|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Jun 3, 2010 21:11:54 GMT -5
Well, I guess we'll see whether your interpretation is correct. I hope so.
I'd certainly like to know what he thought he was trying to accomplish as Twilight, and how he somehow managed to rationalize away the murder of hundreds of champions of good.
JASMINE: "Yes, I murdered thousands to save billions. This world is doomed to drown in its own blood now."
ANGEL: "The price was too high, Jasmine. Our fate has to be our own, or we're nothing."
|
|
Dorotea
Potential Slayer
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 145
|
Post by Dorotea on Jun 3, 2010 21:44:02 GMT -5
Well, I guess we'll see whether your interpretation is correct. I hope so. I'd certainly like to know what he thought he was trying to accomplish as Twilight, and how he somehow managed to rationalize away the murder of hundreds of champions of good. JASMINE: "Yes, I murdered thousands to save billions. This world is doomed to drown in its own blood now." ANGEL: "The price was too high, Jasmine. Our fate has to be our own, or we're nothing." I daresay the girls were 'potential champions of good' - in training. Not that it makes killing them any more excusable. I don't imply that. Still, he did not kill a single one himself, nor is there any evidence that him not interfering would have resulted in less numbers of Slayers being killed. How do you estimate the degree of Buffy's responsibility for the deaths of the civilians in Fray future that Fray tried to save while Buffy calmly observed - because she deemed that tracking the vamps to their lair was smarter way of acting? I estimate Angel's course of action as Twilight at about the same level of responsibility - plus he was under influence of Twilight all the time. Still, this does not excuse him. Yet it makes the situation less black and white.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Jun 3, 2010 23:02:36 GMT -5
He gave the orders and provided the resources for the systematic killing of Slayers. There is absolutely no moral difference between doing that and killing them himself.
Hitler never personally killed anyone, either, as far as we know.
I don't see much equivalence between not taking action to save someone, and proactively engineering someone's death. Neither one is a good thing, but killing is worse than not saving.
Sorry, but based on what we've seen with our own eyes there on the comics page, Angel's actions cannot be interpreted as anything other than villainous. His level of free will in those killings are the deciding factor in whether I'll have to call him a villain or not.
|
|
Dorotea
Potential Slayer
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 145
|
Post by Dorotea on Jun 3, 2010 23:36:29 GMT -5
He gave the orders and provided the resources for the systematic killing of Slayers. There is absolutely no moral difference between doing that and killing them himself. Hitler never personally killed anyone, either, as far as we know. The difference is in conviction, in moral certainty, and - therefore - in agenda. You can claim that Richard Zorge - the secret agent who uncovered a number of Nazis super-secret operations and helped to sabotage them was as much of a Nazi himself as Hitler - because he wore the uniform and acted as if he promoted the ideology. In reality - he was one of the most efficient tools that brought the regime to its end. I do. If not taking action to save 1 life results in saving 100 more lives, I would stop and think, although not necessarily absolve. Say, General Vol actually meant business - and they were ready to nuke the Slayer base - would you claim that making them be satisfied with magic missile that killed outright 207 girls was equally evil to ignoring them killing all 500 girls and some bystanders with a nuke? Ah, it is all in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Jun 3, 2010 23:46:38 GMT -5
He gave the orders and provided the resources for the systematic killing of Slayers. There is absolutely no moral difference between doing that and killing them himself. Provided those orders came from him. Or did they just appear to come from him, based on assumptions prior to the reveal? If Angel is to be believed, the world was already at war with the Slayers. He merely stepped in as a figurehead. He wouldn't have to give orders to eradicate Slayers; that was already being done. All he claimed to be doing all this time was to mislead Buffy's enemies with grand talks about master plans. Buy time. Minimize casualties. The resources were already there. The tanks, guns, other weaponry... those weren't magical. They're pretty much stuff that comes with a military force. He didn't provide those.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Jun 4, 2010 0:18:09 GMT -5
As I've said before, I will never accept the reduction of morality to a mathematical exercise, whether Joss does or not. If Angel gave orders to kill innocents, then he is a killer, no matter what excuse he arrogantly ginned up for purposes of playing God. They're still just as dead. If he did it of his own free will, then he is guilty of mass murder, and there has to be a reckoning. That's just not a question I'm morally capable of giving ground on.
And that's why I'm so afraid of the direction of this story. I can't stand the idea of Angel getting another Protagonist's Free Pass to gloss over and handwave the things he's done, because he's the Big Damn Hero and those Slayers were just faceless cannon fodder that we're not really supposed to care about, other than theoretically for purposes of dramatic license.
The exchange I quoted above between him and Jasmine is no less valid now than it was then.
His level of free will under Twilight, and his remorse and actions post-Twilight, mean everything as far as I'm concerned. His future as a character worthy of my respect hangs right in the balance.
|
|
Darth Rosie
Ensouled Vampire
I do doodle
Keeper of Didacity [? Astray][Mo0:12]
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Darth Rosie on Jun 6, 2010 8:50:08 GMT -5
A totally different observation: There is no tender Dander moment of any kind in Twilight. I find that quite remarkable.
|
|
kaan
Common Vampire
[Mo0:3]
Posts: 78
|
Post by kaan on Jun 6, 2010 9:39:26 GMT -5
A totally different observation: There is no tender Dander moment of any kind in Twilight. I find that quite remarkable. I can't think of ANY tender Dander moments throughout S8. There were a couple scenes earlier between them, during Dawn's transformations, but they seemed to be the normal Xander/Dawn big brother relationship they've had forever. Nothing romantic at all. I think during the Twilight arc they tried to push more of the B/X dynamic before dropping #34 onto us. If they insist on continuing with Dander(if they survive) I hope they will have more focus in S9. An actual arc for their 'relationship' as opposed to whatever is happening right now.
|
|
Dorotea
Potential Slayer
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 145
|
Post by Dorotea on Jun 6, 2010 10:39:55 GMT -5
And that's why I'm so afraid of the direction of this story. I can't stand the idea of Angel getting another Protagonist's Free Pass to gloss over and handwave the things he's done, because he's the Big Damn Hero and those Slayers were just faceless cannon fodder that we're not really supposed to care about, other than theoretically for purposes of dramatic license. The exchange I quoted above between him and Jasmine is no less valid now than it was then. His level of free will under Twilight, and his remorse and actions post-Twilight, mean everything as far as I'm concerned. His future as a character worthy of my respect hangs right in the balance. Well, maybe you are looking at the story in S8 from a very particular and fixed angle of view, not to say that I am not doing the same. But the point it - it is rather multifaceted. Yes, the girls are innocents who were given superpowers to fight evil - without asking for their consent btw and without being given much choice at the time of the empowerment spell. Then there were consequences of sudden demonic activity influx - and we were given hints that the ordeal of Twilight was in fact triggered by the power sharing - creating the master race? Now, who is being given 'free out of jail ticket' for that one ? And do you feel equally vehement about that? In reality every death of every girl in S8 could be blamed on whoever brought them there and pitted them against not just demons - but humanity. Angel specifically insists on only stepping into the scene when the whole anti-Slayer op was already at full swing ( and the rocket at the base in Iowa in the preview of Riley's one shot is a good enough hint to me.) And then again, of course our perception of certain character degree of guilt and morality is always based on the history of that character - the 'hero pass' is not extra karma points given to character for their past good deeds - it is more of a hint to the reader - viewer to stop and think in situations when doubt and careful thinking is in order to do exactly this - stop and think and consider all the possibilities - especially in a story presented as much as a jigsaw puzzle as S8.
|
|
moscowwatcher
Potential Slayer
You're the one, Buffy[Mo0:0]
Posts: 106
|
Post by moscowwatcher on Jun 6, 2010 12:27:26 GMT -5
I think the main problem here is that we were shown one thing and then we were told the opposite thing. In the very first arc we saw Twilight provoking the slayers' attack on a secret lab; we were supposed to see him as the cause of all Buffy's problems. Then he says he's actually helping; Buffy believes him and we're supposed to be on her side.
Apparently it's the case of "who do you believe - me or your lying eyes?"
My guess that we won't get any explanations on what happened between s 7 and 8. Angel has already got his protagonist privilege and is acquitted. There will be some generic tension between Buffy and Scoobies over him, like in season 3, but without serious consequences. As to Spike's arrival - I remember Jeanty's Q&As, where he said that Spike has to confront Buffy. Not Angel. Another clue that Twilight issue is considered over and done with. Given all the quotes about Bangel supremacy, there is no doubt how the confrontation will end.
|
|
Billie Erin
Ensouled Vampire
"I go back to December"
"I picked up a hitchhiker. You've got to when you hit them."[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,536
|
Post by Billie Erin on Jun 6, 2010 12:45:57 GMT -5
I'm very annoyed that Spuffy is being brushed aside like this- Joss himself said on the commentary of season 7 that the Bangel scene in chosen was just to oppose those who still thought Buffy should be with Angel and implied very strongly that he was not one of thsoe people- so I don't get it. Also I think that Buffy and Spike had a very complex relationship that was ahndled with such care in the TV series and is now just being tossed aside for the sake of drama.
|
|
moscowwatcher
Potential Slayer
You're the one, Buffy[Mo0:0]
Posts: 106
|
Post by moscowwatcher on Jun 6, 2010 13:42:36 GMT -5
Billie Erin - I agree. When the season had started I wanted to see Spike, but now I dread his return. I don't recognize Angel in this creature who wants to isolate Buffy from her friends and turn her into a goddess, and I'm afraid that a similar personality transplant will happen to Spike.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Jun 6, 2010 14:17:32 GMT -5
I don't accept that killing innocents is ever a heroic, or even morally acceptable action under any circumstances.
First of all, it's ridiculous that the military would take a "kill 'em all" approach to a group of teenage girls, without making any attempt whatsoever to contact them or find out more about them or their agenda. As of the beginning of season 8, the Slayers had done nothing whatsoever to indicate they were on anything other than the side of good. There was the destruction of Sunnydale, but the authorities "in the know" certainly would have known why that was done, and that the city was evacuated beforehand.
That, however, is more the fault of implausible writing than any of the characters.
With Angel having the kind of influence he somehow acquired, he should have used it to:
1. Inform the authorities as to the truth of the situation, and that Buffy and the Slayers weren't terrorists or enemies; 2. Failing that, come to Buffy directly and tried to help her in any way possible.
If you murder a few to save many, you're still a murderer. The lives you took counted as much as the ones you saved. No one has the right to appoint themselves with this kind of arbitrary power of life and death.
I think it's pretty clear that Angel wanted a certain number of Slayers to be killed, because it would power Buffy up and allow her to reach Twilight with him. He said as much, and I don't think Willow was simply wrong about Buffy's superpowers coming from dead Slayers.
I'm willing to accept that he would not have made that decision if Twilight wasn't distorting his perceptions and his sense of right and wrong -- but I need to see that clearly expressed in the story.
|
|
Dorotea
Potential Slayer
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 145
|
Post by Dorotea on Jun 6, 2010 14:54:12 GMT -5
I think the main problem here is that we were shown one thing and then we were told the opposite thing. In the very first arc we saw Twilight provoking the slayers' attack on a secret lab; we were supposed to see him as the cause of all Buffy's problems. Then he says he's actually helping; Buffy believes him and we're supposed to be on her side. Are you certain of what exactly we were shown? See, I am not that sure anymore. I have not been sure about anything since the demon said 'Twilight is an ultimate triumph of base humanity over demons. It is your dream come true.' Were we supposed to dismiss this and forget about it ? Apparently the eyes cannot see everything, and what they see is not always what is actually happening. Like for example in the case with Buffy giving up her Slayer powers 'into the ground'. Only it turned out the 'earth' was the burial place of bodhisattvas - Blue , Red and I guess another Red ones. And giving up ones power into them resulted in transcendence to goddesshood after looking into the eyes of the Blue Tara bodhisattva representing the transformation of anger into positive energy. Would you assume to dismiss this as something that never happened ? And were your eyes able to see this particular twist before #32? Oh, we will. Check the latest SA interview about Riley one shot - he specifically says that Joss arc will deal with Angel-issues. Adding to that Brad Meltzer's statement that 'Joss' arc is were the meat is in this sandwich' I have no doubt that Angels' entire agenda will be clarified - finally and decisively. But of course Spike will have to confront Buffy - Jeanty more or less said Spike knows about the events of the 34. Do you think he would let the matter of her having cosmic sex with Angel just drop ? I just don't think he will care much about 'sleeping with the enemy' vs 'shagging with somebody who is not me after I went and got a soul to please you'. The whole Mad Max appearance reeks of 'vengeance shall I reap' attitude.
|
|
Shane
Potential Slayer
I saw a baby today.[Mo0:0]
Posts: 135
|
Post by Shane on Jun 6, 2010 18:06:02 GMT -5
Billie Erin - I agree. When the season had started I wanted to see Spike, but now I dread his return. I don't recognize Angel in this creature who wants to isolate Buffy from her friends and turn her into a goddess, and I'm afraid that a similar personality transplant will happen to Spike. I really don't see Spike taking that route. Ensouled Spike seems predisposed to Buffy's ideology - at least more so than to Angel's - which I think is a shame; I preferred soulless Spike from seasons 5 and 6. And then again, of course our perception of certain character degree of guilt and morality is always based on the history of that character - the 'hero pass' is not extra karma points given to character for their past good deeds - it is more of a hint to the reader - viewer to stop and think in situations when doubt and careful thinking is in order to do exactly this - stop and think and consider all the possibilities - especially in a story presented as much as a jigsaw puzzle as S8. Agreed. I think continually assigning a notion of good or evil to Angel detracts from his full scope as an antihero. And since the arrival of the Potentials in season 7 and their subsequent empowerment, Buffy's mission has, IMO, changed from doing good to bringing about peace (juxtaposed with elements of war). And this has its own, unforeseeable consequences. I'm recently finding myself reading into the Whedon-penned issues of Season 8 and this whole time travel gig. And I think there may be more to it than meets the eye - just getting some strange vibes off them along the lines of Buffy-goes-dark-from-excess-power-she-can't-control --> FDW-sends-cryptic-messages-to-Present-Willow-via-Aluwyn --> Angel-and-Spike-end-up-in-Frayverse-and-try-their-own-versions-of-"fixing"-the-timeline (ingeniously, might I add? 'Cause ain't they just?). But that's probably just me wanting the characters to be all dark and damaged. Still, after the mythology-heavy conclusions of both Lost and Battlestar Galactica (SNIKT! SNIKT!), sci-fi themes need a bit more championing. So here's hoping. Go ahead, Joss! Astonish us!! Again!!!
|
|
|
Post by drywallman on Jun 6, 2010 19:47:46 GMT -5
I'm very annoyed that Spuffy is being brushed aside like this- Joss himself said on the commentary of season 7 that the Bangel scene in chosen was just to oppose those who still thought Buffy should be with Angel and implied very strongly that he was not one of thsoe people- so I don't get it. Also I think that Buffy and Spike had a very complex relationship that was ahndled with such care in the TV series and is now just being tossed aside for the sake of drama. You got 3 seasons of Spuffy on the show, and are at least going to have your questions about Buffy and Spikes last interaction answered, and thats not enough for you? I'm sorry but I don't have any sympathy for you.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Jun 6, 2010 20:44:22 GMT -5
I just don't see that Angel has ever been depicted consistently as an "antihero," at least by my understanding of the term. Maybe back in his "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been" days, but not really since BtVS began. He's a flawed hero. But his actions as Twilight go well beyond "flawed."
|
|
moscowwatcher
Potential Slayer
You're the one, Buffy[Mo0:0]
Posts: 106
|
Post by moscowwatcher on Jun 7, 2010 9:35:12 GMT -5
First, the exact quote is much more sinister. "The end, of course. Of the struggle, of the Hellmouths... The final triumph of the base humans over the demons. It's your life goal's achieved, Slayer".
Sephrillian hates humans and, apparently, wants to destroy Buffy by telling her - not outright lies, but half-truths.
Actually, this is my biggest gripe about the narrative - that for three years we are told one thing and shown something quite the opposite. According to Sephrillian, Twilight is the triumph of humans. Yet as soon as Twangel achieved his goal, a demon invasion has started.
Maybe Joss just loves experimenting his narrative ploys on us. But, after a while, it becomes tiresome.
He said: "we didn’t want to deal with Angel too much outside the regular monthly—that’s the place for that info, for the most part." He said nothing about filling the blancs between s 7 and 8. He said nothing about exploring Angel's past. That's why I think it's considered irrelevant by now.
Vengeance? I won't be surprised if Spike will really start a fight with Angel in the middle of the apocalypse. "Twilight" arc was about Angel being brain dead; "Last Gleaming" could easily be about Spike being brain dead. His appearance in #35 is very telling: he looks like a teenager who has stolen his mom's jewellery; he speaks like a shamelless braggart. This is the Spike Joss needs to conclude his story - a jealous jerk who can't appreciate Buffy and Angel's true love.
I doubt the confrontation will be about ideology. I think it will be All. About.Relationships.
We had three seasons of build-up, ten-seconds-love-confession, followed by "No you don't" a second later, complete uncertainty in 2003-2009 and Bangelfest in 2010. (I only say it to explain why Spuffies are frustrated.)
|
|
kaan
Common Vampire
[Mo0:3]
Posts: 78
|
Post by kaan on Jun 7, 2010 10:49:47 GMT -5
Actually, this is my biggest gripe about the narrative - that for three years we are told one thing and shown something quite the opposite. According to Sephrillian, Twilight is the triumph of humans. Yet as soon as Twangel achieved his goal, a demon invasion has started. And you believed Sephrillian why exactly? All the PTB's have repeatedly told us that Angel's back-story will be featured, that there will be flashbacks. Jeanty has said he went overboard with Spike's appearance on that last page, so the jewelry and nail-polish will probably be gone. When has Spike ever not been a shameless braggart and jealous of Angel and Buffy's relationship? This is my fear to, so I hope it won't happen. With any of the ships. You don't think that Bangel's have felt frustrated since 1999? Or Bander's since friggin '97? When one comes at a story only through a shipping lens then they are very rarely satisfied, especially in the Buffyverse.
|
|
moscowwatcher
Potential Slayer
You're the one, Buffy[Mo0:0]
Posts: 106
|
Post by moscowwatcher on Jun 7, 2010 11:25:55 GMT -5
I didn't. It was Dorotea who referenced him to highlight the possibility of Twilight being a good guy.
I try to follow all the interviews by PTB but I don't remember anybody saying "there will be flashbacks" and "Angel's backstory will be featured". Maybe I missed these interviews. What I get from the interviews is that PTB consider Twangel's backstory explained.
He wasn't a shameless braggart when he got his soul in season 7. As to jealosy - I agree, and it looks like Joss plans to exploit his jealosy at maximum to provide a happy Bangel ending.
I don't hold my breath.
I agree about Banders. But Buffy and Angel shippers have always been pandered - B&A met twice in season 4, once in season 5, had an off-screen reunion in s6, got an onscreen reunion in season 7 - a reunion that trampled all three-years-long Spuffy build-up in s5-7. And now Bangels get their final reunion with "true love" assurance from everybody, from BtVS characters to show creators. For them, looking through shipping lens payed off.
|
|