Talk:Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brevity[edit]

This is very short for such a complex and important character to two shows. I'll try to pad this out, but can't guarantee (and it's past my bedtime tonight) — OwenBlacker 23:54, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I know - I didn't have time to write more than a stub when I came across the fact that the article here (now at Angelus (vampire), with some changes), was essentially an article on Angelus that had been moved to this page, and didn't talk about the main stuff about Angel at all. So I basically moved that back over to Angelus, and started a stub here. But you should definitely expand it if you get the chance. I may try to, as well, although I don't normally write wikipedia articles on Buffy-related topics. john k 05:10, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I padded out the pre-history section and a few others extensively. --NileQT87 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.231.94 (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those complaints about brevity are from the page's inception over three years ago, and the article had been expanded significantly since then. --Nalvage 09:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex, love and everything[edit]

Whoever wrote the article seems to have never heard of the paragraph.

I changed the sentence which originally said, "Due to the gypsy curse, sex also poses a risk to Angel, since the "moment of perfect happiness" nearly always occurs for him as a result of orgasm." This is false, it was made quite clear in Angel (the show) that Angel can have sex without losing his soul, it was only making love that brought him perfect happiness. --Xyzzyplugh 14:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when he had sex with Darla, notably, he did not lose his soul. He also later had sex with Eve, didn't he? john k 17:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. It's also shown in one episode where Angel and Nina Ash were in bed together. One would assume they were intimate since she asked him if he received "perfect happiness" or something along those words. Tking624 13:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the difference between having sex and making love, but I think perfect happiness is the condition for Angel losing his soul. One may then infer that while having sex with anyone but Buffy, Angel is still unhappy on some level. She is his one true love, though they probably won't end up together. Xiner 04:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex is recreational, for enjoyment. In the Buffyverse, at least between Angel and Buffy, they made love which was supposed to be the ultimate expression of intimacy and love for them. The act of sharing that with Buffy made him perfectly happy and thus he lost his soul. Just because he can have sex and not lose his soul doesn't mean on some level he is unhappy, it just means he isn't basically in paradise. What he had with Eve for example was most likely pure lust. What he had with Darla was a need to be with someone and not be so alone and 'cold'.

Whatever. Cordy and Buffy were his lovers, and Nina was potential, so why didn't Angel lose it when he had some sex with Nina? Pokemon Buffy Titan —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because he wasn't perfectly happy. As we saw when they awakened Angelus in season four, there's a lot more to it than just sex these days. He had to reconcile with Connor and Wesley, defeat the bad guy, and then have his moment with Cordelia, or at least, think all of that happened, before he could lose his soul. Kusonaga 07:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make a note, while Angel's team was removing his soul. In his dream sequence in Season 4, he yells out not Cordelia's name, but Buffy's when his soul is extracted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.3.146 (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ending[edit]

The line at the end of the article "Since the television series ended, we've learned more about the fate of Angel and his comrades. We now know that Angel, Spike and Gunn survived the fight." i assume refers to comic books or something, but are these considered canon? I still think the tv series should be considered relatively open ended and maybe this line should be removed or rewritten?

Nah, it's non-canon. It was left for us to wonder how it ended. Joss Whedon said "Angel lost an arm, Spike got Shanshu and Gunn died" or something along those words in a magazine article but it was considered him joking around since he also mentioned that Xander lost another eye and he wasn't even in the show. The only way that can be canon is if Whedon himself confirms it. I say remove it. --DBGFrost 14:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in a somewhat-related topic, I'm moving the bit that says that it is established that Angel survived to be below the canon warning, as the only real sources for this are the comics and some interviews about stuff that hasn't been made. Also, changing his status to 'Unknown' as the ending is indeed unclear, and the comics aren't canon and things like the Spike movie hat might establish that Angel survived have not been made yet.Jayunderscorezero 09:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so Joss did a joke? I thought Gunn died. Maybe, but I read Queen of the Slayers and guess what? When I got to a page where Gunn was in and mentioned, Whistler told Buffy that Gunn only had five secs to live. But what about another comic that I researched? It said Gunn survived. What is happening?! Pokemon Buffy Titan 05:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of the Slayers isn't canon.--The Scourge 06:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powers and Abilities[edit]

I was a bit upset to see that my rewrite of the Powers and Abilities section has been almost entirely removed...but it happens, I guess. Petrus4 02:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a new page on Whedon vampires so that the same material on their features need not be repeated on every character page (Angel, Spike, Harmony, Drusilla ...) —Tamfang 06:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please. I would love that.  :) - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 12:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've done it: Vampire (Buffy). As I'm a novice, feel free to rename it and add whatever scaffolding is customary. —Tamfang 20:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While Angel has lost to both Buffy and Spike at one time it does not take away from the fact that he is generally equal to Buffy and that he is generally better than Spike. In the two fights between Buffy and Angel, Angel controlled much of the fights but lost due to excessive talking and getting re-ensouled and sent to the hell realm. In his fight with Spike, the match was equal until the end, this was due to the fact that Angel was not sure of himself and Spike was. If Angel had been as confident as he usually was in fights he might have won. For Angel to fight at his very best, he needs to be confident and in the right frame of mind. If he is lacking in one he will probably lose. When he has both he can beat almost anybody. Angel's fighting ability is greater than Spike's, and possibly Buffy's, but he is less ruthless in battle which can play in Spike's, and Buffy's, favour. He is also far more patient than Spike and plans things out whereas Spike will just rush in. This can be a disadvantage and could possibly give his opponent chance to counter. Finally, Angel's great weakness is his love of talking, a weakness which he shared with Angelus. Spike on the other hand does no talking at all when he is angry - he merely roars into battle without pause or compunction.

This entire section is poorly written, and reads like a mixture of fannish theorizing without evidence, for the sole purpose of exaggerrating the character's combat skills. Is there any reason it should stay in? Surely it's enough to know that Angel is an extremely good fighter, without trying to claim that he's better than two characters who have beaten him?


I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.27.106 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that on both tv series Angel demonstrates superior speed over Drucilla and Spike. When Angel took on Penn they were both moving faster than the eye could see. This seemed to be Angels thing --Jacenskylo 08:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't forget either that angelus somehow got to the top of the stairs before jenny calendar without her seeing. ;) there's an example of his speed that we never saw, but it's the only way to explain why he got up there before she did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.231.94 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penn[edit]

If Penn "satisfies his bloodlust by becoming a serial killer", how does that make him different from any other vampire? —Tamfang 06:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire's bloodlust only comes when they're hungry. It can be satisfying to them, or just another meal. Penn kills his victims first, then enjoys their blood after their dead. At least that's what I think. --DBGFrost 23:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic link[edit]

Angel also possesses a “psychic connection” to vampires he has sired, causing him to experience their activities as dreams, though this ability isn't as developed contexually.

What is the source for this? As far as it's depicted in Season 2 of Buffy, this does not occur with Drusilla, and it certainly does not occur with Lawson. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 18:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming this page[edit]

Should this be called "Angel (Buffyverse)" now that other pages are going that road? The character started out in Buffy so I think that's inclusive enough a name. Comments? Xiner 04:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, the history will soon be shifted to by an admin, the Buffyverse page is establishing that 'Buffyverse' encompasses the whole fictional universe, plus its easier if all the characters are named in same way -- Paxomen 15:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history has now been shifted/moved/merged. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 23:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the full encompassing term for joss' vampire shows is the "jossverse", not the "buffyverse", though the latter is used. but "jossverse" is actually the more appropriate and more widely used in my experiences on the forums. ...ats is as much a half of the whole as btvs is. they both compliment each other. personally, i always prefer "jossverse" as the better term (though one could also include firefly/serenity here). but a mention of "jossverse" means the combining of btvs and ats as one universe to most fans, whereas a mention of the "buffyverse" feels btvs-centric and the "angelverse" feels ats-centric. and yes, there are groups of fans who use "angelverse". the problem is there are some fans who only like one show, so that's why you have the split terms. "jossverse" is the term used by people who see both shows as two halves of a whole. it's also more respectful of the fact that ats was a very successful show in its own right and that btvs isn't the whole picture either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.238.127 (talk • contribs)

Buffyverse gets about 300,000 Google hits whereas Jossverse gets only 70,000. The use of Buffyverse on these pages is also boosted by the fact that it's been used in the title of a published book, and that we have examples of Joss himself using it in interviews. --Nalvage 14:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Scourge of Europe or the Fanged Four?[edit]

Which one of these names belong to the group of Angelus/Darla/Spike/Drusilla? I've read and heard so many different things. One of which is the title 'Scourge of Europe' solely belongs to Angelus and the other is the group was called the 'Fanged Four'. Can anyone clear this up? --DBGFrost 10:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spike as romantic Interest? Pish-tosh[edit]

I've removed Spike from the list of Angel's romantic interests, unless anyone can cite a canon source for retaining him.

How about the Angel episode "Power Play" where Spike CLEARLY states that he has never been initmate with Angel "expect for that one time". That's canon. Not to mention the interviews with Joss Whedon and the discussions with him on Whedonesque (google it) confirming at least a one night stand between the two. It's canon.
While that quote can be interpreted in a fannish sense to indicate that they had a "one night stand," it most certainly does not "confirm" anything of the sort. As I understand it, the quote merely said that "that one time" he and Angel were close. There is no specific indication that they were romantically or sexually involved, it might have been merely an emotional connection of some sort. john k 06:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Rebecca Lowell and Angel were never romantically or sexually involved, there was only tension and an implied mutual attraction. She's included. For me, Spike/Angel count and should be included, just like Willow's long-time crush on Giles revealed in one episode and her crush on Dracula should be included. 06:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Pinchofhope

Last Name?[edit]

I was just wondering if Joss Whedon has ever given Liam a last name... Does anybody here know anything about it?(Darth Angelus Potter 19:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There was a debate that Liam's last name was O'Connor, due to him caling his son Connor. But this was just a rumour. As far as I know, a last name was never mentioned Big Moira 01:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy canon[edit]

This is a template? That's absurd. We should either remove the claim, if it can't be sourced, or if it can be sourced to novels, or something, we should source it to whatever "non-canon" source it can be traced to. john k 17:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catagory for deletion[edit]

Figured I should notify a few of the more well known articles of my nomination:

I think this would better most of the articles within the catagory. CaveatLectorTalk 21:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spike as a Nazi[edit]

No, Spike was not a Nazi. Yes, he wore a Nazi uniform in the submarine episode, but he clearly states that he just picked it up off a victim because he liked the jacket.

Snowing[edit]

I thought that, before he headed to LA he became suicidal, that is he went out one morning before dawn and stood on a cliff, or something, waiting for the sun to come up, and then it started snowing! Thus he believed he was destined not just to die, but to serve a purpose, can anyone comment on this? Or provide a quote/Source? Help plz 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Season 3 episode "Amends". This might have been the work of the 'the Powers That Be'. However I suspect it was the work of the Power that Was, Jasmine and her followers who fiddled with fate to allow her birth. The snowfall has been discussed at TPTB talk page. --Paxomen 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angel vs. Spike[edit]

The powers and abilities section on this page is becoming a bit of a mess, similar to how the Spike page's section was until it got pruned back. As soon as the question of who's the super-awesomest is raised, it quickly becomes a pro vs. anti edit squabble, with Spike and Angel fans adding caveats to anything that suggests their boy isn't top vamp, until the article seems to be arguing with itself. Spike beat Angel in "Destiny"! But Angel wasn't trying his best! Angel beat up Spike as a puppet! But that was silly and doesn't count! Angel never beat Buffy! But he totally could have! Spike was tougher! Angel! Spike! Angel! Ngeh. Here's my feeling: Unless there's something completely verifiable that demonstrates strength level one way or the other, (maybe, for instance, Angel's "you're a little bit stronger than I am" comment to Buffy in "Sanctuary"), then we don't really need a scorecard. It's simply not clear cut enough to be helpful.--Nalvage 23:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be evidence that Angel is stringer when he puts on his 'game face' too, which might make a difference in any of those circumstances. This is directly alluded to in the adventures in Pylea, where Angel is afraid to vamp out, and sees his inability to safely do so as a weakness (of course, on Pylea his vamping out was a lot more extreme).67.169.63.116 21:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may not have anything to do with Spike versus Angel but I remember Angel distinctively stating Buffy is stronger then him. I'll look for the sources to support this, but it would make sense seeing as though slayers are granted with strength greater or at least comparable to vampires. as far as Spike and Angel I'll look for some stuff but I have never seen anything about them. 69.209.208.123 00:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, see episode "Sanctuary" (season 1) for reference. Buffy hits Angel. Angel hits back, stating she's stronger anyway. Kusonaga 04:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of that should really go into the articles because it will all come down to speculation. Only the general facts should go in. "Strength level" is a fluid concept that depends on the point in the series you're talking about, the character's level of motivation, vamped out or not, Angelus or Angel, etc. By way of example, you guys are referencing Season 1, but we know both he and Buffy are substantially stronger by the end of their respective series' than they were in S1. So who can say? We also know Angel holds back more than Angelus, at least in the early days (honestly, watch the S1 Angel fights- he isn't that impressive and sometimes gets tossed around by enemies that he would own on Angel). And we know strength changes, cuz while Spike beats Angel in "Destiny", we know from the same episode that Angelus could once beat Spike hands down. And we know that even back then Spike could take down a slayer. So it stands that Angelus possibly could too. We also have no way of knowing if the power Angel got from Hamilton was a one shot deal or not.
And those are just my thoughts on Angel's strength factors. I haven't even gone into Spike. And everyone else is going to have their own opinions. There is far too much room for speculation to sensibly try and present all the factors in an unbiased manner that doesn't involve original research. Onikage725 12:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left-Handedness[edit]

I think Angel is left-handed. I never paid attention to the hand he would write or draw with, but I noticed when he held up the drawing of Cordi in 'Inside Out' the spiral binding was on the right side of the paper, where it would usually be if drawn by a lefty (because otherwise the metal is annoying under the left hand).

Can anyone with the DVDs verify or deny this with other evidence? If he is left-handed, it might be mentioned in the article as this would be a detail deliberately put in, possibly to play on deliberate associations to older ideas about left-handedness (sinister, evil hand, etc).

If possible it should also be figured out whether Angelus is the same handedness as Angel.67.169.63.116 21:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, he's right-handed. I noticed whilst watching Judgment.--The Scourge 11:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main image[edit]

Uhm, why was the image changed, exactly? I think the photo is a better picture, but that may just be me. Kusonaga 18:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Well? Kusonaga 10:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess nobody can explain? Kusonaga 08:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only person who thinks the main image of Angel should have portray the character when he looked, well, attractive? Angel/Angelus of Season 2 was the *definitive* "Demon with the face of an Angel" - long before Boreanaz, well, got fat. (128.243.220.21 21:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
^ I'm referring to Season 2 of Buffy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.243.220.42 (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The previous image used had no source and no details on fair use. It would've been deleted sooner or later. On a lesser note, I highly doubt Wikipedia looks to put images of characters solely for "attractive" purposes. This is an article, not a celebrity magazine.--The Scourge 20:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler tags?[edit]

Should there be some spoiler tags in the text? It seems like a lot of information pertinent to the series' plotline is revealed. 69.64.229.52 06:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angel vs Angelus[edit]

"(Episode 4.07 "Apocalypse, Nowish" Note: Since the above was said by the entity that would become known as Jasmine while posing as Cordelia, this specific example of Angel being just a different aspect of Angelus comes from a questionable source to say the least.)" Someone missed the point. Angel clearly *accepts* Cordelia/Jasmine's assessment, and uses the personal pronoun. Why can't people just accept that half way through Season 4, the writers threw continuity to **** and made Angel and Angelus two seperate consciousnesses when they *never* had been previously. A soul is a conscience, that's all - the rest is Watcher propaganda. The demon that inhabits the corpse is mindless, not sentient. It's the human's conciousness that remains and is swayed by the demonic urges. You think Giles would have been so pissed off at Angel for killing Jenny and torturing him if he wasn't actually responsible? You think Angel would quest so hard for 'redemption' if he didn't commit the crimes himself? Season 4 was a pile of tosh, and they realised their mistake and switched back for Season 5. Angelus is simply Angel without the constraints of humanity to hold back his demonic urges. (128.243.220.42 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

incorrect that this was only in season 4 ats. this was the original view made very clear in season 1 of btvs. the controversy only comes from angel being unable to separate liam from angelus because he remembers all of angelus' actions like he committed them. cordy also makes a comment in season 1 ats where she says the vision came for angel, not angelus; that the ptbs know the difference. angel feels guilty for what angelus did so much, that he likes to take the blame. they are separate entities. they've always been separate entities. the confusion comes from people like the gypsies who didn't realize that the demon and human get thrown in the same dead body together when you stick a soul in a vampire. you're actually hurting the dead human as well as the demon. the demon can't act anymore on its impulses (which was the worst thing done to angelus--and why jasmine's taunts worked so well on him), but the human has to remember all the deeds done by the demon as if they were their own actions. it was about revenge, not justice for the gypsies. ;) --NileQT87

Watch the Buffy episode 'The Dark Age' (Season 2). The Scoobies force the demon Eygon to go into Angel, and then there is a visible conflict within him in which Angelus (the demon) fights and kills Eygon. Angel clearly speaks of the demon as SEPARATE from himself, a being with it's own desires. So, Nile is very much correct. There was nothing season 4 that was a departure from what had been clearly established, as five years earlier, they were talking of the demon (Angelus) and Angel as separate beings. ObsidianBlack (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animals can kill, you know. No-one is denying that Angel has a demon inside him - the point of contention is whether or not the demon is sentient and 'The Dark Age' proves nothing, I'm afraid. What about all the episodes in which Angel refers to Angelus as "I", eh? What about the fact that the very reason Angelus hates Buffy is because "She made *me* feel like a human being", eh? Even if you want to think that they are totally separate people inhabiting the same body, you have to accept that AtS S4 was the first time in which we had Angel talking about the things Angelus did in the third person (and vice versa). In most cases, and it is certainly true that episodes conflict with one another from time to time, we are given the impression that Angel is "Angelus with a conscience and the full memory of his crimes" -- not a separate person entirely. I mean, even in Angel Season 4, when Cordelia confronts Angelus she says "We're putting your soul back", not "we're putting Angel back inside you". Angel and Angelus are distinct personalities, certainly, but they belong to the same man. (Notice how 'Angel' exists inside the mindwalk of Angelus and Faith even *before* the soul is released, too). Are people so quick to think that Unsoulled and Soulled Spike are compeltely different people? Nope. So why here? Angel and Angelus are the same mind.(84.71.253.63 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This is a link worth checking out if you're interested in the Personal Identity questions surrounding Angel/Angelus: http://www.atpobtvs.com/philos2.html#pia (84.71.253.63 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Canon issue[edit]

Angel definitely did survive in the continuity according to the IDW comics The Curse and Old Friends. In these publications, Angel, as well as Spike, Illyria and Gunn all survived the final battle, the four leaving L.A. after the confrontation, although they return when duplicates of their deceased members start walking around.

The Curse and Old Friends aren't even part of the canon universe so I'm removing it, unless anyone objects and has confirmation.--The Scourge 06:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone.--The Scourge 09:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection[edit]

Maybe I'm asking an unanswerable question, but I think it would be nice if the article was more direct about why Angel suddenly returns in Buffy Season 3. Is there a real reason? Was it The First? The power of love? Or what?Chunkyrice 13 20:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was The Powers That Be.--NeilEvans 21:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like the user said before me, it was the Powers That Be. It was explained in Angel season one.--The Scourge 03:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I haven't seen Angel (I'm saving it), so I always thought it was just a total random cheat. This is the kind of thing wikipedia was born for. Thanks.Chunkyrice 13 13:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst many of the characters including Angel come to believe that TPTB are responsible for both Angel's return and the magic snow, I'm not convinced that there is a definitive answer, and many powerful entities have an interest in Angel being on Earth including Jasmine, & Wolfram and Hart. - Paxomen 14:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jasmine use to be with the Powers That Be until she decided to take matters into her own hands, and Wolfram & Hart wanted to take Angel away from the PTB because of his role in the Apocalypse. That pretty much makes it evident, in my opinion.--The Scourge 20:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't The First explicitly take credit in "Amends"? My memory of early Angel is hazy, so I don't remember when TPTB may have claimed responsibility. --Nalvage 21:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The First is evil. Could've been lying.--The Scourge 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh absolutely, it's just the only time I remember anything about it being said. Been ages since I watched Angel season one. --Nalvage 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone has their opinions about what power was most likely responsible, but they're just that, opinions. The shows never gave a definitive answer. Angel, Doyle, Cordelia, Wesley.. believe Angel was returned by TPTB to fight evil. They maybe right but...
  • Jasmine does seem to have been one of the powers that decided to get more involved than the others. In the episode "Inside Out", Skip suggests that Jasmine &/or any of her worshippers/followers have been using Angel and those surrounding him as pawns in a wider aim of bringing about the coming of Jasmine onto Earth. He says that many events have been controlled so that Angel has a miracle son - Connor, who can father Jasmine. If Angel had been in Hell all that time, it might have proved a significant flaw in Jasmine's plan, it's possible Jasmine is behind Angel's return.
  • It's possible that the First Evil was telling the truth in "Amends" and some how returned Angel.
  • Wolfram & Hart have prophecies that suggest Angel will play a significant role in the apocalypse but does not reveal which side he's on. The Senior Partners suggest that Angel is very important and during late Angel Season 1+ start disallowing their lawyers to kill Angel. It's possible W&H was responsible.
  • It could even by some good, evil, or neutral power that is never revealed. -- Paxomen 02:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the CANON, angel was brought back by the first evil because the first evil needed buffy dead, as supported by beljoxa's eye in season 7. buffy needed to die again, and the first evil was counting on angel to lose his soul in buffy again and kill her as angelus. who saved angel at the end of amends is most likely jasmine--being that she clearly took credit for a lot of actions. also, we know that the ptbs hate to interfere with humanity running its course. jasmine was the one who liked to mess with humanity's natural course, thus it only makes sense that it is her. she needed angel to sleep with darla to produce connor (to make something possible out of something that wasn't possible before), and that wouldn't exactly work if angel had gotten fried on christmas morning 1998. but for who returned angel from hell, it is CANON that it was the first evil, and needing buffy dead again was supported by beljoxa's eye. there is no reason to disbelieve that, no matter how romantic it seems that the claddaugh and buffy's love brought him back. ;) joss doesn't do things that way--it was malintentioned, but jasmine took advantage of it and went against the first by saving angel (the first was fine with angel killing himself when he refused to go through with its plans). and of course, buffy eventually died in "the gift" which allowed the first evil to come back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.231.94 (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no. In fact, for quite a while, Angel wonders just exactly who it was that brought him back, the First Evil or The Powers That Be. Nowhere does it state either of the two though. We just get hints to both possibilities. Kusonaga 04:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All we really know is that the claddagh ring vibrated, glowed, and let loose a brief burst of light that Angel fell out of. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image[edit]

Second time it's been reverted now, and I'm wondering if anyone can actually come up with a good explanation? The picture from season five is A) up-to-date, B) clear and C) how Angel looked for pretty much the last three seasons of Angel. Kusonaga 17:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to agree with the reasoning for this image (see my talk page), although I would like to point out that I think there could be a better image from the first season that more accurately reflects Angel's persona. The Angel we see is usually not this... content. Kusonaga 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the perfect picture of Angel would be Angel Season 1/2, looking serious, and with a plain background. Also there are too many unnecessary images on the page. Obviously we need one to identify the character (for the infobox), and I'd say a good one of him in vamp face, and one from the upcoming comic book when it comes out (to show his portrayal in various media) would also be fair use. However, most of these pictures are just to decorate the page and have no encyclopedic value. Paul730 23:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People are very hard to please these days. I'll see what I can do when it comes to the infobox image. As for the rest, you're on your own.--The Scourge 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, people are hard to please? I'm just saying that there needs to be a reason for pictures, they can't just brighten up a page. I'm not moaning at you personally or telling you to do as I say, just pointing out a fact. Paul730 00:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, each image represents the character. Some are not as good-looking as a few might like it to be, but frankly I highly doubt people come here just to look at the pictures. Basically what's bothering me is what was pointed out about the main image. Because he's smiling, it's suddenly out of character? I don't know what Kusonaga's looking for or what he sees fit, but I remember seeing Angel smile on more than one occasion. Brooding's part of his nature, not the main characteristic.--The Scourge 00:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's out of character. I'm saying that it does not accurately reflect Angel's persona for much of the show. He smiles occasionally. That's why a more serious looking Angel better portrays what the character is about. That's all I'm saying. The brooding is a predominant characteristic of his. Kusonaga 06:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I see that image, I see the warmth and goodness in Angel. Other than the brooding, Angel's your average nice guy; he's never said, "Leave me alone, I'm brooding." anytime during the show (thank god). Compare it to the recent image I posted of Angelus. You'll see what I mean.--The Scourge 06:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, completely, but I don't necessarily agree. Although he hasn't said those exact words, he has been found by characters in a dark spot of his room, sitting alone. For most of the first season, he does this. Second season, he takes a dark turn, and the warm side comes out rarely. This finally changes with the third season, but it's only for the first half, because when Connor's kidnapped, that's the end of happy Angel. Similarly, Angel doesn't crack much of a smile or is very nice during season four, and the same can be said for the fifth season. Angel is characterized as a dark tragic hero, a Batman of sorts. The warm and kind-hearted Angel only comes out so rarely that I don't think it suits the infobox. I don't want to make too much of a big thing out of this though. I've said my piece and if others agree, I say we look into changing the image. If others don't agree, that's cool too.
As for the other images being overkill (referring to Paul's comments here), I don't agree. We have a picture of Angelus, a picture of Angel during the fifth season, showing the physical changes, and we've got the ending scene of the show, all of which are described in text. They are not there for decoration. They are a supplement to the text, and they can be considered fair use. I do agree that the image of Angelus holding Willow is a bit on the edge, since we've already got two images of Angelus as is, but it does connect with the text. Kusonaga 07:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I said I'd change the image to go more with the character. I just needed to share my piece. I'd also like to point out that this image ordeal is ridiculous. Hopefully this'll be the last time a trivial issue like this is raised.--The Scourge 07:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, not everyone considers this a trivial matter. Kusonaga 07:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe from your perspective. Take care, buddy.--The Scourge 07:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you too, and for the record: I like this one. Kusonaga 07:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Todo[edit]

Quote from James Marsters: "Angel doesn't seem to register that Spike has a soul," Marsters says. "It's the same reason that Spike never believed Angel having a soul. When I was evil, I didn't buy it. Now that I have a soul, I don't buy that he's reformed at all.

"The reason is, I've seen him in action. I've seen him kill too many people to ever believe that he could be reformed. It's exactly the same for him. He's seen Spike do so much stuff that all this prancing around, pretending that he cares now, has gotta be bull, but it's not. That's the wonderful thing. They both are reformed; they both are trying very hard to make up for it."[1]

References

  1. ^ O'Hare, Kate (January 29 2004), 'Angel' Seeks Redemption with Episode 100, retrieved 9/10/2007 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Text ",00.html" ignored (help); Text "1" ignored (help); Text "85822" ignored (help)

Angel: Human or Vampire[edit]

I was just wondering if we should change the info in the info box, and some of the other paragraphs on what Angel is from vampire to human. in issue 3 in the CANONICAL Season 6: After the Fall comic book. Angel states in his thought's that he his human, and no longer vampire. I was wondering if we should change the info, saying he's human now. =Smartjoe299 —Preceding comment was added at 23:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be appropriate, in the opening paragraph it also states Angel is a vampire. This is simply no longer correct. I do think something should be kept in the opening about him previously being a vampire, as that trait is certainly Angel's defining factor.

Also, though Angel is human once again, he most retain some of his vampire combat abilities. I imagine this must work in the same way as Connor's abilities, some demonic power existing despite the fact he is completely human.

~~Ryan1711 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.82.8 (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For almost all of the character's notable history on television and to the public, he is a vampire. That he is a human is simply a recent change.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's a recent change that renders the present-tense vampire references untrue. Maybe someday Angel will get vamped again; until that happens, this article is dated and inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candall (talk • contribs) 14:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be best to list both in the infobox - as is done for Jack O'Neill's military rank, which changes twice. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One would assume that being a vampire already denotes that he was at least once human, and he cannot be both human and vampire at the same time. The point should also not change with every new storyline that emerges. His vampire status is what is essential to understanding the character (which is what WP:WAF talks about for infobox information), not his current human status. His human status is something to talk about in the body of the article, because it's a current plot point, not something that identifies who the character is to the average reader.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish accent[edit]

Angel is born in Ireland, and in flashbacks his Irish accent is extremely strong.

His accent is not extremely strong, it's extremely crap! I admire the effort Boreanaz made, but he really doesn't like an Irish person, not even one from the 18th century. Can't we just leave the part about his acccent out? Allthecoolnamesweretaken (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. If the article mentions Angel's previous accent from his Irish ancestry, then it's part of the character history. Removing it because you deemed it shabby is a matter of personal opinion.--The Scourge (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's just the thing - in some flashbacks, his accent is indeed pronounced, like the Buffy Episode "Amends" or Angel Season 5 episode, "The Girl In Question". However, in some other flashbacks, he just uses his American accent, which is tad bit confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.66.204.187 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Multiple personalities/Immigrant status[edit]

Why is it that whenever I put Angel into the categories for fictional characters with multiple personalities or fictional immigrants to the United States, those categories keep getting deleted? Because of Angelus's persona inside him, he technically does have multiple personalities, and he was listed in that category before, so why did they take him out? Plus, he did immigrate from Europe and has lived in the U.S. for over a hundred years, so why doesn't he count as a fictional immigrant? talk 9:08, 12 November 2008.

The problem is that they are a: not important categories, and b: Angel does not have a clinical case of MPD, he is a human body with a human soul that is inhabited by a demon. And as for the immigrant category, the fact that he was an immigrant was no in any way central or important to the character. Now if Angel were a character who moved to America from a foreign country and a good portion of the show was about him adjusting to a new culture ... blah blah blah, then yes, it would be an important category, but it just isn't. Almost any article can have a minimum of 10 categories assigned to it, most far, far more, which is why we try to limit categorization to only the important ones. kingdom2 (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what if he doesn't have a clinical case of MPD? The cyborg gargoyle Coldstone in the Gargoyles cartoon doesn't really have a clinical case of MPD, either; he has the souls of three different gargoyles that take over his body at random times; he's still listed in the multiple personalities category, even if his case isn't clinical. Because of this, I think Angel needs to be categorized as having multiple personalities. talk 6:23, 23 November 2008
You know what, I just can't bring myself to care that much about this insignificant argument. Include him if you want, I don't care, but don't add the immigrant one. That is just excessive. kingdom2 (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An argument can be made that he does have a clinical case of MPD, simply brought about by metaphysical means. The Buffyverse, on the whole, moved far, far away from the originally espoused idea that "You die and a demon sets up shop in your old home, it walks like you and talks like you but it's NOT you" over the course of its run. The soul is usually considered to be nothing more than a conscience, rather than a consciousness. I'd actually argue that there are four distinct 'personalities':
The first two are Liam and the Angelus he becomes over a century and a half. This evolves over time, though he obviously 'goes bad' straight away. Then there's Angel, who is that vampire cursed with a conscience and the full memory of his crimes and, finally, you've got the modern Angelus - who is a vampire who has been driven utterly batty by the humanity of Angel. The original Angelus wouldn't have wanted to destroy the entire world, after all. ;)(84.71.253.63 (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I would not say that Angel has multiple personalities. A split personality, sure, but not multiple personalities. Liam is simply the person he was in his very young youth. People change in personality over the course of their lives. Imagine how much Angel had changed in as many years as he "lived." And Angelus being a little different due to the modern environment does not make him a distinct personality from "Classic Angelus." With Angel, personality-wise, I see Angel and Angelus. Two distinct personalities but similar in some ways...and yet still the same being. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was a vampire???[edit]

Just a quick question. Due to the events of 'After the Fall", shouldn't the beginning of this article state that he was a vampire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.215.165 (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes in which Angel did not appear[edit]

Listen up. There is a very insistent anon/group of anons who insist that Angel appeared in episodes of Buffy which he did not. I am tired of changing it. The following episodes are the main issue ones, which I can guarantee, without a doubt, that Angel did NOT appear in and David Boreanaz was NOT credited in:

I invite you to confirm this by watching the episodes and checking the IMDB profiles. As I have every episode both on DVD and in my computer, I am 100% sure of these facts. I have left comments in the code concerning this, but the anons just delete them and add back the appearances. Would anyone who knows that I am right please confirm so that they might get the message. Thank you. kingdom2 (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct per my knowledge. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Angel also did not appear in Spike: After the Fall #1 or 4. Just in case someone plans to revert them. kingdom2 (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William[edit]

why doesnt it say anywhere in the article that angel's human name was william and not just "liam"? 79.233.67.25 (talk)

Where, in any reliable source, is Angel's name listed, given, or spoken as "William"? Jclemens (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
by the beast in the episode apocalypse nowish before he (or it) throws him off the roof 79.233.67.25 (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
now what? i gave a reliable source.
would anyone mind adding it? 79.233.79.5 (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Angel's name is never given as "William", it's always been just "Liam". In "Apocalypse, Nowish", the Beast says "Do you really think she's safe with him?" I assume you misheard that as "Do you really think she's safe, William?"  Paul  730 03:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i've listened to that part now like ten times and no matter how hard i try to hear "with him" that's just not what the beast says. apparently all transcripts say with him but i defy that. i've uploaded that part on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asR4lAPEmYc) and now you tell me, does he really say "with him"? 79.233.64.4 (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely "with him." kingdom2 (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a Liam, I take particular interest in it and while Spike is William, Angel is Liam. In fact, I think Joss did this purposefully to heighten their similarities.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
its been years and my english has improved vastly. i can differentiate between dozens of accents by now, yet still, all i hear is william - no matter how hard i try to hear "with him". come on, i cant be the only one --87.172.222.133 (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I distinctly hear the /th/ and /h/. —Tamfang (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Vamps out"[edit]

Seriously? That doesn't really sound like a fitting phrase to describe Angel transforming into his Vampire state. Especially for an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.97.110 (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After The Fall[edit]

The 'After The Fall' section needs to be deleted and rewritten by someone who has read all the issues. It's hopeless as of right now. I'd do it, but I'm only half way through, so there is no point. Lots42 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article violates WP:IN-U and needs to be rewritten from scratch. I have a new out-of-universe Appearances section sitting in my sandbox... it's not finished but I'll move it over early if you want.  Paul  730 00:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It still needs episode citations, and could probably use a copy edit, but it's better than that sprawling biography and all that original research.  Paul  730 00:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight[edit]

Since the identity of Twilight and Angel is so crucial to the comic book, I think it merits mention in the lead. Important facts about a character should appear in the lead. --TS 19:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be only be crucial information to Wikipedia's focus if Season Eight was a newspaper and Angel and "Twilight" were both real world figures. As it stands, it's a plot point in a particular spin-off that means nothing to someone who comes to Wikipedia and looks to the lead for clear, self-explanatory and general summary.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The distinction between internal importance and external importance is key. --TS 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Angel and Twilight are essentially the same character. Neither his human persona, Liam, nor the soulless vampire, Angelus, warrant their own article, so why should Twilight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allycat (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a placeholder. THe real-world information on the leak should be at the Brad Meltzer arc / Season Eight articles and the characterisation stuff should go under the Literature section for the time being. However, it is fine to let this article sit for a little while as the dust settles a bit.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question that Twilight should be merged here. It's not even a different personality, just an alias Angel uses (like he used to use "Brian Jensen" in the early seasons)76.123.241.114 (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Unless of course you fan of Buffy/Angel but not completely up to date with Series 8 & 9 and are trying to find out who the "Twilight" Character is from the Buffy/Angel Universe. OBVIOUSLY Searching for TWILIGHT & VAMPIRE could not possibly lead to any confusion....Annoyed because this is the first time a Wiki search has failed to provide me with even the basic details. Twilight IS Angel? How? In what respect? In what way? Imagine I've watched the Tv show but have no idea what happens next...Huge FAIL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.82.192 (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to say Angelus?[edit]

What is the correct way to say Angelus? Some characters say it with gel as in hair gel and others with an uh sound? Which one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.74.175 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correct classical Latin pronunciation is /ˈaŋ gɛ lʊs/, stress on the first syllable, /gɛ/ as in English get. The correct "church Latin" softens the 'g' (as in Italian) but makes no other change: /ˈan dʒɛ lʊs/. In Buffy season 2 it usually has the standard English pronunciation (see Angelus), similar to (Los) Angeles.
But in the spinoff series the accent was shifted to the middle syllable; possibly to avoid sounding like Los Angeles, or to strengthen an association with angelic, or to increase the contrast with Angel (accent on the first syllable). For whatever reason, it irritates me, partly because in his travels with Darla he most likely adapted his name to whatever language they were speaking, rather than always using the Latin form. —Tamfang (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Liam's birth and death[edit]

I know this is a minor thing, but I'd really like to have Liam's date of birth and date of death on the page. In season 1 episode 15 of Angel, "The Prodigal," we get to see Liam's tombstone. It had the dates "1727-1753" on it. I can't seem to be able to make the edit myself, though. And I'm pretty new at editting Wikipedia. If someone else could include it in the page though, that'd be great. Thanks. SakuraFanelia (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I was able to add it in.SakuraFanelia (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance?[edit]

Someone please review the section "Appearance". It's not academic, and looks like it was written by a fanfic author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.112.108 (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic name[edit]

What a mess. Usually a title like Foo (TV series) refers to an episode of that series. But sometimes an episode has the same name as a character, so the episode here is Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode). That's fine, as far as it goes: in the spirit of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, readers are more likely searching for the character than the specific episode. But in this case, Angel is probably better known as an Angel character than a Buffy one. Since there was no episode of Angel called "Angel," we could thus safely title this article Angel (Angel), but this fairly ridiculous. Angel (Angel character) is also awkward, and essentially over-precise disambiguation compared to Angel (Angel). A move to Angel (Buffyverse) seems like a decent solution, though no other title uses the (Buffyverse) disambiguator (it appears to have once been standard, c. 2006). And if we did that, would we continue to redirect Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) there as primary topic? I think we should, but if we're going to do that, why move at all? --BDD (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy killing Angel[edit]

Okay in season two when Buffy kills Angel so the world does not get sucked into hell, is not what happens. She ran a sword through a vampires chest, he did not turn to dust. She sent a live vampire with a soul to hell to be tortured. Buffy never killed her boyfriend she sacrificed him gave him up. Okay that's been bugging me for sometime had to say it. Eric Bayne 96 (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bayne 96 (talk · contribs), I'm not fully sure what you are stating or what this has to do with the article. See WP:Not a forum. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angel_(Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer)&oldid=1204862623"