VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:41:20 11/19/01 Mon
Author: KhaliG
Subject: Re: A thought ... (and yes, those are Lullaby feed spoilers above)
In reply to: Blue 's message, "Re: A thought ... (and yes, those are Lullaby feed spoilers above)" on 12:24:37 11/19/01 Mon

>Khali, when it comes down to it I just don't
>understand why'd the ANGEL writers would kill Darla
>when they haven't done the same for Spike or Dru,
>Drusilla especially and during a pivotal arc that she
>could have added more to.

I agree. I don't understand, either. I love the Spike storyline and if they had killed him after The Initiative, we wouldn't have the beautiful Buffy/Spike storyline we're seeing today. The writers did not have to kill Darla off, unless it's to clean the slate for a new version of Darla, one that's a little bit nicer to the world. Sheesh, I don't know.
>
>I mean am I the only one seeing the potential Darla
>had in this Holtz plot?

You are not the only one. Just to kill her off, even though she made such a great sacrifice, seems so abrupt. The writers had plenty of chances to kill her off last year, only they hold on to her just so they can kjill her off as she was making a pitvotal change in her life. Darla seems to be the kind of character that's just plain doomed to die, over and over, again.

>Concerning the Buffy similarities with the whole
>baby/Dawn thing, I think you've hit upon something
>Sherlock!
I'm glad I hit upon something. I remember reading a post on the NG just after To Shansu in LA by David Hines. I generally don't like some of what he has written, but this particular post came to mind, especially in the late of last year is that Angel fell in love with Buffy because she was a Darla-clone. At first, I dismissed it, but watching the eps last year and some of the flashbacks, it became more and more obvious to me that Angel gave Buffy the love he couldn't give Darla. Buffy had all the innocence that darla didn't have, so in my line of thinking, Angel could have loved Darla just as much as he did Buffy, it's only the way the story went that things didn't turn out this way.

I mean basically the only reason why I'm
>thinking Darla is gone for good is just to make it
>easier to accept.

I know. I'm accepting it myself. When the ep premieres tonight, I'm just going to close my eyes when I see her die.
>
>But I still can't help but think it just doesn't make
>much sense concerning what this season is about.
>
>I mean, you have Holtz but no Darla?

Well, there's the baby, and I'm happy for that little guy. At least D/A has gotten something that C/A, B/A, and all those other ships haven't gotten on screen, a baby, a true connection between the two couples. As long as the baby lives and he better live, Angel will always have a piece of Darla around.
>
>Maybe they'll start showing flashbacks like in season
>1 and bring her back near the end during May sweeps as
>a brand new addition.

Oh, I hope so, but I don't know. It's best not to hope for too much.
>
>Plus, this will go hand in hand with those "Julie
>signed for the whole year" rumors.

Well, she is or was a Special Guest Star, they only put that title for an actor/actress on television unless their character is very important to the regular characters on a show. At least that's how I'm rationalizing it.

~Khali

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.