maggie2: (Default)
[personal profile] maggie2
Apologies to those tired of comic wank; but I continue to be interested.

Disjoint thoughts about the first big comic day we've had in a while.

1.  While I've been altogether too militant about my lack of love for IDW, I'm only muted-happy about the apparent news that AtS is going back to Dark Horse.  I very much do want both stories under one house.  I don't think that guarantees a good outcome, but IDW just hasn't looked promising.  Remember that I'm the wierdo who didn't even like Lynch's stuff very much -- and he's Shakespeare compared to what came after.  Still it's obviously really devastating some fans, and that's painful to see.  So my feelings are ambivalent.  They're also on hold because who knows what's really going on here.

I've tended to defend DH in its dealings with IDW.  We'll see how this develops, but it really does look pretty crappy on DH's side based on the appearances.  The announcement seems to clearly have caught IDW off guard.  What does that mean, anyway?  Weird.  

2.  Riley!  I think this is a nicely written, tight issue.  What have we learned?

* Angel's plan really was to strip Buffy of all of her power.  That makes him responsible in my book for all the carnage in Retreat.  In addition to learning Angel's plan, we learn that he mustered the army and gave the orders. 

* He has a good reason, though!  Whistler has popped in to tell Angel that he's seen all the future time lines and if Angel doesn't do all this Twilight gig, if he lets Buffy in on what's going on, he and Buffy fight a losing battle side by side (so romantic) and the world is destroyed.  Poor Angel had no choice but to save the world by turning Buffy into a pawn.  (And Angel explicitly says that's what he's doing; it feels wrong to him, but that's the price of saving the world!!)  Whistler approves:  Torture the cheerleader, save the world.

* Can we breath a sigh of relief and say that Angel's character has been saved?  Not in my book.  And I don't think in this book, either.  Riley's story is there to contrast with Angel's and Riley chooses to serve Buffy rather than the world.  The bottom line is that Angel has faith in Whistler's prophecies, Riley has faith in Buffy.  We get more compare and contrast by seeing that Riley and Sam are totally equals.  No way would Riley do anything manipulative behind Sam's back.  Finally, Angel's pages (which parallel Riley's) are all dark, while Riley's are light.  I'm pretty sure that we're not going to get an outcome where turning Buffy into a tortured pawn was the only way to save the world.  If we do get that, I'm ready to go with my pitchfork.

*  Angel's story also doesn't match up with his distinct lack of concern in #35 that following Whistler's instructions lead to the end of the world not the salvation of the world.  So who knows.  (You knew that was going to be my last line, right?  Indeed, we are still waiting to see what the heck is going on).

* Ha!  A different last line.  There's also a nice section on Riley and Sam being together as a choice and not because of binding ties.  I tend to think that's a commentary on Bangel as well.

* There are some other nice details.  I just like the way this book is written.  Nice resonances.  Nice parallels. 

3.  The Angel series.  I can't help but like Mariah.  She may not do it perfectly, but she works so hard to connect with the fans and keep things on an even keel.  So I skimmed the Angel book in the store today to see if I'm ready to come back to the fold.  I'm not.  But it's not as outrageous as it could be.  Spike is foggy about what happened with Felicia, suggesting he's less than culpable.  The fact that Spike earned his soul gets an airing.  We get the nice observation that from Spike's POV, Angel got his soul as a *gift*.  It make sense to me that Spike might see it that way -- totally evil Angelus gets zapped with a soul and he's the champion of the world.  That said, Spike is definitely not aware that he's lost his soul and that bugs me.  Maybe they'll concoct an explanation -- but how can a guy lose the soul that he took so much trouble to get and which made such a big difference (to him, at least) and not notice?  Ergo, they got no pennies from me.  Instead, I made a date with myself to re-read[livejournal.com profile] elisi's delightful story about what happens when Spike loses his soul in season 5.   I didn't read the non-Spike related stuff so I can't comment on their story as a whole.  Bad things are afoot, no doubt.

Two weeks until we find out what happens the third time Spike comes dramatically crashing into Buffy's world.  I'm ridiculously excited about it.  If I were in possession of my faculties, I'd be beside myself with worry, but I'm 90% anticipation, and only 10% apprehension.  I puzzle myself.




(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 04:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shipperx.livejournal.com
He has a good reason, though! Whistler has popped in to tell Angel that he's seen all the future time lines and if Angel doesn't do all this Twilight gig, if he lets Buffy in on what's going on, he and Buffy fight a losing battle side by side (so romantic) and the world is destroyed. Poor Angel had no choice but to save the world by turning Buffy into a pawn. (And Angel explicitly says that's what he's doing; it feels wrong to him, but that's the price of saving the world!!) Whistler approves: Torture the cheerleader, save the world.

Not a particularly surprising explanation, but not one I like at all. Good grief. So now Angel and the TPTB/The Universe make choices for Buffy? Can't the little woman ever be given all the info and make all the decisions on her own?

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 04:19 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eilowyn.livejournal.com
Still hoping this is a set up for a Crowning Moment of Awesome in which Buffy declares her autonomy and stands up for free will, tells Twangel off for being a dickhead and the PTB's bitch, and goes off to kick ass with Spike. No, issue #35 does not count as a Crowning Moment of Awesomeness, because any awesomeness was countered by the crappy Bangel fanservice schmoop of misty eyes and longing looks that were totally inappropriate after trying to fuck the world out of existence. Still want the little woman to tell the menfolk and anthropomorphic universe to fuck off. If that doesn't happen, if Angel continues to be whitewashed, then Joss has officially abandoned all semblance of feminism in his work.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 04:25 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com
Yup. I want more smack down on Angel -- and I want it to come from Buffy.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 04:41 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shipperx.livejournal.com
The sad part for me (because I totally admit to being a Spike-first person) is that I cannot think of a way that I would even want him to react. There's no reaction he could have that's the right one. If he's angry with Angel, he's 'jealous'. If he's angry with Buffy, well, he never told her (himself) that he wasn't dead so he can't be angry with her. So both those reactions are out. If he's okay with what's gone on, well, sheesh. But he can hardly be self-righteous about any of it. And yet we've basically been left with the feeling that neither Buffy nor Angel gave him even a fleeting thought (nor have we ever seen any evidence whatsoever that Buffy mourned in any way).

So basically, there's no good reaction for Spike to have that doesn't paint him jealous, envious, self-righteous, unjustified, or pathetic. He just isn't left with a lot of options.
Edited Date: 2010-08-19 04:42 am (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 06:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com
Pet peeve: I know everyone knows that Spike never told her he wasn't dead. But I just don't get that. He delayed. When he goes to tell her, she's out with her boyfriend. And he's given the impression that she knows he's back, loves him, and maybe will catch up with him some day. I don't know what he's supposed to do. He thinks they're both up to date on where each other is, and Buffy's actions say she's neither miffed nor particularly interested. That's his POV. Turns out she wasn't there. Alas, I can't imagine any scene that writes well around all of that, especially since I'm the only one who sees it that way, so I'll probably have to live with the premise that Spike was derelect in his duty to Buffy.

I'm not sure I see Spike as being all that boxed in. Buffy and Angel have just destroyed the world by having sex, even though they both know perfectly well that them having sex tends to start apocalypses. Nobody in the room is happy about Buffy boinking the guy she should have staked. Buffy should be feeling guilty as hell. Spike, along with every other person on the planet, has got every right to be angry. Will anti-Spike fans portray it in an anti-Spike way? Of course. They always do. But that's because there's nothing Spike could possibly do that isn't going to come up short. That's not peculiar to Spike. Nobody is immune from being found with fault if there's someone out there who wants to find fault.

Sidebar: My favorite latest argument. Spike is not special because he fought for a soul. Why? Because Angel was the first to ask to be a demon with a soul (in IWRY). And Spike sought the soul for selfish evil reasons anyway. Never mind that a human who wants to become a demon is not exactly the same as a demon who wants to get a soul. People who can be happy with that logic cannot be reasoned with. Back to the topic at hand.

I think Spike's boots are a good sign. It's a call back to his first entrance. That flags him as a big deal. Less ritual and more fun. In this latest issue we see Angel with candles and flames and ritual-looking like stuff. Spike's coming in with a cool ship, and apparently better information than anyone else has to date. Hopefully he'll be more all about business than anything else.

But the main reason I don't share your worry is this. Spike cannot be unimportant to Buffy. She has to have given him more than a fleeting thought. Why? Because this story is about Buffy. Spike doesn't get the big dramatic entrance at this moment so we can follow *his* story about where he stands with Buffy. If she really doesn't care, he can't matter to her now and there's no drama to his arrival from her side. If she shrugs and clearly doesn't care, the non-Spike fans will shrug and not care. The only drama would be for us Spike POV people. But this story isn't being written for us. Ergo, his entrance now means that he matters to Buffy. Something dramatic will happen for Buffy because of Spike's presence. Joss has said repeatedly that Spike is incredibly important to Buffy. We just got unequivocal text that says Willow sees him as one of Buffy's true loves. Joss has said that the boys will arrive at a moment of maximal pain.

Sorry for the ramble. I'm Spike first also -- the difference being I'm not a veteran of the fandom wars, and from my POV looking at the series as a whole, Joss's comments, and the sheer fact that Spike (and not Angel and not anybody else) gets the last grand entrance I just don't see that it'll be total shite for us. I'm not expecting a big Spuffy outcome, though I do expect respect on that front. But Spike is a big deal to Buffy and to the story. I'd bet cash on that.

P.S.: I don't think Emmie is wrong about the Chen covers for #36 and #37 being connected.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 07:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rebcake.livejournal.com
Pet peeve: I know everyone knows that Spike never told her he wasn't dead. But I just don't get that. He delayed. When he goes to tell her, she's out with her boyfriend. And he's given the impression that she knows he's back, loves him, and maybe will catch up with him some day. I don't know what he's supposed to do. He thinks they're both up to date on where each other is, and Buffy's actions say she's neither miffed nor particularly interested. That's his POV. Turns out she wasn't there. Alas, I can't imagine any scene that writes well around all of that, especially since I'm the only one who sees it that way, so I'll probably have to live with the premise that Spike was derelect in his duty to Buffy.

I agree that Spike was stymied at this point, and didn't know what else to do, but I think he's too canny to take Andrew at his word. However, apocalypse season puts personal lives on the back burner. So, not derelict. Just rotten timing.

What isn't often noted is that pre-soul Spike wouldn't have delayed or been put off by, well, anything getting between him and his lady love. Post-soul Spike has other considerations...including a lot of pesky self-doubt about whether he deserves said lady love.

However, I do see lots of ways for Spike to react to the S8 situation that would be pretty satisfying to me. Lots of mocking, in particular. That would be quite nice. ;-} If he wants to take the high road and keep it all business while Buffy squirms, that would be okay, too. But not as good as mocking.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 04:19 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com
Agreed. If this explanation isn't bitch-slapped in Last Gleaming, I really will be unhappy. But I think the structure of this issue (the contrasts with Riley) saya we're supposed to think Angel's making the wrong choice here. We'll see.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 04:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shipperx.livejournal.com
I would be more optimistic if upon learning that Twilight was Angel, Buffy hadn't immediately thrown herself into his arms for 'twu wuv'. I'm not even concerning myself with the shippiness of it as my vampire vs. another vampire thing, but in terms of Buffy basically discovering the lay of the land and yet she's incapable of sustaining wtf outrage for more than three seconds. Unless glowhypnol is the case, she basically overlooked the deaths of hundreds and her months of being manipulated because OMG, it's Angel!
Edited Date: 2010-08-19 04:36 am (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 04:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com
I'm pessimistic on this point as well. Like Eilowyn said, Buffy's snapping to herself in #35 was undercut by her complete failure to upbraid Angel for being a dick. And like you, for me this is about Buffy and not the ship. It's possible Joss's story is going to be about Buffy's blind spot with Angel and the damage it causes -- but one would hope at some point that the story would call attention to the problem with Buffy's acquiescence on all of this.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 04:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eilowyn.livejournal.com
What's the date for issue #36 to come out? If it's when I suspect, I'll probably be bringing my laptop along while baking at a stranger's house for a bridal shower which will be followed closely by a Bachelorette party I'm hosting and the wedding the next two days. Far too busy to pay close attention to wank, but I enjoy the wank and snark so much (and your reviews are always a large part of that enjoyment) that I'll try to keep up as much as possible. I recognize I have a problem, and luckily the bride is someone I've whined about the comics to, so she knows exactly how much this means to me, as ridiculous as that sounds.

Anyway, from what I've read review-wise, we can be pleased to see a mature marital relationship finally portrayed in the Whedonverse by someone other than the previously thought incomparable Wash and Zoe, so I'll use my happy non-snarky comic icon today. I've loved the banter you've had with Mogs and KoC over at Buffyforums, and found the balance of your conversation very enlightening.

I am worried about AtS going over to DH, because everyone over there has been clear over which ship they prefer, so as shipperx put it, we might as well get used to getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop ahead of time. Like you said somewhere, a part of me would have preferred keeping the two 'verses separate so that both ships were always up in the air and interpretation as to the outcome could be kept to the fans to decide. That went out the toilet the moment Twilightgate happened (the bride was the one to comfort me in the distress that debacle caused, hence her understanding), so I don't have much hope for any sense of respect for Spuffy now that the verses will combine.

Angel comes across as kinda douchey, as usual, but what spoilers I've read have said that surprised me is how much I'll like Riley in this issue. He was always the red-headed stepchild ship, not as cool as the vampires, and not a core four member like Xander, so I've mostly only felt pity for the poor guy, but his backing of and faith in Buffy show me that I really like what this issue has him standing for, and so I say, for the very first time in my life, that I'm now Team Riley, to a point.

So nice that Sam didn't die. Don't need another one of those death as motivating factor stories.

I have so much respect for Mariah, that I will miss her person to person interaction with the fans, even if it was a slightly inappropriate telling off of Sue that I have in mind as person to person interaction, but at least she tries.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 04:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com
Two weeks from today. First Wednesday in September. Is that the first? I believe it's the first. I totally empathize with your problem. I spent a good chunk of my friend's wedding reception watching the US-Ghana match and the only thing that kept me from feeling too guilty about it is that the wedding party was late to the reception, and half the guests were crowded around the TV so I wasn't the only one. I'd be even worse if my tables weren't clear for full comic emersion on 9/1.

I did like Riley very much in this issue. I don't want to go too far out on a limb -- but it's the second season six parallel we've got. Bangel has Spuffy sex. Now Riley comes in to do a compare/contrast that makes the vampire look crappy. It's interesting.

Agree with you about Mariah. It's unfortunate she didn't pick examples from both sides -- but I do think she was trying.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 05:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rebcake.livejournal.com
Oh, all right. I guess I'll pick it up tomorrow.

I've pretty firmly decided that having Buffy do sudden, epic sex — with virtually no explanation — with a guy who walked out on her more than 5 years before was the bridge too far for me and a lot of fandom. Who does that? Now that I'm saying it, I figure loads of folks will pipe up with stories of long lost loves leading to instant nasty, but I think Joss misread the audience on this one. I don't think I'm being puritanical about it, but it's a vastly weird response for her. It's just too much of a departure for not just Buffy, but any sane woman, no matter how lonely. I actually don't really care about Angel's motivations, as I don't really care about Angel, period. It's Buffy's motivations that are most troubling to me.

And, okay, I got completely off topic and am flogging a poor, dying horse. Please forgive me.

Slightly less diversionary: At Comic-Con, any mention of the comic at Joss' talk was met with dead silence or sporadic, tepid applause. It felt like a wake. Quite a difference from the utter celebration of last year. He's got a tough row to hoe to make us believe in a Buffy that can be relied upon to make good choices. Oh well, that's why he gets the big bucks, I guess. I think he'll probably do it, too.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 05:12 am (UTC)
ext_15392: (Default)
From: [identity profile] flake-sake.livejournal.com
I didn't know that about comicon. Can't help but think it's good news that even the present Joss fans couldn't muster any enthusiasm. That has to send some message.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 06:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com
Interesting about Comic-Con. I hadn't heard that. We're you there or did you have an audio or video for it?

Completely agree about the problem of #34. We need something to make sense of it, because it really doesn't. It's not just that she's boinking this guy after five years of nothing (in the wake of finding out about 206 dead slayers and all the rest of it). It's that she's not intensely angry at him for trying to say he's been doing all this to manipulate her into becoming what she's become. I also have a problem with the following illogic: If Buffy and Angel have been meant to be together all this time, the only explanation for them not being together is the detachable soul. But they come together now with no mention of said detachable soul. The wank on that is that they both have reason to believe he can't get that happy again or whatever. But if that's so, why weren't they together already. I don't think you get both long separation and his soul not being an issue in one cogent explanation.

I'm willing to give Joss a chance to save all this in the last arc. But I'm not counting on it, and I certainly don't think it's OK as is.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 06:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rebcake.livejournal.com
I was at Comic-Con for the Joss talk (like last year), but I missed the Joss/JJ talk. Last year the love in the room was incredible. I thought people would trash the place in ecstatic frenzy. Dollhouse had just been renewed, so that was a big part of it.

This year, Dollhouse is canceled, the release of Cabin in the Woods is on indefinite delay, and Joss' first statement was that Scott Allie was co-writing the final arc of Season 8. The crickets were loud indeed. I'm sure that some people are thrilled about The Avengers, but his core fans I don't see the feminist angle there.

There could have been extenuating circumstances for people's lack of enthusiasm, such as the stupidly long wait times, but the difference was remarkable.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 07:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eilowyn.livejournal.com
I think Joss misread the audience on this one. I don't think I'm being puritanical about it, but it's a vastly weird response for her. It's just too much of a departure for not just Buffy, but any sane woman, no matter how lonely.

Word.

I don't really care about Angel, period

Wordy McWordison.

am flogging a poor, dying horse.

Was the horse perhaps dark? Because methinks a little flogging might be necessary to get the horse to stop thinking out of its ass (and I so did not just endorse animal abuse via obscure metaphor, did I?)

He's got a tough row to hoe to make us believe in a Buffy that can be relied upon to make good choices

(This is one I just saw and liked on Whedonesque) I've got so much word for you I'm holding both a Webster's and an Oxford dictionary!

Okay, done now.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 07:19 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rebcake.livejournal.com
Oh man! I just joined Whedonesque, and was working up the nerve (or inspiration) to post something, and somebody beat me to it! Dang!

Oh well, I won't tell anybody about your animal abuse, if you don't tell about my foot dragging. ;-)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-20 05:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] infinitewhale.livejournal.com

It's just too much of a departure for not just Buffy, but any sane woman, no matter how lonely

Bigtime agree. And beyond that, there's the curse and, you know, killing a couple hundred girls. There's just no way *anyone* would do that. Of course there's the glowhypnol and I think that's what they'll use as the out, but that's where it gets tricky for them when it comes Spike's reaction.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-20 05:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] owenthurman.livejournal.com
I've pretty firmly decided that having Buffy do sudden, epic sex — with virtually no explanation — with a guy who walked out on her more than 5 years before was the bridge too far for me and a lot of fandom. Who does that?

Yeah, who does that? And also, eww.

I actually don't really care about Angel's motivations, as I don't really care about Angel, period

That, too.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-20 05:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rebcake.livejournal.com
I'm a little disappointed that nobody is arguing the "who does that" question. Preferably with lots of salacious detail about the time the guy who told them "It's not you, it's me" showed up 10 years later and they couldn't drop trou fast enough. I mean, I thought there were supposed to be degenerates here on the interwebs! Where the heck are they? (Pfft. Probably out having sex with some old flame. Whatever.)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 05:09 am (UTC)
ext_15392: (Default)
From: [identity profile] flake-sake.livejournal.com
Welcome to the fence, maggie, I brought lattes. :)

Though I also think the way they broke the news was very crappy from DH and there is probably little hope that it'll actually get better.

It all depends on the S8 ending for me. If they turn it into a Bangefest, I'm never gonna look at a comic again. Usually I wouldn't base my liking of the series on a shippy thing, but the comics never had anything that really intrigued me to offer in all those years I waited for the Spike/Buffy thing to play out, so if they botch it I can at least leave without doubts.

Thanks for the Riley summary. The bits about explaining 10 times over that Angel totally had to be a patronizing dick for the good of the world sounds very stupid. I really hope it gets a smack down, but I'm not sure it will.

It seems so contrived and like a bunch of excuses to bugger over any feminist message they ever had.

Thanks for the IDW heads up too. Sounds like Mariah and Tischman are doing a little better than Willingham and Williams.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 06:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com
It's a nice fence, it is. :)

Last Gleaming cannot affirm Bangel as is. It's my line in the sand. I don't think it will. Will there be enough smack down? We'll see. My post above to shipperx abounds with the ramblings of my unaccoutably optimistic brain.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 07:42 am (UTC)
ext_15392: (Default)
From: [identity profile] flake-sake.livejournal.com
Yeah, and I partly agree with your take on things. Especially when I'm just reading the comics and disregarding the griping on the fanboards.

That's why I'm still reading and hoping for an emotional payoff, if not for a logical one.

My optimism is just not exactly unwavering. I think of how deeply this sucks for me as an Angel fan and there is no prospect for it getting better in that area, so I'm still fearing for Spike to get the same treatment.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 07:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com
Thanks a lot for the write-up. Have to say that based on what I've read about the Riley one-shot... well, it's nice that they realised that they had to actually go into Angel's motivations for becoming the villain, but the question is if it comes across as "See, Angel isn't the bad guy" or "Whistler's the bad guy too." Bringing in Whistler as some sort of teacher's edition to tell us what would have happened (except not, if he claims it'll save the world) seems a bit lazy (and it sounds especially jarring given all the Bangel prophecy bullshit, given that Whistler's previous comment on it was "nobody saw you coming"), and I have all sorts of issues with it if we assume that this is still some sort of study of morals rather than just a shippy adventure story (apparently, "not being bad" is what separates the good guys from the bad guys). But we'll see; at least they're trying to fix their own bad planning, and they deserve kudos for that. I like what you write about the juxtaposition of Angel and Riley's decisions, even if I'm doubtful that Whedon and Allie will draw any too harsh conclusions from that (especially if they've just bought the rights to the Angel comics). (Do they explain just how an unknown guy in a mask can "muster" the US army, BTW?)

As for the whole company broohaha, I find it amusing. Poor IDW come across as clueless amateurs a lot of the time, but I've had more reasons than just Season 8 to dislike DH lately...

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 08:09 am (UTC)
ext_15392: (Default)
From: [identity profile] flake-sake.livejournal.com
As for the whole company broohaha, I find it amusing. Poor IDW come across as clueless amateurs a lot of the time, but I've had more reasons than just Season 8 to dislike DH lately...

Yeah? Did they mess up other books too?

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 08:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com
Dark Horse are putting out a series of prequels and sequels for Let The Right One In in connection with the US remake, claiming that they're doing it to expand the story and be more faithful to the novel. Trouble is, they're doing it very much against the expressed wishes of the author of both the novel and the original movie, who left a lot of things (especially the ending) ambiguous on purpose. He's tried suing them over it, but it turns out his lawyer waived his rights to veto anything without telling him. Here's an article, in which Allie is as honest and truthful as usual, claiming that their series will be based on things in the novel that were left out of the movie, even though the movie ends right where the novel ends. I guess he's assuming that comic fans don't read translated novels.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 09:00 am (UTC)
ext_15392: (Default)
From: [identity profile] flake-sake.livejournal.com
Grrr...ok, I join you in anger over this (And I think I might have to read the novel). The mistreatment of the author really sucks.

And wow, does Allie's tone make me want to strangle him.

Really, I keep wondering why Joss has such a thing for working for corporate evil.
Edited Date: 2010-08-19 09:06 am (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 10:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com
(And I think I might have to read the novel).

You really should. I think you'd like it.

I'm not sure I'd call Dark Horse "corporate evil", exactly. It's not like they're a huge company. But Allie just rubs me the wrong way.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 11:07 am (UTC)
ext_15392: (Default)
From: [identity profile] flake-sake.livejournal.com
I liked your last rec (Stone god) a lot, so I'll deffinitely give it a look. :)

I'm not sure I'd call Dark Horse "corporate evil", exactly. It's not like they're a huge company.

More like kids selling poisonous lemonade?

And I agree about Allie and his way of doing business.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 12:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com
Honestly, I don't envy DH - being a publisher, especially a small one, isn't easy today; you need to make money somehow, and you need to compete somehow, and from what I can tell Scott Allie is doing pretty much what many other small publishers are doing: make sure to make enough money to be able to keep going. I do get the feeling that he is honestly a fan of a lot of what he puts out, for good and bad - but he also needs to make it in a cutthroat business. This means being a smart marketer, exploit whatever rights he can get a hold of, occasionally disappoint a few hardcore fans to win 10 times as many casual ones, etc... no wonder he can identify with Twangel. ;) That doesn't mean I like how he's handled things, or that he couldn't have done a better job, or treated the people who pay his cheques with more respect, but I do think he has a soul even if it might be in a jar somewhere. ;)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 02:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sueworld2003.livejournal.com
You and me both hon.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-20 05:01 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] infinitewhale.livejournal.com

*raaaaaaaaage*

Freaking DH.

I read the script for the remake. Ugh.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-20 06:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com
Given the less than complimentary comments the producer has made about the original, I'm not surprised at your ugh. But it really bugs me that they (not just dh) keep justifying every change with "being more faithful to the novel" when it's so very obviously a lie.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 01:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com
No explanation on how Angel can muster the US army, but I don't really care about that. We aren't going for realism here.

I care much more about whether Whistler is intended as a genuine explanation that's supposed to exonerate Angel. But I really don't think it reads that way. Whistler gives us a way to understand why Angel might do this. But once the text explicitly points out that Angel's plan de-protagonizes Buffy in a comic where the contrast character is still her loyal soldier, I think it's clear that Angel's plan cannot and will not be vindicated. Or if it is Joss has swallowed a ginormous stupid pill and accidentally trashed the feminist cred he's got.

I've got no love for IDW, but am really puzzled by Allie's manner of announcement.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 01:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com
We aren't going for realism here.

True, but some small sense of in-story sense-making wouldn't go amiss. I mean, if it were that simple, why didn't he do that way back in the actual TV series? Just imagine all the damsels he could have saved with the entire US military at his fingertips. :)

I think it's clear that Angel's plan cannot and will not be vindicated.

Sounds good to me. Hope you're right.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 02:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com
I've just learned to get over it. Sam and Riley don't plausibly hop on a plan to go unaccompanied and unsupported to the spot that missile was targeted at. But whatever.

For the rest, I continue to stay tuned. I really like your Lady Gaga comparison.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 09:15 am (UTC)
ext_7259: (Default)
From: [identity profile] moscow-watcher.livejournal.com
I haven't read the Riley issue yet, but, judging by what I read, I think I'll like it.

So... "The girl or the world?" But it doesn't make sense so far: Angel was trying to get the girl, to keep her to himself in paradise. Unless the situation is more complex and we don't know a lot. Maybe Whistler ordered Angel to kill Buffy, and Angel tried to keep her in paradise to prevent her death.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 01:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com
Even if Angel tried to prevent Buffy's death, he still had no problem watching the world get destroyed -- and the only way he can justify going behind Buffy's back is that he feared the world was to be destroyed. So it doesn't add up, and I'm still hoping that crazy juice is in the mix somewhere.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 01:42 pm (UTC)
ext_7259: (Default)
From: [identity profile] moscow-watcher.livejournal.com
Well, maybe he thought he could outwit PTB? Thankless task, since PTB = writers :)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 01:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com
No signs in this comic that Angel is anything other than a tortured guy buying Whistler's word and having to choose between saving Buffy and saving the world. There are signs that Angel is being played, in the form of the parallel story about the missile that gets highjacked.

I think Angel's been duped. And I think his character will suffer the consequences of having been duped and having made the choice to buy Whistler rather than have faith in Buffy.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 02:03 pm (UTC)
ext_7259: (Default)
From: [identity profile] moscow-watcher.livejournal.com
You might be right. I just try to see the TV!Angel in this bizarre creature. On TV, Angel was anything but an idiot. He was cunning, shrewd, ruthless, if necessary. But maybe I'm wrong and this guy who sports a Mexican wrestler's costume, has nothing to do with the Angel I know from TV.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 02:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com
Well, Angel did come up with the NFA plan... which I regard as being at best intensely stupid and at worst pretty damned evil. That said, Iagree that Angel's character on season 8 does not yet add up. I await further developments.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 03:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] local-max.livejournal.com
this guy who sports a Mexican wrestler's costume

NUMERO CINCO IS TWILIGHT, YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-19 11:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] local-max.livejournal.com
1. Well, I'm with you on Lynch and IDW (though I'm not a militant hater, just highly disinterested). Dark Horse did seem to announce it in a bizarre way. This coupled with the Angel reveal actually makes me feel that Willingham et al. probably did have good reason to complain that IDW is being badly treated by DH. Oh well, I guess I don't care enough, and a shared universe would be cool. I do trust Whedon more than any IDW folk to preserve Angel's story, and I trust him a lot on Spike. He also wrote most of Illyria's scenes in the show I've heard...?

2. Yes on all these points. The issue is most interesting on Angel, secondarily on Riley & Sam (who are pretty enjoyable). That the plan needed for Buffy to be stripped of power to be powered up confirms that this is what we were supposed to get out of Retreat; hopefully there'll be more on that in Last Gleaming. (I don't know if I care that it makes sense literally, but it should be clear what the steps were.)

Whistler's appearance was pretty neat.

I'm not so sure that Riley's scenes were all light; in fact Riley's scenes started all light and then became gradually darker and darker until they were in total blackness. Riley has to descend into darkness; we see that Angel was already there. That Riley gets darker than Angel does could mean anything I guess (though if it's that Riley & Sam are worse than Angel, I think that's silly).

I have the same hopes about Bangel subversion.

Back to comment on your comment on my thread!

3. It's nice that Mariah is trying so hard to reach out to fans. I flipped through a few pages of Willingham's Angel book in hardcover; I actually kind of like the art (!) but didn't actually bother reading any of it.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-20 05:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com
I did notice about the creeping darkness and did think that had to do with the fact that while I don't think we have evidence that Riley has done evil, he is definitely deciding to put himself into a position where he might. We don't get to judge because the situation hasn't come up. He seems to be thinking that he'll kill someone if Twilight asks him to as a test, but we can't judge people based on what they might do. For all we know, he'd have broken down and refused rather than shoot someone.

The pitch black *is* interesting. My read keys off the first bubbles in the dark "You really want to talk about this now" "You have something better to talk about in the total darkness". They go on to talk about their faith in each other and all that. There they are going into the possibilty of death and loss or the dreaded choice about shooting an innocent. It's an act of faith to talk about the future of their relationship. Faith is walking with surety through the pitch black (or unknown). I find it interesting that it immediately follows Angel on a church following what he thinks he knows (knowledge = light) into the dark, rather than trusting in the unknown (dark) in the hopes that it will bring him to the light.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-20 07:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] local-max.livejournal.com
I agree that Riley's not responsible for actions he didn't do. And certainly signing up for a situation in which he might be asked to do something evil, at which Riley could excuse himself (by breaking down and refusing) is reasonable. That said, seriously considering doing evil actions still counts in the minus column for me, though it's not on the same order of magnitude of minus as doing them. I think I overstated my case about Riley's darkness in this issue and the general arc though; Riley has exactly the doubts he should have (and you made a good point in my lj that Riley's options about spike guy were basically nil).

Faith is also letting your husband go help his ex he still has feelings for, because you know you still come first, as well. I just noticed another Angel parallel, this time with Sam: Sam is generous about Riley's feelings about Buffy, but Angel doesn't really try to understand Buffy's feelings for Riley (such as they are) and just dismisses them--"I didn't know what she saw in him." (Which I just thought as a metacomment on fandom, but is pretty revealing about Angel.)

It's an act of faith to talk about the future of their relationship. Faith is walking with surety through the pitch black (or unknown). I find it interesting that it immediately follows Angel on a church following what he thinks he knows (knowledge = light) into the dark, rather than trusting in the unknown (dark) in the hopes that it will bring him to the light.

Ooh, I like that.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-20 07:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com
"I don't get what she saw in him." Said as he sits there in the dark with his ritual and his mask. It's pretty funny.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-20 08:01 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] local-max.livejournal.com
Jane brings it.