I sure am starting to like Angel

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Sunday, February 15, 2004 16:30
VIEWED: 5648
PAGE 2 of 2

PREV PAGE 1 2

KALATHENA

Friday, January 30, 2004 11:33 AM

I find it damn creepifying that people can't forgive Andrew, but can forgive Angel and Spike, both of whom slaughtered their parents. Very strange dichotomy among viewers. It reminds me of the horrorified screms by fans when Willow sacrificed a deer just one episode after they were saying that Ben "deserved it".

Select to view spoiler:

I didn't read anything online, but I could see it coming that it was a Slayer when the door started pounding.

I was just glad when they got out of the hospital because the security was so incredibly unrealistic. Where was security to escort the out the nurse who would be immediately terminated for mixing up controlled substances? Sheesh. Anyone who made a mistake that big where I worked sure woulda been.

But once the opener was done, I loved the rest. I can't wait until Spike and Lindsey make a special connection now that they have something intimately in common. Heh.

Select to view spoiler:

At least Spike got his own hands back.

I think the structure of this season is far stronger than others. It's more compact and continuous. The only drawback to the over-arch is that we *really* need to get that plot device out of Charles "Mary Sue" Gunns head. It's just too easy. Not very well thought out.

--Kala

IDEFIX

Friday, January 30, 2004 2:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kalathena:
I find it damn creepifying that people can't forgive Andrew, but can forgive Angel and Spike, both of whom slaughtered their parents. Very strange dichotomy among viewers. It reminds me of the horrorified screms by fans when Willow sacrificed a deer just one episode after they were saying that Ben "deserved it".

--Kala

about Andrew <-> Angel/Spike:
I think most people see Andrew as ONE being who was talked into murdering his best friend. whereas Angel and Spike are seen as being TWO different beings inhabiting one body. one man one demon. it's best seen in Angel. he has about nothing in common with his bad alter ego. I haven't seen much of Angel the series yet but I've just recently seen all of Buffy in one go. and there it's so clearly stated that Angel is not one but two very different men. they are both able to 'play' the other but they can't understand or sympatise with each other in any way. they seem to truely hate each other and so it's very easy to separate them as two very different beings and love one of them and hate the other and you aren't even tempted to blame the good Angel for anything the bad Angel has done.

it's less pronunced in Spike because you never saw him change much when he got his soul. but I think he wasn't 'that bad' as a vampire. selfish but capable of love and not really cruel. he always walked the grey paths shouting at the top of his lungs that he was BAD but never really living up to it. or at least he seemed to equal it out with good deeds. there was never anything good about the bad Angel, he never did anything good and it was very clear to everyone.

and there's something else. the demon Spike would have been bad if he was human but he wasn't and so some of us seem to apply different rules to judge him. for a vampire with no soul he was a pretty nice fellow. he killed people to eat them and he liked it but he wasn't cruel. he didn't torture people for fun, he didn't drive them mad before turning them... at least we never saw him acting like that. he was a funny bad not a creepy bad. he earned his name by torturing people or so we are told but it doesn't seem to fit his profile so it's easily dismissed. it's not justice but we tend to forgive people we like more easily than people we hate. but there's something Giles said: "You don't forgive because someone deserves it, you forgive them because they need it." so maybe forgiveness is not about justice and someone can 'earn' it by being a nice fellow half the time, when he's murdering people to feed off them the other half. it's weird logic but what else is there to explain why Spike was never staked?

about Ben deserving it:
there's only one thing I would like to smack him up about: going to help Giles when Buffy called him. he knew about Dawn and Glory and he could have easily asked Buffy if Dawn was with her and he should never have gone out there then. he could have helped in sending someone else or something.
but even better maybe after he found out about Dawn he should have told them to stay away from him or tried to do it on his own. he probably was scared that they'd kill him. but I think they wouldn't have if he came to them early on and 'confessed' being the host of a hellgod. they would have found a way to keep Glory from using the key there was just this one time to do it. and maybe afterwards there would have been a way to get rid of her or keep her from taking over or whatever. if not they might have killed him anyways. Buffy sent Angel to hell, so who knows???

but he sure as hell didn't deserve to die. about as much as Jenny did. but I wouldn't want to charge Giles with murder either because in that situation Ben simply had to die to save others. Glory would not have taken kindly to having missed her one opportunity and there was nothing anyone could have done to stop her. maybe they could have locked Ben/Glory up someplace safe. but what's safe for a hellgod? and what's being locked up forever good for an innocent man?

the deer sacrifice is someth

KALATHENA

Friday, January 30, 2004 4:12 PM

Quote:
I'm not even a vegetarian but I think it's natural for me to eat meat and kill animals to eat them. but it would be a crime if I killed or hurt an animal for no good reason at all.

So knowing that you're the only one with the power enough to bring back the Slayer and are killing the deer in order to complete that task so you can save your city from rampaging demons is "no good reason at all"? Is that what you're saying?

Just curious.

Glad to know you felt Ben didn't deserve it. I've talked to many who felt he did and it was very disturbing.

I have a "pay it forward" kind of mentality myself. If someone has made a horrible mistake in their past, yes, it's a bad thing. But if they have changed their lives and we know that such a horrible thing will never happen again, I have much less anxiety about it.

What's past is past. Let's look to the future. Even Angel himself said something very like this to Darla before Connor was born. Is Andrew likely to murder again? Is Spike? Is Angel? Is Angel a risk because he could yet again have a moment of true happiness? Yep. He most certainly is. Can Andrew now do more good than harm if he is allowed to take a part in the upcoming epic battle? Jury is still out, but I think it's possible. I also think it's possible for Angel and Spike to do the same, which is why I think they are allowed to exist, too.

--Kala

IDEFIX

Friday, January 30, 2004 4:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kalathena:

So knowing that you're the only one with the power enough to bring back the Slayer and are killing the deer in order to complete that task so you can save your city from rampaging demons is "no good reason at all"? Is that what you're saying?

--Kala

no, not really. I think it was a bad idea of Willow to do it but that has nothing to do with the deer. I never thought too much about it myself. she felt she had to get Buffy back and so she killed that animal to do it. seemed to make sense in itself. I thought more along the lines of resurrecting dead people and the general wrongness of that. Dawn wasn't allowed to get her mother back so why should Willow be allowed to get Buffy back? she was just as dead and just as loved. maybe she was needed but maybe Willow was just selfish and presumptious. but it was the only way to get to were the series needed to go. for both Buffy and Willow.

on second thought some people just seem to not want to see cute animals getting killed, maybe that's the case here. isn't much of an argument not even a silly one like mine was. maybe it should have been an 'ugly' animal. I don't seem to make that kind of difference. I carry the spiders out same as everything else that's alive but that's just me.

and I never wanted to kill Andrew. just played devil's advocate here. he annoyed me to no end but that's just me not liking him not me wanting to kill him for killing Jonathan, who annoyed me even more if that's possible.

I'd much rather have 100 murderers run free than one innocent killed by something that calls itself 'the law'. we don't have death penalty here but I even think one innocent man sentenced to lifetime imprisonment is worse than letting the murderers go. it's just the opposit of justice to have someone pay for something he didn't do. and as a principle of mine no one deserves death. some should mearly be kept away from others because they pose a threat to them. and people can change and everyone makes mistakes some of us simply do it 'better' than others. killing is a pretty extreme mistake but it's television. everything is much more extreme there. would be boring to watch otherwise.

I seem to have no problem with Giles killing Ben to get rid of Glory (it's like Mal killing that cop in Serenity) but I really have a problem with Willow going after Warren to avenge Tara. he didn't even shoot her on purpose. and revenge is simply nothing I could accept as a good excuse for murder. she was out of her mind and addicted to the magic or whatever but I think the idea of taking a life in vengeance is pretty low and degrading. I loved Willow up to that point afterwards she had lost my respect in a way. I was never sure it was in-character either. but it was a pretty good plotline.

and we seem to drift widely off topic here. hope that no one minds...

Idefix

KALATHENA

Friday, January 30, 2004 5:54 PM

Quote:
I thought more along the lines of resurrecting dead people and the general wrongness of that. Dawn wasn't allowed to get her mother back so why should Willow be allowed to get Buffy back? she was just as dead and just as loved. maybe she was needed but maybe Willow was just selfish and presumptious.

Oh yeah, that's another entire issue. I have my own personal feelings about Willow's motives, but they are heavily biased by my faith. I was deeply touched by Willow's plea to Osiris to let Buffy come back, but then my favorite myth is the Sumerian version of Inanna going to the underworld. Willow begging for Buffy to return reminded me of Geshtinana, Inanna's handmaid, seeking help from all the other gods to allow Inanna to return.

Quote:
on second thought some people just seem to not want to see cute animals getting killed, maybe that's the case here.

And that is what it seemed like from most folks I talked to about it when S6 began. They were just upset about seeing the cute baby deer get killed. None of them seemed to even have a system of personal ethics like yours.

Quote:
and I never wanted to kill Andrew. just played devil's advocate here. he annoyed me to no end but that's just me not liking him not me wanting to kill him for killing Jonathan, who annoyed me even more if that's possible.

Point taken. I know he annoys a lot of people. I just get annoyed with those who say they don't like him because he killed Jonathan when its really that they're made at the writer's for keeping Andrew and killing Jonathan.

Quote:
I'd much rather have 100 murderers run free than one innocent killed by something that calls itself 'the law'.

Not something I want to argue here. Too much personal bias. I worked in corrections for several years.

Quote:
but I really have a problem with Willow going after Warren to avenge Tara. he didn't even shoot her on purpose.

Now see, I don't have any issue with what Willow did to Warren. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Warren was a misogynistic prick who had committed murder more than once and had no intention of stopping.

Just my opinion, though.

Quote:
and we seem to drift widely off topic here. hope that no one minds...

Heh heh. Yeah, sorry about that, folks.

--Kala

IDEFIX

Friday, January 30, 2004 5:59 PM

@Kala
don't know you much but I already like you.
and not because of the opinions you state but because of the way you state them. to most people debating equals fighting. and I hate that with a passion. debating should equal learning or maybe even bonding.

and I'm female and not really gay and lots of miles away and not interested in more than conversation. just thought I'd say that.

Idefix

KASUO

Friday, January 30, 2004 7:05 PM

Well, we are kind of off-topic but not quite.. yes, I'm confusing my own self.

Instead, let us all hug and rejoice as we eagerly await Firefly's feature presentation to the big screen.

________
"Let's moon 'em!"

KALATHENA

Saturday, January 31, 2004 12:14 AM

Quote:
Kala
don't know you much but I already like you.
and not because of the opinions you state but because of the way you state them. to most people debating equals fighting. and I hate that with a passion. debating should equal learning or maybe even bonding

I know what you mean. Too many people take things too personally. In general, I've found that people who can respect diversity argue very well. I don't have to agree with your opinions to know that there is some validity to them. I also don't feel that my own beliefs are threatened when someone disagrees.

Heh heh, not to worry about attraction. Been married for 14 years myself. Take care.

--Kala

SUCCATASH

Sunday, February 15, 2004 4:30 PM

Well, two weeks ago I decided I was becoming a BIG Angel fan. Now I feel kicked in the gut.

PREV PAGE 1 2