Did Angel become massively dull after falling for Buffy?

Anyanka Bunny Slayer

Anyanka Bunny Slayer

✨ Hail Hydra ✨
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
13,812
Black Thorn
In S1, Angel was a bit more flippant. But it seemed to me that after he fell for Buffy, it's as if his personality was toned down. And he was more...mopey.

Remember how vibrant and self-assured he was in S1? Thoughts?
 
Anyanka Bunny Killer said:
In S1, Angel was a bit more flippant. But it seemed to me that after he fell for Buffy, it's as if his personality was toned down. And he was more...mopey.

Remember how vibrant and self-assured he was in S1? Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I completely agree. It's three different Angels. Season one is the most pure Angel. Season 2 they were setting him up for his evil turn and to write the character off.. season three Angel was when the studio asked Whedon to bring him back and they didnt really know what to do with him.
 
Anyanka Bunny Killer said:
In S1, Angel was a bit more flippant. But it seemed to me that after he fell for Buffy, it's as if his personality was toned down. And he was more...mopey.
Click to expand...

I think it was the 'do you actually have friends?' line that did it. Angel thought he was being all shadowy and mysterious and then Buffy struck a nerve and he sort of... remembered who he was- the lonely, doomed guy. He was going for flippant jerk and she sees through him.

So then he became more gentle and cryptic with her, like he was putting on a front, and then after they kissed he thought he should get away for a while and was basically, like you described- mopey. 'Oh I should be helping her but she's so pretty!' 😛
He improved in S2 a bit, but I mostly like S1 Angel, he's a good match for S1 Buffy.
 
Angel's story really isn't all that interesting, once you get past the "cursed with a soul, doomed to wander the earth for all eternity, burdened by the guilt of perpetrated by his dark side." thing, he's just another schmoe following around after some ditzy blond cheerleader. Ben there, done that, in dozens of variations, on dozens of shows. And before any members get out the tar and feathers for me yet one more time, let me hasten to say that ALL the characters on "Buffy" and "Angel" are boring cliches. Every single one. Joss Whedon is a hack writer who stole ideas from a dozen different sources, and put his own personal spin on them. Then, he hires a gifted ensemble of young actors who took Joss' work and presented their own interpretation of how those characters would react as real, living people. That's what made Angel interesting, not the story. We've seen the story a thousand times, with only minor variations. What made Angel interesting was how David played Angel so perfectly that, even years later, some people still call him "Angel."

Angel was never boring. Sometimes his story got a little dull, but that's just because of that ensemble cast I mentioned earlier. Everyone got their turn in the spotlight, and when it's not your turn, you have to stand in the shadows.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bespangeled
bespangeled
There are no new ideas - it's all in the presentation
I actually like the idea of cocky Angel as an act. People forget that Angel is an incredibly talented actor, which is why is such a good manipulator with or without a soul. As people have said, S2 Angel was simply more vulnerable and comparatively emotionally honest with Buffy.

S3 explores more existential and redemptive themes within Angel. We see him struggling with his purpose and his dark side more. We also see hints of his past as well. For example we learn that part of the reason he wasn't particularly active prior to meeting Buffy was his cynicism about mankind, which we see explored in S2 of Ats.

I personally think Angel is fascinating. Arguably his most boring aspect is the curse/Angelus part.
 
Anyanka Bunny Killer said:
Remember how vibrant and self-assured he was in S1? Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Actually early season one Angel is Angelus without the blood lust - I'd say it was falling in love with Buffy that created the Angel we know. She brought him a huge multitude of moral issues he had never thought of - and he changed as he dealt with those. But since I adore Angel in all his incarnations - I see them as a path - then I don't think he was ever boring. However, season 3 Angel really was kind of wasted a lot of the time. The UST and tragic love was overdone. IMO. I'm glad he left and kept on that same path that knowing Buffy put him on.
 
I find Angel on BtVS pretty boring. (side note, I love Angelus). Lots of that is due to the fact that I find Bangel very melodramatic and typical.

Angel on AtS I love! So I do think he is at his best away from Buffy.
 
Blaze said:
I find Angel on BtVS pretty boring. (side note, I love Angelus). Lots of that is due to the fact that I find Bangel very melodramatic and typical.

Angel on AtS I love! So I do think he is at his best away from Buffy.
Click to expand...
I am pretty much the opposite. I think Angel on Buffy is a more interesting character but on AtS he is rather boring and one note. But that's the price you pay for headlining your own show.
 
Mr. Pole said:
I am pretty much the opposite. I think Angel on Buffy is a more interesting character but on AtS he is rather boring and one note. But that's the price you pay for headlining your own show.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting perspective. I'd always considered it the other way round. How is Angel boring and one note on his own show? Unless you generally don't find that interesting period, so a whole show centred around would be something you'd find dull?
 
Kana said:
That's an interesting perspective. I'd always considered it the other way round. How is Angel boring and one note on his own show? Unless you generally don't find that interesting period, so a whole show centred around would be something you'd find dull?
Click to expand...
Because he was the star of the show, so you knew nothing "bad" would happen to him and his character was pretty static. Even when he was 'grey' or Angelus, you knew it was temporary as he was the show lead and sooner or later Angel would be back. That's why the other characters- Wes, Gunn, Fred, even Cordy to a degree, I found more entertaining as you did not know where their path would lead.

The first two seasons of Angel were better because the character seemed more heroic, but then his heroism faded and he just became really a one-note character. Subsequently that is when the Wes character really started to develop.

Abstractly speaking, Wes became what Angel was on Buffy. Just done better as they had more time for character nuance.
 
Mr. Pole said:
Because he was the star of the show, so you knew nothing "bad" would happen to him and his character was pretty static. Even when he was 'grey' or Angelus, you knew it was temporary as he was the show lead and sooner or later Angel would be back. That's why the other characters- Wes, Gunn, Fred, even Cordy to a degree, I found more entertaining as you did not know where their path would lead.

The first two seasons of Angel were better because the character seemed more heroic, but then his heroism faded and he just became really a one-note character. Subsequently that is when the Wes character really started to develop.

Abstractly speaking, Wes became what Angel was on Buffy. Just done better as they had more time for character nuance.
Click to expand...


You see apart from the plot armour, I didn't really take anything for granted with Angel. I mean, the mere fact that we can question whether the main character is heroic is part of what makes him interesting to me. I'd actually say that Wes remained more unambiguously heroic than Angel, although on the televised shows, I loved both characters. I actually loved the fact they humanised Angel a lot and that his failings became less about the demon and more about his human short comings which was hardly explored on Btvs because he didn't have the same moral responsibilities that he did on his own show.

Interestingly enough, Wes came closer than anyone in terms of that exploration, which is why he is one of my favourite characters. Brilliantly, they became foils for one another. I consider him, in somes ways more interesting 'lancer' for Angel, than Spike.
 
Kana said:
I actually loved the fact they humanised Angel a lot and that his failings became less about the demon and more about his human short comings
Click to expand...
I think they humanized him too much. In the first few seasons he was still the fish out of water, and it worked. That is what, to me, made the character unique and interesting. I think the whole series could have been him being the outsider and never really fitting in. Which would have really been highlighted as Wes was an 'insider' who decided to be an 'outsider' and then further with the introduction of Spike, he should have been the fish out of water but he adapted and was accepted into 'society' while Angel still was on the outside looking in. That could have added more drama between them than just the Cup of Mt Dew thing.

For me, when Angel assimilated he lost what made him unique. It would have been a really interesting way to look at the character, that with a soul he never really fit in and the only time he felt like he was part of a group was when he was a soulless vampire. To me that would have been a more interesting character. That would have been one hell of a curse. The only time you feel like you belong is when you are a soulless monster. That would have really given him something to brood over.
 
Kana said:
You see apart from the plot armour, I didn't really take anything for granted with Angel. I mean, the mere fact that we can question whether the main character is heroic is part of what makes him interesting to me. I'd actually say that Wes remained more unambiguously heroic than Angel, although on the televised shows, I loved both characters. I actually loved the fact they humanised Angel a lot and that his failings became less about the demon and more about his human short comings which was hardly explored on Btvs because he didn't have the same moral responsibilities that he did on his own show.

Interestingly enough, Wes came closer than anyone in terms of that exploration, which is why he is one of my favourite characters. Brilliantly, they became foils for one another. I consider him, in somes ways more interesting 'lancer' for Angel, than Spike.
Click to expand...

I'm more with you on this. I don't think Buffy and Angel as shows were ever about whether the leads live or die, or are under threat, but rather exploring themes connected to good and evil, and such in everyday life.

I prefer Angel on his show partly because Boreanaz had improved a lot as an actor at that point, but also because there was so much history to explore which they just couldn't logically explore on Buffy without sidelining those characters.
 
Mr Trick said:
whether the leads live or die, or are under threat,
Click to expand...
It wasn't about just that. It was about the morality. At that time you could not be an anti-hero on network TV, let alone a villain. So you knew that everything would revert to status quo and it removed the drama from it. "Angel lost his soul" don't worry, it wont last. "Angel is acting evil" Don't worry it wont last. There were no stakes to it, because he was the shows lead and at that time the lead had to be the good guy.

If it were today it could have been a totally different narrative. He could have been Angelus for a season. He could have been morally grey Angel for a season or two, because now you've had your Walter Whites, your Tellar family, your Hannibals, your Vic Mackeys, where the 'bad guy' can also be the shows lead. At that time on network or even basic cable it was unacceptable.

As it were the drama from AtS came from the supporting characters and their interactions and not the lead. That's why I think Angel became "boring".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom