|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 9, 2010 10:50:43 GMT -5
I always just took it as "we have this right here...let's use it." What else did Buffy have around her in the empty tomb to hit the seed with besides her fist (which was weakened)? I did always think that the scythe was the only thing that could have broken the seed.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 9, 2010 9:04:04 GMT -5
Who said it couldn't be done well? Me, just then. "Eh. Angel had his own show for five years and his own comic for #39 issues. For him to be killed off so unheroically on Buffy would be such a disservice to a rich, layered character." Considering what was going on--everything from the Twilight arc- to Last Gleaming--it would be a huge disservice to a series header like Angel to be killed as a villain after forgetting about his son, doing whatever Buffy says, and then getting possessed. I never said it had to happen this issue...or even this year...or even next year. I'm just saying that's where I thought it was going when Buffy said "that's it...I'm ending this."...and wouldn't mind it, surprisingly. Which led me into thinking if it WOULD happen....anytime...wouldn't mind. Maybe it can happen in 20 years. Who knows? Hence, different circumstances...not being done this way and therefore being done well etc.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 9, 2010 2:13:43 GMT -5
Booyaaa!! Good for you.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 9, 2010 2:12:21 GMT -5
That's purely awesomeness.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 9, 2010 2:09:52 GMT -5
Not to toot. There's always my videos
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 9, 2010 2:06:11 GMT -5
A new beginning. The seed has been destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 9, 2010 2:03:16 GMT -5
I actually would prefer if Angel was slain by Buffy. (This is actually what I thought was going to happen at the end of the issue). Buffy, before it was decided on a series for Angel, was ACTUALLY supposed to kill Angel and he was supposed to stay dead after Buffy Season 2. So it would have been what Joss had in mind originally with the character. I think it woulda been kinda cool. Eh. Angel had his own show for five years and his own comic for #39 issues. For him to be killed off so unheroically on Buffy would be such a disservice to a rich, layered character. Who said it couldn't be done well? When looking at the banner for the site, the final issue's cover by Jo Chen, does anyone else feel Buffy's pain ten times more now because they know she is (mostly) upset about Giles?
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 9, 2010 2:00:51 GMT -5
I really hope season 9 deals more with the characters and less on the action. We didn't get enough character stuff. The best issue alone was The Chain (issue 5) simply due to the fact that it oozed emotion and read almost like a film piece.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 9, 2010 1:58:23 GMT -5
So, I'm just going to put something out there. Does anyone think that the Buffy franchise is making/planning on too many spin offs?
For example, I am someone that really only likes to know and read about something that Joss and the creators consider canon, so therefore, I have read "AFTER THE FALL" and "BUFFY SEASON 8." I read the epilogue issue to AFTER THE FALL and all of the one-shots for BUFFY because I know those were considered canon. Now, once Joss left Angel I stepped away and will continue to read the "canon" stories. But now it's getting hard to follow and that got me thinking, "for a casual reader who just reads the issues, puts it down, and picks up the next issue without checking online must be so confused."
So, after Buffy there is a talk about a Willow spin off, a Buffy spin off, there is a Spike &Illyria spin off, and there is an Angel spin off.
I just feel that 1. this is too much. 2. it may be a lot of money for people and 3. if one person misses one thing they may get completely confused if it's only talked about in one issue.
I'm not complaining, just starting conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 8, 2010 21:13:22 GMT -5
(This is something I do instead of writing papers for class).
1. Disney World or Disney Land? I prefer Disney World. More to do.
2. Favorite Disney movie? Mine has to be between Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, and Aladdin.
3. Favorite Disney song? Bells of Notredame.
4. Favorite Disney character? Flounder.
5. Live action Disney or animated Disney? Animated.
6. Favorite Disney Princess? Tiana.
7. Favorite Disney Prince? Eric.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 8, 2010 21:02:17 GMT -5
I actually would prefer if Angel was slain by Buffy. (This is actually what I thought was going to happen at the end of the issue). Buffy, before it was decided on a series for Angel, was ACTUALLY supposed to kill Angel and he was supposed to stay dead after Buffy Season 2. So it would have been what Joss had in mind originally with the character. I think it woulda been kinda cool.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 8, 2010 2:53:22 GMT -5
I appreciate the awesome reviews and I guess it makes some sense. It still seems a little ick to me. & I rarely if ever feel ick when I think of certain Buffy events. & I AM a fan of Season 8.
And I always understood that the "vampires becoming famous" was a commentary on current pop culture, but I still think it handled sloppily. My friend who didn't have months between issues to talk and discuss and read up on new issues (for the tiniest details) literally turned to me while reading and said "What the hell was that? Where did that even come from." *shrug*. There's just something about the way it was executed that was off. It could have been handled so much better and even used for a larger tie-in to the Twilight story.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 7, 2010 12:00:42 GMT -5
Another thing, what was the point of bringing back Riley at all besides the "ah, it's Riley" factor?
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 7, 2010 11:07:48 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but that's REALLY a load of bull. And for someone who takes time to read these issues, its sad that I didn't pick up on that at all. Twilight to me just seemed super evil. Dumb, sloppy writing. It's probably sadder that I was able to composite all that seemingly random information in my head in one sitting. Perhaps reread the entire run and see if it makes more sense to you. The clues and motivations for the whole Twilight deal were spread over the course of 4 years, and deets get forgotten during that time. Reading it all through may help put things in perspective a lot easier. Apparently I'm not alone judging by the thumbs ups on my posts so Imma keep this going. (P.S. I'm just doing fun debating). Even though Twilight explanation to me, is slim at best and goes against everything Angel is as a character: That still doesn't explain why vampires became famous and why people accepted it like "it was no big deal." Why did Angel preach about no magic and such? I don't know. Such a fail.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 7, 2010 11:03:34 GMT -5
This is an issue that's been spelt out in the books so far. You may think that it's sloppy, but there it is. Feel free to submit another question (or 5). I think it's unfair that my question isn't accepted. It's still a logical question. But whatevaaa
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 7, 2010 9:28:57 GMT -5
Tyler, I already answered this for you HERE. Also, this is a question better suited for Scott, not Jeanty. But were you involved in the writing and planning and talking with the writers throughout the season? I wanted someone close to the writers to answer this. I know it's better suited for Scott...but Jeanty has hinted at plot points to come numerous times.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 7, 2010 9:03:19 GMT -5
So, what did the vampires being famous and everyone thinking Slayers were terrorists and people having Twiight's mark have anything to do with anything? That's been explained in chunks over the season. Angel assuming the mantel of Twilight was to rally all the factions that opposed Buffy under one banner. Basically, give her one big enemy to fight, rather than have people coming at her from all angles. It was basically Angel's idea of damage control; of keeping the body count minimal. The ethics of it are sketchy, and I'd rather we not rehash it all over again. All this was supposed to focus Buffy's anger, which apparently was a prerequisite for her ascension. I'm sorry, but that's REALLY a load of bull. And for someone who takes time to read these issues, its sad that I didn't pick up on that at all. Twilight to me just seemed super evil. Dumb, sloppy writing.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 5, 2010 21:15:19 GMT -5
So, what did the vampires becoming famous and everyone thinking the slayers were terrorists have anything to do with anything? It seems the entire arc of the story could have happened in the final 6 issues. Do these story elements have anything to do with upcoming events? (I always thought it was odd how easily people accepted vampires and am still waiting on an explanation. If there is none...seems sorta random and unneeded).
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Dec 5, 2010 21:12:23 GMT -5
So, what did the vampires being famous and everyone thinking Slayers were terrorists and people having Twiight's mark have anything to do with anything?
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Austin "tiewashere" on Nov 30, 2010 2:39:11 GMT -5
Is there any site where I can watch the old "previously on Angel"'s? They have them for Buffy on Netflix (and I know not on the dvdS) and they have them on the first season of Angel on Netflix but not 2-5 and I find them interesting. Anyone know where I can watch these, if at all?
|
|