Buffy S8 - Beautiful Sunset Revisted - is Twilight Redeemable or even Justified?

[shadowkat]

So, after the Twilight spoiler...where Allie and others are suggesting that Twilight isn't really a villian or big bad, and that he is redeemable. I went back and re-read the issue where Buffy and Twilight fight, and Twilight critically injures Satsu - putting her in the hospital. I was curious to see if it was possible to redeem Twilight or see Twilight in a positive light, without sending an anti-feminist and sexist, not to mention misogynistic message. I don't believe it is, but I'm open to other views on this score.



Buffy to Satsu: People who love me tend to oh, die...maybe go to a hell dimension, or burn up, or they start letting vamps suck on em and they leave, they all leave, even my friends, sooner or later everybody realizes there's something wrong...something wrong with me, or around me, or... Wow. Did not mean to end up there. (she's crying).

Twilight then throws a boulder at her. And she's bleeding from the nose, injured.

Twilight: The Chosen One Always in Pain...and always complaining. Just like a girl. (This is where he critically injurs Satsu, by breaking her nose, then kicking her into a stone crypt two feet or more away.)

[Buffy goes to slice up the center with the Scythe]

Twilight: I know that move slayer. Le me show you some of mine. (He takes her by the scruff of her shirt in front and pulls her skyward, they are flying.) Understand this girl. You cannot fight me.

Buffy: Understand this ass-clown - I probably will anyway. (she puts the scythe in choke-hold around his neck).

Twilight : I'd expect no less. But I watched you and the witch - it seemed you didn't like flying.

Buffy: I get used to things real fast.

Twilight: Very well then, let's ride. Do you know that I actually came here to talk? (he crashes her into a church) But there you were ...going on about how hard it is for you, and well..I just hate to see you cry. (he is about to stab her with church steeple)

Buffy: Go ahead. Church me. Plenty more where that came from.

Twilight: Well that's the issue isn't it? One Slayer. Was all right. But all these girls...the world can't contain them and they will suffer for that. I'll not kill you now. My first gift is my last. I know that you meant well. But you have brought about disaster. And it falls to me to avert it.

Buffy: Twilight. That's you.

Twilight: Have you made a difference? Have your slayers helped change anything in this world?
Have they helped you?

Twilight to his subordinates/army comrades who have asked why he didn't kill her: That's been done. To Little Effect. The trick is to strip her of her greatest armor...her moral certainity. However hapless she may be about her personal life. This girl has always firmly believes she was on the side of right. And there's one thing I've learned about the slayer...

Meanwhile Buffy is comforting Satsu, and has taken Satsu to the hospital. Both women are covered in bandages. Satsu feels she's failed Buffy in some way, but Buffy reassures her and gives her strength. Then she has the following discussion with Xander...asking him Twilight's questions:

Buffy: Are we doing any good? We've been fighting more demons, but...but it just seems like there's more demons to fight and what is that because of us?

Xander: Buffy, turn around. I live with a bunch of slayers. Dozens of girls who are so filled up with purpose, with confidence they didn't have before...the walls are vibrating with it. I can't sleep the place is so charged....

What you've created here is a lot more than just monster fighters.

Buffy: Connection. Why can't I feel it.

Xander: Maybe you don't get to. Maybe the leader, the girl who brings it all together, is the one that has to give that up.

So my question is - is Twilight redeemable here? Is there any way of interpreting Twilight's dialogue to Buffy as anything other than sexism personified? He seems to want her to remain the one slayer, one lone superhero, like himself. Not share the power - because world can't handle it?

Is there another interpretation? Because I can't see how Twilight can be seen as anything other than an anti-hero. If he is meant to be heroic in any way, or is redeemed, what is that saying?

This issue and the one's that follow seem to state the opposite. Twilight in the Retreat arc attacks a bunch of powerless people, who he knows powered down and gave their power to the earth. He kills them and his own people without seeming to care. Earlier, he engineers either Faith or Gigi's death in No Future For You. And in A Long Way Home - he makes it possible for Amy and Warren to capture Willow and torture her. He's also responsible for countless deaths in Tokyo, not to mention elsewhere.

How is Twilight any different than Angelus or Adam? Is there any difference? Both see themselves as the hired gun, the chosen one to take down Buffy and change the world to fit their desires and their perspective - only difference is Twilight appears to want to restore order or the status quo (a la Wolf Ram and Hart) while Angelus and Adam wanted chaos.

And if he is just a pawn or puppet of the Powers That Be or God - does that excuse his actions? How does he know that's what the Powers or God wants? If you have the best intentions, does that make you right? Can good be achieved through evil? Do the ends ever justify the means?

What about Buffy? Outside of the robbery...and maybe stealing a sub, has she really hurt people? Or is she trying to empower them, give them the ability to make their own choices?
To decide their own fate?

Granted Buffy is far from perfect and empowering all the potential slayers does have dicey consequences in some respects, but with the onslaught of vampires...and demons, doesn't it make sense? And what is so wrong with these girls having power? Why should just one have it?



[ETA: WARNING - While the post is free of the Twilight reveal spoiler, the comments and discussion below are NOT. Do not read the comments if you do not wish to be spoiled. The post can be discussed with or without the spoiler.

ETA2:I'm very spoiled on Buffy S8, so no worries from my perspective. Don't have time to respond now or engage, since at work and very busy. Will come back later.]

Comments

[rahirah]

I could see a scenario in which calling the Slayers meant something Really Awful would happen. And I could see Angel deciding that he had to fix that scenario, and really believing he was in the right. And I could see that, after "Damage" and what happened to Fred, he might not feel like talking to Buffy or trusting her.

But I would think that, if he were to be considered redeemable, he'd have to exhibit some regret for the necessity (as he sees it) of killing these essentially blameless girls. And there's no indication, so far, that he has any.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Allie has said that when we get to #33 or #34 we will see that this is not even the right question. I presume that means there's something crucial we don't know that materially alters the equation.

1. If it's the PtB, it's possible that Allie thinks that's complicating enough for us to be conflicted about the answer. There are plenty of people who have already forgiven Angel murder, mind rape, and suicide becaue he's a hero and had reason. Give him a good enough reason here and people are going to not want to write him off.

2. And if Angel is operating under the orders of present or future Buffy?

3. But I do tend to agree with you, so I hope it's door #3, which is that we don't have the facts of the situation straight some how. Like how Carolyn's act toward Bennet changed when we got one extra sentence thrown at us. I haven't got the imagination to say what that would be in this case. We have seen all this from Buffy's POV, and information about her situation has been withheld. There's clearly information withheld about the world at large: people got persuaded by the vampire=good line *awfully* easily. We've got a lot of magical creatures running around so that this world (the one that's all changed now) really seems different from the one we know. Allie says we haven't yet seen the enormity of what is going on. An awful lot has seen off (hence the legions of disaffected fans). But maybe the big picture makes sense of it all in a way that simultaneously reframes the questions we need to be asking about Angel.

We'll see. I'd hate it if we were asked to buy an ends justifies the means sort of thing and pretend that the dark stuff you mention wasn't really tehre. But I'm not particularly afraid that's how it will actually play out.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Hee, I admittedly view Angel as a darker figure than most fans, possibly even the writers. I read Not Fade Away for example as The Wild Bunch's Last Stand - more an anti-hero tale than a hero one. I saw Angel as an anti-hero/tragic hero a la John Lock (Lost) in a noir horror fantasy.

so I hope it's door # 3, which is that we don't have the facts of the situation straight somehow....Allie says we haven't yet seen the enormity of what is going on.

I agree, I hope that you are correct.

Allie also states we are asking the wrong questions...

Well, I have a lot of questions. The main one is..."where is Spike???"

I just reread the Long Journey Home comic - and Ethan Raine is dressed exactly like Spike, complete with Duster and red shirt, he uses Spike's endearments, much to Buffy's increasingly irritation and annoyance. She tells him not to call her my love or love - more than once, to which he responds - it's just British slang like pet, which he calls her as she shudders stating don't call me that either.
Next scene is her sex fanasty of being wedged between Spike and Angel. Then Raine says she's not looking in the right place...they fall into the mouth of Sunnydale crater, there's a huge cage and lots of X's - which obviously mean Amy, and Ethan's cell, where she later finds Ethan - the only one who knew what was going on to help her - shot through the eye.
So my question is why the hell did Ethan jump into her dream?
Ethan Raine is a trickester character - he is to Giles, what well, Faith is to Buffy, Spike is to Angel...He celebrates the goddess chaos or Saga Vasuki, just as Willow does, and to a degree Spike.

For a while I thought Raine meant that Giles was Twilight and that's what he was trying to warn Buffy about. But why the Spikisms?

Also Allie says...in more than one interview that Joss's stories are always more about the character relationships and character's emotional arcs.

So I looked back at Dawn's problems. She tells Xander she cheated on Kenny with his roommate, Nick - a bad boy, who smoked, had dirty hair, didn't care what others thought,
and played in a band - the cliche. A billy idol wannabe.
Kenny was enraged and tortured her with a spell.

Then the issue right before Buffy meets Twilight, she's
flying with Willow and goes through a weird dreamscape - where she and Willow learn that Buffy is going to be betrayed by someone really close to her, someone completely unexpected.
And that Twilight is about the death of magic, the view that the world would be better that way, but this, the demon truthsayer states is all lies. That humans lie to themselves, believe they are doing good when they aren't. They don't want to see the truth. Per example - Buffy's bank robbery - which as Willow points out lead to the rest of the world seeing slayers in a bad light, even if Buffy states no one was hurt and we meant to repay them with Nazi gold. Or Willow's interaction with Saga Vasuki - which later comes back to haunt her in Wolves at the Gate - finding out that Saga may not have her best interests at heart, but then as Willow states at least with you - I know when you lie, I'm not always certain when I am. The word lie is brought up more than once.

Also the word triple - triple x, triple agent...Buffy had three male lovers who she cared about - Angel, Riley, and Spike. We've seen two - where's the third and why hasn't he popped up? Last we saw Spike and Angel were joined at the hip.
In fact in all of Buffy's dreams - where Spike is featured, Angel is literally next to him and often in a sexual manner.

Always Darkest...Buffy's nightmare has Caleb talking, while Spike and Angel kiss, and she's marrying Warren.

She cries about her dead lovers, feeling disconnected to her new would be lover, Satsu, who talks a lot like Spike, devoted to Buffy even though she knows Buffy isn't in love with her, when Twilight throws a boulder at her and kicks Satsu.

There's a pattern emerging here...but I'm not clear on what it means exactly. But the Angel reveal has posed lots and lots of questions...

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I've felt like a voice in the wilderness because I persistently ask the question of where Spike is. He's alluded to all over the comics, but he's not come up directly. If he didn't matter, he'd have been mentioned -- once -- to be dismissed. The LJ crowd mostly thinks I'm an idiot because it's obvious that Spike doesn't matter.

I could write an insanely long post about all the places Spike is alluded to. But you picked up one of my favorites and that's Satsu, Buffy's punkish right hand gal who has an unrequited love for her. I love the point about Angel kicking Buffy's would be lover who has a five letter name starting with S into a hospital. At the end of the second issue of retreat, Angel orders that the guy who found the spike be killed.

In Always Darkest, Spike and Angel accuse Buffy of not being able to tell them apart. Well, there'd seem to be a material difference between the boys. When we first meet Twilight he's hovering above a church. Buffy is jumping *down* into the church where she kills a demon with a crucifix. Any chance we're calling back the scene where Buffy learned of the definitive difference between Spike and Angel in the first scene where we see the Angel who Buffy can't (in her dreams) distinguish from Spike? I'd like to think so.

But we'll see. The Angel reveal should be interesting!

p.s. Of course, it's possible that Joss et. al. are going to limit their yanking of IDW's chain by only bringing over Angel. But if that's so, they fell down on the writing job by not closing Spike's story line (Buffy knows he's back and doesn't care) and moving on. Instead, on at least two occasions the answer to the question has been carefully written around. So the potential IDW problem notwithstanding, I'm still betting that he shows.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Of course, it's possible that Joss et. al. are going to limit their yanking of IDW's chain by only bringing over Angel.

No. I don't think that's a problem for them. If it were, they'd bring over Spike instead of Angel. Angel sells more comics for IDW than Spike does and has a lot of titles. No, I honestly don't think they care all that much what IDW does with the characters or thinks, regardless of Allie's rhetoric. Actions speak far louder. Angel was IDW's cash cow - Bill Willingham's last issue outsold all the previous ones, including Buffy, and went into a second printing. This storyline about Angel being Twilight does foul up that story a bit, considering over in IDW land, Angel is currently being drained and feed blood, wrapped tightly in a cocoon, with tubes in and out of him. Spike comes and goes and is not a major player, and Spike's solo series has been delayed about four times - it's now starting in Summer 2010 or so we're told. So, they can use Spike without disrupting his arc all that much. Heck they could just do a phone call - and not even see him or a Dear Buffy letter.

No, there's a pattern emerging regarding Spike, that you'd have to be blind to miss regardless of whether or not you're a fan.
He's been indirectly referred to by Andrew, who to our knowledge may be the only character in the Buffy cast who knows he is alive. And as you note - Twilight reacts to the word "spike" negatively. Ethan Raine heavily alludes to Spike in dress and accent - although as he states he may be taking the form, Buffy gives him since he is in her dreamscape. Notably in Always Darkest - Spike shows up before Angel, Angel comes from behind, and sort of pulls Spike away from her - and Spike states can you even tell the difference. But it is Spike's voice we hear first.

Plus the whole Kenny thing, love triangles constantly being brought up, along with how silly love is - by Twilight to Riley, Twilight is very sarcastic about the lasting quality of love.

And the story starts - or we first see mention of Twilight in the crater at Sunnydale. Remember Willow, Faith and Buffy weren't the only ones involved with the whole slayer spell and closing the hellmouth and turning Sunnydale into a crater in Chosen - there's a fourth person who is missing. Spike. Spike turned Sunnydale into a crater. Spike was supportive of the slayer empowerment spell and gave Buffy the strength to get the scythe. Angel wanted to be the champion - but Buffy pointedly gave that honor to Spike and sent Angel home, and apparently hadn't been in contact with Angel since - outside of sending Andrew - who lies to Angel and leaves him to believe Buffy is in Rome cavorting with the Immortal.

I'd say they didn't care about this backstory, but indirect references are made - Andrew states, having recently met Angel, got to say I'm team Spike, you traded up! Before they greet the rogue slayers in Predators and Prey. And that whole comedic thing about spike's in magic? No, they are literally jumping up and down and saying : spike isn't here. It's not as if they just aren't mentioning him at all, or have given him to IDW, but that they are underlining the fact that they aren't really mentioning. Look - we aren't mentioning him!

Instead, on at least two occasions the answer to the question has been carefully written around.

Exactly. Too carefully and too neatly.

For a while I was worried it meant Spike was Twilight (which made absolutely no sense...because it would be too out of character - he's not much of a fan of rules or authority figures.). Now, I have no idea what it means. But they aren't being subtle.

Also, one other thing, the only person who knows Angel better than Buffy or Cordy or Faith - is Spike. Spike is Angel's counterpart, much like Faith is Buffy's. Spike knows what happened in Angel S5, he knows what happened in hell, and
he has had a close relationship with both Angel and Buffy on some level. Plus the last time we saw them, Spike and Angel were joined at the hip - they exchanged ring tunes in Angel After the Fall - which was to a degree dictacted by Whedon, and were together in the alley in Not Fade Away.

So forget Buffy for a moment and think about Angel...again Where did Spike go?

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I've been arguing since last January that Spike had to show for these reasons. I mostly get met with negative responses, and that's why I hedge. But you lay out the case very well. The allusions combined with the pointed silences just screams to me that Spike matters. Of course, most people assume that the silences mean that he doesn't.

To add onto your pile: The spike/Spike joke has *both* of Buffy's other two exes basically saying that Spike matters. Buffy's dream where she knocks Xander's head off recalls the alley way scene, by having Buffy say "oh balls", and having her worry about being too rough on her lovers and her fears that she's dark. She goes straight from that to Ethan Rayne, in case we missed the point. Satsu replays the Spuffy relationship in a mellower key. In WatG we have Xander's evil vampire who has an unrequited love for him crossing lines and making sacrifices to save the day. The dialogue between Willow and Harth written before Willow is revealed as Willow and not Drusilla screams Spike if you read with the mistaken identity, including the term "slayer of slayers" which sounds at first like a reference to Spike but turns out to be a reference to Buffy. (And isn't that a bit ominious, now that I think about it).

And finally there's just this huge, huge gap. What major charaacter *hasn't* gotten pulled into the story? Faith is there. Tara has shown up. Oz had a pretty big role. Riley is in the picture. Parket has been mentioned. Joyce has been missed. Various potentials are in the story. Andrew has a major role. We've seen Warren and Amy and Ethan. Robin Wood made an appearance. We've made a point of saying Xander mourned Anya. Now Angel is back. If you put up a roster in terms of importance to the show and appearance in the comic, Spike's absence would be absolutely stunning. How far down would you have to go before you got another absent character? Even Harmony and Clem have shown up. Where are we? Scott Hope? Larry? We know what everyone else is doing but we've got no clue what Spike is up to or whether Buffy even knows he's alive.

There's a complex at LJ about Spike being unloved by Joss and/or Dark Horse. But the way to show unlove is to park him away with a bubble like the one Anya got. This is something else.

NFFY is entirely devoted to the inversion between Buffy and Faith. Buffy is dicey and morally grey. Faith has been impeccable. Now Angel comes in very dark. Any chance we get another inversion?

And big word on Spike and the scythe. The scythe spell matters. Spike's soul juice powered straight up through where Willow was casting the spell, and Buffy attributed her very possession of the scythe to Spike. I think that's a place where he could matter a great deal.

It'll be intersting!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

There's one thing that you mentioned, but didn't go into that just occurred to me today.

Hypothetically speaking, say the writers do think, Buffy has moved on, and knows Spike is alive, and he isn't important to her in the romanctic sense?
The whole story is about slayers upsetting the balance, that there are too many slayers. And they have to get rid of them. Vampires vs. Slayers. Humans vs. Slayers.

Okay, so who is the character known for killing "slayers"? Who came into the show to kill the slayer? Who has killed two slayers? Whose coat is an ex-slayers? And explained to Buffy in depth how to kill a slayer? Also who was the character who is a vampire, but a redeemed one, who was directly attacked by a slayer and almost killed - enough to make Angel wonder about them? What vampire has studied slayers?
Sought them out when there was only one? Changed sides because of a slayer?

If the story is about the slayer and the mythos of the slayer. If the army wants to do away with slayers.
Why didn't the go to the expert?

I'm sorry, but even if Buffy cared less about Spike - which I seriously doubt, the story is about too many slayers - and the only character who knows about slayers, who has killed slayers, and has fought Buffy to a standstill more than once, and sought his soul for a slayer - and has upset the balance by doing so.
Is Spike.

Spike upset the balance in Angel, and Angel went nuts.

Also, Spike was the wildcard in S2. The powers didn't see him coming. Whistler didn't know he existed. WRH wasn't sure what to do with him in S5.

Whatever your personal feelings regarding the character are - he is central to all of the plot issues in this story. The only way I could see him not being in the story - was if a deal was made with IDW not to feature Angel characters prominently, but once it was revealed that Angel was Twilight - that logic flew out the window. I'm sorry, Spike's absence is a bit too obvious. If he wasn't an issue, they'd have written him off much like they did Robin Wood, early on.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

How is Twilight any different from the Angel of Ats Season 5? The Angel who deliberately and falsely smeared a politician as a paedophile to wreck his chances at election, who murdered his friend Drogyn in cold blood when Drogyn thought Angel had just saved him, who caused death and suffering to untold numbers of innocents?

Angel is scary because of the things he'd prepared to do when he believes his cause is just. He wants to do the right thing, but he's well aware that he's also "the biggest mass murderer you'll ever meet".

So if Angel honestly believes tha the only way to Save The World is to kill thosse Slayers - he'll do it. And while he may regret it inwardly, showing a bluff poker face to the world is what Angel does best.

The other thing I'll throw in - I don't think the entire global Twilight network was all created by Angel from scratch. I think he's somehow gained control of lots of different demon groups, and united them about a common aim - killing the Slayers. That could mean he doesn't support or agree with their methods or motives; he's just using them to achieve his aim, and then he'll happily betray and kill them himself afterwards for being evil.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

How is Twilight any different from the Angel of Ats Season 5? The Angel who deliberately and falsely smeared a politician as a paedophile to wreck his chances at election, who murdered his friend Drogyn in cold blood when Drogyn thought Angel had just saved him, who caused death and suffering to untold numbers of innocents?

I think Twilight is a bit darker. But I'm also someone who thinks that Angel was pretty evil in season 5 and that one of the great narrative tricks ever was getting the masses to celebrate him as a hero. If we go down the straightforward "he's doing bad to achieve good like always" path Joss could pull of the even neater trick of making a guy a hero in one piece and a villain in the other simply by changing the POV without really changing the guy.

[But I'll still be surprised if this turns out to be straightforward]

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

To channel what I think would be Joss's reply:

"Hero" and "villain" are just labels we give to people to help convince ourselves that we chose the right side in the battle."

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I don't think he's a pure relativist. In fact I'm sure he's not. Joss does think that everyone thinks they're the hero of their own story. But he doesn't think it'd be as meaningful to call Hitler a hero as it is to call him a villain.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

I'm reminded of a fanfic I read many years ago. It's called "The Paranormal Project." (http://project.darkstarfic.com/)

It deals with Buffy, Angel and Giles leading the Slayer organization in England. In the final episode of the first season (http://project.darkstarfic.com/ficloader.php?fic=21), it's revealed that all the Slayers that have been brought into their power are causing a mystical imbalance. Solution? Angel drains them of their blood and their power, redirecting it back out. It's a very chilling read and after several years, I still remember it.

"At last, [Angel] felt Elaine’s heart fluttering to a stop. As death took her, the flow of power ceased, and her blood became just that. Blood. Rich and tasty, but the [Slayer] magic was gone. Withdrawing his fangs, he dropped a brief kiss onto her forehead and then gently moved her to the far side of the bunk."

I'm sure you can see why that's ringing a bell here.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

Mm. Did the story take the line that Angel was, in fact, perfectly correct to kill all those girls because the spell Buffy and Willow did to empower and liberate them was a huge mistake?

Because I do't think I'd enjoy reading it, if so. I'm hoping S8 won't go down that route...

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Word.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you can see why that's ringing a bell here

Yep...which is what unsettles me about the reveal they are going to redeem Angel and he's not a bad guy, just a guy on the other side of a debate. It feels a bit too much like what you state above. A twisted paternalistic anti-feminist message.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Well since I read ATS S5 far darker than most fans, and Angel as a sort of noirish anti-hero...but, there are differences.
Twilight unlike Angel, as BGF notes, doesn't appear to show any remorse for killing innocent humans, and kills far more.
Angel may have killed Drogon - but Drogon was a pseudo-immortal, who had lived a long long time and had power. He was not a human being. Also, while he put people in danger, it wasn't deliberate - he did not intend on LA going to hell in a handbasket. His intentions were well not perfect, but better than they are here. It's basically the difference between well
Angel S5 and Adam or Caleb. Twilight reminds me more of Caleb to be honest - heck he even stole Caleb's schitck - the whole "you're just a girl" or "just like a girl" thing. Which may have been deliberate on Angel's part?

I went back and reread Long Way Home - and you are correct it is possible that the Twilight network existed before Twilight - they refer Twilight as if he is on the way or has not arrived yet, a work in progress. Which would fit with the IDW comics actually - since in IDW - Angel has been kidnapped and is being drained to create more vampires, while kept alive - lord knows what else they'll do to him. Which may mean that IDW did know what Whedon was up to and was attempting to build a back story??? I don't know. But it certainly makes me more interested in Bill Willingham's Angel arc than I was before.
So maybe the Buffy comics take place after the Angel ones?
As opposed to simulataneously? Or maybe they are two divergent universes? I'm guessing the latter, but I don't know.

So is Angel someone else's puppet or pawn? Certainly wouldn't be the first time - he is perpetually being manipulated by someone, whether it is Jasmine, the PTB, WRH, Holtz, or Lindsey.

In later issues, Twilight is clearly and indisputedly in charge - people seem to bow and salute him, and call him sir.
Even Voll. He orders everyone around. He underwrites the vampkitties. So if someone is pulling his strings, we don't see them.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

Twilight unlike Angel, as BGF notes, doesn't appear to show any remorse for killing innocent humans, and kills far more.

How often did we see Angel actively showing remorse for his actions on Ats, though? Seems to me his style is to go for weeks being all dark and mysterious, and only then (maybe) he'll confess to someone about the inner torment within. Without those occasional once-or-twice-a-season outbursts of feeling, he'd be, well, pretty much like Twilight has been in S8.

As for killing "far more" innocent humans - who exactly? Almost all the people we've seen being killed through Twilight's direct involvement have been Slayers. They might be innocent humans in Buffy's eyes, but to many other people they're dangerously unstable demonic-powered killing machines.

Yes, in the earlier issues we sometimes saw rampagey demons who, at the moment of triumph or disaster, would shout "Long live Twilight!" or even "When Twilight comes you'll be sorry!"... but that fits the idea that Twilight is a pre-existing organisation, or a prophecy or something, and not that Angel has direct control over the actions of his minions.

Or maybe he decided that his plan was urgent enough to put together a coalition of unsavoury allies in order to deal with the Slayers before it's too late, and he'll have to worry about the collateral damage later. (And yes, if that happens it's pretty likely that Buffy will say to him at some point "Innocent people are not 'collateral damage'!" and Angel will reply angrily "What other choice did you leave me?" and we'll have to make up our own minds who's right.)


So maybe the Buffy comics take place after the Angel ones?

I don't think there's any 'maybe' about it. This is from the Scott Allie interview on the MTV website:

Angel's appearance in "Season Eight" doesn't clash with the timeline of his solo series at IDW. "The timelines don't overlap yet," said Allie. "The 'Angel' series at IDW picks up at end of 'Angel' television series, but 'Buffy: Season Eight' started up a significant amount of time after the television series ended."

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

How often did we see Angel actively showing remorse for his actions on Ats, though? Seems to me his style is to go for weeks being all dark and mysterious, and only then (maybe) he'll confess to someone about the inner torment within.

No, he just brooded. Brooding = clear displays of Remorse in fandom, or did you miss that argument? ;-) Twilight unfortunately wears a mask, so we can't tell if he is brooding or not. So you may have a point.

As for killing "far more" innocent humans - who exactly? Almost all the people we've seen being killed through Twilight's direct involvement have been Slayers. They might be innocent humans in Buffy's eyes, but to many other people they're dangerously unstable demonic-powered killing machines.

So why isn't Connor dead? He's far more dangerous - raised in a hell dimension, son of two vampires. Clearly not of human background. He should have been killed first. Oh wait, he's the son of Angel and not in this comic anyhow, so never mind. ;-)
How about Harmony? Who kills people nightly on her reality tv series? Oh wait, she's a vampire, pretty, cute, hot, and a ratings pleaser, we can't kill her. That would be wrong!

And what about the vampires...guess they aren't a problem, after all they aren't alive, they are an underprivileged minority. No much better to go after those pesky slayers. Can't have women with power...

So, yes, let's kill the women, bad women, shouldn't have powers.
And even if they willingly let their powers go to live a peaceful life in Tibet with a bunch of Buddhist werewolves...still bad women, kill, kill! After all they are women, not men. So they deserve to die. Not innocent. They will take over and change our world order, where guns, submarines, and guys rule!

Yeah...the slayers certainly aren't innocent people. They are armed adversaries...the enemy. Worse than the demons and vampires, because hey, our leader is a vampire and our allies are demons.

Still not seeing how Twilight can be redeemed here without sending a really negative message about female empowerment. But maybe I'm missing something?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Oh, I should clarify...I do not think Angel being Twilight is out of character. Actually it makes sense to me. I just don't see how Twilight as he is currently written can be a good guy or righteous, without providing a really negative statement regarding female empowerment. Granted we are in Buffy's pov here. But we have spent some time in Xander's, Dawn's, and Twilight's...and I still don't see how. Granted this may not be the right question or the one the writer wants me to ask, but..
it is one like it or not that is being presented.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

Well, my theory ever since the reveal has been that it's the Slayers specifically who have unbalanced the world. It's them, not "Demons" or "vampires" in general, who - to the best of Twilight's knowledge - will bring about an inevitable apocalypse if there are still 1800 of them come next Tuesday.

I don't disagree at all that this will send an unfortunate message about female empowerment if it turns out to be true... unless, of course, the solution Buffy comes up with in issue 40 is to empower every woman as a Slayer instrad of just 1800 of them, or something like that.

Even so, I'm not willing to treat Angel as irredeemably evil for taking actions which, in his honest opinion, were necessary to save the lives of 5,999,998,200 people.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'd be less inclined to treat Angel as irredeemably evil if he allowed the 1800 slayers who powered down in Tibet and were not fighting to live peacefully.
Remember, they decided that having power was wrong and gave it up to the earth. They had no powers. Twilight knew this, but went in for the kill anyway.

He attacked people who were not super-powered with weaponery that out-ranked them.

You don't attack evil by doing evil. And far as I can tell, Twilight doesn't value life, he values power.
He's not doing this to put the world back into balance,
or to save lives, he's doing it because they've decided that a slayer army is a bad thing. (I don't see anything that states otherwise.)

But let's say for a moment that you are right and the slayer empowerment spell - which defeated the first evil and shared Buffy's power with all the potential slayers - so that she's not the only girl fighting vampires has upset the balance...and people would die?
Wouldn't it make more sense to reverse the spell than, I don't know, kill all the slayers?

Also, isn't Twilight against "magic" in general not just slayers? That's what is stated in Anywhere but Here:

Buffy: You walk in the human reality and the the other ones, older ones. That makes you Tichajit, one of the demon elite.

Tichajit: I know what I am. Human. T

Buffy:Then you know where we are heading. The imbalance between our worlds is going to rain destruction on all our heads.

Tichajit: Twilight. Your fear is obnoxiously sweet.

Willow: Do you know what it is? What it truly means?

Tichajit: The end of course. Of the struggle. Of the hellmouths... the final triumph of the base humans over the demons. It's your life's goal achieved Slayer. The death of magic. Lies, delusions, gross simplifications...these are what manke mankind. No fault in it, your brains could not contain the horrible beauty of total awareness. You run from it, as from a predator. You escape. Even from each other.
And Tijcahit reveals their secrets and fears.

Buffy fearful of what happens in Time of Your Life coming to pass, goes finally to Tibet, where she asks OZ and Bay to remove their powers. They decide to live the life of peace. But Twilight comes and attacks them, killing over half, and to spare more lives, their own and their enemies - they call up the Goddesses to stop it...but the Goddesses make things worse and notably it is Buffy not Twilight, who says look after the wounded, help them, all the humans, regardless. Twilight shrugs.

I'm not seeing anything justified. Particularly when we are shown, as is Twilight...for he does appear to know about it - that reversing the spell is not hard.
All you need is the scythe and a good witch..where can we find one? Wait, Amy.

He doesn't even have to talk to Willow.

So, how is Angel/Twilight's ends justifyingly saving lives here? According to Tichajit Twilight is bringing about the apocalypse.

See that's the interesting thing about good old Angel - is he never really stops the Apocalypse so much as aids in it coming about. He gave Giles the Prophecy and info to get Buffy to see the Master in S1, in S2 he opened the mouth of Acathla, in S3 he distracted and weakened Buffy, in S4 he almost distracted her again, in his own series - he almost brought it about by enabling Jasmin's enterance, he brought it about in S5, he brought the Beast via Cordy's decision to help in. Angel means well, but he destroys everything he touches - he's a tragic hero...straight out of a nightmare. But he can't be redeemed because his pride, everytime, gets in the way. I see the same thing happening here.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Oh, and for reasons that make little sense...Twilight has left the Rogue Slayers completely alone - the ones, who, you know, are actually a threat to humanity and have been hurting people off on their island - (Predators and Prey). Can't see why he couldn't locate them...

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

The interesting thing about the fight is that this is the place where Buffy meets Twilight and he has his first chance to pass on any information to her. IF Twilight - whoever he may be ;-) - has some big secret he cannot tell Buffy as himself, then shouldn't this be the situation where he at least gives her a chance to know what exactly it is she's accused of, give her a chance to know what it is he's trying to stop? If, as some people have suggested, there's a very real prophecy that means the Slayers must be stopped and he doesn't really want to commit all-out genocide on Slayers but has to, why does he do the opposite - reaffirm Buffy's resolve to defend the Slayers against this insane rambling misogynist? Why not tell her "Here's what I know will happen: Bla bla bla. Now, either you can stop it in some way or I'll have to." He doesn't do that here. He doesn't ever, either as himself or by passing the information on to Buffy through someone she trusts. If he, whoever he is, knows Buffy so well, he knows she has a habit if figuring out solutions to dilemmas. But instead, he speaks in riddles, provokes people into opposing him, and keeps everyone guessing what it is he's trying to achieve - which is fine if you're evil and want to keep killing innocent people, but if not...? A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

But instead, he speaks in riddles, provokes people into opposing him, and keeps everyone guessing what it is he's trying to achieve - which is fine if you're evil and want to keep killing innocent people, but if not...? A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend.

Angel has never exactly been Mr. Forthcoming. And think back to how he "helped" Buffy in season 1.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

If it's evil by incompetence, I'd say it's still Kafkaesque and counterproductive in the extreme - assuming that he doesn't think killing thousands of innocent people is a perfectly good plan A, in which he's very competently evil. Plus, at least in the TV series, Angel came quite a long way since season 1. For starters, since "Prophecy Girl", he knows that Buffy's very existence flies in the face of prophecy.

(I was trying to follow Shadowkat's wish to have this post free of THAT spoiler, but... Sorry.)

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

* ...in which CASE he's very competent at being evil.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I don't think that it will turn out to be the case that the story is as simple as Angel deciding to save the world by becoming an evil mass murderer. If that is the story, I agree that here, like in so many other places, Joss would owe us more story on pain of having left huge plot holes like the ones you identify in his wake. Now, it looks like season 8 is so riddled with plot holes that it's more hole than story, true. But there's got to be some limit to it, right? That's why I prefer my option #3. Things as they seem is all bad math. My brain can't help but gravitate to the conclusion that things are not as they seem. It's probably a stupid brain. But it's really quite persistent on this point.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

I don't think that it will turn out to be the case that the story is as simple as Angel deciding to save the world by becoming an evil mass murderer.

I certainly hope not. On the other hand, I'm scratching my head as to what other motivations could possibly be better. Oh well. I didn't mean to get into this again. My brain is a bit stubborn as well. :-)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

(I was trying to follow Shadowkat's wish to have this post free of THAT spoiler, but... Sorry.)

Appreciate the attempt...but I think I lost that battle with the first comment. ;-)

Tis okay, I was hoping to have a broader discussion with folks who aren't spoiled, but they appear to be avoiding all posts on the topic. And to be honest, until the Angel reveal - I was responding to the whole Twilight thing very differently as I think we all were. So the discussion may require the spoiler? (shrugs)

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

Unless he's being forced to do whatever it is he's doing and he's deliberately acting like an arsehole to make Buffy fight him more vigorously. Which would be just like Angel.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Angel as puppet? Certainly wouldn't be the first time.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

If, as some people have suggested, there's a very real prophecy that means the Slayers must be stopped and he doesn't really want to commit all-out genocide on Slayers but has to, why does he do the opposite - reaffirm Buffy's resolve to defend the Slayers against this insane rambling misogynist? Why not tell her "Here's what I know will happen: Bla bla bla. Now, either you can stop it in some way or I'll have to."

Suppose that the theory is correct, and Angel genuinely believes that he has to kill all 1800 new Slayers. (He can leave Buffy and Faith alive).

What, exactly, is he going to think that telling Buffy his plan would achieve?

"Hi, Buffy. I need to kill all those women you've empowered and helped."
"Really? Darn. Never mind, I'll help you."

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that: (a) Angel would expect Buffy to fight him with every last breath in her body. This is the woman who was prepared to let the entire world go to hell rather than kill her sister, after all.

(b) Even if he could convince her, Angel doesn't want to. Killing those 1800 innocent young women would be an act of evil, even if it's a necessary one. Angel sees himself as already evil, already tainted. He sees Buffy as pure, and he wouldn't want to corrupt her, bring her down to his level. He's a mass murderer already; she isn't.

No. Much better - in his eyes - to take the burden on himself and let Buffy believe he's the bad guy. Even act evil to convince her of that (and, not incidentally, make sure the collection of demons and sorcerors he's gathered around himself continue to regard him as a worthy leader). After all, he knows Buffy "meant well", and - to Angel's way of thinking - it would be cruel beyond words to let her know that she herself almost caused the apocalypse.

Now okay, you and I know - because this is a work of fiction - that it's likely Buffy would find a third solution. It's her trademark, pretty much. But Angel doesn't know that. If he's taking drastic action I think it's safe to assume that he's already explored all the alternative options and concluded that none of them would work. So now, he just wants to get on with the job, and not waste time messing around with trying to convince Buffy he's right. After all, Buffy made it clear numerous times that she doesn't want or need his help; so why should he ask for hers?

And maybe some of his evidence comes from mystical visions from the Powers That Be, or oracles summoned from a hell-dimension or whatever, and showing Buffy his proof would be impossible anyway.

No. I don't deny that your criticisms of Angel's plan are valid, at least if the Buffyverse were an ideal world; but I think Angel's actions - if we assume the "kill 1800 to save 6 billion" scenario is correct - are entirely in character and much more believable for him, in context than your alternative.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

What, exactly, is he going to think that telling Buffy his plan would achieve?

He could start by telling her what the problem is. Give her a choice of whether or not to know what she was up against, and possibly (since she knows a lot more about the spell than he does) come up with some other solution. Of course, I'm assuming that Angel doesn't want to kill thousands of innocents and potentially sacrifice millions more with the alleged "Vampires are cool now" thing; if he doesn't want to do that, then he'll want to examine his options. Then he'll want to double-check his sources. If he's too scared to call up Buffy personally, there are options. We know for a fact he hasn't told Willow, who's behind the spell, and with whom he does get along. We know for a fact he hasn't told Faith, with whom he also gets along with. Hell, he could take out an ad in the paper.

Much better - in his eyes - to take the burden on himself and let Buffy believe he's the bad guy.

"Believe"? I'd say "prove," but that's me.

But Angel doesn't know that.

Because he's never had to face ambiguous - again, hypothetically - prophecies before? If anyone knows that there's usually a loophole in prophecies, it's Angel. If anyone knows that Buffy usually foils them, it's Angel. His first meeting with Buffy? She foiled a prophecy within 72 hours. I know he's not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but come on. He knows that. And yet he jumps to Crush Kill Destroy? And continues the massacre after they've been good little girls and depowered themselves?

it would be cruel beyond words to let her know that she herself almost caused the apocalypse.

yes, I see now how he's being really kind by blowing up girls in their beds. Sorry. But I can't really buy the "self-sacrifice" angle when what he's actually doing is sacrificing others and then feeling a little bad about it (again, hypothetically, since we've seen absolutely zero indication of him being sorry).

No. I don't deny that your criticisms of Angel's plan are valid, at least if the Buffyverse were an ideal world; but I think Angel's actions - if we assume the "kill 1800 to save 6 billion" scenario is correct - are entirely in character and much more believable for him, in context than your alternative.

I don't necessarily agree, since I think Angel essentially tries to be a good person and this is clearly the exact opposite. It certainly flies in the face of "if nothing we do matters all that matters is what we do." But I'm not saying that it's impossible for him to decide to do this. Given whatever justification for his actions they pull out, it might even be the most obvious solution - just like he chose to let Jasmine have free reign for the greater good, and... Oh, wait. But then I have no clue what he's been up to in the IDW line lately.

I would, however, argue that if he's doing this without having exhausted all other options, then his good intentions - like all terrorists' - or character flaws don't make his actions any less deplorable. All that "champion" talk was for nought. He gave in, he's a villain, de facto worse than almost every Big Bad either of them has ever faced. Which, to me, is a dull and unfair end to a great character, even if they do have it make sense.

The thing is that I don't think Joss is going to do that. The setup as it looks now could (if you let it) ruin either Buffy completely (by declaring that the universe simply can't function if you empower women) or ruin Angel (by declaring that redemption really isn't possible at all). He's going to find some other way. That will have to involve a moral justification for how Angel can become an evil overlord who'd make Angelus green with envy and not get a stake through the heart for his troubles, however Buffy eventually solves it. And considering that "for the greater good" has never once been an acceptable excuse in the Whedonverse, that will be really hard to sell.

But then again, this is all hypothetical, and it'll happen however it'll happen.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

He could start by telling her what the problem is. Give her a choice of whether or not to know what she was up against

And that would achieve what, in practical terms? Like I said in the original post; now Buffy would herself face the anguish of having to either kill her friends and followers or see the world end. Angel hopes to spare her that.

It seems to me you're approaching this from the perspective of the calm rationalist sitting in his armchair who knows this is a work of fiction, rather than looking at what Angel - the character Angel, as developed over 8 and a bit seasons of TV - would decide to do.


potentially sacrifice millions more with the alleged "Vampires are cool now" thing

All the evidence we've seen on-page indicates that the "vampires are cool now" thing is saving far more lives than it's taking. Vampires have realised that it's safer to feed WITHOUT killing.

Not to mention that because they've all come out into the public eye, it will be much easier to kill them all if public opinion changes back that it would be if they'd stayed in the shadows. That's a plan Lord Vetinari would be proud of. :-)


Because he's never had to face ambiguous - again, hypothetically - prophecies before?

Well, there was the one Sahjahn faked, and the one Lindsey and Eve faked. But in Angel's experience, I'd say that prophecies turn out true far more often than false. It's a matter of establishing the prophet's bona fides rather than finding a loophole in the prophecy itself.


I see now how he's being really kind by blowing up girls in their beds.

If he has to do that anyway, is it kinder to tell them they're going to die in advance, or kill them without warning?


I think Angel essentially tries to be a good person and this is clearly the exact opposite.

Did Angel ever once reproach Buffy for stabbing him through the heart and sending him to hell? Did he tell her she made the wrong decision?

It seems to me that Angel is much more about fighting the good fight whatever the cost than about maintaining some notional state of purity. He also has a huge martyr complex.

See his ideal solution to the problem of Connor at the end of S4... Angel thinks that keeping his loved ones in ignorance so they can lead a happy life is a good thing.


I would, however, argue that if he's doing this without having exhausted all other options, then his good intentions - like all terrorists' - or character flaws don't make his actions any less deplorable.

No argument from me here. That's why I take it as read that he has exhausted all the other options (or at least believes he has). The only other alternatives are that he's either turned utterly evil (Angelus), or that he's being possessed or controlled in some way, or that most of the actions we're been blaming on "Twilight" have in fact been done by someone else.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

And that would achieve what, in practical terms? Like I said in the original post; now Buffy would herself face the anguish of having to either kill her friends and followers or see the world end. Angel hopes to spare her that.

Assuming the one and only solution that's even remotely conceivable is killing all Slayers, maybe. There's a reason both Angel and Buffy used to do research. There's a reason Angel often refused to accept something he was told was a done deal.

It seems to me you're approaching this from the perspective of the calm rationalist sitting in his armchair who knows this is a work of fiction, rather than looking at what Angel - the character Angel, as developed over 8 and a bit seasons of TV - would decide to do.

It doesn't seem to be the same interpretation of the character as yours, but I'd argue that I'm seeing it from the perspective that Angel - as presented in the TV series - isn't first and foremost someone who kills innocents because it's easier than picking up a phone. I think where we differ is that you take it as a given that Angel is doing this, and then try to justify it; whereas I look at Angel finding out something along the lines that you're suggesting, and try to figure out how he'd react. And I don't think his first solution would be to turn into a slightly broodier Dalek.

All the evidence we've seen on-page indicates that the "vampires are cool now" thing is saving far more lives than it's taking. Vampires have realised that it's safer to feed WITHOUT killing.

I'd say that's debatable, at best; Harmony is shown killing people as part of her TV show - not just Soledad - and saying live on TV that vampires eat humans for dinner. The vamps in the TOTV one-shot seemed to not even comprehend the difference between killing and not killing. The vamps in #24 and #25 clearly haven't gotten the message. Then again, that whole storyline is so vague that it's hard to tell.

If he has to do that anyway

And it's exactly that "if" that I'm debating, given that he hasn't even checked with the people who know more about the spell than anyone else.

Did Angel ever once reproach Buffy for stabbing him through the heart and sending him to hell? Did he tell her she made the wrong decision?

She didn't. But she stabbed Angel, not thousands of other people. Plus, when has Angel ever not felt responsible for Angelus' actions?

He also has a huge martyr complex.

Agreed. But again, I just don't see "murderer" and "martyr" as synonyms. There's a reason there's no Saint Herod.

That's why I take it as read that he has exhausted all the other options (or at least believes he has).

Except we know he hasn't. Or at least we think we know. It's possible, of course, that Willow or Giles or Andrew etc has been talking to him and decided to keep it to themselves for whatever reason, though that would leave us with the same questions about them.

or that most of the actions we're been blaming on "Twilight" have in fact been done by someone else

Oh come on, Jeanty's likenesses aren't that bad. ;-)

That's... probably my last word on it. I don't think we're going to get any closer to the meat of it without more info. Even if speculating is fun, and your theory does make a lot of sense - it just needs to be ridiculously watertight if there's to be any hope of salvaging the character without essentially saying that all those supposedly empowered women he murdered were expendable anyway.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

[As an aside nodding along with most of your arguments here, as well as some of the others...you are doing a good job of pinpointing my own problems with this. How can they resolve it without ruining one or the other of the two shows? I know Allie says it is about relationships...but how does B/A factor in here?]

Oh, wait. But then I have no clue what he's been up to in the IDW line lately.

He's being written as a fairly straight up hero, far less dark than in the series. After the Fall was probably the darkest of the IDW comics - where he more or less saved LA after causing it to fall into hell - resulting in a world where WRH had disappeared, and he and Spike were celebrated at heroes by the populace, which now believed vampires and demons were real.
In comics after the After the Fall (didn't read Aftermath, because I can't stomach Kelly Armstrong's writing), he was more or less portrayed as a sort of guy who saves people a la Angel season 1 and season 2, with the Hyperion as his headquarters.
Connor just took over his operation, while Angel himself is being held prisoner by an evil corporation that is using his blood to sire vampires. One tube feeds him, one drains him - and he's wrapped up and unable to move.

I'm guessing IDW flipped out when the Angel reveal was made. Ryall's comment on his blog was notably sardonic, but diplomatic. (Ryall is more diplomatic than Allie.)
And Allie realizing they would - rushed to appease them, allegedly calling Ryall (editor of the Angel series on IDW) and telling him not to worry they got a plan in place that will allow both series to make sense and not disrupt what IDW has been doing. (He had to have forseen that as being a huge problem - which may explain the leaked spoiler - they leaked it early, in order to do damage control with IDW...or it got accidentally leaked, and they used it as an opportunity to do damage control?)

At any rate...that comment bothers me, for a lot of reasons, many of which you've articulated above.

How do you resolve that?

1. A reboot?
2. Alternate time line?
3. A reset button a la Angel After the Fall?

All three make me uneasy.

Not sure there is a way without using some sort of lame gimmick or ex deus machina, not that Whedon is beyond doing that.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

And Allie realizing they would - rushed to appease them, allegedly calling Ryall (editor of the Angel series on IDW) and telling him not to worry they got a plan in place that will allow both series to make sense and not disrupt what IDW has been doing.

I assume that IDW already had a plan in place on how to deal with the Angel=Twilight reveal. I certainly know that Brian Lynch was very laid back on his own blog, basically saying "Don't worry, Joss is very clever, everything will work out."

The thing is, IDW's plan was based on the reveal happening in April. Because it came in January, their timetable got totally messed up and they had to scramble around working out what to do - rushing out the Urru 'Spike isn't Twilight' cover overnight as an example. So it wouldn't be surprising Chris Ryall was annoyed.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

He's being written as a fairly straight up hero, far less dark than in the series.

That's the impression I got too, which makes it even more difficult to understand how they think they're going to bring that Angel into continuity with the mass-murderer one.

Then again, the Scoobies look awfully chipper in the #32 preview, so I guess we're really not supposed to care about everyone that Angel's killed. Oh well.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yeah the previews of #32 and #34 make me uneasy. All these people have died...and oh, we're young and happy and in love, who cares??? Shudders.

It's possible that whatever they are doing to Angel in the Bill Willingham arc - in which he's been kidnapped by an evil corporation to sire vampires...leads to him becoming Twilight.
But I'm not sure. And if that is the case - that means everything happening in IDW happens long before Buffy S8, as in two years ago. I thought Buffy S8 was just one year after Chosen? Do we know when this is taking place?? I hate comic book time...it makes it too easy for writers to do whatever they please.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

It's possible that whatever they are doing to Angel in the Bill Willingham arc - in which he's been kidnapped by an evil corporation to sire vampires...leads to him becoming Twilight.

I wondered that too. Then Bill Willingham said exactly what he thought about the Twilight reveal... (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=24374) now I'm pretty sure that's no part of it. o_O

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

Thing is even if the slayer spell was somehow potentially world destructive (for which there is no real indication besides his words) than it's still Twilight's methods that make him brutal beyond any sense.
The attack in retreat was even counterproductive to his goal then, because the disempowered slayers had to get the power back (well Buffy had) to fight him.

There is a chance that this is some kind of time travel plot, but I can't help it, I'm not sure if there's any variant left that would not leave me with a sense of dissatisfaction. If it's Angelus, it's a bit lame and imho OOC, if it's evil Angel, I want to know more what happened in his part of the verse to make him so. And I neither want him evil, nore easily excused for killing humans ans cardboard slayers.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

Could Angel be forgiven? There’s evidence that Twilight (the organisation) predates any possible involvement in it by Angel (assuming that in AtS5 and AtF he was too busy with other things to be Twilight as well). We don’t to what extent Twilight (the masked man) is the organisation's head or its figurehead and there’s a difference between what the organisation has done and what we have direct evidence Angel initiated. Arguable the war between Slayers and ‘humanity’ was set up by Voll. Warren and Amy were initially recruited by the military. We don’t know whether the Japanese vampires were working for Twilight and if they were whether that was Angel’s call or the organisation's. We know Angel beat up Buffy and Satsu, but they’re Slayers, sticks and stones only bruise their bones. His words are meant to harm them but with hindsight when he adds “Have they helped you” to his argument against slayers being effective that could indicate he cares in a rather Angelish faux paternal way. The idea of breaking Buffy’s moral certitude seems to be his but could be construed as a line aimed at convincing the real Twilight people they should hold back from killing her. We know Angel ordered a Twilight minion killed for doubting his commitment but he had W&H workers executed for less. We know he let Warren go ahead with bombing the Scottish castle, and the war on Slayers progress despite the casualties of both sides. We don’t know whether Twilight’s allies would have sent in the troops (human and demonic) regardless of what Angel had to say on the issue.

Angel could be under deep cover (a la Black Thorn) or have accepted the role because he believed any other applicant would make an even nastier job of things (a la W&H). But even if he isn’t a Twilight true believer, why he hasn’t try to warn Buffy about their aims/existence earlier (and he seems to have had the means to do so) and why has he decided (or been convinced by some higher power) that infiltrating them is the only way to go, or even a way to go since it’s unclear how that will actually stop them.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Good points. Unfortunately no time to address...

Twilight has ordered more than the death of a minion. He was all for the vamp!kitties, if memory serves, and he manipulated events to get Gigi and her Watcher killed. He also was directly responsible for the deaths of 30 or more people, who had not attacked him, and were basically just farming in Tibet, letting go of their powers and being one with nature.
He also is responsible for the current vampires are cool craze - resulting in lots of deaths. The attack on the castle - also resulting in countless deaths. I'd say Twilight has killed at least 100,000 people, give or take a few.

Granted we are mainly in Buffy's pov. But we do spend time out of her pov and in Twilight's on occassion and to date he's being portrayed as pretty much a straight up villian. He asks Buffy if her choice to have the slayers empowered did any good, changed anything? A better question is has Twilight's choices done anything good or worthwhile? Has Angel for that matter? I was wondering last night...if Buffy had let Angel die at the end of S3 and had not given her blood to save him, would the universe have been better off?

That said... it is possible, more than possible, that he's a puppet on a string, being manipulated by someone else. Certainly wouldn't be the first time. Nor the first time they excused his actions because someone else was pulling his or another character's strings (*cough*evilCordy*cough*).

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

All we know about the vamp!kiity connection is the aggregate Swell saying the Slayers will die in a tide of blood and Twilight commands it. Based on that, Angel may have personally sought them out them but they may have had no more contact with him than the Slayers recruited by Andrew/Vi's commercials. Roden and Gigi were dangerously bad people, he could see that as analogous to having Lindsey assassinated (and while I think that was a bad call, I'm not an Angel fan and it's a defensible one to many who are). We haven't been shown who, other than Harmony, is responsible for the vampires are cool craze and it's unclear that it's resulted in a net increase in deaths - the craze is only sustainable because a significant number of vamps have switched from killing their food to eating and letting live. Most of the squad survived the attack on the castle and there were only 100 odd there to begin with, which is not countless. Moreover, as with the assault on Tibet and the demon attacks that led to the Slayers relocating there, I was trying to point out that we don't know whether these were things that would have been done in Twilight's name regardless of whether Angel or someone else were recruited as their figurehead.

I'm not saying that undercover Angel is the scenario the story is going with, it's just one that would make Angel more forgivable and in a slightly more interesting way than than blaming it on a puppet master, robot or clone. It's a little too much a repeat of S5 Angel's actions, so I'd rather he genuinely believed in Twilight's cause while trying to keep its means less bloodthirsty. We've not see Angel in a situation where he's not playing a role to Buffy or to Twilight's followers and allies so it's hard to say at this point whether he's regretful at or not. I tend to think the fatalism with respect to the casualties of war is genuine and rather typpifies one of Angel's flaws. He despairs, isn't that a cardinal sin in Catholicism or something?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that undercover Angel is the scenario the story is going with, it's just one that would make Angel more forgivable and in a slightly more interesting way than than blaming it on a puppet master, robot or clone. It's a little too much a repeat of S5 Angel's actions, so I'd rather he genuinely believed in Twilight's cause while trying to keep its means less bloodthirsty.

Agreed. But, if he is Twilight and believing in his cause - which appears to be the case at the moment (it's possible that will change...and soon), I can't see how they can reedeem him without sending a seriously negative not to mention twisted paternalistic message regarding female empowerment.

He despairs, isn't that a cardinal sin in Catholicism or something?

No, Catholicism is all about despair. Killing however is pretty cardinal. But brooding and despair is allowable...even encouraged. ;-) (One of the many reasons I am no longer a Catholic.)

We've not see Angel in a situation where he's not playing a role to Buffy or to Twilight's followers and allies so it's hard to say at this point whether he's regretful at or not. I tend to think the fatalism with respect to the casualties of war is genuine and rather typpifies one of Angel's flaws.

True. Apparently he ran out of disposable characters in his own universe and felt the need to get rid of some of Buffy's? (sorry bad joke).

I do wonder where Spike is in all this. Considering the last we saw, he and Angel were together, more or less. I do think Spike is going to factor in to it - and in a major way, but I have no idea how. And it may well go a long ways towards explaining what Angel is doing, or not.

[moscow-watcher.livejournal.com]

I still hope that it's Angel's body imprinted with somebody else' personality. A composite of Adam and Caleb.

[annegables.livejournal.com]

I don't know anything about the comics - have just been reading all this. So please don't yell at me (ducks behind wall) but....why couldn't twilight be the First Evil back? Trying to wreck vengeance for the whole Sunnydale thing? And wouldn't Angel be the perfect foil for the First Evil? Well - Twilight would be like a Caleb thing representing the First Evil. Anyway - you know what I mean. Okay - now I wil stay behind he wall while I get the explanations for why this is not possible.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

don't know anything about the comics - have just been reading all this. So please don't yell at me (ducks behind wall) but....why couldn't twilight be the First Evil back?

No worries. No yelling. ;-) There's no way you'd know that Twilight is substantial NOT insubstantial like the First.

Also the story thread is different - it's clearly someone who believes they are justified and on the side of right.

And wouldn't Angel be the perfect foil for the First Evil? Well - Twilight would be like a Caleb thing representing the First Evil. Anyway - you know what I mean.

Well, he was back in Amends. But...it doesn't work with the plot arc. (You'd have to be reading the comics to know what I mean, unfortunately...this is really hard to follow without knowing the comics. )