|
|
Post by wenxina on Aug 19, 2010 11:29:40 GMT -5
Perhaps because Angel was still clinging onto that lie? If what he was told wasn't true, then Angel pretty much helped herald in the apocalypse. All his sacrifice was for nought.
And remaking the world... who knows what that entails? If you could recreate everything that was good from the old world, without the bad, would it really be a bad thing for the old world to die, if it was diseased and festering? Not saying that the world was diseased and festering... rather just positing the question hypothetically.
|
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Aug 19, 2010 11:38:12 GMT -5
Perhaps because Angel was still clinging onto that lie? If what he was told wasn't true, then Angel pretty much helped herald in the apocalypse. All his sacrifice was for nought. And remaking the world... who knows what that entails? If you could recreate everything that was good from the old world, without the bad, would it really be a bad thing for the old world to die, if it was diseased and festering? Not saying that the world was diseased and festering... rather just positing the question hypothetically. The good is meaningless without bad. Without both, everything stops and nothing matters anymore. If you could bring all the innocent people into this new world, rather than condemning billions to a holocaust, then you might convince yourself that's for the best. But who decides who's good and who's bad? If you take everybody, then you just move things to a new venue. How do you know all the good people will stay good? And what about everyone who comes after? It was quite clear that the intention was for everyone in the world to die, and Buffy and Angel to give birth to a new super-race. A complete re-boot of our reality. That's fine for Buffy and Angel and maybe the PTB's, and it's murder for everyone else. Unless the "everyone dying" part was not part of the PTB's plan, but rather the very end they were trying to stop. There's an awful lot that still needs to be clarified in these last five issues (knock wood.) |
|
Neil
Potential Slayer
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 187
|
Post by Neil on Aug 19, 2010 11:46:21 GMT -5
The disconnect is part of the story. We were supposed to feel this way, but that´s because of the narrative. If we would have seen the scene chronologically where his undercover-story started, we would have a different perception on him. I certainly hope so. And I certainly hope they consider this important enough to work into the story. He doesn´t show remorse because that was part of his cover. If we would have knon his mission from the beginning we would have said "he´s a good actor". But because we didn´t know that, we just perceived him as a cruel character. But that attitude continued up to and even after his "ascension" with Buffy, when play-acting was no longer necessary. He would have let the entire world die if Buffy hadn't convinced him otherwise. The Angel we see in "Twilight" casually hand-waving his murder of hundreds of Slayers, and trying to hold Buffy back from going to save the world, is diametrically different from the character agonizing with Whistler over the pain he might cause. Something happened, and I hope we find out what. Yeah, that´s because it affects Angel. He feels for what he does and if you see so much trouble, if you cause so much trouble, you just want it to end. Not only what "he did" as Twilight, but even the things beforehand. Alle the things that happened in Atf and before. He was in a similar state in the season 3 episode "Amends". Perhaps because Angel was still clinging onto that lie? If what he was told wasn't true, then Angel pretty much helped herald in the apocalypse. All his sacrifice was for nought. And remaking the world... who knows what that entails? If you could recreate everything that was good from the old world, without the bad, would it really be a bad thing for the old world to die, if it was diseased and festering? Not saying that the world was diseased and festering... rather just positing the question hypothetically. The good is meaningless without bad. Without both, everything stops and nothing matters anymore. If you could bring all the innocent people into this new world, rather than condemning billions to a holocaust, then you might convince yourself that's for the best. But who decides who's good and who's bad? If you take everybody, then you just move things to a new venue. How do you know all the good people will stay good? And what about everyone who comes after? It was quite clear that the intention was for everyone in the world to die, and Buffy and Angel to give birth to a new super-race. A complete re-boot of our reality. That's fine for Buffy and Angel and maybe the PTB's, and it's murder for everyone else. Unless the "everyone dying" part was not part of the PTB's plan, but rather the very end they were trying to stop. There's an awful lot that still needs to be clarified in these last five issues (knock wood.) That´s the point. It´s not necessarily up to them to decide, but they tried their best. I guess everything will clear up. I´m confident. |
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Aug 19, 2010 11:47:30 GMT -5
Hey, I agree that the whole good and bad thing is relative.
However, I'll challenge the idea that Angel was actually aware of the actual plan. He was shocked in #35 to see the destruction caused. It wasn't something he expected. It wasn't something he had been briefed on. Apparently, there are gaping holes in what he actually knows, which is what Buffy calls him out on.
His solution is to soldier on, to remake reality without pain. It's supposed to be perfection in a way, and I guess in heaven, there really is no good or bad. It's all supposed to be good, if you buy the tagline of the generally accepted idea of heaven anyway. That and lots of virgins... that's a random throwaway, but apparently virgins are important.
The point is, Angel was still drinking the Kool-Aid when he told Buffy that they could redo reality. That was his main directive. And apparently, since he failed, he's going to have some answering to do, according to the solicitation for #38. It's my guess that we'll find out who he'll be answering to in #36 or #37 (not a very hard guess, I must say). But hey, this whole cosmic reward thing... it may have just been the way that it was sold to Angel. Whether or not it's actually a reward remains to be seen. Dawn's "Monkey's Paw" references keep coming back to me. Spike's exposition will no doubt be useful in filling in some of these gaps.
|
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Aug 19, 2010 11:56:51 GMT -5
Hey, I agree that the whole good and bad thing is relative. However, I'll challenge the idea that Angel was actually aware of the actual plan. He was shocked in #35 to see the destruction caused. It wasn't something he expected. It wasn't something he had been briefed on. Apparently, there are gaping holes in what he actually knows, which is what Buffy calls him out on. I imagine if everything he'd done was in order to save the world, he was pretty surprised to see that it resulted in the destruction of the world instead. I suppose I can buy his reaction to that... confusion, then trying to stick to the plan, then abandoning the plan and trying something else. The upshot of this is that something went wrong. The plan didn't work. Whistler and the PTB's were mistaken. When Spike shows us what's really going on and why this is happening (I hope), then the view should start clearing up rapidly. His solution is to soldier on, to remake reality without pain. It's supposed to be perfection in a way, and I guess in heaven, there really is no good or bad. It's all supposed to be good, if you buy the tagline of the generally accepted idea of heaven anyway. That and lots of virgins... that's a random throwaway, but apparently virgins are important. If there's one thing Buffy isn't right now, it's a virgin. After #34 she may be the least virginal human being in our dimension.  The point is, Angel was still drinking the Kool-Aid when he told Buffy that they could redo reality. That was his main directive. And apparently, since he failed, he's going to have some answering to do, according to the solicitation for #38. It's my guess that we'll find out who he'll be answering to in #36 or #37 (not a very hard guess, I must say). It's very much my hope that Angel will be the one demanding answers. It's time for him to follow Buffy's lead and tell them exactly which bodily openings they can fill with their prophecies and visions. But apparently Angel is being shuffled off the main stage now, so we may not get to see it. |
|
Maggie
Innocent Bystander
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 48
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 19, 2010 14:00:52 GMT -5
Hey, I agree that the whole good and bad thing is relative. However, I'll challenge the idea that Angel was actually aware of the actual plan. He was shocked in #35 to see the destruction caused. It wasn't something he expected. It wasn't something he had been briefed on. Apparently, there are gaping holes in what he actually knows, which is what Buffy calls him out on. This is what bothers me about Angel's actions here. He does NOT have the full picture. He's presented with an unimaginably awful choice: betray Buffy and kill hundreds or thousands or let the world be destroyed. Before choosing option (a), a person should work damned hard to make sure option (a) really is the last resort. Especially if one has been through the school of Buffy where resourcefulness and a refusal to play by rules like that are essential parts of the playbook. Angel has no idea what's going on, ergo he can't have worked very hard to make sure option (a) was really the last resort. In fact, narratively speaking we can be pretty darned sure that option (a) isn't the last resort, since it's unlikely that Joss is going to write a story where the way the world gets saved is by having Angel swoop in, work behind Buffy's back manipulating and betraying her in order to save the day. How much more unfeminist could you get than a story where the guy not only has to take control, he doesn't even consult the woman whose role he's usurping. I'd be deeply surprised if Whedon wrote a story where Buffy's boyfriend was RIGHT to have faith in Whistler's presentation of the fact rather than in Buffy's judgment and RIGHT to undermine her in an attempt to destroy her so much that she could get powered up into superduper Buffy. |
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Aug 19, 2010 14:15:44 GMT -5
This is what bothers me about Angel's actions here. He does NOT have the full picture. He's presented with an unimaginably awful choice: betray Buffy and kill hundreds or thousands or let the world be destroyed. Before choosing option (a), a person should work damned hard to make sure option (a) really is the last resort. Especially if one has been through the school of Buffy where resourcefulness and a refusal to play by rules like that are essential parts of the playbook. I do find it strange that Angel's trust in Whistler is so absolute that he'd do all this just on his say-so. Especially since Whistler admits that none of these outcomes are certain, and that Angel's trust in Buffy in spite of prophecy has paid off before, and that Angel has been severely burned by false prophecies in the past. |
|
Neil
Potential Slayer
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 187
|
Post by Neil on Aug 19, 2010 14:43:21 GMT -5
But Whistler led Angel to Buffy in the first place. That changed Angel´s life. So Angel had reason to believe Whistler.
|
|
Maggie
Innocent Bystander
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 48
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 19, 2010 16:30:38 GMT -5
But Whistler led Angel to Buffy in the first place. That changed Angel´s life. So Angel had reason to believe Whistler. Pick whoever it is that you most trust who has guided you well all your life. That person comes up to you and says "based on this crystal ball I've got, I've run some scenarios and in all of the ones I've examined where you don't flay your mother alive, the world comes to an end". Do you just nod and say "darn, I've got to choose between killing my mother and saving the world, and much as I love my Mom, the world has to come first"? Or do you maybe challenge your trusted advisor? Do you maybe try to brainstorm to find a way around the apparent dilemma? Do you maybe (just maybe) decide to go to the one person in all the world who is best at thinking outside the box and not letting prophecies or tough trade-offs limit her options? Do you pause to wonder if your trusted advisor has lost his mind? Or gotten taken over by evil powers? Angel's choice to trust Whistler back when he first met him was trivial. Angel didn't risk anyting by seeing what Whistler had to show. Even though Whistler proved to be on the money that time, that doesn't mean Whistler has earned the sort of trust that justifies Angel choosing to kill hundreds and to betray and demean Buffy on his say-so. IMO. |
|
richie
Potential Slayer
[Mo0:1]
Posts: 170
|
Post by richie on Aug 19, 2010 18:04:55 GMT -5
i dont read the issue yet.... but i think that TPB wanting to put a lot o monster on the earth to create a new world is totally on character..... we did see the TPB willing to kill some to save billions.... and we to create a new race so no one suffer is totally ok with them...... humn............ season 8 is starting to look epic for me..... only 5 left....... and angel on dark horse?  coooollll we can see illyria and willow on screen? great \o/\o/\o/ |
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Aug 19, 2010 18:59:32 GMT -5
But apparently Angel is being shuffled off the main stage now, so we may not get to see it. Not necessarily so. We know that he's not going to be with Buffy and Spike all that much, but that doesn't mean that he won't be important to "Last Gleaming", just elsewhere. #38 sounds like he should feature quite heavily. |
|
BlueJay
Descendant of a Toaster Oven
Resident Charmed Fan[Mo0:12]
Posts: 631
|
Post by BlueJay on Aug 19, 2010 22:07:26 GMT -5
Any thought as to when this takes place? I want to put it just before Time of Your Life because apparently Buffy has dealt with Twilight enough to want Riley involved as a double agent. Also Buffy and Riley meet up in New York so I'm guessing this is the "all-systems-go" rendezvous.
|
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Aug 19, 2010 22:41:29 GMT -5
Not necessarily so. We know that he's not going to be with Buffy and Spike all that much, but that doesn't mean that he won't be important to "Last Gleaming", just elsewhere. #38 sounds like he should feature quite heavily. Well, I'll leave my sig quote here for him to consult if he's forgotten having said it. |
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Aug 19, 2010 22:45:09 GMT -5
Not necessarily so. We know that he's not going to be with Buffy and Spike all that much, but that doesn't mean that he won't be important to "Last Gleaming", just elsewhere. #38 sounds like he should feature quite heavily. Well, I'll leave my sig quote here for him to consult if he's forgotten having said it. Clarification on what this means, or how it relates to my post you quoted? |
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Aug 19, 2010 23:09:24 GMT -5
Clarification on what this means, or how it relates to my post you quoted? Sorry, related back to the idea of Angel being called to explain himself to the PTB's. |
|
BlueJay
Descendant of a Toaster Oven
Resident Charmed Fan[Mo0:12]
Posts: 631
|
Post by BlueJay on Aug 20, 2010 0:01:59 GMT -5
Or... let's not answer Jay's question. I'll ponder it myself then.
In regards to Whistler, I think Angel needs to stop listening other people and choose his own path, regardless who these people represent. Isn't that the whole free will concept that Angel wanted to fight for when Jasmine went all maggoty?
|
|
patxshand
Ensouled Vampire
Writer/director/Amy Acker's husband.[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,918
|
Post by patxshand on Aug 20, 2010 0:10:29 GMT -5
I'd say it takes place well before Time of Your Life. Time for Riley's cut to heal fully and become a scar. Based on Buffy knowing enough about Twilight to even ask Riley to do it, it has to be after #11 as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Aug 20, 2010 0:13:11 GMT -5
Or... let's not answer Jay's question. I'll ponder it myself then. In regards to Whistler, I think Angel needs to stop listening other people and choose his own path, regardless who these people represent. Isn't that the whole free will concept that Angel wanted to fight for when Jasmine went all maggoty? Don't have a copy. Haven't bought it yet. On the other side of the world. But you seemed to have figured it out already, so why the huff? As for freewill, Angel kinda flip flops on that one. One moment he's Mr. Champion of Freewill, the next, he's Fate's Bitch all over again. |
|
BlueJay
Descendant of a Toaster Oven
Resident Charmed Fan[Mo0:12]
Posts: 631
|
Post by BlueJay on Aug 20, 2010 0:25:49 GMT -5
No huff. I just wanted to know what other people thought. I wasn't completely sure, hence the asking. I needed to make the not-so-subtle reference to my question before it became too pushed back by other posts. It's happened before.
Oh and Pat, I didn't think about the scar. I'm guessing Riley would be one of the first people that Buffy would go to after her encounter with Twilight in #11. Makes sense too. Thanks. =)
|
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Aug 20, 2010 7:51:06 GMT -5
The time frame of the Riley issue is difficult to pinpoint exactly.
It had to be before ToYL, when Riley first shows up in Twilight's employ. When we first see him there he seems to be pretty new on the scene.
It has to be after TLWH, when Buffy first encounters Twilight as a threat, since before that she wouldn't have asked Riley to infiltrate his group. At this point Twilight seems to be quite new on the scene. I'm not sure how much the Angel/Whistler scenes jump around time-wise, but recruiting Riley seems to have been one of his earliest acts. Yet by this time he was already in control of a tremendous amount of resources and, apparently, the U.S. army and ICBM silos.
(The government's anti-Slayer paranoia was so deep that they gave a nameless man in a supervillain costume control of the nation's nuclear arsenal? Or did he just have his people hack into it somehow? Was Warren already working for him at this point?)
|
|
