buffywatch:
Again - still dealing with all that Darla/Angel history. I wrote about my feelings there already. I think they’re developing that history well…It’s just kind of a shellshock since she was so peripheral in the past.
I remember watching this episode and thinking “they have officially found this show’s voice”. All the fucked-up mind games with Darla worked really well for me— and in a way that felt distinct from Buffy. It’s as if, after a year of trying to make Angel “darker” and more “adult”, they finally figured out what that means. And when Darla dismisses Buffy as some cheerleader with whom Angel had a fling, you kinda get a sense of how the Buffy world looks from an Angel perspective, which helps solidify what the Angel perspective is.
I feel you about the exploration of Angel and Darla’s history requiring a mental shift, but in a good way— like it was already implied by what we knew, and they’re finally putting it into action.
This was the only extended period during which I liked Angel more than Buffy. You’re creeping your way into my favorite stretch of Angel, and they’ve got you right where they want you.
signsandwonders:
I live in Inwood. Within 3 blocks of each other, there are Seaman Ave, Dyckman St., and Cumming St. I thought that was bad enough. The best part of Inwood is the huge, beautiful Inwood Hill Park. I just went to the Parks website and learned it used to be called… ready for it… COCK HILL.
And the best part is, there’s a church on the corner of Seaman and Cumming. A church on which I assume every local teenage boy has jerked off.
buffywatch:
So, for 3/4 of this episode I was pretty “Blah blah. I guess we had to deal with Hollywood at some point.” And then the change.
I can understand not buying the premise. It’s kind of thin and it poses all kinds of questions about how the curse works. You also have to make a series of specific judgment calls about how mood-altering drugs work BUT it was enough that I buy it and enough of a surprise that I thought it was cool. I also thought they had to bring back or introduce or deal with Angelus at some point during season one. (I realized it’s only in Angel that they start using the names Angel/Angelus as the distinction. On Buffy they didn’t invoke the name Angelus to describe the transformation as much.)
Also, most importantly, it’s about continuing to establish the Wesley/Cordelia/Angel family. So this works for me.
This is the only episode that I have retconned out of existence in my head. I’m always in favor of Angel going evil, but I just cannot get behind the idea that he loses his soul temporarily because happiness from ecstasy is “artificial”. Number one, that is not how ecstasy works. Number two, it’s not like his soul-loss lasts only for the duration of his happiness. Lame lame lame.
Also, I hate that they started referring to Angel and Angelus like different entities.
Fuck this episode.
I am going to look up who wrote and directed it so I can hate them.
Tracey Stern wrote it and Regis Kimble directed it. I don’t know who they are, but they’re my enemies now.
buffywatch:
You guys.
You guys.
I just put in disc five.
There’s an episode called Five by Five.
Please mean what I think it means.
Please.
Mean what I think it means.
Please.
NOBODY TELL ME.
You guessed it: popular Buffy character Scott Hope makes his Angel debut.
nicolemarietherese:
Is Fright Night a movie about a terrifying night spent inside watching TV and having your favorite characters undercut at the expense of pursuing a misguided season long plotline?
Noxon wrote New Moon Rising.
PASS.
Catty comments about Marti Noxon already? Congratulations, you’re a true Buffy fan.
