Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Buffy killing the Knights of Byzantium (or did she?)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BtVS fan
    replied
    Originally posted by flow View Post
    During discussions of the show, some people often point out that Buffy values a human life above anything. However, there is also a counterargument being made that states she does in fact kill humans throughout the show.

    The most common examples are the zookeeper, the swim coach, Faith (attempted), and the Knights of Byzantium.

    However, I am not convinced Buffy did ever kill a single Knight of Byzantium at all, let alone several.

    Buffy and the Scoobies are being attacked by the Knights while they are on the run from Glory in a stolen Winnebago. I have rewatched the scene several times for this post. There are eight, maybe nine Knights on horses coming after them. The first counterattack is made by Giles who swerves the Winnebago towards two or three Knights on horses. We don't get a good view of how this worked but in the following shots, there are still at least eight Knights chasing after the Winnebago. Gile's attack seemed to have had little to no effect. And it was, of course, Giles who drove the Winnebago, not Buffy.

    Buffy then goes up onto the roof and fights four Knights. She throws three of them off the rooftop. They fall down from a height of about 2,5 meters from a moving vehicle. They land on soft, sandy ground. Does that kill a human? It certainly does not kill Buffy. She falls off the roof herself a moment later and is fine.

    The fourth knight is a different story. Buffy throws an axe into his chest and he falls backward off the ladder. Now, a battle axe sticking out of someone's chest does look deadly. But it isn't. Those knights were all wearing chain mail. This is an armor that was designed to withstand sharp blades. Usually, a padded lining was worn underneath. What an axe usually did was break a bone or ribs by the sheer amount of force with which it hit. It did not kill by actually hitting and injuring the heart or any major blood vessels. And I think we can assume that the blade got stuck in the chainmail and the padded lining, not in the ribcage of the knight in question.

    There is a fifth knight whom Anya hits with a pan. To me, it does not look like a killing strike at all.

    Later in the gas station, Buffy fights another knight. She flips him over her shoulder and he could be either unconscious or dead. We don't get any information about this but if he had cracked his skull there should be blood (and brain) spiling everywhere and if he had broken his neck we should have heard a respective sound.

    In the following discussion with the second-in-command of the knights, the latter says ten of his men are dead. Well, that might be the case (he killed one himself only a minute ago) but surely Buffy did not kill ten guys. She didn't even meet or fight ten of them. There were at the most four on the Winnebago and one inside the gas station plus Anya's knight. And none of them were in deadly danger. So, either second-in-command was exaggerating or lying or maybe he referred to deaths that happened along the way while they were chasing Glory. Maybe the hobbits killed ten of his men.

    Do you think Buffy killed one or more of the Knights of Byzantium and if so whom and how?

    flow
    At the time of the episode on the Buffy board Steve Deknight confirmed they were humans. He said it was self defence and therefore justified

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoney
    commented on 's reply
    The tangent discussing depictions of the Joker and Batman's no kill rule has been moved into its own thread - https://www.buffyforums.net/forum/ot...s-no-kill-rule

  • Lostsoul666
    replied
    I really have no problem with heroes killing in self defense.

    I also hate the whole "if you kill him then you become just like him"trope. In recent years I've really come to hate the Joker. Every Joker story seems to try and top the last one in terms of body count. I actually think that Batman's no kill rule makes him look weak and ineffective(Tim Burton Batman is best Batman). I'm all for giving people second chances, but after Joker's 100th escape from Arkham asylum it's clear that Joker won't change, and Batman really should kill him.

    Leave a comment:


  • flow
    replied
    American Aurora
    Well, to start with, I’m not sure, to be honest, if the Knights of Byzantium were even truly human to begin with
    Spike hits one and his chip fires off. They might be from another dimension or from a different timeline but they are human.

    flow

    Leave a comment:


  • vampmogs
    commented on 's reply
    Thanks Double Dutchess

  • Stoney
    commented on 's reply
    Glad to hear you are okay Mogs, I hope you stay well and get the opportunity for some r&r out of it.

  • Double Dutchess
    commented on 's reply
    It's great to see you back, even if only for a little while! Your isolation is our good fortune

  • vampmogs
    commented on 's reply
    Hi Stoney yes going ok. 14 days of iso but mainly precautionary after a bit of a scare. But I'm doing ok

  • Stoney
    commented on 's reply
    vampmogs I hope you are well and the isolation is more precautionary.

  • Stoney
    replied
    I do tend to find the lack of issue with the preemptive killing of vamps despite what we saw with Spike, to be found in the unlikely chain of events that led him there as has been said (and his quest for his soul working well enough from his soulless focus). It also isn't just being defanged and falling for Buffy but how he as an individual responds to love, prioritises it and seeks it with a desperation and that originates in William as another factor too. I don't think it would just be a case of finding the right motivation for people just because the combination is just so specific, the path that led to it feels quite unique, and so the chance of any significant number of other vamps responding in that way to be infinitesimal if at all.

    I also think the idea all vamps could just be cursed but they don't even openly consider it is probably more problematic. I have wondered if the difficulty in finding orbs of thessulah could be seen as the biggest hindrance there. But then in AtS S4 they just used some sort of jar, so I'm not sure that works so well. There is the likely problem of extracting the loophole though, you'd need to break the happiness clause for the curse to be viable. Bargaining on happiness being too difficult to achieve for most people would feel pretty risky.

    It would be interesting to know exactly how Steve DeKnight phrased what he said about Buffy killing the Knights as not mattering. It could well be in the sense of what we've been saying, that it was self defence and so it wasn't like she was killing innocent people. PuckRobin I'm not sure in what way a human death should matter to Buffy in those circumstances.

    Leave a comment:


  • PuckRobin
    replied
    Originally posted by BtVS fan View Post

    At the time of airing, Steve Deknight was asked this question on the Buffy Board and confirmed that yes they were humans and Buffy killed them but that it was self defence and so didn't matter
    That's actually disappointing to learn. I would hope Buffy would be the kind of person that any human death -- even a so-called "necessary" one would matter.

    At least in Homecoming the Germans were hoist on their own petard. They pulled the triggers themselves.

    But that doesn't stop message board posters from having fun playing to "Great Game" to explain away any "killing is cool" approach by the writers. [The Great Game being what the Sherlock Holmes fans of the Baker Street Irregulars called their attempts to explain away the inconsistencies in the Sherlock Holmes stories or their inconsistencies with general reality, without resorting to the obvious fact that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was fallible.]
    Last edited by PuckRobin; 25-07-21, 12:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BtVS fan
    replied
    Originally posted by flow View Post
    During discussions of the show, some people often point out that Buffy values a human life above anything. However, there is also a counterargument being made that states she does in fact kill humans throughout the show.

    The most common examples are the zookeeper, the swim coach, Faith (attempted), and the Knights of Byzantium.

    However, I am not convinced Buffy did ever kill a single Knight of Byzantium at all, let alone several.

    Buffy and the Scoobies are being attacked by the Knights while they are on the run from Glory in a stolen Winnebago. I have rewatched the scene several times for this post. There are eight, maybe nine Knights on horses coming after them. The first counterattack is made by Giles who swerves the Winnebago towards two or three Knights on horses. We don't get a good view of how this worked but in the following shots, there are still at least eight Knights chasing after the Winnebago. Gile's attack seemed to have had little to no effect. And it was, of course, Giles who drove the Winnebago, not Buffy.

    Buffy then goes up onto the roof and fights four Knights. She throws three of them off the rooftop. They fall down from a height of about 2,5 meters from a moving vehicle. They land on soft, sandy ground. Does that kill a human? It certainly does not kill Buffy. She falls off the roof herself a moment later and is fine.

    The fourth knight is a different story. Buffy throws an axe into his chest and he falls backward off the ladder. Now, a battle axe sticking out of someone's chest does look deadly. But it isn't. Those knights were all wearing chain mail. This is an armor that was designed to withstand sharp blades. Usually, a padded lining was worn underneath. What an axe usually did was break a bone or ribs by the sheer amount of force with which it hit. It did not kill by actually hitting and injuring the heart or any major blood vessels. And I think we can assume that the blade got stuck in the chainmail and the padded lining, not in the ribcage of the knight in question.

    There is a fifth knight whom Anya hits with a pan. To me, it does not look like a killing strike at all.

    Later in the gas station, Buffy fights another knight. She flips him over her shoulder and he could be either unconscious or dead. We don't get any information about this but if he had cracked his skull there should be blood (and brain) spiling everywhere and if he had broken his neck we should have heard a respective sound.

    In the following discussion with the second-in-command of the knights, the latter says ten of his men are dead. Well, that might be the case (he killed one himself only a minute ago) but surely Buffy did not kill ten guys. She didn't even meet or fight ten of them. There were at the most four on the Winnebago and one inside the gas station plus Anya's knight. And none of them were in deadly danger. So, either second-in-command was exaggerating or lying or maybe he referred to deaths that happened along the way while they were chasing Glory. Maybe the hobbits killed ten of his men.

    Do you think Buffy killed one or more of the Knights of Byzantium and if so whom and how?

    flow
    At the time of airing, Steve Deknight was asked this question on the Buffy Board and confirmed that yes they were humans and Buffy killed them but that it was self defence and so didn't matter

    Leave a comment:


  • vampmogs
    replied
    Originally posted by American Aurora View Post

    Firstly, welcome back! So wonderful to see you here again!
    Thanks. Just briefly popping in whilst I am in isolation but I do intend to visit every now and again

    As you say, Spike was a product of a very unlikely chain of events. Not only was he de-fanged by the chip but he also fell in love with Buffy. Given the likelihood of those scenarios ever being able to be repeated again, and definitely on masse, he doesn’t pose a moral problem for me in regards to the way the characters dispatch with other vampires. To be honest, I’m actually more troubled by the gypsy spell than anything as that’s literally just a curse and, as far as we know, isn’t dependant on particular circumstances at all. My question is far more why they aren’t cursing vampires globally if Willow knows the spell but I’ve fanwanked it that the curse was written specifically for Angel and Willow doesn’t know how to alter it for just any vampire (hence Jenny saying that the magics were long lost to her people). But ehh…

    In regards to ‘evil’, it appears to be a tangible thing in the Buffyverse as opposed to be a moral concept like it is in real life. There’s the First Evil ‘the embodiment of evil’ and Willow literally tasting it (“kinda chalky”). There’s the pull of an evil force that Holden instinctively feels upon rising from the grave despite CWDP acknowledging that there’s no word if god exists (which rules out evil as a religious concept). There’s also “dark magic” as shown in Villains and Forgiving.

    The ambiguity of ‘evil’ as we see it, and how it’s ever-evolving as you say, is something that is absolutely true of reality but less ambiguous in a fictional world whether the ‘Ultimate Evil’ literally exists. And it's not even as if the 'evil' characters disagree with the good guys when they say they're evil. The First Evil embraces it wholeheartedly as do the vamps.

    As for vampires equating us as their food sauce with mass slaughter in the meat industry, it’s never been a parallel that has had much merit to me. I certainly wouldn’t be moved by it if a Buffyverse vampire tried that argument. Vampires don’t just kill for sustenance; they kill for pleasure. Angelus and Darla weren’t killing to survive when they murdered Holtz’s family and turned his daughter. Spike wasn’t killing for pleasure when he talked about draining a girl just enough so she’d still cry “because it’s no fun if they don’t cry.” Angelus and Dru set out deliberately in IOHEFY to find “a real vile kill” to “wash this crap (love) out of his system” and Dru suggested a toddler. Spike and Angelus were laughing about beating to death the groom with his own arm and stealing the bride to rape and murder when they terrorised a wedding etc. Vampires don't kill just to feed. They kill horrifically because they enjoy hurting others.

    Leave a comment:


  • American Aurora
    replied
    Originally posted by vampmogs View Post

    I don't think Spike's soul quest undermines the entire concept of the show.

    Right up until Not Fade Away the good guys are still dusting soulless vampires without a moment of hesitation (Gunn in the Senator's office). It's not just Council dogma either. Gunn and Holtz were both prolific vampire hunters that never had any kind of allegiance to the Council. And most damning of all, ensouled Angel and Spike have never raised any moral objections to killing soulless vampires and regularly patrol and dust them themselves. And they're vampires! Even when Spike or Harmony are at their greyest, Buffy and Angel are still staking other soulless vamp fodder without blinking an eye.

    The closest we ever actually get to Buffy expressing any kind of unease about her job is in Reptile Boy when she tells Giles;

    BUFFY
    No. I think you *don't* know what it's like to be sixteen. And a girl. And the Slayer. Or what it's like to have to stake vampires while you're having fuzzy feelings towards one?


    and that was about ensouled Angel. Throughout her affair with soulless Spike the show nonchalantly depicts her slaying other vampires without questioning this and sometimes right in front of him with neither character flinching (Entropy).

    The soulless vampires don't deny that they'e evil, either. Spike almost always wore it like a badge of honour in S4-S6. Holden had literally just risen from the grave when he talks about being connected to a "powerful all consuming evil" and that's before he even knew how to *be* a vampire (Buffy has to tell him how to change his face etc). And both shows always ultimately fall back into line with the original premise whenever they've teased the idea that a soulless vampire can ever truly be trusted or good (Spike and the demon eggs in As You Were, Spike and the AR in Seeing Red, Harmony betraying Angel in Not Fade Away - which again, Angel the vampire, fully anticipated because she was soulless).

    I think BtVS and AtS are both wonderfully nuanced, rich and complex stories but I don't find their mythology to be particularly complex. I think the shows are both fairly black and white when it comes to vampires/evil and that it never budges on this.

    Spike didn't get his soul because he wanted to be redeemed or because he wanted to be good/a hero. His soul quest was very myopically focused on Buffy and winning her back. He admits in Beneath You that he underestimated what having a soul would actually do to him ("Angel - he should have warned me") and says again in Never Leave Me that it'd been so long that he had one he forgot what it was like. The ultimate result was that he did become good and a hero but his intent and motivations for getting the soul were definitely within the lines of soulless vampire behaviour.
    Firstly, welcome back! So wonderful to see you here again!

    Secondly, I agree with everything you’re saying but I still think that there’s a hiccup in the moral fabric of the Buffy universe when Spike goes to get a soul. I also agree that his intent and motivations for getting the soul were within the lines of a soulless vampire, but then why not use that element of selfishness and use it to reform other vampires? In modern psychology, we do the same thing today when confronted with psychopaths who are unable to view the world outside of their own selfish motivations - psychiatrists often use this to convince them to stay within moral parameters by demonstrating how much they can gain through abiding by society’s rules.

    Of course, Spike is the subject of a Clockwork Orange experiment which even sickens Buffy - the idea of torturing vamps and forcing them to follow moral strictures through intense pain felt somewhat wrong to her and the rest of the gang. Then again, it prolonged Spike’s life by rendering him harmless - long enough for him to accommodate to the gang and fall in love with Buffy and eventually get a soul. So if one wanted to play Devil’s Advocate, you could say that Maggie Walsh’s experiment worked in rendering a soulless vampire toothless and even transforming him into a useful member of society. The manner or rehabilitation was repulsive - but the end result was successful.

    So which is it in terms of morality - the carrot or the stick? We see both work to some extent on vampires. Is it possible for any other vampire to have their soul returned to them? Should it forcibly be done if possible? Also, in bringing up the concept of ‘evil’ - it’s a difficult concept to encompass outside of the Buffyverse. Are humans ever evil? What should be the punishment?

    Men’s laws change from society to society and so does the definition of evil. In the past, adultery or homosexuality was considered evil and a stoning offense. Heck, women who were unmarried or without children were suspected of being evil. What constitutes evil? What does it mean in terms of the Buffyverse? Is Warren more evil because he had a soul?

    I think after Spike runs off to get a soul that a lot changes for the writers. Yes, they keep the old idea of vamps aa eminently dustable with Spike and Angel keeping a clear-eyed view of their former selves - in that sense, soulless vamps are ultimately dangerous and incapable of change. But then there is their treatment of Harmony - another example of a vampire who is soulless but able to live within certain parameters - in Angel Season 5, she and others are tested continuously to ensure compliance. Harmony ends up betraying them, but is she really any different from Lindsay? What makes his ethical lapse better (or worse) than Harmony? In the comics, we even have vampire rights societies (ridiculous, yes, but the fact that they exist at all shows a much more nuanced view of things). Should we see vampires as simply evil - or as sentient beings who have a natural right to exist?

    We eat animals, pen them in cages and brutally torture them in massive food farms - will we be viewed as evil by generations to come? if cows and chickens in a Hitchcock film suddenly fought back and murdered every human as evil, how would it differ? From a vampire’s point of view, they’d probably try to make such a parallel to show up the hypocrisy.

    To be honest, for me Warren is far more repulsive than any vampire because vampires are driven to bite and devour and are connected to an overwhelming sense of evil whereas Warren has zero excuse for what he does. Unless you consider ‘evil’ to be something inherent in human nature as well where some are born evil, some achieve evil and some have evil thrust upon them. It’s troubling.
    Last edited by American Aurora; 25-07-21, 06:24 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • vampmogs
    replied
    Originally posted by American Aurora View Post
    Angelus killing the Beast has nothing to do with Buffy’s hunt and stake approach to vampires. However, Spike going to get a soul undermines the entire concept of the show. Buffy kills vampires because they are irredeemable. Spike shows that they are not. This creates an ethical conundrum that is never really fully addressed. My point was that the writers who were adamant that Buffy was doing the right thing and vampires were irredeemable throughout Seasons 1-6 were suddenly flummoxed when it came to explaining how Spike was able to get his soul on his own. You could explain it away as a poor artistic choice, but even the writers knew it somewhat undermined the whole premise of the show.
    I don't think Spike's soul quest undermines the entire concept of the show.

    Right up until Not Fade Away the good guys are still dusting soulless vampires without a moment of hesitation (Gunn in the Senator's office). It's not just Council dogma either. Gunn and Holtz were both prolific vampire hunters that never had any kind of allegiance to the Council. And most damning of all, ensouled Angel and Spike have never raised any moral objections to killing soulless vampires and regularly patrol and dust them themselves. And they're vampires! Even when Spike or Harmony are at their greyest, Buffy and Angel are still staking other soulless vamp fodder without blinking an eye.

    The closest we ever actually get to Buffy expressing any kind of unease about her job is in Reptile Boy when she tells Giles;

    BUFFY
    No. I think you *don't* know what it's like to be sixteen. And a girl. And the Slayer. Or what it's like to have to stake vampires while you're having fuzzy feelings towards one?


    and that was about ensouled Angel. Throughout her affair with soulless Spike the show nonchalantly depicts her slaying other vampires without questioning this and sometimes right in front of him with neither character flinching (Entropy).

    The soulless vampires don't deny that they'e evil, either. Spike almost always wore it like a badge of honour in S4-S6. Holden had literally just risen from the grave when he talks about being connected to a "powerful all consuming evil" and that's before he even knew how to *be* a vampire (Buffy has to tell him how to change his face etc). And both shows always ultimately fall back into line with the original premise whenever they've teased the idea that a soulless vampire can ever truly be trusted or good (Spike and the demon eggs in As You Were, Spike and the AR in Seeing Red, Harmony betraying Angel in Not Fade Away - which again, Angel the vampire, fully anticipated because she was soulless).

    I think BtVS and AtS are both wonderfully nuanced, rich and complex stories but I don't find their mythology to be particularly complex. I think the shows are both fairly black and white when it comes to vampires/evil and that it never budges on this.

    Spike didn't get his soul because he wanted to be redeemed or because he wanted to be good/a hero. His soul quest was very myopically focused on Buffy and winning her back. He admits in Beneath You that he underestimated what having a soul would actually do to him ("Angel - he should have warned me") and says again in Never Leave Me that it'd been so long that he had one he forgot what it was like. The ultimate result was that he did become good and a hero but his intent and motivations for getting the soul were definitely within the lines of soulless vampire behaviour.

    Leave a comment:


  • American Aurora
    replied
    [QUOTE=HardlyThere;n721435]

    So you bring that up now 3 pages in?
    I bring it up one page in since I’ve not posted on this thread previously.

    Vampires are there to slaughter. Demons if they are causing trouble.
    I doubt Buffy has any qualms about offing a demon. The point is that they are perceived differently from humans.

    I think what it boils down to is an assumption that humans are of more inherent worth than demons in the show. If a human kills a room full of frat boys, Buffy would turn them over to the police. If Anya does it, Buffy must kill her - unless Anya becomes human again. Then Buffy leaves her alone. Those are the two choices.

    There’s an assumption there that demons have zero legal status of their own - only humans have a right to be heard, only humans have a right to a trial, only humans delve out punishment based on crimes. One could say that Buffy comes from human society, her job is to protect humans and so the legal rights of demons have no relevance. And she would be right. But there is absolutely a difference between them in her mind.

    Why would she turn herself into the Council? She does not work for them. They have no reason to protect her, nor any authority. How do you explain any accidental death? "I was being attacked, I was confused, I hurt the wrong person."
    From what I recall in Season 3, Giles tells Buffy that such a thing has happened before and they’ve dealt with it.

    You have a lot more faith in authority than I do if you think that it’s as simple as “Ooops, that was accidental! Bye now!” Especially with Buffy’s probable rap sheet from P. Snyder in the past. As PS says, the Sunnydale Police are deeply stupid.

    What good comes from anything? Dawn would have a guardian. Her father, which is were she should have been anyway. Faith could have been sprung to protect Sunnydale, which also should have happened.
    We don’t know if Dawn’s father would even want her - or treat her well if she was handed over. We have so little information to go on that I’m not sure you can make the assumption sending her to her father would be the best thing.

    As for breaking out Faith to protect Sunnydale, why would anyone trust someone who had literally switched bodies with Buffy and tried to kill her and others in Sunnydale?

    So you're frustrated because you cooked up the scenario in your head.
    No, I think that’s what the authors intended. It’s fairly blatant.

    The point of the scene and the whole episode IS that she's still human, same as Ted and Finch.
    The point of the scene is that Buffy fears that she’s not and feels that she’s lost her moral bearings because she’s come back wrong somehow. When she berates Spike as an evil soulless thing, she’s really berating herself. Her shock at the end of the episode when Tara tells her that she hasn’t come back wrong - that she’s still the same human Buffy she always was - shows that it was her groundless fear driving the entire point of the episode.

    You're not even making sense anymore.
    I think this is taking a theoretical conversation about a TV show WAY too seriously. I like arguing with you. It’s fun. But my opinion of what is gong on in the scene is every bit as valid as your scenario that Buffy should have handed over Dawn to her father and broken Faith out of of prison to protect Sunnydale.

    Buffy never kills humans all willy-nilly and no one has suggested that is the case. She kills them if they are actively trying to kill people, usually her. With the exclusion of vampires, she does the same with demons. A room of vamps is getting taken out. A room of demons? Have a wedding with.
    Buffy absolutely leans on the side of human beings. Why wouldn’t she? She is one. She tolerates demons - but she doesn’t see them as on the same level as human beings.

    Why doesn't Buffy kill Ben? Because he's innocent in her eyes, a byproduct of Glory much like Dawn.
    Buffy would have had killed Ben if he had been a demon.

    Moreover, she doesn't need to.
    Because Giles does it for her. We don’t know exactly what the result would have been if the attempt had failed and Ben/Glory still existed. No doubt Dawn’s life would still be at risk.

    Er, it does. They are worried that the guilt would weight on her. And it does after she comes down.
    If Willow had killed Anya the Vengeance Demon in Grave - wouldn’t she also have been just as guilty? Should she have been?

    The difference is pretty clearly stated in S6. The only thing not congruent is the lines of the argument that get moved around in topics like this one. Buffy and the gang enforce the "law" so to speak where human rules fail to apply. Vampires--inherently evil beings. Demons--if they do evil things like try to end the world. Human--even they are actively attempting to take a life.
    Who says where the grey area is where human rules fail to apply? Warren practices all kinds of magic and wears balls that make him literally invincible. Is that in the scope of human rules? Why shouldn’t he be treated like Anya at that point? He’s using magical items to the extent that he’s left any kind of ‘normal’ human rules behind.

    Which brings up the question as to whether it can go the other way. Are vampires inherently evil beings? If Spike can consciously make the decision to get a soul and reform, then why can’t others?

    Humans doing human things to humans doesn't fall into that scope. They stated that pretty clearly. Not that humans are good and demons are bad.
    Why doesn’t it fall into that scope? Is performing magic a human action? Is conjuring up spirits a human action? Why are Warren, Jonathan and Andrew so special? Jonathan’s spell in Superstar got someone killed. Shouldn’t he go to prison for that? But he doesn’t - because he left the realm of human laws and moved into something that placed him above normal crime and punishment. So Buffy does nothing - no punishment - which leaves him free to join the Trio - which leads to the murders of Katrina and Tara. So Buffy in that respect is a failure.

    No, Spike didn't undermine anything. Did Angelus undermine anything when he killed the Beast? No. Spike went to get a soul so he could get Buffy. That's all.
    Angelus killing the Beast has nothing to do with Buffy’s hunt and stake approach to vampires. However, Spike going to get a soul undermines the entire concept of the show. Buffy kills vampires because they are irredeemable. Spike shows that they are not. This creates an ethical conundrum that is never really fully addressed. My point was that the writers who were adamant that Buffy was doing the right thing and vampires were irredeemable throughout Seasons 1-6 were suddenly flummoxed when it came to explaining how Spike was able to get his soul on his own. You could explain it away as a poor artistic choice, but even the writers knew it somewhat undermined the whole premise of the show.
    Last edited by American Aurora; 25-07-21, 03:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoney
    replied
    Originally posted by Nothing13 View Post
    I want only to do a precision in relation to the corollary: "Vampires can be killed, Demons must value if they kill". It doesn't make sense because the show was inconsistent.
    Buffy can kill newly risen vampires without knowing them because according to the "show logic" they are evil by default, but vampires that go to Willy's bar or Caritas can't be killed because they don't cause trouble.
    So, even to these newly risen vampires must be given a chance to do it (like they did for Harmony). Why does no one give them this choice?
    Most of the time when they went to places like Willy's or Caritas they were there with a purpose. Getting side tracked into picking out the vampires who were not actively pursuing evil goals at that moment could well have disrupted why they were there. And generally otherwise the rule of reacting to those with evil intentions holds true. There were inconsistencies when it came to people that they knew, like Harmony, it wasn't always easy and they did allow vampires to go free when they arguably shouldn't. But I think there was a consistency to that in the sense that personal history makes it harder. We see that most clearly when Buffy faces Angel unsouled in S2 and can't kill him. There's a consistent logic to the inconsistency I think.

    Leave a comment:


  • vampmogs
    replied
    Originally posted by Nothing13 View Post
    I want only to do a precision in relation to the corollary: "Vampires can be killed, Demons must value if they kill". It doesn't make sense because the show was inconsistent.
    Buffy can kill newly risen vampires without knowing them because according to the "show logic" they are evil by default, but vampires that go to Willy's bar or Caritas can't be killed because they don't cause trouble.
    So, even to these newly risen vampires must be given a chance to do it (like they did for Harmony). Why does no one give them this choice?
    In my opinion, the reason Buffy doesn't kill vampires in Willy's Bar is because it's seen as neutral ground and is mutually beneficial to both parties to keep it that way. Willy is a great source of intel for Buffy and that's because of his cliental. If Buffy makes Willy's an unsafe place for vampires to frequent then Willy no longer has their ear and Buffy has lost her informer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoney
    commented on 's reply
    Please keep responses focused on the topic and explain how you disagree rather than just disparaging other posters and taking personal angles.

  • Nothing13
    replied
    I want only to do a precision in relation to the corollary: "Vampires can be killed, Demons must value if they kill". It doesn't make sense because the show was inconsistent.
    Buffy can kill newly risen vampires without knowing them because according to the "show logic" they are evil by default, but vampires that go to Willy's bar or Caritas can't be killed because they don't cause trouble.
    So, even to these newly risen vampires must be given a chance to do it (like they did for Harmony). Why does no one give them this choice?
    Last edited by Nothing13; 25-07-21, 01:14 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X