[SPOILERS - Not Shown on C4] ANGEL S3-01 That Vision Thing
Skyfire
Vision Thing) as shown on Sky television 24-JAN-02. There may also be
mention of previous episodes some of which will also be spoilers for
C4 viewers.
*
S
K
Y
F
I
R
E
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
S
-
N
O
W
-
B
A
C
K
-
F
O
R
-
2
0
0
2
*
Readers of my reviews will know that I hate Darla. If things don't
change quickly I will add Angel to my list of characters who must die
in an extremely painfully way. If Angel chooses to work for W&H he
does so with my utter comtempt. It matters not whether Angel worked
for Lilah with an heavy heart. The simple fact is that he served W&H
and deserves to be regarded as every other evil monster that worked
for them.
Blackmail is never pleasant but the only way to stop it is to refuse
the orders given to use. Whatever the price of refusing, it will
always be less than the price of giving in.
As I said last week I would not wish the pain of the visions on
Cordelia and I would not wish the pain of the false visions on her
either. However if I was in charge of her fate I would have told W&H
that they have twenty four hours to hand over those responsible for
her injuries and that if they didn't comply it would be open season on
anyone who ever spoke a kind word about the firm. W&H can protect
their lawyers but can they protect the corrupt police officers who
help them? Can they protect the council officials they work with?
If W&H want a war then they can attack Angel directly. If they had
attacked Cordleia to prevent her using her visions then that is
acceptable just as it is acceptable to kill the telepath to protect
Cordelia. However Blackmail is beyond the pale and it must be met
with a brutal response or its use will grow unchecked. The
destruction of the W&H offices in L.A. would be a suitable response.
I am not sure how that can be carried out but there must be a demon
that would welcome the chance to eat the structure and everyone living
there at the time. Like the use of weapons of mass destructiion the
only response can be the complete and utter destruction of those
responsible.
I have no doubt that the pain inflicted on Cordelia is deliberate. It
is quite clear that Lilah knew that Cordelia was suffering and I don't
believe that W&H would have used this method if the purpose was to
trick Angel into carrying out the mission. We have seen Darla using
magic powder to control Angel's thoughts, I am sure they could have
used a different colour magic powder to make Cordy have appropiate
visions.
Why didn't Lilah do that? She might have thought that eventually
Angel would have realised that the visions were wrong, or being an
evil monster she almost certainly enjoys torturing people.
To those who comment on Lilah's insistance that the man was being
unjustly punished, if this was true she would have had no problems
approaching Angel directly. She could have given Angel all the
details knowing that if the man was truely undeserving of his fate
then Angel would rescue him just like any other innocent. The fact
that she used blackmail is proof of her lies. There is also the fact
that since Lilah is an evil monster she would believe all evil
monsters are unjustly punished when they are brought to justice. If
the man was nice and kind, he would not work with W&H and I don't
believe Lilah knows his because he is family or a former lover.
W&H could have been stopped with the sacrifice of one person. If the
person (asuming he is human and I have my doubts) proves to be a force
of good and not even a single person is harmed then Angel will have
been right to release him, however the suffering of one person because
of Angel's actions is proof that Angel should share the fate of the
monster he helped.
Away from Angel, I also don't like the idea of hacking into visions.
Firstly it is too close to the magic dust stories of last season and
secondly it harms the idea of visions. There is no evidence that no
other telepath can hack into Cordelia visions and even if it is the
case, there is no way you could know for certain. Because of this
Angel must ignore all future visions until such time that TPTB arrange
a way of knowing which messages are genuine.
There were probably a few other important things about the episode but
to be brutally honest I was too angry about Angel to care.
Score
Story 5
Entertainment 3
For an Angel episode the story wasn't too bad. I don't like the
hacking into visions story but it is no worse than the problems with
Heartthrob.
My biggest problem is that I cannot like any character that is so
foolish and weak willed as to go along with Lilah, or any episode
where such behaviour is portrayed.
--
Skyfire AKA Mark Chamberlain
Website under reconstruction
pikelet
the pleasure of uk.media.tv.angel, Skyfire <ma...@skyfire-reviews.com>
declared:
<ickle snip>
>If Angel chooses to work for W&H he
>does so with my utter comtempt. It matters not whether Angel worked
>for Lilah with an heavy heart. The simple fact is that he served W&H
>and deserves to be regarded as every other evil monster that worked
>for them.
Erm, but doesn't the fact that they're, well, evil and that he's not
kind of mitigate that?
>Blackmail is never pleasant but the only way to stop it is to refuse
>the orders given to use. Whatever the price of refusing, it will
>always be less than the price of giving in.
Even if that price is Cordelia's torture and death?
>As I said last week I would not wish the pain of the visions on
>Cordelia and I would not wish the pain of the false visions on her
>either. However if I was in charge of her fate I would have told W&H
>that they have twenty four hours to hand over those responsible for
>her injuries and that if they didn't comply it would be open season on
>anyone who ever spoke a kind word about the firm. W&H can protect
>their lawyers but can they protect the corrupt police officers who
>help them? Can they protect the council officials they work with?
Probably not. So... are you advocating Angel going out to kill people?
Human beings? This is, with the possible exception of 'Blind Date',
portrayed as being unequivocally a Bad Thing. Angel should go on a
killing spree, avoiding the direct cause of the problem (Lilah and
Fezboy) in order to stop them sending Cordelia visions? I think Lilah
would just laugh at him, frankly.
>If W&H want a war then they can attack Angel directly. If they had
>attacked Cordleia to prevent her using her visions then that is
>acceptable just as it is acceptable to kill the telepath to protect
>Cordelia.
W&H don't want a war. Lilah wanted to use Angel as a tool to free the
prisoner. That's all, excepting whatever future 'missions' she may
have had in the pipeline for him. I don't think this started as a way
of getting at Angel directly, though when it became apparent that it
*was* getting to Angel, Lilah regarded that as a happy bonus.
>However Blackmail is beyond the pale and it must be met
>with a brutal response or its use will grow unchecked. The
>destruction of the W&H offices in L.A. would be a suitable response.
>I am not sure how that can be carried out but there must be a demon
>that would welcome the chance to eat the structure and everyone living
>there at the time. Like the use of weapons of mass destructiion the
>only response can be the complete and utter destruction of those
>responsible.
I think you may be overreacting slightly. Did you want the blackmailer
in 'Warzone' to be killed for having some dodgy photographs of Nabbit?
Destroying the W&H offices has never been suggested on screen, yet
alone portrayed as being a slightly feasible option, so I'm really
rather sceptical as to this ever happening. I think you're reaching a
bit here, to be honest.
>I have no doubt that the pain inflicted on Cordelia is deliberate. It
>is quite clear that Lilah knew that Cordelia was suffering and I don't
>believe that W&H would have used this method if the purpose was to
>trick Angel into carrying out the mission.
Actually, that's exactly what happened. Lilah says at one point "Just
for the record, those little skin problems on what's-her-name weren't
intended. Just an unfortunate little side effect". I think that's
pretty explicitly saying that the visions were meant to trick Angel,
and Cordelia's pain was a side-effect that.
>We have seen Darla using
>magic powder to control Angel's thoughts, I am sure they could have
>used a different colour magic powder to make Cordy have appropiate
>visions.
But they're not Darla. And only Darla knew exactly the method she was
using to induce Angel's dream state. And, furthermore, there was no
evidence that she was ever able to tailor these dreams to order. And
the induced dreams weren't vision-like. The important thing here was
that the visions needed to be convincing enough to fool Cordelia.
>To those who comment on Lilah's insistance that the man was being
>unjustly punished, if this was true she would have had no problems
>approaching Angel directly. She could have given Angel all the
>details knowing that if the man was truely undeserving of his fate
>then Angel would rescue him just like any other innocent. The fact
>that she used blackmail is proof of her lies. There is also the fact
>that since Lilah is an evil monster she would believe all evil
>monsters are unjustly punished when they are brought to justice.
I don't think Lilah's worldview is so restricted. I think she knows
what deserves punishment and what is perceived as 'right' and 'wrong'.
Just that she feels above such punishments, or that she doesn't set
out to have any concept of desert punishment for evil.
>If
>the man was nice and kind, he would not work with W&H and I don't
>believe Lilah knows his because he is family or a former lover.
I think it's pretty much a given that the prisoner is a bad guy :)
>W&H could have been stopped with the sacrifice of one person. If the
>person (asuming he is human and I have my doubts) proves to be a force
>of good and not even a single person is harmed then Angel will have
>been right to release him, however the suffering of one person because
>of Angel's actions is proof that Angel should share the fate of the
>monster he helped.
Erm... not with you here. Either Angel was right to give into the
'blackmail', or he wasn't. Your objection earlier on was that he
shouldn't have given in to it at all. Full stop. And now you're
suggesting that maybe it's okay if the prisoner is a nice guy after
all?
Would you have sacrificed your best friend on a matter of something so
piffling as principle?
>Away from Angel, I also don't like the idea of hacking into visions.
>Firstly it is too close to the magic dust stories of last season and
>secondly it harms the idea of visions. There is no evidence that no
>other telepath can hack into Cordelia visions and even if it is the
>case, there is no way you could know for certain. Because of this
>Angel must ignore all future visions until such time that TPTB arrange
>a way of knowing which messages are genuine.
I think it's safe to assume that most of Cordy's visions are okay.
Given that in three years of visions, only one episode has produced
somebody with the skill to fake them (and not convincingly enough to
fool the Host, at that), telepaths with the requisite skill can't be
that common.
<snippity-snip>
>For an Angel episode the story wasn't too bad. I don't like the
>hacking into visions story but it is no worse than the problems with
>Heartthrob.
It's not so much 'hacking into visions' as 'implanting ersatz
visions'. I think there's a slight difference between the two.
>My biggest problem is that I cannot like any character that is so
>foolish and weak willed as to go along with Lilah, or any episode
>where such behaviour is portrayed.
So if I understand you correctly, you'd have slaughtered human beings
and nuked W&H's offices rather than play along with the bad guy for a
bit to eliminate the threat posed to your friend?
Seems a bit... extreme, to me.
Tim.
--
I put up with all the scenes
But this is one scene that's going to be played my way
Debra
>Date: 28/01/02 01:54 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <3c54aebe...@news.ntlworld.com>
That seems harsh to me. People are often faced by circumstances
and duress, to make a choice between two bad things. It is a
popular topic of fiction and drama. Have you read or seen
Sophie's Choice? In that story, Sophie stands with her two
young children, waiting to be sorted for sending to a concentration
camp by the Nazis. For reasons that aren't relevant, the Nazi
office tells Sophie that she must decide which of her two
children is to die and, if she doesn't make the choice, then
he will shot them both. From what you are saying above, you
would seem to be saying that Sophie, in making a choice, is
as evil as the Nazi who forced her to it. It's not directly
analogous but I think this is more akin to what Angel faced.
>Blackmail is never pleasant but the only way to stop it is to refuse
>the orders given to use. Whatever the price of refusing, it will
>always be less than the price of giving in.
It's a valid argument on general principles that one should not
succumb to blackmail but that is a principle that is usually
formed in the comfort of not being put in the position. It is, I
believe, unrealistic to expect that when it comes to someone
one loves, the principle will stand in every case. It is another
favoured topic of fiction to force people into situations where
they have to abandon their principles to save a loved one.
In any event, I don't know if we can say with any certainty
that this is a principle that Angel adheres to. Angel may
feel that that the way to 'stop it' is to make it impossible
to happen again. Which his killing of Brainiac would seem
to suggest.
>As I said last week I would not wish the pain of the visions on
>Cordelia and I would not wish the pain of the false visions on her
>either. However if I was in charge of her fate I would have told W&H
>that they have twenty four hours to hand over those responsible for
>her injuries and that if they didn't comply it would be open season on
>anyone who ever spoke a kind word about the firm. W&H can protect
>their lawyers but can they protect the corrupt police officers who
>help them? Can they protect the council officials they work with?
Wouldn't that be difficult for him, following his epiphany?
>If W&H want a war then they can attack Angel directly. If they had
>attacked Cordleia to prevent her using her visions then that is
>acceptable just as it is acceptable to kill the telepath to protect
>Cordelia. However Blackmail is beyond the pale and it must be met
>with a brutal response or its use will grow unchecked. The
>destruction of the W&H offices in L.A. would be a suitable response.
>I am not sure how that can be carried out but there must be a demon
>that would welcome the chance to eat the structure and everyone living
>there at the time. Like the use of weapons of mass destructiion the
>only response can be the complete and utter destruction of those
>responsible.
Ditto my previous comment.
>I have no doubt that the pain inflicted on Cordelia is deliberate. It
>is quite clear that Lilah knew that Cordelia was suffering and I don't
>believe that W&H would have used this method if the purpose was to
>trick Angel into carrying out the mission. We have seen Darla using
>magic powder to control Angel's thoughts, I am sure they could have
>used a different colour magic powder to make Cordy have appropiate
>visions.
As to whether the pain inflicted is deliberate or not is up in the
air I think. It could have been in order to lead Angel to Lilah
as a constituent of her plot or it could be that it is a side effect
of interrupting the PTB's transmission to replace them with
the ones we say. Or both.
>To those who comment on Lilah's insistance that the man was being
>unjustly punished, if this was true she would have had no problems
>approaching Angel directly. She could have given Angel all the
>details knowing that if the man was truely undeserving of his fate
>then Angel would rescue him just like any other innocent. The fact
>that she used blackmail is proof of her lies. There is also the fact
>that since Lilah is an evil monster she would believe all evil
>monsters are unjustly punished when they are brought to justice. If
>the man was nice and kind, he would not work with W&H and I don't
>believe Lilah knows his because he is family or a former lover.
It is a fair point to say that if Lilah genuinely believed the burning
man was an innocent, she could have simply gone to Angel,
just like Lindsey did in 'Blind Date'. And in not doing so it casts
doubts on her statement that he is being 'unfairly prisoned'. But
that doesn't seem to be her style to me. Not that I am clear
what her style is - she confuses me a bit. But the fact she
uses blackmail can't, I think, give *proof* that shes lying although
it can certainly suggest it. As for the burning man, we haven't
a clue who he is or what his relationship is to W&H or Lilah.
We'll have to wait and see as I have no doubt he will be back.
>W&H could have been stopped with the sacrifice of one person. If the
>person (asuming he is human and I have my doubts) proves to be a force
>of good and not even a single person is harmed then Angel will have
>been right to release him, however the suffering of one person because
>of Angel's actions is proof that Angel should share the fate of the
>monster he helped.
W&H would only have been stopped with the sacrifice of Cordy
in this one thing - releasing the burning man. W&H would continue
causing havac in its usual way. And whilst it would postpone
the burning man's release, there is nothing to say Lilah couldn't
find other means. As to the possibility that someone is hurt
by the now not-burning man, I would say it raises all sorts of
interesting questions Angel's responsibility - such as whether
he has any. I assume this may be dealt with when he turns
up again although I uncomfortable with his appearance of
sitting back prepared to be reactive and not proactive.
Debra
~
Leaving the rose-coloured specs behind
Paul Hyett
considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -
>the orders given to use. Whatever the price of refusing, it will
>always be less than the price of giving in.
I don't suppose hostage negotiator is your chosen career? :)
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett - The Wild Frame Grabber of the Net!
Website at http://www.activist.demon.co.uk/USsitcoms/
Dan Milburn
wrote:
Huh. So, going back to the Buffy episode 'Choices', with which this
has obvious parallels, you think Buffy and the other Scoobies deserve
to be regarded as being as evil as the Mayor for making the trade and
not letting Willow die?
>Blackmail is never pleasant but the only way to stop it is to refuse
>the orders given to use. Whatever the price of refusing, it will
>always be less than the price of giving in.
>
>As I said last week I would not wish the pain of the visions on
>Cordelia and I would not wish the pain of the false visions on her
>either. However if I was in charge of her fate I would have told W&H
>that they have twenty four hours to hand over those responsible for
>her injuries and that if they didn't comply it would be open season on
>anyone who ever spoke a kind word about the firm. W&H can protect
>their lawyers but can they protect the corrupt police officers who
>help them? Can they protect the council officials they work with?
By which time she may well have been dead.
>If W&H want a war then they can attack Angel directly.
But they don't. They have no intention of doing anything so prosaic
as winning, remember? Because for them it's not a battle.
>If they had
>attacked Cordleia to prevent her using her visions then that is
>acceptable just as it is acceptable to kill the telepath to protect
>Cordelia.
So lemme get this straight. You'd have had less of a problem if
they'd just outright *killed* Cordy?
I'm not sure you'd find many people who think blackmail is morally
worse than murder, and I'm certainly not one of them.
>However Blackmail is beyond the pale and it must be met
>with a brutal response or its use will grow unchecked. The
>destruction of the W&H offices in L.A. would be a suitable response.
>I am not sure how that can be carried out but there must be a demon
>that would welcome the chance to eat the structure and everyone living
>there at the time. Like the use of weapons of mass destructiion the
>only response can be the complete and utter destruction of those
>responsible.
All this sounds worringly like you think Angel was right when he went
through his beige phase in Season 2. I can only suggest you go watch
'Reprise' or something...
>I have no doubt that the pain inflicted on Cordelia is deliberate. It
>is quite clear that Lilah knew that Cordelia was suffering and I don't
>believe that W&H would have used this method if the purpose was to
>trick Angel into carrying out the mission. We have seen Darla using
>magic powder to control Angel's thoughts, I am sure they could have
>used a different colour magic powder to make Cordy have appropiate
>visions.
Darla wasn't controlling Angels thoughts as such. The powder was to
keep him asleep and dreaming. The visions are an entirely different
thing, and who are we to know how they can be delivered?
>Why didn't Lilah do that? She might have thought that eventually
>Angel would have realised that the visions were wrong, or being an
>evil monster she almost certainly enjoys torturing people.
This has been dealt with elsewhere, but the most obvious point is, how
would Angel know what to do with the guy once he rescued him? Lilah
would *have* to reveal herself at some point.
>To those who comment on Lilah's insistance that the man was being
>unjustly punished, if this was true she would have had no problems
>approaching Angel directly.
It's blatantly not true, and if she had approached Angel, he wouldn't
have believed her. I don't think it's really the issue in any case.
<snip>
>W&H could have been stopped with the sacrifice of one person.
Can we be certain of this? It certainly seems possible that they
could have found another way to achieve their ends. The fact that
they get to mess with Angel some more is a bonus for them.
And in the scheme of things, it probably wasn't that important to W&H
anyway.
>If the
>person (asuming he is human and I have my doubts) proves to be a force
>of good and not even a single person is harmed then Angel will have
>been right to release him, however the suffering of one person because
>of Angel's actions is proof that Angel should share the fate of the
>monster he helped.
No, either he was right to release him or he wasn't. The decision was
made without knowing exactly who or what the prisoner was, and should
be judged in that light.
If the prisoner turns out not to be evil, then well, that's fortunate,
but it has no bearing on the morality or otherwise of Angels actions.
>Away from Angel, I also don't like the idea of hacking into visions.
>Firstly it is too close to the magic dust stories of last season and
>secondly it harms the idea of visions.
I actually can't see a single parallel between this and the dust,
which I don't remember ever being referred to as 'magic'. The effects
were different, the intent was different, everything about it was
different.
As to your second point, there is something in that. They should from
now on be treated as untrustworthy, but I guess we'll see what happens
there..
>There is no evidence that no
>other telepath can hack into Cordelia visions and even if it is the
>case, there is no way you could know for certain. Because of this
>Angel must ignore all future visions until such time that TPTB arrange
>a way of knowing which messages are genuine.
Or possibly follow up on the visions with a bit more care and/or
research.
It does actually become clear in the chinese shop that the people
Angel is attacking are 'good', and he decides to carry on because he
doesn't want to lose Cordelia. Which is understandable..
>There were probably a few other important things about the episode but
>to be brutally honest I was too angry about Angel to care.
>
>Score
>
>Story 5
>Entertainment 3
>
>For an Angel episode the story wasn't too bad. I don't like the
>hacking into visions story but it is no worse than the problems with
>Heartthrob.
>
>My biggest problem is that I cannot like any character that is so
>foolish and weak willed as to go along with Lilah, or any episode
>where such behaviour is portrayed.
Weak willed?? Foolish?? He was facing the torture and probable death
of his best friend. I find it very difficult to see what other course
of action he could have taken, at least until he'd ensured her safety.
The resolution of the scenario is more problematic, I think, certainly
from a moral point of view. In terms of Angels character, however, I
find it entirely believable. Actually, one of the things I've found
surprising about the criticism of this episode is the implication that
these issues are something new, when if they're *that* bothering I
really don't understand how people got past Season 1...
Dan
Debra
>Date: 29/01/02 00:29 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <3c55e2bc...@news.freeserve.net>
>find it entirely believable. Actually, one of the things I've found
>surprising about the criticism of this episode is the implication that
>these issues are something new, when if they're *that* bothering I
>really don't understand how people got past Season 1...
I can't speak for anyone else in terms of what they meant
to say but I can't recall anyone who criticised this episode
implying that these issues are something new... if by issues
you mean things dealing with tough moral choices and how
one does it. If by issues, you mean the points over which
they were critical then I would have to say that, in my case
at least, this is the first time in 46 episodes plus three seasons
of Buffy, that I believed Angel and Wesley acted out of
character.
Helen H
I agree with that but would add one further thing; in my case the
whole issue with the behaviour could have been dealt with very very
simply. Had the writer changed the final scene slightly to have Angel
and Cordy (and preferably Wesley) having waffles and discussing how
they *must* do something about the fire guy then my discomfort would
disappear. Can't find the exact lines at the moment but if the scene
had finished with Angel saying:
"I did what had to be done to protect you and we didn't have much
time. Now we'll have to deal with the consequences but hey ... we're
Angel Investigations, Gunn will get out on the street and Wes and I
will see what we can dig up from other sources. Don't worry about it,
this is just the beginning".
Or some such dialogue (I accept that this isn't Angel standard
writing). It's the blaseness of the final scene that makes the whole
thing jar.
Helen
Skyfire
wrote:
>Warning This post contains spoilers for Season Three epsiode 2 (That
If I am breaching netiquete then I appologise, but I think it is
easier to answer various comments in one post.
The first thing to make clear is that my criticism of Angel does not
follow into real life. It is just a comment on the Angelverse and all
the thousands of universes just like it.
In fiction, too many heros are also saints. In these stories it is
better to hand over the chemical weapon that will destory all life on
earth rather than risk harm to come to a single hostage. Since the
bad guys won't win anyway then it doesn't matter anywhere. But what
if that was in doubt. What if you had a book where the hero hands
over the secret formula, the bad guy releases and kills everyone
except for a few bad guys with the secret formula. I doubt such a
book would ever exist but I want a show where the bad guys could win.
Angel's attitude was it doesn't matter that I may have released the
most evil creature ever seen on earth, I will defeat him in the season
finale and no one gets hurt. That is bad writing. I wanted a scene
where Angel was genuine worried about losing to W&H, where he at least
considered that the evil guy could kill his entire staff the second it
was free. Since Angel didn't provide that scene I wrote my own.
I want a world where a saint has no place on the battlefield to quote
my old sig. A world where the response to blackmail is extreme
because it has to be. Since I couldn't find such a fictional world, I
decided to invent my own. Just for once I would like professional
fiction to come close to the storylines I would write if I had the
talent.
If anyone wants to discuss the matter further then I am ready to
respond either by email or on the group (although strictly it would
probably be off topic).
Niall Harrison
> On 29 Jan 2002 01:12:41 GMT, gets...@aol.comnojunk (Debra) wrote:
>>>From: daniel...@hotmail.com (Dan Milburn)
>>>
> Or some such dialogue (I accept that this isn't Angel standard
> writing). It's the blaseness of the final scene that makes the whole
> thing jar.
I get the impression you've given up on the 'alternative view' thread, so
here's my take on the affair:
Message-ID: <a31ni6$8cs$2...@news.ox.ac.uk>
Short answer: It's in keeping with his epiphany. That help any?
Niall
--
Honest words don't know the damage they can do.
Mattia Valente
Sorta kinda, but you're not quoting anything, so no big deal there..
> The first thing to make clear is that my criticism of Angel does not
> follow into real life. It is just a comment on the Angelverse and all
> the thousands of universes just like it.
Erm...huh? There is just the one BuffyVerse.
> In fiction, too many heros are also saints. In these stories it is
> better to hand over the chemical weapon that will destory all life on
> earth rather than risk harm to come to a single hostage. Since the
> bad guys won't win anyway then it doesn't matter anywhere. But what
> if that was in doubt. What if you had a book where the hero hands
> over the secret formula, the bad guy releases and kills everyone
> except for a few bad guys with the secret formula. I doubt such a
> book would ever exist but I want a show where the bad guys could win.
And, well, this is one such show, ostensibly. Not really, because we can
be reasonably sure that at the end of the day, the Good Guys will be
left standing, and Evil will not have caused the apocalypse. But the
nuance here is the winning; there needen't be any.
The 'fairy tale' world you sketch is not that of any true good Fantasy
or SciFi world I know or would care to 'experience'. Protecting the
innocent against all costs is too simplistic, too silly, and too boring
in the long run because it's so predictable. Star Trek: TNG often walked
the line of 'Whiter than White' and was more annoying for it. Deep Space
9 did the opposite, and became the most complex and interesting Trek
incarnation to date (IMO.)
> Angel's attitude was it doesn't matter that I may have released the
> most evil creature ever seen on earth, I will defeat him in the season
> finale and no one gets hurt. That is bad writing.
No, it really, really, really, really isn't. Go watch Epiphany again. Or
read Niall's posts. As for 'the most evil creature ever seen on earth',
that's a radical interpretations of the (very skimpy) facts we've got at
our disposal. Angel is in no way, shape or form assuming that noone will
get hurt. He knows full well, from past (personal) experience that
that's a fariytale world, one he doesn't live in. He lives in that gray
world, where there is not absolute victory, where it's not about the
war, it's not about the big win, it's about doing the right thing, good
deeds. The big picture? You can't hope to see it completely or influence
it absolutely.
> I wanted a scene
> where Angel was genuine worried about losing to W&H, where he at least
> considered that the evil guy could kill his entire staff the second it
> was free. Since Angel didn't provide that scene I wrote my own.
Angel doesn't care about losing to W&H. It's not about the win or the
loss. This much, 'Reprise/Epuphany' as well as the final 'kitchen' scene
in this episode should've made clear. You're looking for an Angel in a
'verse with more moral absolutism than seems to exist.
Angel took a calculated risk. It can be argued he didn't make the best
choices possible, but the choices he did make were in line with his
character (or so I believe.) He did the best he could under the
circumstances. What price he will have to pay for the choices he made
remains to be scene, but he's aware that a price there shall be, and
that he won't necessarily be the one paying the entire bill, as it were.
> I want a world where a saint has no place on the battlefield to quote
> my old sig.
Angel isn't a saint, m'dear.
> A world where the response to blackmail is extreme
> because it has to be. Since I couldn't find such a fictional world, I
> decided to invent my own. Just for once I would like professional
> fiction to come close to the storylines I would write if I had the
> talent.
The world you seem to be looking for is as extreme as the one with the
'saint' who doesn't feel it's allowable to do anything that's not 100%
morally defendable. You want, in a sense, the anti-saint. The being who
will respond drastically, irrationally, illogically to something extreme
with extremism because it, as you put it, requires an extreme reaction.
A fantasy landscape where violence begets violence in a never ending
spiral of desctruction until/unless the 'good guys' score a big win
(although I'm not entirely sure the 'good guys' can any longer be
distinguished from the 'bad guys'. Their methods, as you describe them,
vary little, only their goals are different. Their inhibitions about
doing things to attain them seem non-existant, going from what little
you're giving me to work with.)
'Angel' does not live in a world like that. Look at season 2. Season to
was Angel's attempt at war against evil, against W&H. Screw the
precepts, forget the visions, forget the mission, fight them on their
own turf, using their own methods, and screw everything else. And it was
a flawed plan. It didn't pan out, that was sort of the whole point of
the arc, and of Angel's epiphany; gaining an understanding of the world,
comprehending how the forces of good and evil balance out, how the 'big
win' is illusory as far as one man (or undead american...er, irishman)
is concerned.
If you're looking for extreme stuff, there's bound to be some pleasantly
dystopian fantasy out there for you. None of this moral dilemma garbage.
> If anyone wants to discuss the matter further then I am ready to
> respond either by email or on the group (although strictly it would
> probably be off topic).
You can try. On list, though. Don't like email discussions.
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
Debra
Or not.
Can't give you links but if you find Niall's on Google Search
it threads the responses and the alternative view will follow on.
Debra
Not an insensible approach and no breach of netiquette as
far as I know. In fact, it's a practice I might consider in furture.
[snip]
>Angel's attitude was it doesn't matter that I may have released the
>most evil creature ever seen on earth, I will defeat him in the season
>finale and no one gets hurt. That is bad writing. I wanted a scene
>where Angel was genuine worried about losing to W&H, where he at least
>considered that the evil guy could kill his entire staff the second it
>was free. Since Angel didn't provide that scene I wrote my own.
>
>I want a world where a saint has no place on the battlefield to quote
>my old sig. A world where the response to blackmail is extreme
>because it has to be. Since I couldn't find such a fictional world, I
>decided to invent my own. Just for once I would like professional
>fiction to come close to the storylines I would write if I had the
>talent.
It's a shame if one has to write one's own scenes, however one
writes them, as it means that for that person, the writing has
failed. Everyone on this board would prefer that that was never
the case on Angel but whilst I don't agree with you on the specifics,
I understand your frustration.
>If anyone wants to discuss the matter further then I am ready to
>respond either by email or on the group (although strictly it would
>probably be off topic).
Group, group, that's the place for discussions.
Niall Harrison
Well, it would if you'd followed up to the post I link...so far, you keep
saying "it's not in character with his epiphany", without saying *why*.
The epiphany was explicitly about living each day as it comes, and dealing
with each challenge as it arises. It was about the small, day-to-day acts
of kindness, not the missions to track down evil-doers at all costs.
How do you reconcile what you want Angel to do with what his explicitly
stated motivations? You can say "he's wrong", in which case I say...well,
OK. It would be a good thing if he learnt that there is a middle ground.
But as things stand, Angel is just living according to his established
philosophy. His actions are in character.
Niall
--
I've got these 'evil hand' issues.
Debra
<s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> writes:
Helen put it better in the parts snipped as to what the epiphany was
and I have said more than once why I do not believe it is in character
and why, when you put forward the epiphany as to why I am incorrect
in that, I don't believe it holds water. No point doing it again.
>How do you reconcile what you want Angel to do with what his explicitly
>stated motivations? You can say "he's wrong", in which case I say...well,
>OK. It would be a good thing if he learnt that there is a middle ground.
>But as things stand, Angel is just living according to his established
>philosophy. His actions are in character.
I don't want Angel to do anything. I want to be entertained by the writers,
not watch what is in my own, far less skilled and imaginative, mind come
to life on the screen. All I ask is that the actions of those whose character
has been carefully laid before me and the enviroment in which that is done
has internal consistency. Based on that I do not believe that Angel or
Wesley would have gone on a 'must save Cordy' mission without doing
more to ascertain what it would cost to do it and I do not believe that they
would then wash their hands of the whole affair unless and until such time
as the monster's activities came to their attention.
Debra
Helen H
Sorry but I think you're confusing the epiphany message and missing a
vital point. Yes it was about saving souls/people one at a time and
not concentrating all your efforts on the big picture. But it was
never about saying "take each challenge as it comes and don't worry
about the consequences". That is just, IMHO, plain daft. It gives
Angel the easy route out of everything. Every problem, every decision,
every challenge becomes simply a case of tackle the immediate problem
and don't think any further.
Using a Buffy/Angel crossover it would be like Angel saying to Buffy -
"I've tied 2 old pairs of tights and a jumper around the leak in the
basement - I'm off". In his pre-epiphany days he would have looked at
the leak and decided to replace the entire Sunnydale water and sewage
system in order to wipe out all leaks everywhere. In his post epiphany
days he would put a waterproof collar around the pipe and then help
Buffy find a good plumber for a more permanent solution.
Therefore I contend that his actions after saving Cordy were neither
in character nor in keeping with his epiphany.
Helen
Niall Harrison
>>saying "it's not in character with his epiphany", without saying *why*.
>>The epiphany was explicitly about living each day as it comes, and dealing
>>with each challenge as it arises. It was about the small, day-to-day acts
>>of kindness, not the missions to track down evil-doers at all costs.
>>
>>How do you reconcile what you want Angel to do with what his explicitly
>>stated motivations? You can say "he's wrong", in which case I say...well,
>>OK. It would be a good thing if he learnt that there is a middle ground.
>>But as things stand, Angel is just living according to his established
>>philosophy. His actions are in character.
>
> Sorry but I think you're confusing the epiphany message and missing a
> vital point. Yes it was about saving souls/people one at a time and
> not concentrating all your efforts on the big picture. But it was
> never about saying "take each challenge as it comes and don't worry
> about the consequences".
ANGEL: All that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we
do. Now. Today. [...] Because, if there isn't any bigger meaning, then
the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.
To Angel, now, doing one good, kind thing this day is better than hunting
down any number of monsters. It's the greatest thing in the world.
If you really can't see the connection between what Angel said in
'Epiphany' and what he said in 'That Vision Thing', then there's little I
can do to convince you. Read Tim's review, though; he puts it better than
I do.
> That is just, IMHO, plain daft. It gives
> Angel the easy route out of everything. Every problem, every decision,
> every challenge becomes simply a case of tackle the immediate problem
> and don't think any further.
Perhaps. I said it looked like an apple-cart waiting to be upset, didn't
I?
Niall
--
Despair could never touch a day like this.
Helen H
<s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>To Angel, now, doing one good, kind thing this day is better than hunting
>down any number of monsters. It's the greatest thing in the world.
Grrrrr ... But that doesn't mean ignore the consequences of your
actions .... that's the difference I am talking about. Sure, doing one
good deed is better than just going out and hunting down monsters but
that is a far cry from saying you should ignore all the adverse
effects of your one good deed.
>
>If you really can't see the connection between what Angel said in
>'Epiphany' and what he said in 'That Vision Thing', then there's little I
>can do to convince you. Read Tim's review, though; he puts it better than
>I do.
Ditto - if you can't see that you are taking things to an extreme that
wasn't intended and doesn't make sense then I guess we're at an
impasse and have to see how the season pans out.
Helen
Andrew Hogg
"Helen H" <hel...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5PpXPL2Ns2NYoX...@4ax.com...
>
> Using a Buffy/Angel crossover it would be like Angel saying to Buffy -
> "I've tied 2 old pairs of tights and a jumper around the leak in the
> basement - I'm off". In his pre-epiphany days he would have looked at
> the leak and decided to replace the entire Sunnydale water and sewage
> system in order to wipe out all leaks everywhere. In his post epiphany
> days he would put a waterproof collar around the pipe and then help
> Buffy find a good plumber for a more permanent solution.
>
I love this.
--
Andrew Hogg
Niall Harrison
It means that given the choice between just hunting down a monster or
doing some act of kindness, Angel will choose the latter.
It's not a case of ignoring the consequences. If consequences happen,
Angel will deal.
Here's a question: If flame-guy starts to do bad things, is there a reason
to assume that the PTB will *not* inform Angel?
> .... that's the difference I am talking about. Sure, doing one
> good deed is better than just going out and hunting down monsters but
> that is a far cry from saying you should ignore all the adverse
> effects of your one good deed.
...and again, I'm trying to separate whether or not what Angel did was
*right* from whether it was *believable*. Your above point goes to
rightness, and not believability.
>>If you really can't see the connection between what Angel said in
>>'Epiphany' and what he said in 'That Vision Thing', then there's little I
>>can do to convince you. Read Tim's review, though; he puts it better than
>>I do.
>
> Ditto - if you can't see that you are taking things to an extreme that
> wasn't intended
Wasn't intended by whom? The writers? I tend to think that they know full
well what they write and what the implications are. They didn't just
write Angel's wait-and-see attitude for the fun of it; they wrote it to
say something about the character.
If not the epiphany, what do you think they were illustrating?
Niall
--
When memes collide.
Tafka
+0000 (UTC) in uk.media.tv.angel said:
>Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - Helen H wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:37:53 +0000 (UTC), Niall Harrison
[snip headers]
But should Angel attempt to pre-empt the consequences or just leave
flame-guy and see what happens? Would it be right to attempt to
'recapture' him or just plain kill him?
We cannot forsee /what/ flame-guy does or intends to do but by all
intents it's unlikely that Lilah will invite him to W&H and sit him
down for a cup of tea and a talk. He'll have some motive or use for
W&H to exploit.
>Here's a question: If flame-guy starts to do bad things, is there a reason
>to assume that the PTB will *not* inform Angel?
Obviously Angel doesn't get visions (via Cordy) for all evil ongoings
does he?
-Tafka-
Never rub another man's rhubarb.
Niall Harrison
In an ideal world in which Angel was perfect? Maybe. Would it be
consistent with his current mindset? No.
>>Here's a question: If flame-guy starts to do bad things, is there a reason
>>to assume that the PTB will *not* inform Angel?
>
> Obviously Angel doesn't get visions (via Cordy) for all evil ongoings
> does he?
That's not what I asked, though. Flame-guy, we are lead to believe, is
pretty important. Is it reasonable to assume that the powers will fill
him in if or when the time comes?
Tafka
A fair rebuke to my question :)
>>>Here's a question: If flame-guy starts to do bad things, is there a reason
>>>to assume that the PTB will *not* inform Angel?
>>
>> Obviously Angel doesn't get visions (via Cordy) for all evil ongoings
>> does he?
>
>That's not what I asked, though. Flame-guy, we are lead to believe, is
>pretty important. Is it reasonable to assume that the powers will fill
>him in if or when the time comes?
If I was TPTB, I'd be pissed that Angel had broken into our "top-end"
facility and knocked out our commuting guard Skip and effectively
nicked our prisoner. An apt vision could be, for Cordy, the fight
between Skip/Angel/Flame-guy (he grabs Skip at the end), ending with
flame-guy walking 'free' with W&H. It's appropriate, and it ironically
indicates that he could be a threat.
-Tafka-
Haven't you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?
Niall Harrison
>>>>doing some act of kindness, Angel will choose the latter.
>>>>
>>>>It's not a case of ignoring the consequences. If consequences happen,
>>>>Angel will deal.
>>>
>>> But should Angel attempt to pre-empt the consequences
>>
>>In an ideal world in which Angel was perfect? Maybe. Would it be
>>consistent with his current mindset? No.
>
> A fair rebuke to my question :)
I thought so. :-)
>>>>Here's a question: If flame-guy starts to do bad things, is there a reason
>>>>to assume that the PTB will *not* inform Angel?
>>>
>>> Obviously Angel doesn't get visions (via Cordy) for all evil ongoings
>>> does he?
>>
>>That's not what I asked, though. Flame-guy, we are lead to believe, is
>>pretty important. Is it reasonable to assume that the powers will fill
>>him in if or when the time comes?
>
> If I was TPTB, I'd be pissed that Angel had broken into our "top-end"
> facility and knocked out our commuting guard Skip and effectively
> nicked our prisoner.
Me too. And I'd probably want to prod Angel into action at the first
opportunity which has a decent chance of success.
Niall
--
I feel like dancing on my own
Where no-one knows me and where I
Can cause offence just by the way I look.
Debra
At breakfast, the next day, with Cordy safe, how is Angel making
a choice between just hunting down a monsters and doing an act
of kindness.
>It's not a case of ignoring the consequences. If consequences happen,
>Angel will deal.
>
>Here's a question: If flame-guy starts to do bad things, is there a reason
>to assume that the PTB will *not* inform Angel?
I suspect that is what will happen although I am hard pressed
to see how they are going to explain that he's done nothing,
hurt no one in the interim. And it will make no sense. Angel
is the one who released him. Angel betrayed the forces of
good to save Cordy. If she is at risk, Angel will betray the
forces of good again. W&H knows this. The PTB are going
to have to be shown to be pretty stupid to rely on Angel
in the circumstances.
>> .... that's the difference I am talking about. Sure, doing one
>> good deed is better than just going out and hunting down monsters but
>> that is a far cry from saying you should ignore all the adverse
>> effects of your one good deed.
>
>...and again, I'm trying to separate whether or not what Angel did was
>*right* from whether it was *believable*. Your above point goes to
>rightness, and not believability.
She's not. She's saying that she does not believe Angel walked
away from his epiphany believing that he could ignore all the
adverse effects of any good deed he does. Therefore for him
to do so and call on his epiphany to justify it, is not believable.
>>>If you really can't see the connection between what Angel said in
>>>'Epiphany' and what he said in 'That Vision Thing', then there's little I
>>>can do to convince you. Read Tim's review, though; he puts it better than
>>>I do.
>>
>> Ditto - if you can't see that you are taking things to an extreme that
>> wasn't intended
>
>Wasn't intended by whom? The writers? I tend to think that they know full
>well what they write and what the implications are. They didn't just
>write Angel's wait-and-see attitude for the fun of it; they wrote it to
>say something about the character.
>
>If not the epiphany, what do you think they were illustrating?
That the character we see now loves Cordy. That he will go
to any lengths regardless of the consequences, including
betraying the forces of good to save her. That he will feel
he has no further responsibility with regard to those
consequences unless and until he trips over them. That this
is Angel now.
Which for some is an unrecognisable Angel.
Niall Harrison
He's not hunting down the monster, so he's going to go and do something
good instead. I think it's reasonable that he gets to have breakfast
first. :-)
>>It's not a case of ignoring the consequences. If consequences happen,
>>Angel will deal.
>>
>>Here's a question: If flame-guy starts to do bad things, is there a reason
>>to assume that the PTB will *not* inform Angel?
>
> I suspect that is what will happen although I am hard pressed
> to see how they are going to explain that he's done nothing,
> hurt no one in the interim. And it will make no sense. Angel
> is the one who released him. Angel betrayed the forces of
> good to save Cordy. If she is at risk, Angel will betray the
> forces of good again. W&H knows this.
They also know people will start getting killed if they try to do it
again.
>>>>If you really can't see the connection between what Angel said in
>>>>'Epiphany' and what he said in 'That Vision Thing', then there's little I
>>>>can do to convince you. Read Tim's review, though; he puts it better than
>>>>I do.
>>>
>>> Ditto - if you can't see that you are taking things to an extreme that
>>> wasn't intended
>>
>>Wasn't intended by whom? The writers? I tend to think that they know full
>>well what they write and what the implications are. They didn't just
>>write Angel's wait-and-see attitude for the fun of it; they wrote it to
>>say something about the character.
>>
>>If not the epiphany, what do you think they were illustrating?
>
> That the character we see now loves Cordy. That he will go
> to any lengths regardless of the consequences, including
> betraying the forces of good to save her.
Well, that's in there, but it has nothing to do with the main point of
discussion, though, which is about his wait-and-see attitude.
> That he will feel
> he has no further responsibility with regard to those
> consequences unless and until he trips over them.
And you believe they deliberately did this with total disregard for
Angel's character development last season?
Niall
--
Dive straight in at the deep end
Making you feel like there's gonna be a war.
pikelet
pleasure of uk.media.tv.angel, gets...@aol.comnojunk (Debra)
declared:
>>If not the epiphany, what do you think they were illustrating?
>
>That the character we see now loves Cordy. That he will go
>to any lengths regardless of the consequences, including
>betraying the forces of good to save her. That he will feel
>he has no further responsibility with regard to those
>consequences unless and until he trips over them. That this
>is Angel now.
I think it's a little less 'unless and until he trips over them' and
rather more 'when they happen' - ie, it's not going to be a happy
coincidence if Angel bumps into the guy on the street, it's going to
be something that he's keeping an eye out for so that he can pursue
it. Or at least, that's what the dialogue suggested to me at the end.
Tim.
--
I am fortune's fool
Debra
"I can't worry about that guy I set free. I did what I had to do. I'll
just deal with the consequences when they happen."
I am missing the proactive 'keeping an eye out' message in
that.
pikelet
Well, you can't really deal with consequences before consequences
happen, can you?
Tim.
--
World was on fire, no-one could save me but you.
Strange what desire will make foolish people do.
Mattia Valente
Tim, I'm with you on this, but I can see where that last line is open to
interpretation; it's also not the wisest thing to be doing. Actively
ignoring the situation would be very, very wrong, and disturbing, but
that's not what's happening. Particularly proactive it is not, but it
*is* open to interpretation. The literal meaning of the words may not
translate their spirit.
Mattia Valente
> >>doing some act of kindness, Angel will choose the latter.
> >
> > At breakfast, the next day, with Cordy safe, how is Angel making
> > a choice between just hunting down a monsters and doing an act
> > of kindness.
>
> He's not hunting down the monster, so he's going to go and do something
> good instead. I think it's reasonable that he gets to have breakfast
> first. :-)
Heh...anyway, it's daytime if it's breakfast. He's not going to get a
whole lot of stuff done. Plus, not an foodie, so it's all about that
pesky A/C dynamic :o)
> > I suspect that is what will happen although I am hard pressed
> > to see how they are going to explain that he's done nothing,
> > hurt no one in the interim. And it will make no sense. Angel
> > is the one who released him. Angel betrayed the forces of
> > good to save Cordy. If she is at risk, Angel will betray the
> > forces of good again. W&H knows this.
>
> They also know people will start getting killed if they try to do it
> again.
They played that card without realizing what Angel's reaction would be,
IMO. And I think they'd be damned stupid to try it again, and that his
reaction may not pan out quite so favorably a second time around. And I
believe they know this. The argument that 'people will start getting
killed' is not one that'll convince W&H. They don't really care too much
about casualties. If they can avoid them, sure.
> >>If not the epiphany, what do you think they were illustrating?
> >
> > That the character we see now loves Cordy. That he will go
> > to any lengths regardless of the consequences, including
> > betraying the forces of good to save her.
>
> Well, that's in there, but it has nothing to do with the main point of
> discussion, though, which is about his wait-and-see attitude.
Quite. The 'Angel Loves Cordy' determines his motivations for pretty
much everything he does in this episode, save for the last scene.
> > That he will feel
> > he has no further responsibility with regard to those
> > consequences unless and until he trips over them.
>
> And you believe they deliberately did this with total disregard for
> Angel's character development last season?
Odd....it's not like Angel's not flawed no more. He's got a niggling
little one right here that may bite him in the ass. Whether the
alternative is healthier for him, I couldn't say.
Debra
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> writes:
>> >"I can't worry about that guy I set free. I did what I had to do. I'll
>> >just deal with the consequences when they happen."
>> >
>> >I am missing the proactive 'keeping an eye out' message in
>> >that.
>>
>> Well, you can't really deal with consequences before consequences
>> happen, can you?
>
>Tim, I'm with you on this, but I can see where that last line is open to
>interpretation; it's also not the wisest thing to be doing. Actively
>ignoring the situation would be very, very wrong, and disturbing, but
>that's not what's happening. Particularly proactive it is not, but it
>*is* open to interpretation. The literal meaning of the words may not
>translate their spirit.
It is open to interpreation. The proof of the pudding will be whether
next week they have put in place something to monitor the situation.
If they have not, to say they are not ignoring the situation becomes
impossible. Unless you start writing in your scenes.
Debra
Mattia Valente
Very much depends on if they can find out much of anything, really,
short of raiding W&H (and that's unlikely to happen.) I won't call it
proof.
> If they have not, to say they are not ignoring the situation becomes
> impossible. Unless you start writing in your scenes.
Or unless they retcon the whole thing in a later episode. Which is a
valid writing technique.
Debra
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> writes:
>> >Tim, I'm with you on this, but I can see where that last line is open to
>> >interpretation; it's also not the wisest thing to be doing. Actively
>> >ignoring the situation would be very, very wrong, and disturbing, but
>> >that's not what's happening. Particularly proactive it is not, but it
>> >*is* open to interpretation. The literal meaning of the words may not
>> >translate their spirit.
>>
>> It is open to interpreation. The proof of the pudding will be whether
>> next week they have put in place something to monitor the situation.
>
>Very much depends on if they can find out much of anything, really,
>short of raiding W&H (and that's unlikely to happen.) I won't call it
>proof.
If they try and can't find out, fine. I am talking if they don't try. All
appearances from the end of the episode are that it is to be left
until it comes to their notice in some way.
>> If they have not, to say they are not ignoring the situation becomes
>> impossible. Unless you start writing in your scenes.
How can you say in one breath that actively ignoring the situation is
not what's happening but then say that if it doesn't get raised again until
Bob shows up, that's not proof of actively ignoring the situation?
Your logic does *not* resemble our Earth logic.
>Or unless they retcon the whole thing in a later episode. Which is a
>valid writing technique.
Or correcting mistakes in a later episode.
Debra
~
I can only please one person per day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow is not looking good either.
Mattia Valente
'all appearances' being one line from Angel. Well, gosh, color me
unconvinced.
> >> If they have not, to say they are not ignoring the situation becomes
> >> impossible. Unless you start writing in your scenes.
>
> How can you say in one breath that actively ignoring the situation is
> not what's happening but then say that if it doesn't get raised again until
> Bob shows up, that's not proof of actively ignoring the situation?
>
> Your logic does *not* resemble our Earth logic.
You do realize you're replying to yourself here, right? I didn't write
that.
I'm not saying anything about the yes/no ignoring of the situation. And
no, not seeing any onscreen dealing isn't proof nothing is going on in
the background. For me, anyway.
> >Or unless they retcon the whole thing in a later episode. Which is a
> >valid writing technique.
>
> Or correcting mistakes in a later episode.
At which point it's a judgement call. One which will again go split
directions, I predict.
Debra
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> writes:
>>
>> If they try and can't find out, fine. I am talking if they don't try. All
>> appearances from the end of the episode are that it is to be left
>> until it comes to their notice in some way.
>
>'all appearances' being one line from Angel. Well, gosh, color me
>unconvinced.
All appearance = one line from Angel and this week's episode, so far
How many episodes have to go by without reference to it before I can
colour you a little less unconvinced?
>> >> If they have not, to say they are not ignoring the situation becomes
>> >> impossible. Unless you start writing in your scenes.
Mattia Says:
Actively
>> >> >ignoring the situation would be very, very wrong, and disturbing, but
>> >> >that's not what's happening.
and re not putting in moitoring
>> >Very much depends on if they can find out much of anything, really,
>> >short of raiding W&H (and that's unlikely to happen.) I won't call it
>> >proof.
Debra says
>> How can you say in one breath that actively ignoring the situation is
>> not what's happening but then say that if it doesn't get raised again until
>> Bob shows up, that's not proof of actively ignoring the situation?
and
>> Your logic does *not* resemble our Earth logic.
>You do realize you're replying to yourself here, right? I didn't write
>that.
Clear now?
>I'm not saying anything about the yes/no ignoring of the situation. And
>no, not seeing any onscreen dealing isn't proof nothing is going on in
>the background. For me, anyway.
Which I meant by writing your own scenes. And that's fine I that
satisfies you but you have to in those circumstances concede that
it is just as reasonable to imagine that nothing is happening, moreso
even given the importance of what it means. Did Angel ignore it until
he tripped over it or not? Don't you think, one way or the other, it
says something important about the character?
Niall Harrison
> Did Angel ignore it until
> he tripped over it or not? Don't you think, one way or the other, it
> says something important about the character?
Yup. That he's epiphanied. </pred>
:-)
Niall
--
Do I want the dreams?
Skyfire
<s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
Wasn't this where I started from, that the response to the attack on
Cordelia should be of sufficient strength that W&H will never risk it
again. I do not believe that their will be tears shed for the loss of
one disposable telepath. Lilah, telepath and several senior partners
yes, but not for one lowly telepath.
--
Skyfire AKA Mark Chamberlain
Website under reconstruction
Skyfire
Milburn) wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 01:54:32 GMT, Skyfire <ma...@skyfire-reviews.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Warning This post contains spoilers for Season Three epsiode 2 (That
>>Vision Thing) as shown on Sky television 24-JAN-02. There may also be
>>mention of previous episodes some of which will also be spoilers for
>>Readers of my reviews will know that I hate Darla. If things don't
>>change quickly I will add Angel to my list of characters who must die
>>in an extremely painfully way. If Angel chooses to work for W&H he
>>does so with my utter comtempt. It matters not whether Angel worked
>>for Lilah with an heavy heart. The simple fact is that he served W&H
>>and deserves to be regarded as every other evil monster that worked
>>for them.
>
>Huh. So, going back to the Buffy episode 'Choices', with which this
>has obvious parallels, you think Buffy and the other Scoobies deserve
>to be regarded as being as evil as the Mayor for making the trade and
>not letting Willow die?
>
My views have changed since that time but looking back yes. Willow's
life to stop the giant snake thing would have been a fair trade. Has
anyone counted how many people died at Graduation, let alone how many
died from the extra vamps created
>So lemme get this straight. You'd have had less of a problem if
>they'd just outright *killed* Cordy?
>I'm not sure you'd find many people who think blackmail is morally
>worse than murder, and I'm certainly not one of them.
>
Murder is an attack on the body. It is never nice for someone to
leave this world in these circumstances but they go to the afterlife
with a clean spirit.
Blackmail is an attack on the soul. It is an attempt to force people
to act against their conscience, their soul, their God. Morally
blackmail is worse than putting a chip in a person's head and turning
them into a slave since the slave didn't choose it fate.
If you don't like the spiritual argument then here is a different
slant.
The greatest right of all people is the right to choose their own
path. Whilst people should be punished for their actions, they must
be allowed the chance to commit evil acts. The price of a free
society is that the freedom will be abused. It is not desireable but
it is must be accepted if a free society is to exist, the alternative
being where people are forced to act in a particular way incase they
may do something in future. Blackmail is an attempt to deny a person
their own path. It is a form of slavery. It is less obvious than
other forms of slavery but it is slavery all the same. All forms of
slavery must be crushed and whilst it would be better if freedom is
purchsed without the blood of slaves, if that is the cost then so be
it.
>>However Blackmail is beyond the pale and it must be met
>>with a brutal response or its use will grow unchecked. The
>>destruction of the W&H offices in L.A. would be a suitable response.
>>I am not sure how that can be carried out but there must be a demon
>>that would welcome the chance to eat the structure and everyone living
>>there at the time. Like the use of weapons of mass destructiion the
>>only response can be the complete and utter destruction of those
>>responsible.
>
>All this sounds worringly like you think Angel was right when he went
>through his beige phase in Season 2. I can only suggest you go watch
>'Reprise' or something...
>
I can't remember but I suspect I said something like that at the time.
Perhaps about it being great that Angel almost turned Darla and Dru to
dust. My only regret is they survived.
<snip>
>
>>If the
>>person (asuming he is human and I have my doubts) proves to be a force
>>of good and not even a single person is harmed then Angel will have
>>been right to release him, however the suffering of one person because
>>of Angel's actions is proof that Angel should share the fate of the
>>monster he helped.
>
>No, either he was right to release him or he wasn't. The decision was
>made without knowing exactly who or what the prisoner was, and should
>be judged in that light.
>If the prisoner turns out not to be evil, then well, that's fortunate,
>but it has no bearing on the morality or otherwise of Angels actions.
>
There are few creatures who know of the consequence of every action
they commit. You can judge them with the intent of the action and
what they knew or did not know at the time. Angel did not know
whether the creature was good or evil. Angel chose to assume the best
case, I would choose the worst case. Worst case is that it has the
bloods of millions on its hands and if allowed to act unchecked it
will kill millions. The monster has the free Will to choose to attack
millions, Angel has the free will to act to ensure it never gets the
chance.
There is a world of difference between allowing a man falsely
convicted of terrorism to break out and try and clear his name in a
peaceful way, and allowing a terrorist with innocent blood on his
hands to escape justice and continue his campaign of terror. In the
eyes of the law the two acts are the same, in the eyes of justice
their is a world of different between them.
>>Away from Angel, I also don't like the idea of hacking into visions.
>>Firstly it is too close to the magic dust stories of last season and
>>secondly it harms the idea of visions.
>
>I actually can't see a single parallel between this and the dust,
>which I don't remember ever being referred to as 'magic'. The effects
>were different, the intent was different, everything about it was
>different.
Angel was not acting the way Darla wanted him to act. Darla uses some
unknown powder which changes the way his mind works in an unexplained
way. Darla forces Angel to act in a way he would not have acted if he
had free will.
Angel was not acting the way Lilah wanted him to act. Lilah uses some
unknown character to change the way Cordy's mind works in an
unexplained way. Lilah forces Angel to act in a way he would not have
acted if he had free will.
The dust was never described as magic but it was never described as
non magic either. It seems like magic to me.
Skyfire
<s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
You are the governer of a maximum security prision. A trusted bounty
hunter breaks into the jail and rescues a prisioner. Now the Governer
may be aware of the circumstances and may understand, But when you
send someone to recapture the prisioner do you send an agent who has
been compromised once and has been compromised again or do you send
someone else for the task?
We are also assuming that Angel could stop flame-guy. Where ibn the
episode was it stated that it would be possible for Angel to bring him
back or do all unknown characters with unknown abilities have to be
written in such a way that Angel can defeat them.
Skyfire
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>> If I am breaching netiquete then I appologise, but I think it is
>> easier to answer various comments in one post.
>
>Sorta kinda, but you're not quoting anything, so no big deal there..
>
>> The first thing to make clear is that my criticism of Angel does not
>> follow into real life. It is just a comment on the Angelverse and all
>> the thousands of universes just like it.
>
>Erm...huh? There is just the one BuffyVerse.
>
Perhaps but the ideas have been done so often before. They may be new
twists on old ideas but they are still old ideas. Every type of story
was told long before the birth of anyone connected with BTVS or Angel,
all that is left now are different angles and perspectives. Even my
ideas have been used, they just then to appear more in war movies than
fantasy.
<snip>
>> Angel's attitude was it doesn't matter that I may have released the
>> most evil creature ever seen on earth, I will defeat him in the season
>> finale and no one gets hurt. That is bad writing.
>
>No, it really, really, really, really isn't. Go watch Epiphany again. Or
>read Niall's posts. As for 'the most evil creature ever seen on earth',
>that's a radical interpretations of the (very skimpy) facts we've got at
>our disposal. Angel is in no way, shape or form assuming that noone will
>get hurt. He knows full well, from past (personal) experience that
>that's a fariytale world, one he doesn't live in. He lives in that gray
>world, where there is not absolute victory, where it's not about the
>war, it's not about the big win, it's about doing the right thing, good
>deeds. The big picture? You can't hope to see it completely or influence
>it absolutely.
>
To paraphrase from a trek book I read (can't remember which one) The
way to be successful (at captaining a starship) is to imagine the
worst that can happen and then prevent that scenario from occuring.
It also applies to other areas of life. In this case the worse that
can happen is that it is the most evil creature on earth and it would
be wise to treat it as such until evidence proves otherwise.
I don't understand this "There is no such thing as absolute victory"
idea. Either you achieve everything you set out to do or you didn't.
Winning WW2 did not create paradise on earth but it was a victory.
The aims of the war were met and in the big picture lives were saved.
Okay, Angel can't kill all vampires fine. Does that mean he is wrong
to kill any vampire? Every person killed by a vampire changes the
world, every person saved will go on to affect the world even if the
victim dies of an heart attack minutes later the different cause of
death will affect the investigation which will affect the people
assigned, who will affect their friends etcetera. Each battle has an
ending. Angel kills the vampire, the vampire kills Angel, or they
both continue to exist. The world will be changed whatever happens.
Every act that harms W&H improves the world. Every act that helps W&H
hurts the world. Angel's actions have damaged the world in some
degree. He may not know the extent of the damage he has caused, but
unless he suffered brain damage then Angel must know that the world is
a more dangerous place because of what he did. Even if the flame guy
is innocent, there will be more blackmail incidents than would have
otherwised occured. Angel may not suffer but some innocent will.
<snip>
>Angel took a calculated risk. It can be argued he didn't make the best
>choices possible, but the choices he did make were in line with his
>character (or so I believe.) He did the best he could under the
>circumstances. What price he will have to pay for the choices he made
>remains to be scene, but he's aware that a price there shall be, and
>that he won't necessarily be the one paying the entire bill, as it were.
>
Then who will pay the bill? W&H will not suffer unless Angel brings
them to account, Angel is unwilling to move against either W&H or
flame guy, so who is left? The innocent people who relied on those
who had the power to protect them but who left them to fend for
themselves. If this is good Angel then bring back the evil Angel.
>> I want a world where a saint has no place on the battlefield to quote
>> my old sig.
>
>Angel isn't a saint, m'dear.
>
Sure acts like one at times. What if Becoming had happened
differently and Angel had had to send Buffy into Hell. I have my
doubts whether he could have done so. Better to send the world into
hell than to let a single person die by his actions. That is the
message of this episode isn't it?
<snip>
>
>The world you seem to be looking for is as extreme as the one with the
>'saint' who doesn't feel it's allowable to do anything that's not 100%
>morally defendable. You want, in a sense, the anti-saint. The being who
>will respond drastically, irrationally, illogically to something extreme
>with extremism because it, as you put it, requires an extreme reaction.
>A fantasy landscape where violence begets violence in a never ending
>spiral of desctruction until/unless the 'good guys' score a big win
>(although I'm not entirely sure the 'good guys' can any longer be
>distinguished from the 'bad guys'. Their methods, as you describe them,
>vary little, only their goals are different. Their inhibitions about
>doing things to attain them seem non-existant, going from what little
>you're giving me to work with.)
Perhaps I haven't explained well enough, perhaps I did and we just
have differing view points. When I finish some stories that go into
this side of the Skyfire universe I will put them on my website and
people can judge for themselves. Probably won't be for months or
years but eventually I'll get round to writing them.
>'Angel' does not live in a world like that. Look at season 2. Season to
>was Angel's attempt at war against evil, against W&H. Screw the
>precepts, forget the visions, forget the mission, fight them on their
>own turf, using their own methods, and screw everything else. And it was
>a flawed plan. It didn't pan out, that was sort of the whole point of
>the arc, and of Angel's epiphany; gaining an understanding of the world,
>comprehending how the forces of good and evil balance out, how the 'big
>win' is illusory as far as one man (or undead american...er, irishman)
>is concerned.
>
I didn't have any problem with Soldier Angel, only the fluffy stuff
with darla. The forces of Good and Evil do not balance out, the
forces of Evil are stronger and you must fight for every step forward.
Killing Darla will not save the world but it will make it slightly
less ill. Destroying W&H would not stop all demon troubles but it
would lessen them. The idea of a single big win is illusory, the idea
of victories is the most real thing in the Angel verse. Every good
turn is the result of a victory over some evil.
I must have imagined the scene in Heartthrob where Angel defeated the
vampires to save innocent lives. I must not have got the reshot
version where angel talks to the vampires, explained that it was wrong
to feed on people and the whole episode ended without Angel having to
battle anyone.
>If you're looking for extreme stuff, there's bound to be some pleasantly
>dystopian fantasy out there for you. None of this moral dilemma garbage.
>
<warning extreme sarcasm>
Perhaps I should read a book on WW2. The British were so evil then.
The very idea of killing enemy soldiers to protect innocent people
both at home and abroad was so unjustified. We should have given in
to every threat made. The bombing of london and other British cities
was a reason to surrender and accept German rule. If the Nazi's
captured a British soldier and demanded that we steal American nuclear
weapon plans and hand them over or reveal the plans for the D-Day
landings then it would have been fine to do so for the life of a
single person and let someone else worry about what would happen if
the balance of the conflict was altered in their favour. It would
have been so much better if we had never fired a shot and let them
occupy all Europe.
The world would be so much better if we ignore irrelevant ideas like
freedom and justice and responsibility.
<end extreme sarcasm>
Skyfire
>>
>> Well, you can't really deal with consequences before consequences
>> happen, can you?
>
Yes you can.
IRL there is something called Crime prevention. The police look at
actions that can ensure that some crimes never occur or that the
consequences are less if a crime does happen. Things like reminding
people to lock doors at night will stop some crimes.
In Sunnydale for the past five years Buffy went patrolling to kill
vampires before they attacked people. Sometimes she only got their
after the attack but the intent was to get their before the attack,
not after.
Angel could have tried to find out who the 'man' was, what he/it
intended and whether it was possible to send him/it straight back
where he/it belongs.
Clairey
"Skyfire" <ma...@skyfire-reviews.com> wrote in message
news:3c59fd64...@news.ntlworld.com...
>Angel took a calculated risk. It can be argued he didn't make the best
> >choices possible, but the choices he did make were in line with his
> >character (or so I believe.) He did the best he could under the
> >circumstances. What price he will have to pay for the choices he made
> >remains to be scene, but he's aware that a price there shall be, and
> >that he won't necessarily be the one paying the entire bill, as it were.
> >
> Then who will pay the bill? W&H will not suffer unless Angel brings
> them to account, Angel is unwilling to move against either W&H or
> flame guy, so who is left? The innocent people who relied on those
> who had the power to protect them but who left them to fend for
> themselves. If this is good Angel then bring back the evil Angel.
> >> I want a world where a saint has no place on the battlefield to quote
> >> my old sig.
> >
> >Angel isn't a saint, m'dear.
> >
> Sure acts like one at times. What if Becoming had happened
> differently and Angel had had to send Buffy into Hell. I have my
> doubts whether he could have done so. Better to send the world into
> hell than to let a single person die by his actions. That is the
> message of this episode isn't it?
This is a very interesting point. Would he be able to do it now, post
epiphany? True, the consequence of the portal opening was known...world
sucked into hell...and the consequence of releasing flame-boy was not. Can
Angel discriminate on the basis of whether he knows the consequence or not?
Hardly. You can never really know the consequence of an action. For all
Angel knew releasing flame-boy was tantamount to releasing
Acathla...something he did when he was evil Angelus. This is v v
interesting. I think I'd always seen Angel as the larger than life hero.
Now I can easily question whether he would sacrifice a loved one to save the
world. Makes him more interesting...more human if you like...but so not the
Angel that I thought he was!
<snip the rest which I kinda didn't get>
Claire
Niall Harrison
>>to assume that the PTB will *not* inform Angel?
>
> You are the governer of a maximum security prision. A trusted bounty
> hunter breaks into the jail and rescues a prisioner. Now the Governer
> may be aware of the circumstances and may understand, But when you
> send someone to recapture the prisioner do you send an agent who has
> been compromised once and has been compromised again or do you send
> someone else for the task?
What if he's the only guy available for the job?
The fact that the visions seem to be 'inherited' suggests to me that at
any one time there is only one vision-bearer. So, not only might Angel be
the only champion in town, he might be the only one with a regular link to
the PTB.
Niall
--
Sloths: Nature's sedatives.
Niall Harrison
>> >Angel isn't a saint, m'dear.
>>
>> Sure acts like one at times. What if Becoming had happened
>> differently and Angel had had to send Buffy into Hell. I have my
>> doubts whether he could have done so. Better to send the world into
>> hell than to let a single person die by his actions. That is the
>> message of this episode isn't it?
>
> This is a very interesting point. Would he be able to do it now, post
> epiphany? True, the consequence of the portal opening was known...world
> sucked into hell...and the consequence of releasing flame-boy was not. Can
> Angel discriminate on the basis of whether he knows the consequence or not?
> Hardly. You can never really know the consequence of an action.
Er, except for Acathla you could. World sucked into hell, and all that.
Not much ambiguity there.
> For all Angel knew releasing flame-boy was tantamount to releasing
> Acathla..
I think it's reasonable for him to assume that that isn't the case. If it
was, flame-boy would surely have been a *lot* more heavily guarded.
> Now I can easily question whether he would sacrifice a loved one to save the
> world. Makes him more interesting...more human if you like...but so not the
> Angel that I thought he was!
I agree that you can now make arguments for both sides - which is good -
but I think that, when it comes down to it, Angel would do what he had to
do in such an instance.
Niall
--
Easy to take off
Harder to fly.
Mattia Valente
That's a bit of a stretch, IMO. We know they can be passed on (although
it just sort of 'happened' to Doyle, didn't it? He didn't kiss anyone to
get 'em..), so it's a gift that's transferrable, but we don't know that
ay any one time only one person has the visions. We've never seen anyone
else have them (concurrently), but beyond that?
They're not common, I'd say. So it's very possible Cordy's the only one
within a reasonably large area that has the things.
Mattia Valente
That's Tim's line. Reply to him next time. Makes more sense.
> IRL there is something called Crime prevention. The police look at
> actions that can ensure that some crimes never occur or that the
> consequences are less if a crime does happen. Things like reminding
> people to lock doors at night will stop some crimes.
You can *try* to prevent conseqeunces before they happen. You can't
actually do it 100% effectively. You've got no guarantees. And when
you're a lone detective agency without a licence in a building burdened
by code violations, and your boss is a Vampire and you're trying to head
off some sort of supernatural (one assumes) being that's being guarded
by an immensley powerful Lawfirm, you've got even less possibilities.
> Angel could have tried to find out who the 'man' was, what he/it
> intended and whether it was possible to send him/it straight back
> where he/it belongs.
...and your new, fresh and exciting
not-made-before-by-the-person-who-wrote-the-above point would be....?
It's been covered. There were plenty of factors that might've prevented
him from doing the above (and no, I won't reiterate, Mr.
Black-or-white-screw-the-gray), it wasn't the wisest of choices, but it
was fully understandable. His attitude at the end of the ep less so
(acceptable, that is. Understandable, sure.) Dealing with Bob lies
outside the scope of this episode.
Mattia Valente
And the new twists make the fact that they're 'old ideas' (or themes, or
whatever) completely irellevant. You can always reduce to the simplest
common denominator, to a determined set of situations.
> Every type of story
> was told long before the birth of anyone connected with BTVS or Angel,
> all that is left now are different angles and perspectives. Even my
> ideas have been used, they just then to appear more in war movies than
> fantasy.
All of which is totally and completely irellevant, unless you're writing
a thesis that's linking the use of metaphor and allegory used in 'Buffy'
or 'Angel' to the ancient greeks, or any other writer of your choice.
They're told in a speciic manner, they've got their own morality and
laws, and frankly, sweeping generalizations are more than slightly
pointless.
> >No, it really, really, really, really isn't. Go watch Epiphany again. Or
> >read Niall's posts. As for 'the most evil creature ever seen on earth',
> >that's a radical interpretations of the (very skimpy) facts we've got at
> >our disposal. Angel is in no way, shape or form assuming that noone will
> >get hurt. He knows full well, from past (personal) experience that
> >that's a fariytale world, one he doesn't live in. He lives in that gray
> >world, where there is not absolute victory, where it's not about the
> >war, it's not about the big win, it's about doing the right thing, good
> >deeds. The big picture? You can't hope to see it completely or influence
> >it absolutely.
>
> To paraphrase from a trek book I read (can't remember which one) The
> way to be successful (at captaining a starship) is to imagine the
> worst that can happen and then prevent that scenario from occuring.
Wow. Wisdom in Trek.
That's one approach, perhaps a daft one (your imagination's the limit).
> It also applies to other areas of life. In this case the worse that
> can happen is that it is the most evil creature on earth and it would
> be wise to treat it as such until evidence proves otherwise.
Thinks you. Angel, Wes, myself all think otherwise, and place the
certainty of Cordelia's salvation over the possibility that Bob may
indeed bring th apocalypse upon us. They've face things before. This
wasn't the most impossible prison to break out of.
> I don't understand this "There is no such thing as absolute victory"
> idea.
There isn't. In a broader sense. In the fight between Good and Evil, you
can never truly win the war, as a lone warrior.
> Either you achieve everything you set out to do or you didn't.
> Winning WW2 did not create paradise on earth but it was a victory.
> The aims of the war were met and in the big picture lives were saved.
I'm not going to use a human struggle (WW II) as an example for the
rather more 'grand' concept of absolute victory re: Good and Evil.
There's also the question of what Good and Evil mean.
> Okay, Angel can't kill all vampires fine. Does that mean he is wrong
> to kill any vampire? Every person killed by a vampire changes the
> world, every person saved will go on to affect the world even if the
> victim dies of an heart attack minutes later the different cause of
> death will affect the investigation which will affect the people
> assigned, who will affect their friends etcetera. Each battle has an
> ending. Angel kills the vampire, the vampire kills Angel, or they
> both continue to exist. The world will be changed whatever happens.
> Every act that harms W&H improves the world. Every act that helps W&H
> hurts the world.
Sort of. Angel's belief is that helping is by FAR more important than
trying to harm. In this case, helping Cordelia was the key issue. The
badness that Bob may well cause in the future is secondary to the
immediate harm that would've befallen Cordelia had this not been the
case.
Did you even WATCH S2?
> Angel's actions have damaged the world in some degree.
So. What?
> He may not know the extent of the damage he has caused, but
> unless he suffered brain damage then Angel must know that the world is
> a more dangerous place because of what he did.
He does. And intends to deal with the problem when it becomes one. I'm
hoping Wes, at least, will be a little more proactive and try to
discover what exactly the problem is/might be/will be before it actually
crops up.
> Even if the flame guy
> is innocent, there will be more blackmail incidents than would have
> otherwised occured. Angel may not suffer but some innocent will.
Some innocent might. And where are you getting 'more blackmail
incidents' from? His display of force was propably rather effective as a
demonstration of how long the Blackmailer will live if it happens again.
If the blackmailer is Lilah, anyway.
> >Angel took a calculated risk. It can be argued he didn't make the best
> >choices possible, but the choices he did make were in line with his
> >character (or so I believe.) He did the best he could under the
> >circumstances. What price he will have to pay for the choices he made
> >remains to be scene, but he's aware that a price there shall be, and
> >that he won't necessarily be the one paying the entire bill, as it were.
>
> Then who will pay the bill?
No single person.
> W&H will not suffer unless Angel brings
> them to account, Angel is unwilling to move against either W&H or
> flame guy, so who is left?
Go watch Reprise and Epiphany again.
> The innocent people who relied on those
> who had the power to protect them but who left them to fend for
> themselves. If this is good Angel then bring back the evil Angel.
This is a world with free will. There is no guarantee you'll be safe,
you'll be fine. Angel will make sure, on a case by case basis, that the
right thing gets done, that things go as planned, but he's not the
world's saviour or it's babysitter. Yes, he's partly responsible for
Bob. But Bob himself (assuming he has free will) and W&H more so, for
releasing him into the wild, using Angel to do it.
It's not simple, it's not pretty, it just is.
> >> I want a world where a saint has no place on the battlefield to quote
> >> my old sig.
> >
> >Angel isn't a saint, m'dear.
>
> Sure acts like one at times.
...which is what let his buttons be pressed by W&H, and drove him into
Beige. He tried to be, discovered that that, perhaps, wasn't the best
way to go.
> What if Becoming had happened
> differently and Angel had had to send Buffy into Hell. I have my
> doubts whether he could have done so.
Agreed. He's flawed that way. Especially S2 Angel, I think. In the end,
Buffy's been able to make very hard choices that Angel hasn't had to
face.
> Better to send the world into
> hell than to let a single person die by his actions. That is the
> message of this episode isn't it?
No, it isn't. Better to let one person be saved for certain than have
her die over ideals.
> >'Angel' does not live in a world like that. Look at season 2. Season to
> >was Angel's attempt at war against evil, against W&H. Screw the
> >precepts, forget the visions, forget the mission, fight them on their
> >own turf, using their own methods, and screw everything else. And it was
> >a flawed plan. It didn't pan out, that was sort of the whole point of
> >the arc, and of Angel's epiphany; gaining an understanding of the world,
> >comprehending how the forces of good and evil balance out, how the 'big
> >win' is illusory as far as one man (or undead american...er, irishman)
> >is concerned.
>
> I didn't have any problem with Soldier Angel, only the fluffy stuff
> with darla.
What 'fluffy stuff' with Darla?
> The forces of Good and Evil do not balance out, the
> forces of Evil are stronger and you must fight for every step forward.
Says who? The forces of Evil cannot be defeated completely isn't the
same thing as saying they're stronger. Less principled and hence
potentially more dangerous, sure.
> Killing Darla will not save the world but it will make it slightly
> less ill. Destroying W&H would not stop all demon troubles but it
> would lessen them. The idea of a single big win is illusory, the idea
> of victories is the most real thing in the Angel verse. Every good
> turn is the result of a victory over some evil.
...and you're still missing (or disagreeing with) the point of Reprise
and Epiphany.
Every good turn is a victory. But the good action lies at the heart of
that, not the prevention or destruction of some Evil Thing that May Come
to Pass. Better prevent/deal with the evil that is already open and
present than to attack what may be.
> I must have imagined the scene in Heartthrob where Angel defeated the
> vampires to save innocent lives. I must not have got the reshot
> version where angel talks to the vampires, explained that it was wrong
> to feed on people and the whole episode ended without Angel having to
> battle anyone.
..and yet again you manage to miss the point. Angel's not about
redeeming vampires, changing the way they are (ain't got no souls, they
don't..) He's about helping people. And that's what he did in
Heartthrob. That's not the same thing as taking on W&H at the expense of
everything else, which is what S2 Angel ended up doing. And it was wrong
in the greater scheme of things. It didn't do anyone in particular any
good. It's the little things that count.
Kate: "I just couldn't... - My whole life has been about being
a cop. If I'm not part of the force it's like nothing I do
means anything."
Angel: "It doesn't."
Kate: "Doesn't what?"
Angel: "Mean anything. In the greater scheme or the big picture,
nothing we do matters. There's no grand plan, no big win."
Kate: "You seem kind of chipper about that."
Angel: "Well, I guess I kinda - worked it out. If there is no
great glorious end to all this, if - nothing we do matters,
- then all that matters is what we do. 'cause that's all
there is. What we do, now, today. - I fought for so long.
For redemption, for a reward - finally just to beat the
other guy, but... I never got it."
Kate: "And now you do?"
Angel: "Not all of it. All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because
- I don't think people should suffer, as they do. Because,
if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness
- is the greatest thing in the world."
..that pretty much says it all. None of the grand 'strike against W&H
and strike for Good' stuff. It's about helping people. And yes, Bob on
the loose doesn't help people, but again, he's an unknown and can be
dealt with in the future.
> >If you're looking for extreme stuff, there's bound to be some pleasantly
> >dystopian fantasy out there for you. None of this moral dilemma garbage.
>
> <warning extreme sarcasm>
<SNIP diatribe of WW II>
Again, I won't argue WW II as a counterexample to what Angel's doing.
Because it's not the same. At all. If Angel were an army, and the forces
of evil had an actual army and were declaring outright war on the world,
trying to take it over, sure. Then it comes down to individual battles
(like Buffy vs. Glory, or vs. Angelus/Acathla) where victory has a clear
meaning. Angel is talking about a larger picture. Ergo, terrible,
useless metaphor.
> The world would be so much better if we ignore irrelevant ideas like
> freedom and justice and responsibility.
> <end extreme sarcasm>
Freedom, sure. Justice? In what cosmic sense? The world isn't 'Just'.
You can try to make at Just as possible, but to sacrifice people on the
altar of Justice when you know not the specifics (I'm talking about Bob
again) is downright daft. Responsibility is shared in this scenario.
It's not all Angel's.
This scenraio didn't HAVE a simple solution. Or if it did, by satisfying
some principles you would annihilate others, and morality as a whole
wouldn't be served. Ethics comes into play.
You're too extreme for me, and, I would say, for the BuffyVerse.
Mark Evans
> As I said last week I would not wish the pain of the visions on
> Cordelia and I would not wish the pain of the false visions on her
> either. However if I was in charge of her fate I would have told W&H
> that they have twenty four hours to hand over those responsible for
> her injuries and that if they didn't comply it would be open season on
> anyone who ever spoke a kind word about the firm. W&H can protect
> their lawyers but can they protect the corrupt police officers who
> help them? Can they protect the council officials they work with?
Considering that W&H didn't especially care about having 2
vampires munching their way through a group of their lawyers
what good would such a threat do?
Probably a better threat would have been for him to have
gone "game face", cut his hand and casually mentioned never
having sired anyone whilst he had a soul.
> If W&H want a war then they can attack Angel directly. If they had
> attacked Cordleia to prevent her using her visions then that is
> acceptable just as it is acceptable to kill the telepath to protect
> Cordelia. However Blackmail is beyond the pale and it must be met
> with a brutal response or its use will grow unchecked. The
> destruction of the W&H offices in L.A. would be a suitable response.
> I am not sure how that can be carried out but there must be a demon
> that would welcome the chance to eat the structure and everyone living
> there at the time. Like the use of weapons of mass destructiion the
> only response can be the complete and utter destruction of those
> responsible.
Maybe he could steal some headed notepaper and run off party
invites for the vampire population of LA.
> To those who comment on Lilah's insistance that the man was being
> unjustly punished, if this was true she would have had no problems
Probably in this context "unjust" actually means far too leniently...
Mark Evans
> Around Mon, 28 Jan 2002 01:54:32 GMT, after erotically slowdancing for
> the pleasure of uk.media.tv.angel, Skyfire <ma...@skyfire-reviews.com>
> declared:
> <ickle snip>
>>I have no doubt that the pain inflicted on Cordelia is deliberate. It
>>is quite clear that Lilah knew that Cordelia was suffering and I don't
>>believe that W&H would have used this method if the purpose was to
>>trick Angel into carrying out the mission.
> Actually, that's exactly what happened. Lilah says at one point "Just
> for the record, those little skin problems on what's-her-name weren't
This is the same person who was prepared to have Cordelia's eyes
pulled out.
> intended. Just an unfortunate little side effect". I think that's
> pretty explicitly saying that the visions were meant to trick Angel,
> and Cordelia's pain was a side-effect that.
She was undoubtedly lieing about the man to be rescued being
innocent. Why should she be telling the truth here?
Mark Evans
Not quite so simple an equation, since without Willow how would
they have defeated Adam or Glory?
Mark Evans
>>> is the one who released him. Angel betrayed the forces of
>>> good to save Cordy. If she is at risk, Angel will betray the
>>> forces of good again. W&H knows this.
>>
>>They also know people will start getting killed if they try to do it
>>again.
>>
> Wasn't this where I started from, that the response to the attack on
> Cordelia should be of sufficient strength that W&H will never risk it
> again. I do not believe that their will be tears shed for the loss of
> one disposable telepath. Lilah, telepath and several senior partners
> yes, but not for one lowly telepath.
IMHO if he wants to do harm to W&H just killing them probably
isn't the best way. Creating a few real "bloodsucking lawyers"
will make far more of a mess to their organisation.
Mark Evans
>>>It's not a case of ignoring the consequences. If consequences happen,
>>>Angel will deal.
>>>
>>>Here's a question: If flame-guy starts to do bad things, is there a reason
>>>to assume that the PTB will *not* inform Angel?
>>
>> I suspect that is what will happen although I am hard pressed
>> to see how they are going to explain that he's done nothing,
>> hurt no one in the interim. And it will make no sense. Angel
>> is the one who released him. Angel betrayed the forces of
>> good to save Cordy. If she is at risk, Angel will betray the
>> forces of good again. W&H knows this.
> They also know people will start getting killed if they try to do it
> again.
Might even be in their interests to ensure that they take steps
to ensure that things don't happen to a certain "Miss Chase",
regardless of who might be responsible.
pikelet
for the pleasure of uk.media.tv.angel, Mark Evans
<m...@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> declared:
Not because it was Cordelia, just because the auction itself was for
'the eyes of a seer'. There was no malice involved there, she viewed
it as a business transaction, plain and simple. The same principle, it
would appear, applies here.
>> intended. Just an unfortunate little side effect". I think that's
>> pretty explicitly saying that the visions were meant to trick Angel,
>> and Cordelia's pain was a side-effect that.
>
>She was undoubtedly lieing about the man to be rescued being
>innocent. Why should she be telling the truth here?
Mainly because her tone of voice when talking about 'unfairly
imprisoned' boy was openly sarcastic, whereas it wasn't in this case.
Tim.
--
What a wicked game to play, to make me feel this way.
What a wicked thing to do, to let me dream of you.
What a wicked thing to say, you never felt this way.
What a wicked thing to do, to make me dream of you.
Clairey
"Niall Harrison" <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a3grcf$7mo$4...@news.ox.ac.uk...
Yes, for Acathla the consequence was stated but for flame-boy it wasn't.
Angel found it simple to release flame-boy because he didn't know what the
consequence would be. What I wonder is if it's right to expect Angel to
make the sacrifice only when he knows the consequence e.g. in the case of
Acathla. Really, as the champion of good Angel should see the bigger
picture even if his main priority is the small acts of kindness. It's all
very well having an epiphany and realising you want to help people so they
don't suffer, but you also have to be aware of the grand scheme of things,
and in the grand scheme of things flame-boy was potentially the apocolypse.
> > For all Angel knew releasing flame-boy was tantamount to releasing
> > Acathla..
>
> I think it's reasonable for him to assume that that isn't the case. If it
> was, flame-boy would surely have been a *lot* more heavily guarded.
Sure, we can assume that. Angel can't. He assumed he could have sex with
Buffy and look how that turned out. He assumed the demon in Judgement was
evil and he was actually a protector. That surely should have given him a
wake up call to think about the implications of his actions. I thought that
was the point of the episode in fact. Yet here he's jumping head first in
guns a blazing with no thought of the reality of the situation.
> > Now I can easily question whether he would sacrifice a loved one to save
the
> > world. Makes him more interesting...more human if you like...but so not
the
> > Angel that I thought he was!
>
> I agree that you can now make arguments for both sides - which is good -
> but I think that, when it comes down to it, Angel would do what he had to
> do in such an instance.
That's what you want to think. That's how you'd write him. And to be
honest I don't think that after what we saw in TVT you can say that with any
confidence. I say this like I don't see the Epiphany angle. I do. I see
both sides and I can't seem to pick one. On the one hand, he did exactly
what I would have done. Makes me think, yeah, was the right thing to do for
someone you love. On the other, he's a champion, a warrior of good, his
decisions should be made with a view of the larger picture as a whole. Like
for example in IWRY. Doyle said, he couldn't have done it. Angel was a
true hero. Now...perhaps not.
Claire
Skyfire
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>That's Tim's line. Reply to him next time. Makes more sense.
My apologies. Too many posts, too little time and too little care
paying attention to which message I was replying to. I will try to be
more careful in future.
Mattia Valente
>
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 15:44:18 +0100, Mattia Valente
> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>
> >
> >That's Tim's line. Reply to him next time. Makes more sense.
>
> My apologies. Too many posts, too little time and too little care
> paying attention to which message I was replying to. I will try to be
> more careful in future.
True. I was getting confused as to having said that. OK, so I agreed
with him, but, uh, that's not the point. Ahum.
Niall Harrison
> It's all
> very well having an epiphany and realising you want to help people so they
> don't suffer, but you also have to be aware of the grand scheme of things,
Which is why I've been wandering around telling everyone who will listen
that Angel's epiphany is deeply ironic and has given him a cosmic myopia.
:-)
"There's no grand plan...no big win"
That's one of the reasons 'Epiphany' is so great - we understand
completely why Angel has adopted this position, we know it will affect his
future actions, and we know it's not the whole truth of things.
>> > For all Angel knew releasing flame-boy was tantamount to releasing
>> > Acathla..
>>
>> I think it's reasonable for him to assume that that isn't the case. If it
>> was, flame-boy would surely have been a *lot* more heavily guarded.
>
> Sure, we can assume that. Angel can't. He assumed he could have sex with
> Buffy and look how that turned out.
That's not a fair comparison. Using that logic, Angel should never do
*anything*, because he doesn't know what other loopholes might be built
into the curse.
> He assumed the demon in Judgement was
> evil and he was actually a protector. That surely should have given him a
> wake up call to think about the implications of his actions.
It did. He decided it was all hopeless. Then he had an epiphany, which was
basically "don't worry, be happy". :-)
Niall
--
"You're insane. You're short, and you're insane."