expect better
here.
>> Well yes, but it did it all so simplistically, and really told us
>> nothing that Angel was supposed to have learnt at Reprise-ish time.
>> It just didn't feel all that profound to me.
>
> Hmm. I don't see reiteration, I see development. For one thing, it's a
> test of Angel's resolve; this is the first time since the epiphany
> that his worldview has been *tested*, and what with Spike and W&H,
> it's quite a test.
We don't see any acknowledgement of the epiphany though - so it feels more
like a retread than a test. Perhaps Angel should discover that elevator
again or something.
>>> CONCLUSIONS:
>>>
>>> When S5 is tackling the material specific to S5 - the deal with W&H
>>> and the implications thereof - it's strong. When it's telling
>>> tangental stories that could have been placed in any previous
>>> season, it's weak. So far, the quality is wobbling about so much
>>> that it's hard to tell how things are going to pan out.
>>
>> Hellbound and Life of the Party to me were solid, good stuff. Some of
>> the rest is interest, some shaky normal modern ME fare. We'll see how
>> the season develops, but I'm not completely convinced that without a
>> running storyline this is going to end as a vintage year.
>
> I think 5x06 was the start of a running story. We'll see, I guess.
>
> Niall
I think there's the running theme of becoming pragmatic, which is slowly
morphing into becoming demoralised and tired of the whole champion thing. I
don't see much of an ongoing plot apart from the Spike thing, and I'm not
sure whether to expect one or not. If we see Cordy or Connor again I guess
it might get things moving.
Jon
ilmaestro
proclaimed:
>
>So I get all caught up, and I come to abe, and what do I find? No
>goddamned discussion, that's what I find. Y'all suck.
I think integration, of sorts, with ata seems to be what people have
chosen.
>So here's my thoughts.
Cool, Niall's back in the game...
In the mind of the fans, maybe. I would say ME managed to largely side
step this potential problem with the mind-wipe.
>It does this job adequately, but not exceptionally. The right things are
>said; the right questions are asked; the right moves are made. Harmony
>works reasonably well; Spike's appearance made my heart sink. As a
>premiere, I think it has a lot in common with 'Lessons' - it does the job,
>and it provides a solid base for the rest of the season to launch from,
>but it's not a classic. 3.75.
I liked many parts of it. The teaser was simultaneously amusing and a
swift reminder of the different world in which Angel now has to
operate. The feeling of the gang having something new to settle into
is mirrored for the audience by our own (probable) lack of comfort
with the situation re: the mind-wipe, and the uncertain nature of the
narrative pattern for the year. Also, for the record, I love Spike.
But, I don't think I wanted to see him anymore after 'Chosen'; I liked
the way the his arc came to a conclusion, and I think there's enough
character (and characters) in AtS without Spike, even sans Cordy and
Conner. Heck, AD and especially JAR have gone through extremely barren
patches at times throughout the show's history, why not give some of
the newly available focus to them? I still hold out hope that they
will actually go somewhere with the consequences of Gunn's new-found
ability, but I'm not 100% convinced they will.
Also, I thought this was more like a companion piece to 'City Of...'
in some ways, starting with an old fashioned damsel-in-distress
rescue, then Angel getting to grips with his new role at W&H equating
broadly to him adapting to his new role in 'society', as directed by
Doyle, and ending with Angel killing someone who told him that he was
going to have to play by the rules of W&H. The other obvious link is
that there was a fair bit of making sure that the (hopefully) newly
aquired BtVS audience understood basically what was going on, giving
'Conviction' more of a pilot-esque feel than any other season opener.
Brownie points for the level of violence in that final death, as well.
Overall, I liked it a lot, and it provided one of my all-time favorite
humorous lines ('It's "Joanie Loves Chachi" meets
"The Sorrow and the Pity." It's "Joanie Loves Pity.") Sooo... 4/5
>5x02, 'Just Rewards' (written by Ben Edlund and David Fury)
>
>Yeesh. Just...yeesh. This one is all kinds of horrible.
My first reaction was 'ooh, look: they're going to reduce Spike to
annoying Angel and being 'funny' after it took them several years to
move him away from that on 'Buffy'.' And my second was that I'm not
impressed with stories that show difficulties for Angel in the
day-to-day running of W&H if there's no real suggestion of a deeper
problem. We knew that some, if not most, of Angel's clients were going
to be evil, we didn't need to be shown this in the form of early BtVS
season 2, MotW-type episodes until we also had more wide-ranging
matters to be thinking about.
>Where to start? The plot, which is as contrived and as irritating a cheat
>as 'Blood Money'? The dialogue, which is stale and repetitive and most of
>all *dull*? The fact that next to _Angel_'s cast, and under _Angel_'s
>lights, Marsters is painfully exposed as short and pallid, draped in an
>animal skin that just seems to *hang* there? I mean, I get the withdrawn
>body language thing, but Spike just doesn't look right.
For starters, I agree with you to some extent about Spike, but I think
you're being way too harsh on JM. He is being, at this stage of the
season, asked to play a largely empty role, in that Spike has no
current function within the group, nor is there an obvious, immediate
resolution to this problem (although I did think there was a slight
hope for some fun scenes between Angel and he after their bedroom
discussion. I'm aware that that sentence can be taken two ways, but I
thought there was a flash of chemistry there). Spike is obviously in a
very different place, psychologically, to where we left him at the end
of 'Buffy', and indeed to where he has ever been. JM has spent the
best part of four years as the character, but now he is being asked to
adapt to a completely different set of circumstances, not to mention
cast members. Cut him a little slack, please?
>There are bright spots. The necromancer is a decent bad guy. Fred gets
>some good lines. But that's about it.
Another good teaser, IMO: I liked the Spike's-eye-view bit, and the
way that Spike's ghostliness is revealed. I thought there were some
funny moments. Whilst Spike has, for me, grown beyond comic relief, he
is still good for a snarky comment or two. And I saw potential in the
final dialog between Fred and Spike. Largely disappointing though: a
yeeshy 1.5/5
>Yeesh. 2.
>5x03, 'Unleashed' (written by Sarah Craft and Elizabeth Fain)
>
>And now, for those coming over from _Buffy_ to watch Spike, we have the
>obligatory 'Angel is a man with a demon inside' explanatory episode. And
>for extra recognition points, they make it about a werewolf.
Hadn't thought of it like that, but the werewolf story did seem a bit
overdone, a bit too familiar. As for the 'AiaMwaDI' part of it, I
think that does need reinforcing from time to time, and could well
prove to be back at the forefront again this year, saving the (evil)
day after Angelus' watered down appearance in Season 4. And the nicely
thrown in line to Nina at the end: 'Look, if you separate yourself
from the ones you love, the monster wins.'
>'Unleashed', spectacularly misjudged closing usage of Ryan Adams' 'La
>Cienega Just Smiled' aside (it's a great, great song, but really not an
>_Angel_ song), isn't bad. It's kinda neutral. Nina is a passable victim of
Is anything really an 'Angel' song? I think that Angel should always,
even when it appears to be a really, really good idea stay away from
the type of endings that worked on occasion in 'Buffy'. That said, the
people who I know who watch 'Angel' religiously, but only for 'fun'
ie, not participating in the kind of analysis that goes on in
newsgroups, enjoyed the group-hugginess of the last scene, song and
all, so 'spectacularly misjudged' really does depend on what they were
aiming for, IMHO.
>the week; Angel's reactions to Nina are decently played, if nothing new to
>long-time viewers. The culinary villain is a nice touch, as is Our Heroes'
>initial secret meeting at the start of the episode.
The secret meeting was a nice continuation of the run of good teasers,
and the villain was a interesting alternative to the regular. But what
I really liked was that Angel got his chance to be a bit Dark again,
and took it, by throwing the human Dr. Royce to the wolves, as it
were. Combine this with the shotgun death at the end of ep. 1, and the
eventual punishment of Pavayne in ep. 4 (the horror of which Angel
knows himself) and I think we have big emotional problems brewing for
our hero. I know the outlook isn't usually too bright, but I like that
this might be going somewhere particularly dark.
>Overall, mostly harmless. 3.
I say 3.5/5, if only because it really does do what it sets out to do.
>5x04, 'Hellbound' (written and directed by Steven S DeKnight)
>
>Now, *that* is much better. Much, much better. Who'd have thought that the
>first really good episode of S5 would be a Spike episode, eh?
I'll bet more than a few people, actually. You seem to have some
extreme dislike of the character, or a bias towards all things 'Angel'
over 'Buffy'.
>'Hellbound' does a couple of important things. It establishes Spike on
>_Angel_ as more than just someone we should resent for taking screen time
>away from the other characters. In fact, it does a better job of
>demonstrating who and what Spike is now than the entireity of season 7.
>The reason I know this is that by the end of the episode I was warming up
>to the character a little, rather than being lost in apathy.
Well, as far as season 7 goes, I suppose it depends on how much you
can enjoy the Spike/Buffy story as to how much you care about Spike,
but I'm gald to see that you are prepared to give the character a
chance on 'Angel'.
>The other crucial thing 'Hellbound' does is establish the new set. The
>Hyperion had character oozing out of its pores; the W&H set was a faceless
>office. The W&H set is now a slightly less faceless office. There's a
>sense of the place, what it stands for, and what it means to work there
>that is engendered by this episode more effectively than by a dozen 'we
>work for an evil law firm' speeches.
I'm still not too impressed with the W&H setting. It lacks anything
truly distinctive, like the homely feel of season 1's offices, or the
history that the Hyperion has attached to it. basically, I don't think
that the W&H offices really feel like they belong to the gang, and as
such it doesn't quite fit yet.
>All this, and a really *very* nice scene between Angel and Spike.
>*That's* the potential of their relationship, not the forced sniping of
>'Just Rewards'. 4.25.
I thought the episode was very good, excellent atmosphere and
characterization. It leaves Spike needing something to do again, as
his pulling into hell is presumably resolved for now. Spike's
revelation that he can pick things up, in a way, worried me at first,
as I think they should leave him as a ghost-type thing, but I'm not
unhappy with the way it's worked afterwards, despite a few slight
inconsistancies.
Overall, just shades 'Conviction' as my favorite so far. 4.1/5
>'Life of the Party' (written by Ben Edlund)
>
>I know Ben Edlund is supposed to be a good writer, and all, but I'm
>starting to think he really just does not get _Angel_.
>
>To be fair, this is a step up from 'Just Rewards'. Lorne's unease and
>tension is nicely played (the teaser is excellent), and there are some
>good gags scattered throughout. But the party plot is flat and uninspired,
>coming across like a warmed-up, second-rate, never-used _Buffy_ script,
>and that's definitely not a good thing.
'scattered' is the word for the good gags. The only ones I remember
are Spike's comment about Gunn peeing on Angel's chair, and Wesley
saying 'Ah ah' to Gunn when he was peeing into Angel's fountain.
Toilet jokes are not supposed to be the best thing that Angel can come
up with. The resolution to Lorne's problem was a bit stupid as well. I
would have preferred some long-standing problem of his to come to the
fore, instead we got something easily remedied, and the only
interesting comment I can come up with is that it probably reflects
the fact that W&H's tampering with Gunn's mind will come back to bite
him on the ass. On the plus side, Sarah Thompson is pretty hot, and I
may be in the minority, but I think that Amy Acker looks better than
ever this year, too.
>2.5.
I didn't think this was even as good as 'Just Rewards': 1.2/5
>'The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco' (written and directed by Jeff Bell)
>
>You can always tell when sweeps starts, can't you?
>
>This one works. This one works *very* well, coming on like the bastard
>offspring of 'Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been' and 'Clyde Bruckman's
>Final Repose'. Jeff Bell flashes his _X-Files_ heritage, but in a uniquely
>_Angel_ story that flits from offbeat humour to noir to moments of genuine
>sentiment to the bizarre genius of the mexican wrestling segments.
It did feel rather like one of Bell's 'X-Files' episodes. Good job I
like them as well.
>The episode is also plastered with foot-high neon letters, and they say
>'THIS IS IMPORTANT, SO LISTEN UP!' It's All About Angel, and starts giving
>us the kind of insight into his position at W&H that 'Conviction' and
>'Hellbound' only hinted at. The epiphany, Connor, shanshu, Spike...it's
>all in the mix, and it's framed by a story that, depending on how you're
>feeling, is either a simple warning or complex foreshadowing. I'm leaning
>towards the latter camp, and it's going to be very interesting to see how
>it all plays out.
I agree. I think this episode will only prove to become more important
after we see the next few episodes. I was very skeptical on first
viewing (I only gave it 3.5/5 in ata), and didn't think too much of
the Mexican wrestlers, but having re-watched it a couple of times, I
have become more agreeable to the setting of the episode, and I
already loved the more arc related bits, especially Angel dropping the
ball on 'The father will kill the son.' I think the true merits of the
episode will only show through, however, if they build upon the
potential shown here throughout the rest of the season, especially the
next two episodes.
>4.5.
Again, just about my favorite of the year, and I think the mark can
only go up over time, oddly enough. 4.2/5
>CONCLUSIONS:
>
>When S5 is tackling the material specific to S5 - the deal with W&H and
>the implications thereof - it's strong. When it's telling tangental
Most of the time. I think that sometimes there isn't enough actual
discussion of the important things, even when it seems that is what
the scene is about.
>stories that could have been placed in any previous season, it's weak. So
>far, the quality is wobbling about so much that it's hard to tell how
>things are going to pan out.
I have high hopes now that we are (pray for it) past the stage of
silly episodes to get new viewers involved. I believe in ME to salvage
the bad points of last season, and in doing so, create one of the best
seasons of AtS or BtVS.
--
ilmaestro
"No you don't. But thanks for saying it."
Iain Clark
>
>So I get all caught up, and I come to abe, and what do I find? No
>goddamned discussion, that's what I find. Y'all suck.
>
Okay, you asked for it...,
>The right things are
>said; the right questions are asked; the right moves are made. Harmony
>works reasonably well;
Overall it didn't add up to more than the sum of its parts. But a lot
of the parts were great. <g>
The opening was good, classic Angel. Practically S1 (with a twist -
which was the whole point). The rescue is so OTT "dark avenger" stuff
that you immediately sense there's a gag coming.
Each of the characters gets some nice scenes and a clearly set out
"role", but sight is never lost of the bigger picture at W&H - why are
they really there? Is it a simple case of corrupting them? Can they
really do any good with all the compromises they'll have to make?
'Eve' was a good way to embody all of these dilemmas in character
form. I remain to be 100% convinced by the actress (clearly going for
'young and naive looking but actually sinister', but not quite getting
there).
>Spike's appearance made my heart sink.
Well you can hardly say you didn't know it was coming! I thought it
was as well done as it could have been - which is to say, workmanlike
rather than inspired.
> As a
>premiere, I think it has a lot in common with 'Lessons' - it does the job,
>and it provides a solid base for the rest of the season to launch from,
>but it's not a classic. 3.75.
>
It set a great many things running for the future, and didn't quite
integrate that with being a strong episode on its own terms. In that
respect I was definitely reminded of "Lessons".
Oh, and the wire work sucked. <g> A lot of the violence was nicely
done and hard-edged but the wire work? Sucked.
>5x02, 'Just Rewards' (written by Ben Edlund and David Fury)
>
>Yeesh. Just...yeesh. This one is all kinds of horrible.
>
I was just really uninspired by this one. Spike was more annoying
than likeable (the role of wisecracking observer is one destined to
become intensely irritating if the show isn't careful).
>Where to start? The plot, which is as contrived and as irritating a cheat
>as 'Blood Money'?
This didn't bother me at all. I really don't consider it a cheat if
one character does something the others don't know about. Spike made
a play on his own. It was bleedin' obvious, quite frankly, and I was
just waiting for the reveal.
> The dialogue, which is stale and repetitive and most of
>all *dull*?
The dialogue was more leaden than witty, I agree. Also some really
terrible ADR (dialogue replacement), with Marsters suffering
especially badly.
>The fact that next to _Angel_'s cast, and under _Angel_'s
>lights, Marsters is painfully exposed as short and pallid, draped in an
>animal skin that just seems to *hang* there? I mean, I get the withdrawn
>body language thing, but Spike just doesn't look right.
>
You've lost me here - he was Spike, pure and simple. Sadly he wasn't
especially well written, but that's nothing against the actor,
lighting, costume or make-up.
>There are bright spots. The necromancer is a decent bad guy. Fred gets
>some good lines. But that's about it.
>
The necromancer bit was nicely Season 1. Other than that, meh.
>5x03, 'Unleashed' (written by Sarah Craft and Elizabeth Fain)
>
>And now, for those coming over from _Buffy_ to watch Spike, we have the
>obligatory 'Angel is a man with a demon inside' explanatory episode. And
>for extra recognition points, they make it about a werewolf.
>
I think that's a tad over analytical, but it was definitely a crash
course in Angel. This was a real mixed-bag for me. What worked were
the early parts: although the werewolf story has been done to death,
it was played grittily and with conviction, and I was enjoying it
quite a bit. The execution was slick rather then fresh, but it was
doing okay. It all descended into a bit of a mess, though.
The banquet sequence was another throwback in tone to Season 1, and a
mild spin on the old "Great White Hunter brings werewolf to his
mansion for the ultimate hunt" idea. Amiable.
>'Unleashed', spectacularly misjudged closing usage of Ryan Adams' 'La
>Cienega Just Smiled' aside (it's a great, great song, but really not an
>_Angel_ song),
Oh god that ending was bad. It came from nowhere, and rammed its fist
down my throat screaming "LIKE ME!". I hated it.
> isn't bad. It's kinda neutral. Nina is a passable victim of
>the week; Angel's reactions to Nina are decently played, if nothing new to
>long-time viewers. The culinary villain is a nice touch, as is Our Heroes'
>initial secret meeting at the start of the episode.
>
What amazed me towards the end was that they really were going for a
"kindred spirit, possible romance" thing with the girl. They missed
that by a mile IMO. However, the stuff about Angel was okay, and she
was a decent enough character on her own terms.
>5x04, 'Hellbound' (written and directed by Steven S DeKnight)
>
>Now, *that* is much better. Much, much better. Who'd have thought that the
>first really good episode of S5 would be a Spike episode, eh?
>
Best episode of the season so far. I'm not saying it was Loyalty
good, or Reunion good - far from it - but as a slick piece of horror
entertainment with some good character stuff it was a winner. "Habeas
Corpses with better characterisation" is probably a good comparison.
>'Hellbound' does a couple of important things. It establishes Spike on
>_Angel_ as more than just someone we should resent for taking screen time
>away from the other characters.
I'm not a huge Spike fanboy (no, really), but I like him very much
when he's written as a three dimensional character and not just some
petulant English bloke with an attitude. He fared very well in this
episode, which built nicely on those standout "quiet" scenes he's had
with Fred the last couple of weeks.
>In fact, it does a better job of
>demonstrating who and what Spike is now than the entireity of season 7.
>The reason I know this is that by the end of the episode I was warming up
>to the character a little, rather than being lost in apathy.
>
I loved Spike's depiction in Buffy S7 (except the treading water in
the middle third) so each to his own.
>All this, and a really *very* nice scene between Angel and Spike.
>*That's* the potential of their relationship, not the forced sniping of
>'Just Rewards'. 4.25.
>
I did enjoy the characterisation of Angel - petulant and resentful,
but not goofy or beyond common sense. Their moment of mutual misery
on the sofa was nicely done all round :-) I can't help but think that
Spike's introduction to the Shanshu prophecy is going to be developed
further. At this stage he clearly thinks it refers to Angel by name.
When he realises it's *any* vampire with a soul things could go quite
differently.
>'Life of the Party' (written by Ben Edlund)
>
>I know Ben Edlund is supposed to be a good writer, and all, but I'm
>starting to think he really just does not get _Angel_.
>
Oh, be fair. This was well above average for a "comedy episode".
Nothing especially new, but funny (the most important thing), well
characterised, and well-acted.
>To be fair, this is a step up from 'Just Rewards'. Lorne's unease and
>tension is nicely played (the teaser is excellent), and there are some
>good gags scattered throughout. But the party plot is flat and uninspired,
>coming across like a warmed-up, second-rate, never-used _Buffy_ script,
>and that's definitely not a good thing.
>
I don't see the huge Buffyness, really. Both shows have done episodes
like this, with varying degrees of success. What's the big difference
between this and Spin the Bottle, for example? Each character gets
their own comedy vignette within a larger framework. And compared to
Provider it was a work of shining genius that captured all the
characters perfectly :-)
>'The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco' (written and directed by Jeff Bell)
>
>You can always tell when sweeps starts, can't you?
>
>This one works. This one works *very* well, coming on like the bastard
>offspring of 'Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been' and 'Clyde Bruckman's
>Final Repose'.
That was definitely what it most reminded me of. I really liked this
one, even if some people were probably muttering "WTF?" and switching
channels.
>Jeff Bell flashes his _X-Files_ heritage, but in a uniquely
>_Angel_ story that flits from offbeat humour to noir to moments of genuine
>sentiment to the bizarre genius of the mexican wrestling segments.
>
Genius indeed. It was a spin on the old trope of a 'has been'
superhero coming out of retirement for one last battle, but what a
spin :-)
>The episode is also plastered with foot-high neon letters, and they say
>'THIS IS IMPORTANT, SO LISTEN UP!'
I think someone forgot to switch the sign on at my end :-)
> It's All About Angel, and starts giving
>us the kind of insight into his position at W&H that 'Conviction' and
>'Hellbound' only hinted at. The epiphany, Connor, shanshu, Spike...it's
>all in the mix, and it's framed by a story that, depending on how you're
>feeling, is either a simple warning or complex foreshadowing. I'm leaning
>towards the latter camp, and it's going to be very interesting to see how
>it all plays out.
I'm not going to stick my neck out and say that it was complex
foreshadowing at this stage. More a very well executed blend of many
genres. But it did raise ideas about Angel, Spike and the role of a
hero with a clarity and freshness that the season has lacked up til
now.
>CONCLUSIONS:
>
>When S5 is tackling the material specific to S5 - the deal with W&H and
>the implications thereof - it's strong.
Yup.
>When it's telling tangental
>stories that could have been placed in any previous season, it's weak.
Well, I think the two are more interwoven than you give it credit for,
but certainly the standalone parts of the episodes have been somewhat
variable.
> So
>far, the quality is wobbling about so much that it's hard to tell how
>things are going to pan out.
Very much so. It's promising that things are starting to develop from
episode to episode, because this stupid idea of each episode being
self-contained is what resulted in the horrible Dawson's Creek ending
to Unleashed, and it's been a problem for several other episodes.
I'm moderately optimistic, so far.
Iain
--
* may contain lies
Iain Clark
<shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On 10 Nov 2003 12:03:26 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>It does this job adequately, but not exceptionally.
>
>Not for me. At the risk of being the voice crying in the wilderness once
>again, there's still a gaping plausibility gap for me. They simply didn't
>explain how these characters could choose to become so involved with
>everything they've fought for so long. They gave us a sort of why, but not a
>how. The characters went through a seismic sift in their situations with
>little more than a shrug.
>
>But apparently I'm the only one who cares about this.
>
Except, y'know, the characters, who spend most of the time talking
about it :-)
I just see it that they made a big decision in Home, that the benefits
of running W&H's LA branch outweighed the risks. Having taken that
decision they're stuck with it for now. They try to do good, to
subvert from within, and they seem to be managing it... or are they?
There's a nagging fear on their part that there's something they're
not seeing.
Works fine for me. It was the initial decision I had trouble
swallowing, but I can accept that they all saw potential benefits to
the deal.
> People who like the darker, more
>brooding nature of Angel aren't going to enjoy the snarky undercutting nature
>of Spike's dialogue. And here it descends into what I call the bickering
>schoolboys. pah.
>
>Fortunately they seem to be avoiding this kind of buddy approach now.
>
Yes. I agree that Spike being a little greek chorus taking the piss
out of Angel really wasn't working.
>>There are bright spots. The necromancer is a decent bad guy.
>
>He was a real disappointment. He didn't have the gravitas or authority that I
>expected. I found his physical acting for his necromancing to be overly
>stylised too. Maybe that was deliberate but it felt naff to me.
>
He reminded me of Peter Lorre or someone similar from older B&W
horror, and he worked because of that.
>>5x03, 'Unleashed' (written by Sarah Craft and Elizabeth Fain)
>This at least is an ep I can respect for its ambition. It's a traditional MotW
>story where the monster is used to talk about themes in Angel's ongoing
>struggle with his role/identity. As such it's classic Angel territory. Sadly
>falls a bit flat in execution. But I wanted to like it more for trying.
>
I know what you mean. Aimed high. Hit the floor :-)
>Also the final scene felt unearned. The first scene shows us the cracks
>appearing in the group's relationships and this, the other bookend, shows us
>those cracks don't run too deep. But it does so without ever tackling any of
>the issues in between.
Exactly. This is why it's so painful. If it had been earned, I could
have forgiven the happy montage.
>>5x04, 'Hellbound' (written and directed by Steven S DeKnight)
>
>Once again I find myself being let down by the words "Written and Directed by
>Steven DeKnight". Once again I'm in the minority.
>
Yep. I loved this. A bit more style than content, but good
nonetheless.
>The big problem with this episode is that it's a ghost story with no tension.
>The person being haunted has more reason to inspire fear than those haunting
>him.
He's being sucked into hell - I found that quite unsettling. Indeed,
it was the only interesting aspect of his character up to this point
in the season.
>You can really see the tightening of the budget in the ghosts.
I thought they were nicely done, actually.
>>All this, and a really *very* nice scene between Angel and Spike.
>>*That's* the potential of their relationship, not the forced sniping of
>>'Just Rewards'. 4.25.
>
>Actually I found it a re-run of the bickering.
No, no no! This was the substance that we *should* have had in place
of all that superficial bickering. The animosity, but also
understanding and respect. The measured tone, the bond they can't
quite understand.
>If that's what he really believes - that not only is there no big picture, no
>reward in this world - but punishment in the next for crimes he didn't really
>commit - then I'm amazed he gets out of bed in the morning.
He does it because he should. For it's own sake. That's why he's a
hero, and the point of his epiphany.
>>'The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco' (written and directed by Jeff Bell)
>Also, I'm not sure whether it's sense of humour or references that are lost on
>me but I'm not seeing as much humour as others are. El Diablo Robotica seems
>to have tickled a lot of people - is that a reference to something or is
>simply translating something into Spanish funny?
>
What's funny is a) the devil building a tacky killer robot, b) it
sounds exactly like some crazed supervillain scheme, and c) Wes says
it so matter of fact, so deadpan, that you would think *everyone* knew
that the devil had built an outlandish robot. :-)
Hey, I liked it. <g>
Iain
--
"Goddamn your confusion
She's got pretty persuasion"
Iain Clark
wrote:
>[Spike]
>
>>> There were a few episodes at the beginning of S7 when I was interested.
>>> But about midseason the whole thing went into a nosedive, and I never
>>> really regained interest in Spike. It didn't help that 'Lies My Parents
>>> Told Me' was the Holtz arc in one episode with the serial numbers filed
>>> off...
>>
>> And with a number of really rather large differences. At least I don't
>> remember any babies showing up in LMPTM, or Angel and Holtz supposedly
>> being allies, or..
>
Frankly I see some thematic similarities to the Holtz arc, but as a
single episode of Buffy I don't see huge similarities in execution.
Both are explored in such different ways that they don't send up being
that similar (rather like Spike and Angel as characters).
>Well, that's my point. It was the cliff notes version, all emotional
>weight and storytelling verve excised.
I *love* Lies My Parents Told Me. I think it has verve, style,
pacing, and superb performances from both James Marsters and DB
Woodside.
Moreover it has a lovely "rejection by a parent-figure" theme relating
to Wood, Spike and Buffy which sets it clearly apart. It works as a
well structured standalone on its own terms, and as a resolution to a
mini-arc.
It's neither better or worse than the Holtz arc, just a different
approach to a similar basic idea. God knows Buffy and Angel have trod
similar ground on many an occasion, and I definitely don't think this
example suffers for it.
Iain
--
HOMER: "Beer. Now there's a temporary solution."
Niall Harrison
>> And that long, long tracking shot
>> early in the episode gets cool points form me. But yeah, nothing to
>> match Spike's friends.
>
> The tracking shot did nothing for me, seeing as it seemed to be mostly
> there for the sake of it (the one in Anne is far more effective).
I disagree. It was the most effective way to demonstrate the internal
geography of the new offices. I got a clearer picture of how things are
laid out from that one shot than I did from, say, the whole of 'Are You
Now Or Have You Ever Been'.
Whether that's a good thing or not is a matter of personal taste - I think
it is, and moreover I think it's appropriate to the styles of the two sets
- but it definitely had a purpose beyond looking flashy.
>>>> Overall, mostly harmless. 3.
>>>
>>> Now, see, this was *awful.* Absolutely nothing happened in it that
>>> was in any way new or intereting. Complete time waster.
>>
>> For me to rate an episode as less than 3, it has to be actively bad.
>> It has to have something *wrong* with it.
>
> So 3 is average? Not quite seeing the logic, but your scale I guess.
It's a 5-point scale. 1 = awful, 2 = poor, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 =
excellent.
>> 'Jaynestown' *is* fun, but I didn't think this was, which is what
>> makes me say maybe he doesn't really get this show. _Angel_ doesn't
>> really do 'comedy' episodes - I think S&S, GWBG, 'Disharmony', 'Carpe
>> Noctem' and maybe 'Spin the Bottle' are the only other examples. This
>> isn't on a par with most of those, although it's better than CN.
>
> I'd completely forgotten about StB (the Joss one, obviously...). The Angel
> cast aren't really used to doing comedy (expect perhaps for AD), but I
> still think ME should try. It helped Buffy a lot.
Ugh, no thanks! _Angel_ isn't _Buffy_. Humour has a place on this show,
comedy episodes as a rule don't.
[5x06]
>> What do you think was missing?
>
> Some depth. Detail. Intricacy. That sort of thing. More than "it's hard
> being a hero".
Wow. You think that's all the episode gave us?
You don't think the fact that it was the day of the dead is symbolic? You
don't think the use of broad-stroke, masked heroes is *hugely* symbolic?
You don't think Angel's crisis is just a little bit more complex than
'it's hard being a hero'?
>> Hmm. I don't see reiteration, I see development. For one thing, it's a
>> test of Angel's resolve; this is the first time since the epiphany
>> that his worldview has been *tested*, and what with Spike and W&H,
>> it's quite a test.
>
> We don't see any acknowledgement of the epiphany though - so it feels more
> like a retread than a test. Perhaps Angel should discover that elevator
> again or something.
You can't have it both ways. Either you want the writers to assume the
audience is intelligent and will recognise a reference to past materials,
or you want the writers to spell it out for you.
Shuggie
They give us a reason in terms of information but not in terms of character
motivation, emotional impact etc.
>I just see it that they made a big decision in Home, that the benefits
>of running W&H's LA branch outweighed the risks. Having taken that
>decision they're stuck with it for now. They try to do good, to
>subvert from within, and they seem to be managing it... or are they?
>There's a nagging fear on their part that there's something they're
>not seeing.
Call me crazy but I'd think such a huge shift deserves more than a 'nagging
fear'. It plays like they're Greenpeace worrying over whether buying recycled
paper is a good idea ("it's cheaper we can do more good with the money").
But I agree that the real place for this to be explored was in Home or shortly
thereafter. I can forgive Home for not doing so because of the time needed to
tie up the loose ends of S4.
>
>Works fine for me. It was the initial decision I had trouble
>swallowing, but I can accept that they all saw potential benefits to
>the deal.
That's what I'm saying. I had problems believing the initial decision too. I,
naively perhaps, believed that it was something that was going to get dealt
with. What I've now realized is that the writers feel they've already dealt with
it because they've given us some informational reasons an little hand-wringing.
It's as if Joyce died and Buffy looked a bit sad for 5 minutes and then moved
on.
[snip]
>>>5x04, 'Hellbound' (written and directed by Steven S DeKnight)
[snip]
>>The big problem with this episode is that it's a ghost story with no tension.
>>The person being haunted has more reason to inspire fear than those haunting
>>him.
>
>He's being sucked into hell - I found that quite unsettling.
You didn't find that undercut by Angel's revelation that they'll both end up in
hell anyway.
>Indeed,
>it was the only interesting aspect of his character up to this point
>in the season.
That and his interest in Fred with whom he has had a couple of nice scenes.
All I can say is if you liked this episode watch Peter Jackson's The Frighteners
sometime - you'll love it.
[snip]
>
>>>All this, and a really *very* nice scene between Angel and Spike.
>>>*That's* the potential of their relationship, not the forced sniping of
>>>'Just Rewards'. 4.25.
>>
>>Actually I found it a re-run of the bickering.
>
>No, no no! This was the substance that we *should* have had in place
>of all that superficial bickering. The animosity, but also
>understanding and respect. The measured tone, the bond they can't
>quite understand.
Wow I didn't get any of that from the performances. There was substance in the
dialogue but not the way it was played. And the irritating nature of the
bickering tone made it hard to get anything from the scene.
>
>>If that's what he really believes - that not only is there no big picture, no
>>reward in this world - but punishment in the next for crimes he didn't really
>>commit - then I'm amazed he gets out of bed in the morning.
>
>He does it because he should. For it's own sake. That's why he's a
>hero, and the point of his epiphany.
>
I understand that I just don't find it at all believable.
>>>'The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco' (written and directed by Jeff Bell)
>
>>Also, I'm not sure whether it's sense of humour or references that are lost on
>>me but I'm not seeing as much humour as others are. El Diablo Robotica seems
>>to have tickled a lot of people - is that a reference to something or is
>>simply translating something into Spanish funny?
>>
>What's funny is a) the devil building a tacky killer robot, b) it
>sounds exactly like some crazed supervillain scheme, and c) Wes says
>it so matter of fact, so deadpan, that you would think *everyone* knew
>that the devil had built an outlandish robot. :-)
>
OK so it was a sense of humour thing. Thanks.
>Hey, I liked it. <g>
Great :)
Niall Harrison
>>>The big problem with this episode is that it's a ghost story with no tension.
>>>The person being haunted has more reason to inspire fear than those haunting
>>>him.
>>
>>He's being sucked into hell - I found that quite unsettling.
>
> You didn't find that undercut by Angel's revelation that they'll both
> end up in hell anyway.
*blinks*
When did Angel say that?
Angel expressed a personal belief that he and Spike were going to hell.
Not a metaphysical certainty.
(Which is the other level 'Hellbound' works: As a metaphor for the
characters' predicament this season. Being pulled down into hell by an
external force. Added to which, it piles onto the 'control' and 'belief'
themes being built up...)
Iain Clark
wrote:
Also, we're all going to die at some point. That doesn't make us
blase about someone trying to kill us right now. :-)
>(Which is the other level 'Hellbound' works: As a metaphor for the
>characters' predicament this season. Being pulled down into hell by an
>external force. Added to which, it piles onto the 'control' and 'belief'
>themes being built up...)
>
Cool.
Iain
--
"Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
Shuggie
Well that's one of the problems with mythology isn't it? How do we know when
characters are telling us how the world works and when they're telling us their
opinion of how the world works? Angel said it with such conviction that it never
occurred to me that it wasn't the former. Especially since he's actually been
there.
But you're right he other interpretation works too. It just didn't play that way
at all when I watched it.
Shuggie
That's a fair point. Still, for whatever reason I wasn't terribly gripped by
Spike's plight at that stage and Angel's attitude of "so what we're both going
to hell eventually anyway" didn't help much.
Niall Harrison
> In article <10688108...@urchin.earth.li>, Niall Harrison says...
>>>>
>>Angel expressed a personal belief that he and Spike were going to hell.
>>Not a metaphysical certainty.
>
> Well that's one of the problems with mythology isn't it? How do we know
> when characters are telling us how the world works and when they're
> telling us their opinion of how the world works?
It's a judgement call. But when there's no way for them to know, I'd go
with 'opinion' as the default position.
Angel has no way of knowing for certain whether or not he's going to hell.
In fact, we've never seen anything that suggests that *anyone* in the
MEverse has a solid handle on what happens in the afterlife; in that
respect, they're just like us. For it to suddenly turn out that Angel
knows how it all works would be surprising, I think.
> Angel said it with such conviction that it never occurred to me that it
> wasn't the former. Especially since he's actually been there.
Why would having been there make it more likely that he knows he's going
*back* there? I could see that it makes it more likely that he *believes*
he's going back there, but not that he actually will.
Niall
--
Rockin' the suburbs.
Shuggie
A solid handle? no. We have, however, seen things that suggest they do know some
things (Bargaining, Afterlife etc)
> in that respect, they're just like us.
No, crucially they're not. Angel knows things about MEhell that I don't - he's
been there and remembers it but he's never given any real account of the
experience.
>For it to suddenly turn out that Angel knows how it all works would be
>surprising, I think.
Not know how it *all* works but I wouldn't be surprised if he knew how some of
it worked. Angel has the most knowledge of hell of any MEverse character that we
know of who's not currently there. If anyone would know it would be him.
>
>> Angel said it with such conviction that it never occurred to me that it
>> wasn't the former. Especially since he's actually been there.
>
>Why would having been there make it more likely that he knows he's going
>*back* there?
To me it's obvious but let me explain it by taking you through my train of
thought/logic -
1. I know very little about how hell works in the MEverse, in particular I know
nothing about the rules of who's going there (call that "the rules" for
convenience)
2. I know Angel has been there
3. I know from odd comments that he remembers things about being there.
4. These comments weren't very specific so I don't know what he knows.
5. So as I mentioned above, I know that Angel knows things about MEhell that I
don't.
6. I don't know if it's possible to know about "the rules" by being there or
not. But I can't rule it out. It might be part of the way MEhell works that when
you go there you find out why you're there(*), or it might not. I can't say
which because I don't know enough MEhell mythology.
7. Since I don't know what Angel knows, and I don't know what there is to know,
I can't rule out that Angel might know "the rules".
8. So it's more likely that Angel might know "the rules" than say Fred - who as
far as I know hasn't been to hell. (I'm not saying it's not possible for Fred to
know more than Angel about MEhell, but *as far as I know* she doesn't)
Which answers your question about why I think it's more likely - but let me
carry on and finish my train of thought -
9. As you agree, it's a judgement call as to whether when a character is
speaking they're establishing mythology or merely their own opinion.
10. But I know Angel knows more MEhell mythology than me, and here he is
confidently asserting that he knows he and Spike are going to hell. So I make my
judgement call that Angel is establishing mythology here.
- which is more-or-less how I got to my original assessment of the scene.
Now I'm not for a second saying that someone else couldn't make a different
judgement call, but hopefully you can at least see why mine is a valid position.
---------
(*) Actually I'd go as far as to say likely. Buffy seemed to know why she was in
MEheaven. Not that heaven and hell have to work the same way but still - another
judgement call.
Jonathan Dupont
Okay, fair point, although I don't think it did as good a job
introducing the set as you suggest.
But I still prefer the one from Anne :)
> Whether that's a good thing or not is a matter of personal taste - I
> think it is, and moreover I think it's appropriate to the styles of
> the two sets - but it definitely had a purpose beyond looking flashy.
Perhaps. I'm finding it very hard to quantify my problems with it (which
are, by the way, in no way huge) - I guess it just didn't feel organic
to me. More forced.
>>>>> Overall, mostly harmless. 3.
>>>>
>>>> Now, see, this was *awful.* Absolutely nothing happened in it that
>>>> was in any way new or intereting. Complete time waster.
>>>
>>> For me to rate an episode as less than 3, it has to be actively bad.
>>> It has to have something *wrong* with it.
>>
>> So 3 is average? Not quite seeing the logic, but your scale I guess.
>
> It's a 5-point scale. 1 = awful, 2 = poor, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 =
> excellent.
No 0?
>>> 'Jaynestown' *is* fun, but I didn't think this was, which is what
>>> makes me say maybe he doesn't really get this show. _Angel_ doesn't
>>> really do 'comedy' episodes - I think S&S, GWBG, 'Disharmony',
>>> 'Carpe Noctem' and maybe 'Spin the Bottle' are the only other
>>> examples. This isn't on a par with most of those, although it's
>>> better than CN.
>>
>> I'd completely forgotten about StB (the Joss one, obviously...). The
>> Angel cast aren't really used to doing comedy (expect perhaps for
>> AD), but I still think ME should try. It helped Buffy a lot.
>
> Ugh, no thanks! _Angel_ isn't _Buffy_. Humour has a place on this
> show, comedy episodes as a rule don't.
Why not exactly?
Do you think Angel always has to be deadly serious?
> [5x06]
>
>>> What do you think was missing?
>>
>> Some depth. Detail. Intricacy. That sort of thing. More than "it's
>> hard being a hero".
>
> Wow. You think that's all the episode gave us?
I really do.
> You don't think the fact that it was the day of the dead is symbolic?
> You don't think the use of broad-stroke, masked heroes is *hugely*
> symbolic? You don't think Angel's crisis is just a little bit more
> complex than 'it's hard being a hero'?
Not seeing it, I'm afraid.
>>> Hmm. I don't see reiteration, I see development. For one thing, it's
>>> a test of Angel's resolve; this is the first time since the epiphany
>>> that his worldview has been *tested*, and what with Spike and W&H,
>>> it's quite a test.
>>
>> We don't see any acknowledgement of the epiphany though - so it feels
>> more like a retread than a test. Perhaps Angel should discover that
>> elevator again or something.
>
> You can't have it both ways. Either you want the writers to assume the
> audience is intelligent and will recognise a reference to past
> materials, or you want the writers to spell it out for you.
>
> Niall
Well obviously I'm not intelligent enough to get the symbolism, so... :)
And I don't quite see the dilemma you're suggesting it. I'd like it if
the writers broadly assumed you'd seen the last few episodes / season.
If they're making a specific reference to something that took place 3
years ago, then yeah, I'm gonna need a little more help.
Jon
Niall Harrison
> Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in
>>>>>> Overall, mostly harmless. 3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, see, this was *awful.* Absolutely nothing happened in it that
>>>>> was in any way new or intereting. Complete time waster.
>>>>
>>>> For me to rate an episode as less than 3, it has to be actively bad.
>>>> It has to have something *wrong* with it.
>>>
>>> So 3 is average? Not quite seeing the logic, but your scale I guess.
>>
>> It's a 5-point scale. 1 = awful, 2 = poor, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 =
>> excellent.
>
> No 0?
Er, no. Then it would be a 6-point scale.
>>> I'd completely forgotten about StB (the Joss one, obviously...). The
>>> Angel cast aren't really used to doing comedy (expect perhaps for
>>> AD), but I still think ME should try. It helped Buffy a lot.
>>
>> Ugh, no thanks! _Angel_ isn't _Buffy_. Humour has a place on this
>> show, comedy episodes as a rule don't.
>
> Why not exactly?
>
> Do you think Angel always has to be deadly serious?
Of course not - that's why I said 'humour has a place on this show'. But
the type of humour that worked for _Buffy_ - which is, basically, the type
seen in the 'comedy episodes', including 'Life of the Party' - does not,
in my opinion, work as well on _Angel_.
The humour that works best on _Angel_ is dry, or black, or sardonic, and
integrated into the plot. "I've got these 'evil hand' issues'. 'Goats,
many'. Characters like Sahjan and Skip, that just would not fit on
_Buffy_.
Broadly, yeah, I think _Angel_ is more serious than _Buffy_. Humour is not
one of the main reasons I watch the show.
>> You don't think the fact that it was the day of the dead is symbolic?
>> You don't think the use of broad-stroke, masked heroes is *hugely*
>> symbolic? You don't think Angel's crisis is just a little bit more
>> complex than 'it's hard being a hero'?
>
> Not seeing it, I'm afraid.
So what, they just happened to write an episode featuring heroes who are a
distorted reflection of what Angel wants to be compared to what he is and
what he might become, and there were five of them for no particular
reason, and they just happened to set it on a day that emphasises the ways
in which he's separated from his friends in an episode which emphasises,
via his slip of the tongue about the mindwipe, just how separated he is
from his friends (and then just happened to give number 5 the line 'is it
too much to expect them to remember their past'), and they just happened
to repeat the dialogue from 'Epiphany' almost word for word whilst Angel
was talking to number 5 (when they were watching the wrestlers, and
exactly how direct a reference to the epiphany do you *need*?), and they
just happened to write a bad guy who perfectly illustrates the principle
that the good fight never ends, and they just happened to have Spike
getting interested in the Shanshu in the very same episode and they just
happened to have *Wesley* be the guy in between Angel and Spike on this
issue, and they just happened to put number 5 in the background in most of
the other episode this season, and he just happened to be the guy who
delivered the amulet of Spike and set the whole damn season in motion?
These things were all just coincidences, with no larger construction, and
no larger meaning?
Nah. This wasn't 'it's hard to be a hero'. This was about Angel and
Angel's beliefs, in depth, all the way down the line.
>> You can't have it both ways. Either you want the writers to assume the
>> audience is intelligent and will recognise a reference to past
>> materials, or you want the writers to spell it out for you.
>
> Well obviously I'm not intelligent enough to get the symbolism, so... :)
>
> And I don't quite see the dilemma you're suggesting it. I'd like it if
> the writers broadly assumed you'd seen the last few episodes / season.
The exposition-o-rama in the first five episodes is a special case,
though, let's face it. They're trying to make the new viewers stick.
Shuggie
>
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Jonathan Dupont wrote:
>> Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in
>> news:10688027...@urchin.earth.li:
>
>>>> So 3 is average? Not quite seeing the logic, but your scale I guess.
>>>
>>> It's a 5-point scale. 1 = awful, 2 = poor, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 =
>>> excellent.
>>
>> No 0?
>
>Er, no. Then it would be a 6-point scale.
Hate to break it to you Niall but you're not rating on a 5 'point' scale anyway
since you've given .5 and .25 scores. You're either rating on a continuous scale
or a twenty point scale. (possibly a 17 point scale if you exclude everything
below 1 rather than simply 0 itself)
Andrew Hogg
>>>You don't think the fact that it was the day of the dead is symbolic?
(And furthermore, this is an episode written by Jeff Bell. He's not just
another writer, he's the show runner, and one of they guys who gets to
decide where this season goes and I gotta think if, in an episode about
Angel's disillusionment, Angel's beliefs, and Wolfram and Hart's
attitude to heroes, he just *happens* to slip in a reference to Holland
Manners (even with a misplaced apostrophe) then it's not just a
coincidence. And now I'm done)
This is from Niall who just phoned me to dictate this. He's been
thinking about it on the drive home from work.
--
Andrew Hogg
Jonathan Dupont
Shuggie took the words out of my mouth.
>>>> I'd completely forgotten about StB (the Joss one, obviously...).
>>>> The Angel cast aren't really used to doing comedy (expect perhaps
>>>> for AD), but I still think ME should try. It helped Buffy a lot.
>>>
>>> Ugh, no thanks! _Angel_ isn't _Buffy_. Humour has a place on this
>>> show, comedy episodes as a rule don't.
>>
>> Why not exactly?
>>
>> Do you think Angel always has to be deadly serious?
>
> Of course not - that's why I said 'humour has a place on this show'.
> But the type of humour that worked for _Buffy_ - which is, basically,
> the type seen in the 'comedy episodes', including 'Life of the Party'
> - does not, in my opinion, work as well on _Angel_.
So, you're suggesting more than that you've never seen a good example of it
in that it would be actually fundamentally impossible for the show to do it
well due to its form?
> The humour that works best on _Angel_ is dry, or black, or sardonic,
> and integrated into the plot. "I've got these 'evil hand' issues'.
> 'Goats, many'. Characters like Sahjan and Skip, that just would not
> fit on _Buffy_.
I don't actually see a problem with those two characters on Buffy,
espccially Skip.
> Broadly, yeah, I think _Angel_ is more serious than _Buffy_. Humour is
> not one of the main reasons I watch the show.
Its been said before, but Angel has never gotten as serious / depressing as
Buffy S6 / The Body / whatever. Of course, that's because isn't going for
that style, and I admit that if you're not careful humour could undermine
it, but I'm not convinced yet that the show is fundamentally incapable of
it. Especially in the new standalone W&H setting.
>>> You don't think the fact that it was the day of the dead is
>>> symbolic? You don't think the use of broad-stroke, masked heroes is
>>> *hugely* symbolic? You don't think Angel's crisis is just a little
>>> bit more complex than 'it's hard being a hero'?
>>
>> Not seeing it, I'm afraid.
>
> So what, they just happened to write an episode featuring heroes who
> are a distorted reflection of what Angel wants to be compared to what
> he is and what he might become,
What, a hero?
> and there were five of them for no particular reason,
Proving that Spike isn't yet counted as a member of the the FG :)
> and they just happened to set it on a day that
> emphasises the ways in which he's separated from his friends in an
> episode which emphasises, via his slip of the tongue about the
> mindwipe, just how separated he is from his friends (and then just
> happened to give number 5 the line 'is it too much to expect them to
> remember their past'), and they just happened to repeat the dialogue
> from 'Epiphany' almost word for word whilst Angel was talking to
> number 5 (when they were watching the wrestlers, and exactly how
> direct a reference to the epiphany do you *need*?),
I rewatched, and I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, but then
again I haven't see Epiphany for a while. Are you talking about the
flashback in the middle or the fight sequence in the end?
and they just
> happened to write a bad guy who perfectly illustrates the principle
> that the good fight never ends,
Good point.
> and they just happened to have Spike
> getting interested in the Shanshu in the very same episode and they
> just happened to have *Wesley* be the guy in between Angel and Spike
> on this issue,
Why Wesley especially?
> and they just happened to put number 5 in the
> background in most of the other episode this season,
Well done, I agree, but not really relevant to how deep this episode is, is
it?
> and he just
> happened to be the guy who delivered the amulet of Spike and set the
> whole damn season in motion?
Now you're way reaching.
> These things were all just coincidences, with no larger construction,
> and no larger meaning?
Some of those you've mentioned, without further evidence, I would say yes.
> Nah. This wasn't 'it's hard to be a hero'. This was about Angel and
> Angel's beliefs, in depth, all the way down the line.
> Niall
> (And furthermore, this is an episode written by Jeff Bell. He's not
> just another writer, he's the show runner, and one of they guys who
> gets to decide where this season goes and I gotta think if, in an
> episode about Angel's disillusionment, Angel's beliefs, and Wolfram
> and Hart's attitude to heroes, he just *happens* to slip in a
> reference to Holland Manners (even with a misplaced apostrophe) then
> it's not just a coincidence. And now I'm done)
Jeff Bell's in a very strange position in that he's the show runner. and
yet he isn't. I'm sure if TM were in charge that he'd have been given the
shared end credit, and I'm not sure whether its money or seniority which is
stopping JB getting the same. I may be wrong, but I do get the sense that
he doesn't have as much say (which isn't to say he doesn't have any, as he
clearly does) as DG or TM did.
Yes, you're right in that this was clearly supposed to develop the big
theme of the season. I just don't think it does it that well. As for HM, he
was referred to the very last week as well, so I'm not sure you can really
read anything into his mention.
Your thoughts on possible consequences or other otherwise :) are
interesting, but still... It's got a good atmosphere, I'll grant you. It's
highly stylistic. There's the continuation of the thread of Angel feeling
isolated and displaced. There's a incredibly obviously constructed
reflection in 5 and his gang of Angel and the FG. Still... it doesn't shed
any more light on the issues for me. I still don't see the wit or the
detail to it. I didn't see Angel wrestling with any issues.
It's not a classic.
Jon
Niall Harrison
Yeah, but I'm still rating within the framework of a five-point scale.
Which, traditionally, does not include 0. It's a symmetry thing. :)
Niall
--
A little charm and a lot of style.
Niall Harrison
>>>>> The Angel cast aren't really used to doing comedy (expect perhaps
>>>>> for AD), but I still think ME should try. It helped Buffy a lot.
>>>>
>>>> Ugh, no thanks! _Angel_ isn't _Buffy_. Humour has a place on this
>>>> show, comedy episodes as a rule don't.
>>>
>>> Why not exactly?
>>>
>>> Do you think Angel always has to be deadly serious?
>>
>> Of course not - that's why I said 'humour has a place on this show'.
>> But the type of humour that worked for _Buffy_ - which is, basically,
>> the type seen in the 'comedy episodes', including 'Life of the Party'
>> - does not, in my opinion, work as well on _Angel_.
>
> So, you're suggesting more than that you've never seen a good example of
> it in that it would be actually fundamentally impossible for the show to
> do it well due to its form?
I think it would be a mistake for the show to do it, because it would have
to be a different form, yes.
>> The humour that works best on _Angel_ is dry, or black, or sardonic,
>> and integrated into the plot. "I've got these 'evil hand' issues'.
>> 'Goats, many'. Characters like Sahjan and Skip, that just would not
>> fit on _Buffy_.
>
> I don't actually see a problem with those two characters on Buffy,
> espccially Skip.
I can't think of any equivalents. The Mayor is the closest match, but even
his humour, dark though it is, isn't quite on the same level.
>> Broadly, yeah, I think _Angel_ is more serious than _Buffy_. Humour is
>> not one of the main reasons I watch the show.
>
> Its been said before, but Angel has never gotten as serious / depressing
> as Buffy S6 / The Body / whatever.
I do wish people would stop equating serious and depressing. They're not
the same. You're right that _Angel_ has never gotten as depressing as S6
_Buffy_; that's a *good* thing, in my book. On the other hand, you're
absolutely wrong that _Angel_ has never been as *serious* as _Buffy_, and
I can cite everything from 'Sanctuary' to 'Soulless' via 'Loyalty',
'Reprise' and AYNOHYEB, to prove it.
>>>> You don't think the fact that it was the day of the dead is
>>>> symbolic? You don't think the use of broad-stroke, masked heroes is
>>>> *hugely* symbolic? You don't think Angel's crisis is just a little
>>>> bit more complex than 'it's hard being a hero'?
>>>
>>> Not seeing it, I'm afraid.
>>
>> So what, they just happened to write an episode featuring heroes who
>> are a distorted reflection of what Angel wants to be compared to what
>> he is and what he might become,
>
> What, a hero?
The particular type of hero. And in a particular type of position. I mean,
not wanting to state the obvious, but it wasn't number 1 that survived, it
was number 5. And it wasn't a *person* that survived, it was a number.
Hidden behind a mask.
>> and there were five of them for no particular reason,
>
> Proving that Spike isn't yet counted as a member of the the FG :)
Which is an important point, given that one of the bedrocks of Angel's
crisis is that Spike could replace him.
>> and they just happened to set it on a day that
>> emphasises the ways in which he's separated from his friends in an
>> episode which emphasises, via his slip of the tongue about the
>> mindwipe, just how separated he is from his friends (and then just
>> happened to give number 5 the line 'is it too much to expect them to
>> remember their past'), and they just happened to repeat the dialogue
>> from 'Epiphany' almost word for word whilst Angel was talking to
>> number 5 (when they were watching the wrestlers, and exactly how
>> direct a reference to the epiphany do you *need*?),
>
> I rewatched, and I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, but then
> again I haven't see Epiphany for a while. Are you talking about the
> flashback in the middle or the fight sequence in the end?
When Angel and 5 are watching the midget-re-enactment. Angel goes through
the whole spiel about how you don't fight for recognition or because of a
big shiny reward, you do it because good is its own reward. Except it's
pretty damn clear that he's trying to convince himself as much as he's
trying to convince the other guy.
"You made a difference in the lives you saved. And
you did it because...it was the right thing to do.
Nobody asks us to go out and fight, put our lives on
the line. We do it because we can, 'cause we know how.
We do it whether people remember us or not, in spite
of the fact that there's no shiny reward at the end
of the day...other than the work itself."
>> and they just happened to have Spike
>> getting interested in the Shanshu in the very same episode and they
>> just happened to have *Wesley* be the guy in between Angel and Spike
>> on this issue,
>
> Why Wesley especially?
Because Wesley is Angel's human reflection, as has been amply demonstrated
over the last two seasons. On the other hand, he's also like Spike in that
he was once a William-type. Which makes him a very interesting reference
point for character comparison.
>> and they just happened to put number 5 in the
>> background in most of the other episode this season,
>
> Well done, I agree, but not really relevant to how deep this episode is,
> is it?
I think it makes the commentary on what happened to the last champion
Wolfram & Hart recruited all the more telling. 5 wouldn't have half the
impact he does if he didn't have that vaguely familiar look about him; the
*point* of his story is how he's faded away, into the background. So they
showed us that.
>> and he just
>> happened to be the guy who delivered the amulet of Spike and set the
>> whole damn season in motion?
>
> Now you're way reaching.
I don't think I am. I think the symbolism is deliberate, and significant.
On the other hand, I don't think 5 actually has anything to do with the
origin of the amulet.
> Yes, you're right in that this was clearly supposed to develop the big
> theme of the season. I just don't think it does it that well. As for HM, he
> was referred to the very last week as well, so I'm not sure you can really
> read anything into his mention.
What, in 'Life of the Party'? When? I don't remember that, and I can't see
it in a transcript...
http://www.buffyworld.com/angel/season5/transcripts/5x05_tran.php
I'm still going with 'not a coincidence'. Bell knows full well that
mentioning Holland Manners is going to make people think: W&H plots, beige
Angel, epiphany.
> Your thoughts on possible consequences or other otherwise :) are
> interesting, but still... It's got a good atmosphere, I'll grant you. It's
> highly stylistic. There's the continuation of the thread of Angel feeling
> isolated and displaced. There's a incredibly obviously constructed
> reflection in 5 and his gang of Angel and the FG. Still... it doesn't shed
> any more light on the issues for me. I still don't see the wit or the
> detail to it. I didn't see Angel wrestling with any issues.
Not in the scene of Angel signing paperwork? Not in the scene where Wesley
talks to him about hope? Not in the scene where he discovers the demon
doesn't want his heart? Not in the epiphany-referencing scene I quoted
above? Not in the fact that the resolution to the episode is Angel seeking
solace in the shanshu prophecies?
What in the world *would* count as Angel wrestling with issues?
> It's not a classic.
To me, it is. It's a complete and detailed portrait of where Angel is
right now, and it pulls into high-res issues that previous episodes have
only hinted at. We could see he was feeling disconnected; now we see why,
and how, and what might happen next.
So, yeah. To me, it's a classic.
Niall Harrison
> On 10 Nov 2003 12:03:26 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
> proclaimed:
>>.
Well, that's what I was talking about - 'Home' is the most widely enjoyed
ending of an _Angel_ season, but even there many people had significant
reservations about the new season.
>>as 'Blood Money'? The dialogue, which is stale and repetitive and most of
>>all *dull*? The fact that next to _Angel_'s cast, and under _Angel_'s
>>lights, Marsters is painfully exposed as short and pallid, draped in an
>>animal skin that just seems to *hang* there? I mean, I get the withdrawn
>>body language thing, but Spike just doesn't look right.
>
> For starters, I agree with you to some extent about Spike, but I think
> you're being way too harsh on JM. He is being, at this stage of the
> season, asked to play a largely empty role,
It's nothing about his acting talent, it's simply about how he *looks*. He
just doesn't look up to scratch compared to the rest of the _Angel_ cast.
Even *Harmony* is a better fit.
>>Cienega Just Smiled' aside (it's a great, great song, but really not an
>>_Angel_ song), isn't bad. It's kinda neutral. Nina is a passable victim of
>
> Is anything really an 'Angel' song? I think that Angel should always,
> even when it appears to be a really, really good idea stay away from
> the type of endings that worked on occasion in 'Buffy'. That said, the
> people who I know who watch 'Angel' religiously, but only for 'fun'
> ie, not participating in the kind of analysis that goes on in
> newsgroups, enjoyed the group-hugginess of the last scene, song and
> all, so 'spectacularly misjudged' really does depend on what they were
> aiming for, IMHO.
It's misjudged as much as anything simply because the original song is
wistful, even melancholy. It's really not a happy group bonding song.
But yeah, in general I agree that _Angel_ does better with original score
music. The one example I can think of where a known song was well used is
'Billy', where Gorillaz' Clint Eastwood was used over the Blim party. That
was ok.
>>Now, *that* is much better. Much, much better. Who'd have thought that the
>>first really good episode of S5 would be a Spike episode, eh?
>
> I'll bet more than a few people, actually. You seem to have some
> extreme dislike of the character, or a bias towards all things 'Angel'
> over 'Buffy'.
Dislike of the character; or at least, dislike of how the character was
used on _Buffy_.
> I'm still not too impressed with the W&H setting. It lacks anything
> truly distinctive, like the homely feel of season 1's offices, or the
> history that the Hyperion has attached to it. basically, I don't think
> that the W&H offices really feel like they belong to the gang, and as
> such it doesn't quite fit yet.
I think it's meant to feel like they don't own the place. Just like I
think we're meant to think the gang has been to a certain extent split up.
Ensemble scenes are absent this season for a reason.
Niall Harrison
> Niall Harrison wrote:
>>>>>>>>So here's my thoughts.
>>>>>>>>
>> Because yes, Angel likes being a hero. Not likes thinking of himself as a
>> hero; likes *being* a hero. Likes doing the good that nobody else can do.
>> That gives him job satisfaction.
>
> Which is all fine, apart from the 'that nobody else can do' part. You
> don't do the good because only you can do it, you do it because it's
> worth doing.
Angel does good because it's worth doing. But one of the reasons he
*enjoys* his work because he feels he can help people that nobody else
can.
I completely reject the idea that this is a morally flawed position for
him. The best teachers are the ones who want to teach those that others
have given up on; the best doctors are the ones who want to heal people
that others have failed; the best artists and novelists are those who have
something to say that others have not said. Self-belief is a requisite for
excelling in a vocation.
There is nothing wrong with taking satisfaction in your work. And there's
nothing surprising or childish about the fact that you start to question
your worth if you think what you do *isn't* educating, or healing, or
informing. Or in Angel's case, saving.
Niall
--
Hope's the child of what luck brings.
Niall Harrison
In principle, no, so like I said the scale runs from 1 = terrible to 5 =
fantastic, with 3 as the average. In practice, I've only ever given two
episodes a 5.
ilmaestro
proclaimed:
Sorry, what I meant was that fans would like to think that
'Conviction' has the task of explaining 'Home', when really i don't
think that's how it was ever going to play out. I think that it was
always going to take most of season 5 to explain some of the choices
at the end of season 4.
>>>as 'Blood Money'? The dialogue, which is stale and repetitive and most of
>>>all *dull*? The fact that next to _Angel_'s cast, and under _Angel_'s
>>>lights, Marsters is painfully exposed as short and pallid, draped in an
>>>animal skin that just seems to *hang* there? I mean, I get the withdrawn
>>>body language thing, but Spike just doesn't look right.
>>
>> For starters, I agree with you to some extent about Spike, but I think
>> you're being way too harsh on JM. He is being, at this stage of the
>> season, asked to play a largely empty role,
>
>It's nothing about his acting talent, it's simply about how he *looks*. He
>just doesn't look up to scratch compared to the rest of the _Angel_ cast.
>Even *Harmony* is a better fit.
Oh, well, that makes my response irrelevant, but I would hope you
realise how strange that opinion could sound. I mean, Spike just
turned up this year (ignoring his one previous appaerance). Even
Harmony has had more time to fit in on the show.
>>>Cienega Just Smiled' aside (it's a great, great song, but really not an
>>>_Angel_ song), isn't bad. It's kinda neutral. Nina is a passable victim of
>>
>> Is anything really an 'Angel' song? I think that Angel should always,
>> even when it appears to be a really, really good idea stay away from
>> the type of endings that worked on occasion in 'Buffy'. That said, the
>> people who I know who watch 'Angel' religiously, but only for 'fun'
>> ie, not participating in the kind of analysis that goes on in
>> newsgroups, enjoyed the group-hugginess of the last scene, song and
>> all, so 'spectacularly misjudged' really does depend on what they were
>> aiming for, IMHO.
>
>It's misjudged as much as anything simply because the original song is
>wistful, even melancholy. It's really not a happy group bonding song.
Which is interesting, because if the scene had played out along more
wistful lines, it might have been a lot better.
>But yeah, in general I agree that _Angel_ does better with original score
>music. The one example I can think of where a known song was well used is
>'Billy', where Gorillaz' Clint Eastwood was used over the Blim party. That
>was ok.
>
>>>Now, *that* is much better. Much, much better. Who'd have thought that the
>>>first really good episode of S5 would be a Spike episode, eh?
>>
>> I'll bet more than a few people, actually. You seem to have some
>> extreme dislike of the character, or a bias towards all things 'Angel'
>> over 'Buffy'.
>
>Dislike of the character; or at least, dislike of how the character was
>used on _Buffy_.
I see. All is becoming clear.
>> I'm still not too impressed with the W&H setting. It lacks anything
>> truly distinctive, like the homely feel of season 1's offices, or the
>> history that the Hyperion has attached to it. basically, I don't think
>> that the W&H offices really feel like they belong to the gang, and as
>> such it doesn't quite fit yet.
>
>I think it's meant to feel like they don't own the place. Just like I
>think we're meant to think the gang has been to a certain extent split up.
>Ensemble scenes are absent this season for a reason.
Yeah, I suppose in that sense it is working. However, in that case,
I'd still like to feel some more atmosphere of that. I know it's a law
firm, so the corridors and offices make sense, but if they want to
make us feel that the characters are isolated to some extent, I think
they could make their own personal spaces more distinctive. With Gunn
joining the ranks of the suit-wearing people this year, the visual
style of the guys is starting to bleed together a little.
Dan Milburn
I thought I'd been pretty clear that I think there's a line.
Self-belief: "I am qualified and capable of doing this job." Arrogance:
"I am *the only one* who's qualified and capable of doing this job."
Now I've no doubt you do get some who take the latter view, and if
that's what drives them to brilliance, who am I to argue, but in
general, while it might not be a morally flawed position to take, I
think it's a very unhealthy one.
> There is nothing wrong with taking satisfaction in your work. And there's
> nothing surprising or childish about the fact that you start to question
> your worth if you think what you do *isn't* educating, or healing, or
> informing. Or in Angel's case, saving.
It is if the thing that makes you start questioning is the knowledge
that someone else can do it too. It also betrays a total lack of
self-belief, of course..
Dan
Helen H
wrote:
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Jonathan Dupont wrote:
<snip>
>> Its been said before, but Angel has never gotten as serious / depressing
>> as Buffy S6 / The Body / whatever.
>
>I do wish people would stop equating serious and depressing. They're not
>the same. You're right that _Angel_ has never gotten as depressing as S6
>_Buffy_; that's a *good* thing, in my book. On the other hand, you're
>absolutely wrong that _Angel_ has never been as *serious* as _Buffy_, and
>I can cite everything from 'Sanctuary' to 'Soulless' via 'Loyalty',
>'Reprise' and AYNOHYEB, to prove it.
>
<breaks into wild applause>
Niall - absolutely correct. Angel has always been serious in its
entertainment. It has a "big city" view of the world which is blacker
than Buffy's "small town" feel. As much as I loved Buffy, Angel at
its best knocks BtVS for six ....... AYNOHYEB being a perfect example.
I'm loving S5 .... although E06 didn't really work for me .... because
the season's tackling issues that I want to see tackled. All the
arguments over whether it was right to lock the lawyers in the wine
cellar are taken to a different level ..... I mean - these folks are
now employees and Fred's dating one of them!
<snip>
Helen
Iain Clark
wrote:
>Niall - absolutely correct. Angel has always been serious in its
>entertainment. It has a "big city" view of the world which is blacker
>than Buffy's "small town" feel. As much as I loved Buffy, Angel at
>its best knocks BtVS for six ....... AYNOHYEB being a perfect example.
>
I really do think that Angel at its best is absolutely superb.
AYNOHYEB is a great example of that. Other episodes like the ones
Niall cites (excepting Soulless which I thought was merely excellent
<g>) are also truly great.
I'm not sure I could say that Buffy had *never* reached the same
heights, though. It's rare (for both series), but Buffy has produced
individual episodes as good as the best of Angel for me. Different,
true, with different kinds of story, character and theme, but still
sublime works of brilliance.
What I do love about Angel is that extra level of maturity and
sustained drama and characterisation that the show is capable of. A
lot of the time Angel isn't that show, but when it is... wow.
>I'm loving S5 ....
Yay!
> although E06 didn't really work for me ....
That's a pretty serious admission. :-)
>because
>the season's tackling issues that I want to see tackled. All the
>arguments over whether it was right to lock the lawyers in the wine
>cellar are taken to a different level ..... I mean - these folks are
>now employees and Fred's dating one of them!
>
For me it's not getting into them deeply enough. Sure, we know Knox
may be evil, but are we really getting any explicit analysis of that -
doubt from Fred, concern from the rest of the gang, remorse for past
actions? Nope. A few quips about their colleagues being evil, and
Angel offing some of the staff and/or clients on a regular basis :-)
On the other hand I do like that the characters are discussing things
like the morality of their actions, practical necessity vs. absolute
right and wrong, compromise, the nature of heroism, different kinds of
victory. I'm also pleased they've referenced the fact that only Angel
remembers his son and all the events linked to him.
(I'd like to see more exploration of this last point as it really does
call into question how much of the recent past the characters
remember, with all the attendant relationships and life-changing
experiences.)
Iain
--
"You have forgotten something."
Helen H
<snip>
>
>I'm not sure I could say that Buffy had *never* reached the same
>heights, though. It's rare (for both series), but Buffy has produced
>individual episodes as good as the best of Angel for me. Different,
>true, with different kinds of story, character and theme, but still
>sublime works of brilliance.
Don't get me wrong - I loved Buffy - especially the later seasons. I
particularly liked the way that the creative team allowed the
characters to grow and handle ever more complex personal issues. It
was clever, consistent, challenging and altogether great TV. But my
favourite episode remains "Band Candy" .... so I guess it's the
lighter side of Buffy that made the longest lasting impression on me.
However it's Angel that made me start to download. It's Angel that has
consistently had me wanting to know more about the characters and the
plot. It's Angel that I enjoy discussing with my fellow aficionados
.... because it has a certain epic feel to it. The elevator ride with
Holland Manners is a stroke of genius and one that left me feeling
drained.
Not sure if this makes any sense ..... but Angel and Buffy are chalk
and cheese AFAIC.
<snip>
>
>> although E06 didn't really work for me ....
>
>That's a pretty serious admission. :-)
I'm afraid the naff mexican stereotyping rather spoiled it for me.
Loved the underlying theme and the plot ..... but the execution was
heavy-handed and just a tad patronising.
<snip>
>>
>For me it's not getting into them deeply enough. Sure, we know Knox
>may be evil, but are we really getting any explicit analysis of that -
>doubt from Fred, concern from the rest of the gang, remorse for past
>actions? Nope. A few quips about their colleagues being evil, and
>Angel offing some of the staff and/or clients on a regular basis :-)
To me Knox appears to be possibly amoral and probably a touch loony.
He's so tied up in the wonders of science that he doesn't look outside
his own little office to see the outcome of his work. He's your
archetypal mad scientist .... just much younger than we normally see!
And presumably by now he's crooned for Lorne so Fred will know whether
he's evil incarnate .... or just blasé about his employers.
>On the other hand I do like that the characters are discussing things
>like the morality of their actions, practical necessity vs. absolute
>right and wrong, compromise, the nature of heroism, different kinds of
>victory. I'm also pleased they've referenced the fact that only Angel
>remembers his son and all the events linked to him.
>
>(I'd like to see more exploration of this last point as it really does
>call into question how much of the recent past the characters
>remember, with all the attendant relationships and life-changing
>experiences.)
Oh yes! We need to know more about the teams' memories. What series
of events triggers Wesley's slide into deep depression and darkness
..... or did he even go there. Are his actions with respect to the
wardrobe and the bucket now expunged :) .... or will we eventually get
another version of how Angel ended up in a coffin on the bottom of the
ocean!
Helen
Niall Harrison
But I disagree. I don't think "I have something to contribute that others
don't" is arrogant (as long as it's true).
>> There is nothing wrong with taking satisfaction in your work. And there's
>> nothing surprising or childish about the fact that you start to question
>> your worth if you think what you do *isn't* educating, or healing, or
>> informing. Or in Angel's case, saving.
>
> It is if the thing that makes you start questioning is the knowledge
> that someone else can do it too. It also betrays a total lack of
> self-belief, of course..
But that's the point, isn't it? Angel hasn't ever questioned his
self-belief before. He's questioned whether it's worth fighting, but not
whether he can be the one to fight. Now, he's questioning that.
Dan Milburn
The problem being that you couldn't possibly know that it's true, in a
general sense. In a very limited, among the people I work with there
are some tasks only I'm capable of performing sense, sure, but I just
don't see how you can possibly think that anyone who has the belief that
they can do something and there is no way anyone else could also be able
to do it isn't arrogant.
>>>There is nothing wrong with taking satisfaction in your work. And there's
>>>nothing surprising or childish about the fact that you start to question
>>>your worth if you think what you do *isn't* educating, or healing, or
>>>informing. Or in Angel's case, saving.
>>
>>It is if the thing that makes you start questioning is the knowledge
>>that someone else can do it too. It also betrays a total lack of
>>self-belief, of course..
>
>
> But that's the point, isn't it? Angel hasn't ever questioned his
> self-belief before. He's questioned whether it's worth fighting, but not
> whether he can be the one to fight. Now, he's questioning that.
He's *never* been 'the one' to fight, and never had any reason to think
that he is. It was to help out someone who *was* told they were the
chosen one (and look, no remarks about how it's just Buffy dealing with
Kendra/Faith with the serial numbers filed off ;P) that he started
fighting in the first place!
Where Spike *does* complicate things somewhat is with regard to the
Shanshu prophecy, but you'll forgive me if I was under the impression
that Angel had got over that two and a half seasons ago.
Dan
Jonathan Dupont
I suppose I would have to agree that the show might have to form a little, into
something a little more eclectic (see Buffy). Its just personally I don't think
that I would be such bad thing, but I realise its a matter of taste.
>>> The humour that works best on _Angel_ is dry, or black, or sardonic,
>>> and integrated into the plot. "I've got these 'evil hand' issues'.
>>> 'Goats, many'. Characters like Sahjan and Skip, that just would not
>>> fit on _Buffy_.
>>
>> I don't actually see a problem with those two characters on Buffy,
>> espccially Skip.
>
> I can't think of any equivalents. The Mayor is the closest match, but
> even his humour, dark though it is, isn't quite on the same level.
A demon comfortable with technology - Clem, surely? Okay, there's far more to
Skip than that, but I still don't see the essential Buffy / Angel dividing line
here.
>>> Broadly, yeah, I think _Angel_ is more serious than _Buffy_. Humour
>>> is not one of the main reasons I watch the show.
>>
>> Its been said before, but Angel has never gotten as serious /
>> depressing as Buffy S6 / The Body / whatever.
>
> I do wish people would stop equating serious and depressing. They're
> not the same. You're right that _Angel_ has never gotten as depressing
> as S6 _Buffy_; that's a *good* thing, in my book.
You were the one equating serious with lack of humour, not me!
Anyway, I would argue that Buffy's depressing streak was also serious in the way
you mean it, in that it was making important points about the more mundane side
of life and the come down after something momentous. How everything isn't all
heroic.
> On the other hand,
> you're absolutely wrong that _Angel_ has never been as *serious* as
> _Buffy_, and I can cite everything from 'Sanctuary' to 'Soulless' via
> 'Loyalty', 'Reprise' and AYNOHYEB, to prove it.
Seasons 1 & 2,I can see your point. The last few years have become so comic
style melodramatic that I just can't take it as seriously as Buffy in some way,
because at least Buffy always accepts and laughs at its own stupidity. ME
casually tossed Cordy away on Angel, whereas they couldn't bear to part with
Xander and so nixed his earlier planned death - when the show doesn't take its
own characters seriously, they can't expect me to either.
<snip some good points>
>>> and they just happened to have Spike
>>> getting interested in the Shanshu in the very same episode and they
>>> just happened to have *Wesley* be the guy in between Angel and Spike
>>> on this issue,
>>
>> Why Wesley especially?
>
> Because Wesley is Angel's human reflection, as has been amply
> demonstrated over the last two seasons. On the other hand, he's also
> like Spike in that he was once a William-type. Which makes him a very
> interesting reference point for character comparison.
Not so sure about that one. He's gone through a redemption arc and character
tranformation, maybe, but not seeing it as far through as "human reflection".
>>> and they just happened to put number 5 in the
>>> background in most of the other episode this season,
>>
>> Well done, I agree, but not really relevant to how deep this episode
>> is, is it?
>
> I think it makes the commentary on what happened to the last champion
> Wolfram & Hart recruited all the more telling. 5 wouldn't have half
> the impact he does if he didn't have that vaguely familiar look about
> him; the *point* of his story is how he's faded away, into the
> background. So they showed us that.
Possibly. I know he was in previous episodes, but they actually succeeded well
enough in him fading in that I never noticed him before, which might have made
the episode better for me - I don't know.
>> Yes, you're right in that this was clearly supposed to develop the
>> big theme of the season. I just don't think it does it that well. As
>> for HM, he was referred to the very last week as well, so I'm not
>> sure you can really read anything into his mention.
>
> What, in 'Life of the Party'? When? I don't remember that, and I can't
> see it in a transcript...
>
> http://www.buffyworld.com/angel/season5/transcripts/5x05_tran.php
>
> I'm still going with 'not a coincidence'. Bell knows full well that
> mentioning Holland Manners is going to make people think: W&H plots,
> beige Angel, epiphany.
I'm sorry, my memory's obviously been playing tricks with me. The mention
actually came in Conviction, which obviously is rather longer ago than last
week, if still not far off in this early-ish part of the season.
>> Your thoughts on possible consequences or other otherwise :) are
>> interesting, but still... It's got a good atmosphere, I'll grant you.
>> It's highly stylistic. There's the continuation of the thread of
>> Angel feeling isolated and displaced. There's a incredibly obviously
>> constructed reflection in 5 and his gang of Angel and the FG.
>> Still... it doesn't shed any more light on the issues for me. I still
>> don't see the wit or the detail to it. I didn't see Angel wrestling
>> with any issues.
<snip difference of opinion>
> So, yeah. To me, it's a classic.
>
> Niall
I think it might have helped a lot for me if the dialogue had been more lively,
which has never really struck me as Jeff Bell's strength. Structurally it's
sound, and with a little more punch I probably would have liked it (nearly) as
much as you do.
Jon
Ian Shuttleworth
(Shuggie) wrote:
> (Aspects of Buffy - a new Whedon/Lloyd-Webber production, coming to a
> theatre near you soon!)
Well, I've already tried to bags the reviewing gig for "Peter Pan" at the
Savoy next month :-)
--
Ian S.