Bitterswete

Totally agree. Stefan trying to be a good person isn't about him trying to hide from his dark side, or trying to live up to an image, or anything like that. Not entirely, anyway. But living with his dark side in control doesn't make him happy. Which he knows from past experience. I think Stefan is just happier keeping his dark impulses in check, and trying to live a life that doesn't involve hurting other people. I just do not buy this idea that Damon does bad things so he can be the bad brother and Stefan can be the good one. Just don't. Now I can buy that Damon did some of the bad things he did partly because it was what people expected, and he was sort of living up to his rep. Or even to prove he was a monster. That's a pretty common theme. And a lot of characters who deal with this and become better people (like Faith from BtVS/Angel) realize those excuses are crap. What people think of and expect from you is no excuse for what you actually choose to do. And, yeah, I loved Faith, partly for that reason. She stopped blaming everything else (her crappy life, people not expecting much of her, people thinking she was "the bad one," etc.) for the things she did, took responsibility for her own actions, and decided to change for the better. Maybe a similar realization will be part of Damon's journey.

And, see, I don't find Angel/Buffy and Stefan/Elena all that much alike. There are similarities, like the guy's a vampire and the girl's a human. But, even there, there are differences (like, on BtVS, the human girl was a super strong warrior who fought monsters on a regular basis). And that wasn't what I enjoyed most about the pairing. I liked their "normal couple"-type moments, when they'd tease each other, joke around, have a quiet talk, stuff like that.

A lot of my favorite "good guy" (or "good girl") characters were once very bad, and still had dark sides that came out on occasion. So, to me, a character having a dark side and being a genuinely good person aren't mutually exclusive concepts. So Stefan's dark side is definitely there. But the side that wants to do the right thing, and doesn't get a kick out of hurting innocent people, is also there, and also real. Every character like this goes through these kinds of doubting periods, where they seem to wonder what's the point of trying to be good. Angel (since someone brought him up) actually said, once or twice, that he sometimes missed being evil. So it's a pretty common trope. I never said Damon never did good things or had genuine feelings for people. However, I got the sense that, if he really, really wanted something, or wanted to do something, he wouldn't let any moral issues or questions of conscience stop him. He'd do whatever he wanted to do and try really hard not to feel bad about it. Which doesn't automatically make someone a bad person, but does kind of shape their personality. Damon has done plenty of bad things without much more reason than he was upset about something. Or he was just being a dick. And I love Angel. Of course, I didn't really start to love him until he got his own show, where his character was really explored, and we got to see that he really wasn't all serious all of the time. (On BtVS, he was nowhere near as layered--or funny--as he became on Angel.) All that being said, part of Angel's journey was accepting the dark part of himself, even learning he could use it without slipping over the edge and going all-out evil. He became much more relaxed with himself and his evil past. Which I always thought would be part of Stefan's journey. I really couldn't care less who Elena ends up with. (Beyond the impact her relationship-of-the-moment has on the show.) But I will say that I greatly enjoyed Stefan/Elena back in the day. I found their moments together sweet, fun, touching, etc. And I remember talking to others who felt the same way. So, when it comes to ships, a lot of this stuff is subjective.

Nah, I don't see it that way. It's more like Stefan is the brother who genuinely wants to be (and tries to be) a good person. And I don't think it was just him trying to live up to an image. I think there are some people who are just hard-wired to do the right thing (or try to as much as possible), and Stefan is one of those people. But, of course, he's a vampire, and he's got a dark side, and those Ripper issues, so it makes trying to be a good person a lot more complicated. But that doesn't mean "good Stefan" isn't real. Damon, on the other hand, never really cared about trying to be a good person. Even as a human, he seemed to be driven by his heart (and impulses). And if his heart wanted to do something that could be considered bad, so be it. He was probably going to do it anyway. I think that while Stefan has tried to repress his dark side, Damon has tried to repress any feelings of guilt or remorse he might have over doing bad things. And I think he's been pretty successful at it for the most part, meaning I think he's done lots of bad things that he truly doesn't feel bad about. But there are hints that he feels guilt and remorse about more stuff than he'd like. So I don't see Damon as the "good brother trying to be bad." He has been plenty bad over the years. But I think he's always been capable of being a better person. He just chose not to be a lot of the time.

I think the ratio of TVD viewers watching for Delena has probably gone up. Because a lot of viewers who weren't watching for Delena aren't watching anymore. Which isn't really a good thing. Focusing on the 'ship would probably please the Delena fans still watching. But it's not going to do much for viewers who are still watching but don't care for (or downright can't stand) Delena. And it's not going to win back former viewers who were never into that 'ship in the first place. If anything, I think good word-of-mouth would do more for the ratings than them starting to focus on Delena again. I remember that being one of the things the show was praised for early on. In fact, I remember many a comment on other boards with people hoping and praying that the show would keep doing things the way they were, and wouldn't get consumed by relationship drama. Actually, there are a lot of things I remember the show getting praised for not doing, only for them to turn around and do those things. It's been kind of fascinating to watch. In a very frustrating way.

I guess it depends on whether you think the soul is all that a person truly is so that, without the soul, they are no longer that person. I don't. I think a soul is a part of who a person is, and we are made of other stuff too. And, when the soul leaves, the other stuff stays behind. And this "other stuff" is as much a part of who a person is as their soul. I don't think a chance is good enough. As long as a vampire is out there killing people, and not thinking anything is wrong with it, they are fair game as far as I'm concerned. I think the lives of innocent people trumps the possibility that a remorseless killer might, someday, stop slaughtering innocents for one reason or another. Now if a vamp actually goes and gets a soul or something, that's a different story.

I'm not sure what one thing has to do with the other. The fact that I think a vamp's personality comes from their human side doesn't mean they are "good people." They are still, for all intents and purposes, serial killers who place no value on human life and (except for in very rare cases) see no reason not to give in to their violent urges. (Which usually involves killing people.) In a few very rare cases, we saw vampires try to control themselves. But it wasn't because they had turned good and suddenly felt killing people was wrong. It was because they had some selfish reason for doing it. Take away that reason, and they'd go right back to killing without remorse.

Exactly. Buffy was hardly an expert on vampires. (There was even an incident later where Buffy says one thing about vampires and Angel starts to contradict her.) What she said in "Lie to Me" was how she saw it. And maybe even how the Watchers saw it. (Because they weren't as all-knowing as they liked everyone to believe.) But that doesn't mean she was totally right. And, also, this was in early season two, and the shows' ideas about their own mythos were still evolving. Along with showing what the "pure" vampire demon was like (a mindless creature driven by instinct), they also showed a human without a soul. Said human was living his life just like everyone else, so there was still a person there. He was just a person who had no qualms about killing anyone who made him mad. So I don't think that a vampire totally stops being the person they were when they were turned. They just lose one thing (the soul), and gain something a lot less nice (the demon).

Actually, according to canon, a vampire can't get their personality from the demon because the demon has no personality. I don't think the vampire demon would even qualify as sentient. They are basically like really violent and aggressive wild animals, acting on instinct. Instead, a vampire's personality came from their human side, or at least the darkest parts of it. They are the way they are because they no longer have a conscience (soul) to keep them in check, and there's a demonic presence inside of them giving them all of these urges (for blood, violence, etc.) that they have no reason not to satisfy. So what they did with Spike in show wasn't really a retcon, nor did it invalidate the Angelus storyline. They showed that vampires could be as unique and individualistic as humans, that there was no "one size fits all" way for vampires to act, which I actually liked. And there's nothing in canon that says what happened with Spike was totally impossible. The problem with Spike was the way the PTB tried to frame it as him being somehow special (he maintained more of his humanity than other vamps, or whatever they tried to say) when it wasn't really necessary. Or true. They showed other vamps were also capable of walking the straight and narrow if it suited their purposes.

Exactly. You seemed to be saying Xander could be judged by what he did while possessed by the hyena spirit. And my point was that I don't judge any character (the plot has been used a lot) by what they do while under the influence of some supernatural force that alters or influences their behavior. I judge them more by what they do when they are in their right mind, and BB&B was the perfect counterexample. Because if Xander were some kind of sexual deviant, surely he wouldn't have turned down any chance to have sex with Buffy. I wasn't trying to say, "XYZ did so much worse, so..." (Because I don't buy that one character doing something excuses what another character does.) My point was that, like I said, I can see a lot of heart-broken teen-agers doing something like what Xander did if magic was an option. In fact, Willow did similar things in similar situations, so what Xander did wasn't even an isolated incident on the show. That being said, I don't see what's wrong with comparing and contrasting characters, using examples to make a point, etc. That's just what happens when discussing something like a TV show.

That's a common trope in genre fiction. A person with unrequited feelings for someone is affected by some supernatural force which causes them to act on their feelings in violent ways. In fact, it would be hard to find a genre show that hasn't used that plot. And both BtVS and AtS used variations of that plot several times. So, yes, Xander had a crush on Buffy. But the hyena possession took it to a dark place that it never would've gone to while he was in his right mind. In fact, I almost see that possession as Xander "losing his soul" for a while. To me, the more telling situation is when Buffy, under the influence of a spell, threw herself at Xander and he wouldn't take advantage of her. I judge him more by what he did while in his right mind than what he did while under the influence of a malevolent spirit. And there's no denying that what he did in BB&B was all kinds of wrong. But it's the kind of stupid, immature thing I can see a lot of teen-agers doing if they had access to magic and were hard on the heels of a painful breakup. In fact, doesn't Willow do similar things when she's older and more mature?

To me it's like a prank in real life. Just as I might find one prank funny, another might cross a line that makes me see it as cruel rather than humorous. But, of course, it's subjective, because a prank I think is too mean-spirited to be funny might be hilarious to someone else. So while the writers had Angel sucker-punch Xander, and leave him lying unconscious in the street, as a funny moment, to me it crossed the line into cruel, so wasn't funny. And, since I didn't see the humor, I just saw the mean-spiritedness. Also, while that moment was done as a joke in that episode, I actually don't see it as out of character for Angel. Later on, he did similar things in more serious situations.

That's like leaving a friend asleep outside in an area where people have been known to be attacked by wild animals, but it's okay because you didn't see any wild animals in the area at that exact moment. Unless Angel was psycic, how the heck would he know a vamp wasn't right around the corner or hiding in an alley or the sewers or something, and one wouldn't show up five seconds after he walked away? The death rate was high enough for the school newspaper to have an obituary. It was high enough for the authorities to have to make excuses for all the mysterious deaths and attacks that happened in town. (Gangs on PCP, barbeque forks, etc.) But, all that aside, Angel (unlike most people) knew that there were vampires and sometimes other baddies wandering around looking for people to eat. So, again, unless he was an idiot, there's no way Angel wouldn't think leaving Xander unconscious in the middle of the street, even for a second, meant leaving him vulnerable to attack. There's a difference between what I know as a viewer, and what the characters know. For example, I knew Buffy wasn't really going to die during the Cruciamentum. That doesn't make what the Watchers did to her somehow okay. A lot of these "what Angel did wasn't really so bad" arguments seem to rely on Angel being aware of the fact that he's on a television show, and knowing what the conventions of the specific show he's on are. (Knowing that, as a regular character, Xander was unlikely to be killed off at that time.) But that's not how it works. A character's actions should be judged based on what he would know as a person living in that world, not on what I know as a viewer watching the show. There's no way Angel could've been thinking, "Well, on this show, characters don't usually stay unconscious for long, so leaving Xander lying there is okay since the writers will make him wake up before anything can happen to him." So he can't be excused on those grounds. For one, Buffy wasn't a lone fighter. In fact, that was one of the big points of the show. That, unlike other Slayers, Buffy had other people fighting at her side, which was part of what made her such an effective (not to mention long-lived) Slayer. Now Buffy was definitely the "Big Gun" (at least before Willow became Super Witch) but I think anyone who risked their lives to fight evil was as much a part of it as Buffy was. It wasn't a lack of confidence so much as good, common sense. Since Buffy is a human being with emotions, it was just logical for Xander (or anyone in Xander's shoes) to think telling her about the spell at that moment could effect her in the worst possible way at the worst possible time, in a situation where Buffy hesitating for even a split second at the wrong moment could've been a disaster. (Her getting killed, the world getting sucked into hell, etc.) And anyone in Xander's shoes had the right to decide not to tell her under the circumstances. Even if they were 95% sure Buffy wouldn't be effected by that news, even a 5% chance that she would would've been too high to take the risk. As I've said before, I wouldn't have told her. And it wouldn't have been about me being patronizing or whatever. It would've been because I didn't want the world getting sucked into hell, and wanted to cut down on the odds of that happening as much as possible.

That's kind of the whole point for me. Angel left Xander unconscious in the street. At night. In Sunnydale. That's pretty much like leaving Xander there to die. Because unless Angel was a complete idiot (which I don't think he is) he knew that a vamp could come walking by thirty seconds later and kill Xander before he had a chance to wake up. The fact that the writers had no intention of doing that makes no difference because, in the context of the show, Angel as no way of knowing that. He also isn't psycic, so he had no way of knowing Xander wouldn't be brutally slaughtered the minute he and Faith walked away. Really, there are no justifications for that. No way to excuse it or pretty it up. Angel left Xander vulnerable in a position where he could very easily have been killed. Period. And I think Xander telling Buffy about the spell in that moment would've been a terrible idea. To me, it wasn't about gender roles or whatever. It was about the fact that Buffy was going into that situation where that bit of news could've had disastrous, "world sucked into hell" consequences. Which, to me, trumps all. Really, I don't see what that has to do with Xander being a Nice Guy (if that's how someone sees him). I wouldn't have wanted Giles or Oz to tell her either. And, like I said before, I don't see how it would've been more okay for someone else to do what Xander did, especially since I think Xander made the right call.

I love Angel. He is one of my favorite characters on either show, and has been for a long time. But, I gotta say, I usually feel more for Xander in any Angel vs. Xander debate. Because, as much as I loved Angel, he could be a dick sometimes (which was really highlighted on his own show). Xander could too, of course but I expect more maturity from a 250 year-old guy than a teen-aged human without even a tenth of the life experience. I also tend to think Xander's feelings and actions were usually justified. Unfortunately, because he did have feelings for Buffy, it's too easy for some viewers to write off those justifiable feelings as him being "just jealous."

I'm of the opinion that anything can work. Really, anything. Any character, no matter what they have done, can be redeemed. Any storyline, no matter how ridiculous it looks on paper, can work. There have been so many shows that made me like (or downright love) characters who had done awful things, or made me buy story arcs I never thought would work in a million years. Really, there was a character I totally despised, and didn't think I could ever not hate. Yet, somehow, that show (which was very good, so that had something to do with it) had me cheering for the guy a few seasons later. And I never hated Spike as much as I hated that guy. So while many people have made some good anti-Spuffy arguments (about why Buffy shouldn't go near Spike, etc.), none of that would have stopped me from liking Spuffy if it had been handled well. It just wasn't. In fact, while I was against the pairing in season 5, I was open to the show changing my mind about it when it looked like they were going that way. But the way they ended up doing it, both in seasons six and seven, turned me off in every way. And not in the "it's so wrong but so hot" kind of way either. I just found the whole 'ship (to put it nicely) unpleasant, even when it was supposed to be sweet.

I was basing my example on stuff Chloe actually did on the show. Accessing Oliver's email account is the first example that comes to mind, although the show sort of played that for laughs. I can see Chloe seeing someone do that kind of thing for selfish revenge (as Lana was) as bad and shutting it down. But I can totally see her doing it herself if she thought she had a good reason. (Like protecting people.) But that's one of those "slippery slope" things, which is why I could buy Chloe going dark in relation to something like that. We also saw her willingness to manipulate people for the greater good but, again, doing that kind of thing can also be a slippery slope. Thing is, I completely believe they intended to have Chloe working very happily with Lionel in season three, and the way she was acting at the end of season two was how she was going to be going forward. But the outcry of many, many fans seemed to make them change their minds. I was cool with the explanation that Chloe accepted Lionel's offer in the heat of the moment and then changed her mind, but the way she was acting at the end of season two still feels out of character to me. I kind of disagree. I can buy that characters have reasons for the things they do, and that other characters can shoulder some of the blame. But, ultimately, what a character ends up doing is totally on them. So while Clark and Lana handled things terribly, and I can go on for days about what asses they were, at the end of the day Chloe was responsible for her own actions and what she chose to do. Interestingly, a lot of my favorite characters (like Chloe ended up being) have made huge mistakes at some point because of some flaw they have. I think those flaws (and the fact that they try to overcome them to become better people) is what makes me like them so much.

There's a difference between trying to figure out what someone you know is trying to hide from you, and gleefully doing something that you know will cause them harm. By the end of season two, Chloe was pretty much going "mwa-ha-ha" as she decided to sell Clark out to Lionel. And that just was not in character for her in my opinion. I actually think that, later, she went darker in ways that made much more sense. Like how she started "monitoring" everyone, including her friends, which gelled with her need to know. And how she became more and more okay with crossing lines and manipulating people if she thought it was for a good cause. Back in season 2, I could see her being so gung-ho about doing something that she didn't consider the possible consequences, or who might get hurt in the process. But even when I didn't consider myself a Chloe fan, I couldn't buy her actively trying to hurt anyone, just for the sake of hurting them, the way they were setting her up to hurt Clark.

There are lots of different ways for a character to go dark. And, to a lot of fans, the way the show tried to make Chloe dark in season two just seemed out of character for her. The show was trying to do this "woman scorned" thing where Chloe's spurned love for Clark was enough to turn her into some two-faced bitch who would smile in Clark's face while happily stabbing him in the back. And I was much more likely to buy Chloe just cutting Clark out of her life or something like that than her gleefully selling him out to Lionel, knowing it could cause him harm. And Chloe had a lot of fans who liked her largely because, while flawed, she was a loyal friend and a good person. And no one who likes a character for those reasons is going to want to see them become a disloyal, two-faced backstabber. Which you'd think the showrunners would've known before they tried to change her in that way.

Wasn't saying you had to. Your comments just made me remember some thoughts and discussions I had during the season. Someone would criticize something Chloe or Davis did, but couldn't really come up with what they should've done instead. And, like I said, I kind of liked the fact that both characters usually had nothing but bad options, and were left to try to pick the one that was the least bad. As for not sympathizing with either character, that's a subjective thing. There have been plenty of character that I knew, intellectually, I was supposed to be sympathizing with but didn't for whatever reason. So I wasn't trying to tell anybody else how to feel, just explaining why I saw things differently.

Yes, and I remember one of the PTB's actually saying this. That the Slayer line no longer ran through Buffy, which was exactly why no new Slayer was called when Buffy died in "The Gift." A new Slayer would only be called if Faith died. That being said, I don't think Buffy, Kendra or Faith was more the "true Slayer" than the others. They were all Slayers with the powers that went with the title. The only difference was which one had to die in order for a new Slayer to be called. But I do think Buffy's friends thought of her as the Slayer because she was their friend, who they looked up to and had seen do all of these heroic things. Technicalities like who the Slayer line now ran through weren't going to change that. And the writers kept treating her like the Chosen One because she was their lead and main hero, and I think they were just used to writing with that mindset.

I wonder if season 9 would've been different (and maybe better) if Sam Witwer had played Zod as originally intended. Was the storyline they were going to do with SW-as-Zod drastically different? Or would the storyline have been more or less the same, just with SW playing Zod? If nothing else, you'd think they'd have the characters dealing with the fact that Zod looked just like Davis.

Oh, I can make a list of all the ways having lots of Slayers is a good thing. What didn't sit right with me was the message that Buffy was so much freer, and could start to live a more normal life...now that she had spread her burden (which is how she always saw it) to lots of other unsuspecting girls who had no choice in the matter. And even if there being lots of Slayers meant they all had it easier, I'm sure that a lot of those girls, who would never have been Chosen without the spell, would not have wanted to be activated if they'd had any say in the matter, which they didn't. Thinking of stuff like that just makes it hard to buy the whole "Buffy gets to ride happily into the sunset" vibe the finale was trying to sell. And it kind of went against the message that I hoped the show was ultimately going for. That being the Slayer was hard, but Buffy would find a way to be the Slayer and live a happy life. But no. The only way for Buffy to have a shot at happiness was to pass a big chunk of her Slayer burden on to others.

That's not how I saw it. My problem with it was much more down-to-earth. Buffy treated being a Slayer like it was a burden pretty much always. There were times when she was more gung-ho about being the Slayer but, even then, it was more, "Well, since I'm the Slayer, I might as well try to be a good one," than, "Wow, being a Slayer is great and I wouldn't change it for the world!" And the sense that being a Slayer was a burden was at its worst in season 7. The fact that Buffy was now free to do more "normal" stuff because their were other Slayers was great for her and all. But it's hard not to see that a lot of her new-found freedom came from giving something to other girls that she herself saw as a burden that, on many occasions, she desperately wanted to escape. And I have no doubt that (just like Buffy) their were Potentials who wanted nothing more than to live normal lives. But the spell pretty much took that away from them.

I also think Faith is a bad girl cliche in seasons 3 or 4 of Buffy. But, to me, she didn't even stand out as being particularly fun to have around. She was there. I didn't hate her, and some interesting things happened because of her character. But she wasn't a favorite. But once she went over to Angel, Faith really blossomed for me as a character. After that, I became a fan.