In the Dark [spoilers]
george van hal
traditional spoiler space first :-)
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
a
n
d
a
b
i
t
m
o
r
e
j
u
s
t
t
o
b
e
o
n
t
h
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
Ok to start of : I absolutly *loved* the episode. This was exactly what
I was hoping for when I was complaining about Lonely Hearts last week.
The story was great, not predictable at all (o.k. apart from that
torture vamp stealing the ring). But more importantly the characters
were great (angel walking in the sunlight to name just an example), the
themes of the show weren't on top of the story in a huge thick layer
(nobody actually *said* or refered to loneliness in the city. I think
that happened at least every 5 minutes in lonely hearts...) and the ring
was in intruiging idea (although I was a bit disapointed angel destroyed
it at the end. It could've served some serious good as well. But of
course the scriptwriters couldn't let him hang on to it, I mean how
exciting is a show about an immortal vampire who can't die in any way -
ok so maybe that would be interesting, but you get my point *g*)
And than of course there was spike...I almost fell of the couch during
his monologue at the start of the episode. I allways loved spike (yes I
did, I just never thought he was soooo much better than the rest of the
buffy gang, but I guess we've been over that*g*) and he made another
great apereance in this episode. Kinda makes me wanna see s4 of buffy
even more. And than there was Oz. Even though I kind of squelled with
delight upon his apereance in his van, (oz was allways one of the best
characters in Buffy. His expresionlessness allways makes me smile - if
not laugh) he was underused yet *again*. So that was a bit unfortunate.
I hope he'll be used more and in a better way in Buffy. Apart from that
the episode was hugely amusing. My only fear is that that's because it
was a Buffy cross over and that the show may degrade into "Lonely
Hearts" teritory next week, but let's not worry about that right now :-)
See Ya,
George
Andrea
george said:
Me too! Me too! Me too!
This was exactly what
>I was hoping for when I was complaining about Lonely Hearts last week.
>The story was great, not predictable at all (o.k. apart from that
>torture vamp stealing the ring). But more importantly the characters
>were great (angel walking in the sunlight to name just an example), the
>themes of the show weren't on top of the story in a huge thick layer
>(nobody actually *said* or refered to loneliness in the city. I think
>that happened at least every 5 minutes in lonely hearts...) and the ring
>was in intruiging idea (although I was a bit disapointed angel destroyed
>it at the end.
One thing that *did* bother me was that we're completely spoiled regarding
the Buffy prequel to this ep. We know there will be a ring, we know Spike
will come looking for it, we know Buffy and Spike will fight, we know Buffy
will win, and we know Buffy will hand the ring over to Oz, who's going to
LA, and we know Buffy will say something like 'Give it to Angel. He might
need it.' Sniff.
You read the transcript, George, didn't you? Am I right?
>It could've served some serious good as well. But of
>course the scriptwriters couldn't let him hang on to it, I mean how
>exciting is a show about an immortal vampire who can't die in any way -
Agree.
>ok so maybe that would be interesting, but you get my point *g*)
>
>And than of course there was spike...I almost fell of the couch during
>his monologue at the start of the episode. I allways loved spike (yes I
>did, I just never thought he was soooo much better than the rest of the
>buffy gang, but I guess we've been over that*g*)
I bet that confession caused an evil, happy grin on Peter K's face. :)))
and he made another
>great apereance in this episode. Kinda makes me wanna see s4 of buffy
>even more. And than there was Oz. Even though I kind of squelled with
>delight upon his apereance in his van, (oz was allways one of the best
>characters in Buffy. His expresionlessness allways makes me smile - if
>not laugh) he was underused yet *again*. So that was a bit unfortunate.
Yes, but it didn't bother me while watching. In fact, I sort of forgot all
about Oz until he came barging in to rescue Angel.
>I hope he'll be used more and in a better way in Buffy. Apart from that
>the episode was hugely amusing. My only fear is that that's because it
>was a Buffy cross over and that the show may degrade into "Lonely
>Hearts" teritory next week, but let's not worry about that right now :-)
Next week we're gonna see Kate again!
:))
Andrea
george van hal
Andrea wrote:
<snip>
> One thing that *did* bother me was that we're completely spoiled regarding
> the Buffy prequel to this ep. We know there will be a ring, we know Spike
> will come looking for it, we know Buffy and Spike will fight, we know Buffy
> will win, and we know Buffy will hand the ring over to Oz, who's going to
> LA, and we know Buffy will say something like 'Give it to Angel. He might
> need it.' Sniff.
>
> You read the transcript, George, didn't you? Am I right?
I did :-) And I was kind of glad I did. I loved the Buffy episode as well (at
least I loved the script). Can't wait till Buffy starts again......I almost
can't resist reading all the transcipts, but I'm restraining myself......
> >And than of course there was spike...I almost fell of the couch during
> >his monologue at the start of the episode. I allways loved spike (yes I
> >did, I just never thought he was soooo much better than the rest of the
> >buffy gang, but I guess we've been over that*g*)
>
> I bet that confession caused an evil, happy grin on Peter K's face. :)))
I *so* know.....so Peter, are we right? Did your face do the grin thing upon
reading that segment??
> and he made another
> >great apereance in this episode. Kinda makes me wanna see s4 of buffy
> >even more. And than there was Oz. Even though I kind of squelled with
> >delight upon his apereance in his van, (oz was allways one of the best
> >characters in Buffy. His expresionlessness allways makes me smile - if
> >not laugh) he was underused yet *again*. So that was a bit unfortunate.
>
> Yes, but it didn't bother me while watching. In fact, I sort of forgot all
> about Oz until he came barging in to rescue Angel.
Me too, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he was underused.....I
would've loved to see more Oz.....too bad the rest of the gang didn't cross
over as well btw.....
> Next week we're gonna see Kate again!
Very true.......not sure yet if thats a plus though...she's trying to get it on
with Angel, but Angel's supposed to be with Buffy. So I hate her untill she's
proven to be a very great character (what can I say? I'm an unreasonable
Buffy&Angel shipper - yes I know I'm a sad sad person *g*)
See Ya,
George
Fuzzy
george van hal wrote in message <38C42C14...@wxs.nl>...
>>
>> >And than there was Oz. Even though I kind of squelled with
>> >delight upon his apereance in his van, (oz was allways one of the best
>> >characters in Buffy. His expresionlessness allways makes me smile - if
>> >not laugh) he was underused yet *again*. So that was a bit unfortunate.
>>
>> Yes, but it didn't bother me while watching. In fact, I sort of forgot
all
>> about Oz until he came barging in to rescue Angel.
>
>Me too, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he was underused.....I
>would've loved to see more Oz.....too bad the rest of the gang didn't cross
>over as well btw.....
I was glad too, that Oz and Spike were in this episode. I nearly jumped for
joy when I saw "Seth Green" appearing on the screen. He has always been my
favorite character in BtVS (well, ok he and Willow).
However, I like him better in the Buffy episodes than in this one. Not only
did he deserve a bigger part in the show, he was also a completely flat
character and didn't get a chance to develop his personality. I got the
impression that he was only allowed to play the taciturn friend of Buffy
here.
Spike on the other hand positively sparkled! To bad he and Dru aren't back
together....
snipsomemore
van Vliet
george van hal <hal0...@wxs.nl> schreef in berichtnieuws
38C42149...@wxs.nl...
> I was hoping for when I was complaining about Lonely Hearts last week.
> The story was great, not predictable at all (o.k. apart from that
> torture vamp stealing the ring). But more importantly the characters
> were great (angel walking in the sunlight to name just an example), the
> themes of the show weren't on top of the story in a huge thick layer
> (nobody actually *said* or refered to loneliness in the city. I think
> that happened at least every 5 minutes in lonely hearts...) and the ring
> was in intruiging idea (although I was a bit disapointed angel destroyed
> course the scriptwriters couldn't let him hang on to it, I mean how
> exciting is a show about an immortal vampire who can't die in any way -
>
> his monologue at the start of the episode. I allways loved spike (yes I
> did, I just never thought he was soooo much better than the rest of the
> great apereance in this episode. Kinda makes me wanna see s4 of buffy
> delight upon his apereance in his van, (oz was allways one of the best
> characters in Buffy. His expresionlessness allways makes me smile - if
> not laugh) he was underused yet *again*. So that was a bit unfortunate.
> the episode was hugely amusing. My only fear is that that's because it
> was a Buffy cross over and that the show may degrade into "Lonely
> Hearts" teritory next week, but let's not worry about that right now :-)
>
> George
>
yes, It was a great ep. if you live in Holland what I guess 'cause that ep.
was yesterday evening also oon television than starts s4 of buffy on 2 April
=XXX= sylly
Peter Kleiweg
> Andrea wrote:
> > Me too! Me too! Me too!
Yes.
> > One thing that *did* bother me was that we're completely
> > spoiled regarding the Buffy prequel to this ep. We know
> > there will be a ring, we know Spike will come looking for
> > it, we know Buffy and Spike will fight, we know Buffy will
> > win, and we know Buffy will hand the ring over to Oz, who's
> > going to LA, and we know Buffy will say something like 'Give
> > it to Angel. He might need it.' Sniff.
We were spoiled about this episode by Net5's promos, with Angel
getting tortured. Although, not the extend of it. That surprised
me. I mean, in What's My Line, a little holy water and a knife
through his hand made him a cripple, needing nursing by Buffy
for a few episodes. Now he had stakes put through him all over,
and in the end he was up and walking.
> > > And than of course there was spike...I almost fell of the
> > > couch during his monologue at the start of the episode. I
> > > allways loved spike (yes I did, I just never thought he
> > > was soooo much better than the rest of the buffy gang, but
> > > I guess we've been over that*g*)
> >
> > I bet that confession caused an evil, happy grin on Peter
> > K's face. :)))
>
> I *so* know.....so Peter, are we right? Did your face do the
> grin thing upon reading that segment??
Well, Spike changed a lot since School Hard. He has become
funnier. I don't know if I'm very happy about this. I like Spike
as a tragic character, as in the end of S2, not as comic relief.
I'm wondering what is supposed to have happened to him since
Lovers Walk. Probably a failure with his quest for Drusilla, for
his grudge against Angel seemed to be stronger again in this
episode. Maybe Joyce should hit him over the head, or something.
Talk some sense into him. Not that Lone Wolf kind of crap.
> > > And than there was Oz. Even though I kind of squelled with
> > > delight upon his apereance in his van, (oz was allways one
> > > of the best characters in Buffy. His expresionlessness
> > > allways makes me smile - if not laugh) he was underused
> > > yet *again*. So that was a bit unfortunate.
> >
> > Yes, but it didn't bother me while watching. In fact, I sort
> > of forgot all about Oz until he came barging in to rescue
> > Angel.
>
> Me too, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he was
> underused.....I would've loved to see more Oz.....too bad the
> rest of the gang didn't cross over as well btw.....
I guess Oz was just the messenger. Perhaps he had a larger part
in the Buffy episode. I think the whole meeting Oz again was a
bit awkward. Not just the meeting again, but the writing and
acting of it as well. The Oz type behaviour was a kind of
cliche, not handled well by the writers.
> > Next week we're gonna see Kate again!
>
> Very true.......not sure yet if thats a plus though...she's
> trying to get it on with Angel, but Angel's supposed to be
> with Buffy. So I hate her untill she's proven to be a very
> great character (what can I say? I'm an unreasonable
> Buffy&Angel shipper - yes I know I'm a sad sad person *g*)
I can't see *this* Angel with that whining little slayer girl. I
mean, Angel is very different now, from when we saw him next to
Buffy.
--
Peter Kleiweg | P e t r o n o m i c o n |
e-mail: invalid -> nl | http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg |
Guardian of Spike's Innocence, and his Dislike of Puppies
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It's obviously not a butterfly, you idiot. It's a bird. No, no,
wait, it's an owl. A bird that hunts at night.
-- Doyle, Lonely Hearts
Fuzzy
Peter Kleiweg wrote in message ...
In WML he had been tortured already by Dru for a day, but more importantly,
he was also drained by the spell that made Dru strong again. It seems
conservation of energy also works for Vampires...
<SNIPER>
P@rick
7UWw4.141$zr3....@news.rdc1.ov.nl.home.com...
<SNIP>
> Spike on the other hand positively sparkled! To bad he and Dru aren't back
> together....
Certainly wouldn't hurt his image. He said he would claim her back in Lovers
Walk. Maybe he did, and then *he* dumped her. Yeah, that really would make
him BAD!
Bye, Patrick
--
And I'm eating this banana. Lunchtime be damned!
Willow - Doppelgangland
P@rick
> traditional spoiler space first :-)
> it at the end. It could've served some serious good as well. But of
> course the scriptwriters couldn't let him hang on to it, I mean how
> exciting is a show about an immortal vampire who can't die in any way -
> ok so maybe that would be interesting, but you get my point *g*)
It was obvious he was gonna do that. Like you said, Angel + ring = too much.
OTOH Angel didn't have too much trouble taking out the Torture Vamp.
Especially after having his arms and legs pierced and suffering 3th degree
burns from the sunlight. Guess Angel can perfectly do without the ring.
> And than of course there was spike...I almost fell of the couch during
> his monologue at the start of the episode. I allways loved spike
Always nice to see a familiar face. But I have to say, whenever I see him I
kinda feel sorry for him in advance. I just know he's gonna get his ass
kicked! And this ep proved no exception to that rule. This makes it rather
hard to see Spike as a real threat. When he tried to beat the truth out of
Angel in the parking lot, it seemed so desperate and pointless (as in doomed
to fail). And later on when he swears to stick to himself from now on <watch
out world, here comes evil incarnate> his hair catches fire! Funny and all
that, but not adding to his bad'n'evil vampire image.
> And than there was Oz.
The way Oz was "catching up" with Cordy and later on with Angel was really
spot on! Oz has the gift of conversating in a highly word-efficient manner.
Now why didn't he bring Willow along? *sigh* *sob*
One more thing. Do vamps have some sort of radar-sense? Angel told Cordy
that Spike would find her cos he knew her. And later they didn't have any
trouble locating the Childloving Vamp. Or was this thanks to Doyle, who also
located the ring in the sewers (why isn't *he* called Spike?).
Bye, Patrick
Gillet
actually, the 'Two Demons, A Girl And A Bat-Cave'-Angel-episode-guide-
website-thingy at http://buffy.acmecity.com/watcher/403/ claims that
'they show Doyle slipping the ring for a duplicate right before it was
smashed'. I watched the ending on video again but I can't see it.
Although you can see Doyle looking rather suspicious when Angel is
looking away to grab the rock to smash the ring. Maybe this is some
major spoiler for a future episode, in which case, I'm sorry, I didn't
know (and I don't wanna know what DOES happen...)
> One more thing. Do vamps have some sort of radar-sense? Angel told Cordy
> that Spike would find her cos he knew her.
Maybe it's because he knows Cordelia's name, which makes it rather
easy to look someone up (the phonebook for instance), and I assumed
Spike doesn't know Doyle's name. But...
> And later they didn't have any
> trouble locating the Childloving Vamp.
I thought this was a bit too easy as well...
groeten
Joris Gillet
--
Donate Food For Free http://www.thehungersite.com
Peter Kleiweg
> > And than of course there was spike...I almost fell of the
> > couch during his monologue at the start of the episode. I
> > allways loved spike
>
> Always nice to see a familiar face. But I have to say,
> whenever I see him I kinda feel sorry for him in advance. I
> just know he's gonna get his ass kicked! And this ep proved no
> exception to that rule. This makes it rather hard to see Spike
> as a real threat. When he tried to beat the truth out of Angel
> in the parking lot, it seemed so desperate and pointless (as
> in doomed to fail).
The first head-on fight between Spike and Angel. Was a bit
disappointing.
> One more thing. Do vamps have some sort of radar-sense? Angel
> told Cordy that Spike would find her cos he knew her. And
> later they didn't have any trouble locating the Childloving
> Vamp. Or was this thanks to Doyle, who also located the ring
> in the sewers (why isn't *he* called Spike?).
I was wondering about that, too. But I figured it out. You never
see any children in L.A. So they are put in some kind of
preserve, allowed out once every week for a walk on that
particular pier.
--
Peter Kleiweg | P e t r o n o m i c o n |
e-mail: invalid -> nl | http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg |
Guardian of Spike's Innocence, and his Dislike of Puppies
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have all these thoughts, and I'm pretty sure they all
contradict each other.
-- Cordelia, Invisible Girl
Ronald
Hi there,
Just saw my FIRST Angel episode "In the dark" (guess I'm always catching
up late). Not bad, but not that "Buffy sparkle". It all seems a bit more
mature and serious to me (as far this is possible with a vampire
detective ;-)) Buffy is more funny and has more of a deeper layer, a
connection between the characters like Willow-Oz-Xander, Cordelia-Wesly,
Buffy-Angel, Giles-Joyce, Spike-Angelus-Drusilla. At least, that's what
I think... With Buffy I always grin with that beautiful innuendo, like
the last Buffy broadcasted on Net5. "If you're not busy having sex with
my mother!" and similar dialogue.
But ehm... what's this Doyle character all about? He looked a bit funny
when finding that ring... is he a sort of demon too? Otherwise how could
he EVER find one little ring in the sewers? Looks like I missed
something.
Greetings,
RH
P@rick
Pine.LNX.4.21.00030...@kleigh.nl...
<SNIP you very much>
> I can't see *this* Angel with that whining little slayer girl. I
> mean, Angel is very different now, from when we saw him next to
> Buffy.
You mean, he's reacting to a different environment. Angel himself hasn't
changed much IMO. The guy has over 200 years of life experience. Moving to
the big city isn't going to change him *that* quick.
Miriam Rocke
: > > > Ok so that was angel season one episode 3.....let's put in the
: > > > traditional spoiler space first :-)
:
: Hi there,
:
: It all seems a bit more
: mature and serious to me (as far this is possible with a vampire
: detective ;-))
As far as I recall, Joss *meant* "Angel" to be more serious than
"Buffy". More adult. Which struck me as slightly odd since most of
the more vocal Angel fans tended to be teenage Buffy/Angel-shippers,
but the show's working for me.
[btw, if I talk about "Angel" or "Buffy", it's the show; Angel or
Buffy, it's the characters.]
: But ehm... what's this Doyle character all about? He looked a bit funny
: when finding that ring... is he a sort of demon too? Otherwise how could
: he EVER find one little ring in the sewers? Looks like I missed
: something.
Heh. Yeah, you missed something. (And I'd classify greenblue spikey
skin and red eyes as more than a bit funny.) Doyle's half-demon--
human mother, demon father. He tends to pass himself off as human,
though, whenever he can.
Mir
--
Miriam Rocke "Just so we're clear, you guys
mrr...@ucdavis.edu know you're nuts, right?"
http://handel.cipic.ucdavis.edu/~mrrocke/ --BtVS, "Gingerbread"
Fuzzy
P@rick wrote in message <8a3fse$7af$1...@news.surfnet.nl>...
>
>> Spike on the other hand positively sparkled! To bad he and Dru aren't
back
>> together....
>
>Certainly wouldn't hurt his image. He said he would claim her back in
Lovers
>Walk. Maybe he did, and then *he* dumped her. Yeah, that really would make
>him BAD!
LOL! I would like to see that episode! But I would like it even better if
they let Dru back in the series. She's so deliciously warped...I like her
even better than Spike. But than, that's one of the strengths of BtVS: the
villains have a personality and feelings too (well, except for the Master
that is). The Major, Spike, Dru and Angelus were all very well portraited. I
wonder if they can keep it up in S4 (that _does_ start in April right?...I'm
suffering from withdrawal).
george van hal
Peter Kleiweg wrote:
> george van hal skriver...
>
> > Andrea wrote:
> >
> > > george said:
> > >
> > > > Ok so that was angel season one episode 3.....let's put in
> > > > the traditional spoiler space first :-)
>
>
> > > > And than of course there was spike...I almost fell of the
> > > > couch during his monologue at the start of the episode. I
> > > > allways loved spike (yes I did, I just never thought he
> > > > was soooo much better than the rest of the buffy gang, but
> > > > I guess we've been over that*g*)
> > >
> > > I bet that confession caused an evil, happy grin on Peter
> > > K's face. :)))
> >
> > I *so* know.....so Peter, are we right? Did your face do the
> > grin thing upon reading that segment??
>
> Well, Spike changed a lot since School Hard. He has become
> funnier. I don't know if I'm very happy about this. I like Spike
> as a tragic character, as in the end of S2, not as comic relief.
Oh......it almost seems like you're doing this just for the sake of
disagreeing with me ;-)
I *do* however feel that spike has allways been mainly about comic
relief, even in eps like Lover's Walk which are mainly about the the
character Spike and give him more depth he's still used *mainly* as
comic relief. I don't ever recall him being a true tragic character,
except from the aforementioned Lover's Walk. I think you're remembering
the character of Spike like you *want* to remember him, not like he
actually was.
> I'm wondering what is supposed to have happened to him since
> Lovers Walk. Probably a failure with his quest for Drusilla, for
> his grudge against Angel seemed to be stronger again in this
> episode.
Ok beware of some spoilers for the harsh light of day (it'll have
spoiler warning above and below it, so that it's skipable)
*
*
*
*
*
*
Yes angel failed again in his quest for drusila, she went of with some
kind of demon (don't remember which one...way too lazy to look it up
*g*). Harmony of all people is actually his "special friend" in the ep
that aired before angel, although he ditched her at the end of it.
*
*
*
*
*
*
> > > > And than there was Oz. Even though I kind of squelled with
> > > > delight upon his apereance in his van, (oz was allways one
> > > > of the best characters in Buffy. His expresionlessness
> > > > allways makes me smile - if not laugh) he was underused
> > > > yet *again*. So that was a bit unfortunate.
> > >
> > > Yes, but it didn't bother me while watching. In fact, I sort
> > > of forgot all about Oz until he came barging in to rescue
> > > Angel.
> >
> > Me too, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he was
> > underused.....I would've loved to see more Oz.....too bad the
> > rest of the gang didn't cross over as well btw.....
>
> I guess Oz was just the messenger. Perhaps he had a larger part
> in the Buffy episode.
He really didn't :-( I think he even had a smaller part......
> I think the whole meeting Oz again was a
> bit awkward. Not just the meeting again, but the writing and
> acting of it as well. The Oz type behaviour was a kind of
> cliche, not handled well by the writers.
I thought it went fairly well actually. And Oz is suposed to be cliché.
That's what makes him so funny :-)
> > > Next week we're gonna see Kate again!
> >
> > Very true.......not sure yet if thats a plus though...she's
> > trying to get it on with Angel, but Angel's supposed to be
> > with Buffy. So I hate her untill she's proven to be a very
> > great character (what can I say? I'm an unreasonable
> > Buffy&Angel shipper - yes I know I'm a sad sad person *g*)
>
> I can't see *this* Angel with that whining little slayer girl. I
> mean, Angel is very different now, from when we saw him next to
> Buffy.
Oh come on. Angel *so* obviously still has feelings for her. Yes he shed
his extensive brooding and panting (thank god), but he would still be
together with Buffy if he was living in sunnydale. There's no doubt in
my mind whatsoever....
See Ya,
George
george van hal
"P@rick" wrote:
> george van hal <hal0...@wxs.nl> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 38C42149...@wxs.nl...
> <snip> This makes it rather
> hard to see Spike as a real threat. <snip> Funny and all
> that, but not adding to his bad'n'evil vampire image.
Indeed, like I told peter elsewhere in this threath spike has allways been a
comic relief character. The only trouble is he's not dangerous anymore. He's
starting to get very likeable even, like he could just as easily be playing for
the other team (not in the american way of saying someone's gay. I *litteraly*
mean playing for the other team). Maybe it's a ploy of the scriptwriters to work
Spike into the scooby gang over on Buffy (I heard some *rumors* - so don't worry
about me spoiling s4, I know just as much as you do- that he would. Not sure he
will though)
> > And than there was Oz.
>
> The way Oz was "catching up" with Cordy and later on with Angel was really
> spot on! Oz has the gift of conversating in a highly word-efficient manner.
> Now why didn't he bring Willow along? *sigh* *sob*
Ah a fellow Wilow enthousiast. Just what this newsgroup needed, after Peter
declared his dislike of the character and after Andrea did the same, but in
nicer words and with more nuances ;-)
See Ya,
George
george van hal
Ronald wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Just saw my FIRST Angel episode "In the dark" (guess I'm always catching
> up late). Not bad, but not that "Buffy sparkle". It all seems a bit more
> mature and serious to me (as far this is possible with a vampire
> detective ;-)) Buffy is more funny and has more of a deeper layer, a
> connection between the characters like Willow-Oz-Xander, Cordelia-Wesly,
> Buffy-Angel, Giles-Joyce, Spike-Angelus-Drusilla. At least, that's what
> I think... With Buffy I always grin with that beautiful innuendo, like
> the last Buffy broadcasted on Net5. "If you're not busy having sex with
> my mother!" and similar dialogue.
I agree that all of that is still a bit missing in Angel. Less injokes etc.
But what do you want? It's only the third ep, not much has happened to joke
about (and extensive buffy injokes would drive away people only watching
angel). I'm sure we'll get to see more humor soon though (not that there
weren't some great lines in the first 3 eps....)
> But ehm... what's this Doyle character all about? He looked a bit funny
> when finding that ring... is he a sort of demon too? Otherwise how could
> he EVER find one little ring in the sewers? Looks like I missed
> something.
Yes he's a demon. Sort of the same kind that whistler was over on Buffy. He
was send by "The Powers That Be" to keep an eye on angel. Oh and cordy
doesn't know doyle's a demon and he'd like it to stay that way.....
See Ya,
George
Paul McIntyre
george van hal <hal0...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:38C56877...@wxs.nl...
I think I'm the only one who doesn't like the references back to Buffy, and
would prefer Angel to be its own show with its own identity and recurring
characters. I think the Buffy injokes will annoy people who dont watch
Buffy, and stop them from watching Angel(but are there any people out there
who watch one show and not the other?). I like the fact that Spike was in it
though. . .which is a bit of a contradiction to what I was just saying. .
.OK, ill stop talking now.
Paul Mc
Peter Kleiweg
> Peter Kleiweg wrote:
s s
p p
o a
i c
l e
e
r s
p
s a
p c
o e
i
l s
e p
r a
c
s e
p
o s
i p
l a
e c
r e
> > Well, Spike changed a lot since School Hard. He has become
> > funnier. I don't know if I'm very happy about this. I like Spike
> > as a tragic character, as in the end of S2, not as comic relief.
>
> Oh......it almost seems like you're doing this just for the sake of
> disagreeing with me ;-)
> I *do* however feel that spike has allways been mainly about comic
> relief, even in eps like Lover's Walk which are mainly about the the
> character Spike and give him more depth he's still used *mainly* as
> comic relief. I don't ever recall him being a true tragic character,
> except from the aforementioned Lover's Walk.
Well, you should check the definition of tragic and comic. Spike
was comical (hardly tragic) in Lovers Walk, but never in S2. His
ruthlessness, his passion, his sharp comments, all made him a
fun character to watch, and so "endearing" when he was down, but
I don't remember a single moment from S2 of Spike doing the
funny guy. Sadly, in "Angel", Spike is the only one who is
convincingly funny, even delivering edgy comments about the show
itself. All the other fun stuff is a bit askew.
--
Peter Kleiweg | P e t r o n o m i c o n |
e-mail: invalid -> nl | http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg |
Guardian of Spike's Innocence, and his Dislike of Puppies
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Spike: Cordelia. You look smashing. Did you lose weight?
Cordelia: Yes, there is this great gym at... hey!
-- In the Dark
Peter Kleiweg
> Peter Kleiweg <kle...@let.rug.invalid> schreef in berichtnieuws
> Pine.LNX.4.21.00030...@kleigh.nl...
> > > > > s
> > > > > p
> > > > > o
> > > > > i
> <SNIP you very much>
>
> > I can't see *this* Angel with that whining little slayer girl. I
> > mean, Angel is very different now, from when we saw him next to
> > Buffy.
>
> You mean, he's reacting to a different environment. Angel himself hasn't
> changed much IMO. The guy has over 200 years of life experience. Moving to
> the big city isn't going to change him *that* quick.
No, but a different mind set of the writers of a new show will
change him.
--
Peter Kleiweg | P e t r o n o m i c o n |
e-mail: invalid -> nl | http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg |
Guardian of Spike's Innocence, and his Dislike of Puppies
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Drusilla? Sweetheart? Do you want to play a game?
-- Spike, Becoming 2
Peter Kleiweg
> "P@rick" wrote:
>
> > george van hal <hal0...@wxs.nl> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > 38C42149...@wxs.nl...
> > > Ok so that was angel season one episode 3.....let's put in the
> > > traditional spoiler space first :-)
> > > And than of course there was spike...I almost fell of the couch during
> > > his monologue at the start of the episode. I allways loved spike
> >
> > <snip> This makes it rather
> > hard to see Spike as a real threat. <snip> Funny and all
> > that, but not adding to his bad'n'evil vampire image.
>
> Indeed, like I told peter elsewhere in this threath spike has
> allways been a comic relief character.
Was not!
What have you been eating?
--
Peter Kleiweg | P e t r o n o m i c o n |
e-mail: invalid -> nl | http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg |
Guardian of Spike's Innocence, and his Dislike of Puppies
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is just too much.
-- Spike, Lovers Walk
P@rick
> villains have a personality and feelings too (well, except for the Master
> that is).
That Master person, I've seen him (or her, or it) mentioned before. Who was
he again?
> I wonder if they can keep it up in S4 (that _does_ start in April
right?...I'm
> suffering from withdrawal).
Supposed to start april 2nd, right on my birthday. !!! YAY !!! Best
present I've ever had! I don't believe in coincidence.
P@rick
<SNIP>
> Ah a fellow Wilow enthousiast.
You heard right, mister! <quote Willow in Doppelgangland (oh I luv this ep)>
> Just what this newsgroup needed, after Peter
> declared his dislike of the character and after Andrea did the same, but
in
> nicer words and with more nuances ;-)
Let's work some dark mojo on them ;o)
Mattia Valente
>
> Fuzzy <si...@hetnet.nl> schreef in berichtnieuws
> oBdx4.223$M31....@news.rdc1.ov.nl.home.com...
> > that is).
>
> That Master person, I've seen him (or her, or it) mentioned before. Who was
> he again?
S1 main villan? The one trapped who was supposed to be freed, prophesied
to Kill the Slayer (Prophecy girl, end of S1) etc. etc. Really ugly
looking fool. In "The Wish" he had managed to escape and was ruling
sunnydale. Guy who opened the factory, etc. etc....clear enough? ;-)
> > I wonder if they can keep it up in S4 (that _does_ start in April
> right?...I'm
> > suffering from withdrawal).
>
> Supposed to start april 2nd, right on my birthday. !!! YAY !!! Best
> present I've ever had! I don't believe in coincidence.
>
> Bye, Patrick
> --
> And I'm eating this banana. Lunchtime be damned!
> Willow - Doppelgangland
Mattia
Andrea
george said:
<snip snip>
>
>> Next week we're gonna see Kate again!
>
>Very true.......not sure yet if thats a plus though...she's trying to get
it on
>with Angel, but Angel's supposed to be with Buffy. So I hate her untill
she's
>proven to be a very great character (what can I say? I'm an unreasonable
>Buffy&Angel shipper - yes I know I'm a sad sad person *g*)
Well, I've always loved the whole Angel/Buffy thing, but it's *over*. Over
and done with. Even if someone found a cure and Angel could be turned back
into a human, I wouldn't want to see the two of them get back together
again, because it would somehow spoil the magic of what they *had*.
And yes, Kate's definitely interested in Angel (who wouldn't be :))), but I
think it will take Angel a long, long time to get over Buffy, so I don't
expect anything relationshippish for at least another ten eps. But
eventually, yes, I'd like to see Angel becoming more and more interested in
Kate. I can only hope the writers will take it slowly. I love the
pre-relationship tension in any tv-series. :)))
Andrea
Andrea
Peter said:
>george van hal skriver...
>
>> Andrea wrote:
>>
>> > george said:
>> >
>> > > the traditional spoiler space first :-)
>> >
>> > Me too! Me too! Me too!
>
>Yes.
>
>> > One thing that *did* bother me was that we're completely
>> > spoiled regarding the Buffy prequel to this ep. We know
>> > there will be a ring, we know Spike will come looking for
>> > it, we know Buffy and Spike will fight, we know Buffy will
>> > win, and we know Buffy will hand the ring over to Oz, who's
>> > going to LA, and we know Buffy will say something like 'Give
>> > it to Angel. He might need it.' Sniff.
>
>We were spoiled about this episode by Net5's promos, with Angel
>getting tortured. Although, not the extend of it. That surprised
>me. I mean, in What's My Line, a little holy water and a knife
>through his hand made him a cripple, needing nursing by Buffy
>for a few episodes. Now he had stakes put through him all over,
>and in the end he was up and walking.
I think he was still in pretty bad shape when he played human torch, but
yes, I was also kind of surprised when he started the "You didn't break me"
thing against, um, whatisname, Dr Greenvamp.
>
>> > > And than of course there was spike...I almost fell of the
>> > > couch during his monologue at the start of the episode. I
>> > > allways loved spike (yes I did, I just never thought he
>> > > was soooo much better than the rest of the buffy gang, but
>> > > I guess we've been over that*g*)
>> >
>> > I bet that confession caused an evil, happy grin on Peter
>> > K's face. :)))
>>
>> I *so* know.....so Peter, are we right? Did your face do the
>> grin thing upon reading that segment??
>
>Well, Spike changed a lot since School Hard. He has become
>funnier. I don't know if I'm very happy about this. I like Spike
>as a tragic character, as in the end of S2, not as comic relief.
I disagree. Spike has put a smile on my face from the very beginning,
because he's so very, um, strange enough, I think *human* is the right word.
Spike *is* a tragic figure, because even as a vampire, he suffers from human
emotions. He really loves Dru, and I believe he had strong feelings for
Angel, for being his sire, his more-or-less friend, his role model, his
leader of the pack, and Angel keeps betraying him. I think Spike hates Angel
by now, because only when Angel is *good* he's the kind of friend Spike
would like to have, someone he could trust. And still, the only times Angel
can *be* his friend, is when Angel's evil, and evil Angel is a selfish,
not-someone-you-can-rely-on kind of buddy.
I don't know *why* Spike still has that sparkle of humanity, but it's his
curse, his fate. No matter what, he'll never get what he wants. Dru will
never love him back the way he loves her. Angel will never care for him the
way he *wants* to care for Angel. No other vampire shares his need for just
a bit more friendship, a bit more feeling.
That's why he's tragic, and that's part of his charm. It makes me want to
take him
home and feed him nasty neighbours. :))
He *hides* the un-vampirish emotional stuff by using humor. Humor with a
hint of pain in it is often the best humor. That's why he's so funny. The
moment his hair catches fire it makes you wonder if you should laugh or cry.
And then you laugh, but with a sense of pity.
Okay, I'm rambling. I'll stop. :)))
Andrea
Andrea
P@rick said:
>george van hal <hal0...@wxs.nl> schreef in berichtnieuws
>38C5679F...@wxs.nl...
><SNIP>
>
>> Ah a fellow Wilow enthousiast.
>
>You heard right, mister! <quote Willow in Doppelgangland (oh I luv this
ep)>
>
>> Just what this newsgroup needed, after Peter
>> declared his dislike of the character and after Andrea did the same, but
>in
>> nicer words and with more nuances ;-)
>
>Let's work some dark mojo on them ;o)
<innocent face> I don't recall expressing any dislike of Willow. Guess it's
just George misunderstanding my nice words and nuances. :))))
Andrea
(trying to talk her way out of dark mojo things)
Paul McIntyre
Andrea <en...@club.tip.nl> wrote in message
news:8a993n$5de$1...@nereid.worldonline.nl...
>
> Peter said:
> >george van hal skriver...
> >
> >> Andrea wrote:
> >>
> >> > george said:
> >> >
> >> > > Ok so that was angel season one episode 3.....let's put in
> >> > > the traditional spoiler space first :-)
> I disagree. Spike has put a smile on my face from the very beginning,
Totally agree. . .theres a scene in surprise/innocence, where the Judge says
to Spike and Dru something like, "you have feelings, you love", it adds up
to a different kind of Vampire, one that is capable of feeling, wether they
be good or bad thoughts. He helps save the world because of all the good
thing about it, and for his love for Dru.
The scene where he bares his soul to Joyce in LW, is just an example, but it
shows how cut up he is about her, and how much he cares.
Peter Kleiweg
> Peter said:
Spoliers about Spike, up to Lovers Walk and In the Dark
s s
p p
o a
i c
l e
e
r s
p
s a
p c
o e
i
l s
e p
r a
c
s e
p
o s
i p
l a
e c
r e
> > Well, Spike changed a lot since School Hard. He has become
> > funnier. I don't know if I'm very happy about this. I like
> > Spike as a tragic character, as in the end of S2, not as
> > comic relief.
>
> I disagree. Spike has put a smile on my face from the very
> beginning, because he's so very, um, strange enough, I think
> *human* is the right word. Spike *is* a tragic figure, because
> even as a vampire, he suffers from human emotions.
Yes, tragic and funny.
> He really loves Dru, and I believe he had strong feelings for
> Angel, for being his sire, his more-or-less friend, his role
> model, his leader of the pack, and Angel keeps betraying him.
> I think Spike hates Angel by now, because only when Angel is
> *good* he's the kind of friend Spike would like to have,
> someone he could trust. And still, the only times Angel can
> *be* his friend, is when Angel's evil, and evil Angel is a
> selfish, not-someone-you-can-rely-on kind of buddy.
Don't know about the pre-Sunnydale period. It seems Angel's
betrayal came as a bit of a surprise to Spike. First in School
Hard, and then all the bits after Surprise/Innocence.
> I don't know *why* Spike still has that sparkle of humanity,
> but it's his curse, his fate. No matter what, he'll never get
> what he wants. Dru will never love him back the way he loves
> her. Angel will never care for him the way he *wants* to care
> for Angel. No other vampire shares his need for just a bit
> more friendship, a bit more feeling.
>
> That's why he's tragic, and that's part of his charm. It makes
> me want to take him home and feed him nasty neighbours. :))
Yes. I agree completely. And this is how it all was in S2.
> He *hides* the un-vampirish emotional stuff by using humor.
> Humor with a hint of pain in it is often the best humor.
> That's why he's so funny. The moment his hair catches fire it
> makes you wonder if you should laugh or cry. And then you
> laugh, but with a sense of pity.
But in Lovers Walk and in In the Dark, Spike is betrayed again.
It's not enough that Spike has to put up with the bitter ironies
of his existence, the script writers are making fun of him. He
doesn't deserve this. That mock-dialogue at the beginning of In
the Dark is self-irony about the show. And it's meant to make us
laugh. But this talking to himself is something Spike hardly
ever did in S2. Spike was fun, but never playing the clown. When
he was angry he was really angry. Now, even his anger is made
fun of ("Souls, fingers, toes... Let's get chopping, will
you?").
It started with Lovers Walk, Spike rambling on to himself about
Angel, ending with "You're goin' down!", and then he trips over
knocking himself out. This is Laurel and Hardy stuff. His hair
catching fire in In the Dark is like that too. It's...
undignifying.
Let's say, I prefer to watch the bitter ironies -- there's more
depth to it, with anger and gentleness -- not the obviously
hilarious.
--
Peter Kleiweg | P e t r o n o m i c o n |
e-mail: invalid -> nl | http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg |
Guardian of Spike's Innocence, and his Dislike of Puppies
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Spike: What's that mate?
Judge: You two stink of humanity. You share affection and
jealousy.
Spike: Yeah, what of it?
-- Surprise
Paul McIntyre
Peter Kleiweg <kle...@let.rug.invalid> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.00031...@kleigh.nl...
Have to disagree with you, Peter, Spike has been partly a comic character
since day one. . .The whole of School hard set him up to be a semi-comical
figure - "If every vampire who said he was at the crucifixion was actually
there, it would have been like woodstock".
The constant jibes at the other cronies who work for the annointed one. .
and the final line in that episode "from now on, theres going to be a lot
less ritual, and a lot more fun". . what furthur proof do you need?
Paul Mc
www.watcherscouncil.co.uk
Claudia van der Lely
Peter Kleiweg heeft geschreven in bericht ...
i want to say something about spike ..
when he first came in sunnydale giles describe him as :
everything that he pass he desrois... i thought he was a real real
real..(x20) bad guy
but he wasn't he killed two slayers and all...
but i think he didn't succeed in anything he did it was all small things he
did..
he had a gang of vampire's below him now he is nothing!
Peter Kleiweg
> Peter Kleiweg:
> > Spoliers about Spike, up to Lovers Walk and In the Dark
> >
> > s s
> > p p
> > o a
> > i c
> > l e
> > e
> > r s
> > p
> > s a
> > p c
> > o e
> > i
> > l s
> > e p
> > r a
> > c
> > s e
> > p
> > o s
> > i p
> > l a
> > e c
> > r e
> > But in Lovers Walk and in In the Dark, Spike is betrayed again.
> > It's not enough that Spike has to put up with the bitter ironies
> > of his existence, the script writers are making fun of him. He
> > doesn't deserve this. That mock-dialogue at the beginning of In
> > the Dark is self-irony about the show. And it's meant to make us
> > laugh. But this talking to himself is something Spike hardly
> > ever did in S2. Spike was fun, but never playing the clown. When
> > he was angry he was really angry. Now, even his anger is made
> > fun of ("Souls, fingers, toes... Let's get chopping, will
> > you?").
> >
> > It started with Lovers Walk, Spike rambling on to himself about
> > Angel, ending with "You're goin' down!", and then he trips over
> > knocking himself out. This is Laurel and Hardy stuff. His hair
> > catching fire in In the Dark is like that too. It's...
> > undignifying.
> >
> > Let's say, I prefer to watch the bitter ironies -- there's more
> > depth to it, with anger and gentleness -- not the obviously
> > hilarious.
> Have to disagree with you, Peter, Spike has been partly a
> comic character since day one. . .The whole of School hard set
> him up to be a semi-comical figure - "If every vampire who
> said he was at the crucifixion was actually there, it would
> have been like woodstock".
> The constant jibes at the other cronies who work for the
> annointed one. . and the final line in that episode "from now
> on, theres going to be a lot less ritual, and a lot more fun".
> . what furthur proof do you need?
You are missing the point I'm trying to make. It is not that
Spike never made witty remarks. He did. I'm saying that the
writers are playing tricks on Spike now. A different kind of
funny.
--
Peter Kleiweg | P e t r o n o m i c o n |
e-mail: invalid -> nl | http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg |
Guardian of Spike's Innocence, and his Dislike of Puppies
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Aww... You two boys... fightin' over me and all. Makes a girl feel...
-- Drusilla, Passion
Mattia Valente
george van hal wrote:
>
> Peter Kleiweg wrote:
>
> > george van hal skriver...
> >
> > > Andrea wrote:
> > >
> > > > george said:
> > > >
> > > > > Ok so that was angel season one episode 3.....let's put in
> > > > > the traditional spoiler space first :-)
> > > > > s
> > > > > p
> > > > > o
> > > > > i
> > > > > And than of course there was spike...I almost fell of the
> > > > > couch during his monologue at the start of the episode. I
> > > > > allways loved spike (yes I did, I just never thought he
> > > > > was soooo much better than the rest of the buffy gang, but
> > > > > I guess we've been over that*g*)
> > > >
> > > > I bet that confession caused an evil, happy grin on Peter
> > > > K's face. :)))
> > >
> > > I *so* know.....so Peter, are we right? Did your face do the
> > > grin thing upon reading that segment??
> >
> > Well, Spike changed a lot since School Hard. He has become
> > funnier. I don't know if I'm very happy about this. I like Spike
> > as a tragic character, as in the end of S2, not as comic relief.
>
> Oh......it almost seems like you're doing this just for the sake of
> disagreeing with me ;-)
> I *do* however feel that spike has allways been mainly about comic
> relief, even in eps like Lover's Walk which are mainly about the the
> character Spike and give him more depth he's still used *mainly* as
> comic relief. I don't ever recall him being a true tragic character,
> except from the aforementioned Lover's Walk. I think you're remembering
> the character of Spike like you *want* to remember him, not like he
> actually was.
I agree with the comic approach. The most tragic he ever was was in
Lover's Walk, although he was also the funniest in that episode (apart
from in his little monologue in this one "No, not the Hair! Never the
Hair!; Quickly, to the Angel Mobile, Away!!!" ;-) I like the batman
references in general......For me thats what makes Spike appealing, the
whole comic bit, the mix of evil plans and humor (heard some stuff about
season 4, starting with the Initiative, that seems a little less gerat
though...) I can never really see Spike as a real Bad Guy, no matter
what he does (Angelus, otoh, is a different story..) Angel is by far a
more Tragic character (even before he moved off) with all his guilt,
emotional luggage, etc. etc...
> > > > > And than there was Oz. Even though I kind of squelled with
> > > > > delight upon his apereance in his van, (oz was allways one
> > > > > of the best characters in Buffy. His expresionlessness
> > > > > allways makes me smile - if not laugh) he was underused
> > > > > yet *again*. So that was a bit unfortunate.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but it didn't bother me while watching. In fact, I sort
> > > > of forgot all about Oz until he came barging in to rescue
> > > > Angel.
> > >
> > > Me too, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he was
> > > underused.....I would've loved to see more Oz.....too bad the
> > > rest of the gang didn't cross over as well btw.....
Actually, right before he burst in, I caught myself thinking "What
happened to Oz?" at which point the van burst through the
wall/door/whatever it was..As for a full gang crossover, it would have
been a little much. Loved the Cordelia/Oz interaction at the beginning:
Oz walk into the office: "Hello, LA."
Cordy gets up: "Oz? Oh, my god. (walks around the desk) Oz. It's so
good to see you. (hugs him while Doyle watches askance) Good old Oz!
Oz. (turns to Doyle and points at Oz) Oz!"
Doyle: "Let me just take a stab at it, you'd be Oz?"
Oz: "Good guess."
Cordy: "This is so cool! I mean, here you are in LA, and you're the
total embodiment of all things Sunnydale."
Oz: "It's a burden, but I manage."
Cordy: "We have some serious catching up to do. How is everything?
How's - how's the bronze?"
Oz: "The same."
Cordy: "And the gang?"
Oz: "They're good."
Cordy: "Good? - Good! - Good."
They look at each other for a moment.
Oz: "Are we done?"
Cordy: "Completely."
Even better, Angel and Oz. His last line rocks..
Angel without looking up from his book: "Hey guys."
Angel looks up: "Oz."
Oz: "Hey."
Angel: "Nice surprise."
Oz: "Thanks."
Angel: "Staying long?"
Oz: "Few days."
Doyle: "Are they always like this?"
Oz to Doyle: "No, we're usually laconic."
> > I guess Oz was just the messenger. Perhaps he had a larger part
> > in the Buffy episode.
>
> He really didn't :-( I think he even had a smaller part......
>
> > I think the whole meeting Oz again was a
> > bit awkward. Not just the meeting again, but the writing and
> > acting of it as well. The Oz type behaviour was a kind of
> > cliche, not handled well by the writers.
>
> I thought it went fairly well actually. And Oz is suposed to be cliché.
> That's what makes him so funny :-)
I agree here, it really fit well. Had me cracking up big time..the only
line that came off a little too lame was the "He's so pale. Paler than
most people...He's really Pale..etc. etc.." Not really like Oz to repeat
himself that much..His best lines were the thoughts overheard in earshot
though, IMHO.
> > > > Next week we're gonna see Kate again!
> > >
> > > Very true.......not sure yet if thats a plus though...she's
> > > trying to get it on with Angel, but Angel's supposed to be
> > > with Buffy. So I hate her untill she's proven to be a very
> > > great character (what can I say? I'm an unreasonable
> > > Buffy&Angel shipper - yes I know I'm a sad sad person *g*)
> >
> > I can't see *this* Angel with that whining little slayer girl. I
> > mean, Angel is very different now, from when we saw him next to
> > Buffy.
>
> Oh come on. Angel *so* obviously still has feelings for her. Yes he shed
> his extensive brooding and panting (thank god), but he would still be
> together with Buffy if he was living in sunnydale. There's no doubt in
> my mind whatsoever....
>
> See Ya,
> George
Hmm...again I side with George here. See Ep1 "City of.." (Angel phones
Buffy and hangs up.....)
Mattia