Talk:Jasmine (Angel)

Jasmine Versus Glorificus

Although "Buffy" and "Angel" episodes frequently cover the same ground, why do you think the writers insisted on the white-hats fighting a god... twice?

Glorificus and Jasmine served essentially the same purposes on both shows. Both retconned reality-warping teenagers (Buffy’s sister, Dawn, and Angel’s son, Conner) to into the shows’ storylines. Each served as they key (literally in Dawn’s case) to existence for their respective god. Both gods also have naming issues, or rather the lack thereof: Jasmine cannot choose her own name because her real one holds the key to her power. “Glorificus” is technically a title her minions gave her, and she only insisted on the diminutive “Glory” because of her increasing materialism. Both also reside within human bodies: Glory shares a body with Ben, a human host created especially for her, and her ultimate weakness. Jasmine implants herself in Cordelia’s body and has to impregnate herself with Conner so she (as Cordelia) can give birth to herself (as Jasmine).

More importantly, both goddesses were also potential show-enders. “Buffy” Season 5 could have easily been the final series, and the Season 5 finale (“The Gift,” Buffy 5x22) could serve as a series finale for fans that didn’t want to switch to UPN (or simply wanted out of the show entirely). The “Angel” Season 4 finale (“Home,” Angel 4x22) would have also been an appropriate series finale had the show not been renewed. Both also serve a purpose in the real world: Buffy’s death on the show was a literal death on the WB network level, and Buffy (the character and show) was resurrected the following season on UPN. Cordelia’s pregnancy was written into the show because of Charisma Carpenter’s real-life pregnancy. The Jasmine storyline also conveniently wrapped-up countless loose ends by saying that Jasmine simply orchestrated everything on the show--no loose ends make for clean series cancellations.

Although many “Buffy” fans were bothered by Season 5 (more by the addition of Dawn than the rest of the Glory storyline), the latter half of the “Angel” run (Seasons 4 and 5) represent a very specific shift in the focus of the show, essentially veering the entire series off-course… twice. Season 4 deemphasized the quest for redemption (given to Angel by the Powers That Be) by making Cordelia the season’s Big Bad. Season 5 reacted to all the problems of the previous season; unfortunately, Season 4 linked everything on the show to Jasmine, and by effectively retconning Jasmine out of the show, the original point of “Angel” was lost--the entire concept of visions driving Team Angel on their respective quests for redemption was scrapped.

The question is: If the Glory storyline was so bad and received so poorly (by fan and network executive, alike), why did the “Angel” writers then virtually recreate it, tainting their show for the rest of its run?--hypercritic 21:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There are some major similaritiies, but the 2 story lines are used in different ways. Glory's storyline in season 5 is designed to investigate themes of family, adoption, and sacrifice. Angel Season 4 Jasmine storyline is more about dealing the fanaticism (and violence) religion can create, and issues about free will. Was Buffy Season 5 really poorly received by fans as a whole, in my experience this has not been the case? -- Paxomen 12:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Point taken--Angry fans usually stand-out more than happy ones, so there might be fewer dissenters than I thought.--hypercritic 04:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

First appearens

Didn't she technically appear in the episode "Spin the Bottle"? I mean, that's when she took over Cordelias' body. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.200.165.75 (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Classification

In season 4 (episode 21), Jasmine said to Angel that she was a Power That Was, Gunn also asked her if she was sometime earlier in the season. Why does people keep removing the classification and affiliation (formerly Power That Was)? 172.215.182.241 22:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Because "Power That Was" is no known group, individual, system, or anything else; it's never been used to refer to a group of beings like the Powers That Be, and to decide that there is a group called such is speculation. She used it as an adjective, describing herself, and all we know from that statement is that she used to be something, she never even said what it was that she used to be. She might be one of the Powers That Be, or something completely unconnected, or maybe not any group at all, but just a description (There's no affiliation called "powers" in the real world, but people often describe various nations as "powers"). JBK405 23:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the Buffy-verse the Powers That Be are a group. "Power That Was" was just a term that the gang coined to convey the idea that Jasmine's a former "Power That Be." So the Powers That Be should be listed as a former affiliation. The entire group has always been referred to with some ambiguity, meaning that's not much of a reason to exclude her from it. Absurdity (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, "Power That Was" wasn't meant to be a group in itself, Gunn was simply hinting at the fact that she was a "Power That Be" and now is not. Personally, I think the article should be changed to indicate this as it was implied (confirmed?) in the show and is what is generally taken as the case anyway. (judging by the number of edits to this point) 172.209.150.72 (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Real Name

Wasn't her death supposed to happen after her real name was uttered?--SladeMcGowan 21:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

~~No, revealing her true name only thwarts her power of psychic control and being able to make the facade of looking human to do so. That's why everybody panics and w/e and her face goes into a meta-phase from pure human to pure... eyeless zombie thing.~~

Why is it that Jasmine does not have a profile picture?

I have been unable to add a profile picture for Jasime.

Fair use rationale for Image:Jasmine birth.jpg

Image:Jasmine birth.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jasmine deformed.jpg

Image:Jasmine deformed.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jasmine original.jpg

Image:Jasmine original.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DevourerStatue.jpg

Image:DevourerStatue.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reason for Rain of Fire, Darkness, and Angelus?

Was any satisfactory reason for these things ever given in the show? Why didn't Jasmine just use the Beast to destroy WolfRam & Hart and then wait to be born? What was the point of causing all of the destruction and chaos? The only reason for bringing out Angelus I can think of is to keep Angel out of the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rampage455 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the fire and darkness was to make Angel Investigations desperate enough to bring out Angelus, and Jasmine wanted Angelus as a minion. Maybe she was planning to have him commit the sacrifice that Conner ended up doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

anti-villain?

According to the anti-villain page:

"An anti-villain is a character in a film, drama or literary work who pursues undeniably villainous ends, but employs methods that are arguably noble in order to advance his interests. Thus, the anti-villain is the converse of the anti-hero, who frequently resorts to immoral means in pursuit of an admirable goal."

Jasmine is labeled in this article as an anti-villain, but her goal is world peace (which is good) while her method is a lot of mass murder and mind control (which is bad). Doesn't that make her an anti-hero, not an anti-villain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

~~Yes, I would classify her as such, too. The original purpose for dubbing her an anti-villain seems to be out of plot purposes. She was the "Big Bad" of Season 4 therefore she is a villain. However, considering her purposes, she was a villain with non-villainous goals so the anti-villain title is wrongfully given, and probably so only due to having villain in the term.~~

I suppose it depends on what you consider "Evil." Even if her goal is world peace, the cost of everyone's free will can also be considered an end, just as much as it can be a mean. Furthermore, "world domination" is a very common villain goal. Even if the world were to be conquered under somewhat good-natured circumstances, it's still domination nonetheless. Because of this similarity in ultimate objectives, she fits the anti-villain camp better than anti-hero, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.78.121.134 (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Position

I noticed that Jasmine has been put as people in the text box at the bottom of the page, however Jasmine is infact a power like the powers that be or the first, shes stated that her self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.182.175 (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Powers

It should also be noted that Jasmine displayed a number of magical abilities such as possesion, healing people, mass information erasing and the ability to see the unseen all this during and after her possesion of Cordilia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.182.175 (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jasmine or PTP?

Not going to make any request whatsover for this to be put on the article, but I want it out of my system. When possessing Cordelia, Jasmine has shown LACK OF FORESIGHT to the fullest: went ahead on an ad hoc basis, and showed no capacity for masterplans; her sheer inability to estimate somebody would fetch Faith, her helplesness in the face of Willow and futile attempts to stop the return of Angel that proved to be just minor nuisances... the list kinda goes on. Even with something as powerful as the Beast in its disposal, "Jasmine" failed to estimate Angelus killing the Beast because he didn't want the lunk of rock around. For an all-powerful being who, in its "a better world" scenario knew there was one slight glitch in there, she doesn't go out of her way to stop our rogue group from acquiring the one thing that will bring her down; hell, she can't even estimate THAT. Sure, she throws big words around, like 'There was a time when I could have seen that coming aeons before it ever crossed your mind', but for someone who has arranged events for millions of years, she sure can't handle the little stuff. "Jasmine" lags behind, for instance, Sahjahn in terms of planning.

Now, try this on for a size - Skip was in on this from the start. He himself said that the visions of Doyle were part of the plan, and who did the visions come from? The Powers that Screw You. Skip did say he had been working for the PTP, and he IS. An idea me and a friend saw was that - PTP raised Jasmine by arranging the events as they were (showing Cordelia what she needed to hear/see to give it up, refusing to help Angel by taking away the visions) to do the ultimate good deed - create world peace by removing free will. Throughout the series, save for season 5, PTP is pitted against The Wolf The Ram The Hart; Holland Manners himself states in "Reprise" that Wolfram&Hart exists because there is evil in humans, because they have a CAPACITY for evil. Take away that capacity by removing free will, there you have it - "they would all be angels". Hence The Wolf The Ram The Hart's victory and Team Angel's lack of contact with the PTP in the last season; the PTP failed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.122.120.244 (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Religious Intolerance in this Article

I find this article to be severely biased against the Exalted One. The perspective that the evil Angel gang was right in ending Her Celestial Holiness's kingdom of peace and love, for example. The POV that she wanted us as mindless slaves, instead of bringing us her love....

I demand it be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.238.191 (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)