Gunn's development

[nightshade]

Did Gunn develop as a character?

Did he have a strong character arc?

I think we did get to see more character development in season 3 when he started to date Fred, and we got more of his history in Double or Nothing, but feel he had the least character progression of the main cast.

 

[brinkster130]

I think he developed as a character but his storylines were always more subtle. IMO his character started out strong but as the series went on he almost became more and more of a wallflower in comparison to the rest of the characters.

When we met Gunn he didn't trust vampires and wanted to kill as many as he could, but then he ends up working with one and slowly grows to trust Angel and even becomes friends with him. That's a fairly big development/change but it's not really highlighted much in the show.

 

[Bluebird]

I think his character development is similar to Xander's. It's there but you have to look for it. Both got some good moments in their respective last seasons too, and I like Gunn for the same reasons I like Xander. Both very loyal to their friends but feel out of place or inadequate at times

I think Lorne was the most overlooked by the writers. I don't much understand why he was made a main cast member at the end of season 4, only to waste him in season 5. The most character development he got was in Pylea, the gay metaphor of being rejected from his family for being different, his realisation he belongs in LA.

 

[LeeJones41]

I don't know. I keep thinking of "That Old Gang of Mine" from Season Three. Why did Wes threatened to fire Charles if the latter went against the agency again? I never understood that. Charles, Wes and Cordy were all co-owners of Angel Investigations, which they had formed in mid-Season Two. I know that Wes acted as team leader while they were working on a case. But since Charles was a co-owner of the agency, I don't think Wes had the right to fire or threaten to fire Charles. All Wes (and Cordy) could do was threaten to break up the partnership. And if that was Wes' threat, why didn't he say so, instead of act like Charles' employer, instead of partner? Why did Whedon and Minear think Wes had a right to behave like an authoritive figure toward Charles? Because the latter was black?

 

[TriBel]

Why did Whedon and Minear think Wes had a right to behave like an authoritive figure toward Charles?

I can't remember the scene but perhaps it was more of a case of WES believing he had a right to behave like an authoritative figure (and yes - because Charles was black - and working class - the latter just as much as the former). Maybe the writers wanted to show how Wes was shaped by the British class system and British imperialism...the divine right to rule sort of thing? So...Wes behaving like a self-entitled arse? It happens - believe me. You only have to look at half the Conservative party to see they believe they were born to be in charge.

 

[Puppet]

I don't know. I keep thinking of "That Old Gang of Mine" from Season Three. Why did Wes threatened to fire Charles if the latter went against the agency again? I never understood that. Charles, Wes and Cordy were all co-owners of Angel Investigations, which they had formed in mid-Season Two. I know that Wes acted as team leader while they were working on a case. But since Charles was a co-owner of the agency, I don't think Wes had the right to fire or threaten to fire Charles. All Wes (and Cordy) could do was threaten to break up the partnership. And if that was Wes' threat, why didn't he say so, instead of act like Charles' employer, instead of partner? Why did Whedon and Minear think Wes had a right to behave like an authoritive figure toward Charles? Because the latter was black?

Because he was his employer? When Angel returned at the end of S2, he didn't put all of them in charge over him, he put Wesley in charge over them all. Wesley is Gunn's boss, from the Pylea arc to the Connor is gone arc and he has every right to let Gunn know what's what. I think maybe you're getting some stuff mixed up here.

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

Because he was his employer? When Angel returned at the end of S2, he didn't put all of them in charge over him, he put Wesley in charge over them all. Wesley is Gunn's boss, from the Pylea arc to the Connor is gone arc and he has every right to let Gunn know what's what. I think maybe you're getting some stuff mixed up here.

Wes isn't really their employer. They chose to make him their leader, but Wesley doesn't own the business. And Wesley doesn't have the power to exclude Gunn from the team, as Cordy and Angel would still want to work with him.

This episode is really weird with it's black-people-are-the-true-racists message, and Wes seems to be suffering from amnesia, as he knows what it's like to be thorn between old and new loyalties.

 

[LeeJones41]

Because he was his employer? When Angel returned at the end of S2, he didn't put all of them in charge over him, he put Wesley in charge over them all.

But Wes, Charles and Cordy had become the new owners (bosses) of Angel Investigations during mid-Season 2 . . . after Angel had fired them from the old agency. Why would he have the right to do this, when they were the new owners? Angel and Fred were and should have been the employees between late Season Two and the end of Season Four.

 

[Puppet]

But Wes, Charles and Cordy had become the new owners (bosses) of Angel Investigations during mid-Season 2 . . . after Angel had fired them from the old agency. Why would he have the right to do this, when they were the new owners? Angel and Fred were and should have been the employees between late Season Two and the end of Season Four.

If that was the case, they would never have returned to the hotel, after all that was Angel's. Also, there are deliberate lines of dialogue that make it clear that only Wesley, alone, is in charge. Like when they're in Pylea, and Wes remarks to Gunn "why do people keep putting me in charge". He deliberately does not say "us" or leave out the word "keep".

And Wes has every right, because Cordy and Gunn give him this right, by agreeing to let him be the new boss. Why wouldn't they be happy that their friend was, essentially, promoted, even if it meant the dynamics shift a bit at the office?

 

[Xochiquetzal]

I thought his character development was poor, but I felt like it was going to be when he was introduced. Do they need muscle? They have Angel. Do they need a brooding tough guy? Angel. Even the guilt over the dead sisters was similar as that developed. The Time spent in the hell dimension for atonement really hacked me off, too. On rewatch the message seemed to be that even the smallest of mistakes, if they lead to awful consequences, must be hideously punished. AtS definitely came down hard on the justice side of a justice/mercy divide for a lot of characters that weren't fan/writer favorites.

 

[Bop]

I like Gunn but it's kind of hard to see his character development.

 

[Bite-me]

On rewatch the message seemed to be that even the smallest of mistakes, if they lead to awful consequences, must be hideously punished. AtS definitely came down hard on the justice side of a justice/mercy divide for a lot of characters that weren't fan/writer favorites.

Maybe its connected to the redemption/sisyphus nature of Angel's journey. I like that aspect of the show, its less about plainly pitting the good guys against villains and more about moral gray areas "Funny thing about black and white. You mix it together and you get grey. And it doesn't matter how much white you try and put back in, you're never gonna get anything but grey." and more about people making hard choices including accepting responsibility for those choices and consequences of actions.

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

Maybe its connected to the redemption/sisyphus nature of Angel's journey.

I think this are two different things. Angel gives his Sisyphus speech (or one of them) after he has given up on the idea that he can be redeemed. Sisyphus's punishment is eternal. He can never be redeemed. He can only try to enjoy his punishment.

 

[RachM]

I think this are two different things. Angel gives his Sisyphus speech (or one of them) after he has given up on the idea that he can be redeemed. Sisyphus's punishment is eternal. He can never be redeemed. He can only try to enjoy his punishment.

I keep misreading the word Sisyphus, making this whole discussion very ... um ... interesting 🤣🤣 Yes, I am mentally thirteen-years-old.

 

[Bite-me]

I think this are two different things. Angel gives his Sisyphus speech (or one of them) after he has given up on the idea that he can be redeemed. Sisyphus's punishment is eternal. He can never be redeemed. He can only try to enjoy his punishment.

The "There is no such thing as redemption, there is only what you do next" is a legitimate viewpoint Angel has articulated but they could also be interpreted as the same thing, Sisyphus /Angel accepting this fate, that because a action is absurd/eternal "Pushing the rock back up the hill" meaning to behave morally, to fight for justice, do the right thing, is still worth doing.