Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Harris

Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by DevilEyes, Oct 29, 2010.

  1. Dusty Ayres

    Dusty Ayres Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Location:
    ANS Yamato, Sector 5, Sol System
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha


    Superman is only concerned about Lois, he's not stalking her or being a douchebag in any way.

    Supposing Superman had to go help people on another planet (as mentioned in Supergirl: The Movie)-what would Lois be bitching about then? Superman recently left Earth to be with his people for a while in the New Krypton story arc in the comics-is that being a DB? Or could it be just what Clark said as a cover for his trip as Superman-that he was taking a sabbatical? People do that sometimes.

    All I see and saw is a sensitive and powerful being protecting a young woman and being concerned about her-moreso than a gonadal fool like Zander.
     
  2. Anwar

    Anwar Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Location:
    Moncton, NB
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    And frankly if anyone is the stalker in the relationship it's Lois. I mean those internal monologue she had going on about "Can you read my mind?" in the first film really made her sound stalkerish...
     
  3. Too Much Fun

    Too Much Fun Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    I liked Xander for the most part during the early seasons. The thing with him cheating on Cordelia with Willow seemed stupid to me, but that didn't make me dislike the character. I thought it was just a case of the writers contriving something implausible just to generate some forced drama, which is something I thought they'd done a good job avoiding most of the time until the later seasons. Xander did say and do a lot of cruel things to Buffy and Willow, but in most cases, there was an excuse that was enough for me to forgive him. For example, being possessed, or the fact that he was always jealous of Angel because he had a crush on Buffy in season 1.

    I never thought he was an asshole, he was just immature, and another reason I was never able to hate him was because he had such wonderful comedic dialog. It's easy to forgive someone and forget about their flaws when they're so consistently funny in an endearing way. Also, history has shown that episodes focused on him tend to be very entertaining romps. For example "The Zeppo", "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered", and "The Replacement" (my second favourite in the whole series). The only criticism of Xander I've ever read that I agreed with was him making condescending comments to Andrew like "You've never even had a *little* bit of sex, have you?", despite the fact that he himself was supposed to be a nerd who couldn't get girls in season 1.

    I loved his speech about Riley at the end of "Into the Woods", mostly because I could relate to Riley. It's interesting how someone could be so opposed to it by arguing it's hypocritical coming from Xander. I never thought about it that way...I just enjoyed it because I believed it was insightful about Buffy and Riley's relationship and told Buffy what Riley should have said, but never had the nerve to tell her. Yes, the whole going to vampires for 'suckjobs' kills its resonance a little and makes Riley less sympathetic than it should, but that was just an unnecessary plot point that I think was inserted just to put an exclamation point on Riley's issues. His problem was really true to life and didn't need that supernatural element to hammer it home...a couple in which one person is way more giving and enthusiastic in the relationship is enough conflict on its own. I disagree with dismissing Xander's whole speech just because Xander's been immature in his relationships and friendships. The message is still valid, even if some of the messenger's actions strain his credibility. In Xander's own words, "Wow, is this NOT about me".

    And D.E., did you not care at all for Xander's words to Anya at the end of "Into the Woods"? I think they went a long way towards showing that he had unexpected depths. I can imagine you not appreciating those words because (again), you don't like him, but I thought they were beautiful and showed his genuine capacity for maturity, despite his selfishness in prior episodes. Maybe the way you feel about the speech is the way I feel about some of the stuff Spike says to Buffy in season 7. I really appreciated how romantic much of it was, but it also annoyed me simply because I didn't buy into the premise of those two being romantically involved in the first place. As I've said, I can like what he said out of context, but the fact that it comes from him almost nullifies it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2010
  4. saturn5

    saturn5 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    Xander is a hero and everyone loves him, Anya forgives him for leaving her at the altar (although for what he thought were the right reasons) and CC forgives him and Willow for their tryst. Everyone should have a friend like xander

    And the Buffyverse isn't racist, if anything it shows us many more sides than human's good, demons bad, many bad humans and numerous good demons
     
  5. hyzmarca

    hyzmarca Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    You've never watched Birth of a Nation, have you?

    Many Klansmen truly believed that Black men were ticking time-bombs just waiting for an oppertunity to brutally rape white women, just like the Slayer believed that vampires were ticking time bombs just waiting for a chance to kill humans. In both cases, they're wrong.

    The tendency for vampires to prey on humans is as much cultural as it is instinctual and is exacerbated by their social disenfranchisement. A vampire doesn't need a soul or a chip to refrain from hurting people, he just needs a 9-5 job and a real stake in society.

    The Slayer ultimately make things worse, not better, as she creates a counter-productive us-vs-them attitude that prevents vampire integration into human society.

    If Buffy really wanted to protect humans from vampires she should have just gone public and given the police the tools to handle vampire-related crimes worldwide instead of simply lynching random vampires in one small California town.

    It is deliciously ironic that Harmony has stopped more vampire attacks than all the slayers combined throughout history.
     
  6. saturn5

    saturn5 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    i think you're confusing the Buffyverse with other vampire genres where the human side still has a moral hold over the vamp (True Blood, Vampire Diaries, Twilight), the vamps in Buffy are evil, plain and simple
     
  7. Snaploud

    Snaploud Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Location:
    Rhode Island, USA
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    Xander stopped getting the benefit of the doubt after he left Anya at the altar. That was a grade A character-destroying moment.
     
  8. hyzmarca

    hyzmarca Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    Of course they're evil. But being evil isn't a bad thing. As Wolfram and Hart demonstrates, evil makes the world go around.

    The important question is if they can function in society without being disruptive, and most of them can if given the opportunity.
     
  9. RoJoHen

    RoJoHen Awesome Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2000
    Location:
    QC, IL, USA
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    And you think that's a good thing? Just because Evil has been around forever doesn't mean it needs to be. The whole point of the Angel finale (and the show in general) is that you need to fight Evil as best you can, even if you know it can't be stopped.

    I doubt it. Most of them would go on a murderous rampage if given the opportunity. We've seen demons behaving around the Slayer and around Angel because they would get their asses kicked. Most of the demons in the Whedonverse would not be so kind to a random passerby on the street.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2010
  10. saturn5

    saturn5 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    Truly horrific:eek: but it doesn't make him a bad guy, he had good, unselfish reasons which is why she forgives him in the end

    The only way Buffy's vamps could function in society is the vampwhores we saw in season 5. But most don't seem content to do so
     
  11. 3D Master

    3D Master Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    He would not be killing someone at all. Spike is not a someone. He's a demon-animated corpse. He's a blight upon the world that needs annihilating.

    She's wrong.

    And she's wrong.

    And he never said anything about love. Affection and jealousy, aka lust and obsession, do not love make.

    There are several people and beings you can trust about vampires and love; Angel being one of them, because he's had both perspectives. He's said, again, and again, and again, that vampires aren't capable of feeling love, or even understanding what it is. But you could say, he's a demon and human being, a soul, the soul could have colored the memories.

    But there's another one. Darla. Darla was a demon-animated corpse, a vampire, that through the soul of her unborn son, for a while, artificially, got to feel actual human feelings, the things a vampire-demon never gets to touch. Here's what she has to say on the subject, "You have to destroy me, Angel. You know you do. You know that what I feel now, I only feel because of the soul. The moment it is gone, I will kill my baby. I will tear it apart. I won't even be able to remember... and I want to remember."

    Vampires are so completely incapable of feeling and understanding love, that even when they artificially are made to feel it, that the moment that artificial reason is gone, not only are immediately incapable of feeling it, not only are they still utterly incapable of understanding it, they are so incapable of understanding it, they aren't even capable of properly remembering it anymore.

    Nope. Completely unlike Anya. While Xander was with Anya, she was a 100% human being. Her making fun of it, that would be her coping mechanism. And the second time around as a demon; her soul couldn't be dominated by the demonic anymore; having remorse and incapable of doing all the bad deeds and wishes, and eventually willing to sacrifice her life to undo them - but got turned back into a human again instead.

    There is a massive difference indeed. Even as a vengeance demon, Anya was selfless. Even being a soul, Spike still couldn't ever be selfless.

    The difference was massive.

    If you don't see the difference between Spike and Anya, there's no help for you.

    No, he forced her to start a sexual relationship with him. He understand she felt like she was in hell, literal hell. And he just kept hounding her, until all the horror got too much and maybe sexual pleasure could alleviate the horror that she was feeling. He manipulated, and used her trauma to get in her pants.

    Not prophetic, but he knows what Spike is going to do, because Spike is a vampire: torture, rape, murder, slaughter. You know, what vampires do. If not directly, because of a chip, then indirectly as Spike has done several times over - and he still wasn't dusted for it, making the whole of the Scooby Gang look like idiots for leaving him alive for so long.

    So all vampires should just be allowed to continue slaughtering people and attempting to end the world, on the one in a million chance this vampire gets a soul, and to top it off, becomes a good guy because of it?

    Because he had a chip that kept him from hurting people, he was thus a useful tool to be used. Of course, he showed he could have hurt them indirectly, or find a way to get rid of the chip, so letting him live for so long, is one of the reasons he and all the Scoobies look stupid, and the show idiotic.

    But since Spike isn't people, it doesn't matter. He should have been dust a long time ago, and never have had the chance. Whatever reason finally made him come to his senses to end the blight's existence, doesn't matter. Sadly Buffy's bullshit made him stop from annihilating it, and thus make him and the entire show look further moronic.

    You can't blur the lines between demons and human. That's the main flaw of the show. There's two reasons; one there isn't anything human. They're like a virus, a blight upon the world. And two; blurring the lines, meant that instead of having heroes, we have a bunch of murdering psychopaths.

    Unless as an antagonist/threat/enemy there's nothing interesting in murdering psychopaths.

    No, not a single vampire chose to become a vampire out of their own free will. Exactly the way no human being chose to become a human out of their own free will. Just like humans, vampires are born. Vampires are born when their sire sires them. They kill the human, and then let a new demon being born take over the corpse.

    The human that was there before, is dead. That human is no longer present, no longer alive, gone, he/she no longer exists. All that's left, is a demon that animates a corpse.

    Nope. Spike when he allied with Adam, when he had an initiative flunky attempt to get his chip out, when he ran with Drusilla, ate more humans that she killed for him, kidnapped Buffy, then when he went to sell demon eggs with more demons that kill humans and could overrun them because they multiplied that much; showed he DID pose a danger to humanity, and yet they didn't dust him.

    Angel is not a serial killer on probation, he's not the serial at all. He's a completely different entity.

    Of course, souled-Spike is different; because unlike Angel who clearly acts different, who in fact is night and day with Angelus; souled-Spike doesn't act one insignificant bit different than soulless-Spike. Why that is doesn't matter, but it shows he's no better than his soulless self.

    No, that's the only way it completely breaks down. Angel/Angelus doesn't work if a soul is nothing but a conscience. Give something as twistedly evil as Angelus conscience, he won't get better, he'll get WORSE.

    You see, a conscience isn't absolute. A conscience is taught, and is based upon your moral values, which are taught. Something as evil as Angelus has no moral values, except slaughter, murder, torture, lies, annihilate, kill is good. Give him a conscience, and he'll feel guilty when he only kills quickly for food and isn't torturing a victim to death. He'll feel guilty when he chooses not to murder someone, because he is in a hurry. Without a conscience, he'll just leave a lot of people be. With a conscience he will torturing lots more people to death.

    It obviously IS a soul in the metaphysical sense, or else Angel/Angelus doesn't make any sense. When first ensouled, Angelus goes from frightened, but predatory running to instant human behavior an mannerisms, including having no idea where he is: because he's never been where he is before. He just arrived from wherever he was, and before it, an entirely different creature was controlling his corpse.

    The same thing happens once more when Willow ensouls Angel. "I feel like I haven't seen you in months." (That's because he HASN'T seen her in months.)

    And of course, there's Eyghon. When Eyghon jumped into Angel, you actually get to see Eyghon and Angelus duke it out inside the corpse, while Angel, the soul-entity/being, is just along for the ride, and does not fight as the two demons do at all. He just gets jerked around as the two demons clash.

    No, they are very obviously NOT people. Look at Gunn's sister, once turned, she's an instant killing machine; right down to the predatory mannerisms. The same goes for Xander and Willow's best friend. The same goes for Angel/Angelus, and yes indeed, Darla. Darla as a human has entirely different mannerisms than Darla as a vampire, the difference between a human and a killing machine (also look above at Darla speaking about her child's soul.) The same also goes for the example vampire the potentials get to fight in S7. As Buffy says and the episode shows; corpse one moment, next moment waking up and instant killing machine.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2010
  12. hyzmarca

    hyzmarca Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    However, Season 8 demonstrates that this is untrue. The vast majority of vampires are happy to integrate into mainstream society and enjoy the comforts that come with such integration. Besides, you can outrun a Slayer; you can't outrun a radio.

    And Jasmin's misadventures show us exactly how horrible things are when you eliminate Evil. Evil, in moderation, is good.
     
  13. Anwar

    Anwar Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Location:
    Moncton, NB
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    Jasmine didn't eliminate evil, she WAS evil. Her victory was a victory of evil! Sure, Wolfram and Hart say otherwise but that's just because they were also dominated and didn't like it.
     
  14. DevilEyes

    DevilEyes Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    basking in the warmth of the Fire Caves
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    There are too many different posts here to reply to, so I'll just start with Too Much Fun's post and leave the rest for later. (BTW... I think that hyzmarka and 3D Master should be in a talk show together, with Harmony as the host. ;) )

    It seems you've misunderstood a few things I've said, so I have to explain myself better.

    I don't actually hate Xander - not anymore, anyway. (The guy who wrote the article I quoted, however, really does. But you know, it's possible to agree with most of the awful things that someone says about a fictional character, and still not hate that character.) As I said, I did dislike him immensely in the early seasons, when I first watched the show. But he grew on me, and I started liking him in season 5, could understand him and what he was going through in season 6 even when he was being a douchebag, and thought he finally matured and overcame his old patterns in season 7. The thread is mostly a reaction to statements about him being a nice guy, a great friend etc. - which, IMO, he rarely was for the first 6 seasons of the show. I generally don't have a problem with characters acting like douchebags, as long as their douchebaggery was recognized. In fact, most of my favorite characters are major douches. ;)

    I thought Xander and Anya were great together, they were in fact one of my favorite couples on the show. They were entertaining and great to watch, and, as I think I mentioned it on the Buffy S6 thread - they were a rare example in Buffyverse of a couple portrayed as having lots of sex and being kinky while still having a relatively healthy and fun relationship, without excessive angst, drama and emotional abuse (well - until "Hell's Bells"). In fact, I started warming up to Xander about the same time that he got involved with Anya, and I really started liking him in season 5, particularly in "The Replacement", where Confident!Xander gave a lovely speech to Anya, and showed what kind of man Xander could be. And I really loved Xander's speech to Anya in "Into the Woods".

    However, I don't feel the same about his speech to Buffy in the same episode. I liked Xander in season 5, but I liked him despite that speech, not because of it. And that speech could have easily been great and exactly what Buffy needed to hear - if it had been written a bit differently. Xander should have said something like this: "Buffy, I know that Riley has done something really bad and stupid, and that you are very hurt. And it's not right that he's giving you this ultimatum. He does love you, however, and he's screwed up because he thought you didn't love him. But you don't have time to think about it now, since he's leaving. You need to quickly decide if you want this guy and if the relationship is still worth a try. If you do, go after him, and then you'll see if you can forgive him and if you two can work it out. If you don't really feel that strongly about him, then it's probably better that the relationship is over, because it would have failed sooner or later." But in the actual speech, Xander completely glossed over the fact that Riley did something wrong, and made it seem like it was all Buffy's fault for not being as in love with Riley as he was with her, or making him the center of her universe (as if she owed him that); and talked about what a wonderful guy Riley is, that he is the "long-haul guy". The implication is, more or less: OMG, Buffy, how can you not totally love this great guy and want to marry him and have his kids, what is wrong with you! Which just makes me think, well, that's a really crappy thing to say to a friend. Who's Xander to decide who Buffy should or shouldn't love/want/be in relationship with? And what a way to make your friend feel bad, as if the failure of a relationship is all her fault, or as if there is something wrong with her if she is not completely gaga over a guy that Xander finds appropriate. It's all the worse because Buffy is a person who constantly blames herself, deep inside, for all sorts of things, and has abandonment issues and feels that people (starting with her father) are leaving her because there's something fundamentally 'wrong' about her.

    I might be particularly harsh on Xander a lot of times because I mainly see him as the "male friend" on the show, and to me, there were quite a few times when he comes off as a lousy friend to Buffy and Willow. I particularly have issues with him being patronizing with Buffy. Someone said that he is drawn to Buffy as a strong woman - yeah, but then he treats her as weak too many times, he often acts as if she can't make decisions about her own personal life and needs saving, as if she can't take care of herself when her pesky emotions come into the way. Instead of being someone that a friend can confide in, without being judged.

    The one problem I had with the early seasons of the show is, that, the way you have a problem believing in Buffy/Spike relationship, I had a problem with buying a lot of Scooby dynamic early on, especially in season 1. The whole Willow/Xander/Buffy unrequited crushes trio was something that rang false to me. It seemed like a teen drama cliche, I couldn't relate to it, it was nothing like the long-term friendships I have had. And I really hate the way that male/female friendships on TV and in movies are almost always portrayed as having some romantic tension to it. As if a man and a woman can't really be simply friends. I also really hated Xander/Willow in season 3 - it's the only romantic relationship on the show I never found believable. (I'm not crazy about Willow/Kennedy, but I'm pretty much indifferent to it.) Willow seemed to be really in love with Oz, and I didn't believe in Xander's sudden romantic interest in Willow.

    Maybe the main reason I somewhat prefer the later seasons of BtVS is that I found the later Scooby dynamic more convincing, when they pretty much had outgrown their teenage crushes on each other; and even when they would grow apart, as in S6 - that's something I find relatable, I've had a few close friends since we were teenagers, but there were times when we would get wrapped up in our own problems and grow apart for a while.

    And, speaking of how fun and entertaining Xander/Anya were - I think I need to qualify something I said earlier, I don't remember if it was in PM or in a DS9 thread, that I am a 'romcom hater'. What I mean by that is that I hate schmaltzy romcoms, which aren't even funny (and which tend to pass for 'romantic comedy' these days) - but I actually really enjoy witty, smart and sexy romantic comedies, and dynamics such as "It Happened One Night" or "His Girl Friday" Tracy/Hepburn in "Adam's Rib"... or, come to think of it, Benedick and Beatrice in Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing". And one of the reasons I like the Buffy/Spike pairing is that, when they are not all about angst and drama (not that I don't love angst and drama), they can be so wonderfully snarky and funny with each other; at times they're like a couple straight out of one of those classics I've mentioned. (Look, for instance, at their scenes in "Something Blue" - no, not when they're under the spell, but when they aren't, and when they're arguing and taunting each other.) Xander/Cordelia were also like that a lot, but they didn't have a deeper connection. For all the pain and fighting and unhealthiness, Buffy and Spike always had some of the greatest conversations and a sort of instinctive understanding of each other (except, ironically, when it comes to their relationship - in which case, it was a series of mis-communications, misunderstandings and denials, right down to their last scene on the show... And in S8 comics, it continues that way...), which is why they made allies/partners in fight as easily as enemies. Even if this immediate connecting often came in the form of exchanging punches, kicks and insults. :cardie::guffaw: (Which, actually, kinda made it all the more fun to watch...) Look at their scenes in season 2 finale when they team up to stop Angel and Drusilla - it's the first time they interact without trying to kill each other, and they still argue and don't trust each other, but strangely enough they are acting like they've known each other for ages. That's the kind of chemistry Buffy never really had with anyone else. Buffy and Angel had a very different dynamic that always seemed a bit uncomfortable to me, they either only talked about their love (in Big. Romantic. Terms.), or she was trying to figure him out and he was being mysterious (because he was afraid that she wouldn't love him if she knew the real him). And Buffy/Riley... when they were supposed to have a fun conversation, it would just look forced.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2010
  15. Too Much Fun

    Too Much Fun Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    It's great to finally be in total agreement about something on this show. Xander and Anya were by far my favourite couple on the show and a big reason I love "The Replacement" so much. I'd like to pretend everything bad in their relationship after "Into the Woods" never happened. Like a retcon or 'canon violation'. :p

    You should consider the fact that what he said was supposedly said in the heat of the moment. To have said something like what you wrote, I think he'd have to plan it well in advance, like a carefully worded speech.

    Well to be fair, wasn't Xander unaware of the whole thing with Riley and those girl vampires? She yelled about it in the middle of Xander's speech and he didn't say anything in response, I think because at that point he'd already made his points and he couldn't just take them back in light of this new information.

    In theory, he's just trying to be a good friend and encourage her to embrace the relationship that he thinks will ultimately make her the most happy she can be. Yeah, he was pretty harsh and insensitive about it, guilt tripping Buffy, but I interpreted that as him being inspired by his sympathy for Riley. I think what Riley said at the end of "The Replacement" really got to him, and he was motivated by it to be really hard on Buffy about this. Maybe a little too harsh, but I could see where he was coming from.

    I say "in theory" because there are probably some underlying selfish reasons for him trying to sell Buffy on Riley so much. Obviously he was pissed about her being so hung up on Angel (who he didn't like), so seeing her treat a guy he considers much better for her than Angel in such a (in his opinion) poor manner was offensive to him.

    I think the people behind the show were just trying to write him as a supportive, wise, and insightful friend. He was meant to seem like he had the right advice when she had issues, but it's tricky writing a character that way without him seeming condescending. To me he didn't come off that way, but I can see how it might to you and others.

    I agree with all of this too. I said myself that it annoyed me how they couldn't keep people single and/or just with platonic friends on this show because they felt everyone always had to be in relationships. I use that as a criticism of Buffy and Spike, but I also think Xander/Willow and Willow/Kennedy being put together are also good examples of relationships just thrown together that didn't have to happen. I would say that about Tara as well. I don't understand why they couldn't have just been friends instead of Willow turning gay to be with her. And yeah, the early love triangle was really forced and cliche. It's one of the many reasons I skip most of season 1 when I re-watch the series.

    Yeah, you mentioned that in the private message. I've seen and enjoyed most of those movies you mentioned and I like those kinds of screwball romantic relationships too, but I still don't see Buffy and Spike that way. I agree, it was very fun watching them play off each other with their put-downs and playful antagonism, but as I've said, to me it was more akin to adversaries like Superman and Luthor, Seinfeld and Newman, Kira Nerys and Gul Dukat, or Jean-Luc Picard and Q. I think they are perfect together as entertaining rivals that it's fun to watch bounce resentful, colourful dialog off each other, but not as dueling couples whose bickering ultimately makes them a winning couple due to sexual tension and chemistry (like your movie examples).

    Yeah, the Buffy and Angel dynamic was a little one note, but I think it was the right note. They were perfect for each other - they respected, adored, and cared for each other deeply. Okay, so it's not as entertaining as constantly trading wicked pot shots, but I didn't find it overwrought as your expression suggests. It just felt natural. What you say about Buffy and Riley, I think that was the point, but only on Buffy's end. She was the one whose attempts to seem in sync and at ease with him looked forced because they were forced since his feelings for her were way more intense than hers for him.
     
  16. RoJoHen

    RoJoHen Awesome Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2000
    Location:
    QC, IL, USA
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    I guess that depends on your viewpoint. Would you rather be happy and brainwashed or sad with the free will to change it?
     
  17. DevilEyes

    DevilEyes Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    basking in the warmth of the Fire Caves
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    From what I've read, Whedon had always planned to make either Willow or Xander gay - and when Seth Green decided to leave the show, it was decided it would be Willow. Tara was introduced specifically to be a love interest for Willow.

    I'm glad that it turned out this way, since I would find Xander being gay more difficult to buy. It's questionable how convincing Willow's 100% turn was (in season 4 and beginning of season 5, she seemed to be bisexual - still interested in Oz, admitting to having crushes on men, showing attraction to Dracula..., but by season 7, she was portrayed as a 100% lesbian). But it's still easier to believe than it would have been if Xander, or Buffy suddenly announced they were gay - because Willow never really seemed like a very sexual character in the early seasons, certainly not in the physical sense. They only started making her more blatantly sexual after she got involved with Tara (she wasn't like that even with Oz). There was that S1 episode where Willow had a crush on a guy she met online, and had no idea what he looked like (he later turned out to be a demon in the body of a robot). At one point, Buffy was flabbergasted by the idea that Willow could fall for someone she had never seen, and said something like "What if he has a hairy back?!" :rommie: Buffy could not conceive of falling for a guy she didn't find physically attractive, while Willow insisted that the intellectual connection and understanding they had was enough.

    Like I said in the Buffy season 6 thread, there are lots of examples in fiction of sexual tension or even romantic involvement between antagonists - it's a common trope, 'Dating Catwoman'. (BTW, some of your examples are actually seen by some people as examples of sexual tension, esp. judging a few comments people made in that thread about Superman and Lex... But I'm not touching the Kira/Dukat comparison with a ten foot pole. That way leads to madness... and Godwin's Law getting broken a lot. ;) )

    I'm not saying that Buffy and Spike are literally like one of those screwball romcom couples - I'm saying that the screwball romcom element is one of the elements of their dynamic on the show, which was very complicated and ran the whole gamut of different emotions and interactions.

    I really enjoyed the Buffy/Angel pairing in seasons 1-3. It was a great storyline. I could completely see why Buffy would fall in love with him - he was exactly the kind of guy I would've fallen in love when I was 16. But I never quite saw them as a perfect couple. That one note rang kinda false to me. I didn't feel like the show ever fully addressed all the implications of the Buffy/Angel relationship, or that either of them ever faced up to the full reality of it. If they ever did, their relationship would be a lot more complicated. It's hard for me to see two people as perfect for each other, when they don't even really know each other, and keep seeing each other through rose-tinted spectacles. Buffy respected, adored and cared for 'Angel' the brooding dashing mysterious do-gooder hero with a dark past who was tender and helpful to her, but certainly not for 'Angelus', the guy who insulted her, denigrated her, and was cruel to her after their first night together, terrorized her and her friends for weeks, went on a killing spree, murdered Jenny Calendar and arranged for Giles to find her in a way that would ensure utmost pain for him, kidnapped and tortured Giles, and tried to destroy the world. Buffy rationalized it as Angelus being some sort of demon who took over her boyfriend's body, which doesn't hold water at all. In season 5, when people would mention the fact that she was once in love with a vampire, she would go into the defensive mode: "But Angel was good!" Who else who knows Angel would believe that it's so simple? Not even Angel himself... Especially not Angel himself. He knows he is both good and bad. If Buffy had accepted him and forgiven him without being deliberately blind to his dark side, if she did it while acknowledging the fact that he always had Angelus in him, I would agree that this was the real, great and perfect love that you think it is. But, in season 3, Buffy took him back and loved him and accepted him, but under the premise that Angelus was not Angel at all. By contrast, in season 7, she believes that Spike has changed, but she is fully aware that he is the same guy who tried to kill her when he first came to Sunnydale.

    And conversely, Angel fell in love with Buffy as an innocent, pure girl and force of goodness, but he never really got to know the nastier, uglier sides of her personality. (Here's a quote from a S1 episode of AtS "I Fall To Pieces" - Angel talking about a stalker they are investigating, and clearly projecting: "This guy is too messed up to deal with a real woman and he can't stand that. So he creates a fantasy about a girl he barely knows. But eventually even she fails him. So he has to hurt her, because when he looks at her all he sees is how useless he is, how damaged...") Buffy and Angel always tended to see idealized romantic versions of each other, which is perfectly normal in the initial stages of a relationship, especially teenage first love (well, at least on Buffy's side, but Angel acted as if he was a teenager falling in love for the first time, too)... but they never let go of it. I could see them as a perfect couple, like you do, if they really got to know each other and honestly accept each other, the bad with the good, the ugliness with the beauty, the darkness with the light. But they never actually did it. Maybe because romantic illusions are nicer and easier to deal with than the reality?

    I think that, for instance, Angel has a lot more honest, genuine and deeper connection and understanding with Faith, someone he's never been romantically involved with/interested in (that's one good example of how great a male/female relationship can be without turning it into a romance).

    If you believe that Angel and Angelus are not the same person, you probably have very different views.
    Which brings me to the question of the nature of vampires that has been discussed in this thread. I am aware that Whedon and co. hadn't really thought it all through in season 2, because they were still thinking about vampires as metaphor more than anything else (in this case, the metaphor of the apparently great boyfriend who turns bad after you have sex with him). But everything we've seen since confirms that vampires are the same people they were as humans and the same people with or without soul, no matter how much of a personality change they may (or may not) undergo. And even in season 2, Buffy's rationalization about Angelus 'my boyfriend is gone, and this is a demon wearing his face' didn't make any sense if taken literally. It was blatantly obvious that Angelus was just Angel gone bad, not some other guy taking his place. Not only did he have all the same memories, but he even had the same emotions turned into their negative. As Willow said: "You are still all he thinks about." His love for Buffy (which began as stalkery and obsessive even when he had a soul - he fell in love with her before she even knew he existed) turned into an equally obsessive and passionate hatred ("To kill this girl, you have to love her"), and he was so disturbed by the feeling of love and wanted to purge himself of it, that he wanted to destroy the world.

    After season 2, the possibility of soulless vampires being literally demons that take over a human, rather than the same person, gets dropped altogether. In S3 "Doppelgangland", after Willow met Vampire Willow, Angel comes close to explaining that a vampire's personality actually does have a lot to do with what they were as humans, but then pulls back when he realizes that this is not what Buffy wants to hear:

    Willow: (appalled) It's horrible! That's me as a vampire? (Angel closes the door) I'm so evil and... skanky. (aside to Buffy, worried) And I think I'm kinda gay.
    Buffy: (reassuringly) Willow, just remember, a vampire's personality has nothing to do with the person it was.
    Angel: (without thinking) Well, actually... (gets a look from Buffy) That's a good point.

    And Vampire Willow is a great example that the demon that overtakes a vampire after siring comes from what they always were. The first time we meet her, she seems so shockingly different from regular Willow. Of course she can't be the same person! But in the next 3 years, Willow undergoes some huge changes, turns out to be "kinda gay" and then turns dark - and human Dark Willow is not that different from Vampire Willow. Evil, power-crazy, and fond of the phrase "Bored now".

    Darla spells it out in the flashbacks in Angel S1 "Prodigal Son" (after newly sired Liam/Angel(us) has killed his family):

    Darla: Your victory over him took but moments.
    (Angelus looks over at the body of his father and gets up.)

    Angelus: Yes?
    Darla: But his defeat of you will last lifetimes.
    Angelus: What are you talking about? He can't defeat me now.
    Darla: Nor can he ever approve of you - in this world or any other. What we once were informs all that we have become. (Angelus looks at his father's body.) The same love will infect our hearts - even if they no longer beat. (Angelus looks at his mother's and his sister's body.) Simple death won't change that.
    Angelus: Love? Is this the work of love?
    (Darla steps closer and smiles up at him.)
    Darla: Darling boy. So young. Still so very young.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2010
  18. saturn5

    saturn5 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    I always thought that Jasmine thought of herself as good, that she was saving humanity (similar idea expressed in Firefly with the Alliance's actions on Miranda). It was just the way she did it was the problem
     
  19. FPAlpha

    FPAlpha Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Location:
    Mannheim, Germany
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    Whoah.. the series was finished (excluding EU material and the comic series) nearly 10 years ago and people are still writing essays about the most minor things and discussing it at length.

    That show has truly made its mark in the kingdom of nerds ;) (and i occasionally still pull out an episode here and there and watch it)
     
  20. saturn5

    saturn5 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Re: Douchebag characters considered "Nice Guys" - example 1: Xander Ha

    Best TV show of all time, made it's mark on the world. If you think this is intense you should pop along to the Buffyboards