1. Thank you for visiting Buffy-Boards. You obviously have exceptional taste. We just want you to know that:
    1. You really should register so you can chat with us!
    2. Ten thousand people can't be wrong.
    3. Buffy-Boards loves you.
    4. See 1 through 3.
    Come on, register already!

Most overrated episode of Angel?

Discussion in 'Inside Out' started by Bluebird, Mar 8, 2016.

  1. Guy

    Guy Scooby

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,287
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Israel
    Reputation:
    1,535
    Black Thorn
    Good. If you didn't, I'd be worried that someone was masquerading as you. ;)

    Care to elaborate on the disagreements a little? I mean, the parts that are just me hating on Angel and Boreanaz are really a matter of taste, but I do wonder what you think about my other complaints.:)
     
  2. thetopher

    thetopher Member of the Church Of Faith

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    7,972
    Likes Received:
    5,905
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Moot, England
    Reputation:
    14,531
    Sineya
    Well, we've already shared our views on 'Sanctuary' and why- to me- Buffy's behavior makes absolute and utter sense in terms of her history with Angel and Faith. But the rest...is just-
    Look. I get why somebody wouldn't like Angel as a character, or might think he's a bit dull or boring with all the black and emo.
    But the whole 'being a bad actor' is quantifiably false. So there isn't a whole lot to discuss for me. If you think he isn't a good actor then how did he get his own TV show for 5 friggin' years? What other reason is there?

    I mean, I've been accused of Spike-hate a number of times but I'd never deny that JM isn't an excellent actor, occasionally rising to extremely impressive in such problematic seasons as Season 6 or 7. I dislike what he does and who he is- the character- but that doesn't take away from the actor's performance.
    To do anything other than that completely mystifies me, so there's nothing to debate.

    Incidentally I feel the same way about a actor like Emma Caulfield (and yet Anya is my least favorite character by some distance) or Eliza Dushku (my No. 1), someone who portrayed a character in such a distinctive, compelling a way that they weren't killed off, but instead had to be brought back so we would get more of that actor.

    - 'Epiphany is great and DB shows real emotional range here, he does not sound bored at all imo. The story isn't that great but the themes and tone is exactly what was needed after a real descent into gloomy territory.

    - 'Not Fade Away' is really incredibly simple in terms of plot. W&H have their big, vast apocalypse planned. Angel is unable to stop it without finding out who the key players are, he fakes being corrupted (very convincingly since the W&H people are not easily fooled) so he can find out who the circle of the Black Thorn are. Once he does that he completely plays the senior partners, Harmony and Hamilton, fully expecting to be crushed like a bug in the aftermath.
    But in killing off the Circle he would've set the SP's plans back decades, perhaps centuries, but that's the best he can hope for. There is no 'big win', there is just the fight, sticking it to the evil guy and not giving up. It's kinda bleak- in a way- but its very indicative of the show 'Angel' had always been.

    - 'Damage' is basically part of the massive repair job that the Angel writers were trying to do on Spike's character, which was left a complete mess by the end of S7. They were doing what they did with Angel (in a way), breaking Spike's character down and seeing what makes him tick. I mean, why didn't Spike really care about the damage left in his wake back in his bad old days while Angel is seemingly consumed by it.
    The writers highlight and play around with that stark contrast.
    And its a vast simplification to say 'oh, they make Spike more like Angel' since his view doesn't come to resemble Angel's that much at all; Spike still sees himself and Angel as victims as well as monsters, whereas Angel is still wedded to a more black and white view. Spike is still Spike in a lot of his perspective has been -briefly- altered- so he has to think about somebody other than himself for once.
    The writers are simply giving Spike some much needed depth now that he isn't a round Buffy anymore.
     
  3. Mylie

    Mylie Scooby

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    1,152
    Gender:
    Female
    Reputation:
    514
    100% agree about Damage. It's one of my favorite season 5 episodes and probably the most interesting I've ever been in Spike as a character. I think the episode really worked well into looking at the fundamental differences between Angel and Spike and how they view their soul, life and past crimes. It reconciled me a bit with how soulful Spike was written.

    And I don't think the episode meant to make Spike more like Angel, I think it meant to explain why he was not like him.
     
    thetopher likes this.
  4. Guy

    Guy Scooby

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,287
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Israel
    Reputation:
    1,535
    Black Thorn
    You know, I thought about it more, and I changed my mind about it a little. I no longer think that the problem is out-of-character behavior - I can BUY every one of Buffy's actions, theoretically. And yet, the Buffy-Angel parts in that episode still really bother me. I think the problem is less with the actions themselves, and more with how they're presented - Buffy's actions MAKE SENSE, but they're not relatable. When Buffy finds Angel and Faith hugging, SHE is shocked, but the audience isn't. The audience knows that Buffy is just reading the situation wrong. This automatically puts us on Angel's side (Because Angel, like the audience, knows that it isn't what it looks like), and thus makes Buffy into an antagonist, rather than a protagonist.

    By comparison, the similiar hero-versus-hero conflict in 'Captain America: Civil War' was handled much better IMO, because rather than painting one hero as a protagonist and the other as the antagonist, the movie makes sure to paint BOTH heroes as protagonists. The movie makes sure that we not only UNDERSTAND each hero's motivation, but also that we FEEL each hero's motivation. Even when Tony decides to do something VERY extreme and dark in the end, the movie makes sure to present his motivation in a way that the audience will FEEL alongside Tony (that horrifying tape). And THAT is what's lacking in 'Sanctuary' - equal relatability. I can UNDERSTAND both Buffy and Angel's motivations, but I can only FEEL Angel's motivation. I don't feel Buffy's shock when she finds Angel and Faith together, and that make it hard for me to root for her.
    And I want to root for her, dammit - she's my favorite character of all! I could root for her even in the darkest moments of seasons 6 & 7, but I can't root for her in 'Sanctuary', and that pisses me off.

    Well, that's the thing - it's NOT quantifiable. Acting, like every art form, is subjective. Many people enjoy Boreanaz's performance, and many other don't enjoy it, and THEY'RE ALL RIGHT. There's nothing objective or quantifiable about it.

    It IS perfectly reasonable to hate a character and like its actor, or vice versa, though. It's just that that's subjective too.

    The themes are great, yes. Tone... Maybe. It seems very anti-climactic after 'Reprise', but I guess that's the point. But the execution of the story really hurts it for me - I just don't really FEEL anything when I watch it. Well, I feel some stuff, but not nearly as much as I should for such a central episode.

    That's the thing, though - Angel doesn't FAKE being corrupted, he IS corrupted. He kills Drogyn. He kills Lindsey. He lies to his friends. He mind-rapes a guy into believing that he's a pedophile. HOW IS THAT HEROIC? He essentially turns back into the guy that we saw in 'Reunion' and 'Reprise' - the guy who would hurt innocent people and his own friends just to make the bad guys suffer. Sure, this time he knows that he's not going to win, but that just makes him even more sense-less - If the ends don't justify those terrible means, then WHAT THE HELL DOES? Why did Drogyn have to die, for example? He had to die so that W&H would win ANYWAY?

    It just doesn't make sense. You can either do the right thing (Like Angel does in 'Epiphany', for example), or you can do a bad thing for a better outcome (Like Angel does in 'Home', for example). But you can't do a bad thing for a bad outcome. I mean, you CAN, but it's really, REALLY dumb and wrong.

    Well, obviously, if you love Angel, and hated post-chip Spike in BtVS, then you'd love 'Damage'. :)
    For me, it's the opposite.

    My issue is basically this - 'Damage' makes Spike adopt all the things that I hate about Angel. Okay, not ALL the things - just one really big thing. 'Damage' makes Spike adopt Angel's worldview regarding "redemption": The idea that an ensouled vampire is responsible for the terrible things that he did when he was soulless, and needs to feel guilty about it. This idea is one of my biggest problems with Angel - his entire story is supposedly about "redemption", and yet he doesn't really have anything to seek redemption for. Well, he DOES need to seek redemption for all the bad things that he did over the course of the series (Allowing Darla and Drusilla to kill people, choking Wesley, mind-raping his friends, killing Drogyn, etc...), but he DOESN'T need to seek redemption for the things he did when he was soulless. Because they weren't his fault - he never chose to become a soulless monster, and he wouldn't have killed Jenny Calendar or any of his other victims if he had a soul. Ensouled-Angel isn't a redeemed monster, he's simply a VICTIM.
    Because of this, all of Angel's speeches about how "I need to make up for the bad things I did as Angelus" fall REALLY flat for me, and his motivation as a character is really weak. It's a really big part of why Angel is so frustrating to me.

    And in 'Damage', the writers essentially give Spike this same problem. Which, no thank you.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2017
  5. thetopher

    thetopher Member of the Church Of Faith

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    7,972
    Likes Received:
    5,905
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Moot, England
    Reputation:
    14,531
    Sineya
    I tend to disagree here, given how Buffy and Angel left things last time (and what Giles told Buffy and Faith trying to 'kill' Angel) then why wouldn't Buffy be thrown? She didn't see 'Five By Five' and Faith begging Angel to kill her.
    Hell, Wesley saw that and his anger is felt and articulated, and Wesley is in no way shown to be unsympathetic. His pov is heard just like Angel's and just like Buffy's and is no less valid.
    And just like Wesley Buffy gets to do 'the right thing' in the end. Buffy saves Faith from being shot and Wesley doesn't take the council's (probably fake) offer.

    That's what I love about the episode; Buffy is relatable and she's ALSO the antagonist, 'cause it ain't her show. Buffy's mindset is very black and white here (becasue she's a victim who doesn't care about her tormentor) and Angel is- in this case- seeing the bigger picture.

    ...And then Angel goes over the BtVS and gets treated the same way- like an action-movie lunkhead who blunders in without knowing the whole situation and Bufyf gets to shout at him as well.
    The only true difference is that Riley is kind of an unsympathetic tool to make Angel look less bad (but that might be my bias talking).

    I honestly think you're being a bit too protective of Buffy here, and weirdly also not completely understanding her viewpoint.

    To a degree it is... but if an actor gets a spin-off show, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things like talent, presence and acting ability.
    Like I consider that people who get film and TV awards must be doing something right.

    It's meant to be a release from the doom and gloom and the what...eight episodes beforehand, so the drama takes a back seat to the tone. Yes, there has to be stakes (Team Angel in 'danger') but that is neither the focus nor the point of the episode. The point of the episode is Angel pulling his head out of his ass, getting punished for mistreating his friends (he gets the cold shoulder from all three, run over by a truck, beaten with a sledge hammer...) and I think it does a pretty good job, and the 'Epiphany' speech is one of Angel's best.

    Drogyn was a terrible sacrifice true, but Lindsey is basically still evil and has shown to morally flip-flop on the flimsiest of reasons (ooh, a bigger office!). I ain't shedding tears for that guy.

    Because they defeat- very 'temporarily' (like decades or something, so its 'big picture' temporarily)- an evil so vast in scale that there was no other way to do it. With W&H its no 'Big bad plan' or anything so prosaic, its lots of world-ending moving parts that had to be uncovered and then blown up.
    What else can they do? Walk away? They all willingly signed up for it and can't really walk away- that's not what hero-types do anyway. So they fight secure in the knowledge that if they die then they'll die for a good reason. Forestalling an apocalypse before it even starts.

    Eh, not really. Spike does not remotely become like Angel in the sense that 'he did those terrible things, and he will obsess about it to an insane degree' but he does begin to think about 'big picture' stuff. He didn't 'redeem' himself with the Sunnydale sacrifice so why is he there now? Why does he exist?

    One admirable thing you can say about Angel over Spike is that he has a purpose. You might think its dumb and nonsensical but it keeps him going long after he's moved on from Buffy.
    Spike's S5 journey is a search for a purpose, any purpose. He's got a soul so what does that mean for him now? When you've saved the day and then find out that the day doesn't stay saved, that the girl you loved has almost certainly moved on, what is your reason for being?
    'Damage' starts Spike thinking a bit about that question on his own (without insidious 'Doyle's manipulations)


    But you're looking at it for 'your perspective' and not the perspective of the guy who has about a hundred years of detailed memories and emotions of the horrors 'he' inflicted. If he has any sort of morality then all those experiences are going to change his outlook.
    I mean, we are all changed by our memories; they define us to a degree. So how can Angel (or Spike for that matter) NOT be affected by what he's done.

    If somebody was hypnotized into thinking they did something, then that would change them, even if they didn't actually do that thing, the memory would stay with them and alter them. It's a common drama trope (especially in genre shows) to have somebody feel guilty for things they aren't responsible for, mind-controlled into killing? Oh, the horror! Accident or negligence leads to other people dying even though nobody was actually at fault? Angst!
    It seems common sense to me.

    I mean, I can say 'he didn't do that' so then I can root for that person to 'succeed' in the story and get the girl or whatever. But 'in-universe' I can put myself in Angel's shoes and go 'wow, what would it be like to be saddled with all those bloodsoaked memories? How would it affect me?
    It's like, basic empathy surely?

    And btw Spike also 'acts like he's responsible' for all those evil things whilst soulless, he just gets over the bad pretty quickly so he can focus on the 'good' things he did instead, even though he isn't responsible for those things either.

    Since the PtB sent Cordelia visions so Angel should stay away from the wine cellar, I'm thinking that those people were like, destined to die or something.

    Wow really? Redemption for not immediately snapping the neck of the guy who handed his son over to his mortal enemy? Okay then.

    Urgh, jeez 'mind-rape'. He saved his son's life and sanity- at a terrible cost- and it lasted about 8 months before the spell was undo. The horror.

    But I concede that Angel did do bad things in flashback- killing a few evil people here and there, allowing a hotel full of people to come to a bad end, turning that guy in the Submarine, so yeah, he has a need to make amends.
    But as I've said before I get it, we are what we've done, even if technically we didn't do those things and have just been saddled with the baggage.
     
    Carrie Hopewell: This post is amazing and accurate and *so dramatic*. I love it!
    BuffyBot22, Carrie Hopewell and Mylie like this.
  6. Guy

    Guy Scooby

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,287
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Israel
    Reputation:
    1,535
    Black Thorn
    It's not about whether Buffy is understandable, it's about whether she's RELATABLE. Wesley is also anti-Faith in 'Sanctuary', but Wesley is relatable - we felt his pain just last episode, and he still has those scars, and we see moments with just him, in which his emotions are presented clearly ("beaten by a much larger woman", throwing darts in frustration, getting humiliated by the council), etc...
    By contrast, Buffy has no scene like Wesley's throwing-darts-alone scene, in which we can feel her pain. The difference is that Buffy is presented as an antagonist, while Wes is presented as a protagonist. They're both understandable, but only Wesley is relatable in that episode.

    And that's exactly the problem - the fact that Buffy is treated as an antagonist. When you have a disagreement between two main heroes, the CORRECT way of presenting it is as a fight between two protagonists - like Tony and Steve in 'Civil War', or like Wesley and Angel in 'Sanctuary, or like the Buffy-Xander fight in 'Selfless'. Both perspectives should be relatable. When you present one of the heroes as un-relatable in a fight like this, you're just wasting a great opportunity for moral ambiguity, and you're also making one hero unlikeable while making the audience resent the "correct" hero for being the writers' pet.

    And when the writers do the same thing again with Buffy and Angel in 'The Yoko Factor', then it's just as bad... Although at least this time they had the grace of presenting it as a more light-hearted, joke-y affair, instead of a serious melodrama. Bad writing is less offensive when the story is less serious.

    Also, the idea that Angel is all about the grey area while Buffy is black-and-white is just ridiculous... It ONLY fits their POVs in 'Sanctuary'. Most of the time, they're both equally flexible, morally.

    Angel doesn't really look any better than Riley in 'The Yoko Factor' - "You actually sleep with this guy?" RUDE!

    I'm nothing if not complex :D

    People who succeed aren't BETTER, they're just more popular. And people who get awards aren't better either - they're just popular with certain crowds.

    but it all just leaves me cold, emotionally... The themes are great, but it feels like a thesis, not a story.

    Also, I don't understand why Angel gets to beat up Lindsey in the end. Angel, you done f&%$ed up, you shouldn't get to have a hero moment in this episode! I was kinda rooting for Lindsey there...

    The Lindsey issue is debatable, but it's not crucial to this discussion. The point is - Angel does a lot of really shady stuff in 'Not Fade Away'.

    And IF they sacrificed their lives for the good fight WITHOUT doing stuff like killing Drogyn, then I would have been totally cool with it. It would have been a heroic last stand, dying for their ideals. Great stuff. The problem is that they died for their ideals while also COMPROMISING their ideals. And that just doesn't make sense.

    You can't have it both ways:
    If you want to die for what's right, then don't kill Drogyn.
    If you want to compromise your ideals for the greater good, then don't go on a suicide mission.

    Angel's plan was destroying his own moral standing while also failing to save the world. There's nothing heroic about it. It's a total loss.



    Also, another issue - did W&H really intend to DESTROY the world? I mean, I thought that W&H just wanted to rule the world and/or corrupt it. Remember what Holland said?
    "We have no intention of doing anything so prosaic as 'winning.'"
    "See, for us, there is no fight. Which is why winning doesn't enter into it. We - go on. No matter what. Our firm has always been here. In one form or another. The Inquisition. The Khmer Rouge. We were there when the very first cave man clubbed his neighbor. See, we're in the hearts and minds of every single living being. And that, friend, is what's making things so difficult for you. See, the world doesn't work in spite of evil, Angel. It works with us. It works because of us."

    I never understood whether Angel had a "ticking clock" to stop or not.
    When Lindsey explains W&H's plan in 'Underneath', he never mentions a plan to destroy the world. He just says that they're corrupting the world - "The world keeps sliding into degradation". And he says that "the starting pistol went off a long time ago". Seems to me, Angel wasn't actually stopping an "apocalypse" - he was just trying to change a corrupt system that would go on forever. And if you're fighting against moral corruption, then you're being a real idiot when you compromise your ideals like Angel did in NFA. You can't win a moral fight by compromising your morality.


    Spike also had a purpose before his resurrection - his purpose was being "love's bitch". His purpose was the romantic ideas he grew up on as a human. It's a seriously flawed purpose, but so is Angel's redemption purpose. The difference is that the narrative CALLS OUT the flaws of Spike's romantic purpose ("Let yourself love me", Spike says, before trying to rape Buffy, thus exposing the terrible, monstrously selfish flaws of his worldview), and makes him learn from it and adapt his worldview ("It has nothing to do with me. I love what you are"), while Angel's redemption shtick never gets called out on the fact that it's baseless.

    Fortunately, Spike doesn't adopt Angel's redemption shtick COMPLETELY in 'Damage', but still - the fact that he adopts ANY of it is a mistake, IMO. And he DOES adopt some of it:

    "I'm not sayin' you're right... 'cause, uh... I'm physically incapable of saying that."

    That's the Spike-y way of saying that Angel is right. And it bothers me, because Angel is NOT right.

    Spike trying to find a purpose that isn't about Buffy is something that COULD be a great story. The problem is that Spike doesn't actually find a purpose - he just partially adopts Angel's purpose, which is dumb, because Angel's purpose is wrong.




    The problem is that Angel's story doesn't present his soulless actions the way you described here - it's not presented as something that Angel feels guilty about despite being not guilty. Instead, the story presents Angel's past actions as something that IS his fault:

    DOYLE
    "So what does he do? He takes off. Goes to LA. To fight evil - and atone for his crimes."


    Just compare how Angel (the show) treats Angel's soulless crimes, versus how Jessica Jones (the show) presents Jessica's mind-controlled crimes - Angel's soulless crimes are presented as something that he has to atone for, while Jessica's mind-controlled crimes are rightfully presented as something that Kilgrave did to her. Jessica still feels guilty about it, but the story makes it clear that she's not ACTUALLY guilty for it.

    I could appreciate Angel's story and perspective, if it was presented the way you describe here, the way Jessica's story and perspective are presented. But I don't think that that's the case.


    ...You and I understand the soul canon very differently.

    But that's a huge debate, for another time....

    They weren't destined to die. They died because Darla and Dru wanted to kill them, and because Angel didn't stop them. If Angel chose differently, they would have lived.

    1) Wesley didn't hand Connor to anyone, and had no plan to do so. Connor was taken from him by force. Wesley only wanted to keep Angel from killing Connor, and was planning to achieve that by raising Connor himself. And Angel KNEW that when he tried to kill Wesley. Not that Wesley's actions were perfect, but let's not blame him for things he didn't do.

    2) Is Angel's reaction understandable? Sure. I don't know if I would have reacted differently. But that doesn't make Angel's reaction JUSTIFIED. Angel was absolutely wrong when he tried to kill Wes.

    So you're Topher, huh? :)

    [​IMG]

    Mind-rape kinda demands judgement, Topher. ;)
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2017
  7. thetopher

    thetopher Member of the Church Of Faith

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    7,972
    Likes Received:
    5,905
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Moot, England
    Reputation:
    14,531
    Sineya
    Untrue. Buffy actually does get to confront Faith on the rooftop and is very articulate in justifying why she is angry. I'm sorry but I certainly feel her pain here, her righteous anger.
    The problem is that there is something bigger at work than simple payback. Angel thinks Faith is reachable, saveable, but Buffy doesn't care.

    But at the end of CA: Civil War Tony Stark is the antagonist, he's the guy- like Buffy- who wants vengeance and doesn't care about the right's and wrongs of it.
    Relatable, but not right.
    Just like Buffy.

    Riley totally started it by going ahead and assuming that Buffy shagged Angel and unleashed Angelus on the world.
    Utter jerk-move.

    Again, generally speaking people who get their own show have some degree of talent. And people who have a heavy bias sometimes can't see that talent. Just sayin'.

    Lindsey is having a jealous snit because the mass-murderer Darla slept with somebody else rather than him?
    Lindsey's kind of a tool.

    That's kind of a narrow thought process. Comprised morals and morality is kinda the theme of Angel S5. I mean, that's what Team Angel DID by taking over W&H in the first place; compromising their standing in hopes that increased resources would lead to a better outcome. Questionable decision but then they all did end 'world peace' and paradise for all.

    And its not like other characters, Buffy for example, ever compromised their morals for hope of a better outcome. Like... working with Spike at the end of S2 and then letting him go. For example.
    There are many more examples of both Buffy and Angel making murky decisions for the greater good.

    Did The Mayor want to destroy the world or just rule it? Did Adam want death to all or simply to rule in chaos?
    Semantics aside 'apocalypse' means 'getting to have things my way' rather than the end of all things. And its pretty clear that the Circle is W&H way of 'having things their way'- making them worse or whatever. Stopping the big evil is of the good, usually.

    Plus, do you believe everything evil Holland Manners says?

    That isn't a purpose though, at least not a worthwhile purpose. Devoting yourself to one person (whether that somebody is Drusilla or Buffy) is just kinda...empty.

    Angel's purpose is helping people because he is a vampire with a soul and he has the power to help people. Pick whatever motive you want by the purpose remains the same.
    In other words, he's not wrong.

    But you are right, in the comics Spike pretty much reverts back to 'love's bitch'. How's that working out for him as a fully functioning character?

    So now you're worried about the presentation of it? But the presentation goes back and forth all the time, its not 100% consistent; there are just as many times where Cordelia (or Wesley or somebody) goes 'that wasn't you, you're not to blame' and Angel then might say 'I'm not like that anymore', its about exploring themes not making a neat little judgement.

    Here's a separate thread about Angel and his guilt. So as not to clutter up this thread with non-episode discussions go there: The whole Angel/guilt thing...

    The PtB clearly thought overwise since they tried to manipulate Angel not to intervene. That's what the visions are; 'go here and save this person' and also 'don't go elsewhere, don't go over there'.
    So yeah, evil people getting their comeuppance was destiny, pretty much.

    Wesley still betrayed Angel, lied right to his face and doomed his son. His intentions were good but his actions were very, very shady.
    Also Angel could've just snapped the guy's neck rather than smother him with a pillow. It was the 'nicest' attempted murder ever, as in 'not really' and certainly not something that Angel must 'atone' for. He apologized to Wesley later and then tried to move on, I think that was about enough. It's not like Wesley ever said 'uh, sorry about that whole thing' or something similar.

    Sure, by the victim of it I suppose. And Connor, who was far more a 'victim' than any of Angel's friends (having all his memories entirely changed into some fake life) appreciates Angel's efforts when the spell is then broken. Wesley rightly feels crappier than ever when the truth is revealed but he doesn't judge Angel.
    So I don't get what Angel has to 'atone' for since when 'judging' a crime we must look at the intent AND the results.

    And also where's your judgement on Wesley (who destroyed a child's life) when its so harsh against Angel? Bias perhaps? ;)
     
    Carrie Hopewell likes this.
  8. Anyanka Bunny Killer

    Anyanka Bunny Killer Jotunheim

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,323
    Likes Received:
    2,757
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Reputation:
    4,126
    Black Thorn
    It's a toss up between "You're Welcome" and "A Hole in the World."

    Whenever an episode (of ANYTHING, actually) purposely tries to tug at my heart strings, I automatically cringe.


    You're Welcome

    Those "tender moments" between Angel & Cordy made me nauseous. Couldn't take it.
    Harmony volunteering to torture Eve was very amusing, however!!


    A Hole in the World

    I LOVE Amy Acker, and she's a wonderful actress...however, as Fred got sicker and sicker, I found myself growing annoyed. It was like, "For God's sake, just DIE already!"
    Spike was entertaining, though. :D
     
  9. Cherchezlafemme

    Cherchezlafemme Townie

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    California
    Reputation:
    10
    Well...I thought Dollhouse was pretty uneven in quality, sometimes verging on downright bad, so...

    But let's agree to disagree. I was never part of the "Joss is God" segment of the fandom, so even though he created the Buffyverse, I have never thought everything he did was flawless.
     
    RomanticSoul and GwenRaiden like this.
  10. Mr Trick

    Mr Trick Scooby

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2015
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    4,464
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London, UK
    Reputation:
    7,731
    And when did I say everything he did was flawless?:D Not really a big fan of Firefly as it stands so there's your proof. Dollhouse had a slow start but I think once it got into its flow from mid-season one onwards it was very good.
     
  11. fauxindigo

    fauxindigo Townie

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2017
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    65
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York
    Reputation:
    50
    Maybe 'A Hole in the World' is overrated as an episode; it is Fred dying but it's not a piece of art like 'The Body'.
    I can think of many more underrated episodes of Angel than overrated.
    I liked 'I Will Remember You' (even though Buffy forgot everything) and find 'Waiting in the Wings' to be fun, sexy, dark and poetic/artistic so I think it's praise is deserved.