Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The S6 division between fandom and writers

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

  • #81
    When did Buffy use her power for gain?
    when did Buffy try to kill in rage?

    Giles tried to kill a soulless vampire who needed killing. It was not a wise move, but as a watcher, terminating (or ordering them terminated) murderous vampires is his job. He was mostly wrong to go bc he did not stand a chance of succeeding. Yes, it was Angel and we are attached, but at that point no one thought getting his soul back was possible. He was actively killing. Angelus needed to die.
    Last edited by DeepBlueJoy; 23-06-21, 10:33 AM.

    Comment


    • #82



      Originally posted by Stoney View Post

      It's possible of course that we just don't see the character journeys the same and will have to agree to disagree, as that was a literal high I think. She was revelling in the power she had, and careless in exercising it. That was why she had a minor crash the next day. When Amy is asking her what they can do to top last night Willow says, "Yeah, I don't know if I can. I felt awful today, and I couldn't do magic. Took me all day to get my powers back. I think we should just take it easy." Amy then suggests going to Rack and comments that, "he knows spells that last for days. And the burnout factor is like, nothing." When Willow asks if it is dangerous, Amy asks her if that would stop her. Clearly the answer to that is no. The spells themselves are the fix. It isn't doing something different, it is finding someone that can increase the intensity of what they were already doing. They are already talking in terms of further highs, and managing the fallout of the come down of the next day.
      Yeah, we're going to have to do that. Because with Rack, they did like a moment of euphoria thing and then at least some behaving as in someway intoxicated and prior to that there wasn't.




      Originally posted by Stoney View Post
      I think it is quite simply that challenging the status quo isn't easy or others would have done it more readily. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done and that the group haven't ended up stronger together by getting through the difficult times. They definitely show that it is tough though, but for me, seeing them still trying gives weight to what you're trying to achieve and their belief in the worth of it I think.
      I always thought that besides having institutions like the Watchers Council, Wolfram & Hart and various ancient orders enforcing the status quo, Kendra represented a key facet in not challenging the status quo, people not knowing you need to challenge it.

      When you've already got that much in favor of it, adding reality itself seeming to encourage the status quo is just to much. You end up with everything representing everything

      Originally posted by Stoney View Post
      I think Willow's redemption comes in using big spells at the point when it is needed and having faith in herself that she can limit the use and trust herself more, without it getting out of control. The support is part of what brings her confidence in herself. They are all empowering each other and she plays a huge part of that.

      Yeah maybe. But I liked that there was a period where she trusted herself, and basically it ended up she was wrong to do that

      Originally posted by Stoney View Post
      As for Cordelia, her story is tragic. There is some hubris in her belief that she became so special to ascend, but when she agreed to become part demon to be able to take on the weight of the visions it was one of her most heroic moments. Whatever personal weaknesses played into her being used as she was, she really did look to become a better version of herself and for a greater good other than her own benefit. It isn't her fault that she was targeted and used by the bad guys, it doesn't eradicate who she was.
      It just ends up again that believing you are capable on your own ends up dangerous. Though honestly what happened in season 4? I was catching up on the show through syndication and DVDs after being unable to see it initially. I never completely finished the show because of it



      Originally posted by Stoney View Post
      I'd love to hear elements that you loved in the show. There's a new thread I put up today asking a bunch of questions about your personal highlights of S1. I still need to do it, but would be really interested to hear what you enjoyed most when the show was just starting.
      Honestly because of my general distaste for the final seasons it's been forever since I watched any of it. But I wasn't able to watch it first run, I ended up finding some of the VHS videos, then found it in syndication around the same time as it moved to UPN. Maybe that's why season 6 had such little effect on me, cause I was watching them being built up just at the same time. But I have always found people at their best more interesting than at their worst in general so probably not

      Season 1 was one of my favorite seasons. Overall throughout the show my favorites were always the monster of the week episodes that had little to do with the overall theme of the season

      Comment


      • Stoney
        Stoney commented
        Editing a comment
        Cordelia was possessed by Jasmine, and ended in a coma so was pretty much written out rather than brought back, save for a single episode in S5.

        Will def have to agree to disagree about S6. Would love to hear your choices in the S1 thread.

    • #83
      Originally posted by DeepBlueJoy View Post
      When did Buffy use her power for gain?
      when did Buffy try to kill in rage?

      Giles tried to kill a soulless vampire who needed killing. It was not a wise move, but as a watcher, terminating (or ordering them terminated) murderous vampires is his job. He was mostly wrong to go bc he did not stand a chance of succeeding. Yes, it was Angel and we are attached, but at that point no one thoght getting his soul back was possible. He was actively killing. Angelous needed to die.
      She may have been planning but Buffy was pissed as hell when she went after Faith. Buffy was more than willing to smack around dumbasses that pissed her off with her enhanced strength and if not for the Trio she'd have worked that construction job with Xander.

      Giles went in a way that could have burned down a chunk of the town but all that mattered was taking out Angelus. It was reckless and about killing in revenge for Jenny's death, not about killing a vampire
      Last edited by Garfan; 23-06-21, 03:01 AM.

      Comment


      • DeepBlueJoy
        DeepBlueJoy commented
        Editing a comment
        Giles did wrong, but the only person he endangered was Giles.
        I go back and forth about Faith. She was actively trying to stop them succeeding, but Buffy *was* enraged.
        Last edited by DeepBlueJoy; 23-06-21, 10:36 AM.

    • #84
      Yup, i think we watched different shows and most on this board have seen the series several times and we don't see what you see, so i think i have said my piece.

      Perhaps you will see things a bit differently after you have seen the show from front to back, i know i did. YMMV. I hope it gives you as much joy as it gives me, regardless.

      Anyway, all the best.

      Comment


      • #85
        Originally posted by Garfan View Post
        She may have been planning but Buffy was pissed as hell when she went after Faith. Buffy was more than willing to smack around dumbasses that pissed her off with her enhanced strength and if not for the Trio she'd have worked that construction job with Xander.

        Giles went in a way that could have burned down a chunk of the town but all that mattered was taking out Angelus. It was reckless and about killing in revenge for Jenny's death, not about killing a vampire
        I do believe (and I remember this was highly debated when we last talked about it) that trying to kill Faith to feed her blood to Angel was wrong no matter if Buffy planned to do it or did it in a rage. However, I don't really see it as an abuse of power since Faith has the same powers Buffy has. They are on equal grounds. It would have been an abuse of power if she had gone after someone with no or lesser superpowers. I also do believe that Buffy recognized that what she did was wrong. Attempting to kill Faith is part of Buffy's development and growth. I am not saying everyone should get a free pass at trying to kill someone to help them grow as a person. But to me, the incident made perfect sense as part of Buffy's overall arc.

        As for Giles - yes, he should have acted more rational but he too is just a human. He acted out of rage and immense emotional pain. I am sure he would be the first to agree with you that the fire was an unnecessary risk for nearby houses and the humans who live there. But that's what pain and grief and loss can do to you and I actually don't think we ever saw Giles that devastated ever again, which is kind of sad because the reason might be that he never again let anyone comes as close as Jenny was.

        I do like reading your points!

        flow

        Banner by Brendan

        Comment


        • #86
          Originally posted by flow View Post

          I do believe (and I remember this was highly debated when we last talked about it) that trying to kill Faith to feed her blood to Angel was wrong no matter if Buffy planned to do it or did it in a rage. However, I don't really see it as an abuse of power since Faith has the same powers Buffy has. They are on equal grounds. It would have been an abuse of power if she had gone after someone with no or lesser superpowers. I also do believe that Buffy recognized that what she did was wrong. Attempting to kill Faith is part of Buffy's development and growth. I am not saying everyone should get a free pass at trying to kill someone to help them grow as a person. But to me, the incident made perfect sense as part of Buffy's overall arc.

          As for Giles - yes, he should have acted more rational but he too is just a human. He acted out of rage and immense emotional pain. I am sure he would be the first to agree with you that the fire was an unnecessary risk for nearby houses and the humans who live there. But that's what pain and grief and loss can do to you and I actually don't think we ever saw Giles that devastated ever again, which is kind of sad because the reason might be that he never again let anyone comes as close as Jenny was.

          I do like reading your points!

          flow
          I agree.

          Buffy learned from that mistake. Willow, by contrast, showed a series long arc of getting off on power and authority from teaching the computer class to changing reality and raising dead people (which DIRECTLY put the planet at risk from the First).

          anyway, i really need to let this go.
          I like to think that chaneling the scythe's pure power did change her for the better.

          Comment


          • #87

            Originally posted by DeepBlueJoy View Post
            Yup, i think we watched different shows and most on this board have seen the series several times and we don't see what you see, so i think i have said my piece.

            Perhaps you will see things a bit differently after you have seen the show from front to back, i know i did. YMMV. I hope it gives you as much joy as it gives me, regardless.

            Anyway, all the best.
            We've actually interacted before if you used the name on other forums, just my old username included bits of my real name so I stopped using it when I sign up to new forums. I don't know that watching the show front to back would do much good for me. You only get one chance to make a first impression after all. Plus some of those season six eps were bad enough they triggered second hand embarrassment in me and I haven't changed in personality enough since the show was on to make that change, plus I now know what a creep Joss was so I don't know I'd be interested in giving his ideas more credit

            Originally posted by flow View Post

            I do believe (and I remember this was highly debated when we last talked about it) that trying to kill Faith to feed her blood to Angel was wrong no matter if Buffy planned to do it or did it in a rage. However, I don't really see it as an abuse of power since Faith has the same powers Buffy has. They are on equal grounds. It would have been an abuse of power if she had gone after someone with no or lesser superpowers. I also do believe that Buffy recognized that what she did was wrong. Attempting to kill Faith is part of Buffy's development and growth. I am not saying everyone should get a free pass at trying to kill someone to help them grow as a person. But to me, the incident made perfect sense as part of Buffy's overall arc.

            As for Giles - yes, he should have acted more rational but he too is just a human. He acted out of rage and immense emotional pain. I am sure he would be the first to agree with you that the fire was an unnecessary risk for nearby houses and the humans who live there. But that's what pain and grief and loss can do to you and I actually don't think we ever saw Giles that devastated ever again, which is kind of sad because the reason might be that he never again let anyone comes as close as Jenny was.

            I do like reading your points!

            flow
            Buffy was not wrong for trying to feed Faith to Angel, because in their situation, Angel was a key component to fighting the Mayor and Faith would have given him an extra fighter equal to Buffy. Even if Angel hadn't been dying Faith being at the Mayor's side at Graduation would have likely led to the Mayor winning. And that particular fight was not an abuse of power at all. But just because she was right, doesn't stop her from being in a rage



            Originally posted by DeepBlueJoy View Post

            I agree.

            Buffy learned from that mistake. Willow, by contrast, showed a series long arc of getting off on power and authority from teaching the computer class to changing reality and raising dead people (which DIRECTLY put the planet at risk from the First).

            anyway, i really need to let this go.
            I like to think that chaneling the scythe's pure power did change her for the better.
            All the things I listed in my point were directly involved in the Slayer line being snarled so Willow's resurrection spell so I feel like it also led directly to the First Evil being able to threaten the world. Also you seemed quite concerned about violating the natural order earlier. Dawn is a teenager who was never actually BORN. How is that not a violation of the natural order?

            How did Buffy learn from her "mistake" of trying to Faith? She never again faced a human that was her equal that she had to make a life or death decision on


            Last edited by Garfan; 23-06-21, 01:06 PM.

            Comment


            • #88
              Garfan
              Buffy was not wrong for trying to feed Faith to Angel, because in their situation, Angel was a key component to fighting the Mayor and Faith would have given him an extra fighter equal to Buffy. Even if Angel hadn't been dying Faith being at the Mayor's side at Graduation would have likely led to the Mayor winning.
              Yes, that was basically the point that was also made in the other discussion I mentioned. I don't agree with that view but that's fine. As I said I do agree that it wasn't an issue of abuse of power. And Buffy probably was in a rage, or at least emotionally devastated which probably doesn't make much of a difference when it comes to the result of it.

              ​​​​​​​flow

              Banner by Brendan

              Comment


              • #89
                I've been reading through the thread and thought, hey, if I'm stopping by I might as well drop some controversial opinions

                To drop the first bomb; I agree with David Fury far more than I do any other writer. I don't agree with him equating Spike/Spuffy fans with women who write love letters to serial killers in prison or being silly enough to get in online arguments with his audience in the first place. But he is the one writer who seems to take a moral objection to Buffy/Spike based on who 'or what' Spike is, which I agree with.

                The trend of fandom lately is to have a very 'sex positive' reaction to Buffy/Spike ****ing in S6. Which I get. There's a general pushback to some of the show's more antiquated themes which seems to suggest sex without love is immoral or wrong. I agree that it creeps out in the series at times and I understand the knee-jerk reaction to rebel to that. I also think that there's a history of gender-based slut shaming in fandom specifically to Buffy/Spike which wasn't evident with similar scenarios like Angel/Darla or to a lesser extent Wes/Lilah (although I think AtS actually does judge both male characters for their choices). So in-turn nowadays it's quite common to read people acknowledging that Buffy/Spike as it played out was toxic and abusive but also say that generally there was nothing wrong with them sleeping together because it was good, enjoyable sex between two consenting adults. There's also a trend to get shitty at the Scoobies for assuming that they'd be judgemental about it as if they're prudes or close-minded.

                That's where I disagree. Because I think it's an oversimplification of their particular situation, mainly concerning who/what Spike was. Spike was an unrepentant killer with a body count that would make even the most prolific serial killers in history blush. And most damningly he does not feel any remorse for any of it. Buffy wasn't just having good, casual sex with any guy. She was having good, casual sex with the 'second worst vampire on record' (Just Rewards) who unbeknownst to her tried to kill a girl that same season (Smashed).

                Is it sexist or antiquated to say that it's morally icky for Buffy to sleep with him? I was recently watching Netflix's The Nightstalker which documented Richard Ramirez's horrific crimes against men, women and children. Like truly, truly sickening stuff. And towards the end of the series it touched on all his "fans" who became mesmerised by him and started fawning over him and writing love letters to him in prison. One even married him. And the series touched on the disgust that his victim's families felt at seeing this unfold and how angry it made them to see these people claim Richard was misunderstood, or sexy, or blame his victims, or whatever. It wasn't the first time something like this had happened either as Ted Bundy had many fans too. And all of these people who ignored the brutal crimes these men committed (most often against their fellow women) lost friends and family over it because their friends and families were so disgusted by the fact that they could fall for men capable of such atrocities and choose to ignore it. And I am fine with saying that I would be disturbed too and fairly judgemental depending on how everything went down. If my friend starting dating Ted Bundy at the very least I know I wouldn't be saying "You go girl! Get that D! All that matters is the sex is great!"

                Now the big difference between Buffy and these women is that Buffy is morally conflicted. Buffy isn't some delusional idiot "writing love letters to serial killers in prison." Buffy knows what Spike is and it's a big part of why she's so broken and ashamed ("He's everything I hate. He's everything I'm supposed to be against"). And I'm not saying that I am happy about the fact that Buffy is having a 'relationship' with someone/something that is making her feel ashamed, but I am relieved that the writers remembered who Buffy is and what she's always stood for. It'd be insulting to her if she wasn't at least messed up about it. And obviously I have bucket loads of sympathy for why Buffy is even sleeping with Spike in the first place and how it was her trauma and depression that led her there. But a lot of fans are unhappy with S6 for having Buffy feel shame about this whereas I am relieved it went there and because IMO it had to go there. That's it's saving grace.

                I get the tension between the writers/story and the fans. For instance, I get why in Seeing Red it rubs people up the wrong way that Xander (a guy) lectures Buffy (a woman) about her dating choices and then the episode seemingly validates this by the AR. I do. But at the same time is he entirely wrong? Is it not a similar reaction to what you would have if your best friend was sleeping with a serial killer who "slaughtered half of Europe?" In some ways I think it's why the story just doesn't work and I don't entirely blame the fans. Because one minute they write Spike as being sympathetic and like a regular guy/love story, albeit a toxic one. Then the next minute they snap us back into reality and remind everyone how he's genuinely evil, murderous and basically Ted Bundy. Would it be empowering or realistic if nobody had a hard time with Buffy's decision to sleep with a soulless demon (when she kills them every episode) or would it have played better if they had a woman say this to her instead of a man? Was it simply the execution? I don't know. But I don't think the problem is that they went there. They had to go there surely? Buffy herself was telling Dawn how "icky" it was to have a crush on a soulless vampire just one season earlier. Was she being sexist and judgemental... or just sane?

                So whilst I agree that they made a bit of a mess of things in S6 I am generally out of step with the majority of fandom (or what's left of it) regarding what I think that problem actually is.

                ~ Banner by Nina ~

                Comment


                • #90
                  Originally posted by vampmogs View Post
                  I've been reading through the thread and thought, hey, if I'm stopping by I might as well drop some controversial opinions

                  To drop the first bomb; I agree with David Fury far more than I do any other writer. I don't agree with him equating Spike/Spuffy fans with women who write love letters to serial killers in prison or being silly enough to get in online arguments with his audience in the first place. But he is the one writer who seems to take a moral objection to Buffy/Spike based on who 'or what' Spike is, which I agree with.

                  The trend of fandom lately is to have a very 'sex positive' reaction to Buffy/Spike ****ing in S6. Which I get. There's a general pushback to some of the show's more antiquated themes which seems to suggest sex without love is immoral or wrong. I agree that it creeps out in the series at times and I understand the knee-jerk reaction to rebel to that. I also think that there's a history of gender-based slut shaming in fandom specifically to Buffy/Spike which wasn't evident with similar scenarios like Angel/Darla or to a lesser extent Wes/Lilah (although I think AtS actually does judge both male characters for their choices). So in-turn nowadays it's quite common to read people acknowledging that Buffy/Spike as it played out was toxic and abusive but also say that generally there was nothing wrong with them sleeping together because it was good, enjoyable sex between two consenting adults. There's also a trend to get shitty at the Scoobies for assuming that they'd be judgemental about it as if they're prudes or close-minded.

                  That's where I disagree. Because I think it's an oversimplification of their particular situation, mainly concerning who/what Spike was. Spike was an unrepentant killer with a body count that would make even the most prolific serial killers in history blush. And most damningly he does not feel any remorse for any of it. Buffy wasn't just having good, casual sex with any guy. She was having good, casual sex with the 'second worst vampire on record' (Just Rewards) who unbeknownst to her tried to kill a girl that same season (Smashed).

                  Is it sexist or antiquated to say that it's morally icky for Buffy to sleep with him? I was recently watching Netflix's The Nightstalker which documented Richard Martinze's horrific crimes against men, women and children. Like truly, truly sickening stuff. And towards the end of the series it touched on all his "fans" who became mesmerised by him and started fawning over him and writing love letters to him in prison. One even married him. And the series touched on the disgust that his victim's families felt at seeing this unfold and how angry it made them to see these people claim Richard was misunderstood, or sexy, or blame his victims, or whatever. It wasn't the first time something like this had happened - Ted Bundy had many fans too. And all of these people who ignored the brutal crimes these men committed (most often against their fellow women) lost friends and family over it because their friends and families were so disgusted by the fact that they could fall for men capable of such atrocities and choose to ignore it. And I am fine with saying that I would be disturbed too and fairly judgemental depending on how everything went down. If my friend starting dating Ted Bundy at the very least I know I wouldn't be saying "You go girl! Get that D!"

                  Now the big difference between Buffy and these women is that Buffy is morally conflicted. Buffy isn't some delusional idiot "writing love letters to serial killers in prison." Buffy know what Spike is and it's a big part of why she's so broken and ashamed ("He's everything I hate. He's everything I'm supposed to be against"). And I'm not saying that I am happy about the fact that Buffy is having a 'relationship' with someone/something that is making her feel ashamed, but I am relieved that the writers remembered who Buffy is and what she's always stood for and that it'd be insulting to her if she wasn't at least messed up about it. And obviously I have bucket loads of sympathy for why Buffy is even sleeping with Spike in the first place and how it was her trauma and depression that led her there. But a lot of fans are unhappy with S6 for having Buffy feel shame about this whereas I am relieved it went there and because IMO it had to go there. That's it's saving grace.

                  I get the tension between the writers/story and the fans. For instance, I get why in Seeing Red it rubs people up the wrong way that Xander (a guy) lectures Buffy (a woman) about her dating choices and then the episode seemingly validates this by the AR. I do. But at the same time - is he entirely wrong? Is it not a similar reaction to what you would have if your best friend was sleeping with a serial killer who "slaughtered half of Europe?" In some ways I think it's why the story just doesn't work and I don't entirely blame the fans. Because one minute they write Spike as being sympathetic and like a regular guy/love story, albeit a toxic one. Then the next minute they snap us back into reality and remind everyone how he's genuinely evil, murderous and basically Ted Bundy. Would it be empowering or realistic if nobody had a hard time with Buffy's decision to sleep with a soulless demon (when she kills them every episode) or would it have played better if they had a woman say this to her instead of a man? Was it simply the execution? I don't know. But I don't think the problem is that they went there. They had to go there surely? Buffy herself was telling Dawn how "icky" it was to have a crush on a soulless vampire just one season earlier. Was she being sexist and judgemental or... just sane?

                  So whilst I agree that they made a bit of a mess of things in S6 I am generally out of step with the majority of fandom (or what's left of it) what I think that problem actually is.
                  I hear you but....for starters I don't buy the second most evil vampire thing. He's not a choirboy but we have vamps like the Gorch brothers who killed people when they were alive or Krallic ditto. Also Angelus was a sadist who took pleasure in how much suffering he could inflict on his victims - Spike was too impatient for that.
                  b - it's not just regarding the vamps when it comes to Xander - we see in Into the Woods how insufferable Xander can be when it comes to Buffy's love life. If HE can't date her he seems to want to control who does and be someone HE approves of.....it's projection, not attractive. We see the contrast with Tara who understands what Buffy is doing and what's driving her even if she doesn't understand how it's tearing Buffy apart Xander just gets on a high horse he has no right to mount. c - Fury isn't right - he sees Spike in binary. He seems to be a binary thinker who can only see things as good and evil unmitigated without the shades between. I often wonder if it's a coincidence I hated the supposed 'hero' of the next project Fury worked on LOST regarding him as a sanctimonious prick and cheering when the antihero knocked seven shades of excrement out of him.

                  Comment


                  • #91
                    The only thing I'm sceptical about regarding Spike's history/reputation is how likely it is that the historians glazed over Darla on the account of her being a woman. She says that Angelus surpassed her but she was horrifically cruel herself and responsible for teaching him originally. Nevertheless, I think it's definitely fair to say that Spike was "one of the worst on record" on account of killing 2 Slayers, being part of the Order of Aurelius and causing terror across Europe as a member of The Whirlwind. Kralik and The Gorch's were cruel bastards in life and death but didn't seem anywhere near as formidable as Angelus and Spike. And even what we saw/know of regarding Spike is enough for it to be icky that Buffy's sleeping with him (slaughtering the orphanage in Vienna, killing the girl in the coal bin, the things he did to girls Dawn's age etc).

                    I get that about Xander. It's why I've pondered whether people people wouldn't be as upset if their conversation in Seeing Red had occurred between Buffy/Willow instead. Is it really what Xander is saying or more who is saying it? Personally, I get a little irritated by Tara's reaction to Buffy in Dead Things because I find her moral reasoning about Spike to be really naive and immature. Like, don't get me wrong, I'm super glad she's supportive of Buffy and not judgemental and instead just tries to help her. But her "He's done a lot of good and he does love you" is such superficial nonsense. And then she acts a tad high and mighty towards Willow in Seeing Red when she comments on Willow's facial expression forgetting her own reaction to Buffy/Spike "sleeping together" in Intervention ("What are you kidding!? She's nuts!") and her very initial reaction to the news in S6 ("Oh..Oh..I see" *looks down at her knees*).

                    Willow's reaction is actually my favourite. She's not judgemental and rude like Xander but she doesn't come up with pithy moral justifications either. She seems to recongise it's serious but simply says that she's "just trying to understand" and that "Buffy must really need someone to talk to." Perfect response and one that she doesn't ever get credit for in fandom (people seem to take Buffy's fear that her friends will judge her as gospel when the reality is neither Willow, Tara or Dawn do when they find out).

                    As for Fury, I don't agree with him on a lot of things. I'm pretty sure he said a whole bunch of nonsense about LMPTM that makes me LOL. It's just that he's the only writer I can recall taking Spike's past seriously from the perspective of Buffy sleeping with him which is closer to my opinion than the others. I rarely ever agree with most of the writers about the show.

                    ~ Banner by Nina ~

                    Comment


                    • #92
                      Originally posted by vampmogs View Post
                      The only thing I'm sceptical about regarding Spike's history/reputation is how likely it is that the historians glazed over Darla on the account of her being a woman. She says that Angelus surpassed her but she was horrifically cruel herself and responsible for teaching him originally. Nevertheless, I think it's definitely fair to say that Spike was "one of the worst on record" on account of killing 2 Slayers, being part of the Order of Aurelius and causing terror across Europe as a member of The Whirlwind. Kralik and The Gorch's were cruel bastards in life and death but didn't seem anywhere near as formidable as Angelus and Spike. And even what we saw/know of regarding Spike is enough for it to be icky that Buffy's sleeping with him (slaughtering the orphanage in Vienna, killing the girl in the coal bin, the things he did to girls Dawn's age etc).

                      I get that about Xander. It's why I've pondered whether people people wouldn't be as upset if their conversation in Seeing Red had occurred between Buffy/Willow instead. Is it really what Xander is saying or more who is saying it? Personally, I get a little irritated by Tara's reaction to Buffy in Dead Things because I find her moral reasoning about Spike to be really naive and immature. Like, don't get me wrong, I'm super glad she's supportive of Buffy and not judgemental and instead just tries to help her. But her "He's done a lot of good and he does love you" is such superficial nonsense. And then she acts a tad high and mighty towards Willow in Seeing Red when she comments on Willow's facial expression forgetting her own reaction to Buffy/Spike "sleeping together" in Intervention ("What are you kidding!? She's nuts!") and her very initial reaction to the news in S6 ("Oh..Oh..I see" *looks down at her knees*).

                      Willow's reaction is actually my favourite. She's not judgemental and rude like Xander but she doesn't come up with pithy moral justifications either. She seems to recongise it's serious but simply says that she's "just trying to understand" and that "Buffy must really need someone to talk to." Perfect response and one that she doesn't ever get credit for in fandom (people seem to take Buffy's fear that her friends will judge her as gospel when the reality is neither Willow, Tara or Dawn do when they find out).

                      As for Fury, I don't agree with him on a lot of things. I'm pretty sure he said a whole bunch of nonsense about LMPTM that makes me LOL. It's just that he's the only writer I can recall taking Spike's past seriously from the perspective of Buffy sleeping with him which is closer to my opinion than the others. I rarely ever agree with most of the writers about the show.
                      So is the soul the magic element that fixes all? Because both Angel and Spike still have the exact same histories with or without souls. This is where taking a mythic being and pretending he is human falls apart. Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez had souls when they terrorized and murdered.

                      Angel has all the history of Angelus, even once he has a soul. He has all the brutal impulses of a killer still, but he chooses not to kill. Spike is pretty much the same. In season six he isn't killing, mainly because he can't. In season six he stays and takes care of Dawn to make sure she isn't hurt, which is the real anomaly. But in both season 6 and season 7 he is the same being with the same history. If their history alone is what makes a being or relationship toxic then Buffy should have staked both Angel and Spike.



                      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


                      • #93
                        Well I really love S6 and I agree that it was important that they drew the line with Spike and made it clear that he was limited too and yes, the soul in the context of the show is what makes a difference. The fact that Angel and Spike when souled care about their pasts and can see the moral boundaries, wouldn't make the same choices, is important. They are both linked to who they were, are both still demons with demonic drives, but they are capable of different choices (as Angel explained to Faith, when telling her she was not like he had been in Enemies). The fact that Buffy feels disgust at sleeping with Spike and that it was a form of self punishment is part of the emotional depth of her story in S6.

                        Now, because it is a fictional story and there is not really a real life transposable equivalent for the vampires because of the meaning and significance of the soul that brings context inverse, I don't have an issue with liking the relationships Buffy had with Angel or Spike. I wasn't repulsed by Buffy sleeping with Spike even unsouled I suppose because I did always find how he was behaving towards her compelling to watch. I liked them before he became souled. But that doesn't mean that I thought they could have a positive/healthy relationship when he was unsouled. It was as much for the potential of what they could be 'if only' and how they were drawn to each other, what different/surprising behaviour we saw from Spike. But the fact that Buffy going there in S6 was about her loss of her sense of self, to give in to desire as she did, despite all that he was, makes sense. The fact that they took it past that though, past the limitation of his soullessness I think was what cemented my affection for the pairing.

                        There was so much more possible for them because he became souled and I think if he hadn't it would have just headed in a direction of a Seeing Red moment as the conclusion and stopped at that. Consequently I'm glad they didn't stop it at that and it became 'more'. But it would have been right, for me, to keep an overall sense of limitation both to Spike and on the negativity of having had a relationship with a soulless being for it to have gone there as its conclusion, if they hadn't taken Spike (and so Spuffy) beyond it. To be honest vampmogs I feel it is increasingly becoming more of a controversial opinion to be a Spuffy fan and believe that Spike needed his soul than to generally have issues with the relationship Buffy had with him in S6. I agree that Buffy feeling shamed about it mattered, because the soul matters in verse, it makes a meaningful difference and I'm comfortable with that being the conclusion for Spike/Spuffy too.

                        So, I agree that who and what Spike was does mean that the issues with the relationship takes it beyond it just being viewed as two consenting adults that shouldn't be looked at with any judgement. Looking at it without any concern/judgement is removing the context of the show. I think the issue with the way the writing presented the Buffy and Spike relationship in S6 was when she was ashamed about things they did, which had nothing to do with him being soulless but they were presented as being indicative of the relationship being 'bad'. The whole inclusion of the handcuffs for example isn't a sign that it was a negative relationship that Buffy shouldn't have been in. That's where I think the writing falls in S6. I didn't have any issues with the other directions and conclusions they were drawing.

                        I don't personally dislike them making Spike sympathetic and nuanced but then drawing a hard line of limitation and with that a criticism of the relationship. It works for me. Even though I liked the relationship between Buffy and Spike in a way I certainly wouldn't have felt about a real life equivalent, or as close as you could get to it. I would be very disturbed by a friend becoming involved with a serial killer, even if that was solely in their past in a way more meaningful than it only being the fact they're caged stopping them. But even though the show context makes a difference, we are only seeing hints of who Spike might be when he's unsouled in a way that real life could never really separate him. I don't disagree with the relationship being illustrative of Buffy's negative emotional state. That she went there being connected to her depression. I'm just personally glad that it went past it. But I do think it was in a way that the context of the show allows for, because of the meaning of the soul.

                        The relationship Xander had with Anya was always more problematic to me because Anya had no sense of remorse even when she was souled, and in the main it was treated as funny. That was more out of step than anything else I think.

                        Comment


                        • #94
                          Originally posted by bespangeled View Post
                          So is the soul the magic element that fixes all? Because both Angel and Spike still have the exact same histories with or without souls.
                          Yes but the fundamental difference is that with a soul they feel remorse for these histories. With a soul they're good. They still may not be perfect but they have the capacity for real goodness.

                          Soulless Spike wasn't good and he wasn't remorseful. There's not a single line in S4-S6 where Spike expresses remorse for his past and he kills with Drusilla in S5 and attempts to kill again in S6 and never expresses guilt for this either. Even when he's at his best (helping Buffy or watching Dawn) he's still fundamentally evil at the core. He's not in anyway sorry the countless lives he's taken or the horrific things he's done to girl's Dawn's age. He's still utterly incapable of understanding why Katrina's death rocked Buffy so much ("That's all it is to you isn't it? Just another body?") and he's still willing to murder an innocent the moment he believes his chip has stopped working (Smashed). He's still the same guy who thought "famine pictures from those dusty countries" were "funny" and who smirked at the "nasty things" that Marcus liked to do to children. The chip doesn't change that. It might mean he can't act out and hurt people anymore but it didn't change who he was on the inside.

                          The soul completely changes things. This is very evident when comparing soulless Spike's comments about starving people in Pangs vs his comments about starving people in Underneath. In BtVS S4 soulless Spike thought famine pictures were amusing. Whereas, in AtS S5 Spike talks sadly about how the world chooses to 'put on a happy face' and ignore all the starving people in the world. It perfectly encapsulates the stark difference between Spike with/without a soul and how one of them has the capacity to feel empathy and sadness for humanity whilst the other thought human suffering was funny. And the guy who Buffy was sleeping with in S6 was the guy who thought human suffering was funny, not the empathetic guy. He literally jokes about a decorator he killed right beside her in Dead Things.

                          The chip isn't a soul. The chip isn't a "spark of humanity" as Spike calls it in Beneath You or a "human heart" as Angel calls it in Consequences. The chip was an entirely superficial change, if you can ever call it a 'change' at all. It was a "leash" as Xander refers to it in Seeing Red or the equivalent of "a serial killer in prison" as Buffy states in Crush.

                          S6 repeatedly bangs home the point that as long as Spike remained soulless he could never be good. Even at his best he still found satisfaction out of watching the Biker demons terrorise Sunnydale residents (smirking as the woman screams in terror from inside her home much to the disapproval of Dawn). He still terrified an innocent girl and tried to kill her in the alley without a hint of regret or guilt about it afterwards. He still harboured the demon eggs despite the threat they posed to the town. He still ended up attacking Buffy and nearly raping her despite loving her etc.

                          Whereas Angel had genuine empathy for humanity as a whole. He says in Epiphany that he wants to help because "He doesn't think people should have to suffer." And S7!Spike says in Never Leave Me that the soul was an eye-opener about how "truly wretched" he was without a soul, which is something soulless Spike couldn't comprehend. Soulless Spike didn't care about suffering unless it was about him or someone immediate he cared about.

                          Angel has all the history of Angelus, even once he has a soul. He has all the brutal impulses of a killer still, but he chooses not to kill. Spike is pretty much the same. In season six he isn't killing, mainly because he can't.
                          See Spike and Angel definitely aren't "pretty much the same" though because, as you say, the fundamental difference between them is that Angel could kill if he wants to but he chooses not to because he doesn't want to hurt people. Whereas Spike would kill if he could but he can't because there's literally something preventing him from doing so. One is not hurting people because of genuine goodness inside of them and a sense of morality and the other isn't hurting people because he's caged up like a serial killer on a leash. That's a huge difference! It's why Buffy gets so grossed out and angry when 14 year old Dawn naively says that the chip and the soul are the "same diff." Now, after the AR, S7 Dawn feels very differently when things got a little more real.

                          Obviously people with souls can still be bad and do horrific things but the difference is that they can go either way. Soulless vampires can never truly be good as long as they have no soul. They can play nice at times, kill bad guys if forced into it or maybe just to satisfy their bloodlust, or even have genuine affection for certain people, but they'll always be evil and therefore fundamentally impaired at the core. Buffy knows this which is why it's eating away at her. And it should eat away at her because she's fundamentally a good person, not to mention a hero/the Slayer, and she literally jumps the bones of a guy who tried to kill an innocent girl in the very same episode. The series holds onto it's basic sense of morality by never forgetting that and rightfully depicting it as the moral dilemma that it is.

                          ~ Banner by Nina ~

                          Comment


                          • #95
                            Originally posted by vampmogs View Post

                            Yes but the fundamental difference is that with a soul they feel remorse for these histories. With a soul they're good. They still may not be perfect but they have the capacity for real goodness.

                            Soulless Spike wasn't good. Even when he's at his best (helping Buffy or watching Dawn) he's still fundamentally evil at the core. He's not in anyway sorry the countless lives he's taken or the horrific things he's done to girl's Dawn's age. He's still utterly incapable of understanding why Katrina's death rocked Buffy so much ("That's all it is to you isn't it? Just another body?") and still willing to murder an innocent the moment he believes his chip has stopped working (Smashed). He's still the same guy who thought "famine pictures from those dusty countries" were "funny" and who smirked at the "nasty things" that Marcus liked to do to children. The chip doesn't change that. It might mean he can't act out and hurt people anymore but it didn't change who he was on the inside.

                            The soul completely changes things. This is very evident when comparing soulless Spike's comments about starving people in Pangs vs his comments about starving people in Untouched. In S4 soulless Spike thought famine pictures were amusing. Whereas, in AtS S5 Spike talks sadly about how the world chooses to 'put on a happy face' and ignore all the starving people in the world. It perfectly encapsulates the stark difference between Spike with/without a soul and how one of them has the capacity to feel empathy and sadness for humanity whilst the other thought human suffering was funny. And the guy who Buffy was sleeping with in S6 was the guy who thought human suffering was funny, not the empathetic guy. He literally jokes about a decorator he killed right beside her in Dead Things.

                            The chip isn't a soul. The chip isn't a "spark of humanity" as Spike calls it in Beneath You or a "human heart" as Angel calls it in Consequences. The chip was an entirely superficial change, if you can ever call it a 'change' at all. It was a "leash" as Xander refers to it in Seeing Red or the equivalent of "a serial killer in prison" as Buffy states in Crush.

                            S6 repeatedly bangs home the point that as long as Spike remained soulless he could never be good. Even at his best he still found satisfaction out of watching the Biker demons terrorise Sunnydale residents (smirking as the woman screams in terror from inside her home). He still terrified an innocent girl and tried to kill her in the alley without a hint of regret or guilt about it afterwards. He still harboured the demon eggs despite the threat they posed to the town. He still ended up attacking Buffy and nearly raping her despite loving her etc.

                            Whereas Angel had genuine empathy for humanity as a whole. He says in Epiphany that he wants to help because "He doesn't think people should have to suffer." And S7!Spike says in Never Leave Me that the soul was an eye-opener about how "truly wretched" he was without a soul, which is something soulless Spike couldn't comprehend. Soulless Spike didn't care about suffering.



                            See Spike and Angel definitely aren't "pretty much the same" because, as you say, the fundamental difference between them is that Angel could kill if he wants to but he chooses not to because he doesn't want to hurt people. Whereas Spike would kill if he could but he can't because there's literally something preventing him from doing so. One is not hurting people because of genuine goodness and morality inside of them and the other isn't hurting people because he's caged up like a serial killer on a leash. That's a huge difference! It's why Buffy gets so grossed out and angry when 14 year old Dawn naively says that the chip and the soul are the "same diff." Now, S7 Dawn, after the AR, feels very differently because reality hit her (and her sister) in a pretty brutal way.

                            Now obviously people with souls can still be bad and do horrific things but the difference is that they can go either way. Soulless vampires can never truly be good as long as they have no soul. They can play nice at times, kill bad guys if forced into it or maybe just to satisfy their bloodlust, or even have genuine affection for certain people, but they'll always be evil and therefore fundamentally impaired at the core.
                            But does souled Spike have that much more empathy ?
                            In Lies he taunts Wood "I don't give a pi$$ about your mother, that's the way the Game is played"

                            In Just Rewards he can't comprehend Angel's opposition to Ainsley body collection "I'm sure they don't mind"

                            In Unleashed he annoys Fred so much with his boasting and self centeredness she points out Angel killed the Wherewolf with a pen.

                            In Destiny he openly asks about the Cup "so what's in it for me". Previously to that him forcing himself on Harmony is uncomfortable (only slightly lessened that she then decides to go along with it because he praises her skirt)
                            Side note Fury openly laughs on Commentary about Angel questioning if he's not the one on a show called Angel.

                            In Soul Purpose he's openly contentmptous of the victim he saved "well what do you expect, walking and dressing like that down a dark alley. Iv half a mind to kill you myself you half wit.

                            It's not until the end of Damage that he seems to learn a lesson and is reflective. Before that his use of phrase "one of thr simples went for a stroll"

                            It's also ignored by Your Welcome with that ridiculous Taste test with Cordy and his psychotic rage towards his Xbox

                            I'm still not sure why he went along with Angel in NFA anyway

                            Comment


                            • #96
                              Originally posted by BtVS fan View Post

                              But does souled Spike have that much more empathy?
                              I believe so yes. Put it this way, in Triangle Spike only helps the bleeding disaster victims to score points with Buffy and she rightfully calls him "disgusting" for wanting credit for not feeding off them. However, I wholeheartedly believe that ensouled Spike would help the bleeding disaster victims because he genuinely wants to minimise their suffering and feels empathy for their pain.

                              Spike might show callousness, selfishness and contempt in all those scenes you reference but I never claimed the soul made him perfect. I still think it made him fundamentally good though with a general sense of right and wrong. Putting it another way, can you honestly imagine S7/AtS S5 Spike smirking at the idea of a paedophilic vampire killing and raping kids? I sure as hell don't and I think he'd be disgusted by it.


                              ~ Banner by Nina ~

                              Comment


                              • #97
                                Blimey! Hello again Vampmogs!

                                Comment


                                • vampmogs
                                  vampmogs commented
                                  Editing a comment
                                  Hi Silver! Hope you're well

                              • #98
                                American Aurora ’s (partial) post of June 12, 2021:

                                If the series were written today, there might have been another alternative. I can see a plotline in which Spike could have formed a vampire group which would have petitioned Buffy and the Watchers Council to allow soulless vampires to live, accusing them of genocidal intent. Spike could point to himself as an example of a vampire who didn't need to hunt and feed and forced pledges from all vamps present to never harm human beings. This is closer to the world of Twilight and sparkly vampires than the world of Buffy, but I imagine some would feel that was an improvement and Whedon and the Buffyverse writers must have agreed to a certain extent. By the end of the canon comics, we have just that with vampires as a protected group who are thrown into camps and treated like chattel.”—American Aurora.

                                AND! King of Cretins, might have some good words, dealing with the reality of “so what?—you gotta do * something * to have some sort of “even hand” over a society and social interactions, aka “social (institutional?) order.”

                                This is not totally some ‘soul’ or soulless’ post, but it is also part of how do we look at justice or even a justice system? I hope….Also, I see "use" with Spike, but one needs ATS and even the comics to talk about the face of justice. Which, we saw as Janus, but also, the "spin" of that image....

                                Well…the comics tried that approach suggested, but didn’t do a great job of it, as the Counsel was just “bumped off,” and “Wesley” went to ATS and that show started with how to finance justice….(make a change?) and it was all some “we are all just humans in some kind of (disguise) messy in this world, appearing physically in all our colorful forms of internal “shades of gray.”

                                Who knew Harmony, as the desire of or for, “the impossible” is all about a “justice system” with little “forays of failure” in side trays of snacks.

                                We all kill. The BIG difference is those who *live * to kill. Survival depends on some way to pass on potential, for the mortal among us. That is why murder is considered the “worst offense” in taking that which can never be duplicated or replaced. Evil always has the same ends; it’s the face that changes.

                                Yes, it is unavoidable as a thread derailer: the discussion of the soul…again. Or even what is the point of the vampire, with the soul and without it, in BTVS anyway? (Let alone ATS, with the human Cordelia posed as his mirror. Shallow, vain, smart, self-motivated and creative in use (and abuse) of power, a survivor, growing, changing, and “worthy.”)

                                THIS idea of “justice”—that which is a process of what is and what can be is natural in all of time and space; and the difference measured in that which is derived in some self (serving) “application of power.” One system might be between absolute unchanging and unflinching order/judgment in some range to the application of absolute belief in the state of potential as the ideal in all things, with something called “mercy.” (Freedom with responsibility, might be the “sting” applied to the absolute of “potential” marked in “the fully integrated and free existence of the ‘innocent.’ Maybe “Mercy” is given now, as a balance between the past (unchanging); and faith in the “future” (the state of potential in ‘action,’ as a measure of change).

                                Anyway, it is clear to all that “criminal justice or civil justice” is easily corrupted in any social order, but “do as you will” (in magic) actually always holds a cost.

                                It is not free, physically or mentally, which is why ‘presto’ shows of it light my hair on fire. The show of Buffy with Willow and Willow in full collapse, at the end of season 7, is more accurate, if one is not bifurcated in (B.S.) notions of “white and black” magic, aka “morally good intentions, which means one couldn’t do anything because we actually take up space “someone else” might want or need.

                                This is not what was shown “to become the goddess” or to be (unnatural and “undead”) as a “sorceror.” The latter one is answered with notions of “loss of soul” as example.

                                Well, this is specifically why I see a huge failure of ATS in Angel’s decisions in the possible creation of a ‘supernatural’ justice system’. (Wolf, Ram and Hart, as intentional symbols, of course—which so failed, IMO in the ‘mirrors’ to see the titular characters in a new “reflected light.” I see Angel, Spike and Buffy within this meaning, for example).

                                Angel/Angelus as a person, who may be two truly distinct persons, who has been described both as having a “material” soul, literally shown as a light stored in some jar. The soul’s meaning is based on one’s own “belief structures regarding the reality one exists within. (That is why “soulless” may not actually mean “evil”—but only one who has a reality that requires no god to have made it, run it, or to even exist. Which I “shoehorned” into my understanding to explain this odd, human-like Spike, who just kept trying to be really, I mean the truly most evil-est, top of the heap, evil as his own “heroic models,” The men who could court so easily and get what they wanted, and especially, Angelus, but his own doubts, anger in ever really “winning,” actually mostly in the present, just didn’t convince me, because he was always taking someone else’s idea of ‘winning’ their mantels, e.g. The slayer’s coat to show the world his power. Angelus didn’t need someone else’s anything—he’d just snort and walk away, leaving people electrified in both terror and relief.

                                The soul, which makes Angel “caring” aka divine—all those attributes may or may not be eternal, depending on one’s position regarding an ( ‘overlord’ ?) God, who may or may not care about ‘planet earth’ and its life form interactions, may also be that which is the purest innocence or the most integrated state in what is ‘most human.’ Angelus is some epitome of that which is dead, unchanging, eternal, (unnatural)

                                This is a challenger to all other potential, so we get Angel. However, he is “influenced” by the “dark” reality he is in, and also posed as a “means justifies the ends” character, who may act or may choose *not * to act, in the gray range of * doing * both good and evil, whatever the moral intent.

                                THIS guy was posed to offer some better solution than “situational ethics” I thought.

                                While this “gray” notion provokes his condition of sinister and utter evil, he is also so deeply tormented in his own guilt and self loathing as nihilistic, I think the notions of a mirror toward the titular characters are what the supporting cast was always meant to provide. That is why humans around Buffy and demons around Angel would be a given.

                                However, that is why Spike’s story of ‘becoming’—rather than the “already arrived’ notions posed in the meaning of BTVS season 2, (regarding the curse and how to ‘undo’ a paradox for the reality humanity itself IS a paradox, was, to me, the intent of the journey of each protagonist to adulthood and to the truth of their own integrated and actualized sense of self as a human being, who also would be living in balance within and with the wider world. End of story.

                                This is why the Spike notions of “becoming” really weren’t about Spike, but, to me, showed Buffy’s own dark path to the “opposite pole’ of the “forever moment’—all the stuff driving the Marquis De Sade, for example. And the reason for not quite “taking on” Spike as the major protagonist he is to become, is because I never felt the “story was told” with Angel/Angelus, even after the great comics finale!! UGH!!!

                                As for Spike himself, he actually provided the completion of the journey that neither Buffy nor Angel made, unless you count the ‘mirror’ in the “success” of Dawn and Connor, AS themselves. So…bought the comics and waited and! Yeah…I’ll just keep doing that….

                                As for “intent’ and “mind reading”—we had a taste of that on ATS and it was not helpful to the clarity of the world of demons as “mostly harmless’—particularly if they tend to be “artistic”—and that includes Spike, who, at least, did his job as a “truth teller,”

                                But even there, he was so (a truth teller0 when soulless and I believe as a representative of ‘chaos’ in the tale—making him “forgetful’ and even silly—this position muddied the ensouled complexity he most certainly had in claiming his * actualized * humanity, before his transfer to ATS, in holding that position to illuminate Angel’s own arguments regarding corruption: the abuse of power and the use of “mercy.” The need for physicality to have influence, aka power, itself is an entire dimension that also is important to ‘humanity’s story.’ It is not one’s “intelligence” or physical state that is what is important, It is life itself. AS for the justice system, again, compassion is not about something else’s intelligence or place in life to deserve compassion, but what is in * us *

                                Now this actually is a paradox. One holds the greatest power in granting mercy to every potential you may hold dear for another, and may include your own life.

                                The entire narrative over both shows became some big, (messy) allegory of all us humans “figuring it all out”—and not all of us are granted the same measure of a single thing: we are each unique (and sadly) “I am my circumstances,” (as justification for anything, with cuz I sez, “triumph of the soul.” (Maybe, you can take solace they are showing their “true colors.”).

                                Thus, a justice system that works for each person requires “some god’ who doesn’t fail his own existence, which! they all do!! Thus, we have atheism on top of an existential reality given actual overall justice in the potential provided by * death * itself ( the floorboard to promise). Not in some (arbitary) application of ‘the death penalty.” Life does not provide justice. Why? Because nature as our long distance space and time experiment doesn’t care, even for itself.

                                “What we do as who we are” measures itself in pointing at POVs. How just! How charitable (which I actually think is the biggest application of “who deserves what” instead of ‘facing the facts’ that the world can’t afford your level of self indulgence for us to (all) have the * responsible * reality of human rights to exist, to grow and change and toward self actualization and expression—* then * “ kill ‘em.” Snicker.

                                HUGS!
                                sybil

                                Comment


                                • #99
                                  Writers aren't so interested in morality and nobility like they want to show for me:
                                  1) The treatment of Spike was inconsistent to Angelus in the show
                                  Soulless Spike was always a disgusting evil thing by default by show parameters instead Angelus was always the "baddest of the bad" because he was the evilest/coolest vampire.
                                  If Spike is evil, he is disgusting, if Angelus is evil, he is "cool".
                                  They always overhyped Angelus, He was always called the "baddest of the bad" in an overhyping way. Season 4 of Angel was all about overhyping Angelus like season 6 of Buffy was all about denigrating soulless Spike
                                  Angel said “The name’s Angelus” to sound macho in one episode of Angel. And writers did this to make him look more badass. So Angel himself in season 1 thinks that he is more "macho" as Angelus? Why?


                                  2) Spuffy relationship was used not only to condemn Soulless Spike with Buffy but also in relation to the preachy idea of condemning sex
                                  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). but like I said, in Season 6 Spike was denigrated in season 2 Angelus was overhyped as the cool/evilest artistic killer
                                  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 nothing "carnal" (like sex and kiss)
                                  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.
                                  Last edited by Nothing13; 26-07-21, 05:54 PM.

                                  Comment


                                  • bespangeled
                                    bespangeled commented
                                    Editing a comment
                                    I think Buffy discovered she had some kinks, and felt ashamed.

                                • Originally posted by BtVS fan View Post
                                  In Just Rewards he can't comprehend Angel's opposition to Ainsley body collection "I'm sure they don't mind"

                                  In Unleashed he annoys Fred so much with his boasting and self centeredness she points out Angel killed the Wherewolf with a pen.

                                  In Destiny he openly asks about the Cup "so what's in it for me". Previously to that him forcing himself on Harmony is uncomfortable (only slightly lessened that she then decides to go along with it because he praises her skirt)
                                  Side note Fury openly laughs on Commentary about Angel questioning if he's not the one on a show called Angel.

                                  In Soul Purpose he's openly contentmptous of the victim he saved "well what do you expect, walking and dressing like that down a dark alley. Iv half a mind to kill you myself you half wit.

                                  It's not until the end of Damage that he seems to learn a lesson and is reflective. Before that his use of phrase "one of thr simples went for a stroll"

                                  It's also ignored by Your Welcome with that ridiculous Taste test with Cordy and his psychotic rage towards his Xbox

                                  I'm still not sure why he went along with Angel in NFA anyway
                                  This is also the point of what I have said:
                                  -If Spike is evil, he is disgusting; if Angelus is evil, he is "cool".
                                  -Angel is the hero because he is the main character instead Spike is "the idiot" because he is a side character

                                  This was generally the point of season 5 of Angel and why Spike's personality in season 7 of Buffy for me was inconsistent with his personality of season 5 of Angel. In season 5 of Angel, He was represented too much like an idiot/ass-hole, as comic relief for laugh in order to make Angel better by comparison (that also didn't look so better in terms of his behavior). Writers used him only for ratings because otherwise Angel probably would have canceled with season 4


                                  I don't want to enter too much into scientific arguments but I want to say my opinion on the matter,
                                  I agree much or less with your arguments about the show in relation to the difference between souled vampires and soulless vampires however for me it t necessary to specify some things because the entire logic of the show is wrong.

                                  The soul is a religious "supernatural thing". In reality, there is no proof that humans have souls because "they are the best of creation" according to some religions. Basing on science or any scientific serious analysis there isn't any proof of the existence of the soul. Everyone can believe what they want, but it is necessary to separate science/reality from faith, ideologies, and beliefs.
                                  Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez were serial killers with personality disorders such as psychopathy or/and sociopathy and antisocial personality disorders. They behaved in that way in relation to their brain and mind that was/is and must be studied by psychology, psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience. People can say what they want about them but their words mean nothing compared to psychiatrists, neuroscientists, and neurologists.

                                  Realistically speaking comparing "supernatural vampires" to human serial killers make no sense because:
                                  • They are supernatural creatures and supernatural things haven't a coherent logic and it doesn't follow the scientific method
                                  • We cannot do a scientific analysis of vampires' brains and understand the reason for their behavior
                                  • In the supernatural context, for vampires is natural to be evil and their nature is to kill; the only thing similar in a pseudo-scientific way of thinking is a new species of predators that predate humans like we predate animals.
                                  The "bullshit" that predators kill only for food is partially wrong: Lions, Tigers, Sharks, Crocodiles kill principally for food but not only for it but they also feel pleasure from the hunting, killing, the taste of blood (for example cats kills and torture lizards or other small animals because haunting is their nature), it is their nature but since their brain isn't evolved like humans they have limited capabilities of decisions and choices in good and in bad senses. Scientifically speaking, we don't know how an intelligent species of predators will behave.
                                  We, humans, behave as we do also because we are primates/mammals (simplistically speaking like "monkeys" are not predators like "crocodiles") and we behave in the way we do not because we decided to behave in this way but also because this is our biology of mammals/primates.

                                  Realistically speaking, a scientific species of predators similar to "supernatural vampires" can't be judged according to human morality. For these being would be normality hunt, predate and killing humans like we kill other animals.
                                  Obviously, they will feel pleasure from the hunt, killing, and blood because they are predators, we humans don't feel it because we aren't predators like this (like comparing lions to monkeys), as a matter of fact, psychopaths are called predators intraspecies, and it is an "anomaly" for the typical human behavior considered a personality disorder

                                  Obviously, our more developed brains can permit us to questions about things and create ethical and moral points of view and philosophies but we as a species don't have a predatory instinct because we are primates (instead for example of felines). However, the evolution of humans' brain produced also the so-called personality disorders (that include many "mental illnesses" and psychopathy is one of them)
                                  So the comparison vampires=serial killers make sense only metaphorically speaking in the logic of this show, but according to science and coherent logic, it doesn’t make sense.
                                  You cannot compare a human serial killer that behaves according to a personality disorder in relation to our typical “specie behavior” to another being that is a predator because of his own nature like a vampire. The theoretical “scientific vampire” that doesn't kill is the anomaly with personality disorder according to his specie parameters

                                  Like I have already said the show is pervaded by anthropocentrism, as a matter of fact, for example, phrases as "spark of humanity" and "human heart" are wrong because they link Humanity=Goodnes, goodness is not a prerogative ONLY of humanity as a species so it doesn't make sense
                                  Humanity is related also to bad behaviors as selfishness (in good or bad), so according to this logic, I can decide that the metaphorical word humanity=selfishness instead of goodness. It is wrong, there isn't a behavioral characteristic that can affiliate to a specie in such a predominant way that the word that defines the specie (humanity) is also the word that defines determined behaviors (human behaviors not in the general scientific sense but in the common usage sense in term of goodness)
                                  I understand that it is a way of speaking in relation to society (humanitarian organization) but coherently and scientifically it isn’t correct because it is influenced by our anthropocentric view of nature/universe/world

                                  Like i have already said Anthropocentrism is a philosophical viewpoint arguing that humans are the central or most significant entities in the world. This is a basic belief embedded in many Western religions and philosophies. Anthropocentrism regards humans as separate from and superior to nature and holds that human life has intrinsic value while other entities (including animals, plants, mineral resources, and so on) are resources that may justifiably be exploited for the benefit of humankind.
                                  However, scientific discoveries and the increase of environmental awareness about many problems of nature: pollution, global warming, ozone layer depletion, acid rain, natural resource depletion, overpopulation, waste disposal, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity challenged this viewpoint
                                  This caused a shift from an anthropocentric view to an ecocentric view of life and the world/universe in our time (similar to the passage from geocentrism to heliocentrism) because 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 species is 1–10 million years. Scientifically, human extinction isn't really a problem from a planetary point of view, it can also be helpful to the planet and other species.​

                                  Comment

                                  Working...
                                  X