Angel 4x10 - just a few comments
Andrew Cameron
T
H
A
T
-
R
O
C
K
E
D
-
S
O
-
M
U
C
H
-
O
F
-
M
Y
-
A
S
S
-
T
H
A
T
-
B
I
T
S
-
F
E
L
L
-
O
F
F
-
A
N
D
-
I
-
W
I
L
L
-
H
A
V
E
-
T
O
-
B
U
Y
-
A
-
N
E
W
-
O
N
E
David Fury? Steven DeKnight? Oh hell yeah. Not as fun as last week's, but
just as good. If you see what I mean. I liked.
Some people may not have liked being fooled by the device used, but I
enjoyed it because the hallucination Angel was being made to believe was
such good fun. Anyone who didn't enjoy being fooled would, I imagine,
prefer what *did* happen to the shark-jumping stupidity of Angel just
forgetting about his perfect-happiness curse. Also it means that, thank
fuck, the cum-face we saw wasn't real. Phew. From his expression, I
thought someone had introduced a cattle prod to his anus in the most
intimate way.
Plus, jokes that were actually funny, and some sensible ideas as to what the
rest of the world is thinking. Although blocking out the sun would affect
just one city? I'm thinking that's a bit far-fetched. Anyways, I'm feeling
it. More Angelus... I want leather pants. Does that make me gay?
Andrew Cameron
Saskia
ROTFL
> David Fury? Steven DeKnight? Oh hell yeah. Not as fun as last week's, but
> just as good. If you see what I mean. I liked.
>
> Some people may not have liked being fooled by the device used, but I
> enjoyed it because the hallucination Angel was being made to believe was
> such good fun. Anyone who didn't enjoy being fooled would, I imagine,
> prefer what *did* happen
*I* *am* *SO* *pissed* *off*!!!!! I was totally, completely and utterly
eating the soap with Angel and Wesley and the apology and Cordy and the
sun and the sword and the Indiana Jones and the kissing and the oh so
sappy goodness!!!!!
And it was all a LIE!!! I HATES them I HATES them! AAARGGGHHHH.
Ok, calming down a bit.
Grrrrrrrrr.
> to the shark-jumping stupidity of Angel
*smap*
> just
> forgetting about his perfect-happiness curse.
Yeah ok all right. I was incredibly stupid and indeed unbelievable and
even tho there were some nerves twitching, I was *so* loving it ;-p I just
can't help it.
Ok, calmed down a bit more (grr). And cool, I guess. Cos now we have
Angelus which totally rocks and I just can't wait to see what's gonna
happen! But erm, is it wise to have a soul in such a fragile glass bowl on
that no-so-sturdy looking little table? I dread to think....
> Also it means that, thank
> fuck, the cum-face we saw wasn't real. Phew. From his expression, I
> thought someone had introduced a cattle prod to his anus in the most
> intimate way.
LOL. Or rather: Ick! You're sick.
> Plus, jokes that were actually funny, and some sensible ideas as to what the
> rest of the world is thinking. Although blocking out the sun would affect
> just one city? I'm thinking that's a bit far-fetched.
Yeah, but at least they said *something* about it, otherwise it would be
too weird to have everything normal over in Sunnydale.
> Anyways, I'm feeling
> it. More Angelus... I want leather pants. Does that make me gay?
Pretty much yeah. Would you like me to send some of my gay friends over?
It'd be no problem, really. As long as I can watch...
--
Saskia
Cordelia: "Don't hurt him. Stop. I love him... I love him."
Angel : "You love me?"
Cordelia: "Not you, dumbass. Him! I love him."
Saskia
> Yeah ok all right. I was incredibly stupid and indeed unbelievable
No I wasn't!
But it was.
--
Saskia
"Oh, look who’s here. Can I get you something? A knife to our throats so
you can run away?"
Mattia Valente
So the two Buffy writer co-wrote this, eh? I missed the credit there,
daftly, and I can't be arsed to look it up.
<ducks and runs>
> Not as fun as last week's, but
> just as good. If you see what I mean. I liked.
No, not quite 'just as good', because, well, it would've been the
uber-lame without the reveal. If people hated 'Enemies', oh, boy, are
they going to hate hate hate this one to bits. Because it's worse. Far
worse.
> Some people may not have liked being fooled by the device used, but I
> enjoyed it because the hallucination Angel was being made to believe was
> such good fun.
But methinks you were fooled, yes? Not that you got it?
I was sort of hoping this wasn't it, because, frankly, it would've been
the biggest let-down ever and a rather pointless setup. OTOH killing off
a big big bad very easily could also be a bold, interesting move, but
using Adventure Game plotting (down to secret doors, traps, etc.) and oh
so *painful* to watch schmalz...no.
Did anyone else go 'eh? that was just.....sad' re: the beast's
'destruction' and all that?
> Anyone who didn't enjoy being fooled would, I imagine,
> prefer what *did* happen to the shark-jumping stupidity of Angel just
> forgetting about his perfect-happiness curse.
Particularly Cordelia I'd-kill-you-in-a-heartbeat-if-you-turned Chase's
incredible stupidity. But then again, that would've assumed that a) I
trusted Cordy to do anything right and b) I trusted the writers to write
her in-character. Both of which have, of late, not always been the case.
IMO.
> Also it means that, thank
> fuck, the cum-face we saw wasn't real. Phew. From his expression, I
> thought someone had introduced a cattle prod to his anus in the most
> intimate way.
Erm, it wasn't worse than the Darla 'cum-face', really. About the same.
In fact, the whole scene was more or less shot identically, from the
angle to the blue sheets, to 'Reprise'.
> Plus, jokes that were actually funny,
Eh? Tattoo Ass jokes?
> and some sensible ideas as to what the
> rest of the world is thinking. Although blocking out the sun would affect
> just one city? I'm thinking that's a bit far-fetched.
No no, it was going to spread, remember? Or rather, it's still going to
spread.
> Anyways, I'm feeling
> it. More Angelus... I want leather pants. Does that make me gay?
Yes.
Other notes: music, using theme from 'Redefinition', if I'm not
mistaken, late in the ep. Niall will probably supply more of this kind
of 'theme spotting' (in the musical sense of the word) stuff.
Basically, I quite enjoyed it. Parts of it still made me cringe a little
(Cordy/Angel stuff), some of it was a tad overwritten, and it all seemed
far, far, far too frelling simple, especially considering how completely
and utterly ineffectual they've been in the past. Oh, down to more
convenient 'Must find the Beast..oh, look, there he is!' kind of stuff.
But....the big reveal at the end, showing us that they're messing with
us, putting us right back to square one (because, well, there's no
reason to assume anything we learned about the Beast, about anything, is
real in any way shape or form), just with an Angel sans soul. And THAT
was kick-ass. But purely because of the 'messing with heads'. What went
on during was ultimately more wanky than 'Enemies', because no, it
doesn't reveal much to the characters beyond the fact that Angelus is
back, it hasn't moved the arc along one iota, and we've taken 45 minutes
to tell a story that didn't happen and, quite frankly, wasn't all that
great due to excesses of cheese, characters making up, lofty speeches, etc.
But, well, the end had me cheering and whooping. So, um....I'm a tad
confused as to what I really think of it quite frankly.
Mattia
--
" Chocolate. Chocolate. Chocolate. Some people make too big a
deal about caramel, when everyone knows it’s, like, fourth in
line behind chocolate, puffed rice and, um, other crunchy
things..." - Drew Z. Greenberg, The Bronze, July 2001
Mattia Valente
>>enjoyed it because the hallucination Angel was being made to believe was
>>such good fun. Anyone who didn't enjoy being fooled would, I imagine,
>>prefer what *did* happen
>
> *I* *am* *SO* *pissed* *off*!!!!! I was totally, completely and utterly
> eating the soap with Angel and Wesley and the apology and Cordy and the
> sun and the sword and the Indiana Jones and the kissing and the oh so
> sappy goodness!!!!!
Oh the annoyingly sappy uber-lame, you mean? Yeah..
> And it was all a LIE!!! I HATES them I HATES them! AAARGGGHHHH.
I was cheering precisely because it was a lie.
> Ok, calming down a bit.
Aheh...
> Grrrrrrrrr.
Oh, c'mon, you wouldn't have been annoyed at how easily it all went and
how all the tension just got solved in that lovely buddy-movie sort of
way in one episode, before sweeps, leaving us with fuck-all to build on
for big 'ooh-aah' goodness for the immediate future?
>>to the shark-jumping stupidity of Angel
>
> *smap*
Um, he's not mentioning buffy. It would've been shark-jumpingly stupid
of him to actually do it.
>>just
>>forgetting about his perfect-happiness curse.
>
> Yeah ok all right. I was incredibly stupid and indeed unbelievable and
> even tho there were some nerves twitching, I was *so* loving it ;-p I just
> can't help it.
I was just going 'this is *still* so wrong...'
I'm sorry, but Cordy/Angel just does not twig my heartstrings, and I'm
not an unsappy person. And it's not for 'B and A 4 eva' reasons either.
> Ok, calmed down a bit more (grr). And cool, I guess. Cos now we have
> Angelus which totally rocks and I just can't wait to see what's gonna
> happen! But erm, is it wise to have a soul in such a fragile glass bowl on
> that no-so-sturdy looking little table? I dread to think....
Tee hee....
>>Also it means that, thank
>>fuck, the cum-face we saw wasn't real. Phew. From his expression, I
>>thought someone had introduced a cattle prod to his anus in the most
>>intimate way.
>
> LOL. Or rather: Ick! You're sick.
You've obviously not watched 'Reprise' in freeze frame. Or been given
dodgy captioned pictures thereof by people such as tags.
>>Plus, jokes that were actually funny, and some sensible ideas as to what the
>>rest of the world is thinking. Although blocking out the sun would affect
>>just one city? I'm thinking that's a bit far-fetched.
>
> Yeah, but at least they said *something* about it, otherwise it would be
> too weird to have everything normal over in Sunnydale.
Aheh.
>>Anyways, I'm feeling
>>it. More Angelus... I want leather pants. Does that make me gay?
>
> Pretty much yeah. Would you like me to send some of my gay friends over?
> It'd be no problem, really. As long as I can watch...
...oh dear lord.
Mattia
--
''I don't want to create responsible shows with lawyers in them.
I want to invade people's dreams.'' - Joss Whedon
Andrew Cameron
news:3E36E7B8...@std.vu.nl...
You? Couldn't be arsed to look up Angel writing credits? You need less
sex, my friend ;-P
> > Not as fun as last week's, but
> > just as good. If you see what I mean. I liked.
>
> No, not quite 'just as good', because, well, it would've been the
> uber-lame without the reveal. If people hated 'Enemies', oh, boy, are
> they going to hate hate hate this one to bits. Because it's worse. Far
> worse.
Yeah, but screw them. "Them", I'm guessing, will *so* include Niall. So
screw him :-)
> > Some people may not have liked being fooled by the device used, but I
> > enjoyed it because the hallucination Angel was being made to believe was
> > such good fun.
>
> But methinks you were fooled, yes? Not that you got it?
I was fooled like a big fooly thing. Hook, line, sinker.
> I was sort of hoping this wasn't it, because, frankly, it would've been
> the biggest let-down ever and a rather pointless setup. OTOH killing off
> a big big bad very easily could also be a bold, interesting move, but
> using Adventure Game plotting (down to secret doors, traps, etc.) and oh
> so *painful* to watch schmalz...no.
Exactly. It was so close to jumping the shark... but then I'd read spoilers
so I knew that Angelus was appearing in this episode (and anyway, there was
too much setup to have that not be the case) but didn't know how - having a
Cordy-and-Angel-forget-about-Angel's-curse-and-hump-like-bunnies-anyway
"solution" was looking like the worst thing ever. But watching it again, I
appreciate the set-up. I just don't think I could watch it a 3rd time.
> Did anyone else go 'eh? that was just.....sad' re: the beast's
> 'destruction' and all that?
Yup. Although the actual firey-blowup thing was very cool, and
ever-so-slighty like the death of Sauron at the start of LotR:FotR.
> > Also it means that, thank
> > fuck, the cum-face we saw wasn't real. Phew. From his expression, I
> > thought someone had introduced a cattle prod to his anus in the most
> > intimate way.
>
> Erm, it wasn't worse than the Darla 'cum-face', really. About the same.
> In fact, the whole scene was more or less shot identically, from the
> angle to the blue sheets, to 'Reprise'.
The more DB tries to do a cum-face, the more comedy I get in my life. I
complain not.
> > Plus, jokes that were actually funny,
>
> Eh? Tattoo Ass jokes?
Not that one, but I did like some of the others... that I can't remember.
> > and some sensible ideas as to what the
> > rest of the world is thinking. Although blocking out the sun would
affect
> > just one city? I'm thinking that's a bit far-fetched.
>
> No no, it was going to spread, remember? Or rather, it's still going to
> spread.
Yes but the "spreading" would be, erm, at the speed of light. So, like,
done by now :-P
I'm not buying your fanwank this time :-)
> But, well, the end had me cheering and whooping. So, um....I'm a tad
> confused as to what I really think of it quite frankly.
I couldn't rate it, but I'll say I enjoyed it.
Andrew Cameron
Andrew Cameron
news:1gers36b8a4qw$.1bilcxs7i1oy9.dlg@40tude.net...
Hehehehehehe. Me likes master. Master gives me precioussssssssssssss.
> Ok, calming down a bit.
>
> Grrrrrrrrr.
*moves back*
> > to the shark-jumping stupidity of Angel
>
> *smap*
Ow. It would have been, though. Had it been real.
> > just
> > forgetting about his perfect-happiness curse.
>
> Yeah ok all right. I was incredibly stupid and indeed unbelievable and
> even tho there were some nerves twitching, I was *so* loving it ;-p I just
> can't help it.
You loved *that* bit?
> Ok, calmed down a bit more (grr). And cool, I guess. Cos now we have
> Angelus which totally rocks and I just can't wait to see what's gonna
> happen! But erm, is it wise to have a soul in such a fragile glass bowl on
> that no-so-sturdy looking little table? I dread to think....
That would be cool. But no. It made a nice image to close the episode
with - I don't think we have to consider sturdyness of tables too much. :-)
> > Also it means that, thank
> > fuck, the cum-face we saw wasn't real. Phew. From his expression, I
> > thought someone had introduced a cattle prod to his anus in the most
> > intimate way.
>
> LOL. Or rather: Ick! You're sick.
Yah. I'm also correct.
> > Plus, jokes that were actually funny, and some sensible ideas as to what
the
> > rest of the world is thinking. Although blocking out the sun would
affect
> > just one city? I'm thinking that's a bit far-fetched.
>
> Yeah, but at least they said *something* about it, otherwise it would be
> too weird to have everything normal over in Sunnydale.
True dat, but I kind of want a better explanation... like that the black
stuff isn't, as it appears to be, enveloping the sun, but is just appearing
in front of it, in the sky, in LA. If it was covering it (which, by the
way, *is* what it's doing) then everywhere supposed to be getting even the
slightest bit of sun, would be in darkness.
> > Anyways, I'm feeling
> > it. More Angelus... I want leather pants. Does that make me gay?
>
> Pretty much yeah. Would you like me to send some of my gay friends over?
Sure. As long as they're female ;-)
> It'd be no problem, really. As long as I can watch...
Can I watch too?
Andrew Cameron
Gunnar Harboe
Rather better, I'd say.
Though I'm still not buying their thinking in bringing Angelus back. Do
they expect him to just remember? If it's "hidden deep inside him", how
are they going to get it out, and why couldn't they do it with Angel
directly?
> because, well, it would've been the
>uber-lame without the reveal. If people hated 'Enemies', oh, boy, are
>they going to hate hate hate this one to bits. Because it's worse. Far
>worse.
Hah! You're wrong. I didn't like 'Enemies', and I much prefer this. But
then I didn't hate Enemies for being a cheat, just for being shit.
>> Some people may not have liked being fooled by the device used, but I
>> enjoyed it because the hallucination Angel was being made to believe was
>> such good fun.
>
>But methinks you were fooled, yes? Not that you got it?
I must admit, I didn't see that coming at all. Should have, of course,
especially with the Gunn/Wes kiss-and-make-up. And of course the plot
didn't make sense at several points.
Did anyone else wonder if the spell had worked (the first time), and
Angelus was just pretending to be Angel?
>I was sort of hoping this wasn't it, because, frankly, it would've been
>the biggest let-down ever and a rather pointless setup. OTOH killing off
>a big big bad very easily could also be a bold, interesting move, but
>using Adventure Game plotting (down to secret doors, traps, etc.) and oh
>so *painful* to watch schmalz...no.
The schmaltz was digestible because it was so over the top that it
didn't appear to be meant seriously. Especially Angel's god-awful
speech.
>Did anyone else go 'eh? that was just.....sad' re: the beast's
>'destruction' and all that?
I did wonder what they were going to do for the rest of the season, till
I remembered that Angelus would definitely be back.
<snip>
> > and some sensible ideas as to what the
>> rest of the world is thinking. Although blocking out the sun would affect
>> just one city? I'm thinking that's a bit far-fetched.
It could work, if the thing blocking the sun actually consisted of
several layers creating an interference pattern from certain positions.
Although you'd almost certainly get other places that were dark, too,
and some visible effects almost everywhere.
But hey! Graduation Day saw an unscheduled eclipse. I'm not 100% certain
that ME are quite comfortable with the radical theories of Copernicus.
>No no, it was going to spread, remember? Or rather, it's still going to
>spread.
>
> > Anyways, I'm feeling
>> it. More Angelus... I want leather pants. Does that make me gay?
No. Wanting leather pants does not make you gay. It's being gay that
makes you want leather pants.
George van Hal
LOL, btw ;-)
> No, not quite 'just as good', because, well, it would've been the
> uber-lame without the reveal. If people hated 'Enemies', oh, boy, are
> they going to hate hate hate this one to bits. Because it's worse. Far
> worse.
Well, I don't know why people did not like 'Enemies', but my problem
with that episode (though not that large) was mostly that I felt cheated
because we had characters acting different in the Buffyverse[tm], even
where it wasn't necessary. We had a couple of shots obviously created
solely to confuse the viewer and that felt cheat-y in a VST[tm] kinda way.
Now in this episode we have a "cheat" which happened completely in
Angel's mind. The guy doing the soul mojo created a fantasy world which
Angel believed and gave him his one moment of true happiness, thus
stripping his soul.
There's no real cheat there. The story we saw, did happen in Angel's
mind (even if he realizes it was just a vision now that he's Angelus
again) and as such sort off both happened and didn't happen. I feel the
cheat is less big because of that, because it's believable even from a
Angelverse[tm] pov. So it doesn't matter if the twist is major, the
cheat is less big.
>> Some people may not have liked being fooled by the device used, but I
>> enjoyed it because the hallucination Angel was being made to believe was
>> such good fun.>
>
> But methinks you were fooled, yes? Not that you got it?
I for one, was completely fooled. I was ready to bomb this ep for making
easy choices. Some of it I liked, mind you. I was very glad to see Angel
and Connor battling it out for instance, because that tension needs some
way to get out. The whole Connor "I'm - an - annoying - ass - teenager -
who - thinks - his - feelings - are - the - most - important - thing -
in - the - world" thing was getting quite annoying. Also liked Wesley's
apology to Angel. Wouldn't have minded those things actually happening.
But seeing as Angel saw these things happening, this is obviously what
he wants. So the lame-ass speeches and the tacky things that happened
are obviously things that Angel would *like* to see happen.
The story itself was lame, especially the whole easy-way-out sword and
stuff like that. But then again, it was a fantasy world and I guess
everyone ponders these easy-way-out solutions from time to time. If I
were Angel, I'd rather have things go the way the ep depicted as well.
> Did anyone else go 'eh? that was just.....sad' re: the beast's
> 'destruction' and all that?
Uhuh. Totally anti-climactic, even though the special effects were kinda
nice.
> Basically, I quite enjoyed it. Parts of it still made me cringe a little
> (Cordy/Angel stuff), some of it was a tad overwritten, and it all seemed
> far, far, far too frelling simple, especially considering how completely
> and utterly ineffectual they've been in the past. Oh, down to more
> convenient 'Must find the Beast..oh, look, there he is!' kind of stuff.
Agreeage. It seemed almost video game simple and it would've sucked if
they'd killed off the beast just as he got interesting.
<snip more agreeage>
> But, well, the end had me cheering and whooping. So, um....I'm a tad
> confused as to what I really think of it quite frankly.
Hehe, well, I think it's quite good. Just as long as you view the
episode as a glimpse of Angels fantasy world, it's perfectly fine and
you're not left with something which mainly features meaningless scenes.
See Ya,
George
Mattia Valente
Scary, isn't it?
>> No, not quite 'just as good', because, well, it would've been the
>> uber-lame without the reveal. If people hated 'Enemies', oh, boy, are
>> they going to hate hate hate this one to bits. Because it's worse. Far
>> worse.
>
> Well, I don't know why people did not like 'Enemies', but my problem
> with that episode (though not that large) was mostly that I felt cheated
> because we had characters acting different in the Buffyverse[tm], even
> where it wasn't necessary. We had a couple of shots obviously created
> solely to confuse the viewer and that felt cheat-y in a VST[tm] kinda way.
Erm, that makes precious little sense, quite frankly. Basically, though,
I like enemies. Quite a bit, actually. Cheat or no cheat. Characters
were acting different because they were acting out parts, putting on a
charade, and it was filmed, in a sense, from Faith's perspective. So...
> Now in this episode we have a "cheat" which happened completely in
> Angel's mind. The guy doing the soul mojo created a fantasy world which
> Angel believed and gave him his one moment of true happiness, thus
> stripping his soul.
...which is not bad how, exactly? It's not presented as being something
within his mind, it's not shot in such a way that you would really be
able to grok the situation. It's purposefully misleading in the exact
same way as 'Enemies' is, without there actually being any effect on any
other characters in the interim.
> There's no real cheat there. The story we saw, did happen in Angel's
> mind (even if he realizes it was just a vision now that he's Angelus
> again)
Well, quite. So it's all bogus, made up, and not-happeny. I don't care
how existensialistic you get on mah ass, it wasn't real, the effects
beyond de-souling Angel are minimal.
> and as such sort off both happened and didn't happen. I feel the
> cheat is less big because of that, because it's believable even from a
> Angelverse[tm] pov. So it doesn't matter if the twist is major, the
> cheat is less big.
Nope, not buying it. 'Enemies' isn't a cheat from the 'verse point of
view, it cheats the viewers. At least, that's the complaint I've heard
most often. The viewers aren't shown everything that's going on, and
can't have figured out what was going down. The same happens here, just
as badly.
So the events were real to Angel. So we know what his wishes were
(which, well, no surprises there: Wes apologising, Sonny boy forgiving
him and standing by his side, Cordy proclaiming her love, everyone being
noble, wise and heroic..), we don't gain horrbily much more insight
there IMO.
>>> Some people may not have liked being fooled by the device used, but I
>>> enjoyed it because the hallucination Angel was being made to believe was
>>> such good fun.>
>>
>> But methinks you were fooled, yes? Not that you got it?
>
> I for one, was completely fooled. I was ready to bomb this ep for making
> easy choices.
Indeed. And for further destroying character motivation, quite frankly.
> Some of it I liked, mind you. I was very glad to see Angel
> and Connor battling it out for instance, because that tension needs some
> way to get out. The whole Connor "I'm - an - annoying - ass - teenager -
> who - thinks - his - feelings - are - the - most - important - thing -
> in - the - world" thing was getting quite annoying.
Yes, but you see, it's never been on the surface this badly, or worded
this lamely, handled so ham-fistedly. And frankly, again,
wish-fullfilment. Down to the buddy movie bonding between the two in the
end.
> Also liked Wesley's
> apology to Angel. Wouldn't have minded those things actually happening.
I sure as hell wouldn't have. I'm sorry, but there's more than one party
needing to apologise. Wes apologising, and Angel standing there with
this big self-satisfied grin just rubbed me the wrong way.
Angel and Wes both made damned stupid, dubious decisions, and as far as
I'm concerned, Wesley's done more than enough to appease his own
conscience/set things right. So, no, apology from Wes isn't something
I'd like to see.
> But seeing as Angel saw these things happening, this is obviously what
> he wants.
But is it what he deserves? I don't think he's accepted that he's been
in the wrong for a while. He's stated, in previous eps, that things are
OK between him and Wes now, that he forgives him what he did. But that
sure as fuck isn't an apology, and I don't believe it should be
one-sided. Not going to argue about who was worse (I'm getting
flashbacks to umta already...), but there you go.
> So the lame-ass speeches and the tacky things that happened
> are obviously things that Angel would *like* to see happen.
Yes, which is why they're rather shit.
> The story itself was lame, especially the whole easy-way-out sword and
> stuff like that. But then again, it was a fantasy world and I guess
> everyone ponders these easy-way-out solutions from time to time. If I
> were Angel, I'd rather have things go the way the ep depicted as well.
Well, quite. Thing is, of course, that it makes for dull as dirt drama.
>> Did anyone else go 'eh? that was just.....sad' re: the beast's
>> 'destruction' and all that?
>
> Uhuh. Totally anti-climactic, even though the special effects were kinda
> nice.
Well, yeah.
>> Basically, I quite enjoyed it. Parts of it still made me cringe a
>> little (Cordy/Angel stuff), some of it was a tad overwritten, and it
>> all seemed far, far, far too frelling simple, especially considering
>> how completely and utterly ineffectual they've been in the past. Oh,
>> down to more convenient 'Must find the Beast..oh, look, there he is!'
>> kind of stuff.
>
> Agreeage. It seemed almost video game simple and it would've sucked if
> they'd killed off the beast just as he got interesting.
Indeed.
>> But, well, the end had me cheering and whooping. So, um....I'm a tad
>> confused as to what I really think of it quite frankly.
>
> Hehe, well, I think it's quite good. Just as long as you view the
> episode as a glimpse of Angels fantasy world, it's perfectly fine and
> you're not left with something which mainly features meaningless scenes.
Well, you're stuck with something that still features a lot of
meaningless (in terms of growth, development and arc furthering) scenes.
It's filler, explaining in retrospectively perfectly clear text things
we already knew.
So I can't call it great. It didn't suck, though.
Mattia Valente
>>>just as good. If you see what I mean. I liked.
>>
>>No, not quite 'just as good',
>
> Rather better, I'd say.
Yer odd. But you know I think that of your Angel opinions already, so
I'll leave it at that ;-P
> Though I'm still not buying their thinking in bringing Angelus back. Do
> they expect him to just remember?
Perhaps in part. His mind works differently, apparently. So we're lead
to believe. Mostly, it's a last-ditch effort.
> If it's "hidden deep inside him", how
> are they going to get it out, and why couldn't they do it with Angel
> directly?
They tried that, with singing (thankfully out of earshot), etc.
>>because, well, it would've been the
>>uber-lame without the reveal. If people hated 'Enemies', oh, boy, are
>>they going to hate hate hate this one to bits. Because it's worse. Far
>>worse.
>
> Hah! You're wrong. I didn't like 'Enemies', and I much prefer this. But
> then I didn't hate Enemies for being a cheat, just for being shit.
Well, opinions differ.
>>But methinks you were fooled, yes? Not that you got it?
>
> I must admit, I didn't see that coming at all. Should have, of course,
> especially with the Gunn/Wes kiss-and-make-up. And of course the plot
> didn't make sense at several points.
Gunn/Wes? When? Missed that...
> Did anyone else wonder if the spell had worked (the first time), and
> Angelus was just pretending to be Angel?
Uh, no.
> The schmaltz was digestible because it was so over the top that it
> didn't appear to be meant seriously. Especially Angel's god-awful
> speech.
Well, I was basically praying it wasn't meant seriously. And it was
meant seriously, as far as Angel is concerned, but since it didn't
happen we'll let him off.
>>Did anyone else go 'eh? that was just.....sad' re: the beast's
>>'destruction' and all that?
>
> I did wonder what they were going to do for the rest of the season, till
> I remembered that Angelus would definitely be back.
Well, I didn't know. So....
>>>and some sensible ideas as to what the
>>>rest of the world is thinking. Although blocking out the sun would affect
>>>just one city? I'm thinking that's a bit far-fetched.
>
> It could work, if the thing blocking the sun actually consisted of
> several layers creating an interference pattern from certain positions.
> Although you'd almost certainly get other places that were dark, too,
> and some visible effects almost everywhere.
Why 'almost everywhere else'? If it's not that high up, effects would be
limited to a very local area.
> But hey! Graduation Day saw an unscheduled eclipse. I'm not 100% certain
> that ME are quite comfortable with the radical theories of Copernicus.
Heh..
Mattia
--
"It's all Shakespeare's fault. The rat bastard." - Joss Whedon
Mattia Valente
> sex, my friend ;-P
...sod off, you.
>>No, not quite 'just as good', because, well, it would've been the
>>uber-lame without the reveal. If people hated 'Enemies', oh, boy, are
>>they going to hate hate hate this one to bits. Because it's worse. Far
>>worse.
>
> Yeah, but screw them. "Them", I'm guessing, will *so* include Niall. So
> screw him :-)
Aheh. Well, I'm curious.
>>But methinks you were fooled, yes? Not that you got it?
>
> I was fooled like a big fooly thing. Hook, line, sinker.
Good good. Not just me, then.
> Exactly. It was so close to jumping the shark... but then I'd read spoilers
> so I knew that Angelus was appearing in this episode (and anyway, there was
> too much setup to have that not be the case) but didn't know how - having a
> Cordy-and-Angel-forget-about-Angel's-curse-and-hump-like-bunnies-anyway
> "solution" was looking like the worst thing ever. But watching it again, I
> appreciate the set-up. I just don't think I could watch it a 3rd time.
Righto.
>>Did anyone else go 'eh? that was just.....sad' re: the beast's
>>'destruction' and all that?
>
> Yup. Although the actual firey-blowup thing was very cool, and
> ever-so-slighty like the death of Sauron at the start of LotR:FotR.
Oh, yeah. True.
>>Erm, it wasn't worse than the Darla 'cum-face', really. About the same.
>>In fact, the whole scene was more or less shot identically, from the
>>angle to the blue sheets, to 'Reprise'.
>
> The more DB tries to do a cum-face, the more comedy I get in my life. I
> complain not.
:o)
>>>Plus, jokes that were actually funny,
>>
>>Eh? Tattoo Ass jokes?
>
> Not that one, but I did like some of the others... that I can't remember.
Ah, yes, those amazingly amusing things.
>> > and some sensible ideas as to what the
>>
>>>rest of the world is thinking. Although blocking out the sun would
>>
> affect
>
>>>just one city? I'm thinking that's a bit far-fetched.
>>
>>No no, it was going to spread, remember? Or rather, it's still going to
>>spread.
>
>
> Yes but the "spreading" would be, erm, at the speed of light. So, like,
> done by now :-P
Eh? The heck are you talking about? There's something hanging in the sky
above LA, in front of the sun. Why would it spread at the speed of
light, exactly?
> I'm not buying your fanwank this time :-)
Your loss....
>>But, well, the end had me cheering and whooping. So, um....I'm a tad
>>confused as to what I really think of it quite frankly.
>
> I couldn't rate it, but I'll say I enjoyed it.
Right.
Mattia
--
"How I used to write for Lois and Clark? Mostly in my underwear
with a large tub of ice cream. What's it to ya?" - Tim Minear
Saskia
Having another opinion than yours does not make a person odd, Mattia dear.
Weirdo ;-P
I had so much fun with this one, half-knowing there was going to be a
catch of some sort that I would say I *enjoyed* this one more.
>> Though I'm still not buying their thinking in bringing Angelus back. Do
>> they expect him to just remember?
>
> Perhaps in part. His mind works differently, apparently. So we're lead
> to believe. Mostly, it's a last-ditch effort.
Yeah, it's a bit iffy, but I guess I'd try it too.
>>>But methinks you were fooled, yes? Not that you got it?
>>
>> I must admit, I didn't see that coming at all. Should have, of course,
>> especially with the Gunn/Wes kiss-and-make-up. And of course the plot
>> didn't make sense at several points.
>
> Gunn/Wes? When? Missed that...
Too bad cos that was good. They shook hands and Gunn smiled...
>> Did anyone else wonder if the spell had worked (the first time), and
>> Angelus was just pretending to be Angel?
> Uh, no.
Yep, I did. Only for a second or two, but definitely considered it.
>> The schmaltz was digestible because it was so over the top that it
>> didn't appear to be meant seriously. Especially Angel's god-awful
>> speech.
Yeah, I think I was loving it so because in the back of my mind I just
*knew* it was too good to be true :))
>>>Did anyone else go 'eh? that was just.....sad' re: the beast's
>>>'destruction' and all that?
>>
>> I did wonder what they were going to do for the rest of the season, till
>> I remembered that Angelus would definitely be back.
I didn't know that Angelus would be back but yes.
--
Saskia
"Hey! I'll have you know that my father brought this bear back from Gstaad
years ago. Then all of a sudden, these trendoids everywhere started
sporting it, so I'm totally not wearing it. Then I thought, 'Hey! I'm the
one who started this nationwide craze. What am I ashamed of?'"
Mattia Valente
No, often having opinions that I can't even begin to understand, let
alone follow, makes it odd. You're odd too, y'know. Re: Angel and all
that, mostly.
> I had so much fun with this one, half-knowing there was going to be a
> catch of some sort that I would say I *enjoyed* this one more.
Why? Nothing indicated there was going to be a catch beyond 'Angel loses
soul'.
>>>Though I'm still not buying their thinking in bringing Angelus back. Do
>>>they expect him to just remember?
>>
>>Perhaps in part. His mind works differently, apparently. So we're lead
>>to believe. Mostly, it's a last-ditch effort.
>
> Yeah, it's a bit iffy, but I guess I'd try it too.
You're stuck with a beast that's going to blot out the sun, you've been
able to hurt him exactly not at all, and you can't find a single thing
written about him, so...
>>>>But methinks you were fooled, yes? Not that you got it?
>>>
>>>I must admit, I didn't see that coming at all. Should have, of course,
>>>especially with the Gunn/Wes kiss-and-make-up. And of course the plot
>>>didn't make sense at several points.
>>
>>Gunn/Wes? When? Missed that...
>
> Too bad cos that was good. They shook hands and Gunn smiled...
Um, right.
>>>Did anyone else wonder if the spell had worked (the first time), and
>>>Angelus was just pretending to be Angel?
>>
>>Uh, no.
>
> Yep, I did. Only for a second or two, but definitely considered it.
Hasn't seemed to be Angelus' thing in the past.
>>>The schmaltz was digestible because it was so over the top that it
>>>didn't appear to be meant seriously. Especially Angel's god-awful
>>>speech.
>
> Yeah, I think I was loving it so because in the back of my mind I just
> *knew* it was too good to be true :))
Riiiight. And you were feverently praying it wasn't some writer screw up.
>>>>Did anyone else go 'eh? that was just.....sad' re: the beast's
>>>>'destruction' and all that?
>>>
>>>I did wonder what they were going to do for the rest of the season, till
>>>I remembered that Angelus would definitely be back.
>
> I didn't know that Angelus would be back but yes.
Ditto.
Mattia
--
"It's low stress and the only place I get called "fucking," and
that's always funny." - Tim Minear, on why uk.media.tv.angel is
such a great place
Saskia
>> Having another opinion than yours does not make a person odd, Mattia dear.
>> Weirdo ;-P
>
> No, often having opinions that I can't even begin to understand, let
> alone follow, makes it odd. You're odd too, y'know. Re: Angel and all
Gunnar and I are itses? Kewl ;p
Opinions and tastes differ. That's actually quite normal.
>> Yeah, I think I was loving it so because in the back of my mind I just
>> *knew* it was too good to be true :))
>
> Riiiight. And you were feverently praying it wasn't some writer screw up.
Note to self: "do not forget smileys. People don't know you as well as you
thought."
--
Saskia
"Gee, Xander, and what are you gonna' to teach when you fail in life?
Advanced loser being?"
Saskia
> Angel 4x10 Spoilers below...
New question, gonna use your spoiler space cos I'm too lazy to make one ;)
By the way... was it my imagination or did Angel cry out for Buffy as he
was turning into Angelus?
--
Saskia
"Know your losers. Once you can identify them all by sight they're a lot
easier to avoid."
Gunnar Harboe
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
Well, that was exactly the catch, of course. If you knew Angel was going
to lose his soul, then so much in this episode just seemed... odd. There
was a fun tension between everything going ridiculously well, and
knowing something bad was just about to happen.
>>>>Though I'm still not buying their thinking in bringing Angelus back. Do
>>>>they expect him to just remember?
>>>
>>>Perhaps in part. His mind works differently, apparently. So we're lead
>>>to believe. Mostly, it's a last-ditch effort.
>>
>> Yeah, it's a bit iffy, but I guess I'd try it too.
>
>You're stuck with a beast that's going to blot out the sun, you've been
>able to hurt him exactly not at all, and you can't find a single thing
>written about him, so...
I'm not on board with the idea that Angelus is something external to
Angel, I guess. I've always believed that Angel isn't Angelus, but he
has him in him. I think there's quite a lot to support this view in the
history of both shows. I can accept that they might reject that
interpretation in order to create a new plot line, but I wish they'd do
so decisively. At the moment it feels like the characters are making
assumptions that the mythology of the show hasn't got around to justify.
>>>>>But methinks you were fooled, yes? Not that you got it?
>>>>
>>>>I must admit, I didn't see that coming at all. Should have, of course,
>>>>especially with the Gunn/Wes kiss-and-make-up. And of course the plot
>>>>didn't make sense at several points.
>>>
>>>Gunn/Wes? When? Missed that...
>>
>> Too bad cos that was good. They shook hands and Gunn smiled...
>
>Um, right.
No, it was great! For no reason at all they were suddenly the best of
friends again.
>>>>Did anyone else wonder if the spell had worked (the first time), and
>>>>Angelus was just pretending to be Angel?
>>>
>>>Uh, no.
>>
>> Yep, I did. Only for a second or two, but definitely considered it.
>
>Hasn't seemed to be Angelus' thing in the past.
It would have been a smart move to get out of the cage. Of course, the
probability of this explanation fell rapidly the longer he spent
outside, but I held on to the possibility until after he got hold of the
sword (that could have been the plan all along, after all).
>>>>The schmaltz was digestible because it was so over the top that it
>>>>didn't appear to be meant seriously. Especially Angel's god-awful
>>>>speech.
>>
>> Yeah, I think I was loving it so because in the back of my mind I just
>> *knew* it was too good to be true :))
>
>Riiiight. And you were feverently praying it wasn't some writer screw up.
>
>>>>>Did anyone else go 'eh? that was just.....sad' re: the beast's
>>>>>'destruction' and all that?
>>>>
>>>>I did wonder what they were going to do for the rest of the season, till
>>>>I remembered that Angelus would definitely be back.
>>
>> I didn't know that Angelus would be back but yes.
>
>Ditto.
I think this was a case of where knowing a "spoiler" actually enhanced
enjoyment of the episode.
Mattia Valente
No. It relates to the situation described, actually.
> Opinions and tastes differ. That's actually quite normal.
Ah, yes, but you see the point is, opinions mean sod-all in newsgroups
unless they're supported by argumentation. Argumentation is the most
important part of the equation, and the part I don't always follow.
Besides, Sas: DUH.
This doesn't really have any bearing on me calling people 'strange' or
'odd'.
>>>Yeah, I think I was loving it so because in the back of my mind I just
>>>*knew* it was too good to be true :))
>>
>>Riiiight. And you were feverently praying it wasn't some writer screw up.
>
> Note to self: "do not forget smileys. People don't know you as well as you
> thought."
Well, you were a tad confusing with all the 'oooh! yay! sappy!' stuff.
Mattia
--
"My beagle went swimming today and now he's typing on my
keyboard with his ample nose. Oh, and he's the bestest
handsomeest beagle EVER." -Tim Minear, Salon.com, May 2001
Dave Emberton
news:b16haa$v9i2o$1...@ID-90381.news.dfncis.de...
Exactly. I was there thinking "OMG! This series has totally lost it", and
then wow. Most of that episode it has to be said wasn't the greatest, but
that twist ending was absolute stunning. I think I'm becoming an Angel
convert, although Buffy's still the better show IMO. Of course, this episode
probably won't have the same impact on repeated viewing.
Dave
Dave Emberton
news:9a3e3v893hcdjvcf9...@4ax.com...
> then I didn't hate Enemies for being a cheat, just for being shit.
Enemies. Grrrr. Not as bad as Amends though ;-)
Enemies was misleading the audience that the "real life" characters (well
Buffy and Angel) were in on. Here the audience were seeing Angel's
hallucination, which is a different thing altogether, and is fine by me
(probably not good to do it every week though). The only way they were
misleading the audience was by making an obviously naff episode actually be
a great one.
> >> Some people may not have liked being fooled by the device used, but I
> >> enjoyed it because the hallucination Angel was being made to believe
was
> >> such good fun.
> >
> >But methinks you were fooled, yes? Not that you got it?
Fooled 100%. I knew Angelus was coming back, but assumed that would just be
later.
> Did anyone else wonder if the spell had worked (the first time), and
> Angelus was just pretending to be Angel?
Yes definitely. When he went off with Cordelia in the caves, I was expecting
him to suddenly turn on her.
> >Did anyone else go 'eh? that was just.....sad' re: the beast's
> >'destruction' and all that?
Absolutely. Big anti-climax, and an end to the big bad not even half way
through the season? And the promised huge explosion was no more than a
wimper. By the time we had that, and Angel and Cordelia's smoochies at the
end, I was wondering to myself if I could be even bothered to watch the rest
of the series.
Dave
Shuggie
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>
> > and some sensible ideas as to what the
>> rest of the world is thinking. Although blocking out the sun would affect
>> just one city? I'm thinking that's a bit far-fetched.
>
>No no, it was going to spread, remember? Or rather, it's still going to
>spread.
>
I can live with the fact that it's a mystical spell that's causing this
effect. And yes they carefully mentioned that it would slowly spread so
I'm ok with that too.
What's harder to explain away is that the visual effect they used -
black strands growing from behind and wrapping themselves around the sun
until it was covered. So how is that supposed to work only on LA?
--
Shug
"You're odd."
- Mattia Valente
Gunnar Harboe
I'm not sure I agree that that's unambiguously what it is. Later on, it
seems to be some kind of disc blocking out the sun (you can see light at
the edges).
The interpretation I'm most comfortable with is that it's magic, so it
doesn't need to conform to modern notions of astronomy. Ancient
astrologers saw the sun as a fiery disc or ball in the sky, so the spell
works as though it is.
It would have been kind of cool, I think, if the Beast had literally
(hmmm..) eaten the sun, as in many myths. But I guess that would have
left them with the problem of not-so-Sunnydale.
George van Hal
Eh? Ok, I'll let this one slip ;-)
> Enemies was misleading the audience that the "real life" characters (well
> Buffy and Angel) were in on. Here the audience were seeing Angel's
> hallucination, which is a different thing altogether, and is fine by me
> (probably not good to do it every week though). The only way they were
> misleading the audience was by making an obviously naff episode actually be
> a great one.
Yes, thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to say. See, Mattia,
Dave gets it. So ha! :-p
See Ya,
George
George van Hal
Very much so...
>> Well, I don't know why people did not like 'Enemies', but my problem
>> with that episode (though not that large) was mostly that I felt
>> cheated because we had characters acting different in the
>> Buffyverse[tm], even where it wasn't necessary. We had a couple of
>> shots obviously created solely to confuse the viewer and that felt
>> cheat-y in a VST[tm] kinda way.
>
>
> Erm, that makes precious little sense, quite frankly.
Thanks. Only, it does.
> Basically, though, I like enemies. Quite a bit, actually. Cheat or no cheat.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I like enemies too, despite the slight VST[tm]-y
issues I have with it.
Characters
> were acting different because they were acting out parts, putting on a
> charade, and it was filmed, in a sense, from Faith's perspective. So...
Well, you see, that's not completely true. We have moments in enemies
where Faith is not in the scene and the characters still keep up their
charade. That serves no other purpose than to confuse the viewers. If
you consider Buffy and Angel to be "real life" characters in the
Buffyverse[tm] and not just characters in a tv show, than some scenes
just don't make sense.
>> Now in this episode we have a "cheat" which happened completely in
>> Angel's mind. The guy doing the soul mojo created a fantasy world
>> which Angel believed and gave him his one moment of true happiness,
>> thus stripping his soul.
>
>
> ...which is not bad how, exactly? It's not presented as being something
> within his mind, it's not shot in such a way that you would really be
> able to grok the situation. It's purposefully misleading in the exact
> same way as 'Enemies' is, without there actually being any effect on any
> other characters in the interim.
Yes, it's purposefully misleading. But the audience are watching
something in Angel's head. They're being mislead by an hallucination.
They're *not* being mislead by the actual real life characters putting
on a charade for not only the person they're trying to mislead, but the
audience as well. Which makes it acceptable from a Buffyverse[tm] point
of view. This is all possible without having to adopt the
Viewerverse[tm] pov. And that makes it a case of better storytelling.
>> There's no real cheat there. The story we saw, did happen in Angel's
>> mind (even if he realizes it was just a vision now that he's Angelus
>> again)
>
>
> Well, quite. So it's all bogus, made up, and not-happeny. I don't care
> how existensialistic you get on mah ass, it wasn't real, the effects
> beyond de-souling Angel are minimal.
Ok, sure, it wasn't real. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make
there. The point was that the cheat was less because it happened in
Angels head.
Now I can see how you'd feel cheated because you got an episode where
not much actually happened, and that it's worse than enemies in the
sense that *less* happened this time round *because* it was all in
Angels head. I see that "worse". But that was not the point I was
making. And I'd also tend to not agree. Because we had no a priory
VST[tm] type problems with this episode it's actually better.
Storytelling wise.
> > and as such sort off both happened and didn't happen. I feel the
>
>> cheat is less big because of that, because it's believable even from a
>> Angelverse[tm] pov. So it doesn't matter if the twist is major, the
>> cheat is less big.
>
>
> Nope, not buying it. 'Enemies' isn't a cheat from the 'verse point of
> view, it cheats the viewers. At least, that's the complaint I've heard
> most often. The viewers aren't shown everything that's going on, and
> can't have figured out what was going down. The same happens here, just
> as badly.
Yes, but just like Dave pointed out in an other post in this thread, the
difference lays in the fact that we have a cheat by "real life"
characters in the Buffyverse[tm] in the one ep and we have a cheat by an
hallucination in this ep, which makes the cheat more valid and less
cheat-y.
> So the events were real to Angel. So we know what his wishes were
> (which, well, no surprises there: Wes apologising, Sonny boy forgiving
> him and standing by his side, Cordy proclaiming her love, everyone being
> noble, wise and heroic..), we don't gain horrbily much more insight
> there IMO.
Ok, sure. We don't get a terrible amount of info, but in hindsight I
still very much enjoy seeing Angels fantasy plot. Sure, there's cringe
worthy stuff in there, had it been real. But now it's just so very much
fun to view the Angel wish-fullfilment.
[Angel and Connor battling it out = good]
> Yes, but you see, it's never been on the surface this badly, or worded
> this lamely, handled so ham-fistedly. And frankly, again,
> wish-fullfilment. Down to the buddy movie bonding between the two in the
> end.
Ok, the buddy movie bonding sucked ass. But I'm just bothered by the
unresolved tension. Sure, it makes sense from a story point of view and
there's perhaps no reason to go and make it all better, but it just
annoys me to no end to continually see Connor as the irritating boy with
the different opinions and other actions. I just don't like him much.
Mostly since he's wrong so much of the time. I just stare at my screen
thinking "get over yourself!". And when Angel actually told him to get
over himself I was all "yes! that's it!".
Guess I just still don't like Connor all that much.
> > Also liked Wesley's
>
>> apology to Angel. Wouldn't have minded those things actually happening.
>
>
> I sure as hell wouldn't have. I'm sorry, but there's more than one party
> needing to apologise. Wes apologising, and Angel standing there with
> this big self-satisfied grin just rubbed me the wrong way.
Ok, sure, I'll grant you the fact that Angel needs to apologize as well.
But Wesley beginning the apology was a good start and I wouldn't mind
if they actually talked things out. It needs to be done.
<snip a whole bunch of things>
>> Hehe, well, I think it's quite good. Just as long as you view the
>> episode as a glimpse of Angels fantasy world, it's perfectly fine and
>> you're not left with something which mainly features meaningless scenes.
>
> Well, you're stuck with something that still features a lot of
> meaningless (in terms of growth, development and arc furthering) scenes.
> It's filler, explaining in retrospectively perfectly clear text things
> we already knew.
True, we didn't get much arc development. But we don't need that from
every ep. Like you said, this was filler, and in my view it was *good*
filler. Which is why I think this episode is actually quite good as a
whole.
See Ya,
George
Shuggie
To you obviously it does. Personally I have no idea what VST means.
Personally I like Enemies. Whatever inconsistencies exist it doesn't hurt my
enjoyment of the episode.
However this episode of Angel (title anyone?) is more like The Wish than
Enemies.
I was completely fooled by it. I didn't even get suspicious that it was too over
the top. Although I was annoyed by Angel's smugness when Wes apologised - I'm so
glad that wasn't real because the apology needs to be on both sides.
I think it's not just gullibility on my part. I feel like they've almost
complete wrecked character continuity this season - yet I find if I ignore that
aspect then the individual episodes and even the seasonal arc are pretty good.
It's got me kinda schizoid though. So anyway when I see Wes backing down and
Angel being smug, or Cordy doing a 180 on her "I can't be with you cos I can
remember you as Angelus" thing - I just tend to put it down to more
inconsistency in the characterisation and get on with enjoying the Raiders
rip-off.
The only bit that really gave it away was the blatant forgetting about the curse
thing.
I still feel that bringing Angelus back is a curious move. OK so they've got him
locked up in a big cage, has anyone even mentioned how they are going to
persuade him to talk? 'Cos saving the world from Apocalypse is his thing isn't
it? No wait he likes to *cause* an Apocalypse. Why would they think he'll
co-operate?
Also I think they're over-egging the "Angelus is the worst bad guy you've ever
seen!" thing. Yes he's evil, yes he's smart - but he's only a vampire at the end
of the day. And this was before the delusion so we don't even have that excuse
for the over-the-topness.
Still a fun ep I thought. I'll leave you with something I read on the Succubus
Club mailing list -
"If Angel reverts to his evil self, goes to Sunnydale and sees the way Buffy is
with Spike - will he be An-jealous?"
--
Shug
Dan Milburn
No, it wasn't your imagination. It was in the shooting script apparently.
Well, I quite enjoyed it. Having read spoilers I knew what was happening,
but I at least had the fun of my girlfriend not knowing about it, and
wondering at what point she would realise what was going on. :)
So, we see the things that would make Angel perfectly happy, which isn't a
great leap on from the hallucinations in 'Deep Down' really. And, um, why
isn't he doing more to bring some of these things about, especially with
regard to his relationships with Wesley, Connor and Cordy? It seems like
he's expecting everyone else to do the work (as they do in the 'dream')
without him having to admit any wrong-doing on his part or really make any
effort whatsoever. Which is admittedly not an uncommon trait, it just
makes the whole 'biggest and best heart' thing look even more ridiculous
than it was when Cordy said it.
I do have several problems with them bringing back Angelus. First, it
just all seemed very rushed. We need to bring back Angelus, it probably
won't work and could make things a whole lot worse, but hey, we're all out
of other ideas (and that could equally apply to the characters and the
writers..). No attempt to glean any further information from Cordys
memories, no thought to see if Lorne can read anything from anyone, not
even a mention of the whole drug-induced thing as seen in 'Eternity'.
Second, a cage. Which he's obviously gonna escape from. Hello? Where
are the mystical barriers, anti-violence spells, or any other
precautions? I could accept some of these things being overlooked, but
*all* of them?
Other random thoughts:
Is it me, or was Cordy very obviously trying to persuade Angel to do it
in the scene in the garden?
Liked the Angel/Connor scene when he was locked in the cage. I'm not
sure Connor really does accept the difference between Angel/Angelus, and
I wonder if that'll change once he's actually experienced Angelus. But
his enthusiasm to kill him if anything does go wrong, and Angels reaction
("If!") is priceless.
The laughing at the end is great.
Dan
Gunnar Harboe
Well, that's ... interesting.
<snip>
>I do have several problems with them bringing back Angelus. First, it
>just all seemed very rushed. We need to bring back Angelus, it probably
>won't work and could make things a whole lot worse, but hey, we're all out
>of other ideas (and that could equally apply to the characters and the
>writers..).
Amen.
It's always been the card up the show's sleeve, though: "Hey, if it
really starts to suck, we can always bring back Angelus."
> No attempt to glean any further information from Cordys
>memories, no thought to see if Lorne can read anything from anyone,
Actually, they did try that.
> not
>even a mention of the whole drug-induced thing as seen in 'Eternity'.
Yes, that seemed off. Especially with the assertions that Wes has never
met Angelus.
>Second, a cage. Which he's obviously gonna escape from.
Obvious to us, since it's a TV show and it's bound to happen. Not so
obvious to the characters, with him being pretty well locked up.
I still think his best chance of getting out is through subterfuge;
getting one of them (and I would guess Connor, the boy is emotionally
vulnerable and a perfect target for manipulation) to *let* him out
(which *is* Angelus's M.O. ... remember how as a newly risen vampire he
tricked his way into the family home?)
And in that case...
> Hello? Where
>are the mystical barriers, anti-violence spells, or any other
>precautions?
...none of the above would make much difference.
> I could accept some of these things being overlooked, but
>*all* of them?
>
>Other random thoughts:
>Is it me, or was Cordy very obviously trying to persuade Angel to do it
>in the scene in the garden?
I wondered about that. It wasn't obvious (IMHO), since I couldn't quite
see what she was getting at. Angelus is smarter, and this will make
Angel want to become him???
For the same reason I guess, I didn't understand what made Angel change
his mind. Cordy was saying how the Beast always was one step ahead, and
then Angel abruptly decided to go with it. I got the impression he had
some secret plan of his own. When the shaman-guy attacked him I thought
that was it; he'd realised that it was a trick by the Beast and had
lured the shaman into a (pretty stupid) trap. But then that turned out
to be a dream. Now I don't know.
>Liked the Angel/Connor scene when he was locked in the cage. I'm not
>sure Connor really does accept the difference between Angel/Angelus, and
>I wonder if that'll change once he's actually experienced Angelus.
Definitely. It's a dead certain "character arc", just the way the
writers love to do it.
> But
>his enthusiasm to kill him if anything does go wrong, and Angels reaction
>("If!") is priceless.
I didn't find that funny at all. More like cringeworthy. I'm liking the
comedy in 'Angel' less and less.
>The laughing at the end is great.
Hmmmmaybe.
Dan Milburn
> <snip>
>>I do have several problems with them bringing back Angelus. First, it
>>just all seemed very rushed. We need to bring back Angelus, it probably
>>won't work and could make things a whole lot worse, but hey, we're all
>>out of other ideas (and that could equally apply to the characters and
>>the writers..).
>
> Amen.
> It's always been the card up the show's sleeve, though: "Hey, if it
> really starts to suck, we can always bring back Angelus."
Which works only if their bringing back Angelus doesn't suck of course. As
so often in this show, regardless of my reservations of how it got there,
I'm hopeful of where they can take it next.
>> No attempt to glean any further information from Cordys
>>memories, no thought to see if Lorne can read anything from anyone,
>
> Actually, they did try that.
Ok, must have missed that then.
>>Second, a cage. Which he's obviously gonna escape from.
>
> Obvious to us, since it's a TV show and it's bound to happen. Not so
> obvious to the characters, with him being pretty well locked up.
Maybe not. But with there being other measures available to them, you'd
think they'd have done everything they could.
> I still think his best chance of getting out is through subterfuge;
> getting one of them (and I would guess Connor, the boy is emotionally
> vulnerable and a perfect target for manipulation) to *let* him out
> (which *is* Angelus's M.O. ... remember how as a newly risen vampire he
> tricked his way into the family home?)
Possibly.
> And in that case...
>
>> Hello? Where
>>are the mystical barriers, anti-violence spells, or any other
>>precautions?
>
> ...none of the above would make much difference.
Unless they took another sensible precaution and had at least two people
on guard all the time. Which admittedly didn't work too well last week,
but then they think it was Angel that did that.
>> I could accept some of these things being overlooked, but
>>*all* of them?
>>
>>Other random thoughts:
>>Is it me, or was Cordy very obviously trying to persuade Angel to do it
>>in the scene in the garden?
>
> I wondered about that. It wasn't obvious (IMHO), since I couldn't quite
> see what she was getting at. Angelus is smarter, and this will make
> Angel want to become him???
I think the point was that Angelus thinks like the Beast, and therefore
has a better chance of defeating him. Which is probably true, but of
course makes the rather wild assumption that Angelus will want to do that
(another ill-thought out point - they haven't even considered how they
will get him to co-operate).
>>Liked the Angel/Connor scene when he was locked in the cage. I'm not
>>sure Connor really does accept the difference between Angel/Angelus, and
>>I wonder if that'll change once he's actually experienced Angelus.
>
> Definitely. It's a dead certain "character arc", just the way the
> writers love to do it.
Hehe. I do expect there to be one or two complications along the way,
however. And frankly, I think the moment when Connor and Angel become
fully reconciled is the moment he has no further use on the show
whatsoever..
>> But
>>his enthusiasm to kill him if anything does go wrong, and Angels
>>reaction ("If!") is priceless.
>
> I didn't find that funny at all. More like cringeworthy. I'm liking the
> comedy in 'Angel' less and less.
I liked it mainly because Angels bringing the matter up at all was so
utterly redundant. When he said similar things to Cordy and Wes all that
time ago, there was at least a reasonable chance they might hesitate when
the time came. Connor would do it without even blinking if he thought
there was even a chance Angel might have turned - in fact he'd probably
welcome the opportunity. Angel, having spent the summer in a box, should
really know that. (Actually, now I think of it, that box would have been
a much better way to keep Angelus confined than the cage).
Oh, and to point out the obvious, the comedy in this episode was by the
people who also bring (or brought) you the comedy on Buffy. At least some
of the time. :)
Dan
Shuggie
wrote:
I'll have to watch it again but that doesn't sound like what I saw.
--
Shug
"Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, prepare to die."
Mark Evans
Maybe because whatever it was dosn't directly involve Angelus killing
people. They did refer to that being the point of the curse.
Iain Clark
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:48:45 +0100, Mattia Valente
Enjoyable, but all rather pointless in retrospect. Most of the
episode was spent getting us Angel's vision of perfect happiness,
which we already saw in the first scene of the season! (Minus the sex
part, obviously, which would have been a bit of a faux pas at the
dinner table.)
>I'm not on board with the idea that Angelus is something external to
>Angel, I guess. I've always believed that Angel isn't Angelus, but he
>has him in him. I think there's quite a lot to support this view in the
>history of both shows. I can accept that they might reject that
>interpretation in order to create a new plot line, but I wish they'd do
>so decisively. At the moment it feels like the characters are making
>assumptions that the mythology of the show hasn't got around to justify.
>
They didn't say Angelus was external to Angel exactly. They said that
Angel remembered everything he did as Angelus, and *should* have been
able to remember the Beast, but couldn't. The implication is that the
reason he couldn't remember must relate to the pact made by Angelus in
some way.
>>>>>Did anyone else wonder if the spell had worked (the first time), and
>>>>>Angelus was just pretending to be Angel?
>>>>
>>>>Uh, no.
>>>
>>> Yep, I did. Only for a second or two, but definitely considered it.
>>
>>Hasn't seemed to be Angelus' thing in the past.
>
>It would have been a smart move to get out of the cage. Of course, the
>probability of this explanation fell rapidly the longer he spent
>outside, but I held on to the possibility until after he got hold of the
>sword (that could have been the plan all along, after all).
>
I was the same. I figured that Angelus was back, and playing along
to get the sword. Then it seemed way too easy to kill the Beast, and
I was even more convinced. But too many "Angel" like reactions kept
happening, so then I decided he really was Angel, but kept waiting in
fear for him to be perfectly happy.
And then I began shouting at Angel and Cordy for being utterly,
utterly stupid. I really am slow on the uptake sometimes. I'm like
Angel to the writers' Angelus :-).
>>>>>I did wonder what they were going to do for the rest of the season, till
>>>>>I remembered that Angelus would definitely be back.
>>>
>>> I didn't know that Angelus would be back but yes.
>>
>>Ditto.
>
>I think this was a case of where knowing a "spoiler" actually enhanced
>enjoyment of the episode.
I didn't know, but it was "obvious" after all that build up that he
would make an appearance somehow.
Did he *have*to go "muhahahahaha!", though?
Iain
--
"You've contracted American dreams..."
Jonathan Dupont
I liked it a lot. I think we did get slightly more of Angel's POV
(Wesley's apology, Connor understanding about Cordy, Angel's obsession
with the horrible, horrible adjective "champion"...) and more to the
point it created sufficient build up for the return of Angelus. Just
having him return so simply would have been a bit of an anticlimax
IMO, whereas this way you were left with a sense of horror/shock.
> >>>>>Did anyone else wonder if the spell had worked (the first time), and
> >>>>>Angelus was just pretending to be Angel?
> >>>>
> >>>>Uh, no.
> >>>
> >>> Yep, I did. Only for a second or two, but definitely considered it.
> >>
> >>Hasn't seemed to be Angelus' thing in the past.
> >
> >It would have been a smart move to get out of the cage. Of course, the
> >probability of this explanation fell rapidly the longer he spent
> >outside, but I held on to the possibility until after he got hold of the
> >sword (that could have been the plan all along, after all).
> >
>
> I was the same. I figured that Angelus was back, and playing along
> to get the sword. Then it seemed way too easy to kill the Beast, and
> I was even more convinced. But too many "Angel" like reactions kept
> happening, so then I decided he really was Angel, but kept waiting in
> fear for him to be perfectly happy.
>
> And then I began shouting at Angel and Cordy for being utterly,
> utterly stupid. I really am slow on the uptake sometimes. I'm like
> Angel to the writers' Angelus :-).
<Raises hand>
Me too. I kept expect Angel to turn around and start biting Cordy's
neck or something. I was foolish enough to watch the trailer for this
episode (first time I'd done it for ages) which seemed fairly
unspoilerish at the time, but ended with the shot of Angelus laughing.
Obviously something was going to happen, although I didn't see it
coming. Calling out Buffy's name was a nice touch, too.
> >>>>>I did wonder what they were going to do for the rest of the season, till
> >>>>>I remembered that Angelus would definitely be back.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't know that Angelus would be back but yes.
> >>
> >>Ditto.
> >
> >I think this was a case of where knowing a "spoiler" actually enhanced
> >enjoyment of the episode.
I disagee. I would have preferred not knowing.
> I didn't know, but it was "obvious" after all that build up that he
> would make an appearance somehow.
>
> Did he *have*to go "muhahahahaha!", though?
>
> Iain
Ah, come on - that was cool.
Jon
Gunnar Harboe
>I liked it a lot. I think we did get slightly more of Angel's POV
>(Wesley's apology, Connor understanding about Cordy, Angel's obsession
>with the horrible, horrible adjective "champion"...)
I think you mean "noun".
>> >I think this was a case of where knowing a "spoiler" actually enhanced
>> >enjoyment of the episode.
>
>I disagee. I would have preferred not knowing.
If I hadn't known Angelus would be back, I probably wouldn't have kept
wondering if Angelus was only pretending to be Angel, and that would
have eliminated a lot of the tension for me.
>> Did he *have*to go "muhahahahaha!", though?
>
>Ah, come on - that was cool.
There's a fine line between cool and cheesy. I can't make up my mind
which side the evil laughter falls on.
Iain Clark
<use...@tags2k.co.uk> wrote:
>"Saskia" <saskia...@nksf.nl> wrote in message
>news:1gers36b8a4qw$.1bilcxs7i1oy9.dlg@40tude.net...
>True dat, but I kind of want a better explanation... like that the black
>stuff isn't, as it appears to be, enveloping the sun, but is just appearing
>in front of it, in the sky, in LA. If it was covering it (which, by the
>way, *is* what it's doing) then everywhere supposed to be getting even the
>slightest bit of sun, would be in darkness.
>
That's certainly how the original effect looked, but I assumed that
was just a cool magical effect, not what was really happening.
After all, in reality if the dark fronds had *really* been coming from
behind the sun you wouldn't have been able to see them, just the sun
being blotted out.
Iain
--
XANDER: Am I right, Giles?
GILES: I'm almost certain you're not, but to be fair, I wasn't listening.
George van Hal
Shuggie wrote:
>>>>Well, I don't know why people did not like 'Enemies', but my problem
>>>>with that episode (though not that large) was mostly that I felt
>>>>cheated because we had characters acting different in the
>>>>Buffyverse[tm], even where it wasn't necessary. We had a couple of
>>>>shots obviously created solely to confuse the viewer and that felt
>>>>cheat-y in a VST[tm] kinda way.
>>>
>>>
>>>Erm, that makes precious little sense, quite frankly.
>>
>>Thanks. Only, it does.
>
> To you obviously it does. Personally I have no idea what VST means.
Ah, the VST[tm] refers to the Vague Sub-Thread[tm], it's an old abe
acronym. I believe Mattia invented it. We started using it for things
referring to things that mix up the Viewerverse[tm] and the
Buffyverse[tm]. Check out bite.to/abe for more info ;-)
God, I haven't posted here for a long time, have I? I'm using the "Old
Slang" ;-)
> Personally I like Enemies. Whatever inconsistencies exist it doesn't
hurt my
> enjoyment of the episode.
No, like I said, I actually *like* Enemies too, but I have VST[tm] type
issues with it.
> However this episode of Angel (title anyone?) is more like The Wish than
> Enemies.
Well, apart from the distinction between an alternate universe /
hallucination, sure.
> I was completely fooled by it. I didn't even get suspicious that it
was too over
> the top.
The disturbing thing was that I didn't get suspicious either. The end
totally caught me by surprise.
> Although I was annoyed by Angel's smugness when Wes apologised - I'm so
> glad that wasn't real because the apology needs to be on both sides.
Agree, although I thought it was a step in the right direction that Wes
started it. It wasn't too good that Angel then didn't follow that up
with an apology of his own though, I agree.
<snip>
> The only bit that really gave it away was the blatant forgetting
about the curse
> thing.
Yes. I knew Angelus was going to turn up, so that scene made me go "ok,
this is probably the *weakest* possible way they could've achieved this"
> I still feel that bringing Angelus back is a curious move. OK so
they've got him
> locked up in a big cage, has anyone even mentioned how they are going to
> persuade him to talk? 'Cos saving the world from Apocalypse is his
thing isn't
> it? No wait he likes to *cause* an Apocalypse. Why would they think he'll
> co-operate?
I know. They make the decision to bring forth Angelus pretty easily,
within the time space of a small portion of an episode and they don't
even have a plan. Of course they might have made a plan without telling
Angel, which sorta makes sense, but then again we didn't see that, so..
> Also I think they're over-egging the "Angelus is the worst bad guy
you've ever
> seen!" thing. Yes he's evil, yes he's smart - but he's only a vampire
at the end
> of the day. And this was before the delusion so we don't even have
that excuse
> for the over-the-topness.
Yes, well, he *is* the only vampire known for his cruelty and smart way
of planning. He's the only one to have almost succeeded in bringing
forth an apocalypse. Not even, say, The Master can claim that.
> Still a fun ep I thought. I'll leave you with something I read on the
Succubus
> Club mailing list -
>
> "If Angel reverts to his evil self, goes to Sunnydale and sees the
way Buffy is
> with Spike - will he be An-jealous?"
Hehe :-)
See Ya,
George
Jonathan Dupont
I've got a feeling you're right. Sort of.
> >> >I think this was a case of where knowing a "spoiler" actually enhanced
> >> >enjoyment of the episode.
> >
> >I disagee. I would have preferred not knowing.
>
> If I hadn't known Angelus would be back, I probably wouldn't have kept
> wondering if Angelus was only pretending to be Angel, and that would
> have eliminated a lot of the tension for me.
Really? I'd rather have had the happiness of the episode and then
*shock* back to where we started, then always know that Angelus is
going to show up sooner or later.
>> Did he *have*to go "muhahahahaha!", though?
> >
> >Ah, come on - that was cool.
>
> There's a fine line between cool and cheesy. I can't make up my mind
> which side the evil laughter falls on.
The cool side. Might not have had if he wasn't Angelus, but so far
he's sort of earned that for me. Hopefully he won't ruin that
reputation in future eps.
Jon
Shuggie
wrote:
OK I guess I know now what you mean by a cheat. That would be if there
are any scenes in the hallucination that Angel wasn't in right? 'Cos if
it's his hallucination then he has to be in all the scenes. (except
there is that thing that happens in dreams sometimes where you just know
stuff and it doesn't seem odd until later when you're awake)
Anyway I can't remember the cheat scenes - what were they?
--
Shug
Minuteman: What's it like summoning demons?
Deadly Girl: They do your will, and that makes you feel good about
yourself.
Niall Harrison
> If people hated 'Enemies', oh, boy, are
> they going to hate hate hate this one to bits. Because it's worse. Far
> worse.
Nuh-uh. This RAWKED. Nothing like 'Enemies'; this was a variant of the
"We're still in the game!" twist. And it was so, so well-written; the only
way they could have improved it would have been a bigger hint as to the
Shaman's modus operandi, but to be honest emphasising the importance of
perfect happiness to the clause so many times just about covered that side
of things. They covered all the bases beautifully, nobody looked like an
idiot, and we got a world of insight into Angel's state of mind.
(In brief, I think the start of 'Deep Down' was how he wants his life to
be, and this was how he wants it to get there.)
Everyone should read this review:
<http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=thebratqueen&itemid=188256>
Niall
--
A little charm and a lot of style.
George van Hal
[VST[tm] explained]
> OK I guess I know now what you mean by a cheat.
w00t! :-)
> That would be if there
> are any scenes in the hallucination that Angel wasn't in right? 'Cos if
> it's his hallucination then he has to be in all the scenes. (except
> there is that thing that happens in dreams sometimes where you just know
> stuff and it doesn't seem odd until later when you're awake)
>
> Anyway I can't remember the cheat scenes - what were they?
Right. That's exactly what I mean. Only, I think you mixed up my points.
Mattia stated that this episode was a larger cheat than 'Enemies' with
which I didn't agree. I have no VST[tm] type issues with this episode of
Angel, but I *do* have them with 'Enemies'. Which makes the latter
episode a bigger 'cheat' in my mind. I can't exactly remember the cheat
scenes in 'Enemies' though, it's been a while since I've seen it. But I
remember making a point of them in my initial episode discussions. Of
course I could search google groups or something, but I'm just too
Lazy[tm] ;-)
So, basically, there were no real cheat scenes in Angel 4x10. Or at
least I missed them on the first watch. Which explaines why the 'cheat'
doesn't bother me much in this ep. It's all perfectly acceptable from a
Buffyverse[tm] p.o.v.
See Ya,
George
Ian Shuttleworth
(Gunnar Harboe) wrote:
> Yes, that seemed off. Especially with the assertions that Wes has never
> met Angelus.
Wes *has* never met Angelus. He's tangled with an Angel who was under the
mistaken belief that he was Angelus. The happiness induced by the
Doximall was imperfect. It was Wes himself who tried to bear that in upon
Angel at the time, so he knows damn well what the state of play was then.
--
Ian S.
Dan Milburn
You mean apart from the fact that Cordy and Angel could just forget about
that happiness clause? Angel might be that stupid, but Cordelia
shouldn't be.
> and we got a world of insight into Angel's state of mind.
>
> (In brief, I think the start of 'Deep Down' was how he wants his life to
> be, and this was how he wants it to get there.)
This was his wildest and most unrealistic fantasising about how he
wants his life to be and how he wants it to get there. He wants
everything to go right (or be fixed after it's gone wrong) with hardly any
effort. He wants everyone around him to say exactly what he wants them to
without him having to put any work into repairing those relationships.
He wants to forget about the happiness clause so he can have sex with
Cordelia.
I'm sure we all have such thoughts, but they're not very deep or very
interesting, and if they offer 'a world of insight' that sure doesn't
reflect well on Angel.
Dan
Mattia Valente
> "We're still in the game!" twist. And it was so, so well-written; the only
> way they could have improved it would have been a bigger hint as to the
> Shaman's modus operandi, but to be honest emphasising the importance of
> perfect happiness to the clause so many times just about covered that side
> of things. They covered all the bases beautifully, nobody looked like an
> idiot, and we got a world of insight into Angel's state of mind.
Plenty of people acted like Asses. Well, ok, mostly Angel and Cordy. So
there ya go. It provided some insight into Angel, the character, but for
me it certainly wasn't ground-breaking. We pretty much knew all this
already. Holding pattern and all that.
> (In brief, I think the start of 'Deep Down' was how he wants his life to
> be, and this was how he wants it to get there.)
Um, so? How is this terribly great?
> Everyone should read this review:
> <http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=thebratqueen&itemid=188256>
I did. Interesting, sure, vis a vis Wes, but doesn't really cover how I
felt. I didn't need to see what was going on inside Angel's head. I
didn't need to see stupidity re: curse and the like win out. I didn't
need to hear bad, bad speeches and watch daft AD&D inspired plotting,
even if it did come from Angel's mind.
It may improve some on rewatch, when/if I get any actual insight that
adds real meaning (besides the Wes issue, which I've commented upon
elsewhere..)
Mattia
--
"Too many obsessions to list. My obsessions have obsessions." -
Steve DeKnight
Saskia
>
> <http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=thebratqueen&itemid=188256>
Lovely review with a big M2 from me. Thanks for the link.
--
Saskia
Wesley: "Your hair. It's new - it's great! When did this happen?"
Cordy : "Ten days ago."
Gunnar Harboe
Now that's just silly.
.... Wait! I forgot we're talking about 'Eternity'.
No matter what stupid explanation the writers come up with, whatever
Angel turned into in 'Eternity' was a sufficiently good approximation to
Angelus that Wes would be aware of what they were unleashing.
Ian Shuttleworth
(Gunnar Harboe) wrote:
Except that, as I said, it was Wes who was trying to persuade Angel
otherwise:
"...as Wesley tries to point out to him, the Doximall* in his champagne
has given him only the _illusion_ of happiness, but on some level Angel's
identity sensors tell him that he is untroubled, therefore he must be
evil, therefore he must be Angelus."
--mega-vanity, quoting from my own chapter in _Reading The Vampire Slayer_
:-)
But that doesn't mean it was so.
*I wrote "Doximall"; Roz hyper-corrected it in the published text to
Doximol :-)
--
Ian S.
Ian Shuttleworth
point remains in relation to the core fact, which I suppose requires me to
restore spoiler space:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Wes has in fact never seen Angelus.
And actually, in light of this, your point is moot. Wesley, never having
seen Angelus, can't know with sufficient certainty that what he saw
in "Eternity" *was* a close enough facsimile, because he doesn't have
experience of the real thing to compare it with, and of course if he did
have such experience he wouldn't need to rely on the facsimile anyway.
--
Ian S.
Niall Harrison
I wasn't referring to the dream, I meant before that. They brought Angelus
back, but nobody looked like an idiot for making the decision. That's
nicely done on the part of the writers.
As for a dream, well, if perfect despair can make Angel boink Darla, I
don't see why the opposing chemical imbalance can't make him lose control
and boink Cordelia. By that point, it's not a question of intelligence any
more.
>> and we got a world of insight into Angel's state of mind.
>>
>> (In brief, I think the start of 'Deep Down' was how he wants his life to
>> be, and this was how he wants it to get there.)
>
> This was his wildest and most unrealistic fantasising about how he
> wants his life to be and how he wants it to get there.
Hardly. This was the most realistic way he could come up with of getting
to his fantasy.
> He wants everything to go right (or be fixed after it's gone wrong) with
> hardly any effort. He wants everyone around him to say exactly what he
> wants them to without him having to put any work into repairing those
> relationships.
I don't have the energy to debate this now. I'll wait for Sky. But I think
you're wrong. :)
(Even if you were right, how he puts things right is still interesting.
TBQ's points about Wesley, for instance.)
> if they offer 'a world of insight' that sure doesn't
> reflect well on Angel.
"It's because we believe in each other. Not just as friends, or lovers,
but as champions. All of us. Together."
Niall
--
When memes collide.
Dan Milburn
I thought they all looked like idiots for not exploring *every* other
possible option first. I thought Angel looked like an idiot for being
blatantly manipulated into agreeing by Cordelia. And what was
particularly idiotic was that they didn't even have a plan as to what they
were gonna do with Angelus once he returned.
> As for a dream, well, if perfect despair can make Angel boink Darla, I
> don't see why the opposing chemical imbalance can't make him lose
> control and boink Cordelia. By that point, it's not a question of
> intelligence any more.
And if Angel can't control such impulses, he needs to be staked.
>>> and we got a world of insight into Angel's state of mind.
>>>
>>> (In brief, I think the start of 'Deep Down' was how he wants his life
>>> to be, and this was how he wants it to get there.)
>>
>> This was his wildest and most unrealistic fantasising about how he
>> wants his life to be and how he wants it to get there.
>
> Hardly. This was the most realistic way he could come up with of getting
> to his fantasy.
It was a way that was just realistic enough to fool him that it was real.
Still wild fantasising when compared to actual reality.
>> if they offer 'a world of insight' that sure doesn't reflect well on
>> Angel.
>
> "It's because we believe in each other. Not just as friends, or lovers,
> but as champions. All of us. Together."
Shortly before deciding that he needs to handle the Beast on his own. In
any case, did anyone not know that, however much his actions might suggest
otherwise, Angel wants them all to be one big happy evil-fighting family?
Insight would be telling me something I don't already know, wouldn't it?
Dan
Iain Clark
>> I wasn't referring to the dream, I meant before that. They brought
>> Angelus back, but nobody looked like an idiot for making the decision.
>> That's nicely done on the part of the writers.
>
>I thought they all looked like idiots for not exploring *every* other
>possible option first.
>
They *were* exploring options. It was Wes who went all out for the
"Angelus" option. Once the shaman was there they were forced to
confront the issue, and in the end they left the decision up to Angel.
> I thought Angel looked like an idiot for being
>blatantly manipulated into agreeing by Cordelia. And what was
>particularly idiotic was that they didn't even have a plan as to what they
>were gonna do with Angelus once he returned.
I didn't get the feeling that Cordy was manipulating him. She seemed
genuinely confused / surprised at his sudden realisation that they
needed Angelus to understand the Beast's guile.
I think that scene was a bit contrived in getting Angel to that point,
but I'm not sure it was supposed to be intentional on Cordy's part.
>> As for a dream, well, if perfect despair can make Angel boink Darla, I
>> don't see why the opposing chemical imbalance can't make him lose
>> control and boink Cordelia. By that point, it's not a question of
>> intelligence any more.
>
>And if Angel can't control such impulses, he needs to be staked.
>
In real life, of course he can control himself. In a world where his
every wish for peace and reconciliation has just come true, he
succumbs to his overwhelming need for comfort.
It's *just about* acceptable given the scenario Angel had built for
himself, although still deeply implausible. We got no sense that his
judgement was deliberately being impaired, only that he was operating
in a fantasy environment, so I still find it hard to understand why he
disregards the "moment of perfect happiness" curse so readily.
>>>> and we got a world of insight into Angel's state of mind.
>>> if they offer 'a world of insight' that sure doesn't reflect well on
>>> Angel.
>>
>> "It's because we believe in each other. Not just as friends, or lovers,
>> but as champions. All of us. Together."
>
>Shortly before deciding that he needs to handle the Beast on his own. In
>any case, did anyone not know that, however much his actions might suggest
>otherwise, Angel wants them all to be one big happy evil-fighting family?
>Insight would be telling me something I don't already know, wouldn't it?
>
Agreed. I didn't find this episode at all insightful in that sense.
Entertaining, clever and satisfying, but not insightful.
I also never got the sense that the things Angel says, e.g. the above
quote, are things he wouldn't have said in real life. Okay, he gets
more opportunities to spout them because people are moulding
themselves to his wishes, but even so we don't see anything especially
revealing.
I did like the episode, however.
Iain
--
"You have the emotional maturity of a blueberry scone."