IDW Publishing Forums :: View topic - Spike #6 Preview,Reviews,Reactions And Spoilers

IDW Publishing Forums
A home for all IDW fans.

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Spike #6 Preview,Reviews,Reactions And Spoilers
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

IDW Publishing Forums Forum Index -> Angel

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Veiriti
Transforumer

Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 505

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:07 am Post subject:

Quote:

On one hand, her line "I'll be a church girl" may be Dru seeing her future (she gets a soul and ends up in a convent). Maybe Joss needs a souled Dru in season 9 to introduce a Spike-centric triangle: Buffy/Spike/Dru. So far, Buffy was in the center, between Spike and Angel - maybe it's time to give her a worthy rival and make her jealous.

Hee, hee, not bad idea, MW, Dru is ending in a convent. Actually she was about to go into a monastery before Angelus to drive her mad and to sire her. And I love the idea of Buffy/Spike/Dru yep, similar to the threesome picture in LWTG, but with Spike in the middle! How about Spike chained between Buffy and Dru?! Twisted Evil

Quote:

She will start feeling guilty and probably seek for help from the person she feels closer. And that person is certainly NOT Spike. As proven by the series, Dru always felt closer and prefered daddy Angel than Spike.
But the problem here is that basically, Dru is insane. So, although she will have the same reaction with the other vampires, she is crazy and won't be able to find a purpose like the other vampires did.
Somebody will have to build a mental hospital just for her, and we don't know if the medication for humans work on the vampires.

Well, Leyki, we’ve seen Angel in the same state in Faith’s house – a souled vampire, guilty and insane. What about to put Dru in with him to keep him a company? As you’ve mentioned Dru always was so close to her beloved daddy. Very Happy

OK, I’m just kidding! Wink

_________________

Spike - "Love like that makes you stronger than anything... you CAN SAVE THE WORLD WITH A LOVE LIKE THAT."

Jean-Vic
Transforumer

Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1488
Location: Blackpool, England

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:34 am Post subject:

Deborahmm wrote:

Not going to argue the toss with you again, Jean-Vic, because I know we'll never agree. I just don't think Angel's story makes any sense if he's going around feeling guilty for something an entirely different person did. Apart from that one incident in season 4 you cite, which I think is plot-driven only, Angel nowhere differentiates himself from Angelus, and why would he? Angelus is him without a soul.

Just trying to have a friendly discussion, Deb. Personally, I think Angel's story is better if he feels guilt for something he isn't responsible for, because it makes his journey etc more tragic and his positive deeds more heroic.

And there is more than just that one instance of evidence, but I will respect you and won't go into them.

And to clarify, I agreed that Angel doesn't differentiate. I said that Angel sees himself and Angelus as one, but Angelus doesn't. Angelus always distinguishes between the two. "Your boyfriend is dead." "Angel won't allow himself to remember the good times." Angel always says "I". Angelus always says "Angel". I agreed with you.

Quote:

That's it, as far as I'm concerned. There's a whole thread dedicated to this argument way back in the archives. Nothing that was said in that thread made me change my mind, and I'm sure nothing you read did either. Let's leave it there.

If you so wish, my dear.
_________________
I'm so glad I'm an Asshole!

Enisy
Forum Zombie

Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 290
Location: Europe

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:42 am Post subject:

Joss Whedon: In a way, [Spike] really didn't change that much. He's a character that I always liked a little bit more than Angel because -- Interviewer: He's got more of an edge. Joss Whedon: He was more evolved, though. He had more of an edge, but at the same time, you know, he chose to have a soul. He learned from his mistakes and he -- Angel was kinda the classic Lestat puffy shirt, you know. And Spike was sort of the new mod rebellion against that, so I... I like that character. Joss does not speak of a "Demon Spike" and an "Angelus"; only of Spike and Angel. He parallels Spike's choosing to get a soul to Angel's unwillingly getting cursed with one, when talking about his preference of one character over the other ("he was more evolved [than Angel] ... he chose to have a soul"). If there is a dichotomy there, as you claim, then what fault is it of Angel's that Angelus didn't seek his soul out, and why would Joss detract his character points for that, when comparing him to the other souled vampire available? His perception of their character arcs is obviously streamlined. (And don't say he was speaking of "Angelus" unless you can also say -- with a straight face -- that Angelus is a "Lestat puffy shirt" or that Spike has "more of an edge" than him.)

Mariah
IDW Editor

Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Posts: 115

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:03 am Post subject:

Wow. It didn't take long for the same issues to pop back up. I don't want to have to lock the thread, but really guys, I don't want to see any more posts about whose interpretation is the "best" or whether or not people were watching the same show. They were, move on.

fender_love
I'm kind of a big deal

Joined: 09 Feb 2009
Posts: 157
Location: STO Headquarters.

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:34 am Post subject:

leyki wrote:

That doesn't mean that souls are detachable though, because if they were, we would have seen plenty of examples in which demons would try to remove souls from humans.

How do we know there aren't? We've seen a select number of demons throughout the show, so in such a diverse group, there could be a lot of demons that could do something similar to what that group was doing. Could a vengeance demon detach a soul? I think so.

Quote:

The Mayor SOLD his soul, the soul wasn't detached away from him. There is a difference.

See, to me, that's splitting hairs. We've seen a race of demons that can take souls without someone's will, and we've seen that the average person can sign away their soul. If souls can be involuntarily put back in this 'verse, then by the same token they can be involuntarily taken away.

Quote:

The Mayor and Faith didn't know what or how he could do it.

So, the Mayor, who had all the information and power to find the Rights of Ascension to turn himself into an Old One, has already sold his soul, and kept himself in control of a mystical convergence for over a century, would just willy-nilly hire any demon off the street to do the job without knowing whether or not the demon had the power to involuntarily remove a soul? I just find that hard to believe. If involuntary soul-removal was impossible, I think that someone like Wilkins would know that.

Quote:

A lot of things have changed in the mythology since season 1.
BtVS was only supposed to be on air for one summer, not for 7 years.
Vampires don't have souls, Whedon changed his mythology in season 2 up until now.

So we just ignore S1 and accept that whatever new thing the writers came up with goes? Just pretend that the retcons don't exist? Sorry, S1 stands as a reason to ponder in my book.

Quote:

Being born without a soul, is not the same as detaching it.
The soul collecting vessel was to prevent Angel's soul lost in the air.

If a human can be born without a soul for no reason, that leads me to believe that souls are kind of precarious in the 'verse. Also, Orbs of Thesulah weren't specifically created for Angel (I'm not sure about that jar thing was in Ats). The shopkeeper describes them as spirit vaults of the undead, and they were a sorta easily to find object (and New Age paperweight). Now, why would someone mass-product spirit vaults of the undead, which leaves vampires and zombies as recipients. However, Angel implies that it might not just be the undead, "If memory serves, this is supposed to summon a person's soul... from the ether... store it until it can be transferred." Of course, when he says "person," he could just mean "undead persons," but seems like being just for the undead doesn't really give the object enough of a purpose to be easy to find and own, and he's definitely not implying that "a person's soul" specifically refers to Angel only.

Quote:

Darla never shared the soul the way you describe it...

She was effected by it. It conflicted with what she thought her desires should be and made her feel differently. That's what a soul does, and to me, that's good enough to say that she and Connor were sharing it. Once Connor was born, the influence would go away. In a way, that's how I see souls in the Buffyverse. They are like signs of life, metaphorically speaking. Life can be given and taken involuntarily, and souls can be given and taken. People are born with souls they didn't ask for, and when they die, the soul goes up into the ether. They don't have a lot of choice over what happens their representative little ball of sunshine.

Quote:

Vampire!Darla, never asked or wanted another chance.

Neither did a certain doe-eyed vampire, but I don't fault him for that. Laughing

Actually, back at the end of S6 when we were still gloriously in the time of shooting scripts that came out online a week before the episodes aired, the script that got leaked had a fake-out to confuse spoiler-hunters. In the fake script which unfortunately was the script that they gave to Mr. Marsters to act by, Spike goes to the demon to get out his chip, and while they were filming, Whedon told Marsters that the ending had been changed and to just react with the same scream that was at the end of the script that he already had no matter what was said by the demon (kinda like George Lucas did to Mark Hamill with the Daddy Vader bit). When they filmed the demon returned Spike's soul, and Spike screams. James thought that Spike had been involuntarily given back his soul when he really wanted the chip out; it was only later that Whedon revealed that Spike wanted his soul back the entire time and the fake script was only to keep the real ending hidden until it aired (it didn't help because that script got leaked on the 'net too two days before the ep aired). Anyways, even though that wasn't the real ending and therefore not part of the source material, Whedon found it plausible that a soul could be involuntarily given back to someone with strong enough magics without a curse or happiness clause. And by that, it can be assumed, if an episode called for it, a writer would have a soul be taken away, even partially and if for a humorous purpose- hey, that's why we have Kathy! Laughing

The 'verse is rich, and there's nothing that absolutely cannot happen, in my opinion. Everything that was supposed to be concrete about it gets turned on its head eventually, so souls coming and going doesn't seem that implausible.

Sorry for the length of this. *scampers off*
_________________
:: Please, visit my Deviantart gallery. ::

leyki
Red Shirt

Joined: 16 Mar 2011
Posts: 14

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:10 am Post subject:

Jean-Vic wrote:

Yeah, to Angel. Angel sees himself as Angelus. Course he does. He has the memories of everything and obviously feels guilt, but was it him doing them?

Angelus seems to consider himself very different to Angel. Angelus sees them as two distinct people. Angel refers to self. Angelus refers to Angel. Angel was around when Jasmine destroyed all knowledge of the Beast. So, if Angel and Angelus are truly one mind, why did Angelus remember what Angel could not?? Why did the judge say Angelus had no humanity whereas Spike "reeked" of it??

Way I've always looked at Angel and Angelus is a schizophrenic without medication. A schizophrenic without medication has the potential to hurt people. He does. Put him back on medication and he is not susceptible any more. He isn't responsible for the deaths he caused, but he sure as hell feels the guilt of what "he" did.

A schizophrenic is still one person.
Having 2 or more personalities doesn't make you 2 or more persons.
You are still one person, one entity, with 2 or more personalities.

Angel is the result of years of torturing and pain and guilt of Angelus.
Angel was just his way of "recovering" or bearing the burden of the soul.
He developped a second personality in order to "help" himself since noone was willing to help him.
His second personality didn't just appear after the curse, he was still Angelus who went back to Darla, twice, trying to make her accept him back. He was even killing to prove himself.

Deborahmm
Transforumer

Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 2270

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:47 am Post subject:

Jean-Vic wrote:

If you so wish, my dear.

_________________
Aargh! 'Shippers! There goes the neighbourhood.

Deborahmm
Transforumer

Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 2270

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:56 am Post subject:

Double Dutchess wrote:

And though I appreciate Spike's soul loss as a way of contrasting his reaction to it to Angel's, I'm not sure if that does it for me as a sufficient reason to go there for Spike too.

It would certainly have worked better if not for the Willingham storyline. I agree. Not everything about Spike should be compare/contrast with Angel. I expect if the Spike series had been ongoing as it was originally meant to be, there would have been other storylines coming up that would have worked better for me. I don't like that part of the 8 issues has to be taken up with that annoying bug ship either. I hate it.

Quote:

ETA: and now I've read everyone's comments and am completely confused as to whose soul Drusilla actually has. Is it her own, or Spike's?

Double Dutchess wrote:

That's what I'd like to know too. But I'm not convinced that giving the soul to Drusilla was a result of affected judgement because of Spike's soul loss. He needed to do very quick thinking, and I can completely understand that he judged Drusilla to be the best candidate around. He didn't really have the opportunity to think through how it might affect her.

I realise now that he probably had no choice. I would like it, though, if there was time for him to admit that he knows it's a problematic thing to do.
_________________
Aargh! 'Shippers! There goes the neighbourhood.

Jean-Vic
Transforumer

Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1488
Location: Blackpool, England

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:35 pm Post subject:

leyki wrote:

A schizophrenic is still one person.
Having 2 or more personalities doesn't make you 2 or more persons.
You are still one person, one entity, with 2 or more personalities.

If you have a personality that is uncontrollable, that without medication/soul acts irrationally and hurts people, something you would not do when you have medication/soul, how can that be said to be the same person? IMO, they are different people in one body. One has the constraints of society, morality, conscience. The other has nothing but will and desire.

Quote:

Angel is the result of years of torturing and pain and guilt of Angelus.
Angel was just his way of "recovering" or bearing the burden of the soul.
He developped a second personality in order to "help" himself since noone was willing to help him.
His second personality didn't just appear after the curse, he was still Angelus who went back to Darla, twice, trying to make her accept him back. He was even killing to prove himself.

But this is what gets me. Why did he go back to Darla? Same reason Spike went back to Buffy. It was all he knew. For 160 years it was Angelus and Darla. He knows nothing more. He sought her out because she was, for want of a better word, his home. Like Buffy for Spike. Angel killed criminals. Not innocents. He wasn't evil. He was a human being in a vampire's body seeking to remain with all he knew. In the end, when the life of a baby was on the line, he fled and exiled himself from vampire and human society alike.

And I don't agree that Angel was formed after years. Watching the scene of a newly souled Angel, he seems completely different to Angelus immediately. In China he is not the happy, revelling in evil that Angelus was. He was miserable, and visibly condemned his companions for their destruction of human life, if not verbally. While Spike before and after remains very similar, even boasting at times about some of his "adventures", Angel is nothing like Angelus in personality, outlook, attitude, behaviour. I mean, even in combat Angel and Angelus differ greatly. Angel fights and kills relatively quickly. Angelus beat Buffy, he beat Faith, he beat Spike, but it wasn't enough and he sought to destroy every fibre of what they were before he killed them. Angelus wants to destroy souls, ruin lives. Angel wants to save them. Spike WANTED to save lives (Dawn, Buffy) before the soul. I cannot believe that the only compulsion Angel has to save lives is guilt. "Iwant to save you." Soul gone. "Gonna kill you now." It's too drastic a change in split seconds. If Angel wants to help so badly, why does Angelus so vehemently want to hurt. Surely, what Angel has learned would stick with Angelus even after the soul, unless the lessons weren't learned by Angelus in the first place. Angel, IMO, was not just a snapping point that Angelus created to preserve his own sanity.

IMO, Angelus was the creation of every wicked thought and desire Liam ever had. He was the voice in Liam's head that compelled him to do evil things but which the human would not succumb too. I mean, how many times has someone annoyed you and you wanted to punch them, or hurt them. It's a deep seated desire within all humans which is never acted upon (in most cases). Angelus was just the monster within all of us that got let out. In that sense, Liam/Angel was responsible for every dirty thing Angelus did, but, was Liam/Angel physically there, in mind and spirit, or did Liam return with the soul to cage the desires once more??

Schizophrenic. It may be the same body. Those desires might belong to the same man. But is the man actually committing those crimes when the medication is removed, or his mind doing things it would never do when constrained?
_________________
I'm so glad I'm an Asshole!

leyki
Red Shirt

Joined: 16 Mar 2011
Posts: 14

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:19 pm Post subject:

fender_love wrote:

leyki wrote:

That doesn't mean that souls are detachable though, because if they were, we would have seen plenty of examples in which demons would try to remove souls from humans.

Quote:

The Mayor SOLD his soul, the soul wasn't detached away from him. There is a difference.

Quote:

The Mayor and Faith didn't know what or how he could do it.

Quote:

So we just ignore S1 and accept that whatever new thing the writers came up with goes? Just pretend that the retcons don't exist? Sorry, S1 stands as a reason to ponder in my book.

Quote:

Being born without a soul, is not the same as detaching it.
The soul collecting vessel was to prevent Angel's soul lost in the air.

Quote:

Darla never shared the soul the way you describe it...

Quote:

Vampire!Darla, never asked or wanted another chance.

Neither did a certain doe-eyed vampire, but I don't fault him for that. Laughing

I had written a reply but it got deleted, although i don't think it was rude or sth...
So i don't want to spend another 15 minutes replying to the next post of yours about schizophrenic.
Just informing you that i don't ignore you, i'm just afraid of posting sth.
Smile

Mariah
IDW Editor

Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Posts: 115

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:08 pm Post subject:

Maggie2 wrote:

Mariah wrote:

We're not mucking about with mythology. You'll see how it plays out in #7 and #8.

See -- I think you are. I think it's inescapable when you take up the subject of souls. You are assuming that Spike's soul is as detachable as is Angel's. Maybe you want us to think that if Willow had been pushed into the circle, she'd have lost her soul instead? That'd also be a new mythology. We have one case of a demon sucking a soul from Buffy, but this really lowers the bar. Anyone can draw a circle, give a well-timed shove and "whoops" there goes the soul.
.

I guess you could say we're assuming things, although like you, we're basing them on the show and what's been established. We can't tell stories that don't build on and branch out from what we already know, or they're stagnant and do nothing new or compelling. And what we know is that souls are lost, won, cursed, magicked, possibly redeemable (Darla), and consumable (Fred).

I think what we disagree on is whether Spike losing his soul now and exploring that possibility somehow undermines him earning it. I think they're two separate things. Nothing can undermine that act. It's too powerful and important. Nothing that happens to him now will ever be able to make that anything other than a remarkable character choice. To choose to earn back a soul when evil? I simply don't think that can ever be undone. Not unless you're choosing to view it that way.

The show has never said that anyone's soul is so firmly rooted it can't be manipulated or magicked. It's just something that's been explored with Angel more than other characters because of who he is and his specific conflict. The second Spike was able to earn his soul, that changed things. Because obviously it's not just something a demon is cursed with, you can choose it. But beyond that, I don't think anything else about it was concretely defined. Unless I am missing a pretty important episode somewhere.

Mind you, it's certainly an interesting theory, and I'm not discounting that there are compelling arguments to be made for it in an academic way as an interpretation. Just like there are against. Like that The First was able to get around it in Spike, or that technically, Spike earned his soul back by fighting some demons and dealing with some irritating bugs. They wanted to explore Spike with a soul, so they found a way for him to earn it. You could easily argue that the feats he went through to earn it were not overly tough...but to me, how he earned it is less important than the fact that he chose to.

As for Angel's lost and found soul issue, I'd say it probably has a lot more to do with wanting to use Angelus in the narrative. Not because Angel is the only character who has a soul that can be magicked. That's just the reality of storytelling when you need to get a character from point A to point B. You choose how they do it. In that sense, no story is really "organic" because the storyteller is deciding how and why a character does what they do because you need the story to go somewhere.

All we're really assuming is that this is a magickal world where magickal things can and do happen. Based on certain things that have previously happened with many characters souls, is it logical that something could happen to Spike's? We think so. Following the logic that Spike's soul is more attached...was Fred less attached to her soul and that's why Illyria was able to obliterate it? Was Wesley less attached to his, so he was able to contract it to W&H? All interesting to explore as a part of that theory, but they also indicate that no one's soul is immune to anything magickal in this world, human or otherwise.

Asking a questions about what Spike would be like without a soul doesn't change the mythology, it's just bearing out a worthy theme. Something like the Seed in Season 8? That changes mythology. I rather think that soul attachment is the kind of thing they wouldn't define. Otherwise you've just backed yourself into a limited story corner and end up having to retcon things when it suddenly becomes apparent that it contradicts half your story.

The Whedonverse has shifted a lot over the years. It's always growing and building on itself. One of the best things about it is that no character is "safe". It asks toughs questions and doesn't give easy answers. There is nothing that is too sacred to be explored, so long as it's done thoughtfully.

A story about Spike wondering about leadership sounds find and all, and it's partly what this arc has been about. But it's just not the whole story we're telling. We can't tell stories based on guessing what individual fans want, or think we "should" tell a story about. That wouldn't serve the story or the character because no two fans view any of this the same way. So we look at it as objectively as possible and run with the story that seems to best serve the character.

Let's face it, there is no other question as big and recurring as "What's in a soul?" in the Whedonverse. Especially when it comes to the two vamps who have them. We felt we owed it to the character to make our last story with him something worth telling. And to do that, you have to take risks and go big or go home.

All of this is to say, I am not in any way trying to tell you that you should like this story or feel differently than you do. It's by way of explaining how we came to it and what we based it on. Which is, I think, just as legitimate as many of the interpretations you have that differ. It's pretty clear that everyone deeply cares about this character and these stories, and I think that's something worth being proud of.

Mariah
IDW Editor

Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Posts: 115

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:11 pm Post subject:

Okee doke, sorry guys, I'm locking this thread. I'm seeing a trend in commenting where it's not really a discussion anymore. Time to step back and talk about something else. Maybe we should start a thread about the rules of Kitten Poker. :}

Display posts from previous:

	IDW Publishing Forums Forum Index -> Angel	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Page 10 of 10

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