Is Angel Lame?

[Skanky Vamp]

I think if Angelus hadn't happened you would have seen a much more social Angel. I feel he would have interacted with the Scoobies a Hell of a lot more, especially Willow and Giles.

Then I am glad Angelus DID happen. Because (excluding Angelus) season 3 Angel was by far the best Buffy Angel. I would not wanted him being another faux Scooby. He was better than that. I dont think he could really ever be buddy buddy with them anyway, as he did see himself as being above them, with the exception possibly of Giles, whom he did consider in some regard an equal.

 

[Flannen]

It's not about knowing they're going to win... it's about liking who they are. I don't like watching a bad person fight with himself to be good because at the end of the day, he's a bad person. Why should I care about the fight? What matters is what is. That's why I have such a big problem with "if nothing we do matters, all that matters is what we do." That's a pretty big if. What we do DOES matter. Who we are DOES matter. Angel being a jerk DOES matter. I get the point trying to be made by Angel's journey... but I don't take to it.

I know this has kind of been addressed already but I cannot see how you can say all of this about Angel and then Spike be your favourite character. The reason Spike and Angel are compared so often is because their stories are so similar. I could replace every "Angel" with "Spike" here and it would be the same thing?!

Oh please. Cordy was even lamer. Rich Bitch girl in high school goes through a transition and cares SO MUCH about everyone and everything!!!! God... give me a break. I HATED what they did to Cordelia's character. I know that's an unpopular opinion... but come on her storyline is SO overdone.

So because a storyline is overdone the character is lame? It is a cliche storyline yeah, its used in almost ALL teen storylines generally because it makes for [I[great[/I] character development.

But anyway...back to this!

Do you think that Angel is more lame than Angelus, or that Angel is a less interesting character as his feelings for Buffy develop?

As for myself, while I fail to see any particular lameness in the character, I do feel that he became more dynamic and heroic once he got away from Sunnydale and out from under Buffy's thumb.

I actually always find it amusing how often people say 'urgh, Angel was so boring when he was on and with Buffy, I much prefer him on his show and who he becomes' which would suggest agreement with the idea that as his feelings for Buffy develop he becomes less interesting. What I love about Angel, and what makes him so obviously NOT lame, is the fact that is his feelings for Buffy developing make him the character everyone loves in his own show. If his feelings for Buffy had not developed he wouldn't be half the character that he is! Especially since they had to develop to a point where Angel recognised that they both needed to stand alone and separately. So no, his developing feelings, I think, are in line with his own development.

 

[Kean]

Then I am glad Angelus DID happen. Because (excluding Angelus) season 3 Angel was by far the best Buffy Angel. I would not wanted him being another faux Scooby. He was better than that. I dont think he could really ever be buddy buddy with them anyway, as he did see himself as being above them, with the exception possibly of Giles, whom he did consider in some regard an equal.

I quite like him being away from the Scoobies too, just sorting himself out. I have a huge respect for that quiet reconstruction of self. It's similar to a duck, quiet and calm on the surface, but under the water their legs are moving furiously. That's how I view Angel. He may not give the appearance of doing anything but behind it all he is doing everything he can just to keep a float. I'd have a similar respect for Oz and the efforts he took to be better than what he was.

However, I don't think Angel thought he was better than any of the Scoobies, in fact, I'd say he felt quite inferior to them at times, but more that he felt he was just completely not one of them. Separate. He wasn't part of it and I think he was OK with that. He wasn't ready to be part of it.

 

[Marisa]

I think if Angelus hadn't happened you would have seen a much more social Angel. I feel he would have interacted with the Scoobies a Hell of a lot more, especially Willow and Giles. But, Angelus happened about 6 or 7 episodes after Angel and Buffy became a real couple. Any budding or potentially deeper bonds Angel was going to make with the Scoobies were severed, irretrievably, by Angelus.

I kind of sometimes wish him an Giles could have been closer mainly for the fact of how they worked together in Prophecy girl. I think it could have been very interesting to see that alliance but like you said that was ruined once Angelus came. When you think about it and how it could have been it would have been a great storyline.

I am just glad we got to see Angel do this on his show. I think the friendships on that show are what make me love it so much. I love Buffy but Angel is my favorite out of the two shows.

---------- Post added at 08:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 AM ----------

I actually always find it amusing how often people say 'urgh, Angel was so boring when he was on and with Buffy, I much prefer him on his show and who he becomes' which would suggest agreement with the idea that as his feelings for Buffy develop he becomes less interesting. What I love about Angel, and what makes him so obviously NOT lame, is the fact that is his feelings for Buffy developing make him the character everyone loves in his own show. If his feelings for Buffy had not developed he wouldn't be half the character that he is! Especially since they had to develop to a point where Angel recognised that they both needed to stand alone and separately. So no, his developing feelings, I think, are in line with his own development.

I like Buffy and Angel during the early years I don't find the need to skip over them they are cute at times. I don't think it was his feelings for Buffy I think it was the writing. Making him only there because of Buffy, his big storyline outside of one on that show being Buffy's boyfriend. Even his own storyline arc when he was Angelus it was still brought back to Buffy I can understand that but it makes it hard to care for Angel the person outside of Buffy/Angel. I think sometimes they get lumped together. That is the only thing.

 

[white avenger]

As I said in the beginning, I never saw Angel, while on Buffy's show as being as much lame, as just not as dynamic and heroic as he became once he got his own show. It's almost as if he was playing Robin to Buffy's Batman for three years, then he left Sunnydale and became his own, independent hero,even going so far as to tell Buffy not to come into "his" town and try to give orders. I don't think that he would have ever been able to stand up to her that way if he hadn't moved away from Sunnydale and, more importantly, away from her influence.

Oddly enough, and I had never really thought about it until someone else mentioned it here, Angelus actually seemed more dynamic and diabolical in Sunnydale than he did in his later appearances on Angel's own show, though that might be accounted for by the fact that we simply saw him for longer during that single season that we ever got to thereafter. Or maybe Angel's new found dynamic personality, even when subjugated by the monster, was still able to exert some, albeit slight, degree of control.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

WA, if I remember correctly, didnt you say that you first started watching Buffy after season 3 when Angel left? That you went back and watched the first seasons after the later?

 

[Kean]

Oddly enough, and I had never really thought about it until someone else mentioned it here, Angelus actually seemed more dynamic and diabolical in Sunnydale than he did in his later appearances on Angel's own show, though that might be accounted for by the fact that we simply saw him for longer during that single season that we ever got to thereafter. Or maybe Angel's new found dynamic personality, even when subjugated by the monster, was still able to exert some, albeit slight, degree of control.

I attribute this seemingly "toothlessness" of Angelus in S4 to a few factors.

1) In Sunnydale he was new, we had no idea what to expect from him. His presence, in of itself, felt dangerous for the show and by extension, the viewer. The potential for what he could do was exciting. We knew nothing of re-cursing, Angel was gone. On top of that, up until the last few minutes of Becoming part II, it didn't feel like Buffy could even take him out.

We knew that no matter what happened he was changing everything we knew about BTVS and its characters. That's very hard to recreate. Or better.

Compare this to S4 where we knew he was only going to be there for a short period of time. We knew that Willow, or some other magical means, could be employed to bring Angel back. There was just no risk. His presence did not live up to the anticipation created by the prospect of his presence. It was just underwhelming. That was not aided by him being in a cage for large portions of his stint in S4. Kind hard to be threatened by the guy whose plan seems to consist of taunting and insulting you to death.

2) Compared to how we found ourselves in Angelus' company in S2 of Buffy, his emergence is just plain boring in S4. A shaman gives him a dream? How does that hold up to lost love and betrayal? Buffy and Angel nearly having it all and then it cruelly being taken from them. It just can't. Which brings me to my third and final point.

3) No Buffy. I would argue that the main reason Angelus was so much more...everything, in S2 of Buffy, is because we were seeing him through Buffy's eyes. The pain he created was hers, the terror he imposed she felt, the devastion he laid out, she reaped. What made this even more compelling is that she played a part in creating this monster, and now our hero had a genuine threat. Someone we didn't really know if she could take down. Or even more compelling, did she even want to?

We got NONE of that in S4. We saw Angelus through Angelus's eyes and well, he's pretty ridiculous. The worst thing he could really do in S4 was not tell them the info. That's just...pathetic in comparison.

 

[white avenger]

I attribute this seemingly "toothlessness" of Angelus in S4 to a few factors.

Add to all of that th simple fact that, on Buffy's show, Angel was, when all was said and done, just a supporting character, no matter how Buffy felt about him. He could, and was, killed, and the show went right on. On his own show, we KNEW that, somehow, the good guys were gonna find a way to straighten everything out, simply because, no Angel, no "Angel, The Series." Whether Willow or some other witch, wizard, or shaman cast a restoration spell, or some other surprise event occurred,Angel WAS coming back.

(And I just want you to know that the image of a toothless Angel is one that I will cherish for a long time to come)

 

[InsaneMystic]

Yes, Angel at heart is nowhere near a perfect paragon of goodness. But he tries to do the right thing. I can forgive his mistakes because he is always trying to do the right thing.

As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In the case of the BHD, literally.

 

[TheVoid68]

I just re-read the thread through and lots of people say they thought Angel was boring on Buffy, which fair enough, I suppose he was in a way. I'm wondering though, does anyone actually find him fascinating on Buffy?

Many have cited his constant brooding as a reason for his (apparent) "lameness". Personally, I never got that. I like the quiet, intense ones 😉 But seriously, what fascinated me the most about Angel is that he was existing at all. That he functioned on any level whatsoever. The guilt he must have been dealing with, not just as Angelus but during the hundred years in which he did nothing. Being in Sunnydale and seeing these children take up the fight, it must have humbled him in ways he didn't even think he could be humbled. I mean, I get tied in knots of guilt if I so much as hurt someone's feelings, I can't do anything, not until I make it right with the person. I just think the will he had to have to get through all of that, and do it internally too, was massive.

I found him interesting on Buffy, but very flat. He was very much an enigma, a character waiting to happen. Much of my fascination early on was fuelled by the question "who exactly is Angel?". Of course the mystery couldn't hold attention forever, and so he had to leave so that he could flourish and become a fully-fledged character.

 

[Moscow Watcher]

I like Angel on BtVS and I love him on AtS. Maybe it's a Spuffy shipper in me talking - but I love Angel when he has his own journey, his own story.

Shipping issues aside, I think the problem is that BtVS and AtS appeals to two different type of fans - those who love stories about relationships and those who love action.

Those who love action, often think that Angelus (unsouled Spike) is better than Angel (souled Spike), because he is funnier and because he doesn't deflect from the action stuff.

 

[This Year's Girl]

Yeah, Angel was a little lame on Buffy, but that's only because we really didn't know anything about him. His whole character was based on his relationship with Buffy and although he had scenes on his own they all were related to her in some way. But Angel being lame on Angel? No way! He made some lame choices sometimes and said some lame things sure, but I think every character did that. (The only character that's ever going to be genuinly lame for me is Riley. 😀) I loved Angel-Angel. He was funny, cute and kind.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Those who love action, often think that Angelus (unsouled Spike) is better than Angel (souled Spike), because he is funnier and because he doesn't deflect from the action stuff.

Heh... so I'm the oddball yet again? 😛 I like Angelus (but hate him ensouled, especially when he's around Buffy) and prefer souled Spike over unsouled Spike (I like both versions... but like him more with soul, with or without Buffy).

For me, it's not about action, but about integrity - a quality that Angelus has ("pure evil" is purity, too 😉), the BHD sadly and douchebagishly lacks, and Spike has in varying amounts depending on the point in time you're checking it at (even pre-chip, he has loads more of it than the BHD).

 

[Taake]

Yeah, Angel was a little lame on Buffy, but that's only because we really didn't know anything about him.

To me an being unexplored as a character does not necessarily make you lame.


But then I am biased, I never found Angel lame (and yes I find that other one lame but that's for wholly different reasons that don't belong here). I found Angel's character and journey fascinating and intriguing from start to end though I don't always agree with actions or happenings I can see why he got his own show, I can see his character grow and change and yes, regardless of actions (*cough cough s8*) he remains my favorite character.

 

[This Year's Girl]

To me an being unexplored as a character does not necessarily make you lame.
.

That's true. I never found Tara lame in the beginning as an example. I guess lame could be the wrong word. But for me he fell kind of flat in Btvs. He had an interesting story, but the lack of personality I got from him turned me off. I'll say this though, in season 1 I thuoght he had a lot of potential - the whole thing with him bring scared was interesting.

 

[Kana]

I love Angel and I too never thought he was lame. For me his journey was of qualitive value. It wasn't simply the larger moment but the seemingly insignificant ones that paint a picture of a hero who tries.

When I judge Angel, I guess I come off as a little self-reflective. I suppose my criteria is not as strict because I believe his intentions matter.

I mean are talking about damage caused? Nothing can change that but it doesn't mean that your actions and your intentions don't matter. It's fighting which ever way you can whether it's saving a soul or saving the world. It's not a race, nor is it a scoreboard, because honestly, if it were, I'd say Angel's losing.

Angel on BTVS

I've always found him interesting but the problem is, like me, he's an innie (introvert). Now innies generally are less accessible than extroverts. He had wealth of thought without expressing it. It also makes sense that because he's just come off the streets after avoiding humanity for the better part of a century, he wouldn't be all that open about his feelings.

Well my feelings about him on his own show are well documented. In short, he's not lame, he was never lame. He is perhaps will always be a tragic hero. A combination of circumstance and character flaws that lead him down the path he's taken.

 

[zobothehobo]

I've always found him interesting but the problem is, like me, he's an innie (introvert). Now innies generally are less accessible than extroverts. He had wealth of thought without expressing it. It also makes sense that because he's just come off the streets after avoiding humanity for the better part of a century, he wouldn't be all that open about his feelings.

I think you've just pointed out what makes me hate Angel so much... something I couldn't put my finger on until now. Introverts drive me crazy because they can have a wealth of thought without expressing it. I'm one of the most extroverted people on the planet. I'm not extroverted in the sense I make a lot of friends... but I talk to everyone... and if I have a thought or opinion, you'll know it. I think out loud more often than I think in my head. Introverts drive me nuts and I think not expressing yourself is REALLY lame. I say this meaning no offense to the introverts around the boards because I'm sure there are a lot... but typically, introverts drive me nuts. That's not all of why I hate Angel... but I think that's why I'm harder on him than a "normal" person...

 

[Kean]

Introverts drive me nuts and I think not expressing yourself is REALLY lame.

Just because someone is not outwardly or obviously expressing themselves doesn't mean that they are not expressing themselves.

Even if you just take Angel, who by what you said above doesn't express himself, he is artistic, he draws, he reads, he likes the ballet, he collects rare pieces of art, he does Tai Chi, he likes music. Even his wearing black is an expression of who he is.

None of these are extremely obvious about him but are gradually revealed. None the less it is all expression of Angel's self.

 

[zobothehobo]

Just because someone is not outwardly or obviously expressing themselves doesn't mean that they are not expressing themselves.

Even if you just take Angel, who by what you said above doesn't express himself, he is artistic, he draws, he reads, he likes the ballet, he collects rare pieces of art, he does Tai Chi, he likes music. Even his wearing black is an expression of who he is.

None of these are extremely obvious about him but are gradually revealed. None the less it is all expression of Angel's self.

I don't mean expressing yourself like that... I mean expressing your every thought in words. I am aware that there are ways Angel expresses himself. But he never says what he's thinking... and the only way to get him to is to ask him a very specific question. That kind of person drives me crazy. I can't stand not knowing what those around me are thinking and feeling. Quite frankly, it makes me nervous and uncomfortable. I've worked very hard over the years to get really good at people watching and reading expressions... there are some really introverted people (like Angel) who make reading expressions rather difficult. I would prefer you just SAY what you're thinking... but if you don't, I want to be able to read your expression. If I cant, I get nervous. It's kind of like "what good are your thoughts if you don't share them." It's a large reason I hate Oz too. I just can't deal with that type of person.

 

[Kean]

It's kind of like "what good are your thoughts if you don't share them." It's a large reason I hate Oz too. I just can't deal with that type of person.

I don't share nearly half of my thoughts and I think they remain good enough thoughts to have, whether I vocalise them or not. I am much more in favour of less is more. I don't need nor want to know every thought that a person has. To me that is just too exhausting to even contemplate. My view is that I'll worry about my thoughts and you (the universal you) worry about yours.

Anyway, this is OT. Back to the originally programmed viewing. 🙂