The best thing that ever happened to Spike was when got the hell away from Buffy and became his own character on Angel. Buffy became so unlikable near the end of her show.
Why did Buffy fail?
- Thread starter Brent
- Start date
The best thing that ever happened to Spike was when got the hell away from Buffy and became his own character on Angel. Buffy became so unlikable near the end of her show.
I thought much the same for a while. It was a combination of Angel showing me that the vampire thing wasn't all bad and Joan of Arcadia showing me that the high school thing wasn't all bad which changed my mind.
In any event, in the case of Buffy, it's widely held that the high school years (especially seasons 2-3) are actually the best of the show. (Armin Shimmerman as the principal is awesome.) The series tried to upgrade to college in season 4 with mediocre results, and pretty much separated itself from the academic environment entirely after that.
I was done with Buffy by about Season Five. By that point I was watching the show for Giles, Willow, Xander, and occasionally Spike.
Buffy was my favorite character in S1-3, but she became an insufferable bitch in S4 onwards. Getting Dawn was the final nail in the coffin. Spuffy was digging up the grave and molesting it. That's why Season Eight has been so refreshing, because Buffy is back to having a sense of humor again, I can only assume because SMG is no longer involved with the character.
I'm not preoccupied with it so much as I'm bringing them up, because of all the Whedon fans, they're the worst offenders. Everything I've mentioned, they were the ones responsible for. And then there's joyful little statements from them like about how Buffy should have just lay there and take it, because Spike is so hot she should be honored. This was an actual human being who said this. Whedon fans may not all be like this, but they practically created the atmosphere for ridiculous shit like I've mentioned with their bloodthirsty fanaticism. Like sending borderline threatening messages to a writer at Salon.com for writing an article entitled "Why Spike Ruined Buffy The Vampire Slayer". You may have only seen small bits of it here. But if you went to anything online related back then, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about. And to be fair, The Bangel(ick I hate that word) fans were almost as bad.
Imagine an entire online community of 3D Masters, except in the opposite camp when it comes to Whedon. Now do you get the idea? Because that's what it was. Fuck that Trekkies movie with all of their freakshow people. They need to do a documentary on Whedon fans. They're far more scarier. They make The Spiner Femmes look like average neighbors in comparison.
The lack of moral outrage -and in most cases the defense of - various controversial episodes in the later seasons was enough to for me to be done with the lot of them. So damn right I'm prejudiced. People who defend disgusting behavior, in both a fantasy world and real life, earn my ire easily.
Which is exactly what I did.
Not really. For me it's kind of a casual loathing or contempt. 3D Master, now that's a different story.
Please clarify. Are you upset about a defense of actions of characters within an episode, or about a defense of the episode itself? The two carry completely different connotations, yet your phrasing is unclear here.
Whoever it was who got on your nerves so much, it's probably best to leave such things in the past where they belong. Unless there's something ongoing that you object to, of course.
Do you really care that badly?
Not really. But I'd hate for any misunderstandings to renew arguments which don't need to be renewed. I've seen it happen too often.
Given the way this particular subject tends to set people off, clarity is especially important.
To use the previously discussed example:
1) Defending unsouled Spike's attempted rape for any reason I would consider disgusting.
2) Characterizing souled Spike as a sufficiently different person from unsouled Spike that he bears no responsibility for that action is a questionable, but morally defensible position.
3) Defending the producers' decision to write an episode which laid out unsouled Spike's nature in such a way has no moral quandary at all; it's perfectly acceptable. It's not my favorite episode to watch, but I do not object to it as a story.
I agree. They don't need to be renewed. Which is why I purposely made my statement ambiguous. I was simply saying how I don't really care much for certain elements of Whedon's fan base. People seem to think I'm not being fair. And maybe I'm not being fair. But I've had far too many negative experiences with them to change my mind about them.
Oh no. You're not sucking me into that bullshit again. Like I said, it doesn't need to be brought up again.
Reasonable. I have no particular desire to change your mind, I'm merely challenging you to consider whether your feelings remain relevant at this point. Perhaps they do, perhaps not, but it's never wrong to reexamine these things.
I was merely laying out an example of the way that things could be interpreted differently depending on exactly what you meant. I have no desire to actually rehash the argument.
I was merely laying out an example of the way that things could be interpreted differently depending on exactly what you meant. I have no desire to actually rehash the argument.
Last edited:
Ah, but one of the themes of Angel season 5 - indeed Spike and Angel have a direct conversation about it - is that neither of them will ever truly be redeemed. They're going to hell whatever - nothing will ever fully erase their sins. But that doesn't mean they should give up and stop trying. They can still do good things in the meantime.
I suppose. I need to watch the show again, it's been a while.
Last edited:
Actually, that was more a theme of Season Four. Though I would not that there was no sense of "they're automatically going to hell;" if anything, the implication throughout Angel was that there was no inherent meaning to anything, that meaning was derived from human choice, not some "objective" sense of right and wrong.
Similar threads
- Locked
