Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did the lawyers get what they deserved?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Did the lawyers get what they deserved?

    The bit at the end of Reunion, when Angel says '...and yet, i just cant seem to care', and leaves Dru and Darla to the massacre.
    Then lead by Cordys remark about not saving people you dont like, Gunn and Wes also expressed their disappointment at Angel.
    But was angel really out of order? I wouldnt think so, i mean, he wasnt simply
    letting them die because he disliked them. They deserved it. It aint like W& H havnt caused alot of deaths and misery. and it was Holland that brought it on himself.
    I cant see one good reason Angel would even want to bother fightingoff Darla
    and Dru just to save scumbags, especially when you know the lawyers would go right back to their (killing?) ways.

  • #2
    I never cared about their deaths, those people weren't better than the evil demons who were killed of in the series without thinking about a second chance. There was no other way to punish these people, they won't go to jail or feel sorry for what they did.

    The problem lays with the fact that Angel isn't supposed to kill these people. It's not his job, he saves innocents not killing the guilty ones. And it didn't make a difference, Holland died and Linwood became CEO to went on where Holland stopped.

    That Angel stopped caring about the good fight was a sign that he was depressed. He didn't care, he needed to see big changes as a result to keep fighting and he was empty inside ... That's why Epiphany is so powerful, he realizes what he should do and how important his job is.

    Comment


    • #3
      I too didnt care for their death that much. one because it was an episode invovling Drusilla and she was doing the killing. But the fact that they did deserve to die, If u ever heard the old saying "An Eye for an Eye" this was that at work. They had killed or injured countless people so I think it was only right for them to get killed. But thats just my way of thinking
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4
        I didn't really mind that scene, I sort of liked how they made the rod for their own backs. Bringing Darla back from the dead and then she was the one who killed them with Dru's help, was good irony to me.

        Comment


        • #5
          I find it such a grey area, personally. On the one hand, I think it's of the good for the longer term character development of Angel. On the other hand, I can't bring it into my head in terms of reality- I know it's not reality, it's a TV show about vampires, but at the moment, when I think- Angel locked a bunch of people in a room and let them die- then, I think, no, that's not okay.

          But that's just me and my state of mind at the moment. Overall, I'm not against a spot of violence, especially in a fantasy genre, just today, I think it's not good.

          Comment


          • #6
            It's not ok that Angel did this because as Nina states, it isn't his job. But no I didn't feel sorry for them at all, just like I didn't feel sorry for Warren when Willow offed him. Was it wrong, yes? Do I care about them *them,* no.

            The problem here was that Angel completely lost the mission. And whilst I think it is a grey area because as others have pointed out, were they any better than demons? I still ultimately have to say it was a wrong decision.

            The scary part.. I can't help but feel I would have done the same thing. If I cared about humanity as much as Angel did, if I had Holland say to my face he "can't seem to care" and then I was in an opportunity when I could save his life or let him fend for himself and I was able to give him a taste of his own medicine. Well lets just say it's not as clear cut for me as saying "no I wouldn't do it" that's for sure.

            I can totally see why Angel didn't care.

            ~ Banner by Nina ~

            Comment


            • #7
              I can definitely see how good it was for Angel's character development, and why he chose to do it, but just because he saves so many lives doesn't give him the right to 'play god' in deciding who lives and who dies. A life is a life, no matter how many people's lives it destroys. By letting those people die, Angel surrendered a little more to Angelus.

              Comment


              • #8
                I don't believe in retributive justice so I don't think they “deserved” anything. The concept of deserving seems bizarre to me.

                That said, I’m not particularly upset that they died, because I didn’t know who they were, apart from Holland (and he was not exactly the most sympathetic character in the world). But there was something horrible in the moment that you realise what’s going to happen (and I was worried for Lilah and Lindsey, who I do care about).


                -- Robofrakkinawesome BANNER BY FRANCY --

                Comment


                • #9
                  The weird thing is that Lilah is one of my all time favourite characters and I actually wasn't worried about her? I have no idea why. Perhaps a part of me thinks "well you did get yourself into this dear" or perhaps it's because I never thought she'd be killed off. Boy was I in for a surprise come season 4

                  And Lindsey... well the guy always bugged me and I really don't like utterly pathetic characters, find them truly irritating. Which explains why I actually disliked Spike in season six as he constantly followed Buffy around "making moon eyes" and I always found Lindsey to be extremely sad how his whole life revolved around Angel and how he tried to puff himself up a something he wasn't.

                  But I actually do believe in getting what you deserve. I think that you make your own choices in life and if those choices are less than great they come back around to bite you on the ass. It certainly seems to be the case in the Buffyverse. Just as I think good choices deserve good reward, I think bad choices should result in more unpleasant 'rewards.'

                  ~ Banner by Nina ~

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    But I actually do believe in getting what you deserve. I think that you make your own choices in life and if those choices are less than great they come back around to bite you on the ass. It certainly seems to be the case in the Buffyverse. Just as I think good choices deserve good reward, I think bad choices should result in more unpleasant 'rewards.'
                    Oh, I believe that it often happens in fact – as in bad choices lead to bad places. But I don’t believe in it as a theory of justice. As in…if you make a bad choice and it bites you in the ass, I don’t see that as justice, I just see it as cause and effect. It’s not about deserving, it’s about what’s likely – though often bad choices (I mean evil choices) don’t lead to bad results (hello slave traders of the past, who got off scot free and made shedloads of money).


                    -- Robofrakkinawesome BANNER BY FRANCY --

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The problem is that Angel was playing into their hands. Lawyers are expendable to W&H but Angel wasn't. It was more about his personal vendetta than it was about justice.

                      The other theory isn't much better. Angel would care that the lawyers are being killed. He would have sensed their fear and that would have a least resonated with him. Angel also didn't try to kill them afterwards, so presumbably he is letting potentially innocent people die. AI wonder where we draw the line. How many of the lawyers we potential power players like Holland? Or were many of them simply scared little worker bees, too afraid to leave or fail? Did Angel even consider that? I think his friends were right to be concerned.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I never really got exactly why Angel was so important to w& h, what exactly did they need him for?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          According to a prophecy ... a vampire with a soul (at that point in the series ... only Angel had a soul) would play a big role in the big apocalypse. And I think the idea is that Angel can stop it or/and causing it. But I never understood what W&H expected from him, or what they wanted (Angelus, soulled Angel but evil/corrupted or just under their control).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Yeah, w& H always said they need him alive because they didnt know which side he would take.
                            I assume W& H want him evil and fighting for them in the apocolypse, but why?
                            The senior partners are supposed to be the ultimate evil big bad, unless Angel is superman, why
                            would it matter if hes on W& H's side for the apocolypse.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Because it's in the Prophecy. Angel will be a big player in the apocalypse ... and if he is, you want him on your side. Ats has the message that you don't need to be very powerful to matter, Angel isn't superman ... but he will be very important.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                I understand the prophecy, just not what his role would have been had he been evil and taken W&Hs side.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  I don't know if anybody knows. They hoped of course that he would cause it or something like that.

                                  But SPOILERS ATF
                                  Spoiler:
                                  Angel isn't a vampire wih a soul anymore, so this can be the big apocalypse ... and Angel caused it by attacking the Senior Partners. In this case, his big role is what W&H wanted ... he caused the apocalypse they wanted. But they weren't ready and they lost control ...

                                  Or it isn't what it looks.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by lee View Post
                                    I understand the prophecy, just not what his role would have been had he been evil and taken W&Hs side.
                                    Well if you think about it this way, a lot of the time Angel wins. He didn't win in 'Not Fade Away' but then I don't think the Senior Parnters exactly won either. But Angel has won a lot of the time he deserves the confidence he had in Gunn during 'A Hole In The World' when he tells Knox "you don't know Angel." Because when push comes to shove he's a guy you want on your side. He saved the world from the time demons in season 2, saved the world from Jasmine in s4 and in general he "beats the bad guys." He's always been a big player, makes sense evil would hope to get him on their side. If he does a good job at kicking Angel's ass, he could probably do a good job kicking's good's ass as well.

                                    ~ Banner by Nina ~

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      There are several moments in Angel where I have problems with things like this. I understand the reasons behind the scene because it set up the next season for Angel to take over Wolfram and Hart. On Buffy they made a big deal of her not killing humans no matter what. Yet on Angel he allowed the lawyers to die because they were evil so it seemed. Seemed to me he wanted revenge for bringing back Darla and allowing Drusilla to turn her. That was revenge and not protecting the innocent which was what Angel did. Why didn't he just dust Darla and Drusilla so they couldn't be used?

                                      There is a scene in Season five in Conviction, Angel kills the leader of the SWAT team with his own weapon in the school hallway.

                                      Soldier: Whatever happened to mercy?
                                      Angel: You've just seen the last of it.

                                      It was to show the employees of Wolfram and Hart that they better be wary of Angel. That scene always bothered me. It tranished Angel for me.

                                      The scene of Angel trying to smother Wes always made me think that Angel and Angelus were not that far apart. That Angelus was just under the cover that Angel put out for the world to see.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        I agree about Angel and the W&H employees. He seems to give those people less credit that others (somehow I can understand it, but it isn't a good habit.) And I hate that scene in Conviction, it doesn't make sense ... it's not part of the story and there is no real reason why Angel kills this guy instead of locking him up. Knox got the 'We don't kill humans' talk after he killed Fred, and this guy gets killed without a chance to defend himself. Nope, I've no idea why that happened. And it's written by Joss Whedon ... *shakes head*

                                        Angel trying to smother Wesley was for me the prove how different Angel and Angelus are. It was all emotion, Angel was betrayed by a loved one and lost a loved one and he couldn't control his emotions. Angelus would never feel that way, he plays with the emotions of others ... but never those of himself (or he denies that he is played by emotions).
                                        Last edited by Nina; 05-06-08, 07:00 PM.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X