Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The S6 division between fandom and writers

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post

    Which writers?

    They all knew the dynamic was unhealthy, for sure. But it was only Fury who was frothing at the mouth and ranting.

    I listened to the interviews they gave during S6. Espenson was always relatively positive about the relationship. DeKnight always tried to stay neutral.
    And Noxon has that quote (I don't know exactly what the source was)) about how the relationship is more interesting than Bangel because it feels like real people with real problems, people screwing up, and that you have to just root for the 'crazy kids' to make it on some level.
    And she also has the quote about the attempted rape proving the point. Greenberg has said their goal was to show Buffy making stupid choices. That's not Fury ranting his opinion that Spike is a bad guy. That's DZG stating their intent.

    Here's Marti's recent comment on it:
    We pushed into some categories that almost felt sadistic and that Buffy was volunteering for things that were beyond just “bad choices” and were almost irresponsible for the character.
    *shrug* I don't get the view, myself.
    Last edited by HardlyThere; 15-06-21, 12:50 PM.

    Comment


    • TimeTravellingBunny
      TimeTravellingBunny commented
      Editing a comment
      None of these quotes imply Spike is a terrible guy fans should've just hated.Quite the opposite, they are focused on Buffy's choices amd mistakes.

    • TimeTravellingBunny
      TimeTravellingBunny commented
      Editing a comment
      And the AR did prove a point, that Spike, like any being without a soul, didn't have a real moral compass or understanding of consent without a soul.

  • #42
    Originally posted by BtVS fan View Post
    For Lies My Parents they deliberately had Spike's mother called Anne, Buffys middle name and made sure the mother looked like Buffy. Thats definitely giving an creepy vibe to Spuffy. If it wasn't why would they do it ?
    It is not for giving a creepy vibe but because in Buffyverse characters' relationship follow a deep symbolism
    This is the general reason (that i have already posted on another topic if you are interested):

    Relationships of seasons 6-7
    The relationships of the main characters of Season 6-7 are interlinked together.

    Buffy-Spike and Relationships

    The main couple Buffy and Spike with:
    1. Xander-Anya
    2. Willow-Tara
    3. Faith-Robin Wood
    Buffy and Spike relationship during season 6-7 must follow the relationships of the other characters in term of best/worst moments and positive/negative aspect of relationships:

    1) Xander-Anya
    -In season 6 both Xander and Buffy break up the relationship with Anya and Spike, Anya and Spike are emotionally destroyed and comfort each other cheating on Xander/Buffy. Xander and Buffy instead of being indifferent, are hurt by this event.
    -In season 7 Xander/Anya and Buffy/Spike try to resume their relationship but it ends with Spike and Anya dying in Chosen.

    2) Willow-Tara
    -In season 6 Spike/Buffy's relationship based on sex addiction is symbolically linked to Willow's addiction to magic. This addiction is bad for Buffy and Spike and also ruins Willow's persona and her relationship with Tara. The culmination of these problematic relationships is in the episode "Seeing Red" where Tara got killed and Willow turns Dark Willow because of her magic addiction, and Spike tries to rape Buffy.
    -In season 7 Willow tries to restart his activity with magic but is afraid of it like Buffy and Spike are afraid of their relationship, however, all characters during the season overcome these problems and reach the next stage: the "divine level":
    • Willow in Chosen got "divinized" in her relationship with Magic: Willow divinized
    • Spike in Chosen got "divinized" in his relationship with Buffy: Spike divinized
    From the worst in Seeing Red (Dark Willow and Spike's attempt rape) to the best in Chosen (the divinization of Willow and Spike in their relationships with Magic and Buffy)

    3) Faith-Robin Wood
    Both Spike and Robin have a problem with their mothers because of trauma during their past years. Robin Wood searches for a girlfriend like his mother (Nikki a Slayer) because of psychological problems like Spike's search for a girlfriend like his mother Anne.
    Robin dates, in the beginning, Buffy, and after Faith, 2 Slayers, because subconsciously they remind him of his mother Nikki, a Slayer. Spike is subconsciously attracted by Buffy because she remained his mother Anne.
    Spike's women in his life/unlife are symbolically related (Anne-Drusilla-Buffy):
    • Drusilla and Buffy's birthday are on the same date: January 19
    • Spike mother's name Anne is the same as Buffy's second name: Buffy Anne Summers
    Faith replaces and compensates Nikki to Robin like Buffy Anne Summers replaces Anne to Spike in terms of emotional need.
    At the end of Season 7, Spike-Anya-Tara (the lovers of the main characters) dies and Robin Wood almost dies.
    However, my opinion is that the thing I didn't like about their relationship in season 6 (and Buffy's relationship in general) was particularly in relation to the preachy idea that transpired from the show: "sex is bad"

    Their relationship was intended to show some dark side when doing that kind of sex it is not the dark side (at least for me).
    They used the dysfunctional relationship of Buffy-Spike in terms of mutual respect in order to transmit a message that can be read as savage sex and daily sex, BDSM, blowjob (like invisible Buffy do to Spike), etc.. are bad. It is not necessarily true.

    Spuffy's relationship partially condemned sex like Bangel (Angel turns Angelus after they do sex).
    The writers consciously created an opposition between season 6 and season 7 in relation to the Spuffy relationship:
    Season 6: Sexual relationship and no emotional connection
    Season 7: Emotional and chaste relationship that become divinized in Chosen without noting "carnal" (like sex and kiss)

    Spuffy is also the opposite of Bangel:
    Bangel and Spuffy are like Yin and Yang, as a matter of fact, these relationships are reversed but are both similar:
    • Buffy-Angel relationship is more emotional and romantic and this relationship is related to the teen years of Buffy
    • Buffy-Spike relationship is more sexual and this relationship is more related to the mature years of Buffy
    Seasons 1-3
    1. In season 1 Buffy died (Buffy-Angel relationship was at the beginning and there is also the first kiss between the 2 characters)
    2. Season 2 is the Bangel season, as a matter of fact, the Bangel relationship is the central theme of the season.
    3. Season 3 is another season with Bangel, but their relationship isn't at the center of the season
    Seasons 5-7
    1. In season 5 Buffy died (Buffy-Spike relationship was at the beginning and there is also the first kiss between the 2 characters)
    2. Season 6 is another season with Spuffy, but their relationship isn't the center of the season.
    3. Season 7 is the Spuffy season, as a matter of fact, the Spuffy relationship is the central theme of the season
    Spuffy and Bangel are related at something bad in relation to sex:
    -Season 2 Angel turns Angelus after sex, abused and stalked Buffy, and she must beat and kill him. Only a chaste relationship is possible and good like in season 3.
    -Season 6 Spike (without a soul) and Buffy abused each other during the sexual relationship, and Spike (without a soul) tried to rape Buffy. Only the chaste relationship of season 7 is good.

    I can accept the symbolic opposition of the seasons' relationship but the message that transpired or can transpire is that the kind of sex Buffy and Spike were having in season 6 was something "morally wrong". And it is not true. One thing is to show the problem of a dysfunctional relationship another thing is to show that dysfunctional relationships are always related to sex or a kind of more libertine sex implicitly "demonizing" sex

    However, i understand and think that the writer's main objective was to show to girls the problem of sex with certain guys in some dysfunctional relationship even if the guy can look "cool" and likable:
    Buffy and Angel's sex represented the first time a girl has sex with her boyfriend. After he changes his behavior and becomes an as-hole because he obtained what he wants (go in her pants).
    Buffy and Spike's represented the sex (casual and continuous exploring in a new way sex) of a more mature girl have with a biker punk (Spike) with no sense of responsibility and understanding of the relationship and she also falls into depression with many problems as her new and more adult role of "mother" (with Dawn, her house's problems, find a job to sustain themselves etc.).
    Last edited by Nothing13; 15-06-21, 06:35 PM.

    Comment


    • Stoney
      Stoney commented
      Editing a comment
      Yes, the relationships being dysfunctional definitely should be separate to consensual sexual acts being inherently 'bad'.

  • #43
    Originally posted by HardlyThere View Post

    And there you have what is ultimately the problem. You can't write genuine characters. If a character is NOT an over-the-top villain, people will automatically sympathize with him. Spike does romanticize his own story. That's what everyone, especially bad guys do. Bad guys do not think they are bad guys. And fans bought into it wholesale. Spike says he's a victim, so he's a victim. The guy who spent his time building a demon egg ring and hiding it in his basement accuses her of playing games, so she's the one playing games. Spend a whole episode rhapsodizing about murdering two women and people still sympathize with him.

    Greenberg did not give his opinion. He stated what they, the writers, were intending with the season. That's a different thing than Espenson fawning over Spike and Fury railing against him. Those are opinions.

    Another example would be Joss saying he intended S7 Spuffy to be romantic as opposed to misogynist. We can argue back and forth as to whether or not it was, but we can't really argue with the stated intent.
    I think the issue for me is that you seem to think that by stating that they wanted to remind the audience that Spike was not a suitable partner for Buffy because of his soullessness, they were saying and meaning that the character was nothing but evil and that he didn't have genuine moments of vulnerability and a (limited) capacity for goodness, whereas I think that they mostly saw and wrote a grey character, but wanted to maintain a certain boundary on how far it could take him. Whether they did it well or jumped the gun is another matter, but again I don't see any absolute in most of their thinking.

    As for your first argument, I disagree. Yes, some fans sympathized with him even when they weren't supposed to, but there are a lot of scenes that are written so that the audience will sympathize with him as well, as Stoney pointed out. FFL, Intervention, Spiral, The Gift, and again nearly every episode in S6 have those scenes. When you're literally making a point that Spike is hurt when Buffy calls him "convenient", you know very well that people will sympathize with that. When you make the person he loves beat the crap out of while he's genuinely (albeit misguidedly) trying to help them, and have him letting them do so, and emphasize how much damage was done (bear in mind, the original makeup job was even more horrendous), you know that people will sympathize with him in that moment. I seriously do not believe those writers are quite as dumb as to not know to some extent the effect it will have, which means to be that it's written in deliberately.

    Below are all quotes from Marti Noxon :

    "He sort of represents Buffy's other side. He's her id. He's hang dog because he loves Buffy, and he's not been getting his way. But in some ways I think he's the most powerful. And he's constantly struggling with his nature, which is also a part of Buffy's character arc. So, to me, he is heroic in the Buffy universe."

    "Over the past couple of seasons, Buffy's romantic interest has been Spike, this bad guy who may or may not be bad anymore. The attraction is complicated. And it seems like a lot of things have gone into confusing, grey areas."

    "People kept saying, ‘You know, Spike's a really great guy, he's so great.’ I'm like, ‘I know, he's come a long way. But in his heart of hearts, he still doesn't quite know the difference between right and wrong.'"


    Doesn't strike me as not understanding why or how people like or sympathize with the character.


    Instances.
    I don't understand what you mean by this.

    No. Because as I said, they underestimated the fanbases' willingness to side with Spike. They left it vague, thinking fans would automatically fill in the blanks. And they did, but with the wrong things. So somewhere along the way, they had to prove their point.

    Who knows. Maybe they thought one of the most explicit sexual assault scenes on OTA television placed right smack on the biggest act break on the show was just good entertainment and they had no agenda with it at all. It does not matter, really, because it didn't work. Much like demon eggs, body-dumping and vag-grabbing, fans pretended it never happened because it was bad writing and Spike wouldn't do that.
    And I think you're overestimating it. The writers talked as much about the people being enraged that Spike was shown in a semi positive light at all as those who believed he could do no wrong.
    And I never disagreed that it wasn't the purpose of the scene, merely that it wasn't quite as simple as you put it. And interestingly enough, I've seen the sentiment that Joss and Marti thought at the time that he could "easily" bounce back from it, so that would indicate that the goal wasn't to turn people off the character entirely but rather hammer home that he needed to change in order to become an acceptable "romantic hero". If the point had been that people should not see anything worthwhile in him, why have him choose to get his soul back ? Why have a scene with him in obvious distress and guilt after the fact ? Why focus on his identity crisis and on the fact that he is neither one thing nor the other (a grey area perhaps ?).


    For the sake of argument, let's go with the 'grey' wording for the writing. In your experience, what are the most focused-upon aspects of S6 B/S in Spuffy fandom, excluding the AR?
    I'm not much of an authority in that regard but from experience that would be the angst of the "one person is in love and wants to be loved back and the other is full of self-doubt and self-loathing and bears ambiguous feelings for the other" I guess ? Basically the quote that TTB pulled out, maybe ?
    What a challenge, honesty
    What a struggle to learn to speak
    Who would've thought that pretending was easier

    Comment


    • #44
      Originally posted by HardlyThere View Post
      We aren't talking about the text. We're talking about fan reaction to it and the writer's reaction to that reaction. Just off the top of your head, in your experience, what are the most discussed scenes in S6?
      Of course we're talking about the text if we're talking about fans reactions to it and why they would sympathise with a character etc. This element of the writers wanting to underline that Spike is limited is definitely there but acknowledging they wanted more from the character and chose to write in other scenes is just understanding where people are reading other angles from. I think those elements were in there too. But not to show him as okay as he is, but to have the possibilities of more, 'if only'. Pretty much what Cheese Slices said.

      Individual scenes? Ugh I don't really know in that I don't go elsewhere and see what gets discussed repeatedly in fandom. In terms of the discussions I've had here that I think get the most responses/interest in S6 I'd say these (the bolded ones possibly more ):
      - The scene when Buffy is in Revello with Spike and the scoobies come back.
      - The heaven reveal scene
      - Ones to relate to the question of nature/nurture in Tabula Rasa
      - Often ones around Willow's addiction story
      - Buffy's discussion with Tara

      - The beating in Dead Things
      - The end of Hell's Bells and Xander's visions/decision
      - Riley finding them/the ending of AYW
      - The ending of Normal Again

      - Spike/Anya in Entropy and the Spike/Anya/Buffy/Xander ending
      - The AR
      - Several that make up the soul intention/journey/reveal Spike gets his soul
      - Xander/Willow and the yellow crayon

      No, they aren't the entirety. They are merely the loudest of a small portion of the audience. Fandom as whole only makes up a tiny fraction of overall viewership and fanbase. That's why I think they should be ignored. Just tell the best story you can. You'll lose fans and you'll gain some. When you start beating your audience over the head, you're not only losing fans, but also integrity.
      I can see that it may seem heavy handed when you couple it with knowing that the writers were frustrated with a section of the fanbase. Luckily for me I watched the whole show with no knowledge of fandom and wasn't led to view anything differently than it seemed to me. That Buffy needed something to really push her to stop giving in to the escapism the relationship offered made sense to me even if I felt that Riley was being pedestaled a bit after what he'd done (my feeling then, I really didn't 'get' the idea I should have been at all sad when he left). And that Spike who had been insistent he could be what Buffy needed by free will alone for so long needed something that stood out and mattered to him to have messed up beyond his constant flagged mistakes, also made sense (that was more hindsight in seeing he went for his soul). It was him that needed the sledgehammer. So I was behind the writing of both before I even knew people had issues with the direction.

      Not especially considering even up until 7.17 they were suggesting it didn't matter all that much and Spike was still trouble.
      I can't see the argument that the soul was suggested to not matter all that much when it was the reason why Spike was given a chance and why Buffy saw something more, the potential in him. It follows through to his willingness to give up his existence for the greater good, to become heroic. So no, I don't think they did nothing with him becoming souled in S7. But that is perhaps another thread.

      Comment


      • #45

        Each follows the other, does it not? Fans were saying Spike was redeemed. Marti says no, it's not that simple.



        We can only talk about the ones writers interacted with. If you don't think Xander lecturing Buffy about her stupidity, followed immediately by her being assaulted in her bathroom, then later Xander once again lecturing Dawn about Spike isn't proving the writers' point (to quote Marti), then what was it? This all follows an episode where Riley shows up and reminds the audience Spike is evil in a ridiculous plot.



        There's no grey area when fans dismiss the storyline to see what they want. That was the problem. That is likely why they felt that HAD to show the AR the way they did. I don't think they were playing a grey area. I think they simply overestimated the audience or rather underestimated the audiences willingness to sympathize with Spike. By audience, I mean vocal fans they interacted with. I think that was the core of the problem. They put too much stock into online rumblings and forgot the bulk of the viewership.

        You bring up multiple instances of it. The alley beating. What led up to it? Spike following her, blocking her way and throwing her across the alley twice. That doesn't make her actions acceptable, but it's certainly not as simple as described. Spike consistently calls himself a victim and sex slave, yet he's shown as the pursuer more oft than not in the show. Spike is an unreliable narrator, yet fans say he's a truthteller.

        Yeah, there were certainly Spike and Spuffy haters calling every instance of anything rape and abuse and all this. But who exactly did the writers take the sledgehammer to?
        BTVS was unique in the way that writers interacted regularly with fandom in a small community. They crafted the show to be what the fans wanted...that week. They crafted the show to make sure fans got a message when they didn't like fan reaction. In other words, they were so reactive that community that the show lurched about making it very hard to get this message we are looking for.

        This is an issue of time and place to some degree. A few years earlier and there wouldn't have been this community. A few years later and the community would have grown so huge that real communication would have been impossible. With the false intimacy created during that time there was an illusion of collaboration that made fans not getting the point a personal rebuff that had to be answered. In other words, there allegiance wasn't with telling the story - it was with teaching the fans what the story was, and trying to force them to see it the right way.

        Can we agree that the writers made everyone do and say everything with a thought to getting good ratings and being renewed. This includes everything we love as well as everything we hate.

        Comment


        • #46
          Originally posted by Cheese Slices View Post

          I think the issue for me is that you seem to think that by stating that they wanted to remind the audience that Spike was not a suitable partner for Buffy because of his soullessness, they were saying and meaning that the character was nothing but evil and that he didn't have genuine moments of vulnerability and a (limited) capacity for goodness, whereas I think that they mostly saw and wrote a grey character, but wanted to maintain a certain boundary on how far it could take him. Whether they did it well or jumped the gun is another matter, but again I don't see any absolute in most of their thinking.
          So why did they do the AR? Why the lectures? Why were the sides from the time littered with notes about it? Maybe one of the older fans like can chime in since they were on BAPS at the time.

          As for your first argument, I disagree. Yes, some fans sympathized with him even when they weren't supposed to, but there are a lot of scenes that are written so that the audience will sympathize with him as well, as Stoney pointed out. FFL, Intervention, Spiral, The Gift, and again nearly every episode in S6 have those scenes. When you're literally making a point that Spike is hurt when Buffy calls him "convenient", you know very well that people will sympathize with that. When you make the person he loves beat the crap out of while he's genuinely (albeit misguidedly) trying to help them, and have him letting them do so, and emphasize how much damage was done (bear in mind, the original makeup job was even more horrendous), you know that people will sympathize with him in that moment. I seriously do not believe those writers are quite as dumb as to not know to some extent the effect it will have, which means to be that it's written in deliberately.
          Why would they sympathize with it? Because they choose to ignore the lines that came before it about f*cking a slayer?

          Below are all quotes from Marti Noxon :

          "He sort of represents Buffy's other side. He's her id. He's hang dog because he loves Buffy, and he's not been getting his way. But in some ways I think he's the most powerful. And he's constantly struggling with his nature, which is also a part of Buffy's character arc. So, to me, he is heroic in the Buffy universe."

          "Over the past couple of seasons, Buffy's romantic interest has been Spike, this bad guy who may or may not be bad anymore. The attraction is complicated. And it seems like a lot of things have gone into confusing, grey areas."

          "People kept saying, ‘You know, Spike's a really great guy, he's so great.’ I'm like, ‘I know, he's come a long way. But in his heart of hearts, he still doesn't quite know the difference between right and wrong.'"


          Doesn't strike me as not understanding why or how people like or sympathize with the character.
          Did you read the quote from Marti from 2017 when she's not selling a storyline? I don't get why you are picking publicized quotes when we already know what they say isn't what they mean. Older fans made this case back when Whedon was making all his Spuffy comments before S12. Turned out well, didn't it? It was true during the show just the same. Whedon used to mock Bangel behind the scenes but he doesn't knock them in the press.

          I don't understand what you mean by this.
          What did Noxnn say about it?

          And I think you're overestimating it. The writers talked as much about the people being enraged that Spike was shown in a semi positive light at all as those who believed he could do no wrong.
          And I never disagreed that it wasn't the purpose of the scene, merely that it wasn't quite as simple as you put it. And interestingly enough, I've seen the sentiment that Joss and Marti thought at the time that he could "easily" bounce back from it, so that would indicate that the goal wasn't to turn people off the character entirely but rather hammer home that he needed to change in order to become an acceptable "romantic hero". If the point had been that people should not see anything worthwhile in him, why have him choose to get his soul back ? Why have a scene with him in obvious distress and guilt after the fact ? Why focus on his identity crisis and on the fact that he is neither one thing nor the other (a grey area perhaps ?).
          When did I ever say it was about turning people off the character? I said it was about showing that Buffy banging Spike is bad, wrong and an insanely stupid choice. This isn't about Spike. It's about the audience's perception of Spuffy and each characters involvement in it.

          I'm not much of an authority in that regard but from experience that would be the angst of the "one person is in love and wants to be loved back and the other is full of self-doubt and self-loathing and bears ambiguous feelings for the other" I guess ? Basically the quote that TTB pulled out, maybe ?
          Then why is it the first time you mentioned it? No, what gets talked about is the alley, calling him convenient and all the puppy faces. You keep saying all this about grey area. To that I say, OK, let's use that terminology. This grey area doesn't get talked about. Talk about the alley but not what led up to it. Talk about the convenient line, but not what led up to it. Talk about the fight/screw in Smashed but not what Spike was planning had she shown up after his call. If we keep the black and white separate, is it still grey? Obviously SOME do talk about this stuff, but it's far outweighed by the other, currently and certainly was back then. Spike chains Buffy up, threatens to kill her but people more than willingly forget all that because she slams a door in his face.

          It's one of the reasons Buffy and Angel stands out. It's one of Whedon's writing styles. He puts the audience in the place of the bad guy (term used loosely) then pulls the rug out. It rarely ever works, but he keeps doing it. He did it in Dollhouse, he did it in his WW script and he tried to do it in S6.

          Originally posted by bespangeled View Post

          BTVS was unique in the way that writers interacted regularly with fandom in a small community. They crafted the show to be what the fans wanted...that week. They crafted the show to make sure fans got a message when they didn't like fan reaction. In other words, they were so reactive that community that the show lurched about making it very hard to get this message we are looking for.

          This is an issue of time and place to some degree. A few years earlier and there wouldn't have been this community. A few years later and the community would have grown so huge that real communication would have been impossible. With the false intimacy created during that time there was an illusion of collaboration that made fans not getting the point a personal rebuff that had to be answered. In other words, there allegiance wasn't with telling the story - it was with teaching the fans what the story was, and trying to force them to see it the right way.
          That's pretty much my point, yeah. It's not limited to Spike or Spuffy, either. It''s my fault, I guess. I wasn't aware it wasn't well-known the lengths they went to do this.

          That's why I prefer vague to 'grey' because grey suggests a blending. The writers did one thing, then showed the opposite and left fans to fill in the blanks. Then they got peeved the same fans were filling it in the wrong way.

          Originally posted by Nothing13 View Post

          It is not for giving a creepy vibe but because in Buffyverse characters' relationship follow a deep symbolism
          Sure it is, just as Angel sitting in a blacked-out car watching Buffy suck a lollipop was meant to be creepy.

          However, i understand and think that the writer's main objective was to show to girls the problem of sex with certain guys in some dysfunctional relationship even if the guy can look "cool" and likable:
          Probably true. Sex isn't bad. Sex with people Joss doesn't like is bad. It's just pure angry geek on display. Why do the hot popular girls go for a-holes when I'm right here!?

          Comment


          • #47
            Originally posted by HardlyThere View Post
            Sure it is, just as Angel sitting in a blacked-out car watching Buffy suck a lollipop was meant to be creepy.
            It is pathological but this is only an aspect.
            The point was the evolution and the journey for Buffy-Spike from a "pathological love" to a "divine love", like the relationship of Willow with magic in seasons 6-7
            From the worst in Seeing Red (Dark Willow and Spike's attempt rape) to the best in Chosen (the divinization of Willow and Spike in their relationships with Magic and Buffy)

            The relationship of Spike with Anne-Drusilla-Buffy is pathological in various ways but it also transforms into "divine". This is also the reason for the symbolism of Spike=Jesus like I said in another thread

            In the church scene of season 7, there is Spike as Jesus on the cross with Buffy as Mary (in that scene Spike also talks to "God")Season 7's war against First Evil and his army of demons in the main Apocalypse is based on the Apocalypse of Christianity with:
            1. First Evil=Satan
            2. Hellmouth=Hell
            3. Turok-Hans=Demons
            4. Spike and Buffy=Jesus and Mary
            As a matter of fact, the ending of season 7 is related to the Apocalypse against the First Evil (Satan) and Spike has the main role in it because he is like Jesus.
            The divinization of Spike from Heavens with the light of Heaven destroys the First Evil's army and the Hellmouth (Hell): the role of Jesus in the apocalypse of Christianity.
            Video: Death and Assumption to Heaven of Spike
            The resurrection of Spike after his death is related to the resurrection of Jesus

            Spike's symbolism in relation to Jesus is expressed also in relation to the three women in his life/unlife that reflect the iconography of the Three Marys: The three Marys
            Spike's women in his life/unlife are symbolically related (Anne-Drusilla-Buffy):
            • Drusilla and Buffy's birthday are on the same date: January 19
            • Spike mother's name Anne is the same as Buffy's second name: Buffy Anne Summers
            1. Anne was Spike's biological mother
            2. Drusilla was Spike's sire/vampire "mother" and lover
            3. Buffy was Spike's lover that replaced his mother
            The iconography of the Three Marys: Three Marys
            Spike/Jesus with the three Marys (Anne-Drusilla-Buffy)
            Spike's girlfriend is always related to his mother like for Jesus, his mother Mary was linked to his "lover" Mary Magdalene
            So, according to you, writers created a story with all these symbolisms only to show something creepy and nothing more?

            Probably true. Sex isn't bad. Sex with people Joss doesn't like is bad. It's just pure angry geek on display. Why do the hot popular girls go for a-holes when I'm right here!?
            I agree. This is also the reason I wasn't so surprised by Joss-mess and his behavior. I think that he used the facade of feminism and the power to abuse beautiful women because of some of his frustration when he was young.
            His avatar was partially Xander for this reason.

            Personally, the fact that he preached feminism and abused/molested women behind the scenes as a coward in various ways makes him the worst for me. Like the police officer that abuses his position and power preaching justice and in the shadow do criminal acts. This cowardly hypocrisy is an aggravating thing.

            Why he despised Spike so much? He despised Spike from season 2 for this reason. The original Spike of season 2 in School Hard was everything he despised: "the cool and badass dude".

            Why do the hot popular girls go for a-holes when I'm right here!?
            This is the typical question of losers, for me. The frustration of the geek and loser that can understand and comprehend why beautiful women can be with a guy like Spike. The flaws of as-holes don't change the problems of geeks. "Why the beautiful cheerleader like the athletic quarterback and not the geek?" Now, these depictions and representations are stereotypes and aren't completely correct.
            Also, Angel and Spike aren't only as-holes. This is only a part of their personality, the other parts of their personality are what make peoples and girls like them

            The problem of the popularity of Spike is the same problem of the popularity of Damon of TVD (since symbolically Stefan=Angel and Damon=Spike). Both Joss Whedon and Kevin Williamson (his avatar was partially Dawson, another geek) don't like them.

            Kevin Williamson has revealed that fans made one Damon Salvatore storyline "really hard". "The audience loved him no matter why"
            Many girls will always like a guy like Spike and Damon: his cool exteriority (his appearance and behavior), he is tough outside but sensitive and emotional inside (especially with his loved girlfriend). They also create a story where he loves the main heroine and will do anything for her (even die) in order to be loved back and stay with her. Despite the bad things writers make him do and despite some of their thuggish and bad/antisocial behaviors. This kind of guy can also be romanticized.
            No need for a genius to understand that these characters will become popular among fans and particularly some girls. Very few girls will prefer and are interested in geeks like Xander and Dawson as characters in tv shows.

            This is my point of view as a male so it can be flawed. Probably women should express their reason why they like characters as Spike and Damon and why are so popular and liked among girls.

            Comment


            • #48
              It is pathological but this is only an aspect.
              The point was the evolution and the journey for Buffy-Spike from a "pathological love" to a "divine love", like the relationship of Willow with magic in seasons 6-7
              From the worst in Seeing Red (Dark Willow and Spike's attempt rape) to the best in Chosen (the divinization of Willow and Spike in their relationships with Magic and Buffy)

              The relationship of Spike with Anne-Drusilla-Buffy is pathological in various ways but it also transforms into "divine". This is also the reason for the symbolism of Spike=Jesus like I said in another thread
              I love this - the associations that you make. But I don't know that the relationship between Spike and his mother was actually pathological in that the house and property was his, and he supported his mother. He was a Mama's boy in modern terms. In Victorian terms he was the perfect son.

              There is something performative in Spike at this stage, even before he adopts the Spike persona. He's very conscious of wanting to be a Romantic with his poetry and his refusal to look at the dark side of life. His relationship with his mother, while truly deeply felt, is also up to the standards of his society. I think this as much an awareness of what a fairly cloistered view of what a mother/son bond should be like. Until she was vamped, I can't imagine Anne and William every having a fight, and that's not natural.

              I agree. This is also the reason I wasn't so surprised by Joss-mess and his behavior. I think that he used the facade of feminism and the power to abuse beautiful women because of some of his frustration when he was young.
              His avatar was partially Xander for this reason.

              Personally, the fact that he preached feminism and abused/molested women behind the scenes as a coward in various ways makes him the worst for me. Like the police officer that abuses his position and power preaching justice and in the shadow do criminal acts. This cowardly hypocrisy is an aggravating thing.
              Okay, I have some fairly strong feelings about this one. While Joss definitely created a toxic work environment where some actors were in the 'in' crowd with him, and others were not included, I do think we need to define the term abused, and there have been no allegations of molestation that I am aware of. It's a dick move to have affairs when you are married, but not one woman has come forward and claimed that they felt pressured or abused in these relationships.

              Joss was not a feminist, though I have to say his portrait of strong women interacting in a healthy manner still is rare on television. Buffy, for it's times, was a revolutionary show. I'd say he was an equal opportunity abuser - slamming JM against a wall and threatening him was abusive. But everything I read - even back in the day - was that he has a hot temper and exploded when someone when someone did not exactly follow his directions. This isn't new information. CC has been open about being problematic in some areas - chronically late and needing a special couch and extra time to learn lines. The combination was not a good one, and I am sure she really did feel abused.

              As for MT, the reason Joss was not allowed to be alone with her was because he blew up at her, using bad language and ignoring the fact that she was only fifteen years old. There was no molestation charge here.

              MOD NOTE: This portion of bespangeled's post has been copied across to the Me Too thread and subsequent responses moved with it.

              Why he despised Spike so much? He despised Spike from season 2 for this reason. The original Spike of season 2 in School Hard was everything he despised: "the cool and badass dude".
              He despised Spike because Spike was popular enough to ruin his conception of the show.

              This is the typical question of losers, for me. The frustration of the geek and loser that can understand and comprehend why beautiful women can be with a guy like Spike. The flaws of as-holes don't change the problems of geeks. "Why the beautiful cheerleader like the athletic quarterback and not the geek?" Now, these depictions and representations are stereotypes and aren't completely correct.
              But in BTVS the popular cheerleader did choose the nerd, and stayed with him until he was unfaithful to her.

              Many girls will always like a guy like Spike and Damon: his cool exteriority (his appearance and behavior), he is tough outside but sensitive and emotional inside (especially with his loved girlfriend). They also create a story where he loves the main heroine and will do anything for her (even die) in order to be loved back and stay with her. Despite the bad things writers make him do and despite some of their thuggish and bad/antisocial behaviors. This kind of guy can also be romanticized.
              No need for a genius to understand that these characters will become popular among fans and particularly some girls. Very few girls will prefer and are interested in geeks like Xander and Dawson as characters in tv shows.
              Maybe at a certain age. The teens and twenty somethings who fantasize about Spike can do so from a safe distance, without any risk. But there's a lot of us who find his extremely attractive both as a man and a character who would never choose to have someone like him as an actual boyfriend.

              I love Spike as a character on this show. In reality I would not enjoy being with him on a regular basis. I can't stand his music, and I don't like the fact that he's an ******* and quite proud of it. He does have a beautiful sensitive side but that seems to be reserved for only special people, and even then only under special circumstances. The idea of a man who is so high maintenance would make me run for the hills. I think a lot of female fans feel that way.

              Even though Xander is a nerd, he's also pretty high maintenance. He 's got a lot of baggage which made a lot of trouble for him. Both Spike and Xander as real men would be problematic partners.

              This is my point of view as a male so it can be flawed. Probably women should express their reason why they like characters as Spike and Damon and why are so popular and liked among girls.
              I like Spike because he's refreshingly willing to put his head out and do things others don't like. He doesn't care what most people think of him, and at the same tie he has a pretty good grasp of the rationalizations individuals use to be comfortable in their lives. He punctures balloons, he calls people out, he enjoys being an *******. Those characteristics are enjoyable simply because I am the polar opposite.

              Damon was played by an attractive actor, but I gave up on TVD because the characters were not multi dimensional and the action was repetitive so I can't help you there.
              Can we agree that the writers made everyone do and say everything with a thought to getting good ratings and being renewed. This includes everything we love as well as everything we hate.

              Comment


              • BtVS fan
                BtVS fan commented
                Editing a comment
                You really love Joss don't you. I was curious if you'd met him. He was and is known for emotional cruelty which is abuse

              • Stoney
                Stoney commented
                Editing a comment
                In all fairness, I think the point is about the distinction of a consensual sexual relationship against molestation. Not that he wasn't abusing his power at work or creating a toxic environment.

            • #49
              Originally posted by Nothing13 View Post



              So, according to you, writers created a story with all these symbolisms only to show something creepy and nothing more?
              Those symbolisms are only your interpretation, one of many interpretations fans of any particular character have put forth over the years. It used to be a pretty big thing to say Xander is a Jesus metaphor, being a carpenter and the heart of the group. Joss is a very angry atheist, which makes his derision of Charisma's religion and rosary tattoo believable, so no, I don't believe he deliberately created all this things to have any particular religious metaphor.

              Joss is a big Freudian. A twisted semi-sexual relationship to your mom (or Dad) pretty much goes with the program.

              I agree. This is also the reason I wasn't so surprised by Joss-mess and his behavior. I think that he used the facade of feminism and the power to abuse beautiful women because of some of his frustration when he was young.
              His avatar was partially Xander for this reason.
              Much of the story choices in BtVS and AtS make more sense looking at it in such a way. The whole Riley mess in S5 where Buffy is blamed for Riley sneaking out of bed to a brothel full of aggressive, needy women is a big one.

              But this is all getting off-topic and is a bit unfair. Joss doesn't have enough output to really get into what his hangups are.

              Why he despised Spike so much? He despised Spike from season 2 for this reason. The original Spike of season 2 in School Hard was everything he despised: "the cool and badass dude".
              I don't think he did despise Spike. It's more what he represents. Self-described male feminists tend to be less about being pro-women as much as being anti-masculine. That's why they get mad when women don't behave as they think they should. Joss seems to tick all the boxes with this. Spike is a very masculine character in the ways a rockstar is. Highly sexual, violent and emotionally volatile. As opposed to Angel, who is a different, more traditional stoic John Wayne type.


              This is the typical question of losers, for me. The frustration of the geek and loser that can understand and comprehend why beautiful women can be with a guy like Spike. The flaws of as-holes don't change the problems of geeks. "Why the beautiful cheerleader like the athletic quarterback and not the geek?" Now, these depictions and representations are stereotypes and aren't completely correct.
              Also, Angel and Spike aren't only as-holes. This is only a part of their personality, the other parts of their personality are what make peoples and girls like them

              The problem of the popularity of Spike is the same problem of the popularity of Damon of TVD (since symbolically Stefan=Angel and Damon=Spike). Both Joss Whedon and Kevin Williamson (his avatar was partially Dawson, another geek) don't like them.



              Many girls will always like a guy like Spike and Damon: his cool exteriority (his appearance and behavior), he is tough outside but sensitive and emotional inside (especially with his loved girlfriend). They also create a story where he loves the main heroine and will do anything for her (even die) in order to be loved back and stay with her. Despite the bad things writers make him do and despite some of their thuggish and bad/antisocial behaviors. This kind of guy can also be romanticized.
              No need for a genius to understand that these characters will become popular among fans and particularly some girls. Very few girls will prefer and are interested in geeks like Xander and Dawson as characters in tv shows.

              This is my point of view as a male so it can be flawed. Probably women should express their reason why they like characters as Spike and Damon and why are so popular and liked among girls.
              You can always ask yourself the resulting inverse of it, which is just as interesting. Why do losers like the so-called vapid, bitchy girls if they hate them so much?

              Comment


              • #50
                Originally posted by HardlyThere View Post

                So why did they do the AR? Why the lectures? Why were the sides from the time littered with notes about it? Maybe one of the older fans like can chime in since they were on BAPS at the time.



                Why would they sympathize with it? Because they choose to ignore the lines that came before it about f*cking a slayer?
                I've already answered that. I'll repeat again, but the way I see it, is that you can sympathize with someone even if their actions and behavior aren't 100% immaculate. There is nothing contradictory about condemning Spike's comment and his overall actions when they're bad, while feeling sympathy when he's being insulted. And the same goes for Buffy, Faith, and literally every other character who is less than wholesome all the time. In that regard, the writers can think that Spike is not a suitable partner for Buffy as is and try to make that point clear while admitting that there is some qualities worth sympathizing with and appreciating within him. You see it as mutually exclusive, whereas I think it's actually most people's reaction to the storyline.


                Did you read the quote from Marti from 2017 when she's not selling a storyline? I don't get why you are picking publicized quotes when we already know what they say isn't what they mean. Older fans made this case back when Whedon was making all his Spuffy comments before S12. Turned out well, didn't it? It was true during the show just the same. Whedon used to mock Bangel behind the scenes but he doesn't knock them in the press.
                You can't say that interviews aren't reliable in one post then use an interview as your selling point. I could just as easily argue that she was being diplomatic in this interview and was trying to avoid being branded as an apologist of any kind, especially given the particular context of it. I could also argue that since we are discussing what the writers' motivation and thoughts were at the time, interviews conducted at the time might be more relevant. Regardless, either you trust public quotes, or you don't, but only trusting those that support your argument doesn't really fly.
                But again, I feel like we're going in circles where I tell you that there is some black, there is some white, and together they make grey, and you keep insisting that since there is black, then it's all that there is. I've brought up both intra and extra textual stuff that imo indicate some white, and you dismiss it on account that there is black, as if the two can't coexist.



                Then why is it the first time you mentioned it? No, what gets talked about is the alley, calling him convenient and all the puppy faces. You keep saying all this about grey area. To that I say, OK, let's use that terminology. This grey area doesn't get talked about. Talk about the alley but not what led up to it. Talk about the convenient line, but not what led up to it. Talk about the fight/screw in Smashed but not what Spike was planning had she shown up after his call. If we keep the black and white separate, is it still grey? Obviously SOME do talk about this stuff, but it's far outweighed by the other, currently and certainly was back then. Spike chains Buffy up, threatens to kill her but people more than willingly forget all that because she slams a door in his face.
                Because you didn't ask before ? And I am sorry, but this is not my experience at all. The people who woobify Spike do exist, but they're not the majority. Your experience might different from mine, but it doesn't make it the ultimate authority either. For every person who gets hung up on the alley scene and how Buffy is such a b*tch, you have at least 5 people talking about how it's an exercise in self-loathing, a call back to Who Are You, etc...Spike's side of things is rarely the focus. And in general, people will talk about both sides of things. It's actually intellectually feasible to be both put off by Spike's actions in Crush, and still feel bad for him. Same thing with FFL, and same thing with Buffy in the alley scene : I feel terrible for her because she's obviously hurting a lot, but she's still beating the crap out of her "lover" while he was genuinely trying to help. And yes, it's still grey because both good and bad actions are linked in a way that is organic and fit with the respective character's situation and personality. Spike says a crappy thing, Buffy gets frustrated and responds in kind, it escalates (or vice versa). Seems pretty grey to me.
                Overall, unless you conduct a study that proves that the majority of spuffy fans are like what you describe, than I'll concede the point. Until then, I'll just take your personal experience for what it is: good to know but not the absolute truth.

                At the end of the day, I see a majority of writers acknowledging a certain ambiguity to the storyline, and writing it that way as well, whereas you're more into the "they were blowing hot and cold" side of things. That's fine. I think they were often annoyed/amused by some fans' very vocal opinions, but I also think they genuinely were interesting in the story they were telling and that not everything that came out of their mouth was some kind of mind game or a publicity stunt, though I'm sure there was some of that too. And since I think they were genuinely interested in the story, I think that they wouldn't let it be so black and white, even if there were trying to make a moral statement occasionally. And I certainly don't think that their view was so simplistic as "Buffy makes bad choices because sex with Spike bad no matter what". If that was all that they thought, they would've written things a lot differently.



                What a challenge, honesty
                What a struggle to learn to speak
                Who would've thought that pretending was easier

                Comment


                • #51
                  HardlyThere
                  Greenberg has said their goal was to show Buffy making stupid choices.
                  If that was their point they didn't actually get it wrong. Buffy did make some stupid choices in season 6. Trusting Spike wasn't the only one. Trusting him was a stupid choice considering she knew and actually voiced that he was not to be trusted. But that doesn't make him a one-dimensional villain who is nothing but evil.

                  I wasn't around back then but even today you don't have fans who don't think that soulless Spike had moral limitations despite the fact how much he cared for Buffy (and to some extend Dawn). You get the whole range of

                  a) Kill Spike and get Angel back or it's bad writing.
                  b) I love Spike but he has to be eeeeevil and with Dru. The writers turned him into a lapdog. Totally OOC.
                  c) Spike is already good. He should lecture the Scoobies and Buffy about their mean ways and then ride off into the sunset. Why isn't this show called Spike, the Vampire?
                  d) Buffy really should be without a boyfriend. It never occurred to me when she was with Angel or Riley but now it's glaringly obvious. Buffy needs to be single or otherwise, she can't be an independent woman and a feminist role model.
                  e) Who is this Spike guy anyway?

                  And I think group e) probably was the least vocal of them all but maybe the largest. So, I am not sure the writers actually came up with the AR to teach group c) a lesson. I think they came up with the AR because they thought it was good storytelling and as far as I am concerned I think it is. I know many are of a different opinion ranging from the writers assassinated Buffy's character by victimizing her to the writers assassinated Spike's character by having him do something that's totally OOC for him.

                  I saw Spike attack a woman in a dark alley. I don't think it was OOC for him to do so. I don't think he would have stopped himself had the chip not kicked in. Spike was still a soulless vampire and trusting him was hazardous. But that doesn't mean he was beyond the possibility of character growth, development, and redemption. That's what the writers also showed us throughout season 6 (and before that in the latter half of season 5).

                  flow





                  ​​​​​​​

                  Banner by Brendan

                  Comment


                  • #52
                    Originally posted by Cheese Slices View Post
                    I've already answered that. I'll repeat again, but the way I see it, is that you can sympathize with someone even if their actions and behavior aren't 100% immaculate. There is nothing contradictory about condemning Spike's comment and his overall actions when they're bad, while feeling sympathy when he's being insulted. And the same goes for Buffy, Faith, and literally every other character who is less than wholesome all the time. In that regard, the writers can think that Spike is not a suitable partner for Buffy as is and try to make that point clear while admitting that there is some qualities worth sympathizing with and appreciating within him. You see it as mutually exclusive, whereas I think it's actually most people's reaction to the storyline.
                    Do you feel sympathy for Warren? Glory?

                    You can't say that interviews aren't reliable in one post then use an interview as your selling point. I could just as easily argue that she was being diplomatic in this interview and was trying to avoid being branded as an apologist of any kind, especially given the particular context of it. I could also argue that since we are discussing what the writers' motivation and thoughts were at the time, interviews conducted at the time might be more relevant. Regardless, either you trust public quotes, or you don't, but only trusting those that support your argument doesn't really fly.
                    But again, I feel like we're going in circles where I tell you that there is some black, there is some white, and together they make grey, and you keep insisting that since there is black, then it's all that there is. I've brought up both intra and extra textual stuff that imo indicate some white, and you dismiss it on account that there is black, as if the two can't coexist.
                    Yes, I can, for the reason given. Selling a story vs no longer selling the story. You don't bash a product while you are selling it. I'm not going in circles. You are doing exactly what fans do when they focus on one thing and ignore the rest. In response to Greenberg and Noxon's comments, all you did was trot out Spuffy quotes from when the show was on the air. Explain the comments. That's all I asked. SMG's public comments on S6 and Spuffy while the show was on the air were quite different from the stuff she said after it was announced the show was going off. All the press interviews during the run were just PR.

                    Because you didn't ask before ? And I am sorry, but this is not my experience at all. The people who woobify Spike do exist, but they're not the majority. Your experience might different from mine, but it doesn't make it the ultimate authority either. For every person who gets hung up on the alley scene and how Buffy is such a b*tch, you have at least 5 people talking about how it's an exercise in self-loathing, a call back to Who Are You, etc...Spike's side of things is rarely the focus. And in general, people will talk about both sides of things. It's actually intellectually feasible to be both put off by Spike's actions in Crush, and still feel bad for him. Same thing with FFL, and same thing with Buffy in the alley scene : I feel terrible for her because she's obviously hurting a lot, but she's still beating the crap out of her "lover" while he was genuinely trying to help. And yes, it's still grey because both good and bad actions are linked in a way that is organic and fit with the respective character's situation and personality. Spike says a crappy thing, Buffy gets frustrated and responds in kind, it escalates (or vice versa). Seems pretty grey to me.
                    Why do I have to bring it up if you see it as grey? This response lays it all out. It's just playing on words. The focus is not on Spike's "crappy things" much like the group the writers were pissed with. "Spuffy is mutually abusive and unhealthy. Both behaved poorly. Now let's talk about how Buffy raped Spike in Gone." It's a but statement without the but.

                    Overall, unless you conduct a study that proves that the majority of spuffy fans are like what you describe, than I'll concede the point. Until then, I'll just take your personal experience for what it is: good to know but not the absolute truth.
                    Where did I ever say it was the majority? I said it was quite the opposite. It was a small portion of a certain section of the fanbase that the writers decided to give special attention to. As a Spuffy fan, I can assure you not all fans think that way, not then and not now. However, that minority make a whole lot of noise.

                    At the end of the day, I see a majority of writers acknowledging a certain ambiguity to the storyline, and writing it that way as well, whereas you're more into the "they were blowing hot and cold" side of things. That's fine. I think they were often annoyed/amused by some fans' very vocal opinions, but I also think they genuinely were interesting in the story they were telling and that not everything that came out of their mouth was some kind of mind game or a publicity stunt, though I'm sure there was some of that too. And since I think they were genuinely interested in the story, I think that they wouldn't let it be so black and white, even if there were trying to make a moral statement occasionally. And I certainly don't think that their view was so simplistic as "Buffy makes bad choices because sex with Spike bad no matter what". If that was all that they thought, they would've written things a lot differently.
                    So aside from not one, but two writers including the #2 saying this all and one outright including comparing Spike to Brian from You Can Count on Me, what do you mean? Both Marti and Drew say Spike IS that stupid choice. They spent a whole lot of time having characters lecture on what a stupid choice it was. The only caveat is Tara saying it wasn't a simple stupid choice, but a dumb choice nonetheless. From my experience, most fans, Spuffy and non-antiSpuffies alike didn't see what the big deal was.

                    @flow
                    And I think group e) probably was the least vocal of them all but maybe the largest. So, I am not sure the writers actually came up with the AR to teach group c) a lesson. I think they came up with the AR because they thought it was good storytelling and as far as I am concerned I think it is. I know many are of a different opinion ranging from the writers assassinated Buffy's character by victimizing her to the writers assassinated Spike's character by having him do something that's totally OOC for him.
                    As I said, I don't think that, either. However, as I said, the things surrounding it, including the execution? Absolutely. Xander tried to rape Buffy in S1. Did we see it? Was it the central act of the episode with a pause in the middle of it? Did they have Buffy scream that she should have stopped him before? Did the author insert have a scene just prior to it telling how stupid she was being? Did the author insert then later lecture another character about their blind spot for him? That's not even getting into As You Were. The AR is a valid if controversial plot choice. All that other stuff, though? It's the not AR. It's all that. They could have had that happen off screen like much of their S6 relationship. Instead we got what we got. The only thing missing was a shooting star going across the screen with The More You Know above it.

                    I saw Spike attack a woman in a dark alley. I don't think it was OOC for him to do so. I don't think he would have stopped himself had the chip not kicked in. Spike was still a soulless vampire and trusting him was hazardous. But that doesn't mean he was beyond the possibility of character growth, development, and redemption. That's what the writers also showed us throughout season 6 (and before that in the latter half of season 5).
                    I don't recall saying otherwise. As I said in the other topic about this, the writers found themselves in a big hole. Spike is not Spuffy which is what I refer to and Buffy is not Spuffy, either. My commentary is on Spuffy and each characters contributions to it. The hole I speak of is the things you mentioned and those are the things that make Spuffy not that horrible thing the writers apparently wanted it to be in S6. It keeps being said they didn't mean for it to be this horrible bad thing, except they did for whatever reason.

                    It's not the first or last time what the writers said and what they wrote didn't really mesh up. Just take Briley as an example. What they said: It's a healthy relationship and Riley is a well-adjusted guy. Would you agree that's what they wrote? I certainly wouldn't.
                    Last edited by HardlyThere; 17-06-21, 10:37 AM.

                    Comment


                    • flow
                      flow commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Nah, I wouldn't either ;-)

                  • #53
                    "Do you feel sympathy for Warren? Glory?"

                    I briefly did at that line spoken to one of Warrens old school 'chums' in season 6 "I thought I'd never stop crying" which although was said in a typical Warren snidy way, did show you a brief flash into the fact the character had obviously been bullied by his peers at some point and that had influenced his behaviour a tad.

                    No excuse for what he went onto do of course, but it did show you a slightly different angle for a bit.

                    Comment


                    • Cheese Slices
                      Cheese Slices commented
                      Editing a comment
                      I liked that scene, it was quite a nice touch.

                  • #54
                    Originally posted by HardlyThere View Post

                    Do you feel sympathy for Warren? Glory?
                    Did the writers insert many scenes showcasing their vulnerability and did the actors perform them that way ?

                    Yes, I can, for the reason given. Selling a story vs no longer selling the story. You don't bash a product while you are selling it. I'm not going in circles. You are doing exactly what fans do when they focus on one thing and ignore the rest. In response to Greenberg and Noxon's comments, all you did was trot out Spuffy quotes from when the show was on the air. Explain the comments. That's all I asked. SMG's public comments on S6 and Spuffy while the show was on the air were quite different from the stuff she said after it was announced the show was going off. All the press interviews during the run were just PR.
                    You haven't answered my comments about this interview *or the fact that MN wrote scenes in which both Buffy and Spike behaved badly, or that showcased that under different circumstances it wouldn't be so bad. Again, if her thoughts about this were so Manichean, why have them take care of Dawn together at the end of Wrecked ? Why have Spike be noble and sticking around in Bargaining ? Why have Buffy say that Spike wouldn't hurt Dawn even if he could in Villains ?
                    In fact, if they hated the whole idea so much, why go there in the first place ? Again, there's a difference between not wanting the audience to overly romanticize something and appreciating the something for what it is.
                    * Also this is your interpretation of her words. Saying that they went too far sometimes is not the same as thinking that the whole storyline is garbage. There is a middle ground.


                    Why do I have to bring it up if you see it as grey? This response lays it all out. It's just playing on words. The focus is not on Spike's "crappy things" much like the group the writers were pissed with. "Spuffy is mutually abusive and unhealthy. Both behaved poorly. Now let's talk about how Buffy raped Spike in Gone." It's a but statement without the but.
                    Hold up. Your initial argument is that the writers were only trying to paint the whole story in the most negative light possible, while fans were basically sticking their fingers in their ears. Since I think it's more complicated than that, I responded by giving examples of the contrary (i.e. examples of either positivity or "mutual negativity", none of which you addressed btw), so of course I'm going to argue about Spike being sympathetic in this particular context. It's basically as if you said that all swans are white, to which I responded that some swans are black and showed you pictures, only for you to retort "oh, so you're really hung up on black swans, huh".

                    Where did I ever say it was the majority? I said it was quite the opposite. It was a small portion of a certain section of the fanbase that the writers decided to give special attention to. As a Spuffy fan, I can assure you not all fans think that way, not then and not now. However, that minority make a whole lot of noise.
                    You made several paragraphs arguing that the spuffy shippers that you encountered were all about "poor Spikey". You asked me what they usually discussed, and when I said that they discussed the mutual angst, you said that it wasn't true and that it was all about how Spike was a victim. Now you say that most fans aren't like that, which is exactly the point I made earlier that you somehow still rebutted.

                    So aside from not one, but two writers including the #2 saying this all and one outright including comparing Spike to Brian from You Can Count on Me, what do you mean? Both Marti and Drew say Spike IS that stupid choice. They spent a whole lot of time having characters lecture on what a stupid choice it was. The only caveat is Tara saying it wasn't a simple stupid choice, but a dumb choice nonetheless. From my experience, most fans, Spuffy and non-antiSpuffies alike didn't see what the big deal was.
                    The thing is again, I don't disagree that there was some of that, but my argument was that it was more complicated than that. I mean, you said it yourself, Tara is presented as the wisest and least biased of the bunch, and she says that it's totally ok to love Spike or have sex with, while listing the good he has done and his love for her. The only other person that expresses direct judgement is Xander and he i) is biased as hell and 2) directly apologizes for said judgement. Why do you consider Xander a mouthpiece for the writers more than Tara ?
                    What a challenge, honesty
                    What a struggle to learn to speak
                    Who would've thought that pretending was easier

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by HardlyThere View Post
                      Those symbolisms are only your interpretation, one of many interpretations fans of any particular character have put forth over the years. It used to be a pretty big thing to say Xander is a Jesus metaphor, being a carpenter and the heart of the group. Joss is a very angry atheist, which makes his derision of Charisma's religion and rosary tattoo believable, so no, I don't believe he deliberately created all these things to have any particular religious metaphor.
                      The fact that Joss is an atheist means nothing. He created a show about vampires and demons (in relation to supernatural Heaven/Hell). He and other writers used this symbolism to do a supernatural story. It is typical in these supernatural tv shows and movies that put religious symbolism. I don't care about say "big things".

                      "Angel/Angelus takes his name from "the Angelus" of Christianity (the archangel Gabriel).
                      The story of Angel/Angelus and Buffy/Drusilla reflect symbolically, in a distorted way, the "Angelus ad virginem" of Christianity in relation to the annunciation of Mary from the Archangel Gabriel: Angelus Domini nuntiavit MariæTranscript from What's my line part 2: Spike: Once you're well again, we'll have a coronation down Main Street, and invite everyone, and drink for seven days and seven nights."

                      Spike talks about the coronation of Drusilla in relation to the coronation of the Virgin Mary because Virgin and Saint Drusilla=Virgin Mary, vampirized/annunciated by Angelus/Archangel GabrielThe coronation of Mary (Drusilla) by Jesus (Spike)"

                      Also linking Angelus-Drusilla-Spike to Archangel Gabriel-Mary-Jesus can also be seen as derision to religion.

                      Many other movies do it, for example, the movie Underworld: The rise of the Lycans is symbolically a metaphor for the rebellion of Fallen angels of Lucifer against "God/God the father"
                      • Lucian is based on Lucifer, the name Lucian is related to "light" like Lucifer
                      • Werewolves are the fallen angels that are rebelling, demonized by the "social/good" vampires
                      • Vampires at the court of Viktor are angels at the court of God the Father
                      • Viktor, the Tyrant=God The Father. The tyrant pose as a benevolent father about justice, the "father" of Lucifer/Lucien, that impose obedience

                      Relationships of seasons 6-7
                      The relationships of the main characters of Season 6-7 are interlinked together.

                      Buffy-Spike and Relationships

                      The main couple Buffy and Spike with:
                      1. Xander-Anya
                      2. Willow-Tara
                      3. Faith-Robin Wood
                      Buffy and Spike relationship during season 6-7 must follow the relationships of the other characters in term of best/worst moments and positive/negative aspect of relationships:

                      1) Xander-Anya
                      -In season 6 both Xander and Buffy break up the relationship with Anya and Spike, Anya and Spike are emotionally destroyed and comfort each other cheating on Xander/Buffy. Xander and Buffy instead of being indifferent, are hurt by this event.
                      -In season 7 Xander/Anya and Buffy/Spike try to resume their relationship but it ends with Spike and Anya dying in Chosen.

                      2) Willow-Tara
                      -In season 6 Spike/Buffy's relationship based on sex addiction is symbolically linked to Willow's addiction to magic. This addiction is bad for Buffy and Spike and also ruins Willow's persona and her relationship with Tara. The culmination of these problematic relationships is in the episode "Seeing Red" where Tara got killed and Willow turns Dark Willow because of her magic addiction, and Spike tries to rape Buffy.
                      -In season 7 Willow tries to restart his activity with magic but is afraid of it like Buffy and Spike are afraid of their relationship, however, all characters during the season overcome these problems and reach the next stage: the "divine level":
                      • Willow in Chosen got "divinized" in her relationship with Magic: Willow divinized
                      • Spike in Chosen got "divinized" in his relationship with Buffy: Spike divinized
                      From the worst in Seeing Red (Dark Willow and Spike's attempt rape) to the best in Chosen (the divinization of Willow and Spike in their relationships with Magic and Buffy)

                      3) Faith-Robin Wood
                      Both Spike and Robin have a problem with their mothers because of trauma during their past years. Robin Wood searches for a girlfriend like his mother (Nikki a Slayer) because of psychological problems like Spike's search for a girlfriend like his mother Anne.
                      Robin dates, in the beginning, Buffy, and after Faith, 2 Slayers, because subconsciously they remind him of his mother Nikki, a Slayer. Spike is subconsciously attracted by Buffy because she remained his mother Anne.
                      Spike's women in his life/unlife are symbolically related (Anne-Drusilla-Buffy):
                      • Drusilla and Buffy's birthday are on the same date: January 19
                      • Spike mother's name Anne is the same as Buffy's second name: Buffy Anne Summers
                      Faith replaces and compensates Nikki to Robin like Buffy Anne Summers replaces Anne to Spike in terms of emotional need.
                      At the end of Season 7, Spike-Anya-Tara (the lovers of the main characters) dies and Robin Wood almost dies.
                      Even this scheme in relation to the evolution of characters is only my interpretation without an objective basis for you?

                      Joss is a big Freudian. A twisted semi-sexual relationship to your mom (or Dad) pretty much goes with the program.
                      Yes and writers symbolically connected it to Wood-Faith and "copied" these incestuous undertones from Lestat and Gabrielle of Vampire Chronicles like Angel/Louis and Spike/Lestat

                      I don't think he did despise Spike. It's more what he represents. Self-described male feminists tend to be less about being pro-women as much as being anti-masculine. That's why they get mad when women don't behave as they think they should. Joss seems to tick all the boxes with this. Spike is a very masculine character in the ways a rockstar is. Highly sexual, violent and emotionally volatile. As opposed to Angel, who is a different, more traditional stoic John Wayne type.
                      I agree.
                      When Spike and Angel become good they are "emasculated" according to the show interpretations.
                      They are more masculine when they are evil.
                      Angel is also a female name instead Angelus is more masculine (the masculine -us represent that Angelus is a more masculine version of Angel)
                      Spike with the chip and soul was "emasculated".
                      At the beginning of season 2, Spike represented the hypermasculine/ultimate cool, he should die in "What's my line part 2", this was his original purpose; becoming the main character they tried to make him a "loser" like the other main characters

                      The problem is that Buffy was a tv based on outcasts (of school and society). The main characters were Xander-Willow-Giles and Angel + Buffy.
                      The show linked too many "cool" guys and "masculine" guys in relation to something evil.
                      The show had a standard to represent the main characters as "uncool/emasculated" and bad guys as hypermasculine and cool. When the bad guy becomes the main character he is "castrated" like Spike.

                      I think this is partially the hypocrisy of many tv shows with the standard to put "uncool guys" as main characters and someone that doesn't advocate gender equity is often depicted as "toxic masculinity"

                      I condemned Joss not because of the kind of abuse he has/can have done (we don't know everything) but the fact that he posed for years as a feminist icon and preaching. I don't care about the fact he abused women (even if i can be sorry for them), how many other powerful people are doing it and worse in the world (Hollywood included)? Many. Also, many people know it and don't talk about it because of personal interests (money, career, etc...).
                      I didn't like hypocrites, this is the point. Like the police officer that abuses his position and power preaching justice and in the shadow do criminal acts. Personally, I can respect more a psychopath serial killer than a coward hypocrite that preaches morality, virtue, goodness, etc... he can be more dangerous and "evil" and he should be restrained. But in my view, I can respect him more. Everyone is free to disagree
                      However, you are right, off-topic, and is a bit unfair to talk about someone that we doesn't know everything

                      The fact the writers compared Spike a vampire to a Serial Killer is partially wrong. He is a vampire it is normal and it is his nature to kill (like humans kill animals), it can't be related to humans Serial Killers
                      In Buffy, there is too much anthropocentrism and writers express it as objective morality.
                      from a scientific point of view, humans are animals and part of the ecosystem and biomes of nature. As a matter of fact, Humans are apex predators that predate the environments (animals and plants included). Humans or early modern humans are taxonomically a sub-species of homo; the history of human evolution is a part of the history of primates that lead to the emergence of Homo Sapiens. As a matter of fact, humans are primates and more generally mammals. It is estimated that over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct. The average lifespan of a species is 1–10 million years. From a scientific point of view, human extinction isn't really a problem from a planetary point of view, it can also be helpful to the planet and other species.
                      • if an alien species arrives on our planet (a new apex predator) and we become the prey and colonized? Why should they cooperate with us? Must they follow humans' ethics and morality? of our time: 21 century? (because in the evolution of human history morality and ethics changed with the changes of society and scientific discoveries etc.). Are they evil? According to who? humans?
                      The same for vampires. It is normal for them to kill humans, you can't judge them in relation to human concepts of morality and ethic of our society, like the writers of Buffy represent in the show

                      Obviously, this is a fantasy tv show and it can't be analyzed according to science, biology, and taxonomy. But the excessive anthropocentric morality of the show about the value of human life as intrinsically superior to other species like vampires and demons isn't correct

                      You can always ask yourself the resulting inverse of it, which is just as interesting. Why do losers like the so-called vapid, bitchy girls if they hate them so much?
                      Explain better in detail so I can answer about me if you want: Who are the so-called vapid, bitchy girls?

                      In general, I think that losers are jealous and "hate" beautiful woman that doesn't care about them because of this they define them as "vapid, bitchy girls", only out of jealousy.
                      Like the ugly (man or woman) that say "beauty doesn't matter". Yes, it matters, not because it is a "wrong" thing, but because it is right that it is in this way, obviously there are other factors that can be more important, but beauty matters.
                      For me, excessive moralism (like Joss and Kevin wanted) and politically correct tend to demonize masculinity (as Damon and Spike) like in these tv shows.
                      Last edited by Nothing13; 17-06-21, 10:02 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Nothing13 View Post


                        I agree.
                        When Spike and Angel become good they are "emasculated" according to the show interpretations.
                        They are more masculine when they are evil.
                        Are they? How exactly?

                        If we're talking badassery (which is not actually connected to masculinity, but OK, let's go with that), evil Spike got beaten up by Buffy multiple times and ran away from Joyce in School Hard, and was eventually crippled for a while, and then mocked by Angelus and cheated on by Dru.

                        What is supposedly more "masculine" about evil Angel? That he acts like a misogynist? That he's a d1ck? He was also, BTW, beaten up by Buffy more than once, but non-superpowered Giles also did a good job, and he also wasn't even able to intimidate Xander and walked away when Xander made his own threats that Angelus couldn't beat all the orderlies and other people present in the hospital.

                        Spike was canonically "emasculated" by the chip - but the chip didn't make him good. The soul and his own development did that.


                        Angel is also a female name instead Angelus is more masculine (the masculine -us represent that Angelus is a more masculine version of Angel)
                        What?! How?

                        "Angel" and "Angelus" are the same name basically and mean 100% the same thing, the only difference is that the latter is Latin.

                        It's amusing that Latin somehow sounds more "masculine"? Or does it really? LOL

                        "Angel" can be both male and female name, usually in the Spanish-speaking world (of course, differently pronounced than the English-speaking people would pronounce it)., but I think it's more likely to be male (?). "Angelus", as far as I know, is normally not a given name.

                        Why the Buffy fandom and eventually Buffy writers decided that "Angelus" somehow sounds more evil (?) is a great question. I'm puzzled. (Is it because so many movies have demons speaking Latin? But then why do those movies have demons speaking Latin? Latin was/is the official languiage of the Catholic Church. Is that why? Are demons Catholic or anti-Catholic? Is it because someone watched The Exorcist too many times?)

                        But I'm even more puzzled by the idea that "Angelus" is more masculine.
                        Last edited by TimeTravellingBunny; 18-06-21, 12:56 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.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
                          But I'm even more puzzled by the idea that "Angelus" is more masculine.
                          I think it is probably more that 'Angel' is more feminine. Despite 'angels' not being gendered in the Bible, I don't believe, I think they are often seen as feminine. It tends to be the girls that are dressed up as angels for the school nativity for example. And doesn't Buffy tell him his name is 'pretty' when she first hears it in S1? Not that males can't be 'pretty' but if we were going to say which gender that label would normally be associated with (rightly or not), I think it would be seen as feminine. So I think perhaps Angelus seems more masculine, more because it stops his name being just 'Angel'.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            My feeling watching the show when it was on was that there was a range of opinions -- pro-Spike, anti-Spike - from both the fans and writers. I definitely got the impression that the writers / directors / actors were not just looking at the story in terms of "mistakes Buffy made".

                            Angelus is more masculine solely in the sense that Latin has gendered ending and English doesn't. I think it's meant to be old -- which is why Giles mentios it when covering Angel's history or Spike uses it when he first meets Angel. It suggests a time when people were educated in Latin and didn't have to worry about books bursting into flames around them.

                            Evil Angel usually calls himself Angel in season two. I think Angelus became shorthand for "Evil Angel" when Angel the TV series started, and they wanted a quick short hand for talking about the personality shifts.

                            It might have been something fandom was doing too. (Like how in Robin of Sherwood, the second Robin Hood's birthname is Robert, but he stops using it within a couple episodes, but fans still often call the character Robert to distinguish him from the previous Robin.)

                            I think once Angelus determined to be evil Angel’s name, then there was a bad-ass element like when he said “The name’s Angelus” to sound macho in one episode of Angel.
                            Last edited by PuckRobin; 18-06-21, 10:24 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
                              Are they? How exactly?

                              If we're talking badassery (which is not actually connected to masculinity, but OK, let's go with that), evil Spike got beaten up by Buffy multiple times and ran away from Joyce in School Hard, and was eventually crippled for a while, and then mocked by Angelus and cheated on by Dru.

                              What is supposedly more "masculine" about evil Angel? That he acts like a misogynist? That he's a d1ck? He was also, BTW, beaten up by Buffy more than once, but non-superpowered Giles also did a good job, and he also wasn't even able to intimidate Xander and walked away when Xander made his own threats that Angelus couldn't beat all the orderlies and other people present in the hospital.

                              Spike was canonically "emasculated" by the chip - but the chip didn't make him good. The soul and his own development did that.
                              I am not talking about my personal view of masculinity, I am talking in relation to the idea of masculinity that the show wants to represent (in order to "demonize" in an excessive way a certain kind of masculinity, change the social concept of women as the weak sex but also to make weak geeks like Xander as heroes.)
                              Buffy, also, follows the infantile concepts of relationships of teenagers cool guys/geeks. The point is that I agree on the woman part (in order to empower them) but I don't agree on the geek/Xander part, which is related to stupid and infantile school problems that for me Joss translated about himself
                              For me, Joss did this because he is sort of jealous of this kind of masculinity (he despised badass Spike for what he represents) because of his personal problems not because he is a feminist, from this is behavior on work and with women despite preaching feminism. As a matter of fact, Joss was accused of running the set as a "high school mean girl"

                              I am talking about the show:

                              Spike, like James Masters, said, was intended to be a brief villain, “dirty and evil, punk rock, and then dead. He was supposed to be the "ultimate cool", he should die in "What's my line part 2",
                              You should consider evil Spike only until "What's my line Part 2". He was originally intended to die in that episode not get handicapped.

                              When Spike arrives at School Hard, in the vampire nest he said: "Any of you want to test who's got the biggest wrinklies 'round here... step on up." that is symbolical "Who have biggest balls?"
                              When he fights with Buffy, he says: "I just like them. They make me feel all manly"
                              Spike, as Angelus, links masculinity to coolness, evilness, violence, and badassery.

                              Spike, originally conceives, in the heads of writers and Joss, should be only this. Spike should die in "What's my line part 2", because of his popularity they changed, and since Angel turning Angelus becomes the main villain, the writers created this storyline where he becomes "a loser" handicapped and cheated by Dru, linking him to the good guys, as a matter of fact, he allies himself with Buffy
                              In season 3 Spike said that Drusilla break with him because he became soft and was no "more demon enough" anymore (a metaphor for "no man enough"), they started the process to "emasculate" him and with the chip in season 4 it becomes evident

                              The standard of Buffy is:
                              Bad Guys: cool and hypermasculine, after they are defeated
                              Good guys: uncool and "emasculated" (like Xander, Wesley in season 3 and season 1 of Angel), after they mature and compensate for their problems and become heroes (like Spike and Angel with a soul.)

                              Angel turning Angelus becomes a badass more masculine that steals Spike' girl and Spike, becoming handicapped becomes a "loser emasculated" since he was now in the process to turn in into the good side (the phrase: "you don't have a backbone" and "you are spineless" in relation to him having his back broken) because writers decided to not kill him

                              This is also in relation to the scene of "Innocence" (the writers represent the stereotype, that is also partially true, girls care more about emotions and sentiments instead man care more about sex)
                              -Angelus hurts emotionally Buffy,
                              -Buffy kick him very hard in the testicles

                              Why? in order to destroy his hypermasculinity, now that Angel turned Angelus.
                              Buffy vs Angelus

                              The same thing:
                              In season 6 Warren become strong because 2 spheres are a metaphor for testicles, Buffy break them and he returns the "emasculated/loser" he was, according to the show parameters
                              In season 7 Caleb, a misogynist hypermasculine, Buffy slices him starting from his testicles. He was trying to say: "You don't have balls". When Buffy castrated him
                              Buffy vs Warren
                              Buffy vs Caleb

                              Buffy represents this epitome of girl power, in order to empower women. She defeated and symbolically castrated (sometimes even literally) every hypermasculine villain. (Obviously, Angelus and Spike are beaten by Buffy, they represent the hypermasculine defeated by Buffy: girls power)


                              -The Master, also represented the "patriarchal authority" defeated by Buffy
                              -Spike and Angelus, 2 hypermasculine vampires defeated by Buffy
                              -Watcher council, a patriarchal institution that used women as slayer for generations, destroyed and slayers are free

                              Angelus and Spike, since are rivals, have both pros and cons in relation to this concept of masculinity (that they, also sometimes brag about their evil past):

                              -Angelus inside is more insensitive, he thinks of a woman only in relation to sex; outside he is less of a fighter and sometimes a coward, more feminine
                              -Spike, inside is more feminine, as a matter of fact, he thinks of sentimentality and love for a woman; outside is more masculine he is more fearless, a violent fighter, he fights and kills slayer (this is also why he calls Angel/Angelus a poofter)
                              Angelus is more masculine than Spike for this reason Dru cheats Spike with Angelus because Angelus is older, is represented as the Alpha male of the group

                              A union of Angelus+Spike will make the apotheosis of this concept of Masculinity that can be seen as "toxic masculinity": evil and emotionally insensitive as Angelus and badass fearless fighter as Spike

                              This is why Spike and Angel always try to "outman"/be better each other (like in season 5) and why they have a different relationship with Buffy:
                              Angel: an emotional relationship (the most romantic and emotional relationship of the show) with Buffy almost sexless
                              Spike: a sexual relationship (the most sexual relationship of the show) with very little emotionality and romanticism.

                              When they were evil they weren't complete, when they are good they still arent complete in relation to Buffy

                              Originally posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
                              What?! How?

                              "Angel" and "Angelus" are the same name basically and mean 100% the same thing, the only difference is that the latter is Latin.

                              It's amusing that Latin somehow sounds more "masculine"? Or does it really? LOL

                              "Angel" can be both male and female name, usually in the Spanish-speaking world (of course, differently pronounced than the English-speaking people would pronounce it)., but I think it's more likely to be male (?). "Angelus", as far as I know, is normally not a given name.

                              Why the Buffy fandom and eventually Buffy writers decided that "Angelus" somehow sounds more evil (?) is a great question. I'm puzzled. (Is it because so many movies have demons speaking Latin? But then why do those movies have demons speaking Latin? Latin was/is the official languiage of the Catholic Church. Is that why? Are demons Catholic or anti-Catholic? Is it because someone watched The Exorcist too many times?)

                              But I'm even more puzzled by the idea that "Angelus" is more masculine.
                              It is symbolic in relation to the meaning writers give to the character. It is not because Latin names are more masculine. Yes, as you said, Angel is a name that can be both for male and female principally male, as a matter of fact, Angel is a male.
                              Buffy as a tv show reversed gender roles. In season 2 the main couples were:
                              -Buffy and Angel
                              -Spike and Drusilla.

                              At the beginning of season 2,
                              -Spike and Drusilla represent a typical standard of male-female: "Stong male Knight"-"Weak woman Princess" protected by the male.
                              -Buffy and Angel have the reversed role instead of the man that saves the girl. There is the female (Buffy) that saves the male (Angel), Angel has a female role in his relationship with Buffy, like Drusilla with Spike. Angel/Drusilla always saved by Buffy/Spike in the first half of season 2

                              When Spike gets handicapped, Drusilla regains strength and Angel turn Angelus the roles are reversed:
                              -Angelus, now, has a "more male" role with Drusilla
                              -Spike becomes in the weak "female role" like Drusilla was in the beginning

                              The ending fights of season 2:
                              1) Angelus vs Buffy: The main role
                              2) Drusilla vs Spike

                              Like Puckrobin said Angelus is more masculine solely in the sense that Latin has a gendered ending and English doesn't.

                              In Chosen, Buffy and Spike represent the gender inversion with the Scythe (typical male weapon) and the Amulet (typical female object):
                              -The Scythe related to man is given to Buffy, a female
                              -The amulet is given to Spike (or Angel) because they have a female role in the relationship
                              The objective of writers in the couples was to inverse gender position, so symbolically they created the opposition that when Angel is Angelus, he has a more masculine role.
                              They give this name to him in relation to religion and in relation to the gendering of character roles in relationships. I am not talking about if this is a good or correct idea.
                              Last edited by Nothing13; 18-06-21, 09:10 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Stoney
                                Stoney commented
                                Editing a comment
                                Interesting that the comics went on to have a highly sexual story between Angel and Buffy and a more emotional one between Spike and Buffy. Switching it back and forth all the time.

                            • #60
                              Interesting that the comics went on to have a highly sexual story between Angel and Buffy and a more emotional one between Spike and Buffy. Switching it back and forth all the time.
                              Good point; I don't know much about comics of Buffy/Angel because I've never read them

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X