|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 3, 2010 13:58:10 GMT -5
I just can't comprehend the mind or soul of a person who would be capable of behaving in this way towards a person who has done the things Angel has done... willingly, recently, even currently. 200+ girls put their lives and futures in Buffy's hands, died for her, and now she's making love to their killer even while they are, as far as we know, still being slaughtered.
It is an absolute, unforgivable betrayal. But it certainly makes the #35 cover make a lot more sense.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 3, 2010 13:36:45 GMT -5
I understand Joss's next project is a remake of "The Diary of Anne Frank" where Anne Frank ends up sleeping with Hitler. (What could she say? He was very convincing.)
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 3, 2010 12:33:16 GMT -5
The way it's written, it makes sense. Angel kinda smooth talks his way out of it, but he does make a point. You gotta read it, that's all I gotta say. And the pay off? I wish I knew, but that's why I'm sticking around till the end. Smooth talks his way out of it?Obviously, these people value life much less than I do.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 3, 2010 12:30:53 GMT -5
And Andrew, I respectfully disagree with your concern. I know you like simple stories where "The good guys are always stalwart and true, the bad guys are easily distinguished by their pointy horns or black hats, and [the good guys] always defeat them and save the day. No one ever dies, and everybody lives happily ever after" but I don't need my characters to be happy and true to enjoy the story. Besides, I remain firmly in the belief that this is some future version of Angel that may or may not come to be, so the point of redemption might be a moot one since our Angel might never become Twilight. Even it it's not, I'm happy to see where the story goes, and to have Angel in a meaningful role again (as opposed to his enjoyable but irrelevant appearances in the current IDW series). *Shrug* Doesn't matter to me anymore anyway.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 3, 2010 12:27:02 GMT -5
If you read the issue and see/hear Buffy's reaction, you know that's not true. Then how does she go from that to sexing him up in a half dozen pages???
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 3, 2010 12:25:23 GMT -5
AndrewCosset: Well, you choice, but abandonning something you don,t even know all the ramification of seems to me very close-minded. It's like if you were reading the Bible, and Jesus die and you close the book and say: that sucks, they killed Jesus, I'm out. But hey, you make your own choice, I accep that. But I'm just trying to keep you onboard because I have the feeling everything will pay off. Could someone please explain to me how this could pay off? How could this be anything other than Buffy abandoning everything that made her a hero? Abandoning her friends, the Slayers who followed her. Are there any mitigating circumstances? Is Twilight not really a mass murderer? How can this be?
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 3, 2010 12:15:16 GMT -5
Sorry, guys.
I don't believe I can continue with this.
So Buffy just doesn't care about all those dead Slayers... any of it.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 3, 2010 11:59:55 GMT -5
If that's true, I'm out.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 3, 2010 8:35:50 GMT -5
Posting this without having read the issue yet...
I made a lot of posts after the leak about how much I hated this development, and that I think the things Twangel has done put him beyond any justly deserved chance at redemption.
And I still believe that. The only things that would save him for me now as a character would be if he's not in control of his actions (and I know Joss won't go that way) or if he's a future version of himself who's had experiences we don't know about, or if there's some kind of twist and he's not really the one responsible for the things that have been done in his name.
I continue to reject absolutely the "greater good" argument some have theorized... that he's doing these brutal, cruel things in order to save the world from yet another Apocalypse(tm). Joss is, of course, free to tell that story if he wants to. But I won't be going along for the ride if he does. I require of my heroes that they fight evil with good, not with a different brand of evil. I also require of them that they have the strength of character not to fall again and again into the pitfall of evil, and require one shot at Redemption(tm) after another.
My greatest fear is that we'll be asked as readers to subscribe to the premise of "we killed a million innocent people to save a million and one, so we're heroes and you should invest yourself in us emotionally." I want heroism in my story, not cynical arithmetic.
So that is the status of my concern as of 8:35 AM ET, on 3 March 2010.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 2, 2010 23:22:14 GMT -5
How come I'm the only person here who has to wait until after work to get his comics? I always start getting antsy around 11 AM on Buffy comic days.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 2, 2010 22:28:25 GMT -5
So according to Scott... Angel is about to do something worse than he's done before, and yet he's still on a hero path.
I can't imagine where Joss is going with this. I just can't imagine.
It's the most tension I've ever felt over a development in BtVS, because this time not only is the future of these characters in the Buffyverse on the line, but mine as well.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 2, 2010 14:39:02 GMT -5
Again, at least two years ago Josh Whedon gave an interview in which he made a major reveal about the latter part of Season 8 Buffy. That reveal is very much in line with the preview cover images for issue 34. I agree that the images probably are not scenes from the book. But they do characterize the nature of the forthcoming 'interaction'. I remember Joss saying in an interview that Angel (and Spike) would probably be appearing at some point in season 8. I certainly don't recall him saying that Buffy would eagerly throw herself into his arms after he's spent the past few months enthusiastically killing her Slayers, hurting her and her friends, and rewarding all her sacrifice and heroism by turning her into a pariah. For her to do so would not make even the slightest lick of sense. It would be objectively bad writing, and Joss is not a bad writer. If you could find a reference for the interview you're talking about so we can see exactly what he said, it would help.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 2, 2010 14:00:59 GMT -5
It's been the policy on this board to spoiler-tag anything that reveals or references Twilight's identity, regardless of what is happening elsewhere. This policy (finally) ends tomorrow when issue #33 comes out and the reveal becomes official. Back to the images themselves: there seems to be denial of what has been made fairly explicit. Not sure what you mean. If you mean that those two characters are going to be reunited in the sense of "interacting in the story," then yes. If you mean will they be interacting in the way that's suggested by the cover images, it's highly unlikely. The cover images don't always illustrate scenes from the story... in fact, they seldom do.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 2, 2010 13:11:00 GMT -5
I personally doubt that Angel has turned evil. IMO the things he's done already define him as evil. I don't see "evil" as a label one adopts and then either lives up to or doesn't... one's actions make one evil. Angel has done many very evil things without the slightest hint of empathy or concern, and that defines him as evil to me. I don't think those #34 covers should be taken as representative of the actual events in the book... many of the covers this season have represented themes and emotions rather than literal scenes. Personally, I would find it appalling if Buffy falls into Angel's arms like that at this point, regardless of circumstances. "He beats me because he loves me" is not a theme I can really envision Joss embracing.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 2, 2010 9:37:16 GMT -5
A reminder for everyone that the "Retreat" TPB arrives in comic shops tomorrow. Should be in regular bookstores and on Amazon 1-2 weeks later.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 1, 2010 21:27:43 GMT -5
Gotta admit, I haven't been this eager to see what happens next since ToYL. This season may very well leave me wanting to slash my wrists, but it's certainly going to be an epic ride. 3.Powers that be are involved and are in control for a much greater good. This is actually the possibility that scares me most... because no matter what "greater good" they tried to foist on us as an excuse for what Angel has done, I can tell you right now, sight unseen, that I'm not going to be able to accept it. Then I'll be left in the situation of Joss thinking he's saved Angel as a hero, and me not agreeing with him. Such an outcome would cause the sorrow to bleed right off the story page and into the meta world of reality, and that would be terrible. (I hate the Powers That Be. I've been hoping all along that season 9 would be about Buffy and Angel working to free humanity from their tyranny. As a humanist, I have to think that's a story Joss would like to tell.)
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 1, 2010 20:26:47 GMT -5
Newsarama interview with Meltzer HERE. The preview pages are scattered throughout, so if you want to remain unspoiled, perhaps wait till you've read the book. No real spoilers in the book, but according to Meltzer, the reveal is on pg 15... contrary to earlier reports. Perhaps he counted ads? Perhaps Allie was mistaken? Perhaps 12 and 15 are now interchangeable (sorry, doesn't apply to dress sizes)? He pretty much confirms it's not Angelus... not that I thought it would be anyway.
I'm just dying to see how (or if) Joss is going to save the Angel character from this...
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 1, 2010 8:51:15 GMT -5
I'm imagining Ash as a coke addict and Cyn decided to flush her neverending supply of blood down the toilet. And you don't mess with the (nest egg) drugs, baby. You mess with the drugs and you get staked. That works if you accept that the "drug" in question is just the blood itself, and not the thrill of the hunt, the joy of the kill, and revelling in the causing of pain. I always assumed those were pretty much the unanimous motives of soulless vampires... certainly the Watchers' Council goes on that assumption. But it may be that assumption is wrong. Maybe like humans, vampires are evolving over time from a more brutal society to a more enlightened one. The current situation proves that it's possible, at least theoretically, for the vampire-human relationship to be a symbiotic one rather than a parasitic one. If that succeeds in becoming the new status quo, then it's certainly an existential issue for the Slayers. In the new world order, with vampires coexisting with humans, one would assume that even rogues like Cyn need the right to due process of law, rather than being hunted down and killed outright by vigilantes who are answerable to no civil authority.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Feb 28, 2010 10:55:57 GMT -5
Thanks for being diligent, though. Next up, solicitations for #36... this should be interesting to see, since we've already been warned twice now about the controversial cover... For me, it couldn't be more disturbing than the #34 covers. But if I had to guess, I'd say the controversy will have something to do with the Bangel vs. Spuffy debate... BTW, is #33 the issue Meltzer wanted to have a "mature audiences" warning on? That has me wondering what could be more MA than what we've already seen in season 8, especially considering we're told it's not because of sex or mega-gore.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Feb 28, 2010 10:45:26 GMT -5
Here's the best I've been able to do at justifying the vampire situation in terms of story logic:
You could make the argument that our society has always had a strange tendency to glorify and romanticize the people who prey on us, as long as they do so with style and (most importantly) as long as they only hurt people we don't personally know or care about.
This has been the case from the highwaymen of the Middle Ages to the outlaws of the Old West, the gangsters of the 1920's, and the mobsters and gang-bangers of today.
We know those people are killers and criminals who hurt people for a living... but it's usually a theoretical someone else that's being hurt by them. Our attitudes change if we personally become their victims. You're probably not going to enjoy watching "The Sopranos" if your husband was murdered by a Mafia loanshark, and you probably won't have much admiration for "thug culture" if your baby sister was killed in a drive-by. But that only affects you and the people closest to you, because people who don't know you don't care about your loss enough to let it hamper their own entertainment.
So the situation we have here is that a) the vast majority of humans never directly interact with vampires, but know them only through the media; b) of those who do interact with them, the majority encounter a sexy non-killer like Ash; and c) those who do fall victim to the occasional Cyn are simply ground beneath the wheels of the pop-culture myth-making machine.
In order to keep that illusion up with the vampires, however, requires that something like 99% of vampires worldwide are Ashes, allowing the actions of the 1% who are Cyns to be dismissed as accidents or isolated incidents. (I can picture Harmony saying something like, "Hey, human-on-human violence still causes 1,000 times more fatalities than vampire-on-human violence. You're safer with a vampire than you are with a human.")
It's odd to imagine that the vast majority of vampires can suppress their demonic natures enough to keep this charade viable. But evil, like good, is a spectrum rather than a monolith. Just as "good people" run the gamut from the harmlessly unpleasant to the saintly, "evil people" (and demons) can range from functional people lacking any sense of empathy (e.g. Harmony, Ash) to the eagerly destructive (e.g., Cyn, Drusilla, soulless Spike) to the diabolical nihilists who frighten even other evil people (e.g. Angelus).
If we can assume that the former vastly outnumber the latter, then we can assume that the more benign ones are able to keep the more vicious ones in check (like Ash did with Cyn) and maintain the illusion that being with a vampire is an exciting risk rather than a mortal danger.
And given the fact that most vampires are able to rein in their murderous natures (even if for purely self-serving reasons), one has to examine whether the Slayers really are going too far in their mission. In the very beginning, Buffy shared the Watchers' Council view of things: all demons and vampires = evil, so kill them.
But experience taught Buffy to revise that to "Evil demons and soulless vampires = evil." This meant she had to actually think about why she was killing something before she did so, rather than just checking another demon or vampire off the list.
Should that now be revised even further to a policy of "evil is as evil does," and soulless vampires should only be dusted if they're actively hurting people? Should they be judged by their nature or by their actions? Is the lack of a soul a sin to be punished or a handicap to be overcome?
Could Harmony actually be the one in the right here?
|
|