Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Why is Dru not dust?

  1. #1
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    8,302
    Thanks
    11,463
    Thanked 13,667 Times in 5,668 Posts

    Default Why is Dru not dust?

    I'd just like to gauge what people's views are on this. Why does Angel not dust Dru? Is it simply a family connection, guilt or does he not want to destroy his greatest creation?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    6,996
    Thanks
    1,733
    Thanked 1,149 Times in 613 Posts

    Default

    Simply because she's a popular character and the writers won't want her 'offed'. The characters just have to be made to turn a blind eye.

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sueworld For This Useful Post:

    GoSpuffy (05-01-18),Jack Shaftoe (09-05-12),Lostsoul666 (09-05-12)

  4. #3
    Rule #7 Lyri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Belfast
    Posts
    1,654
    Thanks
    2,157
    Thanked 1,618 Times in 606 Posts

    Default

    Personally, I never really 'got' the Dru love. I mean, yeah, she's a popular character, but so were a lot of other characters that they offed. I never understood the need to keep her around.
    Para Bellum| Live Journal | Tumblr | Resources

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

  5. #4
    Library Researcher Lostsoul666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    218
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 241 Times in 103 Posts

    Default

    Because she's a character that can bring a lot of drama to Angel's story. Whenever Angel sees her he's reminded of his past as Angelus and feel's guilty because she's his "masterpiece", and we all know that the writers love coming up with reasons to make Angel feel bad.
    Last edited by Lostsoul666; 09-05-12 at 10:00 PM.

  6. #5
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    8,302
    Thanks
    11,463
    Thanked 13,667 Times in 5,668 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sueworld View Post
    Simply because she's a popular character and the writers won't want her 'offed'. The characters just have to be made to turn a blind eye.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lostsoul666 View Post
    Because she's a character that can bring a lot of drama to Angel's story. Whenever Angel sees her he's reminded of his past as Angelus and feel's guilty because she's his "masterpiece", and we all know that the writers love coming up with reasons to feel bad.
    I appreciate these are the practical, real reasons but they should at least be providing a character reason for it too. It is like Spike not getting dusted when he turned up at Giles' front door. It was to keep the character, obviously, but the reasoning provided was that he was harmless now (tosh) and because they could use him for information about The Initiative. It seems to me that Dru still being alive can only at best be because Angel has personal feelings for her, at worst because the part of him that is Angelus 'appreciates' what he achieved too much to remove its existence. But the former isn't OK to just then set her free to carry on killing etc. At least Spike (if Lynch's 8 is canon) tried to soul her up and get her sane.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Stoney For This Useful Post:

    GoSpuffy (05-01-18)

  8. #6
    Slayer MikeB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, Calif.
    Posts
    2,516
    Thanks
    3,437
    Thanked 599 Times in 353 Posts

    Default

    Read through all the posts



    Stoney

    I'd just like to gauge what people's views are on this. Why does Angel not dust Dru? Is it simply a family connection, guilt or does he not want to destroy his greatest creation?
    First off, any such question implies that Angel could kill Dru. Dru beat him in “Reunion” (A 2.10?). In “Redefinition” (A 2.11), he set her aflame but that didn’t kill her. In A&F 1.09, it’s implied that Dru is stronger than Faith. Also, there’s always the Spike factor. If Angel killed Dru, Spike would kill Angel.

    Other than that, it seems obvious: Angel loves Dru. Or at the very least, Angel has strong feelings for Dru. Throughout the ‘Daddy’ arc in A&F, that seems to be made clear.

    And Angel’s never tried to kill any of his ‘family’ if it could be avoided. He never went after Penn: and it’s actually Kate that killed Penn. He only killed the Navy Guy because it’s pretty much a ‘kill or be killed’ type thing. He didn’t want to kill Darla: The first time because Darla was trying to shoot Buffy full of bullets; the second time Darla killed herself. While Angel may have killed Spike in “Destiny” (A 5.08) had Angel won that fight, he simply wanted Spike not to be able to be with Buffy. Angel didn’t even kill James: James magic time was simply up.


    * Other than that, she’s a popular character, Juliet Landau is interested in writing for the character, she’s still a possible romantic interest for Spike, etc.
    Last edited by MikeB; 14-11-12 at 02:13 AM.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to MikeB For This Useful Post:

    GoSpuffy (05-01-18)

  10. #7
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    8,302
    Thanks
    11,463
    Thanked 13,667 Times in 5,668 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeB View Post
    First off, any such question implies that Angel could kill Dru.
    True, you could just rephrase to - why doesn't Angel not try to dust Dru?

    Also, there’s always the Spike factor. If Angel killed Dru, Spike would kill Angel.
    First off, this statement definitively decrees that Spike would and could just kill Angel. I don't think that Spike would kill Angel for dusting Dru. Your assertion and my response are entirely speculative.

    Other than that, it seems obvious: Angel loves Dru. Or at the very least, Angel has strong feelings for Dru. Throughout the ‘Daddy’ arc in A&F, that seems to be made clear.
    I think this is probably where the truth of it lies. It is for the history and familial connection.

    And Angel’s never tried to kill any of his ‘family’ if it could be avoided. He never went after Penn: and it’s actually Kate that killed Penn. He only killed the Navy Guy because it’s pretty much a ‘kill or be killed’ type thing. He didn’t want to kill Darla: The first time because Darla was trying to shoot Buffy full of bullets; the second time Darla killed herself. While Angel may have killed Spike in “Destiny” (A 5.08) had Angel won that fight, he simply wanted Spike not to be able to be with Buffy. Angel didn’t even kill James: James magic time was simply up.
    So he doesn't do it/doesn't want to do it until he decides that he has a good enough reason to do it. Dru kills all those lovely innocents Angel is always brooding about protecting, there I have found a reason for him.

    * Other than that, she’s a popular character, Juliet Landau is interested in writing for the character, she’s still a possible romantic interest for Spike, etc.
    Giles was a popular character that Joss felt only stayed relevant in his death. Dru I find has had very little progression and when they gave her some in A&F they took the changes away again. She will always have potential storylines with Angel and Spike because they are family. I don't think that she is a particular romantic interest for either of them seriously but we have had our 'in love' conversation elsewhere, there is no need to repeat it.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Stoney For This Useful Post:

    Lyri (13-06-12)

  12. #8
    Slayer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,195
    Thanks
    2,850
    Thanked 3,292 Times in 911 Posts

    Default

    I think the main reasons Angel doesn't kill Dru right now are twofold:

    1) he feels lots and lots of guilt and can't actually face that/deal with that.

    2) Right now, what Dru is doing is not actually slayable. The delicate balance set up by Harmony makes vampires not stakable on sight -- because while it may be wrong to suck people's blood even consensually, it still is not the same kind of proximate threat to life that it used to be. And I do tend to be more existentialist than essentialist about What To Do About Vampires, so I buy this. Vampires can be deeply, even essentially evil -- but if they are not doing anything that is a direct threat to human kind that goes against people's consensual wishes, then I don't think they should be killed.

    Dru, in A&F, was doing something that her followers were consenting to. The only thing that she did that someone didn't consent to was try to suck Angel's pain away. Probably she is going to go kill people now that she's crazy again -- and in that sense, maybe Angel should have killed her. But as long as the Harmony rules are in place, vampires are presumptively following them. Dru should be staked if and when she actually breaks them.

    There's also 3) which is that Angel probably couldn't get to Dru in time to actually stake her when the whole room full of people were attacking.

    I say all this, but I was underwhelmed by the writing for A&F 9.

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Local Maximum For This Useful Post:

    Dipstick (13-06-12),Maggie (13-06-12),TimeTravellingBunny (13-06-12)

  14. #9
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,724
    Thanks
    236
    Thanked 3,942 Times in 1,852 Posts

    Default

    Plastic stake, dude. Logical motivation for characters need not govern; plot armor is plot armor.

    I mean, I'm okay with it, because I think there are interesting things to do with Dru (although making her sane would have been that, and it was temporary. Kinda like what would have been a visionary way to navigate through the shanshu muck by having Angel's "After the Fall" human turn be the real deal, but whatever).

    Personally, I don't think "slay on sight" has or should ended -- we've seen Buffy doing it, for instance, before she even understood about zompires. It wasn't depicted as a flaw in thinking. I get that Dru was doing something her followers agreed to, but... she's a vampire. Soulless vampire. "It's Tuesday" is about as nuanced a reason as you need -- which, again, is a lesson taught consistently throughout the run of the franchise. "He insulted my BO"/"he didn't laugh at a joke" -- valid reasons, all, for killing a soulless vampire that you've never seen actually hurt anyone.
    Last edited by KingofCretins; 13-06-12 at 06:19 AM.

    Banner by LRae12

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to KingofCretins For This Useful Post:

    Stoney (13-06-12),Vampire in Rug (13-06-12)

  16. #10
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    8,302
    Thanks
    11,463
    Thanked 13,667 Times in 5,668 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Local Maximum View Post
    2) Right now, what Dru is doing is not actually slayable. The delicate balance set up by Harmony makes vampires not stakable on sight -- because while it may be wrong to suck people's blood even consensually, it still is not the same kind of proximate threat to life that it used to be. And I do tend to be more existentialist than essentialist about What To Do About Vampires, so I buy this. Vampires can be deeply, even essentially evil -- but if they are not doing anything that is a direct threat to human kind that goes against people's consensual wishes, then I don't think they should be killed.

    Dru, in A&F, was doing something that her followers were consenting to. The only thing that she did that someone didn't consent to was try to suck Angel's pain away. Probably she is going to go kill people now that she's crazy again -- and in that sense, maybe Angel should have killed her. But as long as the Harmony rules are in place, vampires are presumptively following them. Dru should be staked if and when she actually breaks them.
    As King says really. Harmony's rules mean that potential killers are trusted more, that is all. Any fledgling out of the grave could have potentially be given the choice 'I kill you now or you promise to never kill a human, only ever take blood by permission'. Vampires haven't become any more trustworthy or more able to feel motivation of self preservation. How in the new society are people supposed to identify those vampires who have agreed to not kill them and those that haven't? Because, as Jack Shaftoe and I have just been saying on another thread, this situation just makes people vulnerable to vampires because they trust them, noone has pretended every vampire is playing ball I don't think.

  17. #11
    Slayer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,195
    Thanks
    2,850
    Thanked 3,292 Times in 911 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoney View Post
    As King says really. Harmony's rules mean that potential killers are trusted more, that is all. Any fledgling out of the grave could have potentially be given the choice 'I kill you now or you promise to never kill a human, only ever take blood by permission'. Vampires haven't become any more trustworthy or more able to feel motivation of self preservation. How in the new society are people supposed to identify those vampires who have agreed to not kill them and those that haven't? Because, as Jack Shaftoe and I have just been saying on another thread, this situation just makes people vulnerable to vampires because they trust them, noone has pretended every vampire is playing ball I don't think.
    I definitely think all this is in play. But I don't think it's so simple to dismiss the situation. Pre-Harmony's rules, with a few exceptions here and there, there was no real way for a vampire to get human blood without killing. Now they've got a quaint setup with willing customers as long as they don't break the rules. It's not a matter of ethics -- it's a matter of

    I don't think it's clear that the situation is worse for humans. It's different. There are new disadvantages. But many vampires that used to be roaming about killing now have a setup that disincentivises killing. People who let themselves get bitten are probably in more danger now than they were before of vampires breaking the rules once they've already gotten them. But people who refuse to get bitten are probably in a better situation, since now they are aware that vampires exist, and vampires are less likely now to attack random stragglers as opposed to people who are offering themselves willingly.

    If vampires get staked even if they follow the rules -- then that removes what tenuous incentive there is to play by said rules.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Local Maximum For This Useful Post:

    TimeTravellingBunny (13-06-12)

  19. #12
    Slayer Jack Shaftoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,588
    Thanks
    284
    Thanked 893 Times in 458 Posts

    Default

    The thing is vampires don't kill just to feed. They love killing and torture and rape and so on. So I find it hard to believe they would have the self-control to follow Harmony's rules. Many, probably most would want to have it both ways - pretend to follow the rules to ensure their survival and still kill for pleasure when the opportunity presents itself. There must have been thousands of cases of people being murdered by such vampires which should have made people stop believing in the very idea of Harmony's rules. There also should be all kinds of religious and other organization not buying the idea of reformed vampires in the first place. Very little of this is actually reflected in the story itself, it's mostly just an excuse to not stake whoever vampire the writers want to keep safe and insert some cheap Harmony related jokes.

    And if the majority of vampires can indeed repress their murderous impulses, one wonders why it was okay to kill them on sight for so many years.

    If vampires get staked even if they follow the rules -- then that removes what tenuous incentive there is to play by said rules.
    Vampires always had an incentive to stay low but from what we saw they rarely did so, preferring to kill as often as they can, even in a town with a Slayer. More importantly, what's the incentive for the humans to not exterminate the vampires? None.
    Xander: "Willow, you are the best human ever! I adore you! Well, that's the cookies talking, but you rock!"

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jack Shaftoe For This Useful Post:

    Stoney (13-06-12),Vampire in Rug (13-06-12)

  21. #13
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    8,302
    Thanks
    11,463
    Thanked 13,667 Times in 5,668 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Local Maximum View Post
    I definitely think all this is in play. But I don't think it's so simple to dismiss the situation. Pre-Harmony's rules, with a few exceptions here and there, there was no real way for a vampire to get human blood without killing.
    Yes there was, stop drinking before the person dies. The society knowing about vamps, suddenly realising is one thing, Harmony's rules are another. It isn't even like they are trying to set up a Pratchett-esque black ribbon society so those who are swearing to be functioning society members make themselves accountable everyone is just assuming the creatures that lived outside of society for centuries have collectively decided to abide by the rules decreed by Harmony-bleeding-Kendall, it is ridiculous.

  22. #14
    Slayer TimeTravellingBunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks
    5,677
    Thanked 4,827 Times in 2,278 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Personally, I don't think "slay on sight" has or should ended -- we've seen Buffy doing it, for instance, before she even understood about zompires.
    We've seen her slay vampires who were chasing their potential victims in alleys. We haven't seen her go and slay vampires who weren't doing anything of the sort. She hasn't been crashing vampire-human parties or trying to slay Harmony on screen like that ill-fated Slayer in S8.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Shaftoe View Post
    The thing is vampires don't kill just to feed. They love killing and torture and rape and so on. So I find it hard to believe they would have the self-control to follow Harmony's rules. Many, probably most would want to have it both ways - pretend to follow the rules to ensure their survival and still kill for pleasure when the opportunity presents itself.
    Yeah, most probably that's been going on. I think for some vampires pragmatism and desire to live would outweigh the urges to murder, torture, rape etc. (like the blonde from "Carpe Diem" e-comic); others would find ways to pretend to be rule-abiding but do all those things in secret and cover their tracks (after all, that's how most human murderers work); others are contemptuous of Harmony's rules and don't care and just do what vampires always did (like the brunette in "Carpe Diem"). We've seen vampires chasing people in alleys in 8.40 and Buffy dusting them.

    Like Max said, people who chose to give blood to vampires, have sex with them etc. are in more danger, but people who don't are in less danger if the vampires have an incentive to play by the rules or at least pretend to do so. So, I don't know what the score is in the end. Is it better or worse? It would be interesting to have that explored (we have detectives in the story, why let them investigate suspicions of vampires who crossed the line and killed their human partners etc., and deal with the whole business of how the law treats vampires now) but Joss & DH decided to hand-wave it all instead and introduce zero-dimensional villains in the shape of zombies, err zompires.

    There must have been thousands of cases of people being murdered by such vampires which should have made people stop believing in the very idea of Harmony's rules. There also should be all kinds of religious and other organization not buying the idea of reformed vampires in the first place. Very little of this is actually reflected in the story itself, it's mostly just an excuse to not stake whoever vampire the writers want to keep safe and insert some cheap Harmony related jokes.
    True, and it's disappointing. But I guess they could only go as far in ripping off True Blood...

    And if the majority of vampires can indeed repress their murderous impulses, one wonders why it was okay to kill them on sight for so many years.
    Well for starters, none of them were doing anything like trying to repress their murderous impulses (apart from the vampires in those vamp bordellos we saw in S5, but Giles thought Buffy shouldn't bother with them and Buffy only started killing when out of personal hurt and anger).

    More importantly, what's the incentive for the humans to not exterminate the vampires? None.
    The prospect of losing many, many more lives if they tried? Now that vampires are known to the public, if humans decided to exterminate them, what's to stop vampires from engaging in an all-out war on humans? It's not like they are likely to just wait to be staked. How many vampires are there in the world? All those Slayers would certainly come in handy in that case, and I think vampires would be disadvantaged in that war, especially since they can't come out in the open during the day, but there would be a huge loss of human life much larger than the death rates in Sunnydale. The vampires wouldn't want humans exterminated since they're their main source of food, but they would want to enslave them - they'd probably be going for something like The Master's rule of Sunnydale.
    Last edited by TimeTravellingBunny; 13-06-12 at 12:30 PM.
    You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

  23. #15
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    8,302
    Thanks
    11,463
    Thanked 13,667 Times in 5,668 Posts

    Default

    Zompires can't be lived alongside though. The swarm that attacked Dowling/Buffy/Spike illustrates this. As they are so ferocious, are apparently siring (Cheung) and have been seen as a mass group twice (this attack and the bodies in the warehouse Severin takes Buffy to), how can the city/world not be in an all out war already? I would rather have the seed breakage as being pretty pointless and have magic return than have this plot farce continue as is.

  24. #16
    Slayer Jack Shaftoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,588
    Thanks
    284
    Thanked 893 Times in 458 Posts

    Default

    The prospect of losing many, many more lives if they tried? Now that vampires are known to the public, if humans decided to exterminate them, what's to stop vampires from engaging in an all-out war on humans?
    Nothing but unless there are tens of millions of vampires they have no chance whatsoever of winning such a war. Superpowers wouldn't be of much help against bombs, flamethrowers and so on. Which is why the great zompire threat is also perfect nonsense. The writers don't seem to have a clue how to move from the secret war they have been portraying for so long to a world where vampires and demons have become something everybody knows about. I don't mind a story where the public and/or the governments are deluded or incompetent or manipulated by someone evil or whatever because we know that Buffy and her pals are going to have to save the day in the end, but they need to actually tell that story properly, not imply it.
    Xander: "Willow, you are the best human ever! I adore you! Well, that's the cookies talking, but you rock!"

  25. #17
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,724
    Thanks
    236
    Thanked 3,942 Times in 1,852 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
    We've seen her slay vampires who were chasing their potential victims in alleys. We haven't seen her go and slay vampires who weren't doing anything of the sort. She hasn't been crashing vampire-human parties or trying to slay Harmony on screen like that ill-fated Slayer in S8.
    That's a tactical decision, not a moral one. Did she sound all that open to the new fanged version of Rules Girls as functioning members of society when she heard Severin's tale? Not to me. She may have pitied their general stupidity, but not the idea that it's perfectly reasonable to expect vampires are even remotely serious about integration in the long run.

    Like Max said, people who chose to give blood to vampires, have sex with them etc. are in more danger, but people who don't are in less danger if the vampires have an incentive to play by the rules or at least pretend to do so. So, I don't know what the score is in the end. Is it better or worse? It would be interesting to have that explored (we have detectives in the story, why let them investigate suspicions of vampires who crossed the line and killed their human partners etc., and deal with the whole business of how the law treats vampires now) but Joss & DH decided to hand-wave it all instead and introduce zero-dimensional villains in the shape of zombies, err zompires.
    I don't think Buffy has enough Chamberlain in her to be seduced by this line of reasoning, personally.

    Well for starters, none of them were doing anything like trying to repress their murderous impulses (apart from the vampires in those vamp bordellos we saw in S5, but Giles thought Buffy shouldn't bother with them and Buffy only started killing when out of personal hurt and anger).
    Which was at no point treated as an even vaguely immoral act on her part, just, at worst, poor priorities.

    The prospect of losing many, many more lives if they tried? Now that vampires are known to the public, if humans decided to exterminate them, what's to stop vampires from engaging in an all-out war on humans? It's not like they are likely to just wait to be staked. How many vampires are there in the world? All those Slayers would certainly come in handy in that case, and I think vampires would be disadvantaged in that war, especially since they can't come out in the open during the day, but there would be a huge loss of human life much larger than the death rates in Sunnydale. The vampires wouldn't want humans exterminated since they're their main source of food, but they would want to enslave them - they'd probably be going for something like The Master's rule of Sunnydale.
    The secrecy of vampires has always, in pretty much every mythology, been for the safety of vampires, and the Buffyverse at this point really isn't any different. In an "all out war", they'd get smoked and they know it. Especially with so many experts out there to brief people on handy tricks like... invitations, and holy water, and so on. Not even considering what kind of nasty toys could be Q'd into existence, like maybe UV (if that's what hurts about the sun).

    EDIT: That is the problem with the zompire threat, yes. They could have had a ZA like danger if they hadn't decided that zompires had to sire people like normal vampires. Maybe if they'd come up with something a bit more "Alien" like as the threat posed by zompires? I don't know, but they aren't scary.

    Banner by LRae12

  26. #18
    Slayer TimeTravellingBunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks
    5,677
    Thanked 4,827 Times in 2,278 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Shaftoe View Post
    Nothing but unless there are tens of millions of vampires they have no chance whatsoever of winning such a war. Superpowers wouldn't be of much help against bombs, flamethrowers and so on. Which is why the great zompire threat is also perfect nonsense. The writers don't seem to have a clue how to move from the secret war they have been portraying for so long to a world where vampires and demons have become something everybody knows about. I don't mind a story where the public and/or the governments are deluded or incompetent or manipulated by someone evil or whatever because we know that Buffy and her pals are going to have to save the day in the end, but they need to actually tell that story properly, not imply it.
    I never said they would win, I said there would be a huge loss of human life that would probably be many times bigger than what vampires do right now. Vampires don't live on a separate island far away from the humans, they live among humans, so you couldn't kill them all with bombs and flamethrowers without killing lots of humans with them, too. What are you gonna do, bomb San Francisco? (And zompires would be easier to smoke out and kill then regular vampires, who are smart enough and able to move among humans without being that easily detected.)

    And if exterminating vampires were that easy, then Slayers and Watchers have been complete idiots for not revealing them to the world and having them exterminated. Or why didn't Buffy at least use bombs and flamethrowers to kill vampires, if she could do it without getting half of Sunnydale's human population killed?


    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    I don't think Buffy has enough Chamberlain in her to be seduced by this line of reasoning, personally.
    I don't know what that means.

    Which was at no point treated as an even vaguely immoral act on her part, just, at worst, poor priorities.
    So? She hasn't made the regular vampires who consensually drink blood from humans her priorities in seasons 8 and 9, either.

    The secrecy of vampires has always, in pretty much every mythology, been for the safety of vampires, and the Buffyverse at this point really isn't any different. In an "all out war", they'd get smoked and they know it. Especially with so many experts out there to brief people on handy tricks like... invitations, and holy water, and so on. Not even considering what kind of nasty toys could be Q'd into existence, like maybe UV (if that's what hurts about the sun).
    Like I said, that makes Buffy, Giles, every Slayer and every Watcher out there a complete idiot, and the premise of the entire show ridiculous. Why the hell didn't they reveal the vampire secret to the public? It's not that difficult to prove. Or if the entire problem is that it's hard to convince people that those people with weird bumpy faces and fangs who drink blood and turn poof when you put a stake through them aren't human (which is funny since the public apparently had no problems believing it in S8), why didn't they just smoke out all the vampires, if it's that easy to do, especially without killing lots of humans as well? It can't be just that they were worried about their image - surely spending some time in a loony bin is a small price to be paid for exterminating vampires?

    And frak, why did all those superpowered girls, Slayers, keep dying, for thousands of years, if vampires are just that easy to kill and exterminate?!


    EDIT: That is the problem with the zompire threat, yes. They could have had a ZA like danger if they hadn't decided that zompires had to sire people like normal vampires. Maybe if they'd come up with something a bit more "Alien" like as the threat posed by zompires? I don't know, but they aren't scary.[/QUOTE]
    You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

  27. #19
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,724
    Thanks
    236
    Thanked 3,942 Times in 1,852 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
    I don't know what that means.
    It means I don't think Buffy is ever going to announce that there can be "peace in our time" with vampires.

    So? She hasn't made the regular vampires who consensually drink blood from humans her priorities in seasons 8 and 9, either.
    It's really not the point. The immutable fact of the premise is that there is no, and need be no, moral discernment about which soulless vampire one slays. If there was, Buffy is the most wanton murderer ever depicted in the series that bears her name.

    Ergo, nobody needs anymore of a reason to kill brothel vamps than they do "attacking Dawn in 'Lessons'" vamp or "mocking Buffy's BO" vamp, or "chasing dude down an alley" vamp or "she notices him playing Dance Dance Revolution at the mall" vamp. That includes all of Harmony's rule-followers.

    Or if one prefers, "ant... boot".

    Like I said, that makes Buffy, Giles, every Slayer and every Watcher out there a complete idiot, and the premise of the entire show ridiculous. Why the hell didn't they reveal the vampire secret to the public? It's not that difficult to prove. Or if the entire problem is that it's hard to convince people that those people with weird bumpy faces and fangs who drink blood and turn poof when you put a stake through them aren't human (which is funny since the public apparently had no problems believing it in S8), why didn't they just smoke out all the vampires, if it's that easy to do, especially without killing lots of humans as well? It can't be just that they were worried about their image - surely spending some time in a loony bin is a small price to be paid for exterminating vampires?
    I have no problem giving them credit for the MiB conceit (and Angel has espoused this, too, back in the day, and it's sort of the undercurrent to what little arc Dawn and Xander have thus far) that the world at large is a safer, dearer, happier place not knowing this shit.

    As for why they didn't answer when vampires went public, that was idiocy. But it doesn't ruin the premise of the show at all if people did know, because you can write around it. Take "True Blood" -- it's more or less a given that human ingenuity really could pretty thoroughly handle the vampire problem, but the interest in doing so is highly marginalized by better PR.

    Banner by LRae12

  28. #20
    Slayer Jack Shaftoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,588
    Thanks
    284
    Thanked 893 Times in 458 Posts

    Default

    Like I said, that makes Buffy, Giles, every Slayer and every Watcher out there a complete idiot, and the premise of the entire show ridiculous.
    Well, yes but I have always thought the premise was ridiculous. It's just that it's like three times more ridiculous now.

    Or why didn't Buffy at least use bombs and flamethrowers to kill vampires, if she could do it without getting half of Sunnydale's human population killed?
    She didn't have any bombs or flamethowers and was trying to be stealthy.

    I never said they would win, I said there would be a huge loss of human life that would probably be many times bigger than what vampires do right now.
    But it will eliminate the problem once and for all. Also, it's very easy to make sure woh is vampire and who is human - all you need is a mirror. Thanks to the invitation rule (is it still working, though, I am not sure?) most humans will be perfectly safe when they are at home even if there is an open war in the streets. I just don't think there are that many vampires in the Buffyverse to make the war a prolonged struggle. There will be human casualties but probably not many more than the number of humans killed by vampires in say five years of Harmony rules.

    In the new issue, apparently politicians are starting to get a clue and public opinion is turning against vampires. About time.
    Xander: "Willow, you are the best human ever! I adore you! Well, that's the cookies talking, but you rock!"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •