This season needed Angelus...

King of Hell

Vampire
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
189
Location
Bahrain
to terrorize LA with Darla, I think it would've been better than the epiphany storyline, when we finally had a piece of Angelus in season 4, it was too late, not that I didn't like it, his arc in season 4 was probably what carried the season. they can let it drag 'till the Pylea arc. of course they may need to push for Angelus earlier, cause 3 episodes isn't enough.
 
I liked the way it went. It showed that Angel can be corrupted without reverting to Angelus. It showed another side of him not yet seen and gave him more development. We didn't need an evil Angel in season 2. I'm glad they waited and I'm glad it was only a few episodes.
 
M
Marisa
I agree with you 100% I thought it was great to see him spiral on his own.
Taake
Taake
[No message]
Kana
Kana
yep.
Would definately have been interesting and probably even more entertaining. So i'am with you on this one. That's not to say the season wasn't good but Angelus could have made it more exciting. At some points brooding Angel made this season seem a bit slow for my liking.
 
I also like the fact that this season showed the darkness in Angel without him reverting to Angelus.

Being Angelus in this season would have given him kind of a "get out of jail free" card - anything bad he did (eg. locking Dru and Darla in with the lawyers) would have been attributed to his lack of soul... whereas the fact that it was souled Angel throughout makes the whole storyline a lot more interesting, IMO.
 
D
dan k
good point
Taake
Taake
[No message]
after his "dark" phase, he slept with Darla, or technically before. this is the point where Angelus was needed, this is what I meant. it'd be a lot interesting & fun to see the legendary Angelus & Darla, the most devastating couple in the vampires world, terrorizing LA. but the episode "Reprise" would need to be pushed back, because the Angelus Darla arc would need a lot more than 3 episodes, & the pylea arc was nice.

am not saying season 2 was bad, his arc with Darla was great, it was one of the best arcs in the show, & that's why it needed Angelus, the Angel & Darla relationship had a lot of potential & they didn't explore it enough.
 
I don't think it was needed. It was much more interesting that he found out that Darla didn't have the hold on him that he thought. Angel has many subtle colours and the darkness of nihilism was the character arc that is not only thematic but not a dull rehash of BTVS Season 2 which just wouldn't make narrative sense, especially if he didn't love Darla.
 
I think Angelous would have defeated the points they were trying to make..like Angel could still go dark like any one else even with a soul and perfect happiness would make him change not just sleeping with someone
 
I get your point, but I felt Angelus was needed way before season 4, & I think season 2 is the perfect season for it, season 3 wouldn't make much sense, & neither 5, of course the first season isn't an option too.
 
To be honest, I hate the way ensouled Angel 'goes dark'. It's all well and good that Joss has a commitment to showing that characters aren't all-good or all-evil, but still if you ask us to support Angel as a hero, as a character worthy of admiration, there have to be some limits to how deep he can go - it's also why I'm glad on "City Of" they prematurely faded out the scene where he starts tasting the girl's blood.

Although having said that, there's two things I don't get: (1) why Lorne and Kate give him a hard time for setting two soulless vampires on fire (like, they do that all the time)

And (2) I don't get why, as the show progresses, Angel and Angelus start to be seen as entirely different entities. On BtVS S2 that's not the case - he's the same creature, just with or without a soul. They don't consistently call him "Angel" when he's good and "Angelus" when he's bad. It makes a lot more sense than later treatments, like S4, where it's almost like a Ben/Glory arrangement. "Orpheus" is an awesome episode, but having Angelus talk about 'him' doesn't really make sense from the perspective of the earlier episodes - and it means that in S4 Angel can just get re-ensouled and be like, 'right then. I'm back; let's get back to business'. In Buffy S3, there's no doubt that Angel is the entity that killed Jenny and tortured Giles, just with a soul. And that brings a dimension to the character that by AtS S4 has just disappeared.
 
And (2) I don't get why, as the show progresses, Angel and Angelus start to be seen as entirely different entities. On BtVS S2 that's not the case - he's the same creature, just with or without a soul. They don't consistently call him "Angel" when he's good and "Angelus" when he's bad. It makes a lot more sense than later treatments, like S4, where it's almost like a Ben/Glory arrangement. "Orpheus" is an awesome episode, but having Angelus talk about 'him' doesn't really make sense from the perspective of the earlier episodes - and it means that in S4 Angel can just get re-ensouled and be like, 'right then. I'm back; let's get back to business'. In Buffy S3, there's no doubt that Angel is the entity that killed Jenny and tortured Giles, just with a soul. And that brings a dimension to the character that by AtS S4 has just disappeared.

I totally agree with you on that point, I liked the part where they call him separate names, but thats it, I don't like the fact that they're 2 separate creatures, it was supposed to be the same person, but a demon replaces the soul, thats how vampires are treated in the Buffyverse, when a vampire is sired, the demon takes over its soul, & in Angel's case, the gypsis restored his human soul, so both the demon & the human soul are in his body, which makes him a vampire with a soul. soulless vampires feel no remorse, no love (love is an inconsistent argument in the Buffyverse), and because he can't love, he kills whoever made him feel like human, & feels pleasure torturing people.

come to think of it, the love part in vampires is a huge plot hole in the Buffyverse, Angel says he wasn't capable of love because he had no soul. Spike proved otherwise, & so did James (S3 pilot), & Darla says she loves Angel in the ep Angel in Buffy S1. my theory on Spike is that he lost his touch with his demon side for a long time (no killing), so his human side began to surface, or Angel's theory, Spike did all this to get into her pants.

anyway, I did like his dark side, it shows how strong he can get if he doesn't fight his demon while fighting the other demons, I don't think Buffy was able to kill 12 demons & set 2 vampires on fire by herself, even though she was the slayer & supposedly stronger than Angel. though we only saw Angel this strong once.

& I'd like to see Angelus more than watching Angel brood & apologize to his friends over & over in the next few episodes. Angelus in S4 was too late & unnecessary, I loved that arc, I can classify it as one of my favorite. but that doesn't mean that it made sense.
 
I don't like the fact that they're 2 separate creatures, it was supposed to be the same person, but a demon replaces the soul, thats how vampires are treated in the Buffyverse, when a vampire is sired, the demon takes over its soul

That's not true. Angel explains this in the episode Angel of BtVS Season 1.

ANGEL: When you become a vampire the demon takes your body, but it doesn't get your soul. That's gone!

At any rate, I hate this part of the Season. Not a fan of dark!Angel at all, but it's all an integral part of his character development. Angel betrays all of his friends and once he realizes this, he becomes a lot less broody and a lighter character in trying to win his friendships back.
 
come to think of it, the love part in vampires is a huge plot hole in the Buffyverse, Angel says he wasn't capable of love because he had no soul. Spike proved otherwise, & so did James (S3 pilot), & Darla says she loves Angel in the ep Angel in Buffy S1. my theory on Spike is that he lost his touch with his demon side for a long time (no killing), so his human side began to surface, or Angel's theory, Spike did all this to get into her pants.

.

I think that Angel saying that he wasn't capable of loving before he had his soul returned was just a crutch on his part to explain why he, himself, wasn't capable of, or at least never had felt, love before he saw Buffy for the first time. As far as we know, Liam never loved anyone, least of all his family (remember, his little sister invited him into their home because SHE loved HIM. There was never any real mention as to whether the feelings were actually mutual. Angelus certainly never loved anyone, and in all of the flashbacks of pre-Sunnydale Angel, we never saw him with as much as a friend, let alone someone who he might have loved.

Quite likely, vampires in general are just as capable of feeling love as their human hosts had been, no more, no less. Liam never loved, Angelus never loved. and, for over a century, Angel never loved. William loved, quite obviously, perhaps not always wisely, but always well. He knew all of the finer emotions, love, honor and loyalty among them. And, since he knew and felt those things as a human, he was quite capable of feeling them as a vampire, just as we have seen other vampires on the two shows, to one degree or another, do the same thing.
 
B
Bungle Jerry
I think that makes sense. Not love as in romantic love, anyway. He was all about womanising as Liam - not the poetic soul William was.
Angelus is a difficult one but Liam, I think did love his sister. To be honest I think he loved his whole family, including his father. It's implied he wanted his father's approval and love but no matter how he behaved he always seemed to find fault in him, hence the rebellion.

Anyway, Liam and Angel are capable of love and did love, however Angelus, while able to feel intense emotions and desire, his feelings only manifested negatively. Joss, I believe once mentioned that Angelus did have romantic feelings towards Buffy, but those feelings became hateful.

Liam had morality instilled in him in a very black and white fashion and that morality informed Angel(us). Love is very much tied with morality to him so as a being looking to attain purity of sorts he found the clarity of evil liberating. Love could only taint that, but it doesn't mean the emotions aren't in there. He's learnt to surpress them as Angel attempts to suppress his darker urges, Angelus is just better at it. However fragmented his persona, all the elements of Angel are always there, the passion, sadism, need for purity (of good or evil), heroism, akwardness, charm...
This actually better explains Angel and Angelus fighting in the Orpheus. Deep down in the depths of his subconscious, Angelus was able to find the heroism to help redeem Faith. Consider this was all happening when Angel's soul was either in the muo ping or in the ether, so the soul couldn't possibly interact with what was going on.
 
the way Angel said it, he made it clear that vampires couldn't possibly feel love, even Darla says that after her child is born, she won't be able to love him, & she won't be able to even remember that she loved him. & if the difference between a soulless creature & a human is just remorse, vampires won't be automatically evil, they just won't feel guilty about anything they do, & no guilt doesn't make you evil as soon as you're fresh out of the grave. its the absence of love that makes you evil.

on the other hand, spike, James, & other vampires proved that they did love someone.

so its either obsession & not love, or its a plot hole, I can't think of any explanation that won't contradict with all this.
 
Back
Top Bottom