Talk:Angel (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Buffyverse-related article is part of WikiProject Buffyverse, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Buffy, Angel & the rest of the Buffyverse. You can help! Visit the project page, episode checklist or discuss an article at the project talk-page.

Buffy Portal

A summary of this article appears in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

	This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Angel (TV series) was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-02-15

I have added a show overview similar to the Buffy page. The comparisons between Buffy and Angel also seemed relevant to me. BarkingDoc

Excellent work! The initial, spoiler-free, overview is just fantastic. :) Martin

Contents 1 DVD New Version 2 Collapsing witticisms 3 Harmony in Unaired Buffy pilot and Angel finale? 4 Angel and Darla 5 Big bads 6 What were the Senior Partners thinking 7 No more discussion 8 External Links 9 Lists of characters 10 Failed "good article" nomination 11 Article size

[edit] DVD New Version

On Amazon there are DVDs listed as Angel Season 1 (New Edition) (and seasons 2-5 are there as well) what is so new about these dvds?? ~Tydamann

They're just the slim case ones, IIRC, it's just new packaging, same discs... Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 03:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsing witticisms

As I belatedly got around to watching Joss Whedon's third series Firefly, I found myself wondering about something. One of many recurring entertainments of these Whedon shows is the occasional witty line that suddenly dies in the middle, as if the wit suddenly ran out. Here are Buffy and Firefly examples:

Buffy: Giles, it's one thing to be a Watcher and a librarian. They go together, like chicken and… guh, another chicken… or… two… chickens, or… something — you know what I'm saying!

from Buffy, "What's My Line?", Part I

---

Mal: Well, looks can be deceiving.

Jayne: Not as deceivin' as a low-down… dirty… deceiver.

from Firefly, "Out of Gas"

---

Jayne: Captain says you're to stay put. Doesn't want you to run afoul of his blushin' psychotic bride. She figures out who you are, she'll turn you in before you can say… "Don't turn me in, lady."

from Firefly, "Trash"; somehow Firefly's always come from Jayne ☺

I haven't seen Angel enough to provide an example, but I'd be shocked if it didn't have plenty to offer. What I'm wondering is whether Whedon-show fans have come up with a term for these collapsing witticisms, like MST3K's "Crow Syndrome" (extending suggestive quips to an extreme, only to be shouted down). The structure certainly isn't unique to Whedon's shows — Blackadder has a good measure of these — but I was hoping that there was a shorthand term among the Buffy/Angel/Firefly crowd. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Angel: the series is loaded with those pittering out witty statements.

[edit] Harmony in Unaired Buffy pilot and Angel finale?

Regarding the trivia point:

• Mercedes McNab appeared in the original pilot for Buffy, and the final episode of Angel, the only character to be featured in both, making a nice full-circle of both shows.

Just a question, what about the more obvious example of Angel himself? He obviously appeared in the finale, and IIRC the Buffy pilot too. Clarification?

Angel did not appear in the buffy pilot -- Paxomen 18:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

He definetly did appear in the first episode, though not in the so-called "Unaired Pilot" for Buffy. There may be some confusion there. In any event, Angel did span the whole of both series. BarkingDoc 00:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

David Boreanaz did appear in Welcome to the Hellmouth but he did not serve as long in the onscreen Buffyverse, as Mercedes McNab who appeared prior to this in the Unaired Buffy pilot (both characters survived to Not Fade Away). -- Paxomen 14:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody considers the unaired pilot part of the buffyverse. It wasn't an actual episode, it was cast differently, very low budget, and would violate the continuity. It was a preview of what a Buffy the Vampire Slayer series could look like, so Angel's been on as long as Harmony.

[edit] Angel and Darla

Now let me start off by saying I am only supposing; no tangible evidence other than impressions from observing. To start to gain knowledge is to wonder.

Was Angel and Darla in love ? They were the equivalent of a couple married for 50 years. In their case over 100 years.

Yes they spent a lot of time arguing with one another. Most of their time together was spent killing humans. There was passion. A lot of passion.

When Angel tried to save Darla from the senior partners, I saw someone acting more out of love than just wanting to save her so she could have a chance at redemption. When he was first ensouled and Darla told him to go he was disgusting, she was only disgusted with him having a soul. When she first saw him in the tavern, I saw that love at first sight expression on her face. She was hurt losing him to his soul.

We can't get inside their minds to know for sure but can examine their actions towards one another, and examine the words they say to each other.

There have been a few, can count on hand, who don't want to look at what may be; only at what is or what is the intent of Joss and his writers. I have nothing against him and his creative imagination. He and a few others is what inspires me to write about my ideas. I am in the research phase for a novel.--Tjkphilosofe 10:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This topic is pretty much however the viewer reads the subtext, but IMO Darla might have loved Angel but Angel def. didn't love Darla whilst he was evil. Remember the Judge who saw the humanity in Spike & Dru's love, but only the pure evil in Angelus. The writer took this on board throughout 'Angel'. In fact there was a vampire guy who got angry with Angel cos he implied Angel never really loved Darla, then killed his girlfriend in the episode 'Heartthrob'. Personally I think the relationship between vampires Angelus and Darla as far more interesting and complex than the simple love between Spike and Dru. --Paxomen 18:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

From that point I can agree. Their relationship goes beyond love. Although when Darla mentioned when she was pregnant she never thought about loving anyone before, doesn't rule out felt love. When Angel and Spike walked into the room after the immortal had way with Drusilla and Darla, Angel looked like one who was cheated upon. The same look a spouse who catches the other in bed with a stranger or worse a friend. In Angel case his arch enemy.

Now some believe that a demon can't feel love or any emotion. Well vampires are half human and pure demons don't like vamps because continue to have that pesky humanity.--Tjkphilosofe 06:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Angelus' uniqueness was that he had no humanity, it's clearly stated.

It depends how you define love. I often think the couple have a twisted kind of relationship which is partly mother/son, partly sexual attraction, partly friendship, and partly wanting dominance and control of each other. Certainly I think there something between them, but it is not the kind of passinate romantic love that existed between Romeo and Juliet, or Spike and Drsilla. As for when Angelus discovered the Immortal had had his way with darla, i never interpreted that as a show of love, but instead a feeling that he had been once again one-upped, by the immortal, more annoyed that the immortal had got the better of him, than angry because he loved darla. Also didn't Buffy once tell someone on one of the shows (I guess Buffy, Cordelia, or Wes), that whilst he was Angelus he hadn't been capable of love. Angelus wasn't just a normal vampire but a special kind of evil, that's why it took him so long (100 years!) to finally come to terms with the pure evil that had been inside him, after getting a soul. -- Paxomen 23:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big bads

Today, someone put up a season-by-season list of important villains on Angel. I'm not sure how I feel about the implications it has as to these characters being "Big Bads" like Buffy is known for. In Buffy, the listed important villains are basically ultimate evil types who continually cause problems for our heros throughout the season before being defeated in an epic battle at the end (Season 6 being a possible exception). The Angel villains, on the other hand, do not consistently display this type of behavior. Wolfram & Hart being a constant annoyance certainly holds up.... but Darla is so fraught with moral ambiguity and isn't really featured as a villain as much as an important character in a serial plot. Holtz and Connor both do plenty of bad stuff, but they're not necessarily evil... just demented. The Beast and Jasmine fit the mold nicely (Jasmine not being evil, but definitely THE problem that the season finale builds up to). Marcus Hamilton, though, is fairly lame as villains go, and I think Season 5 deals with much bigger picture things. He's dwarfed by the themes from the rest of the season.

I'm babbling. Basically, I think the parallel to the Buffy Big Bads might be better removed and the touted instead as important adversaries. I also don't think Marcus Hamilton belongs there since there is so much else going on in that season. I didn't just want to go deleting without some input, though... so what do you think? --NymphadoraTonks 17:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a villians list would be better than a "big bads list" or an "important adversaries list" because with the exception of season 4 and the mini-Pylea arc, Angel didn't really have self contained season arcs like Buffy. The Beast and Hamilton were both pawns so they not big bad worthy. The only ones I could possibly see are Jasmine and Lindsay, maybe Holtz, but he was more of and enemy of Angelus. Jasmine superceded Evil Cordy and the Beast; and Lindsay, well he was always playing his own game and was kind of like Angel's rival throughout the series. If The First makes Buffy's "Big Bad list" than The Wolf, Ram, and Hart could be listed for Angel, but it's implied that both are unbeatable, as in you can take out their minions but their too big to kill.

[edit] What were the Senior Partners thinking

The Senior Partners existed in another reality and more aware. What was the plan.

Many of the lawyers at the firm kept saying Angel is important in the end battle. What were they basing those comments on. Prophecies that vague and open to many interpretations; some were manufactured to lead down false paths. The San Sui and "father will kill the son" and scrolls talking about a birth but no birth.

Jasmine wasn't part of their plan. She hated them and they didn't want her interfering. Also the beast cutting a wide swath through wolf ram hart and killing the "little girl". Also did they want Angel to allow Darla and Drusilla to kill so many of the lawyers.

The powers that be weren't very much help. Vague visions that most of time came to Cordy when it was too late. Not much of a warning to save lives. Also the only form of communication.

[edit] No more discussion

The list of fan sites mention city of angel.com. Well at one time that site was a good source for information and discussion. Since Angel wrapped up the appeal of the site has been declining.

The message boards have now been closed. However I moved to buffy-boards.com before the coa boards closed. I was tired of talking with the same 5 over and over. I have noticed that the site in general not being updated as often now. We all have to keep the Angel page here current. It is all we have.--Tjkphilosofe 02:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

The number of external links needs to be reduced. Please see Wikipedia policy. Only informative links should be included, not just related topics. BarkingDoc 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of characters

Okay, I changed the list of regulars here a while ago and it's been changed back. That's cool, but can anyone tell me if there's some sort of standard way of doing the character lists on these things. Alphabetical? I always used to go by the order that the characters were introduced/made regulars. Help, anyone?Jayunderscorezero 15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 15, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: A few points:

• Whedon was not happy with the way that the Buffy concept was first visited through the 1992 movie, Buffy the Vampire Slayer... I don't know about that usage of "through." I don't like it. Perhaps "by" is a better choice?
• There are an awful lot of parentheticals: "Sunnydale (a fictional small town in California)", " demonically-allied humans (primarily the law firm Wolfram & Hart)", "his own violent nature (the term "demon" when applied to the Angelverse is often morally value-neutral, as opposed to referring to evil beings exclusively)", "regular during the second/third seasons (appearing in the opening credits)", to name a few. Consider rewording these sentences, it will make the prose flow better.
• After being turned into a soulless, immortal vampire, he became legendary for his evil acts, until some enemies punished him by restoring his soul, overwhelming him with guilt. This seems like a run-on sentence; and there is more than one such sentence. These need to be split up. Try varying the prose between long and short sentences, like "two long, one short, one long two short one long three short, etc." It allows the reader to feel like he's having a conversation, and it makes the prose much more enjoyable to read. Check for copyediting too; missing punctuation can be a killer in a long article like this one.
• On Valentine's Day 2004, the WB Network "officially" announced that Angel would not be brought back for a sixth season. Why is the word "officially" in quotes? What does that mean? Was it not official?
• I'm sorry, but the prose does not seem well-written to me. I must fail the article on this criterion.

2. Factually accurate?: There are quite a few sources, and I like that the references section lets the reader know exactly the last time these references were checked. Since it was only 4 months ago, these references are fresh, and I like that. However, there are a few unsourced direct quotes from some people (which is bad), and the WB notice of cancellation on 14 February 2004 doesn't have a reference attached to it. The role playing game needs a source. The cancellation of the show despite a "strong fan following" needs a source. The characters section could use some sources for where these descriptions might be coming from, so that they don't seem like the impressions of a fan. Plot summary definitely needs sources. I suggest combing the article for things like this. I fail the article on this criteria.

3. Broad in coverage?: Very thorough, which I like. Background is discussed, themes, plots, and where the show came from. As a fan of the show myself, I can say that the list of characters definitely seems complete to me. I give the article a pass for this criterion.

4. Neutral point of view?: I wasn't able to find any strikingly POV statements in the article; good work. I pass the article here.

5. Article stability? Definitely stable enough for me. A couple of vandalism incidents don't count against you. Pass.

6. Images?: I like the current set of images, and I think that since the DVDs are out, a couple of screencaps could help out the article nicely. They should qualify under fair use, provided they're low resolution enough. Keep up the good work on the captions, but think about adding some sources there as well. Pass.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.

I can tell that a lot of hard work has gone into this article, and I really like what you've done so far. I don't think it's quite ready for GA, but if you take my suggestions above into account, this article could probably be ready in a week or two. Cheers, –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this article. - Paxomen 14:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article size

As of now (March 2007) this article contains only 31kb of prose, (see User:Paxomen/Angel (TV series): prose only). The guideline Wikipedia:Article size suggests a guideline of 32Kb+ of prose might be too long. But it is just that, a guideline, and it can be the case that shortening any particular section could weaken a broad article, and it is common for the featured articles of television shows to be longer than 32Kb of prose. I strongly disagree with a 'too long' template. None of the sub-sections are too long, and readers only need to read the sections that interest them. This article does not need shortening, we can already see what this article needs from the review by King Bee above, it needs: better prose and the introduction of several more references on the parts specified. -- Paxomen 01:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)