February 2004 posts


Previous February 2004  

More February 2004

Buffy/Cordelia = Wonder Woman? -- Apophis, 17:47:35 02/09/04 Mon

Both Sarah Michelle Gellar and Charisma Carpenter are being considered for the title role in a proposed Wonder Woman movie. Eliza Dushku might be added to the list, making it a hat trick. More here:
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=16962

Replies:

[> Well... -- Nino, 18:13:23 02/09/04 Mon

Eliza is the most kick-assiest of the 3, but I would love to see Charisma get a big-time role. SMG needs to avoid super hero roles and kid movies for a while...how bout another "Harvard Man"-esque movie to give your career a jump start sarah?

[> Works for me -- DorianQ, 02:13:59 02/10/04 Tue

For superhero movies it's usually far better to have a relatively unknown actor (like Charisma) in the role than a well known actor. Compare Tobey Maguire, Christopher Reeve, Hugh Jackman and Eric Bana to Ben affleck, Sean Connery, Halle Berry (both Catwoman and Storm) and Val Kilmer in their respective superhero flicks. Granted, in all the cases, the quality of the scripts played a major factor, but that precident should work in Charisma's favor. She may not always had the opportunity to exercise her acting chops to their fullest on Buffy and Angel with her one role, but I am of the opinion that she could prettily easily pull off a role like this. As for SMG, she may be too recognizable and young to play this. Also to be purely superficial, both she and Eliza are far too short to play the part.

[> [> Re: Works for me -- CW, 07:53:30 02/10/04 Tue

I'm not sure about Charisma as Wonder Woman, but she certainly has to stop playing Cordelia, everywhere. Everytime I've seen her in something else she's been type cast as Cordelia-esque, perhaps more mature and less comedic sometimes, but basically still the same personality.

I agree that SMG is just too small to fit my idea of a statuesque Wonder Woman. ED is bigger all over and might be able to pull it off. But, if I were casting Wonder Woman I'd be looking for someone with a less gravely voice. ED, if anything, is a little too overtly sexy for the part for my taste. ;o)

[> [> [> Re: Works for me -- Dlgood, 13:03:32 02/10/04 Tue

I agree that SMG is just too small to fit my idea of a statuesque Wonder Woman. ED is bigger all over and might be able to pull it off.

Eliza's not that much bigger than SMG. Whoever plays Wonder Woman ought to be at least 5'9", while ED and SMG are both on the southside of 5'4".

Were I casting, I'd be looking more for a Lucy Lawless type than any of these ladies.

[> [> [> [> Actually... -- Majin Gojira, 13:27:28 02/10/04 Tue

Eliza is 5'5", SMG is 5'3 and CC is 5'7.5"

Frankly, neither of them fit the physical requirements to play wonder woman.

off the top of my head, only Lucy Lawless or Cathrine Bell come close physically. But what really matters is if they can get the character down and make Diana believable.

[> [> [> [> [> Basketball Heights -- Dlgood, 14:12:14 02/10/04 Tue

Generally, they're usually about 2" shorter than whatever they're listed at. If SMG is 5'3", and ED is 5'5", than I'm 6'0".

[> [> [> [> [> [> Numerous sources to the contrary disagree with you -- Majin Gojira, 05:16:39 02/11/04 Wed

Every source available lists them as that height. I myself am 6'0", and am pretty good at spacial thinking. I really don't see why there is a reason for this "2 Inches shorter than they are listed as" line of thought. neither the multitude of sources, or indeed, My OWN OBSERVATIONS agree with this.

Do you have any...reason for this line of thinking? I'm actually quite curious as to where it comes from. It just doesn't make any sense to my brain. Please Explain.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Monica Belucci... -- Sebastian, 10:13:42 02/11/04 Wed

...'Persephone' from 'The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions' could easily pull off playing Diana as well.

-Sebastian-

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Numerous sources to the contrary disagree with you -- Pip, 05:41:15 02/12/04 Thu

Most sources would be working from the actors' CV's. It's unlikely that they would have actually whipped out a tape measure to confirm the precise height.

And yes, many actresses add on an inch or two in their CV's, simply because high heels will give them that height anyway. It doesn't matter whether they are 5 foot 4, provided they can look 5 foot 4. Same thing with ages. Actors can get very sniffy when asked their exact age - because what really matters is how old they look to the audience.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A few questions -- Majin Gojira, 12:32:37 02/12/04 Thu

I am unfamiliar with the abreviation CV. Please explain it. I assume it is something similar to a resume.

Is there any logical reason why they would lie about their height?

Can you provide examples of actresses who have lied about their height in the past?

And, can you show evidence that any of the actresses mentioned practive this?

The comparison of Age to Height is, in my eyes, a false analogy. Age has many reasons to be lied about in our society. Height does not.

Simply saying "Oh, but they lie about their height" does not address the question of proof. Provide Evidence for this reasoning. Link to it. Site a source. either that or conceed the point.

I'm feeling very Spok-ian today.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> CV meaning -- KdS, 13:01:02 02/12/04 Thu

CV = "curriculum vitae". Yes, it's British English for "resume"

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, I'm an example [grin] -- Pip, 14:18:15 02/12/04 Thu

Sorry, I thought after I'd posted that I should have put CV (resume). Apologies.

Can I provide examples? Well, I'm a professional actress, and the height on my resume is not my height in stockinged feet [grin]. I've also seen rather a lot of CV's in my career, and most other shorter actresses also seem to add an inch or two. I'm not giving you any names, though. They'd sue. :-)

Basically, it seems that up to 5'5 or so, we add a couple of inches. Between 5'6 and 5'10, we leave the height alone. Over 5'll, we tend to lose an inch or so - especially the 6'0 actresses, because there seems to be some idea that 6'0 is 'too tall'.

There is most certainly a reason that actors lie about their height, and that is that height is often specified in the job request. Even if it isn't specified, it's often looked at - for example, a producer would worry about a height difference of more than a foot between his leading man and leading lady [grin] and about the leading lady being taller than the leading man [very evil grin]. Some plays (especially Shakespeare) also refer to one character being shorter than another. If you're playing, say, a younger sister, they might also look at relative heights, because 'shorter' is subconciously associated with 'younger'.

If you've reached the heady heights (sorry) of them wanting you specifically, you no longer have to worry - any casting will be working around your height. But by then you're stuck with the height you've been claiming for years [evil grin].

SMG is generally in heeled boots for much of Buffy - even so, she's shorter than most of the female cast, and they often put them in flatter shoes. They also play games with relative heights, where SMG's placed on a step or some higher part of the set. If she was 5'3 in stocking feet I would expect boots to put her at a more average female height. While I could well be wrong, I reckon she's 5'3 with heels.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A few questions -- Dlgood, 22:23:18 02/13/04 Fri

Is there any logical reason why they would lie about their height?

Note the previous title I used - "Basketball Heights". I used to work for the University of Maryland Athletic department, and it was common practice to fudge atheletes heights to make them seem more impressive.

There are plenty press-related reasons to fudge heights.

[> [> [> None of them, unfortunately -- Ames, 12:33:53 02/11/04 Wed

I think Charisma is right for the role physically, and frankly I'd love to see her in it. But I'm just not sure she has the range to pull it off. She projects the right character for Cordelia, but Wonder Woman is an Amazon, not an American GenX-er. At any rate, CC should certainly get an audition.

Based on what we've seen on Tru Calling so far, I'm not sure ED has the range as an actress either. It may be that she hasn't had the chance, but Tru is kind of one note.

No such doubts about SMG (who would ever have thought she could sell the role of Buffy so convincingly?), but she's physically too small and it's the last role she should be playing at this point in her career.

[> um, how about... -- Darby, 05:31:01 02/13/04 Fri

Here's one to get your mind working -

Amber Benson?

If you were the Wonder Woman screenwriter and knew that Amber had the part, think how more interesting you could make the script - a quirky WW, an Amazon that can actually comment on body issues.

Yeah, yeah, I know, but why should we feel locked in to what is an obvious stereotype? If they cast Halle Berry or Tyra Banks, everyone would see it as some sort of step forward, but there are steps available in a lot of other directions.

Hell, I'd love to see Janeane Garafalo take a shot at it!
Angel S3 DVD Observations (spoilers for AtS S3, "Inside Out" and "You're Welcome") -- Rob, 08:21:09 02/11/04 Wed

Watching Heartthrob and That Vision Thing last night on my AtS S3 DVD set (Wheeee!!!), I noticed a few things that I hadn't before...

1) After Angel hugs Wes in Heartthrob, his nose rubs against his face for a second as he reaches for Gunn. This is just a tiny moment and was obviously unintentional, but I just thought it was such a neat little detail that I'm glad it was left in, and no, not for any possible slashiness, but because it shows the level of affection the characters have for each other at this point in the story. The fact that that sort of thing can happen and the two guys are so close to each other that there is no awkwardness or embarassment between them is just a very lovely little detail, I think.

2) Although many say that before Waiting in the Wings, there wasn't much if any indication of the Wes-Fred-Gunn triangle, one can notice some things in retrospect. For example, the first scene in Heartthrob, where Wes and Gunn are both talking to Cordy about Fred's strong points: Wes says she's a nice girl, and that she survived so long in Pylea, which Gunn backs up, saying she's strong. Cordelia bursts the bubble by saying that she's just building a new cave for herself, but still the two men are sympathetic towards her. Then, in That Vision Thing, when Gunn walks with Fred to the hotel, before they find the exterminators there, he tells her she is a "cute, young woman." Now, granted, we didn't notice the romantic possibilities in these examples the first time we saw them, and the focus on the triangle was a bit jarring as it ended up playing on screen, since there was little build-up, but still, the seeds are being very subtly planted here.

3) That Vision Thing also helped me craft an answer for something some people were wondering about in You're Welcome, namely why Cordelia wasn't mad at the Powers That Be, since their visions (whether it was their fault or not) ended up manipulating her into being captured by Jasmine. But I think the answer is in this episode. Cordy is given false visions by the Fez-wearing exposed-brain-boy, and while she still thinks the PTB are doing it to her, she says, "This must be a mistake. The Powers wouldn't do this to me on purpose, I mean, I'm a part of their team. Why would anybody do this on purpose?" She has full faith in the PTB, since they have helped her and AI so much in the past and have in her mind made her a more important, helpful person to fighting the Fight, and questions their motives when she is given these debilitating visions with physical manifestations. In the end, however, when she discovers that the Powers were not the ones sending her these visions, she is not mad at them; in fact, it makes her even more sure that the Powers themselves would never willingly hurt her. Whether this is indeed true is up for debate, but the important thing is that this is what she believes. Her not being angry at the Powers for the Jasmine situation is, therefore, consistent with her character and how she's handled the PTB in the past. Further, I am sure that, having been given the gift of being able to return to Angel for a short time by them, she has more faith and love in them than ever before at the present time, where ever her soul might be at the moment. *sob* I like to think that she's making friends with Darla's spirit from Inside Out in a real heaven dimension--the Buffy kind, not the boring, celestial prison kind from early S4.

Rob

Replies:

[> Um... not quite the issue -- Masq, 10:13:59 02/11/04 Wed

We all know that by season 3, Cordelia had a deep almost unshakable faith in the PTBs, one that lead her close to martyrdom over the normal pain of the visions (see KdS' post below), and made her openly question and refuse to believe that the PTBs would be behind the pain she experienced in "That Vision Thing".

By season 3, she had a MISSION, and that mission was to send Angel where the PTBs lead him, and to nudge Angel back on his path if he should stray from the guidance of the PTBs (like he did in season 2). She was the PTB's vision-gal and she took that very seriously, to the point of letting Skip make her part demon.

A lot of people don't like Cordelia's almost fanatic "Angel is what matters" attitude from season 3, but I am not so big an Old School Cordy fan that I can't appreciate it. The writers, of course, didn't actually have a single vision for Cordelia in season 3, and the writing of her was haphazard, but what resulted was interesting nevertheless.

Queen C becomes "Saint Cordelia", Angel's visionary, his priestess of the PTBs, the one who keeps the faith for him. She becomes single-minded in this image of herself as the PTB's emissary, to the point of letting Skip draw her up into a Higher Realm when she believes she's been called to do good on higher planes.

Like KdS argues, there's a certain old-school Cordelia arrogance in that, and the new-school Cordelia furiosity of belief.

Then Jasmine happens. Los Angeles is torn asunder in flames an destruction. People are consumed whole for Jasmine's sustenance. Connor's psyche is torn apart.

And Cordelia comes back in "You're Welcome", perky as ever, unriddled by any guilt, if not guilt about Jasmine's actions, then guilt about the fervency of her belief and faith in season 3?

If it were me, I'd be angry at the PTBs for letting that happen to me. But we all know the non-Jasmine PTBs don't interefere much themselves.

So, at the very least, Cordelia should be angry at herself. At her season 3 self, for believing so fully she let herself be duped. For not having a healthy bit of skepticism. Or maybe she'd just feel a bit silly and embarassed, if it weren't for the destruction caused through her body in season 4.

[> [> Here's the thing... -- Rob, 11:11:57 02/11/04 Wed

So, at the very least, Cordelia should be angry at herself. At her season 3 self, for believing so fully she let herself be duped.

I understand the argument, but I don't think that she necessarily would have to feel angry at herself for what happened, because as I see it, with a being so powerful as Jasmine, Cordy had very little choice in the matter. Jasmine literally stopped time around Cordy for Skip to come down and take her to become a "higher being. Although she ended up coming willingly (albeit with trepidation), are we so sure that she would have been allowed to leave and that Jasmine wouldn't have taken her anyway? And besides that, Cordy's belief in the PTB has become so unshakable and Jasmine's lies had seemed so real and convincing that I could see her placing the full blame on Jasmine. Cordy was the innocent person who was tricked, and I'm not saying that facetiously. I'm not annoyed at her for not being mad at herself for falling for such a very convincing ruse. I think this also depends on how much control one thinks Jasmine had over everything. I think it's entirely possible that Skip was doing the rest of the Powers' bidding in Birthday and that Jasmine used this to her advantage in Tomorrow, rather than the entire thing having been set up by Jasmine. Cordy in that situation would have even less blame--the Powers take away her pain, make her half-demon, they give her magical powers that she doesn't understand that help her cleanse people of emotional trouble and destroy evil with a glowing white light, she floats, etc. When Jasmine then uses this to her advantage by convincing Cordy that she has been prepped to become a higher being, I can see why Cordy fell for it, because she had no other way to explain all of these strange, new things that have been happening to her. Isn't it also at all possible that the Powers actually had wanted Cordy to become a higher being? And that that is what she is now?

Rob

[> [> [> Re: Here's the thing... -- Masq, 12:06:36 02/11/04 Wed

The thing, for me, is that I'm looking at the events of season 3 and 4 searching for character growth for Cordy in that time. If she's just the same faithful PTB follower in season 5 that she was at the end of season 3, there was no character growth at all for her during season 4. None. It was a stagnant Jasmine-led puppet, and Cordy is frozen (now, forever) as "Saint Cordelia". Snarky, yes, tactless, yes, but also nauseatingly perfect (her brief mistake at the control panel in "YM" not withstanding).

I'm just trying to find some depth to what we've been given, seeing as we're wrapping it up for Queen C. I still wish she'd stayed alive, and left Los Angeles in a state of confusion and shattered faith, going off somewhere to find herself and recover from the trauma of being used like a puppet to hurt and destroy. Then, we'd have the chance for reappearances!

[> [> [> [> Re: Here's the thing... -- Rob, 12:43:46 02/11/04 Wed

You know I never, ever, ever say this, but I think the fact is that ME dropped the ball with Cordy's character. Although I loved S4, including the Cordy parts just for the sheer shock factor--Cordy's stabbing of Lilah, for example, may have been the best ME episode-ender ever, and her manipulation of Connor was disturbing but fascinating--I don't think Cordelia was anything more than a prop for most of the season. That is not to say I didn't enjoy watching Jasmine-possessed Cordy, because I thought she was a blast to watch, but it isn't the same as someone going dark of their own free will and recovering from it, like Willow did. For me, the fact that she was rewarded by the PTB in "You're Welcome," however, redeems her character for me, even though we haven't seen any real growth since Tomorrow. By the time she slipped into the coma, I had almost completely stopped caring about her as a character and didn't even mind that much when she was gone. Her return, however, reminded me why I used to love her so much, and left me wanting more, which is what they were going for, I think. While they couldn't fix all the damage that had been done to her, they could salvage what was left and leave us with a positive image of Cordy to go out on. With all of the atonement that goes on in the Buffyverse, with Angel still paying for his past deeds and Wesley emotionally distraught over killing what turned out to only be a carbon copy of his father, I have to admit I actually found it a little refreshing for someone to not be overwhelmed by guilt over something. I don't know how much I would have wanted Cordelia back again had we been given the same dour, morose figure from early S4, which is how I fear she would be had she come back all remorseful and sad.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> True.... -- Masq, 13:31:53 02/11/04 Wed

Although I think ME wrote it as the final wrap-up on Cordelia for forever and forever, not to make us want more (although it had that effect), but to say, "OK, we screwed up, here's the Cordy you know and love one last time".

Joss prides himself on giving us "what we need, not what we want", and that sort of Joss would have given us a morose angry Cordelia because that's just so Joss. And so "AtS".

But because the Cordelia of late season 3 and all of season 4 was such a disappointment to fans, Joss decided to give us what we want, instead of what we "need".

I think he's starting to show the battle scars of the AR in season 6, of the Evil Willow arc, of Tara's death, of Saint Cordelia, of the wishy-washy message of season 7, of the mind-wipe, of all the things that ME went out on a limb to try and caught the fan ire for.

And he wimped out.

And the fans will love him for it. A lot of them, anyway.

I can always fan wank anything, so I'll go with whatever he decides to do (even erase Connor). I'm a canon geek.

But I reserve the right to complain. ; )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [Speculation] Maybe we got 'what we want' because the season's end eps will be so, so painful? -- Pip, 00:50:01 02/12/04 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oooh, like giving us an advance gift to make up for ripping our hearts out later!! [Please!!] -- Rob, 09:04:41 02/12/04 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It almost sounds like you WANT to have your heart ripped out... -- Masq, 11:22:57 02/12/04 Thu

You're a true Angel: the Series fan!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You schooled me well in the ways of AtS, Masq. :o) -- Rob, 19:53:58 02/12/04 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: True.... -- OnM, 07:15:23 02/12/04 Thu

*** But because the Cordelia of late season 3 and all of season 4 was such a disappointment to fans, Joss decided to give us what we want, instead of what we "need". ***

I have to agree, but also I think that even more so than the fans, it was a matter of giving Charisma what she needed. I have no way of knowing all the details that went on during season 4, but it is pretty well documented that Charisma's pregnancy threw the writers for a loop, and it became necessary (just as when Seth Green elected to leave BtVS) to make up something interesting that was very different than what they had planned originally.

I don't know exactly who made the final decision-- I strongly suspect the network brass-- but I think that Charisma was really hurt when it was announced that she would not be coming back as a regular in season 5, and that Joss and the other production people felt badly about it, but it was either toe the network line or watch the show disappear entirely. So, the very least that could be done would be to give the character the best possible send-off.

Of course, what I wanted to see was that Cordy was a potential Slayer, and (like Faith did eventually) woke from her coma because of her newly-developed Slayer healing abilities. Then it would make perfect sense for her to head off to Europe to join Buffy and the others. She'd be gone from AtS as a regular, but would still be able to 'drop by' on occasion.

But, that's just what this fan wanted. Way it goes!

:-(

[> [> [> [> [> [> I go further -- KdS, 13:05:10 02/12/04 Thu

I see the "wishy-washy messages" of S7 as the result of gun-shy-ness from the combined Dead!Tara/Evil!Willow/Rapist!Spike controversies of S6, but that's because I can't explain certain dropped or suddenly-switched plot threads from early S7 any other way.

[> What I find most disturbing about the Season 3 Angel DVDs ... -- Dedalus, 21:32:46 02/11/04 Wed

... is the fact that I can't find them period. What sort of cruel madness is this? Why do the Powers torment me so?

I tell you, I've been to two Wal-marts and a Target today - mostly to help my significant wombat other find toaster ovens and microwaves and the like for her big move this weekend - and I didn't see them anywhere. They didn't even have a little space for them on the shelf beside the season two Angels. It was in no way implied that they existed at all. I was beginning to wonder if I had remembered the right date, but I know Borders does get DVDs out on Tuesdays.

P.S. My valentine is indeed moving into a nice condo this weekend. Five minutes in one direction is Borders, and five minutes in the other is me, so it should work out well. She is having a house-warming party, and she said you and Ran and LB and any other scoobies are invited. Okay, so you might have to catch a plane or two, but we can get in line for Dragoncon early ...

[> [> Heh! -- Rob, 22:04:17 02/11/04 Wed

She is having a house-warming party, and she said you and Ran and LB and any other scoobies are invited. Okay, so you might have to catch a plane or two, but we can get in line for Dragoncon early ...

Thanks, Ded, I really wish I could come. Maybe if I start walking now...

;o)

Rob

P.S. Send wombat hugs from me. :)

[> [> [> The journey of a thousand miles... -- Random, 09:19:22 02/12/04 Thu

...begins with putting gas in the tank. But don't worry -- I shall have to decline Batty's generous offer as well. Even though that means I can't taunt Dedalus about LotR replacing SW in his affections. At least not in physical proximity to him. Oh well.

[> Quick "That Old Gang of Mine" Observation -- Rob, 23:17:41 02/11/04 Wed

When Fred sings for Lorne in Caritas, Wes and Gunn both have the same look of latent romantic interest in her. Subtle enough that we didn't notice the first time, but it's definitely there, particularly with Gunn. He stops in his tracks, staring at her for a moment. And of course later in the episode, Wes rescues Fred off the stage by lifting her up in his arms. I really think that if you look closely enough, the triangle doesn't really come out of nowhere as it seemed to the first time around.

Rob
Yet another BtVS/AtS alumni on "24" -- Vegeta, 08:22:27 02/11/04 Wed

Holy cow! Looks like David Nabbit (billionaire geek who had a crush on Cordy in "To Shanshu in L.A.") has joined the ever growing list of buffyverse alumni on "24". He played a network anylist in last nights episode.
So here is the updated list of buffyverse alumni on "24":

David Nabbit
Principal Wood
Jesse (BtVS 1.1, 1.2)
Manjet
Jasmine
Quentin Travers

If I am forgeting anyone... let me know.

Replies:

[> Re: Yet another BtVS/AtS alumni on "24" -- Rob, 08:27:38 02/11/04 Wed

Daniel Dae Kim, who played Gavin Park on AtS, has been on 24, too.

Rob

[> [> I knew the list was a hair short, thanks -- Vegeta, 09:10:51 02/11/04 Wed


[> Who did Jesse play? -- Belladonna, 10:18:18 02/11/04 Wed

What character did the actor that played Jesse play? And in what season? And in what scene did David Nabbit play a network analyst? I watched last night's episode, but can't think of when he was on.

[> [> Re: Who did Jesse play? -- Vegeta, 10:29:45 02/11/04 Wed

Jesse was a network PC guy in the first season of "24". I foget his characters name.
David Nabbit was in several scenes in the last half hour (last night) while CTU was frantically trying to stop Nina's worm virus. He had several shouting coversations with Chloe and Adam. His hair was a bit longer but he still had the glasses, and I don't know if his character's name was divulged. I taped it, so I'll check again tonight.

[> [> [> Oh, right! Thanks! -- Belladonna, 10:43:18 02/11/04 Wed


[> [> I think Jesse was the name of the character he played on Buffy.... -- angel's nibblet, 12:05:35 02/11/04 Wed

He was Xander's other best friend who gets vamped in the very beginning of season 1. Can't remember the actors name though....

[> [> [> Re: I think Jesse was the name of the character he played on Buffy.... -- Ann-Sebastian, 12:54:30 02/11/04 Wed

The actor's name is Eric Balfour. He also played Claire's (Lauren Ambrose) boyfriend Gabe in the first season of "Six Feet Under."

[> [> [> [> Re: I think Jesse was the name of the character he played on Buffy.... -- Rob, 06:57:18 02/12/04 Thu

Also in the early portion of the second season, and he appeared in the final episode of the fourth.

Rob

[> And... -- pellenaka, 09:26:33 02/12/04 Thu

...Leonard Robert (Forrest, Riley's army buddy) has also been on 24. According to epguides, he played "Russian Roulette Guard" in 53. Day 3: 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

[> [> Wow, I didn't even recognize him -- Vegeta, 11:16:29 02/12/04 Thu

So, now there is eight...
I probably didn't notice because that scene was so intense.

[> [> Oh, yeah, I completely forgot about him. -- Rob, 08:16:31 02/13/04 Fri

Is Gunn on the right track? (minor spoiler for You're Welcome) -- Ames, 13:54:00 02/11/04 Wed

The title of the next Angel ep "Why We Fight" got me thinking a bit (unspoiled here, so it's just the title I'm referring to) about something that's bothered me for a long time. Just to stir things up a bit, let me put it in the context of Gunn's recent transformation.

The world needs fighters, people of uncompromising principle who will tear down what's wrong regardless of the cost. But it also needs builders, people who will compromise and make the necessary trade-offs in order to build things up. Without both types, the world wouldn't work. If it was all fighters and no builders, the world would still be at the level of the first Slayer (also known as The Primitive). If it was all builders and no fighters, it would probably be a nightmare world where the powerful and corrupt ran everything for their own benefit.

Angel is a fighter. Buffy is a fighter. They're easy to understand and to admire. And maybe that's a naive and simplistic view of the world.

Gunn was a fighter. Now Gunn has disconcerted everybody by switching from fighter to builder. Suddenly he's all about compromise and cooperation, building relationships, working within the system. Angel and Wesley don't get him any more because they're fighters by nature. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to be a builder.

In a strange twist it was Cordy last week telling Angel that he's compromising too much. Cordy was the builder who compromised a lot of principles to create Angel Investigations and keep the people together while Angel was always ready to blow it all off for his own ideals. Now it's Angel who's getting criticism from Cordy for doing the same thing.

Anyway, I'll be disappointed if the writers make Gunn evil. That would be too simple and stereotyped.

Replies:

[> Re: Is Gunn on the right track? (minor spoiler for You're Welcome) -- Claudia, 14:52:28 02/11/04 Wed

How about this question? Are the members of the Fang Gang on the right track? Frankly, I have found all of their actions questionable. Especially Angel's.

[> Re: Is Gunn on the right track? (spoilers for AtS S5 including You're Welcome) -- Pip, 00:22:30 02/12/04 Thu

We're being shown a gradual slide into evil though. He starts off using his legal skills to save Los Angeles. He doesn't even have to get the villain off - it's a mistrial, the guy will be retried at a later date. Then he uses his legal skills to stop pollution, fund orphanages, cripple the business of a necromancer.

All good stuff, and the sort of thing an ethical lawyer would do.

But then he starts to consider corrupting cult members (for a good cause). He's doing plea bargaining sessions at the golf course. [And plea bargaining is not good - it presumes guilt. The duty of a defense lawyer is to assume that their client is innocent and fight the case on that assumption. They may suspect strongly that their client is not innocent, but their duty is to ignore those suspicions [grin]]

When Eve is strongly suspected of attacking Angel, he's arguing against on the grounds of expediency. She's connected to the Senior Partners, she's probably powerful. We haven't enough evidence against her. Instead of thinking 'she's dangerous, how can we best get her out of the building and minimize any legal fallout.'

In 'You're Welcome' (which, being in the UK I haven't seen, so apologies for any mistakes) he seems to be seing his client as a 'case'. Why would he do this - we were about to get such a good result? The idea that the 'good result' translated into a long prison term didn't seem to be running through Gunn's mind.

So there seems to be a distinct slide from 'good, ethical lawyer' to 'lawyer who is thinking only of winning the case'. He's losing sight of the ethics, he's losing sight of the actual people he's representing. He's only thinking about winning.

I'd be happy to keep lawyer Gunn - if we have a mini-epiphany for Gunn in the series, where he realises how far he's fallen. But I suspect rather sadly that we are going to lose someone to the evil that is Wolfram and Hart.

[> [> Why Only Gunn?? -- Claudia, 08:51:14 02/12/04 Thu

What about the others? Aren't they being shown in a gradual slide into evil? ME has yet to explain Wes' odd behavior in "Harm's Way", "Soul Purpose" and "Damage".

[> [> [> Re: Why Only Gunn?? -- Hauptman, 10:14:47 02/12/04 Thu

I think Pip might be thinking that Gunn is the most likely to fall the farthest first. Who knows who he'll pull down with him one way or another. Gunn gave the senior partners fundamental access to who he is. He opened up the garage of his brain, baby. Who knows what they parked in there...or took out for good. He talks a good game, but I'm not sure if even he knows what was done, and Angel has made a few comments about Gunn's loyalty.

The funny thing is, maybe they just did what Gunn wanted and there is no extra. Maybe the SP is sure that the Fang Gang will just not trust him eventually because he had something done.

[> [> [> [> Yeah, that really would be evil -- Rahael, 10:18:15 02/12/04 Thu

For the good guys to be lying away this year, and the evil ones to be telling nothing but the 'truth'. Of course, truth, presented selectively......

[> [> [> [> Odd Behavior -- Claudia, 10:48:20 02/12/04 Thu

"Who knows who he'll pull down with him one way or another."

Strange, one would think it was Angel's deal with W&H who pulled Gunn and the others down in the first place.

And you still have not explained Wes' odd behavior in "Harm's Way", "Soul Purpose" and "Damage".

[> [> [> [> [> Angel's fault -- Hauptman, 12:03:09 02/12/04 Thu

Oh, you are right. I would definately track most of this deal dandruf back to Angel and Conner. Mostly Angel. I suggested on another thread that he should eventually feel guilty for what he has done. I would be pissed if I found out that my memories have been altered and my thinking made fuzzy to prevent me discovering the past. Angel seems pretty content with it.

As for Gunn Behavior, I wasn't trying to explain it. He's a completely differnt character now. I don't in any way recognize him. Even his movements and bearings are differnt. I don't know how much that is me and how much that is the actor. If it's him, bravo. Great job. Now kill the writers.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Point At . . . -- Claudia, 13:54:29 02/12/04 Thu

"As for Gunn Behavior, I wasn't trying to explain it. He's a completely differnt character now. I don't in any way recognize him. Even his movements and bearings are differnt. I don't know how much that is me and how much that is the actor. If it's him, bravo. Great job. Now kill the writers."


What I'm trying to get at is that whenever the topic of the Gang's changed behavior is discussed, everyone always points at Gunn . . . and no one else.

Fred has gradually changed from doubting about their new positions at W&H to cautiously accepting both Wes and Gunn's changed behavior.

And speaking of Wes, why was he so insistent upon Spike remaining in L.A. in "Harm's Way"? Why did he insist upon Spike giving up the "Lone" Avenger duties and take a job with W&H in "Soul Purpose"? His behavior was even odder than Gunn's in that episode. And why was he so upset that Andrew and the Slayers took custody of Dana in "Damage"?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Point At . . . -- Hauptman, 20:45:10 02/12/04 Thu

I have to confess that I am more concerned with Gunn than I am with the other two. Wesley confuses me because I don't know if this is really Dark-Wesley, who quite honeslty whould not be putting up woth all of this crap. He would have Batman-ed out of ther long ago, or some earlier version of Wesley. The mind wipe makes that all vague for me. As for Fred, she seems to have moved far away from the fragile yet edgy girl the rescued from the land without music. Harmony is more interesting than she is. I've gone from adoring her to not really caring. But Gunn, Gunn cut the big side deal that altered him. He's the one who went into the White Room and played with the big cat. He had his brain hacked, and, in the absence of Eve, he seems to talk for the Senior Partners, or at least keeps bringing them up regularly. He's made the big leap. Wesley is still all books and Fred is all about the labcoats. Gunn has gone from being a cool guy from the streets fo LA to being a suit for the supernatural. And he loves it. Wes and Fred at least seem concerned or uncomfortable sometimes. Gunn loves it. He's the devil and he'll never ever be any good. That is what I think people have picked up on. That and the hair. The hair is evil.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Point At . . . -- Pip, 03:15:57 02/13/04 Fri

Carrying on from the idea of the 'brain hack' - Gunn is currently the one with the most to lose by leaving W&H. The knowledge that Wesley and Fred have about their fields is theirs. They've earned it by years of study - Fred through college and graduate school, Wesley from childhood onwards (because his father was in the same field).

But Gunn is an 'instant lawyer'. If W&H decide to take that knowledge back, what will he be left with? He chose to ignore the skills and talents he had (fighting, leading other fighters, small group tactics) and go with 'instant success' in an area he knew almost nothing about.

It's interesting that it's been carefully pointed out that W&H does have tactical teams. There was an area for Gunn to head that would have used his earned knowledge. But he went for being a flashy lawyer instead.

Instant knowledge - metaphor for instant fame? It's fairy gold, anyway. People chase it, but it can vanish as quickly as it appears.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> None of You Remember . . .? -- Claudia, 15:59:57 02/13/04 Fri

So none of you remember Wes trying to convince Spike to stay in L.A. in "Harm's Way"? Didn't any of you wonder why?

Or the time when he and Gunn visited Spike in "Soul Purpose"? Heck, he was a lot more creepier than Gunn in that particular scene. Didn't anyone notice?

Or did anyone wonder why he was so upset when Angel finally gave in to Andrew's demand about turning Dana over to the Slayers in "Damage"?

I think that Gunn's descent is so obvious that many might not be noticing Wesley's own strange behavior.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Bad Wes and other descents -- RadiusRS, 19:04:41 02/16/04 Mon

The most obvious example of odd Wesley behavior to me (and odd Gunn behavior) was when Wes was advocating assasination and Gunn infiltration. It seemed like they switched personalities. Granted, this is a Wes who perhaps does not remember the lesson learned after he kidnapped Connor. But that scene in particular made me feel like this Wes is one that forgot everything important he's learned since season 3, and is therefore much more susceptible to falling faster and harder, because he's now in a position where he doesn't have the emotional preparation to deal with where he is in his life thanks to the mindwipe. That makes his fall, if it comes, all the more tragic. So I blame Angel ;)

Gunn, on the other hand, is doing what he does best: adapting to survive.

Fred has become more sure of herself, and less willing to question her instincts, so perhaps she has become stronger due to W&H. What doesn't kill/corrupt you makes you stronger.

Angel's moping because he's realized that, once again, he has sacrificed those he cares about to do the "right" thing. When he "killed" Connor and invoked the mindwipe, he killed his relationships with the Gang since he let W&H "rape" their minds as Cordy said, he's not letting go of the Lone Avenger role, and therefore not growing up. His subconcious is wreaking havoc, much as Lorne's did in "Life of the Party" (the show IS called Angel so it's safe to assume that all the characters are mirrors for the issues Angel deals with; it's been a running theme since season 1).

Lorne, poor Lorne. He's been so wasted this season.

And Spike is probably the best thing that could have happened to Angel, as he is the most accurate and approximate reflection of Angel in the universe, and therefore forces him to examine those flaws he sees in the mirror.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Mindwipe -- Claudia, 12:53:00 02/23/04 Mon

Considering that Wes is the only other person, besides Angel and Cordelia, who was really affected by Connor's presence . . . is it possible that the mindwipe has regressed his character?

By some miracle, he still remembers his affair with Lilah, although he doesn't remember why he drifted into the affair. He remembers Jasmine, but he probably doesn't remember who the father was.

But does Wes remember Daniel Holtz? Or Justine? Does he remember lying in the hospital with a slitted throat? Does he remember his conversation with Fred about the Connor/Cordelia affair - the same conversation that led to one about him and Lilah?

It would be interesting to speculate on how much the mindwipe has affected his personality. And if it will have some kind of negative affect upon him.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I keep thinking of "Flowers for Algernon" -- Ann, 07:46:31 02/14/04 Sat

Not that Gunn started out like Charlie because he didn't, but the consequences of the pumping up of knowlege and the loss afterwards.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I called this one. toot toot lol -- Ann, 20:55:59 02/18/04 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes you did you freaky psychic! I thought of you when it came up :) -- RadiusRS, 21:16:50 02/18/04 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Me too.. must be nice to have the Sight, Ann. ;-) -- Jane, 20:23:46 02/22/04 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> What behavior? -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:19:23 02/12/04 Thu

How did Wes act strangely in those episodes?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Watch Episodes . . . -- Claudia, 16:01:43 02/13/04 Fri

Watch Wesley closely in the following episodes, "Harm's Way", "Soul Purpose" (especially) and "Damage".

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Watch Episodes . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:18:23 02/13/04 Fri

For starters, I think Wesley has three good reasons for wanting keep Spike in LA:

1) It was revealed in "Destiny" that cosmic events were thrown out of whack (supposedly) because of Spike's existence. As long as Wes still believed Spike and Angel sharing a destiny could cause supernatural problems, he'd have reason to keep Spike close by.

2) Spike, what with becoming a powerful Champion and all, is an excellent resource, and Wesley has always been one to want a great deal of resources.

3) Wesley still views himself and the Fang Gang as the good guys. Therefore, the idea of someone leaving them in order to be a Champion for Good would seem like an affront to this view, as it implies that he can't be a Champion for Good while hanging with the W&H crowd.

As for Dana, I don't recall Wes actually being upset. He did want her to be looked after by Wolfram & Hart, but this doesn't seem unusual from him. Just look back to his early days when he naturally assumed he was the most qualified and apporpriate choice for looking after Slayers. Yes, he's come a long way since then, but I think it's not too odd for him to automatically assume he and the Fang Gang should be the ones handling the problem.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> WHY??? -- Claudia, 12:47:30 02/23/04 Mon

But WHY?

Why is Wes so wrapped over the Shanshu prophecy? Why does he care so much on who will achieve this prophecy? What does it mean to him, personally?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> He knows what it means to be a friend -- Ann, 13:18:12 02/23/04 Mon

To want the best for your friend, someone you have seen suffer, that is what it means to be a friend. The prophesy gives Angel a glimmer of hope that his suffering may end. Wes understands this. Wes wants Angel to be forgiven, to be able to live again. Wes has suffered in his own life and doesn't want his friend to continue to suffer. He is empathetic. It is very simple actually - he loves his friend.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Also . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:09:18 02/23/04 Mon

Whoever the shanshu vampire is will play a pivotal role in either saving or destroying the world. Knowing who the specific vampire is could help in thwarting an upcoming apocalypse.

And, even if you don't buy that, believe that the events of "Destiny" made Wes worry that the existence of two souled vampires and the shanshu prophecy could cause severe supernatural consequences.

As Angel's friend and as someone who's job is to protect the world, it's in Wesley's interest to keep an eye on the shanshu prophecy and who it might be speaking of.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Also . . . -- RadiusRS, 19:33:54 02/23/04 Mon

Wes may want to make up for betraying Angel in the whole Connor deal, even if he can't remember exactly what led to the betrayal. Also, having been the one that discovered it's meaning, he may want to see how things play out and hope that he has done enough to keep Angel on the side of good.

And there's no way Roger would be able to keep chastising him if he showed him that he helped saved the world in one of the most important Apocalypses ever.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Roger on the apocalypse (Speculation) -- Pip, 02:03:10 02/24/04 Tue

Roger would be able to keep chastising him whatever Wes did.

"Yes, he did save the world. As I recall, he also mistranslated the relevant prophecy, but at least he managed to come up with a correct translation before everyone became a pile of ashes."

:-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not a Job . . . And Again, Why? -- Claudia, 07:31:26 02/24/04 Tue

"As Angel's friend and as someone who's job is to protect the world, it's in Wesley's interest to keep an eye on the shanshu prophecy and who it might be speaking of."

It is not Wesley's job to protect the world. It was never Wesley's job to protect the world, even when he was a Watcher. Nor is it anyone else's job to protect the world.

All of the characters - Angel, Wesley and the others made a choice to protect the world. But why? Why did they make that choice? And if this was a choice for Wes, the question remains . . . why is the Shanshu prophecy so important to him?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Shanshu is about an apocalypse -- Pip, 08:57:36 02/24/04 Tue

That is, an event involving destruction or damage on a catastrophic scale. The end of civilisation as we know it, possibly the complete final destruction of the world. The Buffyverse is a place where such events are both known in advance and potentially preventable.

If it's not anyone's job to prevent an apocalyptic event, exactly which dimension are they all expecting to live in afterwards?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Also, technically, Wesley works for Angel, so . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:09:45 02/24/04 Tue

If Angel says, "we're saving the world", it becomes Wesley's job to do so.

Not to say he didn't have a choice in the matter, he chose to make saving the world his occupation. Also, as Pip said, everyone has a reason for saving the world; if not for the billions of people who will die, than at least out of a sense of self-preservation.

As for why the shanshu matters: it's an END OF THE WORLD PROPHECY! The Scrolls of Aberjian talk about the/an apocaylpse, and say that the vampire with a soul will play a crucial role, although no one's sure if he'll be saving the world or destroying it. Researching the shanshu prophecy and which vampire it speaks of could prove very useful should its apocalypse turn up in Wesley's life time. How would you feel if Wesley let Spike leave, he went evil, the apocalypse came, and Spike helped destroy the world?

[> He's already stretching the truth (Spoilers up Why We Fight) -- Athena, 01:39:00 02/15/04 Sun

I think Gunn is already using the Dark Side when it comes to his brain boost. We've seen him tell his friends on many occassions about this newly-aquired knowledge of his, and waits a while, before mentioning some other aspect of it.

This means there are possible meanings to it:
1. Gunn got all this knowledge at once.
2. Gunn has gone for multiple brain boosts.
3. Gunn recieved this knowledge at once, but he himself doesn't know the extent.

Number 1 is probably the belief that the other members of Fang Gang have. This does not mean he is being completely honest with his friends. Notice how Gunn in "Conviction" says that "All I got stuck in my head was the law. And for some reason, a messload of Gilbert and Sullivan". As the season progresses, he has demon laws, nothing that on its own seems particularly bad but more implies that he wasn't very exact when he explained this to his friends, but he just happens to 'mention' that he also has demon languages and golf abilities. It would be one thing if he only knew the words of demon laws, but this is different. On top of this since when does golf have a direct connection to The Law?

In any case, whatever his motivations for his braininess, Gunn is either being controled by some type of power, whether it is some other person or power, or his own reluctance to put himself in a situation in which his friends might criticize him.

[> [> Big Bad -- Hauptman, 07:10:08 02/16/04 Mon

So is it possible that the Big Bad is Charles Gunn this year? I'd be fine with it, except that it reminds of Marvel Comics after the Phoenix went all wonky: After that every character had to have their 'I'm evil and out of control, you'll have to kill me for the greater good' moment. We've seen Evil Willow, Evil Cordy, Lots of Evil Angel, and a semi-evil Wes. And I've loved it. But Gunn? A probably possessed Gunn? Yawn.

[> [> [> Hoo boy -- KdS, 09:32:38 02/16/04 Mon

Black guy suddenly turns evil as soon as he tries to get some education and move up in the world?

*backs away rapidly, feeling the flames already*

[> [> [> [> Re: Hoo boy -- Hauptman, 10:19:36 02/16/04 Mon

LOL
That occured to me, too, but I didn't want to go there. Had a huge, massive discussion of this kind of thing on the board once. Found it soul draining. But, if it happens, I'll be all over it. Jasmine, the bringer of peace, will also feature.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hoo boy -- Athena, 00:26:05 02/20/04 Fri

I am skeptical when it comes to the idea that racism is a factor in the Gunn and Jasmine storylines. Yes, it could be interpreted that way, but people have a tendency to go overboard when they see things that might be racism.

For example: a couple years ago, I did a one-act play in acting class. It was about a mother, whose husband has abandoned her, dealing with her mentally disabled daughter. I played the mother and a friend of mine, who happens to be African-Canadian, played the daughter.

Now some might say that the story was presented in a racist fashion. They might argue that the fact that she was cast as the mentally-handicapped daughter was an implication that black people are supposedly 'inferior' . This, of course, was not true. My friend simply wanted an interesting role and felt that the character would be a neat challenge, and to say anything else would be paranoia.

Racism definitely still exists, just look at the KKK and White Power groups, but I doubt it is a factor in Jossverse. The only significant minority bad guys are Jasmine and Mr. Trick. Frankly, I think we sometimes jump at shadows. I've heard of actors complaining because they can't get any fun bad guy roles since many film producers are terrified of being interpreted as racist.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Not mere anti-racism -- KdS, 04:11:42 02/20/04 Fri

I have no problem with black actors playing bad guys (one of my all time favourite recurring villains on US TV is Eric Todd Dellums as Luther Mahoney in Homicide.

What I was suggesting is that the specific potential situation of Gunn going evil through his desire for knowledge and social prestige conjures up some hugely explosive issues (racist ideas about black people not knowing their place and not being ready for education, explosive debates in the US black community itself about racial "authenticity") that it would be dangerous to do it unless you were going to very deeply and deliberately look at those ideas. Which is always possible, but unlikely.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Other type of discrimination -- Athena, 23:38:12 02/20/04 Fri

What I was suggesting is that the specific potential situation of Gunn going evil through his desire for knowledge and social prestige conjures up some hugely explosive issues (racist ideas about black people not knowing their place and not being ready for education, explosive debates in the US black community itself about racial "authenticity") that it would be dangerous to do it unless you were going to very deeply and deliberately look at those ideas. Which is always possible, but unlikely.

In the issue of racism, I too see is a possibility but also see it as an unlikely one, since Lindsey, a Caucasian, was definitely corrupt, while it is only a possibility with Gun. Instead, the examples of Gunn and Lindsey might imply that those in the 'lower' classes in gaining education and power generally become corrupt. This too seems a possibility, though unlikely.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> S4 Topic -- Claudia, 12:57:44 02/23/04 Mon

"What I was suggesting is that the specific potential situation of Gunn going evil through his desire for knowledge and social prestige conjures up some hugely explosive issues (racist ideas about black people not knowing their place and not being ready for education, explosive debates in the US black community itself about racial "authenticity") that it would be dangerous to do it unless you were going to very deeply and deliberately look at those ideas. Which is always possible, but unlikely"

But isn't Gunn's race one of the reasons why the Gang tend to view him as "the muscle"? Even Fred, who supposedly loved him, couldn't view him as anything else. Didn't ME, in a subtle fashion, point this out?
I hope not.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: S4 Topic -- Ann, 13:41:42 02/23/04 Mon

No the gang viewed him a a useful member that was experienced fighting demons. I don't ever recall that he was seen as only "muscle". He was capable. He was actually the voice of reason in many instances. When he got jacked up, I don't think they gave him additional abilities, they just have him additional facts. There is a distinction between the two. The basis for his abilities was already fully there. ME never says that he could be viewed only as muscle. The only time anything like this was alluded to was when Angelus was using this as a way to weaken Gunn and drive a wedge between them all at AI.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: S4 Topic -- Claudia, 13:06:44 02/24/04 Tue

"No the gang viewed him a a useful member that was experienced fighting demons. I don't ever recall that he was seen as only "muscle"."

Remember Fred's little litany about everyone's role in the gang (I think it was in a S3 episode) and she immediately categorized Gunn as the "muscle". I noticed that Angel and Wes do the same and are constantly surprise when Gunn displays any real intellect or common sense.

But I also suspect that race has played a part in Gunn's own inferiority complex, when it comes to his role in the Fang Gang.
what the hell (minor spoiler for 5x13) -- Nino, 19:10:11 02/11/04 Wed

Cordy doesn't even get mentioned the ep after she dies? We don't get to see Angel tell the gang, or at least see some sign of emotion from any of them? I find this really shady...I guess we can be pretty sure that Cordy's post-mortum shout-outs will be kept to an absolute minimum. But geeze...does the gang even care that she is gone?

sigh.

Replies:

[> We didn't really get to see much of the gang -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:48:46 02/11/04 Wed

A little bit of them talking shop at the beginning, then it was pretty much being held hostage and talking down a crazed vampire. It's a technique I've seen used in TV shows before: if it's the ep right after some big development, and you don't want to deal with it, put the characters in a situation where they really don't have time to deal with it. By dominating "Why We Fight" with flashbacks and 90%, and having of the present day stuff dealing directly with the villain of the week, ME can get by without having to mention Cordelia.

[> [> Re: We didn't really get to see much of the gang (5.13 spoilers) -- Cheryl, 21:00:10 02/11/04 Wed

A little bit of them talking shop at the beginning, then it was pretty much being held hostage and talking down a crazed vampire. It's a technique I've seen used in TV shows before: if it's the ep right after some big development, and you don't want to deal with it, put the characters in a situation where they really don't have time to deal with it. By dominating "Why We Fight" with flashbacks and 90%, and having of the present day stuff dealing directly with the villain of the week, ME can get by without having to mention Cordelia.

I'd buy that, except they spent a few minutes talking about Eve and Lindsey. So they should have said something about Cordy. It really bothered (and distracted) me that they didn't.

A couple of interesting things in the episode unrelated to the Angel/Lawson storyline (and did Lawson remind anyone else of a young Mark Harmon?):

1) What's up with Gunn losing some of his lawyer download? Something is definitely going on with him. He also said the white room was empty so without Eve what connection do they have now with the SP? At first I thought Lawson might be the new liaison, but I didn't think that for long.

2) What's with the Knox put down? And that Fred is the one doing it? Not surprising that Wes was quick to jump on that. The guy's hardly been on and now apparently he's screwing up things. Why mention that? I wonder if Angel and company's eyes are not so blind anymore to some of things going on around them.

[> [> [> Re: We didn't really get to see much of the gang (5.13 spoilers) -- Katrina, 08:41:02 02/12/04 Thu

I'm trying not to compare these last few episodes to earlier Buffyverse deaths, but just to TV in general.. like what if they killed off, say, Marg Helgenberger's character on CSI? Would we expect nobody to ever mention her existence again, and not even show the slightest hint of sadness that she's gone? I don't think that would be in any way believable; it would most likely be received as bad writing. And that's a basically non-episodic show, removed from the sense of history and continuity that's always set the Buffyverse (Angelverse) apart from most shows and helped make it special. Also, maybe it's because of all the memory-tampering that's been going on, but almost everything seems suspect to me right now. Such as, does the gang even remember her role in the episode? Did that get erased too? It's frustrating because I'm really trying to trust that they know what they're doing this season...I like Spike a lot more than I have in years, I think there's some interesting ideas they're trying to go after, but there's all this obfuscation in the way.

[> [> [> [> Knox -- Claudia, 08:48:27 02/12/04 Thu

"2) What's with the Knox put down? And that Fred is the one doing it? Not surprising that Wes was quick to jump on that."

It seems obvious that ME is setting up the Wes/Fred romance. And not in a convincing way, in my opinion.

[> [> [> [> Cordelia wasn't a main character, though -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:17:26 02/12/04 Thu

She'd already been sent into a coma over six months ago, from which the gang assumed she would never wake up. Seems to me they'd already pretty much accepted the fact that Cordy was gone. Add in the fact that they never even talked to the "real" Cordelia since Season 3, and Angel had been willing to kill her himself in "Inside Out", and I doubt it would be such a big event.

[> [> [> [> [> But...(still spoilers thru 5x12 and Buffy thru season 7) -- Nino, 13:36:07 02/12/04 Thu

..she WAS a main character...I mean, you don't think the shock of her "recovery" then the shock of it not being real/her being really gone would have some emotional toll on the Gang? Wouldn't such a toll be worth capturing on screen? Espeically with the eve/lindsey reference at the beginning it would not have taken much to give the gang a chance to show a little emotion.

..when Tara died Xander, Dawn and Buffy all took a few moments to show grief, even though they had to worry about Dark Willow. Hell, when Anya died in "Chosen" she got a moment when the whole show had to wrapped up in a few minutes. I just don't think its very good storytelling to let the death of a major character go without being noticed by the entire cast (minus one Vamp).

[> [> [> [> [> [> Still gotta disagree -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:14:41 02/12/04 Thu

"I mean, you don't think the shock of her "recovery" then the shock of it not being real/her being really gone would have some emotional toll on the Gang? Wouldn't such a toll be worth capturing on screen?"

My answer to both of these questions is: No.

First, I think the fact that Cordelia had been unconscious for so long, supposedly incapable of recovery, lessened the impact of Cordelia's death. Yes, she did come back, but only for one day, and it wasn't like everyone was crying tears of joy at her awakening. I personally feel that, in the eyes of Angel and Co., Cordelia was already dead, even though her body was still alive.

Second, and this is another key part, I feel, you mention "Wouldn't such a toll be worth capturing on screen?" I don't think it would. Aside from my point above, which argues that there wouldn't be much to show, I also don't think it would really be that entertaining to see. I mean, I doubt it would be important to the various characters' emotional states or development, so I don't see why we should be subjected to additional angst and grieving? Cordelia went out on an uplifting, positive note. I so no reason to mess around with that.

Third, unlike with "Chosen" and "Villains", we barely got to see the main characters this week, and most of them were incommunicado the majority of the time they spent on screen. "Why We Fight" was really all about what happened in 1943; the present day stuff was just supposed to be an epilouge.

Fourth, the opening scene served to make the point that work was pretty much taking over their lives. To show them grieving over a dead friend runs counter to what ME was trying to do with that scene, and the season in general.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I have to agree with Nino -- Claudia, 10:45:18 02/13/04 Fri

Why We Fight (spoilers for the episode) -- CW, 21:22:17 02/11/04 Wed

Das vampirische Boot

The idea of having to turn somebody and damn them to save the day was interesting, but the rest of it was just wierd. Anybody figure out exactly what the other vampires were doing on a submarine? I can imagine just dumping them in enemy territory, but moving them around in an experimental sub to be experimented on (elsewhere?) seems strange.

The backdating of the initiative was a clever, but not terribly convincing bit of continuity.

Spike looks older with black hair.

Angel looks like pig's blood with a touch of otter agrees with him. Wonder if Wolfram & Hart has a gym in the building?

Replies:

[> Re: Why We Fight (spoilers for the episode) -- buffyguy, 22:47:34 02/11/04 Wed

i quite enjoyed the way ME has given us a bit of backstory to the beginnings of the initiative. then it just begs the question, "why didnt spike even mention his having seent he initiative during season 4 buffy?", know what i mean...i guess he wouldnt have remembered seeing as it was a fleeting moment that it it was mentioned. But i liked it nonetheless. I also found it quite disturbing that the government has knowledge of vampires and the like. I would have thought this was something to be kept secret, no? I wonder if they only know about vampires and demons but not the magicks that go on in the world. know what i mean. like they know about vamps but not that they are mystical. its weird. basically this was filler. and BTW, angel as a puppet: two words...TOO CUTE! a little on the nonsensical side, but hey, if it works then go with it!

[> [> Re: Why We Fight (spoilers for the episode) -- MissB, 04:56:22 02/12/04 Thu

>"why didnt spike even mention
>his having seent he initiative
>during season 4 buffy?"

Spike didn't meet the initiative, Angel did.

[> [> also spoilers for next week's promo above -- anom, 10:36:28 02/12/04 Thu


[> Re: Why We Fight (spoilers for the episode) -- MissB, 05:13:21 02/12/04 Thu

>>>Anybody figure out exactly what the other vampires were doing on a submarine? I can imagine just dumping them in enemy territory, but moving them around in an experimental >>>sub to be experimented on (elsewhere?) seems strange.



The Nazis captured the vampires to start an army. They had plans to open (or remove ?) the vampire brains so they could be controlled and used as cannon fodder. And as Spike said they had captured the baddest vampires to have them serve as "generals" to the lesser vamps.

The Yanks captured the submarine to claim the vampires and the German's technology (both nautical and medical). Notice that Angel has Spike burn the documents - seems they explained the experiments to be conducted on the vampires. After reading them, the Prince of Lies says I will eat your brains and know your thoughts just like... (I didn't catch all of it).

[> [> Re: Why We Fight (spoilers for the episode) -- CW, 07:13:10 02/12/04 Thu

I agree with your description of what the Nazis were doing with vampires. I just can't figure out why the Nazis put them on a sub.

[> [> [> Re: Why We Fight (spoilers for the episode) -- Mighty Mouse, 08:12:42 02/12/04 Thu

They were cargo it seems. Being shipped from one point to another, and then the Allied crew got ahold of the Sub, and the Cargo broke free.

On another note, it's kinda interesting to see where the Initiative got their ideas for the "modification chips," from the Nazis (that was basically what they were mentioning, a way to open up the demon's heads, and "control" them). Found it a bit humorous / ironic with Spike's statement how that would never happen.

[> [> [> Re: Why We Fight (spoilers for the episode) -- purplegrrl, 12:11:39 02/12/04 Thu

*** I just can't figure out why the Nazis put them on a sub.***

I think the word here is foreshadowing: of Conner, of Angel's son rejecting his father, of time spent trapped under water. There are probably several others that I can't think of right off the top of my head.

Also, I'm sure there are valid "military secret" reasons for the vamps to be on the sub.

[> Re: Why We Fight (spoilers for the episode) -- B, 05:29:37 02/12/04 Thu

I agree, JM looked very old in the flashback parts of the episode. DB on the other hand is looking yummier every day.

[> Misdirection (spoilers for the episode) -- Darby, 08:31:13 02/12/04 Thu

My take was that Angel was lied to (gasp!), and the documents were the technology the Allies were after, not the sub at all. When Angel found out about the controlling-of-demons plan, he immediately had those plans destroyed, so the Initiative subterfuge was obviously necessary.

This also explains why the Initiative was involved in the plan in the first place - with vamps being a government secret, if this was the Navy retrieving an advanced sub, dropping vampires to it would probably not have been an idea they would have. But the whole mission was under the jurisdiction of the Initiative, so they knew immediately how to react.

But if this is an addition to the Buffyverse mythology, the government wouldn't have forgotten Angel - this explains his secretiveness in 1952, and sets up an interesting possible later story or stories that would toss him into the rat-infested alleys of the 1980s. We could have Cold War Angel, Vietnam Angel, LA Confidential Angel...

If Angel had repeated contact with the Initiative, the continuity still holds up, because he and Buffy were not doing a lot of communicating through BtVS Season Four & Five - did he even know what Riley and his guys were doing in Sunnydale, which after all had a "regular" army base nearby?

[> [> Re: Misdirection (spoilers for the episode and season 4 BTVS) -- MissB, 12:18:39 02/12/04 Thu

I think you're right about the misdirection; at the very least it seems plausible. After I typed my response to CW, I thought why isn't the Navy after the submarine?

Angel did meet Riley in a BTVS season 4 episode, but I don't remember him being told about the Initiative, Spike's chip, etc.

[> Rasputin (***Spoilers*** for the episode) -- OnM, 08:43:27 02/12/04 Thu

Another neat little continuity item that didn't occur to me until this morning:

I was puzzled at the odd comment by the one vampire that he was "Rasputin's lover". Then I realized that Buffy was once in a class at UC Sunnydale (forget which ep right now), and suddenly got the inspiration that Rasputin may have been a vampire. Without revealing the specifics to the prof or the class, she tried to suggest that there may have been more to Rasputin than conventionally realized.

Naturally, the professor berated her for her 'uninformed' ideas, but it looks like the Buffster was right once again!

(Now thanking the writers for that little gem.

:-)

[> [> Oooh, I'd forgotten that connection. Thanks, OnM. -- purplegrrl, 12:15:52 02/12/04 Thu


[> [> Shootin' with: Rasputin -- CW, 12:20:26 02/12/04 Thu

Yeah, I guess my big gripe with the ep (as opposed to bewilderment) was that they staked the two interesting new vampire characters awfully fast. I would have liked to have seen more of the Russian vurdalak count, and his stories about Rasputin; and also more of Nosferatu Jr.

Did anyone else think, gee if the Initiative was looking for the baddest of the bad and knew about Angel, did they try to free the Master in Sunnydale at that time as well?

[> [> [> Why are we assuming (spoilers) -- lunasea, 10:07:42 02/13/04 Fri

that they were looking for the baddest of the bad? That is what Spike assumes because he thinks that way about himself. They wanted vampires. That is all we know. The Initiative Season 4 didn't take Spike because he was the big bad. They took him because he was there. That tends to be how such operations go.

[> [> [> [> According to Both Giles and Wesley . . . -- Claudia, 10:26:59 02/13/04 Fri

"that they were looking for the baddest of the bad? That is what Spike assumes because he thinks that way about himself."


Giles in "School Hard" and Wesley in "Just Rewards" both viewed Spike (pre-souled) as one of the more terrifying vampires in history - up there with Angel and Darla. And even Angel in "School Hard" had admitted that Spike was a vampire to be reckoned with.

Do you know any other vampires who have killed two Slayers and came close (twice) to killing a third?

[> [> [> [> [> All that means is the SS happened to get a powerful vampire -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:11:56 02/13/04 Fri

It doesn't necessarily mean they were deliberately looking for powerful vampires; it lends credance to the theory, but it isn't proof positive.

[> [> [> [> True -- CW, 14:25:26 02/13/04 Fri

But, then you can question a number of things Angel was told by the Initiative or we learned from some character's assumptions during this one. Not saying that's bad, either, Just confusing, at least to me. ;o)

[> [> Rasputin reference....that would be Buffy s5 Checkpoint -- Rufus, 23:38:49 02/15/04 Sun

From Checkpoint....

PROFESSOR: Now, Rasputin was associated with a certain obscure religious sect. They held the tenet that in order to be forgiven, one first had to sin. Rasputin embraced this doctrine and proceeded to sin impressively and repeatedly. The notion that he was in fact evil gained strength years later when the conspirators who set out to kill him found it nearly impossible to do so.

BUFFY: Nearly impossible?

PROFESSOR: I'm sorry, there's a question?

The students look at Buffy.

PROFESSOR: Miss Summers, of course.

Buffy makes a pained face, stands up as the professor gives her a disapproving look.

BUFFY: I, uh, about, you know, killing him ... you know, they, they poisoned him and, and they beat him and they shot him, and he didn't die.

PROFESSOR: Until they rolled his body in a carpet and drowned him in a canal.

BUFFY: But there are reported sightings of him as late as the 1930s, aren't there?

PROFESSOR: I can assure you there is near consensus in the academic community regarding the death of Rasputin.

BUFFY: There was also near consensus about Columbus, you know, until someone asked the Vikings what they were up to in the 1400s, and they're like, "discovering this America-shaped continent." I just ... I'm only saying, you know, it might be interesting, if we .... came at it from, you know, a different perspective, that's all.

PROFESSOR: Well, I'm sorry if you find these facts so boring, Miss Summers. Maybe you'd prefer I step aside, so that you can teach your own course. Speculation 101 perhaps? Intro to Flights of Fancy?

BUFFY: I only meant-

PROFESSOR: What was it you were going on about last week? Mysterious sleeping patterns of the Prussian generals? Now, some of us are here to learn. Believe it or not, we're interested in finding out what actually happened. It's called studying history. You can sit down now. Unless you have something else to add, professor?

[> [> [> Yep, that's the one. Thanks to our resident WDC! ( 'Whedonverse Dialog Curator' ) -- OnM, ;-), 06:22:33 02/16/04 Mon

What is the Prince of Lies? (Spoilers for 5x13) -- YesPlease, 22:53:54 02/11/04 Wed

I'm a lurker extraordinaire here on the ATPo boards, but this question I have forces me to come forth and actually start a thread. :)

Are they trying to create a new breed of vampires with this Prince of Lies? 'Cause that's the only thing I can think of to explain why one tiny measly stake dusted him!

Buffy _and_ Faith had to use a huge pole on Kalistos and he didn't appear to be half as old as this POL!

So what the heck? If he's a vamp, he's (appearing to be) way too old to be killed in the manner Angel did it, or he's not a vamp and the stake, while perhaps killing him, should not have dusted him in the vamp manner.

Clearly this was a shout-out to Nosferatu, but in this particular case, the canon on old vamps seems pretty clear. Any ideas?

Replies:

[> Re: What is the Prince of Lies? (Spoilers for 5x13) -- Apophis, 06:17:22 02/12/04 Thu

The Master didn't have rhino-hide either, but he was old enough to look like Count Orlock (I think Prince-Of-Lies was more geared toward Willam DaFoe's Shreck from Shadow of the Vampire, but they're pretty much the same). Maybe ancient vampires develop different traits; the Master's bones didn't disintegrate, Kakistos had thick skin, and Prince-Of-Lies... well, he had big ears. Maybe Kakistos was unique. Or, maybe it's just a continuity error.

[> Re: What is the Prince of Lies? (Spoilers for 5x13) -- CW, 07:34:55 02/12/04 Thu

Maybe he was lying about his age.

Did I say that? Sorry.

[> [> Re: What is the Prince of Lies? (Spoilers for 5x13) -- Pip, 08:35:39 02/12/04 Thu

Given the number of vampires who lie about being at the Crucifixion ...

... you could be onto something there, CW [grin].

[> What I found interesting was that... (Spoilers for 5x13) -- Random, 08:35:23 02/12/04 Thu

Spike's ego didn't even appear to take a prickling from the fact that both of his fellow "generals" were dusted with little effort by Angel. Demon hype? Poor Spike...taken down a notch once again by his erstwhile grandfather.

And the Prince of Lies doesn't seem to have been a "Master Vampire" anyway, if he walked into the same trap Spike did. Since when do Master Vampires condescend to answer advertisements just to get blood? That's what minions are for. Possible theory, though: the name seems to indicate that this is a vampire that operates on different principles from Kakistos or even The Master. He is a manipulator, a psychological threat. He's the Prince of Lies, not the Prince of Kick-ass. He attacked the Nazi because he had no-one to do it for him, but I would suspect that he's not so much a different breed as a representation of a different approach. Therefore, perhaps his powers were more in line with the Master's hypnotic ones -- psychological and psychic influence. Unlike the Master, who seemed quite willing to jump into the fray on occasion, the Prince of Lies might have developed his mental powers almost exclusively. But, having been drugged and imprisoned, he was unable to exercise them until being freed (how, though? did the Americans open the wrong crate?) And then he went on a rampage for blood. Once that was over, though, he was basically surrounded by very powerful and individuated vampires like himself, and thus lacking in real opportunity to exercise his power.

Or it could be that they were all rather overestimating themselves. That seems more likely. And there's always the theory that the Prince of Lies was just a really, really old concert pianist (l-o-o-ng fingers)when he was turned.

[> [> Prince of Lies is a name for the devil (still 5.13 spoilers) -- Vickie, 11:33:12 02/12/04 Thu

Since "Prince of Lies" (or Liars) is a nickname for The Devil, Satan, this could be more vampire hype. Loved the Rasputin reference!

[> Not the point, but -- Arethusa, 08:52:06 02/12/04 Thu

There is a Marvel comic character called Hellstorm, the Prince of Lies, according to the googling I just did. Which makes two Marvel comic mentions, with Captain America. And the "Steve Rogers is Captain America, eight-ball" crack sound very much like Ben is Glory and Glory is Ben, which might be a subtle hint or might be nothing.

It looks like Buffy was right about Rasputin being a vampire, sice he had a vampire lover who almost certainly turned him. Or vice-versa.

[> [> Spoilers for 5.13 Above -- Arethusa, 08:53:40 02/12/04 Thu


[> [> Best line EVER. -- Apophis, 08:56:30 02/12/04 Thu

"I WAS RASPUTIN'S LOVER!!!"

[> [> [> YES!! I don't think I've laughed as hard at any line on any show or movie all year! -- Rob, 09:27:52 02/12/04 Thu


[> [> [> Re: Best line EVER. -- shambleau, 12:06:37 02/12/04 Thu

And that line showed that Buffy was right in thinking that Rasputin was a demon or vampire. She got mocked by her prof for wondering about that in Checkpoint, IIRC.

Hmmm... She also wondered about the sleeping habits of Prussian generals, and we now know that the Nazis were trying to create a vampire army. Though Spike said, with his usual self-importance, that they were gathering vampire leaders to control first, so that other vamps would be more malleable. Wouldn't the Prussian generals have been leaders in their own right, though?

Loved that the Initiative started way back when and probably lifted their ideas on chip control from the Nazis, by the way. Shades of Werner von Braun!

[> [> [> Re: Best line EVER. (slight spolier for next week) -- Raven_NightDragon, 17:57:05 02/12/04 Thu

That line was funny... but as I mentioned in a previous post, the funniest line of the night for me was in the teaser for next week.

"You're a tiny puppet man!"

I laughed on my couch for five minutes after hearing that... then got up, went to my computer... and laughed so hard for another five minutes I almost fell out of my chair.

[> Re: What is the Prince of Lies? (Spoilers for 5x13) -- purplegrrl, 12:03:17 02/12/04 Thu

In the orginal silent movie "Nosferatu" (which is the basis for "Shadow of the Vampire"), Count Orlock is done in at the end by ordinary sunlight. So if Prince of Lies is a homage to this vampire, why wouldn't a simple wooden stake to the heart do the trick as well? Also, if you notice, neither Prince of Lies nor the other vamp -- Rasputin's lover (hee, hee!) -- went instantly dusty as most other vamps in the Buffyverse. Both dwindled to dusty skeleton before going completely poof.

I'm not sure there is any "canon" on how to kill old vamps. All the ones we've encountered in the Buffyverse have had to be destroyed differently. The Master left a skeleton, which then had to be destroyed separately. Kakistos required a really big stake to get his attention. Dracula could be killed with a stake, but he kept returning via his own personal fog machine. Prince of Lies could be destroyed with a simple wooden stake (in keeping with the homage that sunlight would also destroy him). And Rasputin's lover (what was his name?!?) was actually fairly young -- maybe 30 years as a vampire -- so a dusty end for him.

Personally, I loved the homage to "historic" vampires, ala "Buffy vs. Dracula."

[> The Prince seemed to be kinda senile, though -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:26:57 02/12/04 Thu

I don't imagine age can do that to vampires. This leads me to believe that he was actually not old in vampire terms (which would require several centuries), but old in human terms, having been something of a geezer when he was sired. As such, his weird complexion and fingernails may simply be a matter of grooming and how he looked as a human.

[> Re: What is the Prince of Lies? (Spoilers for 5x13) -- Arthur Mortagon, 17:10:51 02/12/04 Thu

Spike's mother was really old in Lies s7 and after she was sired she looked far younger. I don't think that it would have mattered no matter how old the guy was when he was turned. He wouldn't look that old.

[> Who is the Prince of lies(Spoilers for 5x13) -- Ann, 04:48:10 02/13/04 Fri

It was not an accident that this character was named Prince of Lies. And I think the question could be: Who is the Prince of Lies? I think Angel might be that guy. Lying to his friends, lying to and about his son, lying to himself. This Prince of Lies looked like a dried up walnut, again no accident. I think he is the old soul in the sub, and like Finn said, is a little senile. The complexion and fingernails are just indicative of not caring, not taking care of these simple day-to-day tasks. He pretty much looked dead much like Angelís soul seems to be.

[> [> Re: Who is the Prince of Lies (Spoilers for 5x13) -- Tim T., 16:24:29 02/13/04 Fri

I think Connor called Angel the "Prince of Lies" in Tomorrow (Ep 3x22). That might be where the name is from.

[> In one word...... -- angel's nibblet, 16:39:25 02/15/04 Sun

HILARIOUS!

That's what he was!

The laugh!!!! Hee-hee-HEEE! So like that of people I know...

"Are we underwater???"

*chuckle* the laugh alone did it for me, and Angel and Spike's looks in reaction to it...

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say he was pure Joss.

I have to watch that scene again...

[> Re: What is the Prince of Lies? (Spoilers for 5x13) -- The Hat, 07:25:05 02/17/04 Tue

I can't add any speculation on what the Prince of Lies was, but during a lull at work I found out who he was. According to the IMDB, the PoL was portrayed by Camden Toy. If that name looks at all familiar, it's because he was also a Gentleman, Gnarl ("not 'the Gnarl', just 'Gnarl'"), a Bringer, and the original Turok-Han. I guess once they have a mold of your face, it's easy to get work with Mutant Enemy.

The Connor Connection ("Why We Fight" spoilers) -- Rob, 23:07:14 02/11/04 Wed

To begin with, I was worried this episode would have continuity issues, but I was pleasantly surprised. Had Spike discovered Angel was good here, it would have ruined Angel thinking he could fool him into thinking he was going to eat Xander in School Hard. Not only did Spike not find out Angel was good, but we got some nifty new information about the origins of the Initiative, and lots of chewy ironic/foreshadowy goodness at Spike's reaction to having his brain experimented on by a government.

Besides that, this episode not only had interesting Lie to Me overtones, but should I hope again set people's minds at ease that Connor and the fallout from Angel's actions are not forgotten. Not only do we have the parallel of Angel being sent to the bottom of the ocean, but we have Angel sire Lawson, in essence, create a son. A son who comes to hate Angel, holds his friends hostage, tells Angel that thanks to him his life was ruined, has too much good in him to be purely evil but too much anguish and confusion to be good. Angel took away this man's purpose much as Connor thought Angel took away his. He tells Angel he feels empty inside. "Is it just me, chief, or does everyone you sired feel this way?" His question of whether he has a soul because Angel sired him draws more parallels to Connor, a theme that is confirmed by Angel's line, "I don't think it works that way, son." With the sadness and world weariness in his voice as he delivers this line, I'm pretty sure Angel was thinking of Connor himself there.

Lawson: You gave me just enough, didn't you? Enough of your soul to keep me trapped between who I was and who I should be. I'm nothing, because of you.

Sound familiar?

And then the Father kills the Son. Again.

Rob

Replies:

[> Rob! You're so restrained (spoilers 5.13) -- Pony, 06:53:45 02/12/04 Thu

So I'm going to pick up the pompoms and cheer. I really liked this episode.

Now if Lawson was the good son in this episode and Spike the bad son, is Angel eventually going to keep to his perfect record of killing his sons?

[> [> Sticking points -- Sebastian, 07:29:53 02/12/04 Thu

It was an interesting episode - but there were a few problems that made it somewhat sloppy (for me).

I found it irritating that Cordelia's death was glossed over. I know they were dealing with Embittered-Slightly-Souled-Vampire, but some mention of Cordelia's death would have given it some (and appropriate) continuity.

And what about that bit of ret-conning with Angel's past? It has been implied in earlier seasons of Angel (and on "Buffy" for that matter) that Angel spent the majority of his post-soul time highly misanthropic, unhygienic and eating rats for snacks. Why was he suddenly CleanCutAngel during WWII? I just find it difficult to believe that he would have gone from one extreme to the other - especially since it was implied that he was a basketcase pretty much up until he first saw Buffy.

There should have been some explanation regarding this.

Also "Why We Fight" seemed to indicate that Angel's encounter with Lawson provided an epiphany regarding the team's involvement with W+H. But wasn't that the entire point of "You're Welcome" (which delivered the point much more succinctly and poignantly)?

Just my two cents.

-Sebastian-

[> [> [> Spoilers in above post (my apologies) -- Sebastian, 07:32:46 02/12/04 Thu


[> [> [> Re: Sticking points -- Rob, 07:51:38 02/12/04 Thu

And what about that bit of ret-conning with Angel's past? It has been implied in earlier seasons of Angel (and on "Buffy" for that matter) that Angel spent the majority of his post-soul time highly misanthropic, unhygienic and eating rats for snacks. Why was he suddenly CleanCutAngel during WWII? I just find it difficult to believe that he would have gone from one extreme to the other - especially since it was implied that he was a basketcase pretty much up until he first saw Buffy.

No, that happened later. This episode, remember, takes place before Are You Now or Have You Ever Been?, where Angel's misanthropy and separation from society really started. Angel here, forced into working for the army and into making extremely sticky moral decisions perfectly sets up the isolated Angel of AYNOHYEB.

Rob

[> [> [> Re: Sticking points (5.13) -- Pony, 08:01:02 02/12/04 Thu

Well to address your points, AtS has demonstrated several times that Angel did a lot more in the past century than skulk in the alley, that there was a bit of a multi-decade descent that was generally characterized by avoiding people. So I thought an apartment filled with old newspapers was a pretty believable place for Angel to be in the 1940s.

And I believe that Why We Fight was a bit of a counterpoint to You're Welcome. While Angel had regained a sense of self last episode I felt the point of this one was a reminder that he has taken purpose away from his team, something I don't expect to be resolved for a while yet. Lawson was asked to follow orders without knowing the larger picture, he put his trust in Angel, and he sacrificed his innocence, his own sense of self for the larger good, again without knowing exactly what was happening. In the end all he was left with was his desire to find a reason for what had happened to him, the Connor parallels are obvious, but it is also a desire that the team cannot even articulate. They are left bound, gagged and teetering on the edge of disaster. But they don't know the reason why.

[> [> [> [> Another sacrifice parallel Spooilers for 5.13 and Christianity -- Arethusa, 09:49:05 02/12/04 Thu

Gunn mentions portal incantations from a Mithric Retreat. There was a Mithric cult, from about 1400 BCE to the establishment of Christianity. Due to the remarkable similarity between Mithric cultists' beliefs and Jesus' followers' beliefs, some think it was the template for the story of Jesus.

"Worshipers of Mithras held beliefs in a celestial heaven and in an infernal hell. Mithras was believed to have visited earth after being born of a virgin, and to have taken part in a last supper with his 12 companions before ascending to heaven.

Believers had faith that Mithra's sympathy to human suffering would grant them salvation in the world to come, and followers looked forward to a final day of judgement where the world order would be forever changed and good would triumph over evil"

http://yippi.hypermall.com/Expression/Thoughts/Christianity_And_Greece.shtml

Lawson was sacrified, in parallel to Connor the Son's sacrifice.

Cool.

[> [> [> [> [> Very cool! -- Pony, 12:31:56 02/12/04 Thu


[> [> [> More Sticking points (spoilers) -- Sebastian, 08:46:48 02/12/04 Thu

A few more pennies.

This episode, remember, takes place before Are You Now or Have You Ever Been?, where Angel's misanthropy and separation from society really started. Angel here, forced into working for the army and into making extremely sticky moral decisions perfectly sets up the isolated Angel of AYNOHYEB.

I (grudgingly) agree with this ñ but since no no mention was made of this before, I feel itís a little sloppy on the writer's part. I could digest this better if Angel had been working as a free agent ñ but I would think something like this - a situation where Angel was forced to work for the US Army (!), would have been mentioned before.

And I believe that Why We Fight was a bit of a counterpoint to You're Welcome. While Angel had regained a sense of self last episode I felt the point of this one was a reminder that he has taken purpose away from his team, something I don't expect to be resolved for a while yet.

I concur. I do feel that WWF was written to serve as a counterpoint to YW ñ however it diluted, rather than strengthened, the message the writers are conveying. I bristled watching WWF because it seemed less like a counterpoint and more like a rehash. I feel a story that directly focused on Angelís ambivalence towards losing Connor/violating the team's mind (more on that in a moment) would have better bookended the message conveyed in YW. But this could be because YW was so excellently written, so anything following it would seem ëlessí.

Lawson was asked to follow orders without knowing the larger picture, he put his trust in Angel, and he sacrificed his innocence, his own sense of self for the larger good, again without knowing exactly what was happening. In the end all he was left with was his desire to find a reason for what had happened to him, the Connor parallels are obvious, but it is also a desire that the team cannot even articulate. They are left bound, gagged and teetering on the edge of disaster. But they don't know the reason why.

Additionally, I feel that Lawson was less a parallel for Connor and more for Wes/Gunn/Fred. The fact that Angel willingly mind-raped them (a term Cordelia used that is very applicable) parallels Angel turning Lawson. Lawson was turned in order to bring the sub to the surface. W/F/Gís minds were violated in order to benefit another person (Connor). They were never consulted about the matter. Angel felt an executive decision had to be made ñ and if the team ever regains their memory ñ it could be at a heavy cost.

In both cases, Angelís intentions were good ñ but still wrong nonetheless.

Again ñ just my opinions. Not trying to be a troll ñ just expressing some thoughts. :)

-Sebastian-

[> [> [> [> Re: More Sticking points (spoilers) -- Rob, 09:00:03 02/12/04 Thu

I (grudgingly) agree with this ñ but since no no mention was made of this before, I feel itís a little sloppy on the writer's part.

Well, we can't ask the writers know everything about the characters to begin with. The reason we never heard about Angel in the army was because he hadn't been before this episode. The writers do have to, when possible, make the new information they add to the mythology fit into what was already established, and they succeeded with flying colors in that department, in this situation, IMO.

I do feel that WWF was written to serve as a counterpoint to YW ñ however it diluted, rather than strengthened, the message the writers are conveying.

Disagree. The episodes had two different focuses: "You're Welcome" helped Angel come to grips with working at Wolfram and Hart, his new place in the world, etc., whereas "Why We Fight" was about Angel, as he relates to Wes, Fred, and Gunn, and most importantly, Connor. I disagree also that Lawson was more about them than Connor. Angel creating someone who hates him for making him feel empty and lost, particularly someone he refers to as "son," is much more about Connor. Of course, what Angel ended up doing to Connor in "Home" is also all about what he did to his friends, as well. So it does all come together that way.

And that is why I disagree when you say, "I feel a story that directly focused on Angelís ambivalence towards losing Connor/violating the team's mind...would have better bookended the message conveyed in YW." Because take away the word "directly," and that's exactly what we got in this episode. Although with the way some of the dialogue was written between Angel and Lawson, it came very close to being a direct parallel to Connor many, many times. Without revealing to the gang about the mindwipe, it would be very hard to focus an entire episode on Angel worrying about what he did, because he'd have nobody to talk to about it.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Not trying to be bull-headed, however....(spoilers) -- Sebastian, 09:52:40 02/12/04 Thu

Well, we can't ask the writers know everything about the characters to begin with. The reason we never heard about Angel in the army was because he hadn't been before this episode. The writers do have to, when possible, make the new information they add to the mythology fit into what was already establishedÖ.

Obviously the writers cannot know everything about a character beforehand ñ it would be ridiculous to think so. However, what I am saying is that I disagreed with this presentation of Angel in the 1940s. To me, it seemed inconsistent. I had a difficult time accepting AggressiveLeaderAngel during this time period, when it seemed as if Angel did not step into a definite leadership role until much, much later

The episodes had two different focuses: "You're Welcome" helped Angel come to grips with working at Wolfram and Hart, his new place in the world, etc., whereas "Why We Fight" was about Angel, as he relates to Wes, Fred, and Gunn, and most importantly, Connor.

I came away with the idea that YW served as an opportunity for Angel to realize his involvement with W+H is misguided ñ not as a way for him to ëbe okayí with working there. And that presence of Cordy was to serve as the 'voice of reason' to get Angel to question his actions post-mindswipe (including the decision itself)

I disagree also that Lawson was more about them than Connor. Angel creating someone who hates him for making him feel empty and lost, particularly someone he refers to as "son," is much more about Connor. Of course, what Angel ended up doing to Connor in "Home" is also all about what he did to his friends, as well. So it does all come together that way.

Again, I personally disagree. I feel WWF was about Angel using someone to complete a mission: the intent is good, the action is wrong. Angel turned Lawson to complete the mission, just as he mind-raped the gang for Connor. Yes, it could have been a commentary on Angelís thoughts toward Connor, but it can also be interpreted as an example where Angel sacrificed someone for the sake of a purpose ñ repercussions come back to haunt him.

Ö.. Although with the way some of the dialogue was written between Angel and Lawson, it came very close to being a direct parallel to Connor many, many times. Without revealing to the gang about the mind wipe, it would be very hard to focus an entire episode on Angel worrying about what he did, because he'd have nobody to talk to about it.

Angel manipulated Spike into helping him. Granted, he couldnít allow Spike to realize Angel had a soul ñ but he manipulated Spike nonetheless to accomplish the mission. Angel also turned Lawson in order for the sub to reach the surface. Angel, to me, clearly maneuvered both these men without their being aware of it. Rather, Lawson became aware afterwardsñ but was helpless in being turned into a vampire. Its very similar with the gang ñ Angel made a conscious decision to take the choice from them.

Again, I am merely expressing how I perceived the episode ñ Iím not trying to dictate what should be canon. :)

-Sebastian-

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not trying to be bull-headed, however....(spoilers) -- Dlgood, 11:23:18 02/12/04 Thu

I feel WWF was about Angel using someone to complete a mission: the intent is good, the action is wrong.

And yet, what about those other men on the ship? They aren't just a mission - they matter too. This, IMHO, is one of those scenarios where there is no "good" or "right" choice. And having to live in a world, where such choices are commonplace is something Angel very much hates. Hence his repeated bouts of isolation.

Angel also turned Lawson in order for the sub to reach the surface. Angel, to me, clearly maneuvered both these men without their being aware of it.

Actually - Lawson was rather aware very early on that Angel was using him. Their early arguments are very much about that topic - Angel flat out tells Lawson that he's going to use him to fulfill a purpose and orders without really explaining to Lawson what those are.

It's not entirely dissimilar to Angel's own interaction with the PtB.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> If you really think about it (spoilers) -- lunasea, 10:17:41 02/13/04 Fri

Lawson even gives his consent to being vamped. "I can even handle dying if it is for a greater purpose."

The problem was that after Angel used him, he should have dusted him rather than leave him to live as a vampire for 60 years. Angel couldn't do this and rectifies his mistake by finally releasing him.

Does vamping someone eternally damn them? If so, I would say that the lives Angel saved were not worth it. No amount of lives in this lifetime is worth eternal damnation of a single soul. However, if it doesn't, the death of one person even if it does mean living as a vampire for a while, is worth it because that life would have been taken any way. It isn't one life for others. It is one life instead of that plus others.

The moral ambiguity of the vamping revolves around whether that individual is damned or not. Then we have to ask is it better to let someone live as a vampire or to dust them. Pretty big questions. Masq, any answers?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If you really think about it (spoilers) -- Dlgood, 12:03:22 02/13/04 Fri

The problem was that after Angel used him, he should have dusted him rather than leave him to live as a vampire for 60 years. Angel couldn't do this and rectifies his mistake by finally releasing him.

And yet, Angel has not granted Harmony such release. IMHO, dusting Lawson in that sub wouldn't have been a morally ambiguous act, as Angel would have had no reason to see a good alternative, but was simply too morally weak to dust him. However, dusting Lawson now, when he spares Harmony and could have taken Lawson in - is a morally ambiguous act.

No amount of lives in this lifetime is worth eternal damnation of a single soul... The moral ambiguity of the vamping revolves around whether that individual is damned or not.

I disagree. Turning someone into a vampire, in and of itself, is an evil act. Whether or not, their soul would be eternally damned in the process. The only possible way any moral ambiguity arises at all, that it was not a Vile act, is if it can be justified in terms of serving a greater good.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If you really think about it (spoilers) -- lunasea, 13:09:11 02/13/04 Fri

Why doesn't Angel just resoul all the vampires in the world while he is at it? I mean Willow managed to pull the Scythe Spell off. I bet she could do a whole bunch of resoulings if she wanted. Angel has lots of Witches at his disposal now. Let's get the demons making those little glowing Orbs and get to solving this vampire problem.

There is a small problem, being resouled sucks. It is a curse, a punishment. Resouling a vampire after they have done all that damage is cruel.

Lawson was dead. Whether it was from his gut wound or lack of air, human Lawson was going to die. That is a given. Dusting a vampire means they become one of the actually dead, not just undead. Why does a few minutes/hours as a vampire make that death all of the sudden an evil act? It only becomes evil when Angel lets that vampire go to reek havoc on others OR if there is more to it than just death.ÝThen we have to compare the lives of others to the soul of one. Not a comparision that can be made unless we know that it needs to be made. It becomes evil when the new vampire has to deal with his new perspective. Dusting him wouldn't have allowed for this.

Harmony is not in the same position that Lawson is in. Harmony has been a vampire for a few years and is quite comfortable with herself. Harmony does not need a release. She has shown that she isn't really a harm to others and dusting her isn't morally ambiguous, it is wrong.

Harmony is a vampire. Lawson is a sort-of ensouled vampire. They are not in the same position. Harmony is what she is supposed to be. Lawson is trapped between states and only Angel's stake can free him. Things are a lot more complicated for them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not trying to be bull-headed, however....(spoilers) -- Cactus Watcher, 06:20:52 02/13/04 Fri

Again, I personally disagree. I feel WWF was about Angel using someone to complete a mission: the intent is good, the action is wrong.

I believe this is a fair way to think about the story, but I think there was more to it. Not only does the mission fail if Angel does not turn Lawson, but all of the remaining sailors will die and all of the deaths during the mission become meaningless. Lawson wants to believe he is doing something good while he is alive. He is about to die anyway. He is the only one who can save the ship and his comrades. Angel gives his death meaning. The problem, of course, is that it also releases a new cold-blooded monster on the world. Was the trade-off worth it? Neither Angel nor vamp-Lawson could answer that question.

[> [> [> [> [> Another theme (spoilers for "Why We Fight") -- Antigone, 10:08:57 02/12/04 Thu

Correct me if I'm wrong but I felt another strong theme in last night's episode, beyond the Connor metaphor: when Spike, the nazi, Lawson and Angel are talking about the Nazi experiements on demons, etc. Lawson does this whole speech about how the US would never do something like that, how you can't fight evil by doing evil. To me that absolutely paralleled the Gang's journey at W&H and the compromises they chose to do (work with Evil clients, kill employees, etc.) to have all the resources they think they need to achieve their goal to fight evil. Same situation than the US government using Nazi/Evil technology to win the war or Angel siring Lawson and making a deal with Spike to get the submarine back to the Army. Compromises with Evil. That kind of stuff has to leave you tainted somehow and I think that's what Lawson represented. Tainted innocence. He had all these simple ideals about Good vs. Evil (maybe what the A Gang used to believe as well) but now everything is grey and even the "good guys" (the US, Angel) make deals with the devil to supposedly do good.

But strangely when I look at it,I'm reluctant to say who's right and who's wrong: Lawson's beliefs at the beginning were admirable, but very naive too; in the complex world we live in, we all HAVE to compromise to survive and do a bit of evil to do a lot of good, make hard sometimes cruel choices for the greater good. But at the same time, Angel's choice to live in the "belly of the Beast" (interestingly, this expression was also used to describe Nazism; I believe it's a quote by Brecht) can't be right. Like Spike says: "You can't change it; it changes you." So not an easy dilemma: live in a world of dreams and idealism or a world of gray areas and ugly compromises. If you work for W&H or the US government, can you keep your ideals, your integrity? Will you lose who you are, what your "purpose" is by letting the larger corporation/machine control your choices? I sense what this episode was trying to tell us is that there is no cut and dry answer or maybe that the answer is somewhere in the middle and something that Angel will keep struggling with for a while.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Good post. Food for thought -- Rahael, 10:10:57 02/12/04 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Good post. Food for thought -- DEN, 10:23:44 02/12/04 Thu

In the context of Antigone's message in particular, something that hit me over the head was the essential moral equivalence the story established between the US and the Nazis. That approach was common during the Cold War (See John Le Carre's novels in particular),and remains familiar in the secret-agent genre, where the US and its security/intellligence services are frequent bad guys. It is, however,still unusual in WWII settings with a Nazi focus. I at least cannot remember seeing anything that blunt in any other "mainstream" presentations. One wonders if this is a harbinger of a kind of revisionism on the issue, or just a specific plot contrivance.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I hope not! (Spoilers, Why We Fight) -- Rahael, 13:38:55 02/12/04 Thu

I hope they were just going for equivalence between AI this season and teh American Government prepared to be ruthless. I was aware all the time that Lawson was talking to Angel about his beliefs in the Sub that Angel himself was being deceitful.

I thought maybe the Nazi was there to point out that no matter the grayness that Angel is prepared to adopt, this is nothing compared to what he really is trying to defeat. Well that's just my own bias though.

Lawson becomes the pawn on which this is built. He goes the opposite way of Connor. Lawson starts for family, country, mission, and Lawson ends up with blood, ashes and memories. Angel needs to find the middle way.

One other thought struck me. The image of the submarine. Underwater, and unseen but still there. Like the secret that still waits to emerge.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Even more -- speculation -- Fleem, 19:51:47 02/12/04 Thu

I see the sub as a metaphor for the W & H office. It's a high-performance shop (or ship, heh) captured from the enemy. Wonder if there's foreshadowing going on where Lawson really stands in for Angel/Angelus (who tends to show up at the end of each season), needing to be turned to get the (more or less) good guys' mission done.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Good post. Food for thought -- s'kat, 21:27:59 02/12/04 Thu

It is, however,still unusual in WWII settings with a Nazi focus. I at least cannot remember seeing anything that blunt in any other "mainstream" presentations. One wonders if this is a harbinger of a kind of revisionism on the issue, or just a specific plot contrivance.

Really? I remember seeing a lot of this when I was in high school, don't ask me to state what - that was over 20 years ago - with books on how the US put Japanese Americans in Internment Camps, threatened American Germans,
and I remember a friend in high school lecturing me at length on how the US knew what was going on in Germany, even was supporting it, until Pearl Harbor hit. And of course there's that whole theory about Roosevelt and Churchill knowing about Pearl Harbor and letting it happen so the US will join the War effort. Maybe it's not been broadly publicized, but I've certainly seen it referred to a few times.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Another theme (spoilers for "Why We Fight") -- Arethusa, 10:28:25 02/12/04 Thu

I agree; when Lawson said the Allies would never do what the Germans are willing to do, we know that is not true. The Buffyverse US government did take up the Nazi's work on demons and vampires, and the Realverse goverment dropped the bombs on Japan to end the war, a horrific deed that was deemed necessary at the time, and a way to save many more lives.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Another theme (spoilers for "Why We Fight", BtVS S7) -- Vickie, 11:39:36 02/12/04 Thu

I think you are onto something here. Most prominent in my mind (because I've been rewatching BtVS S7) was that Buffy said almost exactly the same thing to Giles, explaining why she wouldn't keep the chip in Spike's head.

I think her words were "you can't do good by doing evil. I know that."

To have Law's Son reiterating this to Angel (well, actually, he said it first, but...) is interesting. Much chewy goodness in this one.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Another theme (spoilers for "Why We Fight") -- purplegrrl, 11:43:18 02/12/04 Thu

"Why We Fight" brings to mind a quote by Neitzche:

Anyone who fights monsters should be careful not to become one in the process.

This episode is the beginning of Angel's downward spiral into homeless, rat-eating guy.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Another theme (spoilers for "Why We Fight") -- s'kat, 21:17:55 02/12/04 Thu

But strangely when I look at it,I'm reluctant to say who's right and who's wrong: Lawson's beliefs at the beginning were admirable, but very naive too; in the complex world we live in, we all HAVE to compromise to survive and do a bit of evil to do a lot of good, make hard sometimes cruel choices for the greater good.

You are getting to the heart of something here - I think.

At a different point in the episode, Lawson says something interesting - he's telling Angel that the men knew that it was a dangerous mission when they "volunteered" for it, those are the ones that get you up and out of the war quicker - so you go for them , but they didn't know what it involved - just that the sub had some cargo that the Allies wanted and the Nazis had - some weapons. Didn't know what type of weapons. (The weapons unfortunately got loose and killed them...makes one appreciate nuclear war heads, although those can be just as deadly, if not more so.) Lawson and his crew - like Angel - are sent in by the US Govt to re-cover a Nazi submarine, on a top secret mission -it wasn't a US submarine. Lawson and his crew don't know what it's carrying, just that their orders are to bring it back. (IF you were a Buffy watcher in S4, this should remind you a little of Professor Walsh and The Initiative, who did the same thing.) But unlike Riley and his soldiers, and Angel, even, Lawson has no clue what he's getting into, he doesn't know that there are vampires on board or that they are the secret cache of weapons the Nazis are carrying, heck he may not have even believed vampires existed until now. What he is - is a puppet, blindly believing what his government told him and doing it - again very similar to Riley, only to learn that government is using him and is willing to even turn him into a monster to get what it wants. Just as it is willing to use vampires as weapons. Something he doesn't believe, until Angel, his government's representative, literally turns him. His attitude after that sort of reminds me of the Vietnam Vet who returns from the War effort, cynical and somewhat violent a la Rambo or Apocalypse Now or Heart of Darkness.

Lawson's the good little soldier whose suddenly discovered that the team he's fighting for isn't as nice as he thought.
Riley had exactly the same experience in S4 BTVS. It's a re-occuring theme in ME's writing - about being someone else's pawn.

Go back to Fred, Wes and Gunn who have joined W&H along with Angel, but don't quite remember why - do they know the risks? Do they even know the deal Angel signed? Or that their universe was alterred? Are they like Lawson and his crew - pawns, puppets? And for that matter is Angel a puppet - both in the past, and now at W&H - taking directions from above, without questioning them, and issuing them to others (just as Riley once did on BTVS)?
How do you locate the middle ground when you no longer even know why you are doing what you are doing? How do you navigate when you don't know your destination or for that matter the ship your navigating to get there?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel's on auto pilot -- Arethusa, 21:57:40 02/12/04 Thu

Is it about control-losing it, trying to gain it, giving up on it? Angel's always tried to control everything and everyone around him. Yet the harder he tries, the less control he has. And now he appears to have given up control-the puppet on the string. But that can't last forever.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel's on auto pilot -- Arethusa, 22:09:33 02/12/04 Thu

I think you said before Angel's reacting, not acting. It's what he's always done. He doesn't feel in control. So he gives up his power, and become controlled by others, his father, Buffy to a certain extent, Whistler and TPTB, Jasmine, W&H. Every or nearly every episode this season shows Angel manipulated by someone.

Oftne there comes a time in your life when you just can't continue the way you did in the past, it just doesn't work anymore. The means of control might change, but the fact of being controlled-by your fears, or wants or needs-makes life unbearable, But it takes a lot to break habits, especially 200 year old ones. (I'd feel more hopeful if that sub had hit the bottom of the ocean floor. Is there anything left for Angel to lose?)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Theme (spoilers ATS S4-5 "Why We Fight") -- Age, 19:07:52 02/14/04 Sat

I think that the submarine may not be a simple physical metaphor representing the resources of Wolfram and Hart, but a cultural metaphor representing the mentality that the Angel Team have adopted in joining the firm but should be fighting against.

Having seen photos of the atrocities that the Nazis have committed, Lawson, a human being who believes in what the icons of the apple pie and the flag represent, ie freedom and individual human rights, has enlisted to join the navy in its fight against the spread of evil. The idea then is to stop the acts of evil through fighting the Nazis. Voluntarily suspending his own freedom within the command structure, Lawson is willing to sacrifice himself for a greater purpose because he believes that he is fighting for a side that believes in the same rights he does. In this sense Lawson isn't just obeying orders when he follows a command, but making an individual decision to act according to the dictates of the authority which is fighting for the freedom and individual human rights he believes in. He assumes that he is still regarded by his superiors as a human being, just as we see him doing so when he gives direction and human warmth to those men under his command.

While it is regrettable the Nazis have shown that they will violate basic freedoms and individual rights, and so they have to be stopped, even if this means using violence. The mission undertaken by Lawson's squad is to recover a new Nazi submarine which would have given the edge to the Germans. As other posters have noted, the submarine represents the resources of Wolfram and Hart, and if we weren't clued into this Spike repeats the line that they'll let anybody in, (perhaps the writers intent to convey anybody in the sense of loss of personal identity, but this is not Spike's direct meaning.) Lawson, who believes in freedom and human rights has no qualms whatsoever in stealing the Nazi submarine as it is simply a physical thing that will be operated by human beings in their fight against evil(and in fact the human crew is needed to run the ship to reinforce this point.) Again it is regrettable that such a machine, such a weapon has to be employed to kill, but his motivation is to stop the suffering caused by evil acts.

However, the sub is also carrying a vampire cargo and Nazi plans to control vampires through inserting(violating) chips into their brains. Lawson and his human crew learn first hand that the vampires are killers, monsters as Lawson says. During the course of the episode, the plans to control the vampires are revealed, prompting Lawson to affirm the difference between his government based on freedom and individual human rights who would never use(and by extension, create, as the vampire cargo used to be human, with Lawson's siring later in the ep revealing that the creation of a monster is not out of the question for the US) monsters in such a way. It would be the Nazis who violate human beings by turning men into monsters and take away freedom by inserting controlling mechanisms directly into their skulls. This is the Nazi culture against which they are fighting.

However, it is quickly revealed by Angel, acting as US government representative, that the recovery of the plans for vampire control is part of the mission, prompting a crisis of faith on the part of Lawson. How could his government be doing the same thing as those against whom, judged as evil, they were fighting?

It isn't simply that the US would be employing the same type of physical weapon like the sub itself, but the use of vampire control implies that his government does not believe in either basic human rights or freedom. Instead it is concerned only with a purely physical victory over a enemy threatening its power, reducing Lawson's human mission to that of simply following orders because someone or something, an organization, has more power than he does. The change in his perspective from faith to disillusionment is played out physically through the stabbing and the siring, reducing Lawson effectively to the symbol of what his superiors desire, physical survival at any cost. Lawson doesn't survive safe and sound, he survives only physically safe, but he's no longer sound, no longer human.

After leaving the sub, as a vampire he goes on a blood lust rampage, metaphorically venting his rage at American citizens, because if there's no good and no bad, then anyone's fair game, it doesn't matter what you do, hell, this is what your government thinks of you, fodder, so what's the problem? However, he's not a simple vampire, but has retained some of Angel's soul; metaphorically he has retained a basic desire to have a mission, to be a man who alongside other human beings fighting against evil. In the present day, he asks Angel for a mission, but gets only a purposeless death to end the purposeless physical existence he received when sired. As a human being he would have preferred a purposeful death.

How does this relate to the Angel Team at Wolfram and Hart. Of course it does refer to them as the return of Lawson and the capture of Angel's team signifies. As I said above the sub represents the resources that, like the US taking the sub, the Angel team wants to make theirs. But, just like the sub, the resources of Wolfram and Hart aren't just physical. The sub contained plans to create monster killing machines, effectively, of human beings(again the Lawson siring warns that the vampire cargo could just as easily be human.) Whereas Lawson had thought his superiors would never have bought into such a culture, regarding him and his crew instead as a human being, it is clear that they were willing to perform acts that went against their very principles, effectively dehumanizing those below them, turning them into tools, puppets. A line wass crossed when the difference between thing, tool to be used and human being was blurred, or in this case eradicated. And, this is the culture that the Angel Team has effectively bought into by choosing to join Wolfram and Hart for the express desire of using its resources.

The resources aren't simply pens or desks or fancy sports cars, physical things like the submarine, but demons and vampires and evil/uncaring human beings. Instead of calling up say Buffy and the Scoobies or some other organization of human beings to help with the fight against evil, the Angel Team decided instead to do the same thing as the Nazis and the US Intiative, and control, through the zero tolerance policy, human beings who have been violated and turned into monsters. When necessary these monsters, vampires would be employed to fight evil when necessary. But they could only kill when it was deemed necessary by Angel's Team. If Wolfram and Hart, the enemy to Angel team as the Nazi is to the US, is making puppets of them, then the Angel Team is equally guilty of making puppets of vampires and demons. The vampires would simply be following orders. Having no personal individual value, but only a corporate defined designation as worker. This would apply in their private life too as the zero tolerance effectively keeps the strings attached to them twenty four seven. The Angel Team would be employing the same culture of denial of freedom and individual rights that would characterize those against whom they fight the good fight. And I can't help thinking that the utter contempt that the Initiative operatives showed for Angel when they recruited him isn't the writers way of showing that if you vilify someone, decide that that are worthless, then you can justify to yourself their use. But isn't that what the Nazis were doing?

On the surface the Angel team seems to be doing a good thing in using the resources of Wolfram and Hart and even in stopping the demon employees from killing through the zero tolerance. But the zero tolerance policy's main objective is NOT to save human lives, but to allow the Angel Team to maintain control over its resources. If they couldn't keep their employees in line the resources that they came to Wolfram and Hart in the first place to use would have to be killed. Effectively to use the resources the Angel Team must deny the individual rights and freedom of their employees in order to use them in their fight against those who would deny individual rights and freedom, and, like the US Initiative to the Nazis, become like the enemy they are fighting against. It's okay they are just vampires, we can use them. Lawson's siring shows how quickly the human gets substituted, as the Nazis vilified human beings in the second world war.

Age.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very interesting -- lunasea and Hubby, 16:20:00 02/16/04 Mon

I hope to expand on this later, but I just wanted to throw something out. The German U-boat or Unterseeboot is a very interesting metaphor to use. Germany relied on the U-Boats for two reasons. First they allowed the Germans to attack British merchant shipping almost unopposed. Secondly, Hitler was reluctant to send his surface fleet out of the Baltic Sea due to earlier losses of the battleships Graf Spre and Bismark. For a while, the Unterseeboot did give them supremecy in the Atlantic until the development of radar and sonar as well as effective convoy escort patrols made them more detectable.

It was effective because of its stealth and ability to hunt in groups for Allied shipping that earned the German submarine fleet the nickname "Wolf pack." Their goal was to strangle the British economy. It is a watertight boat. It looked like a boat, but it did the opposite of what a boat should do, namely stay above water. It is a perversion of the very nature of a boat.

[> [> [> [> [> It isn't completely out of their hats (spoiler 5.13) -- lunasea, 09:48:47 02/13/04 Fri

From "City Of"

Doyle: "Wow, youíre really going to war here. - I guess you ñ ah - youíve seen a few in your time, yeah?"

Angel: "14, not including Vietnam. They never declared it."

I'm not going to comment on the Connor stuff other than to say that you have done a good job presenting this layer. I don't think it is the main or most important layer, but it is there.

I think another layer we can add in is Angelus' revenge on his father. We focus on Angel/Connor, but that pattern was set up with Dad/Liam. The sins that the son inherit comes from his father, who got them from his father. Angel makes reference to how killing what he loves won't change anything, similiar to how he killed Mum and little sis to get to his father didn't stop his own pain or fill up his emptiness. Angel isn't the only incarnation that is in pain. Angelus is as well, as we learn in "Release."

[> [> [> Re: Cordy Spoilers for AtS through 5.13 -- Arethusa, 09:12:10 02/12/04 Thu

In a way, they did mention her. Lawson says, "[I] can even handle dying, if I know it's for a greater purpose," which could have been said by Cordy too.

[> [> [> *was* it retconning? (spoilers for "why we fight," "aynohyeb," & "orpheus") -- anom, 10:28:46 02/12/04 Thu

"And what about that bit of ret-conning with Angel's past? It has been implied in earlier seasons of Angel (and on "Buffy" for that matter) that Angel spent the majority of his post-soul time highly misanthropic, unhygienic and eating rats for snacks. Why was he suddenly CleanCutAngel during WWII? I just find it difficult to believe that he would have gone from one extreme to the other - especially since it was implied that he was a basketcase pretty much up until he first saw Buffy."

I, on the other hand, found it fascinating to put this episode together w/Are You Now or Have You Ever Been and Orpheus & conclude that Angel led at least a marginally functional unlife (& tried to do some good occasionally) for awhile, up till he drank the blood of the dying (dead?) counterman at the diner in the 1970s, which, according to Angelus in Orpheus, sent him into his rat-eating downward spiral. Saving a puppy in the '30s(?), living in an apt. (& reluctantly helping in the war effort) in the '40s, talking so understandingly to Judy about being different in the '50s...I wonder how early this unlifestyle began for him? And what he was doing btwn. the Boxer Rebellion, or his arrival in the U.S., & whenever all this started?

[> [> [> [> Completely agreed. This episode was... -- Rob, 10:46:41 02/12/04 Thu

...also a great lead-in into AYNOHYEB, as it explains Angel's frame of mind in that episode, and why he was so reluctant to help anybody.

Rob

[> [> [> [> Re: *was* it retconning? (spoilers for "why we fight," "aynohyeb," & "orpheus") -- LittleBit, 15:43:00 02/12/04 Thu

I agree as well. I think sometimes we lose the distinction between "retconning" and "providing back story."

For me, retroactive continuity is "the common situation in fiction where a new story "reveals" things about events in previous stories, usually leaving the "facts" the same (thus preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation." from hyperdictionary.

Backstory is simply providing previously unknown information about a character's past, but not related to or changing the interpretation of events that have already occurred in the story.

Just my opinion.

[> [> [> [> Re: *was* it retconning? (spoilers for "why we fight," "aynohyeb," & "orpheus") -- Jane, 18:15:26 02/12/04 Thu

I agree, this was about backstory, not retconning. Angel was already heading towards isolating himself. Siring Lawson saved the mission, but I think it probable pushed Angel towards becoming rat-eating guy. I also find it interesting that he seemed to have repressed the siring when he says to Buffy in "Angel" (BtVS 1) that he hadn't fed on a living person since he was cursed. (just saw that episode again yesterday.)

[> [> [> [> [> Oh, he was lying in "Angel" -- Masq, 19:37:46 02/16/04 Mon

Because even in "Five by Five" in season 1 of AtS, we see him attack a woman in an alley shortly after he got his soul. Then during the Boxer Rebellion in season 2's "Darla" he ate "rapists and murderers".

Angel flat out lied to Buffy in "Angel". He couldn't have repressed all those nibbles.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Who can repress nibbles, eh ;-) *chuckle* -- angel's nibblet, 00:05:41 02/18/04 Wed

Sorry, couldn't resist a name-related pun.

[> [> [> Re: Sticking points -- pellenaka, 02:53:00 02/13/04 Fri

And what about that bit of ret-conning with Angel's past? It has been implied in earlier seasons of Angel (and on "Buffy" for that matter) that Angel spent the majority of his post-soul time highly misanthropic, unhygienic and eating rats for snacks. Why was he suddenly CleanCutAngel during WWII? I just find it difficult to believe that he would have gone from one extreme to the other - especially since it was implied that he was a basketcase pretty much up until he first saw Buffy.

I totally agree. In AYNOHYEB, Angel could barely look at at people, much less talk to them. And ten years earlier he just went around saving people and being so much in control of things?
The Angel of 1943 seemed more like 2004-Angel trying to re-enact what happened back then.
And it was the same with Spike - he wasn't that evil. Even if we've seen him to be more 'human' than other vamps, he still needed some more edge in this episode.

This was like a poor man's version of Somnambulist, only a lot more dull. We didn't really learn anything and I really needed to see Angel try and change W&H like he decided to do (again) in YW.

[> [> I was too tired to cheer when I wrote that. -- Rob, 07:48:51 02/12/04 Thu

Yes, I LOVED LOVED LOVED the episode!! Absolutely fantastic episode--plotwise, thematically, symbolically--that, IMO, fit in beautifully with the continuity and was a big, heaping slice of Goddard/DeKnight pie. These guys should collaborate all the time!!!

Rob

[> [> [> Yay!!! -- Pony, relinquishing but one pom, 08:02:35 02/12/04 Thu


[> [> [> Standing up and cheering with you, Rob. Loved it! -- Jane, 18:20:16 02/12/04 Thu


[> I think there WERE Angel/Angeluscontinuity issues. -- shambleau, 13:24:09 02/12/04 Thu

Although I think they've been there since "Darla". Spike went with Darla to force the gypsy clan to take away the curse. So, he knew perfectly well at that time that Angelus had a soul and wasn't evil. We don't know what Darla told Dru and Spike during the Boxer Rebellion about Angel's return, or about his subsequent disappearance, true. We can fanwank that she lied and said Angelus got rid of his soul somehow, and then left, for some reason. But, psychic Dru wouldn't notice anything? And Dru and Spike couldn't smell his soul? Darla could, why wouldn't they be able to?

Or we can fanwank that she told them the truth - that Angel had come back and decided to be evil, even with a soul. That solves the problem of them not noticing his soul (although why they'd accept him under those conditions is also a problem, especially as regards Spike. Why would he want Angelus back, much less a souled Angel?), but leaves the problem of how Darla explained his disappearance. So, more fanwanking is involved. Maybe she said she got bored with him and sent him away, maybe she said he decided to go back to Europe. It seems unlikely that these lies wouldn't engender suspicion, even if they went along with them.

Based on that reasoning, I just couldn't believe that Spike would not have at least some lingering doubts about Angel being Angelus when they met on the sub and that those doubts wouldn't have been exacerbated by Angel refusing to kill any humans, regardless of the reason he gave. But we don't get any sign that Spike has the least clue.

Also, in "School Hard", while Angel is playing Spike, Spike is playing Angel. He doesn't believe that Angel is evil again, you can see it on his face while he's hugging Angel and Angel can't see him. That fits with the events in "Darla" better than in "Why We Fight".

[> [> I talked about this with Masq... -- Rob, 14:40:49 02/12/04 Thu

...and I've come to agree with her, that (and I hope she doesn't mind me quoting her): "Spike of those days would have seen the significance of having a soul. When I say he was morally oblivious, that's what he was.

"For a demon, I never did think that much about the nature of evil. No. Just threw myself in. Thought it was a party. I liked the rush. I liked the crunch."

Angelus, on the other hand, was obsessed with good and evil. Very conscious of it. As was Darla. They perverted it on a regular basis. So of course Darla is nuts that Angelus gets a conscience.

In 1900, Darla holds out hope of getting her Angelus back, soul or no, but can't take her suspicious eye off him. Spike, on the other hand, isn't treating Angel any different than he did before. He's all about the party of Boxer Rebellion."

Rob

[> [> [> That's "wouldN'T have seen the significance..." -- Masq, 15:30:09 02/12/04 Thu

Did I make that typo? Eek!

[> [> [> [> That's so funny...I completely missed that typo, also! -- Rob, 16:08:34 02/12/04 Thu


[> [> Having a soul doesn't necessarily make you good. -- Pip, 14:48:50 02/12/04 Thu

See much of human history for evidence of the evil that can be done whilst having a soul.

If I recall 'Darla' correctly, Angel/us killed humans while with Darla and ensouled - he only killed criminals, though. Which brings to mind Buffy's sarcastic rebuke to a later Spike: 'And muggers deserve to be eaten'.

Where Angel/us drew the line was eating the baby.

If Spike had seen him killing those 'low-lifes' while with Darla, he might well assume that souled Angel/us was pretty similar to unsouled Angelus. Do we know that all vampires hate souls? Or is it maybe just a thing that Darla had? She was shown as not very keen on souls even when she had one herself.

[> [> Are we certain Spike knew? (spoilers for 5.13) -- Kate, 17:34:33 02/12/04 Thu

Maybe I watched the scene incorrectly or am just not remembering the details from "Darla", but I thought it was possible that Spike and Dru had no idea why they were seeking revenge on the Gypsies. Just that Darla told them they did something to Angelus. So then Spike wouldn't have necessarily known during the Boxer Rebellion or on the submarine that Angel was now ensouled. That knowledge may not have come until later. Am I totally off on that possibility?

[> [> Re: I'm a little confused about one thing... -- Kris, 12:38:14 02/13/04 Fri

I was wondering why Spike never mentioned Dru... Weren't they very much together during that time period? I'm also a little curious if there's any significance to why he chose to dye his hair black when he's had varying shades of blonde throughout his life/unlife. I saw a post here somewhere where it was mentioned that JM looks old w/ black hair. Makes me wonder if he'll look pretty old after AtS is over as his natural color is dark brown. Just rambling, sorry.

[> [> [> Re: I'm a little confused about one thing... (spoilers for "Damage" and "Why We Fight") -- The Hat, 13:48:52 02/13/04 Fri



"I was wondering why Spike never mentioned Dru... Weren't they very much together during that time period?"

This came up last night while I was re-watching the episode with some friends. I was always under the impression that Spike and Dru were inseparable from 1880 up until the return of Angelus in 1998 (?) drove a wedge between them, and it seemed really strange to me that Spike would go to a virgin blood party without Dru. (This was one of the reasons I had my doubts about Dana's flashback in "Damage", the one that revealed Spike was her tormentor. How could Spike hide a victim -- a child, no less -- from child-loving Dru for months?) But as we discussed it, we realized that Spike went off by himself to fight the Chinese Slayer in the Boxer Rebellion, and Drusilla was out roaming alone when Angel found her in the park in "Lie to Me". Our conclusion was that after a few decades together, they probably got the urge to do separate things every now and then: "Oh, go on, Spike my love, I don't quite feel like a virgin blood party tonight."

Why he never brought her up in conversation with Angel, I don't know. But I would bet real money that Spike, once he climbed up that ladder, did everything in his power to find Dru again as soon as possible.

[> [> [> [> That makes sense, thanks! np -- Kris, 22:11:39 02/13/04 Fri

That makes sense...

Thanks

Current board | More February 2004