![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
I don't understand.
So, I read the Riley one-shot.
Overall I liked it, esp liked the interactions between Riley and Sam - that all worked very well. As did the parts with Angel and Whistler except...
He has to choose between Buffy and the world. There's lots of panels devoted to Angel not wanting to turn Buffy into a helpless pawn, and that's all very good. BUT. I thought the whole point of this Twilight thing was the fact that the world was destroyed as they created a new reality? So... how does this work? If he 'chooses the world' and pushes Buffy towards becoming Miss Glowy Twilight and so forth, he creates the circumstances in which the world is ultimately destroyed, yes? And they get their happily ever after, ergo - choosing the world ultimately means *not* choosing the world + getting the girl...
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND!!!
I mean, what's the alternative? He says in issue Twilight #whatever that he did his best to 'minimise' deaths etc, but what could be worse than destroying the whole world and letting the demons back in? I don't get it. Whistler says that if he tells her what's going on they'll 'lose the war side by side, very romantic' and the world will still be destroyed, but by what? If *they* are the catalyst... *throws hands up*
Overall I liked it, esp liked the interactions between Riley and Sam - that all worked very well. As did the parts with Angel and Whistler except...
He has to choose between Buffy and the world. There's lots of panels devoted to Angel not wanting to turn Buffy into a helpless pawn, and that's all very good. BUT. I thought the whole point of this Twilight thing was the fact that the world was destroyed as they created a new reality? So... how does this work? If he 'chooses the world' and pushes Buffy towards becoming Miss Glowy Twilight and so forth, he creates the circumstances in which the world is ultimately destroyed, yes? And they get their happily ever after, ergo - choosing the world ultimately means *not* choosing the world + getting the girl...
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND!!!
I mean, what's the alternative? He says in issue Twilight #whatever that he did his best to 'minimise' deaths etc, but what could be worse than destroying the whole world and letting the demons back in? I don't get it. Whistler says that if he tells her what's going on they'll 'lose the war side by side, very romantic' and the world will still be destroyed, but by what? If *they* are the catalyst... *throws hands up*
no subject
Whistler and Angel seem to think it's best for everyone if Buffy gets the honour, even if she personally wouldn't want it. Hence the dilemma: "You can do what she'd want, or you can do the right thing."
There probably will be a third alternative, but that's something Buffy will have to triumphantly discover on the last page of the penultimate issue.
no subject
So, we're back to 'Buffy upset the balance by creating all the Slayers'...
Whistler and Angel seem to think it's best for everyone if Buffy gets the honour, even if she personally wouldn't want it. Hence the dilemma: "You can do what she'd want, or you can do the right thing."
In which case 'the right thing' equals turning Buffy into Super!Buffy, so the two of them can survive the onslaught. And you know, I can respect that. But Whistler keeps talking about 'saving the world' which is kinda the opposite of what Angel's doing. He's not saving it at all, just choosing his co-survivor. Unless Whistler is lying to him, and he swallows it all hook, line and sinker, instead of doing a bit of research of his own.