Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Angel # 5 Issue Discussion Thread(Full Spoilers)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
    I'm getting the "Domain name expired" error again.
    I'm not great with technology, perhaps it has logged an historical shot and you need to force it to refresh, or something (I did warn you on the 'not being very tech savvy' front!). It is definitely up and running again, I've been on the threads. Perhaps trying a different link in might work????

    http://slayalive.com/forumdisplay.ph...amp-Interviews

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
      ?

      If you have such an issue with emoticons, I'll just put a question mark, because I really have no idea what you're talking about. I'm "exposing myself"? *headscratch* I'm pretty sure I haven't taken my clothes off on this forum, so this must be you trying to insinuate something (oh gosh!!!! My dark secret must be out!!! LMAO). Whatever it is.
      The level at which you have to dig when the answers are plainly available in the stated text of the show itself, on screen and the pages of the comics, exposes you have no interest in it, only cherry-picking things from S2 in which you prove your point. You disregard 3-7 and all of AtS, particularly S4...why exactly? We all know stuff changed throughout the show. That's why I mentioned Buffy's birthday, not because it's on-par, but because it's just an example that you can't ignore everything following it. A better example would have been Spike being sired by Angel. Pissed off a lot of fans when Fool For Love aired, but Dru was Angel's sire*.

      I also have no idea what were supposedly "low-key ad hominems" in my post. (It's also hilarious that someone actually thinks emoticons are some sort of last resort in online discussions, rather than an everything thing everyone uses, all the time. But never mind.) I do, however, see a lot of ad hominem attacks (very baffling ones) in your post. I'm guessing you're choosing to behave like this since you are obviously unable to actually provide counter-arguments to my arguments - or those by Vampire in Rug and vampmogs, so instead you repeat the same thing over and over, focus on me, use personal attacks, and my favorite argument "duh, everyone knows that". Unlike you, other posters in this thread clearly understand what the problem is with the writing in this issue and have also pointed that out. It's just you who seem really upset that I'm daring to call the writing bad (ViR has also called it bullshit, but you seem focused on me, so whatever). Therefore I see no reason to continue this... exchange of posts.
      Assigning the disagreeing viewpoint as "non earth logic" is what you would call a low-key attack. You don't outright call me illogical, but it follows hand-in-hand. You are using logic. I am not.

      Not everyone uses emoticons. Only people with nothing left in the tank use them in discussions.

      I address you because you address me. You said the name thing was a big thing. VIR said it. I made a blanket statement saying I don't get how it's that big of a deal considering all that's there in support of it. VIR never commented about it again. You did.

      I provided no counter examples? There is an entire plot arc in S4 of Angel that deals with Angel and Angelus being split. The split is established right at the start with Jenny saying Angelus was back. S3 of Buffy deals with Angelus coming back. These aren't examples of the divide? How about S5 when even Spike does it? Not an example, either? The characters making this distinction is a common thing.

      What doesn't get addressed by you is the fact that this divide existed on the show. Angel himself called his soulless self Angelus ON THE SHOW. Therefore, it's not out of the realm of reason he'd do the same post show. There are no instances of anyone calling him Angel prior to the Romany cursing him. I've said it 3 times now.

      If last canon is best canon, then in the comics, it really is Jekyll/Hyde. I disagree with this. You disagree with it, too, I'm guessing. But I disagree with a hell of a lot of the post-series modifications to the 'verse and get told to shut up, it's canon. Well, good for the BTVS goose is good for the AtS gander. Most fans do recognize that the CHARACTERS in the show made the Angel/Angelus distinction. Angel continuing to do so is just a continuation of that. Whether or not they actually are is another discussion.

      *Fun fact, Dru was always meant to be Spike's sire, (Joss said it way back in 98), but try telling fans that.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by HardlyThere View Post
        The level at which you have to dig when the answers are plainly available in the stated text of the show itself, on screen and the pages of the comics, exposes you have no interest in it, only cherry-picking things from S2 in which you prove your point. You disregard 3-7 and all of AtS, particularly S4...why exactly? We all know stuff changed throughout the show. That's why I mentioned Buffy's birthday, not because it's on-par, but because it's just an example that you can't ignore everything following it. A better example would have been Spike being sired by Angel. Pissed off a lot of fans when Fool For Love aired, but Dru was Angel's sire*.
        Um, no. You are disregarding every season of BtVS and every seasons of AtS except AtS season 4. This is the only season when souled Angel talked about "Angelus" in the 3rd person, and where "Angel" and "Angelus" were literally referred to as two different people/entities/personalities/whatever.


        Assigning the disagreeing viewpoint as "non earth logic" is what you would call a low-key attack. You don't outright call me illogical, but it follows hand-in-hand. You are using logic. I am not.
        Oh, you mean, I dared to express an opinion you didn't like, criticizing the writing in this issue, and then, after you replied to me, I dared to disagree with your counterarguments and laid out reasons why the writing in this issue is not logical? I dared to attack your counterarguments, and you took that as a personal attack on you, somehow, even though I never said anything about you as a person - and you took that as carte blanche to start direct personal attacks on me and insult me personally? All the while having the gall to accuse me of ad hominem attacks in that same post where you were using most blatant ad hominem attacks possible?

        Or did you actually write this issue, so you took my criticism of the writing as a personal insult? Is that what's going on? If not, your claims are utterly baffling.
        Not everyone uses emoticons. Only people with nothing left in the tank use them in discussions.
        Oh, give me a break. That's utter BS and I'm sure you are well aware of it, because anyone who's spent more than 2 hours online in their entire life must be well aware that emoticons are a completely accepted, acceptable, widespread and commonly used feature of online discussions, used as a substitute for things like facial expressions or the tone of voice, which don't exist online. Why do you think this, and every other online forum, offers a bunch of emoticons as a feature for the posters to use? Take a look at the feature at the right of your post, offering a whole bunch of emotions to use, a button over your post, which says "smiley", and the feature under your post that offers you to post icons. Why do you think they exist? Is that news to you? Are you going to complain to the moderators? I'm afraid you'll have to go and complain to the moderator of every forum online you ever visit.
        Either you are staggeringly ignorant about online communities and netiquette, or you are putting on a very transparent act of being ignorant about them. I'm pretty sure that this is the first time you've "discovered" how "bad" emotions are - and I've seen quite a few of your posts on your forum - and it just happened to be when you needed to desperately look for another low blow to take against me. Funny how that works.

        You know what is actually against the netiquette, seen as a desperate ploy by people who have no real arguments to make, and is widely condemned and forbidden in online discussions? Personal attacks. The thing you've been doing here.

        I address you because you address me. You said the name thing was a big thing. VIR said it. I made a blanket statement saying I don't get how it's that big of a deal considering all that's there in support of it. VIR never commented about it again. You did.
        So you're saying that, since I replied to your post, you got really riled up and decided to take on a dismissive attitude towards me and insult me personally? And use the amazing argument: "Well, everyone knows I'm right and everyone agrees with me! You are just irrational lone poster and nobody agrees with you or takes you seriously!" Even though this thread so far has been showing the exact opposite - at least two other posters wrote posts where they expressed the same or very similar views as me (but you chose to ignore them completely), while you've been the only one in this thread to defend the writing in this issue?

        And please tell me what you meant when you said I "exposed myself". I'm just really curious.

        I provided no counter examples? There is an entire plot arc in S4 of Angel that deals with Angel and Angelus being split. The split is established right at the start with Jenny saying Angelus was back. S3 of Buffy deals with Angelus coming back. These aren't examples of the divide? How about S5 when even Spike does it? Not an example, either? The characters making this distinction is a common thing.

        What doesn't get addressed by you is the fact that this divide existed on the show. Angel himself called his soulless self Angelus ON THE SHOW. Therefore, it's not out of the realm of reason he'd do the same post show. There are no instances of anyone calling him Angel prior to the Romany cursing him. I've said it 3 times now.
        Yes, you've very good at repeating the same things over and over, even though they're beside the point and don't provide any counterarguments to what I wrote. You're also really good at Straw Manning.

        Somehow you keep failing to notice that no one here has said that anyone called Angel on screen "Angel" before he was cursed, and no one here has denied that the canon has had the custom of people calling souled Angel "Angel" and soulless Angel "Angelus" since the episode "Enemies" in BtVS season 3, and I've actually mentioned the latter, as well as the fact that season 4 had a stark Angel/Angelus divide and Angel talking about "Angelus" in 3rd person... What you fail to mention is that this completely contradicted every season of BtVS and AtS before that, and was then completely contradicted by the following season of AtS.

        So, what you're basically saying boils down to this: we have to ignore every other season of BtVS and AtS, and out of 12 seasons of TV Buffyverse, only recognize AtS season 4 as canon. Sorry if I don't find that a very strong argument. I've already said my opinion of that arc in AtS season 4 - and I don't have to bother to dismiss it, when the writers of the show went and did that themselves in the very next season of the show itself. Let's see how Angel and Spike talk about their history in season 5 of AtS:

        FRED
        OK, would somebody please tell me who—

        WESLEY
        William the Bloody. He's a vampire. One of the worst recorded. Second only to—

        ANGEL
        Me.

        (AtS, 5x02 Just Rewards)

        Wait. Why is he talking about "Angelus" in the 1st person? Why does he say he, Angel, was the worst vampire ever recorded? I'm confused!


        SPIKE
        Never much cared for you, Liam, even when we were evil.

        ANGEL
        Cared for you less.

        SPIKE
        Fine.

        ANGEL
        Good.
        (beat)
        There was one thing about you...

        SPIKE
        Really?

        ANGEL
        Yeah, I never told anybody about this, but I�I liked your poems.

        SPIKE
        (frowns)
        You like Barry Manilow.

        (AtS, 5x04 Hell Bound)

        What is this? Spike clearly never got the memo that "Angel" was not "Angelus"! They were never evil together, right? That was some other dude? Or some other dudes? When did Angel hear Spike's poetry?


        SPIKE
        (punches Angel)
        'Cause every time you look at me...
        (punches Angel)
        you see all the dirty little things I've done,
        (punches Angel)
        all the lives I've taken...
        (punches Angel)
        because of you! Drusilla sired me...
        (punches Angel)
        but you... you made me a monster.
        (punches Angel, walks toward the cup)

        ANGEL
        (collapses to the ground)
        I didn't make you, Spike. I just opened up the door...
        (starts to get up)
        and let the real you out.

        (AtS, 5x08 Destiny)

        Wow, neither of them got the memo. They both clearly think "Angel" and "Angelus" are the same guy.

        ANGEL
        (walks in)
        A lot of pain?

        SPIKE
        More than I'd like. But not as much as you would. Just what I deserve.

        ANGEL
        (sighs)
        I didn't say that.

        SPIKE
        No. I did. The lass thought I killed her family. And I'm supposed to what, complain 'cause hers wasn't one of the hundreds of families I did kill? I'm not sayin' you're right... 'cause, uh... I'm physically incapable of saying that. But, uh... for a demon... I never did think that much about the nature of evil. No. Just threw myself in. Thought it was a party. I liked the rush. I liked the crunch. Never did look back at the victims.

        ANGEL
        I couldn't take my eyes off them. I was only in it for the evil. It was everything to me. It was art. The destruction of a human being. I would've considered Dana a masterpiece.

        (AtS, 5x11 Damage)

        Again - what is this? Why is Angel talking about his evil deeds? I thought that was Angelus, some totally different dude in his body?

        You also have failed to address any of the actual arguments I (and others) have made:

        1) other than possibly AtS season 4 (but even that's questionable, since, if Angel and Angelus are two different entities, how is Angel even present in Angelus' mind, when there is no soul there?), every season of the TV shows treated "Angelus" or soulless Angel as two versions of the same person/entity, with Angel talking about his soulless self in the 1st person (and vice versa). And in fact, trying to argue they are not would render most of Angel's story on both shows, and the whole premise of his own show (redemption... for what? Dark past... what dark past?), utterly meaningless.

        2) it makes absolutely no sense for "Angelus" to be surprised at someone calling him Angel, since those are just 2 versions of the same name, and it's been established in canon that "Angelus" is a name he got only because it's a Latin form of "angel", and that he knows that - it's exactly why he took that name. So, Angelus going "Angel?" as if he's so surprised anyone would call him that, is utterly illogical. It's as if Drusilla were to say: "Who's Drusilla? I don't know any Drusilla. I'm Dru."

        And no, I wasn't "cherry picking" examples from season 2. I was showing that the "Angel"/"Angelus" name custom wasn't even a thing in seasons 1 and 2 (in fact, it only became a thing in Enemies in season 3). I never denied that it then became a thing since "Enemies". But does that mean I have to ignore the first 2 and a half seasons of BtVS to be able to retcon that divide into existence? No. You just can't argue that such a divide existed in seasons 1 and 2, since so many examples prove otherwise. Jenny saying "Angelus is back" means nothing if Dru and Spike (as well as Darla and the Master previously) and Angel(us) himself then proceed to use both names regardless of which version they're talking about (calling soulless Angel "Angel" multiple times, and Spike using "Angelus" to refer to souled Angel as well). All you can do, trying to maintain some continuity, is try to explain it, by saying, that, for instance Jenny was using "Angelus" to denote soulless Angel, but Dru, Spike and Angel(us) himself clearly did not have that habit at the time.


        If last canon is best canon, then in the comics, it really is Jekyll/Hyde.
        You mean, because R.L. Stevenson's story is a psychological allegory about the dark side of a nice Victorian gentleman materializing as his alter ego/a monster he literally turns into, but so many people misinterpret it and talk about Mr Hyde as some dude that has nothing to do with Dr Jekyll, completely missing the point? Yeah, I guess it really is like Jekyll/Hyde in that sense.

        I disagree with this. You disagree with it, too, I'm guessing. But I disagree with a hell of a lot of the post-series modifications to the 'verse and get told to shut up, it's canon. Well, good for the BTVS goose is good for the AtS gander. Most fans do recognize that the CHARACTERS in the show made the Angel/Angelus distinction. Angel continuing to do so is just a continuation of that. Whether or not they actually are is another discussion.
        Really? Because this entire discussion has been about this issue doing that modification and taking it to the level it had never been done before. That's not just "a continuation of that". I guess you could call it a "continuation" in the sense that it takes some elements, ratchets it up to 11, to the point where it's absurd. Which is why me and at least two other people in this thread have criticized the writing in this issue as illogical and stupid. (As Vampire in Rug said, " That other writers have taken it as far as they have now is frankly retarded.") We're not obliged to be blindly uncritical of these comics and accept anything that appears in a Buffyverse comic as smart and great writing and something that fits well in the continuity, even when it clearly does not.

        The writing of Angel/Angelus in this issue comes off as the author never actually watched the shows, and just got their views from online discussions and articles about BtVS, or maybe caught a few AtS season 4 episodes on TV and watched nothing else.
        Last edited by TimeTravellingBunny; 07-06-17, 04:36 PM.
        You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by HardlyThere View Post
          Is there an instance of someone else calling him Angel before his curse? No. So Angelus being surprised/curious at the strange usage is not inexplicable.
          In the flashbacks we're shown? Possibly not, but as I was just going through transcripts (for something else entirely) I saw Darla and the Master talking about the idea of bringing Angel back into the fold in the S1 episode Angel. Apologies if this has been mentioned upthread already and I've just forgotten. The text goes...

          Master: Do I sense a plan, Darla? (she turns around) Share...
          Darla: (walks back) Angel kills her and comes back to the fold.
          Master: Angel! He was the most vicious creature I ever met. I miss him.
          Darla: So do I.


          Don't you think that is just a reeeeally weird way of talking about him if Angel/Angelus wasn't always interchangeable for them? I can't see the Master referring to missing Angel and the vicious creature he used to be, but using what he, the Master, considered to be a separate 'souled' reference name for him to do so. Yes, the show increasingly used Angelus as a separate way to distinguish between Angel souled and when he was unsouled. But I think TTB is just correct that it is strange to try and say that the name wasn't always interchangeable to some degree, especially with the origination being from Angel and that it is odd for Angel to react, unsouled, to being called Angel rather than Angelus. I haven't read the comic issue, so I don't know how 'strange' his reaction is, but him reacting to being called Angel rather than him just reacting to someone he doesn't expect to know him knowing his name does sound weird to me.

          I tend to always see S4 on AtS as the odd man out. Certainly after that Angel has repeatedly spoken of his unsouled self and his actions/crimes as being his own. There is distinction between both vampires' souled and unsouled selves, but there has always been continuity. The idea that Angel had separate memories to 'Angelus' was just weak and nonsensical and pretty much overridden by what came before and what came after it, especially with Angel's eidetic memory and how well he remembers all his victim's names etc.


          EDIT: In fact I've just searched the page and been reminded that yes, vampmogs did raise this scene earlier already. It really is, as he suggested, clearly implying that this is just how they have always switched in referencing him. I'm not sure what there is to truly counter that logic.
          Last edited by Stoney; 08-06-17, 10:27 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Corinna Bechko Slayalive Q/A is finally up.

            http://slayalive.com/showthread.php/...el-Season-11-5

            Comment


            • #36
              Corinna's answers to the questions around time travel seems to be suggesting that wider consequences from the journeying into the past are going to be part of the story, but then also that the reader can choose for themselves the impact that them meeting in the past has had.

              In the latest solicitations for #9 it says:
              Illyria tries to transport herself and Angel back to the present when it becomes clear that changing the past is perhaps not the solution to the future. But she is having difficulty convincing Angel that he should not, and cannot, fix the past…

              It'll be irritating if the realisation Angel got from resurrecting Giles about trying to 'fix' the past is completely ignored, but anyway... the idea that the writer can take the stance that it is up to the reader to decide if there is any impact from Angel/Darla/Illyria meeting Fred/Illyria/Angel is frustrating. Sure, I can see the argument that it instead creates an alternate time line and that is the way to make it not affect any of the existing history that influenced the choices of the characters we have followed to get them to their current selves, but how can this be something left for the reader to pick? If it didn't create an alternate time line, then the ripples would affect the characters we are following and would/could/should influence choices that they made in their histories and potentially then affect/change the current timeline. How can it make any sense that they met so much earlier and it have no impact on the current?? But the alternate time line option has been taken away from the reader anyway. In having one of the aunts dating a demon now as a direct result of the impact they are having on the past, this proves the alterations aren't creating new time lines, no? The idea that Corinna's story, taking Angel off on a time travelling adventure, is to possibly keep him out of getting drawn into the BtVS story is just really funny as everything that Angel is doing could impact everyone.

              Comment

              Working...
              X