I'm confused about Angel and Twilight

[RogueDemonHunter]

Ok, so i've read season 8 and dont undestand why angel became "twilight"

 

[ladydorotea]

You are not alone. Nobody really understands this, and the fandom answers ran anywhere between the extremes of (1) he though that was the only way to prevent the timelines from unraveling and the history itself from ending and (2) he wanted to be alone with Buffy in the newly created Universe. Take your pick.

 

[ladydorotea]

And oh , yeah, now the DH creative team are making wisecracks up about it. Which makes me take the whole thing as yet another maliciously innocent prank of Joss Whedon's.

ScottAllie Scott Allie
Great [MENTION=9824]Chris[/MENTION]tosgage dialog: Why didn't Angel better explain Twilight? "Ever try finishing a sentence when Buffy's worked up?"

 

[Skytteflickan88]

The explanation is in the comic(some of it in the first issue of SEason 9's Angel&Faith series), but I can't recall it very well. There's also Q&A's with Scott Allie explaining it.

Basically, twilight and Whistler convinced Angel that the world would end if Angel didn't do what Twilight said. I assume he meant to create Twilight, or discover it, I don't know. Or maybe he was just suppose to become a super-being with Buffy. Or the sex was the purpose?

Anyway, Angel believed Twilight and did horrible things, because as he says in season 8, lots of people would die either way. In the first issue of Season 9's Angel & Faith series 'Live through this' he also says that

Spoiler

he was sometimes possessed, and couldn't control himself. From what I read, he wasn't always possessed, just sometimes, and that he know feels that he should have stopped and questioned what he was doing and twilight's intentions

.

It's all very confusing. I'm also unclear on if he was himself in season 8. Allie said(I have no good source for this) that The Glow working on Buffy & Angel was just like a few drinks, so I assume Twilight didn't possess Angel at first, not until later. But that doesn't explain Angel OCC's behaviour in the Twilight arc (for example, not getting why Buffy can't leave her friends and sister behind to fight on their own).

 

[white avenger]

I'm pretty sure that the whole subject of Angel and Twilight, was he responsible. was he a pawn, were his intentions good, was he just plain stupid will never be answered satisfactorily for everyone, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Joss didn't do it exactly that way for exactly that purpose. The man is pure evil personified, and he likes nothing better than upsetting his fans with things like this.

 

[dexeded]

I'm more confused about the Twilight-possessing-Angel than Angel being Twilight. Twilight possessed him when he killed Giles, so does that mean he was responsible? Or was it just the drunk!Twilight!Angel, meaning he wasn't really possessed, just influenced... and killed Giles.

Whatevs. S8 hurts my head. And my heart.

 

[RogueDemonHunter]

Well thanks, it just did'nt seem consistent to Angel's character. hes always the brooding guy that takes the right way out in the best intrest for the greater good, and when he compromised everyones lives for he and buffy to be alone, it just ruined the way i think of angel.

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

You're confused as to how and why Angel chose to become Twilight? Well, join the club. We all are.

No but, really - Angel chose to become Twilight because he's gullible and weak. It's his tragic flaw. He did what he was told, by apparently the Universe, because he thought it was the right thing to do. Well, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and Angel sure laid those bricks himself.

---------- Post added at 08:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ----------

Well thanks, it just did'nt seem consistent to Angel's character. hes always the brooding guy that takes the right way out in the best intrest for the greater good, and when he compromised everyones lives for he and buffy to be alone, it just ruined the way i think of angel.

"Consistent to Angel's character?" What, even, is Angel's character anymore? Do we even know? His actions last season were SO OOC that it's hard tell. And since we don't even really know what he was "himself" for...See, this is the thing though; Angel has proven time again that he CAN and WILL make the hard decisions, no matter the cost. He was also proven time and time again that he WON'T compromise what he believes to be right despite the consequences. I think that Angel has changed, and fans just can't accept it. Looking for excuses for his behavior last season is pointless. This IS Angel now. We just have to deal with it I guess, as sad as it is.

 

[white avenger]

What some people are seeing as being out of character for Angel, I see as simply the line of progression from the basically side kick Angel in Season 1 of "Buffy" all the way to the being who somehow saw himself as having the authority to make decisions affecting everything in the entire universe in Season 8. And where, you might ask, have we seen a vampire willing to destroy the world for his own mysterious agenda? Well, Angelus, in Season 2 leaps quickly to mind. In fact, other than deranged Willow in Season 6, Angelus was the only season Big Bad who actually had world destruction as his primary goal (You can't really count Glory. She just wanted to go home. If that could have been accomplished quietly, with no fanfare and no harm to anyone or anything in Buffy's universe, I have no doubt that she would have done so.) What we're seeing here is, even with his soul, Angel is reverting back to Angelus' personality. In both personas, he recognizes himself as the ultimate authority and decision maker, with no regard to anyone else's wishes or welfare.

Look at his self appointed mission in Season 9. (No. I'm not going to furnish any spoilers here. Go read it for yourselves) Not only would Buffy oppose his actions, but he himself has admitted that his mission would have to be accomplished in two stages, the second and most important part of which he has no idea whatsoever how to accomplish in a universe devoid of magic. His actions could quite easily unleash the most diabolical Big Bad that Buffy and her friends have ever encountered. Angel is obsessed and wrong in Season 9, and what's more, I think that those around him fully realize the fact and only remain at his side strictly out of personal loyalty, a loyalty that we are going to be sorely tested in the months to come.

 

[Skytteflickan88]

"Consistent to Angel's character?" What, even, is Angel's character anymore? Do we even know? His actions last season were SO OOC that it's hard tell. And since we don't even really know what he was "himself" for...See, this is the thing though; Angel has proven time again that he CAN and WILL make the hard decisions, no matter the cost. He was also proven time and time again that he WON'T compromise what he believes to be right despite the consequences. I think that Angel has changed, and fans just can't accept it. Looking for excuses for his behavior last season is pointless. This IS Angel now. We just have to deal with it I guess, as sad as it is.

I want to agree. I want to say "This is Angel. He used to be good, then confused, and now selfish and stupid. It's just how he is." and just deal. But we're not shown exactly HOW much he's changed. The Glow affected him, and as we were told in season 9

Spoiler

he was sometimes possessed by twilight

, and I think his re-telling of what happened, and the flashbacks, just didn't cut it.

Not only don't we know who Angel is, since he wasn't 100 per cent himself all the time, but we also haven't been shown it, just been given a crappy summarization. We missed about a year of Angel's life, and the writers didn't really explain those events and changes very well. I believe it could have been done well, changing Angel this much, but it felt rushed and not well thought out, they way they did it.

So these kind of conversations will probably go on for a while. Hopefully by the end of season 9, we will have gotten to know Angel again.

 

[Kaleidoscope]

For me, from a very strong start, Season 8 lost coherance in the last few series. I don't know why, they had over four years to plot this, but you ended up with Last Gleaming, which was so rushed and had very little room for the character moments I needed. I don't think they adequately explained why Angel became Twilight, though they seem to be having a second bite of the cherry explaining his actions in the current series - In fact, they seemed to treat the storyline in a rather 'flip' manner. I didn't really know what to take seriously after a while. I've got a bit of a disconnect with Season 9 now, because of it. Angel is not quite my favourite character, but I've decided to move past Season 8, and enjoy the character again, like I did when I was reading the IDW comics. I think sometimes, the writers wanted to tell a story that brought Angel to rockbottom (with a large dose of ambiguity thrown in to protect the character), so that they could enjoy building him up again, so I've decided to go with the flow. It will probably happen again, after all.

 

[hazzard]

I'm more confused about the Twilight-possessing-Angel than Angel being Twilight. Twilight possessed him when he killed Giles, so does that mean he was responsible? Or was it just the drunk!Twilight!Angel, meaning he wasn't really possessed, just influenced... and killed Giles.

Whatevs. S8 hurts my head. And my heart.

ANGEL KILLED GILES?!?!!?! WHAT?!?!

oh my god. this is why i don't read the comics.

 

[Moscow Watcher]

ladydorotea: Havining been in direct communications with people involved in creation of the comics, I have to say you that most of your speculations are not true.

I'm very curious how PTB (Allie, Jeanty) interpret Angel's actions when they talk to a fan of the character. A couple of years ago I wrote a letter to Allie, as I was concerned about his attitude to Spike, and we interacted very nicely. . Have you posted your correspondence with Allie and Jeanty at your place? If not, could you post here excerpts related to their interpretation of Angel's behavior?

Thanks in advance!

 

[ladydorotea]

I'm very curious how PTB (Allie, Jeanty) interpret Angel's actions when they talk to a fan of the character. A couple of years ago I wrote a letter to Allie, as I was concerned about his attitude to Spike, and we interacted very nicely. . Have you posted your correspondence with Allie and Jeanty at your place? If not, could you post here excerpts related to their interpretation of Angel's behavior?

Thanks in advance!

Living that close to NY and other major venues in NE has its advantages. I met with Allie twice in person. Once with Jeanty - and that was an encounter that lasted for like 4 hours plus @ NYCC, he once mentioned me in his radio podcast actually, once with Chris Gage. I had numerous emails exchanges with them too, as well as with Rebekah Isaacs. As a fan I was always very satisfied with their responses to my concerns. As for posting my correspondence, and notes on my meetings , no, I do not do this as a rule, due to my personal experience with the ensuing repercussions in the fandom. I am not very thick skinned. I can only say that all of the creative crew is very generous to fans and they are very firm on the fact that they are not doing any character assassinations or major character direction changes. A&F crew absolutely loves Angel. Buffy-book crew is devoted to Buffy book cast as well. The Twilight business is not over. Allie once mentioned that he had to keep mum about Hellboy being descendent of King Arthur for more than 7 years. From all the communications I had, I believe there are still aspects of this story we are not aware of yet.

 

[EVIL UU]

ladydorotea: Havining been in direct communications with people involved in creation of the comics, I have to say you that most of your speculations are not true.

What they say doesn't matter. If it's not on the comic book page it doesn't exist, OK? Incidentally, when writers or editors need to explain what happened in their story it means that they weren't very good at doing their job in the first place.

 

[ladydorotea]

What they say doesn't matter. If it's not on the comic book page it doesn't exist, OK?

In ther defense, I have to point out that the fandom has very selective filtering - what is drawn on the page can be reinterpreted as insignificant, while other aspects of the story can be blown out of proportion. Entire written passages of the dialog can be blanked out, context can be firmly ignored, etc etc. Creative labels and funny names can be applied as well, to the extent of the majority of the audience trusting the online interpretations rather than their eyes. I've been there and seen that. So, when Allie says , no, that's not what we meant - and you reply back 'it does not matter what they say' - that's exactly the phenomena I am talking about. And so they end up withdrawing from the audience - as I believe happened recently. Because the audience does not want to see what they do not want to see but prefers their own interpretation.

Incidentally, when writers or editors need to explain what happened in their story it means that they weren't very good at doing their job in the first place.

Oh, I agree with this completely. I have been arguing the exact same point forever. Same as the 'hit-and-run' approach not working on the licensed story. I.e. : when they bring up a new writer every few month and the said writer so focused on the current arc that they forget what happened a few issues back - this is lazy writing.

---------- Post added at 09:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 AM ----------

white avenger agrees: It's good to hear that the creative crew has no intentions of character assassination or change. That leaves only Joss, who is the ultimate authority and final word on who does what. And he's made no such promise that I am aware of.

In this particular case I have to make and exclusion from my policy of not sharing my private communications with the fandom. To quote from Allie 'Joss absolutely loves these characters! (Re: Angel) You have to hear him speak about them to believe me." That was from Allie's email.

 

[Moscow Watcher]

Living that close to NY and other major venues in NE has its advantages. I met with Allie twice in person. Once with Jeanty - and that was an encounter that lasted for like 4 hours plus @ NYCC, he once mentioned me in his radio podcast actually, once with Chris Gage. I had numerous emails exchanges with them too, as well as with Rebekah Isaacs. As a fan I was always very satisfied with their responses to my concerns. As for posting my correspondence, and notes on my meetings , no, I do not do this as a rule, due to my personal experience with the ensuing repercussions in the fandom. I am not very thick skinned. I can only say that all of the creative crew is very generous to fans and they are very firm on the fact that they are not doing any character assassinations or major character direction changes. A&F crew absolutely loves Angel. Buffy-book crew is devoted to Buffy book cast as well. The Twilight business is not over. Allie once mentioned that he had to keep mum about Hellboy being descendent of King Arthur for more than 7 years. From all the communications I had, I believe there are still aspects of this story we are not aware of yet.

Lucky you! I envy people who could communicate with PTB directly. 🙂

But did Allie or Jeanty offer any concrete explanations/ interpretations/ thoughts/ anything on Angel's arc?

Or they only said that it will be explained later? Or they didn't even say it - just gave ambiguous hints that could be interpreted (or not interpreted) as a possibility of further explanations in later seasons?

I ask because your comment implies that you've heard an explanation from PTB that refutes wrong assumptions made by other posters. So far, your argument was that PTB love Angel. Of course, they do. The problem with Joss is that the more he loves the character, the more he tortures him/her.

 

[ladydorotea]

The problem with Joss is that the more he loves the character, the more he tortures him/her.

Torture is not quite the same as character assassination : i.e. making the character an epitome of all things evil, not worthy of loving and not redeemable. To like or dislike the character is our choice as fans and that's when interpretation comes into play. What many here want to deny is that there is even a venue for interpretation. That was my argument.

 

[EVIL UU]

Skytteflickan88 agrees: Are you saying that we fans might in fact know if characters act OOC better than the creators, in case they don't realize what they put on the page?

I don't understand your question. What I'm saying is - what the creators say in various Q&As/during fan meetings/interviews is irrelevant and does not matter. They can either give away all the answers in the comic or intentionally left something ambiguous for fans to ponder and keep their mouths shut about it. That's how it works, interpretation is not their job.

ladydorotea says that white avenger is wrong because the creators supposedly say so. Sorry but art is all about interpretation and there's nothing in the comic to disprove white avenger's theory. He's not wrong just because the creators are cheating.

 

[Skytteflickan88]

I don't understand your question. What I'm saying is - what the creators say in various Q&As/during fan meetings/interviews is irrelevant and does not matter. They can either give away all the answers in the comic or intentionally left something ambiguous for fans to ponder and keep their mouths shut about it. That's how it works, interpretation is not their job.

ladydorotea says that white avenger is wrong because the creators supposedly say so. Sorry but art is all about interpretation and there's nothing in the comic to disprove white avenger's theory. He's not wrong just because the creators are cheating.

I was trying to play on what you have in your signature, since what you said in the post seemed contradictory to your signature. If I need to explain further, I guess I was off the mark.