Disc Specs

  • Region:
    1
  • Released:
    February 15th 2005
  • Country:
    United States of America
  • Running Time:
    990 minutes
  • Screen Format:
    1.78:1 Anamorphic NTSC
  • Discs / Sides / Layers:
    6 / 1 / Dual
  • Soundtracks:
    English Dolby Surround 2.0
    Spanish Dolby Surround 2.0
    French Dolby Surround 2.0
  • Subtitles:
    English
    Spanish
  • Special Features:
    Commentary on 7 episodes
    Hey Kids! It’s Smile Time!
    Angel 100
    Angel: Choreography Of A Stunt
    Angel: The Final Season
    To Live & Die in LA: The Best Of Angel
    Halos & Horns: Recurring Villainy
    Angel Unbound: The Gag Reels
  • Distributor:
    20th Century Fox

Film Specs

  • Certificate:
    Unrated
  • Released:
    2003-2004
  • Country:
    United States of America
  • Director:
    Joss Whedon
    James A. Contner
    Marita Grabiak
    Steven S. DeKnight
    Bill Norton
    Jeffrey Bell
    Jefferson Kibbee
    Skip Schoolnik
    Vern Gillum
    David Boreanaz
    David Fury
    Terrence O'Hara
    Ben Edlund
    David Greenwalt
  • Starring:
    David Boreanaz
    James Marsters
    J. August Richards
    Amy Acker
    Andy Hallett
    Alexis Denisof
    Mercedes McNab
    Sarah Thompson
    Jonathan M. Woodward
    Jenny Mollen
    Christian Kane
    Juliet Landau
    Tom Lenk
    Charisma Carpenter
    Adam Baldwin
    Vincent Kartheiser
    Julie Benz
    Julia Lee
  • Genre(s):
    Action
    Horror
    Live Action
    Television

Angel: Season 5

28-02-2005 20:00 | 14541 views  |  Michael Mackenzie  |  Show Backlinks  |  Other "Angel" Content

Warning: This review contains spoilers for Angel Seasons 1-4, Seasons 6 and 7 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and some mild spoilers for Angel Season 5.

In the last two years, the mighty television empire of Joss Whedon has come crashing down, tumbling from being one of the most popular cults in recent years to a big heap of nothing in little more than the blink of an eye. Season 5 of Angel marks the end of the last of his three series, surviving both its own parent series Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the short-lived Firefly ("Fireflop" to the less generous). With his production company, Mutant Enemy, shuttered, and seemingly no prospect of further adventures in the Buffyverse (except in book and graphic novel form), the time has come to look at the last remnants of what was once one of the greatest franchises of the last decade.


At the end of Angel's fourth season, it was uncertain as to whether it would be renewed the next year. Buffy had ended its seven-year run with a whimper, and although the final episode of Angel Season 4 introduced big changes and paved the way for a complete overhaul of the show, executives at the WB, the network on which the show aired, seemed disinterested. In a desperate bid to buy the show at least another year, Whedon ushered in a whole host of changes, including an increased emphasis on "monster of the week" episodes, resulting in more episodic structure to the show, as well as completely altering the playing field for the show's intrepid heroes: season 5 opens with Angel and co. heading up Wolfram & Hart, the multi-dimensional law firm that, until recently, was their most bitter enemy. Furthermore, the addition of the character of Spike (James Marsters), a carry-over from Buffy, to the cast. Never mind that the final episode of that show featured Spike exploding in a blinding ray of light in order to save the world, his addition to Angel probably prevented the show from being scrapped, and although his reappearance never is adequately explained, he does end up giving the show the blood transfusion it needed. Marsters has always been a more evocative performer than David Boreanaz (who only seems to truly shine when portraying Angel's evil alter-ego, Angelus), and although his acting has been described by some rather unkind individuals of Shatner-style scenery-chewing, his enthusiasm is infectious and his ability to turn on a dime between being completely blithe and deeply emotional is exactly what the character requires.

Especially in the first half of the season, there is a return to the more lighthearted feel that characterised Buffy for its first four or five seasons. Indeed, many of the situations and dialogues have a decidedly Buffy-esque feel to them, probably as a result of creator Joss Whedon's increased involvement in the running of the show and of the addition of two of that particular show's former writers, David Fury and Drew Goddard, to the crew. As such, it feels as if the veil of darkness and depression that hung over the Buffyverse for the past two years has suddenly been lifted. Certain plot twists at the end of the fourth season and the start of the fifth make this a fairly artificial change - the erasing of Connor (Vincent Kartheiser) from most of the gang's minds feels like a relatively transparent way of the writers trying to backtrack on what ultimately turned out to have been an extremely bad storyline (and character) - and it does come back to bite the writers in the butt as the season progresses, but this attempt to return to the more positive feel of the universe's early years is appreciated. It's just a shame that, as was the case with Buffy, the writers chose to abandon the morbitity in what ultimately turned out to be the show's final season, since in both cases it effectively meant an eventual return to gloom and doom in an attempt to provide a worthy climax. With Buffy, this set in after a handful of episodes. With Angel, which was given much less time to wrap up its storylines, it happens much later, and as a result the conclusion feels rushed and unsatisfying. It's undoubtedly a double-edged sword, and it just goes to show that it was a crying shame that the series was cancelled just when it seemed to have made a fresh start and was finding its feet again. (Rumours of intended Season 6 storylines, including the return of Oz, Angel and co trapped in another dimension, and a number of episodes with Amy Acker playing the parts of both Fred and Illyria, just make me even more disappointed that the show wasn't given at least one more year.)


The final one-third of the season certainly represents something of a disappointment as so much potential is squandered by reverting to doom and gloom. Annoyingly Whedon (who it is becoming fairly clear is a nasty and vindictive individual when he doesn't get his own way and enjoys inflicting pain on viewers) pulls his favourite trick out of the bag once more, killing off a major character at the very moment when things seem to finally be going well for them. He did it with Tara on Buffy (an action that had far more significant consequences than simply depriving audiences of a popular character), and he does it again her with the demure Fred (Amy Acker). This storyline also allows him to visit another of his favourite twisted concepts, when her body is taken over by an evil demon name Illyria. When she heard that Whedon was planning on doing this with Tara, Amber Benson wisely high-tailed it as quickly as possible, but Amy Acker either wasn't so lucky or didn't mind playing an evil incarnation of her character. There is also the slight issue of the way the show ends, which is thoroughly disappointing and would only really have worked if there was a possibility of a future spin-off (which, at the stage, is about as likely as Hell freezing over). As Angel came to an end, promises of guest appearances by Sarah Michelle Gellar, Eliza Dushku and Alyson Hannigan amounted to nothing, and while Gellar is frequently the recipient of much blame among fans, it has since transpired that she twice offered her services to Whedon for the series finale, only to be turned down. Instead, we are subjected to a couple of appearances by Andrew (Tom Lenk), who was annoying on Buffy and is even worse here. For what has ultimately turned out to be the swangsong for the entire Buffyverse, Not Fade Away, written and directed by Jeffrey Bell (rather than Whedon, who was off filming his big-screen Firefly resurrection, Serenity), is remarkably pessimistic and unfulfilling.

All the problems of the final part of the season can't fail to take away the excellence of what precedes it, however, and in my opinion Season 5 features some of the best stand-alone episodes of the entire series. Although at times featuring storylines similar to ones previously used either on Buffy or on Angel itself (we get a werewolf episode, for example, and one in which various characters lose their inhibitions in a manner similar to earlier episodes on both shows), the enthusiasm of the writers and actors is extremely entertaining. Ben Edlund, who joined the writing staff late in Season 4, contributes two superbly comedic episodes this year: Life of the Party, in which the guests at a Halloween party take Lorne's (Andy Hallett) orders a little too literally, and Smile Time, which sees Angel transformed into a puppet - the results of which really have to be seen to be believed. The bravura moment, however, is the all-too-brief return of Cordelia Chase (Charisma Carpenter) in You're Welcome. Written and directed by David Fury, this episode re-injects the series with some of the trademark style that is all but absent during the rest of the season. Bringing Cordelia back into the picture re-establishes the dynamic upon which the series thrived during its first three seasons, and it is a great shame that she only sticks around for one episode. Although Charisma Carpenter is far from the world's greatest actress, her interaction with David Boreanaz and the rest of cast is excellent, and both her performance and the writing absolutely nail what made her character so fun. Ah, good times. She also works well with James Marsters, and in my opinion Whedon really missed the boat when he chose not to renew her contract at the end of the fourth season. (As so often seems to be the case, he attempted to paint the picture of her being the bad guy, despite the fact that she has frequently stated that she fully expected to be back for the fifth season and was gutted when told she no longer had a job.) Unfortunately, mixed in with all the great episodes are a handful of complete clunkers. The worst two by far are The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco, an episode focusing on, of all things, Mexican wrestling, and Why We Fight, which takes place during the Second World War and manages to screw up the continuity of the characters of Spike and Angel big time.


The performances are great all-round, with Alexis Denisof in his role of Wesley demonstrating remarkable depth and edginess that builds on the harrowing performances he gave in late Season 3 and most of Season 4 - a far cry from the bumbling twit that appeared in Buffy's third season and early episode of Angel. Likewise, the look of the show is top-notch, belying the fact that it in fact suffered budget cuts when compared to previous seasons. Buffy and Angel were two of the few series on American television to frequently double up writers and directors, and this in my opinion was one of their greatest strengths, as the episodes that were both written and directed by the same person generally had a greater sense of cohesion than the usual method of hiring an outside director to translate the script to the screen. In Season 5, David Boreanaz gets to direct, marking the first time that any Buffyverse actor has had a chance to direct on either show. Perhaps surprisingly, his episode, while not radically important in terms of overall story arcs, is very stylishly shot, making much use of atmospheric dream sequences and alternate realities.

The final season of Angel feels like a bit of a wasted opportunity. I am very much of the opinion that the low note on which the show ends is the result of it having been cancelled at short notice, and that had the writers not been forced to cut their storylines short, the end result would have been much more satisfying. Sadly, all this is water under the bridge now, and with any future escapades in the Buffyverse looking extremely unlikely, the final season of Angel must stand on its own as a promising but ultimately unfulfilling conclusion to a saga that has run for a total of eight years and 254 hours of television. Farewell, creatures of the night!


DVD Presentation

Presented in anamorphic 1.78:1 (the ratio in which the show has been intended to be watched since Season 3), the show looks excellent on DVD, thanks mainly to the level of detail, which is often exceptional, both by the standards of a TV show and of DVD in general. A handful of shots look overly soft, and a couple of episodes show slightly less definition than others, but by and large the show looks exceptional when compared to other DVDs of TV shows: the only other TV show DVDs showing this much detail (that I am aware of) are the UK releases of Alias. There are a couple of downsides, namely that the noise reduction is at times quite heavy, freezing the film grain unnaturally, and also that the night scenes tend to be overly dark (although this is characteristic of the TV broadcasts as well, so this is not a problem specific to the DVDs), but by and large this is a very satisfying presentation.

The sound, vanilla Dolby Surround 2.0, is fine without being remarkable in any way. Angel (and Buffy) never did embrace the wonders of 5.1 surround sound, and as a result the audio on this release is much like that of the previous four seasons. An unsurprisingly front-focused mix, the surrounds are generally used to accentuate the music score and very little else, with the occasional sound effect showing up here and there. The dialogue is relatively clear, although it sometimes gets a little muffled, and there is the slight issue of some very obvious ADR on James Marsters' dialogue in a couple of scenes in the second episode, but by and large there are no major problems here.

Spanish and French Dolby Surround 2.0 dubs are also included, as well as optional English and Spanish subtitles for the episodes themselves. None of the bonus features are subtitled.


Extras

Until Season 4, the Angel DVDs were always somewhat limited in terms of extras, at least compared to the Buffy DVDs. Luckily, Season 5 builds on the Season 4 release's strengths, including a decent array of extras providing an interesting behind the scenes look at the show.

Commentaries are included for a total of seven episodes (compared with two on Seasons 1 and 2, three on Season 3 and six on Season 4), featuring a combination of cast and crew members. The line-up is as follows:

- Conviction with writer/director Joss Whedon
- Destiny with director Skip Schoolnick, writers David Fury and Steven S. DeKnight and actor Juliet Landau (Drusilla)
- Soul Purpose with director/actor David Boreanaz (Angel), writer Brent Fletcher and actor Christian Kane (Lindsay)
- You're Welcome with writer/director David Fury and actors Christian Kane (Lindsay) and Sarah Thompson (Eve)
- A Hole in the World with writer/director Joss Whedon and actors Amy Acker (Fred) and Alexis Denisof (Wesley)
- Underneath with director Skip Schoolnik, writers Sarah Fain and Elizabeth Craft and actor Adam Baldwin (Hamilton)
- Not Fade Away with co-writer/director Jeffrey Bell

These tracks run the whole gamut from fascinating to downright tedious, with some real surprises along the way. I personally was not looking forward to the David Boreanaz commentary at all, since in interviews he always comes across as very nervous and tends to mumble. Contrary to my expectations, however, he turns out to be an extremely lucid and entertaining speaker in the context of this commentary, showing a solid grasp of the technical aspects of directing as well as having a great rapport with fellow actor Christian Kane. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the commentary on A Hole in the World, which sees all three muttering and talking about anything but the episode in question, as well as some annoying gaps of silence. Experience has shown that Joss Whedon is at his best on solo commentaries (as is the case on Conviction), as he tends to be more focused and informative in these situations.


The remainder of the extras are comprised of a number of a number of featurettes of varying length. In addition to the compulsory season overview, Angel: The Final Season, which provides an effective but fairly redundant summary of the events of all 22 episodes, there are a number of items concentrating on specific aspects of the fifth season and the show in general.

Kicking off, on Disc 1 despite the episode in question not appearing until Disc 4, is Hey Kids! It’s Smile Time!, in which writer/director Ben Edlund, David Boreanaz and various puppeteers discuss the challenges facing them with the difficult task of bringing the puppets to life.

Angel 100 looks at the party held for the cast and crew to commemorate the show's 100 episode and discusses the return of the character of Cordelia.

Angel: Choreography Of A Stunt looks at the process of creating the show's stunts, focusing specifically on the sixteenth episode and including interviews with writer/director Steven S. DeKnight and stunt coordinator/Angel stunt double Mike Massa.

To Live & Die in LA: The Best Of Angel provides us with a run-down of Joss Whedon's favourite episodes of Angel. Similar to the feature provided for the final season of Buffy, this one is perhaps a little more interesting because Whedon wrote and directed fewer episodes of Angel than its parent show, and therefore this list is more than just a summary of his own episodes.

Halos & Horns: Recurring Villainy takes a look at three of the show's most popular recurring villains, Darla (Julie Benz), Drusilla (Juliet Landau) and Lilah (Stephanie Romanov), featuring interviews with the ladies in question discussing the appeal of their characters.

Finally, Angel Unbound: The Gag Reels provides a semi-amusing series of bloopers and goofs from throughout the series. Unsurprisingly, some moments are much funnier than others, but you consider just how bad some gag reels are, this is a pretty decent one.


Overall

Like virtually every season of Angel, this final installment is a bit uneven, starting out great but going downhill for its final few episodes. Still, fans of the series will definitely want to pick this set up, both to see how the saga ends (in relative terms) and to enjoy some of the show's best episodes ever. With a decent audio-visual presentation and some interesting extras, Angel certainly goes out in style.

DVD Times Ratings

  • Film:
    8
    8 out of 10
  • Video: 
    9
    9 out of 10
  • Audio: 
    7
    7 out of 10
  • Extras: 
    7
    7 out of 10
  • Overall: 
    8
    8 out of 10

Reader Ratings

  • Film 
    9
  • Video 
    0
  • Audio 
    0
  • Extras 
    0
  • Overall 
    0

Comments

#1 Posted: 01-03-2005 01:08
liverpool fan
Account Disabled
Posts: 41

Report this post
Is the exact same package available from Canada, DvdSoon, or is it not as good.
Quote this post
#2 Posted: 01-03-2005 08:33
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
I'm fairly sure it's the same.
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#3 Posted: 01-03-2005 11:43
Byron
Irregulation
Posts: 65

Report this post
Excellent review Michael; as is often the case with your Buffyverse musings it sums up many of my feelings, although perhaps you're a bit hard on Joss. He's always had a vicious streak in him, but I don't think vindictiveness so much as desperation is responsible for the string of character deaths. Certainly his heart-tugging is enjoyable when it's done well: writing is the art of manipulation, and I don't mind it when it's not gratuitous.

Or maybe he is just a total bastard.

I'm of the mind it's best Angel died when it did. The changes forced on the show, as you rightly say, jar, and Joss was clearly bored of the Buffyverse by the end.

Must disagree about "Why We Fight". Yeah, admitted it makes a mockery of the continuity, but for the sight of Spike poncing about like a demented cross between Rinehard Hydrich and Sid Vicious, I'll forgive them that!
Quote this post
#4 Posted: 01-03-2005 11:49
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
Quote:
Excellent review Michael; as is often the case with your Buffyverse musings it sums up many of my feelings, although perhaps you're a bit hard on Joss. He's always had a vicious streak in him, but I don't think vindictiveness so much as desperation is responsible for the string of character deaths.

Actually, I think you're probably right. "Desperate" sums him up much better than "vindictive": reading interviews with him these days is an absolute riot, as he gets so completely tangled up in his own lies that at times he even ends up contradicting himself within the same sentence. The Tara debacle, which I have waxed philosophical about many times now, is a prime example of his inability to stick to any one explanation of the events. My favourite, however, will always be the way he blamed Jean-Pierre Jeunet and his editor for ruining Alien: Resurrection because they apparently couldn't comprehend the genius of the script. These days I probably wouldn't credit him with the ability to be deliberately hurtful: he seems far more interested in desparately trying to pass the buck to others in order to cover his own mistakes. Then again, according to him, his whole career seems to have been a case of "they ruined my vision".
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#5 Posted: 01-03-2005 13:35
Byron
Irregulation
Posts: 65

Report this post
To be fair, I can rather see how he formed that impression after the original Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Seems to me, conciously or not, he's since come to use that victim complex to dodge criticism, but again, playing (ho ho) Devil's Advocate, some of the vitirol he got for bumping off Tara was extreme, far nastier than what was at the end of the day no more than a badly written plot stunt. If I had people calling me the next thing to Hitler I'd have got defensive as well. His big mistake was to fob the whole thing off onto his subordinates. They cocked it up and he got the flack. (Not that I doubt Whedon's ability to cock-up, the Fred-Wesley nonsense proved that, but better to make your own mistakes.)

It's the typical story of getting so powerful you put yourself above criticism. He badly needed a Jimmeny Cricket figure to tell him where he was going wrong. Get in that position, and you end up saying things like: "I don't give the fans what they want, I give them [William Shatner dramatic pause] WHAT THEY NEED!"
Quote this post
#6 Posted: 01-03-2005 15:06
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
Once again, I think you've got it right. The Tara issue was blown entirely out of proportion (not that I don't think the fans didn't have a very good reason to be agree - they certainly did, and the way Whedon and a number of his staff seemed to deliberately go out of their way online and in interviews to provoke and upset viewers and rub salt on wounds struck me as quite attrocious and very unprofessional), but I do feel that it was indicative of the problems that were beginning to plague the series as a whole. It was, for me, the straw that broke the camel's back and made it clear to me that I was being manipulated rather than entertained, but it was certainly neither the only nor the worst mistake the writers made. What makes it so interesting, though, is that the debacle emerged just as much from the way the writers conducted themselves as the event itself. To actively court the lesbian community with various false promises, only to turn round and say "I never cared about the issue in the first place" after accepting ample praise for coming up with what was - let's face it - possibly the only positive and realistic portrayal of a woman-on-woman relationship on US television was a pretty sick thing to do. As such, the events and discussion that transpired online in the wake of the event are absolutely fascinating (although I personally try not to spend too much time over at the Kitten Board, where tempers continue to flare three years after the fact).
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#7 Posted: 01-03-2005 16:27
Needsalt
Member
Posts: 110

Report this post
Good review Michael, although I have to disagree on a lot of things you said. I do think season 5 was more hit and miss than previous seasons, but unlike you I thought that it actually got good half way through, with the episodes following the excellent Smile Time, upping the ante and proving thoroughly enjoyable.
The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco which you state was one of the worst episodes really divided the fans - personally I thought it was a wonderfully wacky and offbeat episode, and was one of the positive aspects about having season 5 comprised of mainly stand-alones
In fact the only weak point about the later episdoes (IMO) was Illyria, who looked cool and all that, but sounded more like a reject from Star Trek what with her Data-like dialogue.
As for your Whedon-bashing both in the review and in your comments, well I'm quite shocked. Whilst you're clearly entitled to your opinion, I happen to think he is a superb writer/director and that his decisions to axe certain cast members was well within his right.
I believe the Tara debate has been blown way out of proportion (as you admitted) but that was because of those certain fans that are very vocal and feel they should be the creator and say what goes. One minute fans are proclaiming how they hate Tara's character, even being so harsh as to criticize Amber Benson's physhcial appearance. Then she is killed off and everyone is in an uproar saying that she was killed because she was a lesbian.
Obviously those fans chose to ignore the deaths of Jenny Calendar, Joyce as well as the departure of other beloved characters. Joss Whedon clearly explained that the death was integral to the main story and that if Oz was still in the picture, then it would have been him killed by the "magic" bullet.
Which brings me to the point of Whedon being a nasty and vindictive (okay desperate) individual when he doesn't get his own way and enjoys inflicting pain on viewers. I think maybe you took this too far. Like any tv viewer knows, things soon become boring if there isn't a little drama/unhappiness in a relationship. Moonlighting proved this when viewers soon tuned out afterthe two leads got together, dispelling the built-up sexual tension. Why did this happen? Because surely this was what the viewers wanted - for the couple to get together, but then they realised there was nothing else to wait for. Now because Buffy and Angel are fantasy shows, that means you don't have to settle with splitting a couple up, but you could have one gunned down, taken over by an ancient god... etc.
Whilst I was a fan of Fred's character, much more so than Illyria, I learnt to roll with the punches and put up with her (instead of launching a campaign on the internet to bring her back - even though considering the show's cancellation, it wouldn't have mattered anyway). In the end I grew to, well not admire her, but appreciated some of her characteristics - like her fondness of Wesley which moved her to back him up in the final episode.
Of course, I seem to be in the minority as a lot of fans think that if they moan enough, the writers will give in, hoping that it will appease their followers. Which worked with Sarah Wynter's character in 24 when she was built up in season 2 before being ignored in season 3, thanks to the outcry of disapproving fans. I say let the creator's vision be, after all, despite what others may think, the characters are the creator's, and it is his story - let him tell it how it is without criticising him for taking the story in controversial directions.

...

Phew. I seemed to have gotten a bit carried away there, and no doubt if anyone's reading this, they'll soon tell me to shut the hell up.
Oh well

And by the way Michael, (don't want to sound like I'm on your case, but...) you referred to Why We Fight as the episode Cordelia returned in, when it was in fact the 100th episode, "You're Welcome"

:rolleyes:
Quote this post
#8 Posted: 01-03-2005 18:58
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
Some interesting comments, Needsalt, and I'll try to address all (or most) of them.

Quote:
As for your Whedon-bashing both in the review and in your comments, well I'm quite shocked. Whilst you're clearly entitled to your opinion, I happen to think he is a superb writer/director and that his decisions to axe certain cast members was well within his right.

I totally agree with your assessment of his skills as a writer and director. There are, in my opinion, few pieces of television that are better made and more engaging than Hushed, Restless and The Body. I also believe that he is entirely within his right to wield his character-killing axe with as much abandon as he pleases, but equally so we are within our rights to criticize his decisions.

Quote:
I believe the Tara debate has been blown way out of proportion (as you admitted) but that was because of those certain fans that are very vocal and feel they should be the creator and say what goes. One minute fans are proclaiming how they hate Tara's character, even being so harsh as to criticize Amber Benson's physhcial appearance. Then she is killed off and everyone is in an uproar saying that she was killed because she was a lesbian.

I think this argument does the issue a bit of a disservice because it lumps all viewers into a single category and assumes that both criticisms came from the same people. They didn't. I also don't believe that Tara was killed because she was a lesbian, and indeed I think that anyone who genuinely thinks Joss Whedon thought "Hey! Let's kill the lesbian!" is a fool. However, I do think that killing her was a very badly thought-out idea that conformed to an extremely unfortunate cliché, and that by doing so, and then reacting in a very unprofessional manner in the light of the furore that arose, he did both the fans and the show a great disservice.

Quote:
Obviously those fans chose to ignore the deaths of Jenny Calendar, Joyce as well as the departure of other beloved characters. Joss Whedon clearly explained that the death was integral to the main story and that if Oz was still in the picture, then it would have been him killed by the "magic" bullet.

The deaths of Jenny Calendar and Joyce Summers never struck me as being the same as the death of Tara. Both were extremely well executed and resulted in some extremely potent and emotional drama. Tara's death was just a cheap stunt to push Willow over the edge and, in doing so, inject some life into the worst season of the show to date. Whether or not Oz would have bit the bullet is not really particularly relevant. I personally have a hard time believing that he would have, but let's play devil's advocate and assume that Joss was telling the truth (a bit of a leap of faith in my opinion!): it would still have been an incredibly cheap thing to do, and while I doubt that it would have provoked as much anger (that dreaded lesbian cliché being the point of contention), it would have been an equally unsatisfying stunt. Random accidental deaths rarely make for good television - the death of Joyce being an exception because it was so well handled.

Quote:
Which brings me to the point of Whedon being a nasty and vindictive (okay desperate) individual when he doesn't get his own way and enjoys inflicting pain on viewers. I think maybe you took this too far.

Have you read any of his interviews? The guy has a serious chip on his shoulder. He goes out of his way to rubbish former collaborators who have fallen out of favour with him (see former stunt coordinator Jeff Pruitt and his wife, Buffy stunt double Sophia Crawford, Amber Benson and now Sarah Michelle Gellar), passing the buck to the most convenient person in order to avoid taking the flak for his own decisions.

Quote:
Phew. I seemed to have gotten a bit carried away there, and no doubt if anyone's reading this, they'll soon tell me to shut the hell up.
Oh well

Not at all, I love getting feedback that disagrees with my own point of view. If we all shared the same opinions life would be boring.

Quote:
And by the way Michael, (don't want to sound like I'm on your case, but...) you referred to Why We Fight as the episode Cordelia returned in, when it was in fact the 100th episode, "You're Welcome"

My bad. I'll correct that.
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#9 Posted: 01-03-2005 23:06
Needsalt
Member
Posts: 110

Report this post
Thanks for replying, though I have to admit, reading my comments I was surprised how I come across - don't mean to sound like a short-tempered Whedon bodyguard. I suppose my excuse would be I usually visit and talk on various forums, but since its been a while since I've done so, I got a lot off my chest in one post. anyway, enough excuses, let me get back to my backlash... I mean kindhearted reply:

firstly, you're right, people do have a right to criticize work of a production to offer varying opinions and the like, but I feel there are some that take this to extremes and go on a right old rant, sign petitions and shout to anyone who will listen about a certain thing they dislike about a show, and there are those that seem to be waiting for a writer to make one mis-step to jump all over them.
Not that you're review was like this, but some of the comments just reminded me of that type of critic.

Quote:
I think this argument does the issue a bit of a disservice because it lumps all viewers into a single category and assumes that both criticisms came from the same people. They didn't.

(I don't know if that automatically puts a fancy box around the quote but I'll try it anyway)

Yeah sorry, I guess I put it down wrong. I know they weren't the same fans that all of a sudden switched sides, but I was just pointing out that no matter what Joss Whedon (or any other creator/writer for that matter) does, there's always going to be a faction that strongly disapproves of the course in action.
Having said that, I don't recall reading about Whedon's reply to the fans that apparently caused all the uproar, all I heard was a large group of fans being up in arms about the incident in question.
And to answer a following question you raised, I have read interviews with Whedon, but I have never come acroos a moment where I've thought "well he's certainly got a problem!" Though I've read on other sites how fans have ranted about cast members for comments they've made about others. Now of course I'm no expert and can't really comment on what has or hasn't been said but I know a lot of times things get taken out of context and twisted - not that I'm sticking up for Whedon again but that's naturally what people are like - one look at gossip/ entertainment magazines can tell you that where comments are overly analyzed so that a story can be made out of a little meaningless comment. for instance, I've read on a Buffy Board some people make comments like Joss Whedon sounds like a braggart and other things, but the comments they're referring to, I understood to be jsut his humour - many times I've heard a writer/director provide a commentary on an episode (not just Buffy) and say something like "oh wait everyone" and draw attention to their credit at the beginning, of course it's all said as a joke and Joss Whedon's humour being as wacky as it is (haven't you noticed Buffyspeak is the way he really talks!), people take a comment like that and say he's being big headed.

I'm sure that's not the type of thing you're referring to, but I know how people can easily misunderstand a comment, maybe innocently and everything is blown out of proportion. Now having said that, I have never read the comments he made in reply to the Tara debacle so for all I know he was being "unprofessional" and had no right to comment the way he did. So I'll leave that as it is

As for Tara's death... well maybe it was mishandled, but I personally didn't have a problem with it. Magic bullet theory or not, it just went to show to me that deaths aren't always heroic or the result of sickness but can jsut be freak accidents. It may seem like a cheap way to push Willow over the edge and a little predictable/cliched but it certainly wasn't the worst thing to happen in season 6 (did anybody watch Doublemeat Palace?! There should have been a ban on it)

As for shameless deaths, well I know the actor who's character was shot in the Angel finale (don't want to give away spoilers) wasn't too happy with his ending. But I thought it was kinda funny -though not ha ha funny. I personally did NOT see that coming and I thought it was a neat end for the character.

Quote this post
#10 Posted: 01-03-2005 23:33
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
Quote:
Having said that, I don't recall reading about Whedon's reply to the fans that apparently caused all the uproar, all I heard was a large group of fans being up in arms about the incident in question.

I don't have links to the exact quotes, but he made posts like "We're so over the gay thing now", as well as claiming that he no longer cared, and indeed never did care, about the gay rights issues his show had raised, despite on ample occasions having accepted thanks and praise from viewers many of whose lives had been profoundly influenced by the storyline. A number of other Mutant Enemy writers also made some rather snide and derrogatory comments both in interviews and on the Bronze board. The writer of the episode in question, Steven S. DeKnight, was at least humble enough to apologize for the comments he made in an interview, but all Joss seemed to be interested in doing was distancing himself from the whole debacle and claiming he didn't care, despite having been perfectly aware of the issues this storyline would raise. I would agree with you that a lot of what people take for arrogance is simply his sense of humour, but I think it was a very bad move for him to treat such an important subject in such a smug manner.

Quote:
As for Tara's death... well maybe it was mishandled, but I personally didn't have a problem with it. Magic bullet theory or not, it just went to show to me that deaths aren't always heroic or the result of sickness but can jsut be freak accidents. It may seem like a cheap way to push Willow over the edge and a little predictable/cliched but it certainly wasn't the worst thing to happen in season 6 (did anybody watch Doublemeat Palace?! There should have been a ban on it)

I would probably agree with you that Tara's death was not the worst part of the season (although I think that's open for debate), but it was for me the absolute last straw after almost an entire season of depression, manipulation and bad soap opera writing. As I said before, it was the point at which I realized just how desperate the writers were to control the audience's emotions by making things as bad as possible and assuming that depression=drama.

Quote:
As for shameless deaths, well I know the actor who's character was shot in the Angel finale (don't want to give away spoilers) wasn't too happy with his ending. But I thought it was kinda funny -though not ha ha funny. I personally did NOT see that coming and I thought it was a neat end for the character.

I got the impression that this particular death was an attempt to tie up as many loose ends as possible in a very short space of time. I believe Joss even stated in an interview that, had they got a sixth season, he/she would definitely not have died. I wasn't overly satisfied with his/her demise, but I guess it was in keeping with the direction in which that particular character had been headed for the past 3 years.
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#11 Posted: 01-03-2005 23:49
Cazna
Member
Posts: 138

Report this post
I wish I had some money to buy this with. Sigh.
Quote this post
#12 Posted: 02-03-2005 00:04
Aretak
Grieve for the Skies
Posts: 276

Report this post
If you have Sky, it's currently showing on Sky One and Sky Mix... I think it's episode 4 which will be on Sky One tomorrow at 12.40pm, repeated at 9.00 the next morning (and also on Sky Mix at some time). I've decided to just watch it on there instead of buying the set.

What's more Sky One are showing it in anamorphic widescreen, which is a big surprise considering season 4 they were showing recently was fullscreen. :D
------
Take my love. Take my land. Take me where I cannot stand.
I don't care, I'm still free. You can't take the sky from me.
Quote this post
#13 Posted: 02-03-2005 14:11
Needsalt
Member
Posts: 110

Report this post
I'm sorry if it sounds wrong of me to do so, but I burst out laughing when I read the "We're so over the gay thing now" quote. Perhaps inappropriate and I can see how people could have been offended by that - and well within their right - but I found it funny for a second there.:D
I know Whedon always said that for him the Willow/Tara relationship wasn't about him purposely bringing about a lesbian relationship just for controversy or to please a certain community, but that it felt like a natural development for the character and he wasn't trying to make a paticular statement. But I can see both sides now though - I understand that such comments, whether jokingly or not, was a bad move on Joss' (and other writers) part

Like Many fans I do think season 6 was the worst season - even though t did contain some of my all-time favourite episodes. And I happen to agree with you there, the season was much more depressing that dramatic - no matter how hard the writers tried to lighten the mood with The Troika

Now I'll leave some spoiler space for my reply regarding that other character's death

SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SEASON 5
SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SEASON 5
SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SEASON 5
SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SEASON 5
SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SEASON 5
SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SEASON 5
SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SEASON 5
SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SEASON 5
SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SEASON 5
SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SEASON 5
SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SEASON 5
SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SEASON 5
SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SEASON 5
SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SEASON 5
SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SEASON 5
SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SEASON 5

I was, and I guess still am, a big fan of Lindsey's character, I really missed him (and Kate Lockley for that matter) when he just took off during in season 2, and I hoped that he would return eventually. So when he did return (not a big surprise because I accidentally read about it a couple of weeks before it aired) I was overjoyed. I thought he was the perfect villain - quite clearly on the side of bad but at the same time filled with such self-doubt that you just weren't sure on which side he'd end up. So the fact that in season 5 he was on his own side, made his return even more admirable.
I might have been annoyed about his death in Not Fade Away but because he had a big (super-powered) battle with Angel in You're Welcome before being sucked away to who knows where, I thought that at least we got to see that played out - which was sadly missing from his previous quieter exit in season 2. So when he turned up again late in the season I figured it was just borrowed time he was on and that nothing could truly top his fight with Angel, so the fact that he was simply shot so matter of factly in the end - by Lorne of all people - made his end all the more surprising.
Quote this post
#14 Posted: 03-03-2005 16:52
Byron
Irregulation
Posts: 65

Report this post
Quote:
As for Tara's death... well maybe it was mishandled, but I personally didn't have a problem with it. Magic bullet theory or not, it just went to show to me that deaths aren't always heroic or the result of sickness but can jsut be freak accidents. It may seem like a cheap way to push Willow over the edge and a little predictable/cliched but it certainly wasn't the worst thing to happen in season 6 (did anybody watch Doublemeat Palace?! There should have been a ban on it)

No arguing with "Doublemeat Palace", I'd rather bite into a BSE bap than sit through that episode again. But Tara's death was far worse: "Doublemeant Palance" was easily forgotten pap; that messed up one of the most likeable characters on the seires. How could Joss not twig that Willow's appeal was her geeky charm, not Buffyesque whining; he created her after all!

I well believe the Tara and Willow relationship didn't emarge from tokenism or courting controversy. It was too well written for that. But once they were established, Joss should have twigged the characters might not intentionally be a symbol, but had become one. Lots of gay teenagers seem to have become invested in them more than was healthy, but such attachment is perfectly understandable. It shouldn't have dictated the plot, but it should have been taken into account. Joss said he was treating Tara like any other character, but that's wilful blindness, like it or not she wasn't.

From a writing perspective, she was badly underwritten from early season 5 onwards, clearly cos Joss was looking for the right time to bump her off. It was daft they never made Amber Benson a regular, she'd vanish randomly for no reason whatsoever. Every other major character got reagular status save Faith, who didn't for good plot reasons. Bit of a shoddy business all round really.

Michael: Visit the kitten boards as well egh? I admit to a weakness for fanfic, but tend not to stray into the other sections, the bile gets scary. The, well, obsession with Tara seems to blind them to any wider picture; it's telling to note they're still singing Joss's praises right up until the moment she cops it, instead of seeing her death as part of a wider drop in standards. Still think Spike's gratuitous attempted rape followed by babysitting duties is much more jaw-dropping.
Quote this post
#15 Posted: 03-03-2005 18:29
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
Quote:
From a writing perspective, she was badly underwritten from early season 5 onwards, clearly cos Joss was looking for the right time to bump her off. It was daft they never made Amber Benson a regular, she'd vanish randomly for no reason whatsoever. Every other major character got reagular status save Faith, who didn't for good plot reasons. Bit of a shoddy business all round really.

In all fairness to Joss, Amber has stated that it was her decision not to become a regular, because it gave her more leeway to work on side projects while still appearing in the show.

Quote:
Michael: Visit the kitten boards as well egh? I admit to a weakness for fanfic, but tend not to stray into the other sections, the bile gets scary. The, well, obsession with Tara seems to blind them to any wider picture; it's telling to note they're still singing Joss's praises right up until the moment she cops it, instead of seeing her death as part of a wider drop in standards. Still think Spike's gratuitous attempted rape followed by babysitting duties is much more jaw-dropping.

Ah yes, Spike's attempted rape. That always completely baffled me. It struck me that the writers (and James Marsters' acting) had made the character so sympathetic that they felt they had to remind us that, by the internal rules of the Buffyverse, he was still an evil demon, and thus destroyed one of their best (if probably unintentional) ideas: that even evil monsters with no souls can become good.

Another reason for why I enjoy him in Angel Season 5 so much: when he's not being Buffy's poodle, he can actually be a wonderfully entertaining character.

By the way, Byron, if you enjoy Buffy fanfic, you might want to check out The Chosen, a fan project that creates a "virtual" Season 8, with Season 9 "premiering" in a month. It's fantastically well-written, perfectly capturing the personalities and speech styles of the various characters, as well as doing an incredible job of making Kennedy and the potentials not only worthwhile but likeable. Better still, it features the return of a favourite character of ours.
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#16 Posted: 03-03-2005 19:13
Needsalt
Member
Posts: 110

Report this post
You raise some good points Byron and after having read them, I'd have to agree with you. As for being underwritten, well it didn't really occur to me - I recognised that she was seen as pretty much an outsider from the group in Family, but I don't recall things getting better for her.
It's been a while since I've seen seasons 5 and 6, so I may not have the best memory regarding i (which maybe why I so easily agree with you) but looking back now, I can't help but think of times when she was "underwritten", after all she was brain-sucked towards the end of season 5, leading her to be pretty much useless and broke up with Willow in season 6, meaning she wasnt around as much, and then she was killed. so I understand why people may be quick to criticize the use of her character. Like it or not, she probably was a role model for the gay community, and although I never really gave it much thought before this discussion, I can see that the death of the character was reviled by thsoe fans who had invested in the character, hoping for her to be used more. I suppose it was a bit of a slap in the face

Tara wasn't the only one not to get a cast regular credit though - it seems to be that way in the Whedonverse. Andy Hallet was in Angel for ages before getting a mention in the opening credits.
Quote this post
#17 Posted: 03-03-2005 19:19
Needsalt
Member
Posts: 110

Report this post
Thanks for the link Michael. Though I don't normally read much fanfic, I have actually thought about writing some and so now I’m a bit more open minded about reading others’ work. One look at this site has certainly piqued my interest and I plan to read on…
Quote this post
#18 Posted: 04-03-2005 02:51
Byron
Irregulation
Posts: 65

Report this post
Quote:
originally posted by Michael Mackenzie
In all fairness to Joss, Amber has stated that it was her decision not to become a regular, because it gave her more leeway to work on side projects while still appearing in the show.

Ah, most interesting, that does put a different slant on things. From the bits I had read, I'd (obviously) got the opposite impression.

Even so, I maintain they could have scripted her far better when she was around. "Family" has her symbolic acceptance into the Scoobies ... then as Needsalt rightly says, she stays an outsider for the rest of the series. (Not to mention vanishing again the very next week, though from what you've said that could have been unavoidable.) At least Joss could have done the character the justice of thinking up a reason for her random absences, a line or two of dialogue was all that was needed. That he didn't feel the need was telling of how he viewed Tara.
Quote:
Ah yes, Spike's attempted rape. That always completely baffled me. It struck me that the writers (and James Marsters' acting) had made the character so sympathetic that they felt they had to remind us that, by the internal rules of the Buffyverse, he was still an evil demon, and thus destroyed one of their best (if probably unintentional) ideas: that even evil monsters with no souls can become good.

Another reason for why I enjoy him in Angel Season 5 so much: when he's not being Buffy's poodle, he can actually be a wonderfully entertaining character.

Thinks you hit the iron fasterning device with the blunt object there. Just like Tara's death, it was an obvious and pathetically desperate attempt at audience manipulation. "Goddammit, we've pussified Spike! Quick, let's remind everyone what a badass he is. I know, we'll have him try and rape Buffy, then repeat the Angel plotline. That'll do the job nicely." Then they realise their mistake and it's promptly forgotten. Note how soon post-soul Spike becomes idential to pre-soul Spike, rendering the entire distasteful exercise totally pointless.

Spike was *much* better on Angel, mainly because he was like the Buffy season two Spike again.
Quote:
By the way, Byron, if you enjoy Buffy fanfic, you might want to check out The Chosen, a fan project that creates a "virtual" Season 8, with Season 9 "premiering" in a month. It's fantastically well-written, perfectly capturing the personalities and speech styles of the various characters, as well as doing an incredible job of making Kennedy and the potentials not only worthwhile but likeable. Better still, it features the return of a favourite character of ours.

Thanks, looks interesting, I'll check it out. If they can truly achieve the miracle your refer to, they must be good!
Quote:
originally posted by Needsalt
It's been a while since I've seen seasons 5 and 6, so I may not have the best memory regarding i (which maybe why I so easily agree with you) but looking back now, I can't help but think of times when she was "underwritten", after all she was brain-sucked towards the end of season 5, leading her to be pretty much useless and broke up with Willow in season 6, meaning she wasnt around as much, and then she was killed. so I understand why people may be quick to criticize the use of her character. Like it or not, she probably was a role model for the gay community, and although I never really gave it much thought before this discussion, I can see that the death of the character was reviled by thsoe fans who had invested in the character, hoping for her to be used more. I suppose it was a bit of a slap in the face

I think that's exactly how it felt, although my personal response when they killed her was "Oh for ****'s sake!" Such a blatent manipulation of the audience killed my suspesion of disbelief. (Demanding viewer, moi?) Always thought it'd have been more interesting, and totally unexpected, if they'd brainsucked Willow. Although I concede no one would have thought it might be permenant like they did with Tara, it would have been a fascinating shift in group dynamics.
Quote:
Tara wasn't the only one not to get a cast regular credit though - it seems to be that way in the Whedonverse. Andy Hallet was in Angel for ages before getting a mention in the opening credits.

Angel's decisions about regular cast are odd. Lorn should have stayed a recurring character, I loved Andy Hallet's performance, but when he had to show up every week he was soon stretched thin, and was pretty redundant for season five. He was great restricted to the bar setting, once removed he floundered.

And they made Harmony a regular?! Still getting my head round that one!
Quote this post
#19 Posted: 06-07-2007 08:59
Andrew_J
Member
Posts: 2

Report this post
While I agree with the comments regarding the end of the season being rushed I disagree with the ending of season 5 being weaker than the beginning.

The change of scene in season 5 brought a breath of fresh air to a series that had spent the majority of the previous two seasons staring at its own navel, with the major story arcs focusing inward on the characters within the hotel.

While Angels (and connors character by extension), Wesleys and were allowed to develop, there was never much reason for the Gunn and Burkle characters to exist within the series, continuing through into season 5.

For me, the first half of S5 is a series of misfires, with the writing staff finding their feet, with the shift away from a big bad, through to the addition of Spike, Nox and a largely irrelevant and ineffectual Eve .

It's only when the cost of one of their own, Burkle, that the effect of the choice made at the end of S4 starts to be hammered home, resonating throughout the rest of the cast (including gunn) and the season finding the writing staff writing a cohesive, if conciously condensed wrap up to the series. Illyria, although slightly comical in terms of makeup and intentionally overwrought dialogue, provides a constant reminder of this fact.

The reprise of previous established characters provides a welcome addition over the ineffectual characters introduced in the first half of the series. And although Angel is the main character, it is Wesley that has the most satisfying series arc, culminating in his final descent post Illyria, which provides the emotional heavy lifting that sees the series through to its conclusion, something that the character of Willow could have only dreamed of.
Quote this post

Do you have a Times Network ID or DVD Times account? Sign in now!



Username:
Password:
Remember:


If not, why not register for one now and experience all the benefits of being a Times Network Member.