 |
IDW Publishing Forums
A home for all IDW fans.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hawkedup
Transforumer
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 1221
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 12:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Thoughts while I was reading.
I love the Illyria dialogue. I can just imagine Amy Acker saying it in her completely monotone Illyria voice with the head tilts and whatnot.
So Laura has something against Spike. Do they know each other from the past or is it just the stuff she's read being a Watcher? I don't think it's the latter, though, because she obviously trusts Angel because he has a soul so you'd think her Watcher mind would trust Spike, too. Maybe not.
Connor's army. What's going on with that? The way I'm reading it, the whole thing is a sort of reality show and the soldier's in the army are competing for some sort of prize. What prize? How is Connor tied to all of this?
At least the characters have now posed all the questions about James I could think of after the last issue (through Kate). Is that a badge she's wearing at her belt? Is she posing as a cop or did she get her badge back? Did I miss something?
I love this whole line/scene from Kate. I could see it play out on TV. Especially, "We've had this unresolved sexual tension between us for so long, percolating like a--no, I think simmering's a better word for it. Simmering like a--" Cut. "My point is, why not just get it out of the way..."
Favorite panel so far: Spike: "True. I am just that great."
Oh man. The Betta George "What are you doing in my room?" thing makes me laugh every time. And what's even better is that it's an anti-payoff. The non-humanoids are the only ones not effected.
More funny.
Ah man. The Soul Eater. Does this mean we get to see her plan the next issue? I think the best thing to do with James right now is make him a long time bad guy on the periphery. Like Wolfram & Hart and follow the Soul Eater for a while. Making James a big Big Bad would sort of redeem the randomness of his betrayal and switch to evil. Give more time to explain why the whole charade, too. Plus, more Soul Eater = Good in my book.
The Gunn stuff is intense. I haven't read Only Human yet, but is it possible that Gunn doesn't remember doing any of those things? Hell, this might have been mentioned in the main sequence but my mind is kinda fuzzy on everything before the Willingham arc (especially since there was about 6 or so months there where I'd read the new issue once and not think about the series again for a while). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hawkedup
Transforumer
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 1221
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Double Dutchess wrote: | | How? Why? Angel can already have sex without having "curse problems", so what difference would this make? |
Because the only two times we've seen Angel lose his soul is when he was (or thought he was) having sex. Obviously in his mind, sex is sort of the "cherry on top" if you will that is so important that it triggers the curse. If Angel realizes that sex is only a byproduct of a relationship rather than the "climax" when he's with Buffy then maybe sex won't trigger it!
Okay, I just realized that that isn't so much solving the curse as changing the trigger to something other than sex. What would the new trigger be, though, I wonder? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Double Dutchess
Transforumer
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hawkedup wrote: | | I love the Illyria dialogue. I can just imagine Amy Acker saying it in her completely monotone Illyria voice with the head tilts and whatnot. |
Some of the things she said sounded off to me. I already mentioned that "what more could a woman want" is not something I'd expect a former God-King to say (though we should probably blame it on her "being in heat"). Also, her asking Connor if he'd turned evil again seemed strange to me. Since when does Illyria care about good or evil, or even make the distinction? And I find her new habit of constantly questioning her own choice of words rather annoying.
| Quote: | | So Laura has something against Spike. Do they know each other from the past or is it just the stuff she's read being a Watcher? |
I think it's most likely that she just thinks he's a dick. (Oops -- claps hand over mouth.)
| Quote: | | Connor's army. What's going on with that? The way I'm reading it, the whole thing is a sort of reality show and the soldier's in the army are competing for some sort of prize. What prize? How is Connor tied to all of this? |
That's how I read it too. Maybe Connor is the prize in their competition. After all, what more could a woman want? 
| Quote: | | Oh man. The Betta George "What are you doing in my room?" thing makes me laugh every time. And what's even better is that it's an anti-payoff. The non-humanoids are the only ones not effected. |
The opening of that scene did mislead me into thinking, "Oh no, not them too..." It was a good trick. I wonder why George was using such formal language though. Was he (unconsciously or on purpose) mimicking Polyphemus' speaking style?
| Quote: | | The Gunn stuff is intense. I haven't read Only Human yet, but is it possible that Gunn doesn't remember doing any of those things? Hell, this might have been mentioned in the main sequence but my mind is kinda fuzzy on everything before the Willingham arc (especially since there was about 6 or so months there where I'd read the new issue once and not think about the series again for a while). |
Gunn remembers it all. I don't really understand how you could read that scene as him not remembering. To me it's clear he knows exactly what Eddie is talking about, and Eddie hit the nail on the head with his question "Then why do you act so guilty?"
| hawkedup wrote: | | Double Dutchess wrote: | | How? Why? Angel can already have sex without having "curse problems", so what difference would this make? |
Because the only two times we've seen Angel lose his soul is when he was (or thought he was) having sex. Obviously in his mind, sex is sort of the "cherry on top" if you will that is so important that it triggers the curse. If Angel realizes that sex is only a byproduct of a relationship rather than the "climax" when he's with Buffy then maybe sex won't trigger it! |
The trigger is "perfect happiness", not sex. (Not even perfect sex.) I'm not so clear on the second time, but the first time Angel lost his soul it wasn't while he was having sex, but after he'd had sex with Buffy for the first time and was lying contented in her arms. I think it was the whole situation (having been with Buffy for the first time, basking in her love after having been an outcast for almost a century) that made him perfectly happy and triggered the curse. The sex was just one of several factors playing a role in that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hawkedup
Transforumer
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 1221
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I read the Gunn scene two ways. 1) Gunn remembers. 2) Gunn doesn't actually remember but he knows because he's been told. It would explain why he doesn't seem as soul racked as everyone expected him to be.
Also, I'm not saying sex triggers the curse. I'm saying that sex seems to trigger that moment of perfect happiness which in turn triggers the curse.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vampire in Rug
Forum Zombie
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 269
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gunn should definitely remember. As soon as "the Hell moment" was reversed the first thing Gunn did was beg Angel to let him die. I don't think that would be the case if Gunn didn't remember all his misdeeds. Then we had Non healing all of Gunn's injuries and he definitely remembered there. Gunn just woke from a coma, there would have been no time for anyone to inform Gunn of what went down in Hell-A if he didn't already remember. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Allycat
Slayer
Joined: 09 Mar 2008
Posts: 84
Location: Nijmegen, Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
First ten pages I was starting to think all the Angel-haters were right that the title had gone to ****, but as everything started getting really out of hand, I realised something must be up and I'm glad it was. Funny.
| Veiriti wrote: | Well, I'm pretty sure Angelus has had fouresome (is it a word right word?!) all Fanged four in orgy maybe  |
Nope, he hasn't. In the Girl in Question, Spike and Angel comment on the fact that Darla & Dru allowed the Immortal to ravage them simultaneously, which they've never been allowed.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deborahmm
Transforumer
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 2270
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Allycat wrote: | | First ten pages I was starting to think all the Angel-haters were right that the title had gone to ****, |
So you think the people who haven't liked this story so far are all 'Angel-haters', do you? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Does it follow that because some of us don't like the way Spike is being written that we therefore must hate Angel? That makes no sense whatsoever.
_________________
Aargh! 'Shippers! There goes the neighbourhood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Allycat
Slayer
Joined: 09 Mar 2008
Posts: 84
Location: Nijmegen, Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Deborahmm wrote: | | So you think the people who haven't liked this story so far are all 'Angel-haters', do you? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Does it follow that because some of us don't like the way Spike is being written that we therefore must hate Angel? That makes no sense whatsoever. |
Sorry, I should've been clearer. Angel-haters might be somewhat of a misnomer. I mean hating in the Hip-Hop slang kind of way (a languange I clearly do not master ).
What I meant to say was that there seems to be quite a large group of people within the Buffyverse fandom who are very vocal about their displeasure with the current Angel comics. ("They iz hatin' on Angel, aight?" hence the term.)
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deborahmm
Transforumer
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 2270
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Allycat wrote: | | Deborahmm wrote: | | So you think the people who haven't liked this story so far are all 'Angel-haters', do you? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Does it follow that because some of us don't like the way Spike is being written that we therefore must hate Angel? That makes no sense whatsoever. |
Sorry, I should've been clearer. Angel-haters might be somewhat of a misnomer. I mean hating in the Hip-Hop slang kind of way (a languange I clearly do not master ).
What I meant to say was that there seems to be quite a large group of people within the Buffyverse fandom who are very vocal about their displeasure with the current Angel comics. ("They iz hatin' on Angel, aight?" hence the term.) |
Oh hey, sorry for jumping on you like that. From what you said, I thought you meant that the people who didn't like the comic hated Angel the character, not that they hated the comic called 'Angel'. Sorry again for putting 2 and 2 together and making 5.
Glad you enjoyed it anyway.
_________________
Aargh! 'Shippers! There goes the neighbourhood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Double Dutchess
Transforumer
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hawkedup wrote: | | Also, I'm not saying sex triggers the curse. I'm saying that sex seems to trigger that moment of perfect happiness which in turn triggers the curse. |
But --as we've been shown several times-- sex doesn't always trigger perfect happiness. I'd say it only does so in very specific circumstances (first time with the girl he loves). So yeah, I suppose that if Angel would somehow get to regard that kind of experience as "trivial" it would no longer be a reason for perfect happiness. (For neither of the two people involved...) Still there is no reason to assume there could be no other triggers for perfect happiness.
| Allycat wrote: | | In the Girl in Question, Spike and Angel comment on the fact that Darla & Dru allowed the Immortal to ravage them simultaneously, which they've never been allowed. |
Which they had never been allowed until then -- it's very well possible they remedied this afterwards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Allycat
Slayer
Joined: 09 Mar 2008
Posts: 84
Location: Nijmegen, Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Deborahmm wrote: | Oh hey, sorry for jumping on you like that. From what you said, I thought you meant that the people who didn't like the comic hated Angel the character, not that they hated the comic called 'Angel'. Sorry again for putting 2 and 2 together and making 5.
Glad you enjoyed it anyway. |
You know, the thing is that since there are so many detractors of Angel (the comic) and they are very vocal about it, that makes it harder for positive sounds to be heard. And when I've read an issue that I've genuinely enjoyed and then read all the fan responses about how totally out-of-character just about everything was, then I'm thinking"Oh, maybe I shouldn't be liking this either?" but since I do, my next thought it "Maybe I'm not a real fan then, since my interpretation of the characters is wide enough to allow the characterisations in these comics?" Although on an intellectual level I know that that's just silly, I've seen every episode just as often as the next guy and I love both shows just as much as everyone else, but on a more emotional level it sort of does sting. The vocal detractors of Angel (the comic) are not just deriding it, but also the creators involved, and what's worse other fans who do like it.
*rant ends here*
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deborahmm
Transforumer
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 2270
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Allycat wrote: | | Deborahmm wrote: | Oh hey, sorry for jumping on you like that. From what you said, I thought you meant that the people who didn't like the comic hated Angel the character, not that they hated the comic called 'Angel'. Sorry again for putting 2 and 2 together and making 5.
Glad you enjoyed it anyway. |
You know, the thing is that since there are so many detractors of Angel (the comic) and they are very vocal about it, that makes it harder for positive sounds to be heard. And when I've read an issue that I've genuinely enjoyed and then read all the fan responses about how totally out-of-character just about everything was, then I'm thinking"Oh, maybe I shouldn't be liking this either?" but since I do, my next thought it "Maybe I'm not a real fan then, since my interpretation of the characters is wide enough to allow the characterisations in these comics?" Although on an intellectual level I know that that's just silly, I've seen every episode just as often as the next guy and I love both shows just as much as everyone else, but on a more emotional level it sort of does sting. The vocal detractors of Angel (the comic) are not just deriding it, but also the creators involved, and what's worse other fans who do like it.
*rant ends here* |
And there was me thinking we were cool now.
If I don't like something I'm going to say so. Sorry if that detracts from your enjoyment, but tough. As a paying customer of IDW from the very first Angel comic they produced, I feel I'm entitled to say so if I don't like their product any more. If you feel that other people not liking something you like is some kind of personal insult, that's your problem. Just think how fans of Ghost Whisperer must feel.
_________________
Aargh! 'Shippers! There goes the neighbourhood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spacediva70
Slayer
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Posts: 93
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Allycat"][quote="Deborahmm"]Oh hey, sorry for jumping on you like that. From what you said, I thought you meant that the people who didn't like the comic hated Angel the character, not that they hated the comic called 'Angel'. Sorry again for putting 2 and 2 together and making 5.
Glad you enjoyed it anyway.[/quote]
You know, the thing is that since there are so many detractors of [i]Angel[/i] (the comic) and they are very vocal about it, that makes it harder for positive sounds to be heard. And when I've read an issue that I've genuinely enjoyed and then read all the fan responses about how totally out-of-character just about everything was, then I'm thinking"Oh, maybe I shouldn't be liking this either?" but since I do, my next thought it "Maybe I'm not a real fan then, since my interpretation of the characters is wide enough to allow the characterisations in these comics?" Although on an intellectual level I know that that's just silly, I've seen every episode just as often as the next guy and I love both shows just as much as everyone else, but on a more emotional level it sort of does sting. The vocal detractors of [i]Angel[/i] (the comic) are not just deriding it, but also the creators involved, and what's worse other fans who do like it.
*rant ends here*[/quote]
I kind of feel the same way. I've enjoyed the Angel comics...more so then the Buffy comics (hope I don't get killed for that). I think people focus too much on the negative and how "they would have done it" sometimes. People are entitled to there opinion though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hawkedup
Transforumer
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 1221
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Re: The Sex/Curse Thing - Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've seen Angel lose his soul twice and in both cases Angel is in the act (or has just finished) having sex, right? Other things have to add up first, obviously, but sex is the trigger for perfect happiness. Sorry, Duchess, I'm just not quite sure what point you're arguing. Maybe you're just saying that sex doesn't always trigger perfect happiness, which... Well, yeah. If the other things that make Angel happy don't line up before the sex (like, say, the person isn't the girl of Angel's dreams but just one he kinda likes cos she's sorta art girl freaky werewolf) then of course the sex won't trigger the curse what with that not being the point of the curse. Anyway, like I said, I'm not exactly sure where the argument is so I'll stop here.
Re: Hatin' on da Angel Bizzoy - Some people have had time to form concrete images of what they think the characters are/should be. I think it's hard for some people to let go of the characters enough to let someone other than Joss take control of them on such an official level (meaning not fanfic). Some people just don't like Willingham. But everyone has a right to voice their opinion, no matter what that opinion is (concerning the Angelverse).
| Quote: | | I kind of feel the same way. I've enjoyed the Angel comics...more so then the Buffy comics (hope I don't get killed for that). I think people focus too much on the negative and how "they would have done it" sometimes. People are entitled to there opinion though. |
I could have written this! So you won't get killed by me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Double Dutchess
Transforumer
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hawkedup wrote: | | Re: The Sex/Curse Thing - Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've seen Angel lose his soul twice and in both cases Angel is in the act (or has just finished) having sex, right? Other things have to add up first, obviously, but sex is the trigger for perfect happiness. Sorry, Duchess, I'm just not quite sure what point you're arguing. Maybe you're just saying that sex doesn't always trigger perfect happiness, which... Well, yeah. If the other things that make Angel happy don't line up before the sex (like, say, the person isn't the girl of Angel's dreams but just one he kinda likes cos she's sorta art girl freaky werewolf) then of course the sex won't trigger the curse what with that not being the point of the curse. Anyway, like I said, I'm not exactly sure where the argument is so I'll stop here. |
To be honest I'm no longer sure myself -- rereading your posts on the topic, I largely agree with what you've said about how the curse works. Your suggestion that Angel should start regarding the first time having sex with the girl of his dreams as trivial was just making me feel a bit uncomfortable, so I tried (unsuccessfully) to punch holes in your theory. But I have to admit it seems sound; I just don't like it much.
| Quote: | | I think it's hard for some people to let go of the characters enough to let someone other than Joss take control of them on such an official level (meaning not fanfic). |
If this were the case, then how do you explain why (possibly the same) some people also don't like how Angel is being portrayed in the Buffy comics, where Joss is at the helm? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
