[Season Eight: Doomsday Cometh - Failsday Stayeth.]

Lost all sympathy for him when he started covering up killing people

 

When this topic comes up, I always wonder what people expected Davis to do instead. I mean, he tried to kill himself so he wouldn't be a danger to anyone else, but that didn't work. He knew he was going to Doom out and kill people no matter what. And he only had two options really. Try to fight the urge to kill, totally lose control, on go on bloody killing sprees in which he killed dozens of innocent people, or satisfy his urge to kill by targeting people he considered bad.

 

As for hiding bodies, what else was he supposed to do? Leave them exposed so someone could figure out he was the killer, at which point the police would try to arrest him, and he'd Doom out and kill them all in a bloody massacre?

 

Strange as it sounds, what I liked about the storyline was seeing someone try to deal when all of his options pretty much sucked.

 

just wanted to knock some sense into Chloe,

 

My thoughts are pretty much the same when it comes to Chloe. I've seen a lot of disapproval when it comes to what she did in season 8, but I've never seen really satisfactory answers about what she was supposed to do instead.

 

To me, Chloe was doing the best she could in a situation where all of the options sucked, pretty much like Davis was. There were things she could've done that might have seemed more "acceptable" to some, but the actual consequences would've been disastrous.

[Lois Lane: Future Star Reporter? Maybe for a Tabloid!]

She was blunt and sarcastic and headstrong, shrill and buzzing-gnat-esque annoying...that's how I remember Lois being in the comics, just on a lesser note.

 

My problem wasn't with SV!Lois having negative traits because, as you pointed out, other versions of the character had them, too. Lois from Lois & Clark, for example, could be just as headstrong, sarcastic, rude, etc. But, to me, that worked for L&C's version of Lois in a way it just didn't on Smallville.

 

Was she perfect? No! But no one on Smallville was perfect.

 

Perfection isn't what makes me like a character, and a character having flaws isn't what keeps them from working for me. In fact, some of my favorite characters are deeply flawed. So Lois not being perfect wasn't a problem. It was just that something about the way character as written on SV! just didn't work for me.

 

I never subscribed to the Chlois theory, to be honest.

 

Neither did I. But I actually think a lot of that theory came from Chloe fans who were afraid that, since she wasn't a canon character, she was more likely to be killed off at some point. But if she was somehow Lois, the writers couldn't kill her off.

 

But while I never thought Chloe was Lois, I did buy her more as the dedicated journalist Lois is in the comics. With SV!Lois, I just didn't buy it, even when they were suddenly telling me she was, and trying to retcon how she actually became a reporter.

 

It really surprised me that there were that many Lois-haters when I got involved in the fandom and that they were so vehement about it. I mean, Erica was only meant to have a 4 episode arc, but was brought on as a regular because they'd gotten so much positive feedback.

 

That actually happened with SV a few times. Kara/Supergirl being the perfect example. At first viewers loved her, wanted her on the show more, and were even hoping she'd get a spinoff. But SV ended up making her so boring that interest in the character even being on SV (let alone getting her own show) pretty much faded.

 

That happened with me with Lois. At first, I actually thought she was great. But the longer she was on the show, the more that "she's great" feeling faded.

[Lois Lane: Future Star Reporter? Maybe for a Tabloid!]

And I didn't think that was a bad thing. Honesty - as opposed to bitch-iness - can be fun if you're not on the receiving end of it, and since I never thought we were supposed to take either character particularly seriously, I mostly just sat back and enjoyed the awkwardness.

 

The problem for me was that the audience was supposed to find Lois being rude and tactless highly amusing. But, to me, it just wasn't.

 

Anya was hilarious. So even as I winced over whatever came out of her mouth, I was usually laughing too. And I think they reached a point where Anya being so clueless stopped making sense. But it was still funny. 

 

Same with Cordelia. Yes, she was bitchy and even downright mean sometimes. But the stuff she said was so funny that I often found myself laughing in spite of myself.

 

Lois's antics were not funny. So, since the stuff she said and did wasn't making me laugh, I tended to focus on the fact that she was being rude, or obnoxious, or a moron.

 

I'd also add that I don't think Lois's rude and tactless behavior was supposed to be about cluelessness, which implies that she just didn't know she was being rude or tactless. Lois knew. But because she was so brash and aggressive (which are traits many version of the character have), she just didn't care if others thought she was being rude, pushy, impolite, etc.

 

 

[S03.E02: Dead Man's Party]

Gee, his "I'm sorry your honey was a vampire" crack was just the epitome of support.

 

He said that when everyone was already upset and venting about Buffy running away, which is a totally different context than if Buffy had stuck around, and her friend were able to offer their support.

[S03.E02: Dead Man's Party]

One thing I hated about Buffy in this episode, was her saying to Xander that she couldn't go to him after running a sword through Angel.  That's a slap to the face of Xander's friendship.  Yeah he's let his feelings about Angel be known, but he's also always been there for Buffy.  He wouldn't have been celebrating that Buffy did that, he would have been supportive.

 

See I can understand her not going to Xander, he was the number one cheerleader for her to go kill Angel,

 

That doesn't mean he wouldn't have felt bad for Buffy because of what she had to do, or what she was going through as a result. Not being Angel's biggest fan (especially after he lost his soul) doesn't mean Xander wouldn't have got that Buffy, his friend, was hurting and tried to be there to support her.

 

I think part of what upset everyone was Buffy didn't give them a chance to be there for them. She just seemed to assume that none of them could possibly be equipped to help her, or to be there for her to lean on. And that would definitely feel like a slap.

[S02.E22: Becoming, Part 2]

My problem with Xander saying the lie is that like everything else he says about Angel was that it came across as a jealous teenager getting another chance to say something spiteful. Xander is completely biased against Angel so I really can't think his "lie" was some way to make sure Buffy stayed focused on killing Angel.

If Oz, Cordelia, Giles, or Willow said the "lie" I could genuinely think they were saying it to make sure she stayed focus but Xander doing it came off like everything he's ever said about Angel(even when Angel was helping the Scoobies)as just spiteful and a way to see Angel dead.

 

Xander disliking Angel personally and Xander genuinely worrying that telling Buffy about the spell would be a bad thing are not mutually exclusive concepts. Do I think Xander disliked Angel? Yes. But do I also think he genuinely decided telling Buffy about the spell could be a disaster? Also yes.

 

I guess if I really disliked Xander, I would've automatically seen his actions as being totally about spite. But, while not a huge Xander fan, I didn't loathe him either. So I guess I was able to see his actions more objectively, and to put myself in his shoes and think about what I would do in his place.

 

I guess I don't care who was there (Xander, Oz, Giles, Cordy, etc.). I think not telling Buffy about the spell was the right call. And Xander was the one in the position to make that call. The idea that it would've been okay for any other character but Xander to do what Xander did just doesn't compute with me.

[S02.E22: Becoming, Part 2]

I wouldn't mind it if Xander had said kick his ass and not attributed it to Willow because that was Xander's perfectly reasonable response.

 

I doubt that, in the heat of the moment, that even crossed Xander's mind. I think he was focused on the whole "hell on earth" thing, and the possible consequences of telling Buffy about the spell. By comparison, whether or not Buffy thought Willow was the one who said those words probably didn't rank as all that important. To which I totally agree. To me, more important things were going on than making sure Buffy knew exactly who said what. I know that wouldn't have been my big concern in that situation.

 

It's just one more thing that would push Buffy into thinking she needed to leave town because obviously Willow wanted him dead too and wouldn't understand Buffy's turmoil at having to kill re-ensouled Angel.

 

And I really don't think Buffy left town because of how she thought Willow might feel about Angel. Really, I'd be shocked if Buffy thought of Willow at all beyond maybe the fact that she wouldn't be seeing her anymore. (Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Buffy wasn't even thinking of things like that when she left.) And I sure don't think that Buffy wouldn't have left if only Xander had been more clear about who said "kick his ass."

[S02.E22: Becoming, Part 2]

Xander being a dick. "Kick his ass?" Argh. Shut your face, Harris. :p

 

I never had a problem with what Xander did because I would've done the exact same thing in his shoes. And without hesitation.

 

It's all well and good to speculate about what Buffy might have done if she'd known about the spell. But it's also totally logical and reasonable to think that knowing about the spell would've affected Buffy in exactly the wrong way in a situation where any doubt or uncertainty on her part, even if it only lasted for a second, could've been a disaster.

 

What Buffy SHOULD have done when she found out about the spell was call out Xander about it and cut ties with him right then and there.

 

I never really got this belief that Buffy finding out would end their friendship. The worst I expected from Buffy was for her to be pissed for a while but, after giving it some thought, to understand why someone might have thought telling her about the spell at that time would've been a bad idea.

 

Of course, if we are making assumptions based on little but guesswork, I can then make the assumption that Xander telling Buffy would have led to her losing her resolve to kill Angel and to the not so insignificant result of the world ending.

 

Exactly. There is absolutely no way of knowing what would've happened if she went into the fight knowing about the spell. And, like I said above, it just made sense for someone in Xander's shoes to have doubts.  Given how high the stakes were (the "everyone getting sucked into hell" thing) I think even the tiniest doubt made not telling her totally justified.

[Unpopular Opinions]

Not having a soul means not being able to express empathy or to understand feelings. 

 

I never thought that having no soul meant having no emotion. Especially since we saw vampires other than Spike show very human emotions, including love.

 

Instead, having no soul seemed to mean having no conscience (which isn't the same). The conscience is what keeps us from acting on every desire, impulse, and instinct we have. It also tries to keep us from doing things that we know are bad, and makes us feel guilty if we do something we know is wrong. That's what vampires lack.

 

I'm not sure they ever considered why exactly he was capable of emotions like love when Angelus wasn't,

 

Again, Spike wasn't special when it came to being able to experience love.

 

And I don't hold Angelus up as an example of what most other vampires were like (so Spike not being like him meant Spike was special somehow). If anything, Angelus seemed to be an exception in his own right, even more heartless and cruel than most vampires. I remember Darla looking kind of freaked over something Angelus did, like they were trying to show that, even for a vampire, Angelus was out there evil-wise.

 

If Spike was capable of reforming (which, please) then some other vampire with an IQ above that of an inanimate object should also have been capable of reforming. Full stop. If they had ever explained why he was so diffferent that he could choose to seek out his soul, I wouldn't still be harping on it after all this time, but they didn't. And its not good enough to say "a wizard did it" in this case, IMO. Not when it destroys the entire concept of Buffy-as-hero.

 

Again, I don't think Spike going to get a soul showed he was reformed. He did it for selfish reasons, and as a result of some very special and unique circumstances.

 

But let's say Spike did go to get a soul for the right reasons, which meant vampires were capable of reforming. When would this reforming takes place? After they'd killed a few dozen innocent people? And how many vamps would end up reforming? Probably not a lot (if any) since we saw plenty of vamps who'd been killing for decades or centuries and, since they were still killing, obviously hadn't reformed yet.

 

Basically, I don't think Buffy dusting vamps is wrong because the alternative is leaving all vampires free to kill people on the off chance that a small handful of them might, after years/decades/centuries of slaughtering innocents, undergo a change of heart.

[Unpopular Opinions]

Buffy did, in fact, go out seeking demons to kill-that's what patrolling was, and she was shown doing it in nearly every episode. She often would camp out at the graves of the recently deceased and stake them as soon as they rose, before they ever had a chance to harm anyone. 

 

In my mind, I tend to separate demons from vamps. And I had no problem with her killing newly risen vamps because newly risen vamps kill people. Never did they show a vamp rise from the grave and decide that, despite their raging bloodlust, they just didn't have the heart to hurt anybody. And should Buffy wait until a vamp has killed a few innocent people before stopping them? I don't think so.

 

Spike did not try to get back together with Buffy after returning with his soul;

 

Because he had a soul. I think having a soul made him feel unworthy of Buffy in a way he really couldn't while soulless and incapable of really getting why his past actions might make him a less than ideal catch.

 

The writers made a distinction between Spike and other vampires from his very first episode-namely, that the way he and Drusilla loved each other was unusual for vampires.

 

Only they later showed other vampires who were just as capable of love. So it turned out Spike and Dru really weren't all that unique, they were just the first time we saw vampy love in action.

 

They had The Judge tell him that he reeked of humanity.

 

The Judge said Spike and Dru reeked of humanity while Angelus didn't, which I thought showed that Angelus was the exception, and was therefore scarier than the average vamp.

 

They had him strike up a deal with a slayer to save the world, even if for selfish reasons.

 

Exactly. It was for selfish reasons. And, since then, both BtVS and Angel showed other vamps who would have been just as against what Angelus was doing for the same reasons.

[Unpopular Opinions]

And, of course, once you reject the "simplistic" notion that soulless vampire = pure evil, then you turn Buffy into a specieist serial killer herself...

 

I don't reject the notion that soulless vampire = pure evil. Or I should say that being soulless made them incapable of really getting that killing innocent people is bad. And since their biggest urge was to kill innocent people, there was nothing stopping the average vamp from doing just that.

 

I don't consider Spike (an exception, but not really much of one) any kind of proof that Buffy should stop killing vampires on the off chance that, after killing however many innocent people, some of them might reform someday. Because we never actually saw that happen. Not even with Spike.

 

As for other demons, it wasn't like Buffy went out every night to hunt down and kill any demon she found, not caring whether or not they were actually harming anyone. In fact, unless a demon was actively harming people, Buffy never knew they existed.

 

Spike choosing to do good and seek out his own soul versus Angel having to be cursed with his

 

Spike didn't go and get a soul because he thought it was the right thing to do, or he suddenly decided he wanted to be a better person. He did it because, after what he did in "Seeing Red," he saw it has his absolute last chance to get something he wanted (Buffy). Doing something good for a selfish reason is not redemption.

 

Not once wondering how the hell Spike managed to "reform" and if other vampires are capable of it

 

I don't think Spike really did "reform" before getting a soul. (Which is why I don't think he's any kind of proof that vampires are capable of becoming good people, so Buffy is somehow wrong to slay them.) Spike showed that vamps are capable of  controlling themselves if it suits their purposes. But that's not the same thing. 

 

Spike put a leash on himself (with the help of the chip), but it wasn't because he suddenly felt bad for all the pain and suffering he'd caused in the past, or he actually thought killing random people was bad, or he actually cared about helping anyone outside of the tiny group of people he'd decided to care about. And I think all of those are requirements when it comes to truly reforming.  

[Unpopular Opinions]

Ooh, scary cheerleader!

 

I actually get a kick out of actors I've usually seen in one type of role playing something completely different. Especially if they do the "different" role convincingly.

 

As for Glory, I completely agree with all the criticisms about her character. (About her personality making no sense, her scenes getting repetitive, etc.) But I still liked her. I don't think she's the best villain the show ever had, but I thought she was entertaining for the most part.

 

That's kind of how I felt about season 5 as a whole. It wasn't the best season the show ever did, and it definitely had it's flaws. But, overall, I still liked it.

[Unpopular Opinions]

- I loved Season 6's Mopey Buffy. It made sense to me.

 

Just because something makes sense or is realistic doesn't mean it will be a good or engaging story. For me, Buffy going through a depression wasn't the problem, because I've liked similar storylines on other shows. The problem was the way this storyline was handled. Intellectually I could see what was going on with her, and how it would make sense. But I just didn't feel emotionally invested in what was going on. And if I'm not feeling emotionally invested, a storyline that's pretty much about emotions isn't going to work for me.

[Unpopular Opinions]

Maybe Buffy thought she had to be the strong one because she was the slayer and Riley was not that strong as Buffy.

 

Neither were her other, very human friends, be she didn't treat them like helpless kittens who needed to be kept away from danger. But I got where Buffy was coming from. When Riley lost his power up, all she was thinking was that he was more vulnerable than he'd been before and overreacted. Which seemed to make her forget that, even without a power up, Riley was a highly trained soldier who could protect and defend himself better than most people. Including the very human friends she took into danger with her on a regular basis. 

 

No one (especially someone who's actually very capable) likes being treated like they're weak. And, with Riley, it just added to his fears that Buffy would decide he was just too normal for her and dump him.

 

 

Wasn't another of Riley's issues was that Buffy was stronger than him?

 

 

No. That was the way some viewers interpreted it. (He just can't handle his girlfriend being stronger than him.) But, thing is, Buffy was always stronger than him. Which he knew even before their relationship started getting serious. So why wait until season 5 to have a big problem with it?

 

No, Riley's problem was that he thought Buffy (Slayer powers and all) was awesome. And there was a part of him that started thinking, "What could someone so awesome see in someone as ordinary as me?" And, under the right (or wrong) circumstances, doubts like that can start eating away at a person until they spiral out of control. Which is what happened.

 

I've never said that Riley was completely blameless, or that he picked a good time to have an emotional crisis. (Although I don't think that's something a person can really control.) But I got where he was coming from.

 

[Unpopular Opinions]

I think "Dead Man's Party" is a well-done episode, and everyone acts in character and has an understandable viewpoint. It isn't pleasant to watch, but it's one of the times I feel the characters all have a valid reason to be at each other's throats.

 

Totally agree. The other characters had the right to feel however they felt, and to tell Buffy so. The party wasn't the best place to let everything come spilling out, but you can't always control stuff like that when emotions are high. And while they didn't handle things perfectly, Buffy wasn't handling things any better.

 

I didn't mind Riley too much in Season 4, but he transforms into an awful mess of a human being in S5. Buffy running after that ultimatum-giving, entitled, hypocritical vamp-suck addict was just as, if not more, degrading to her character as Spuffy sex.

 

 

Have to disagree here. I think the Buffy/Spike thing in season 6 was degrading on levels I'd rarely seen on a network television show. Or even in movies that were about degrading relationships.

 

And I know a lot of people thought Buffy chasing after Riley was an anti-girl power moment but, to me, it was just practical. I think Buffy was right to be pissed about the vamp ho thing. And it was unfair that she had to make a decision right then. But being "in the right" wasn't going to do her much good when her anger cooled, and she was miserable because she wanted to try to work things out, but Riley was long gone and there was no way to contact him. I'm all for girl power, but not if it means permanently (for all intents and purposes) losing someone you care about.  

 

Now if she'd managed to stop him, I was fine with with her busting his chops for giving her an ultimatum, on top of busting his chops for the vamp ho business.

 

The guy was getting his blood sucked by vampires because you were dealing with your dying mother, my god.

 

Riley's problem wasn't that Buffy was paying attention to her sick mother instead of him. It was that he wanted to be there for her but Buffy (being in "I have to be strong" mode) wouldn't let him. And he thought this was confirmation that she didn't really need him (just like he already thought) instead of Buffy just being Buffy.

 

This probably wouldn't have been a big issue if Riley wasn't already just waiting for Buffy to decide he was too boring and normal for her and dump him. Which I think he'd been feeling for a while but got worse when he lost the power up that gave him what little bit of specialness he did have. 

 

In fact, I think that's a big part of what the vamp ho thing was about. Riley proving to himself that he could be dark and edgy, and not-boring.

 

[Buffy vs Other Genre Shows]

In terms of quality though, I don't think they compare.

 

I definitely think BtVS is the better show, but that doesn't mean there weren't things about Smallville that I could enjoy. There were also things I think they did pretty well.

 

For example, Lex. There was a time when I could enjoy a good, mustache-twirling Lex Luthor, and just have fun watching him do bad things just because (sort of like I did with Angelus). But now, thanks to SV's Lex, I can't completely enjoy other versions of the character unless they have layers and dimensions and actual, understandable reasons (beyond wanting power, or money, or whatever) for the things they do.

 

So while SV wasn't as good as BtVS, it did have some good stuff going on.

 

Including the last 2 seasons, which, IMO, were still worth watching and better than almost all of Smallville, barring a few good episodes.

 

I wouldn't say that. Mostly because I really, really don't care for BtVS season 7, and have a hard time thinking it's better than anything. In fact, there's plenty of stuff on SV that I'll take over most of BtVS 7. And a lot of season 6.

 

Still, while I didn't care for the last two seasons, I think anyone who hasn't given Buffy a chance is depriving themselves, and should start watching immediately.

[Buffy vs Other Genre Shows]

Smallville season one was very much like Buffy's first season. 

 

Not just season one, either. They often did things in later seasons that seemed to be inspired by BtVS. The example that instantly springs to mind is Clark running away from home at the end of the season 2 finale, after suffering various emotional traumas. And the season 3 premiere showed him living in a big city (Metropolis) under an assumed name. The storyline was totally different in other ways, so it wasn't like SV did an exact copy of the BtVS storyline. But there was no way the SV writers weren't inspired by BtVS with that one. 

 

I always liked Buffy better, because even in the show's darker moments, it had a sense of humor about it,

 

The Smallville PTB always seemed to think that, because the show was based on a comic book super hero, and a lot of people think comic books are "kid stuff," the show wouldn't be taken seriously if they did too much humor. Which is a shame because, when they did do humor, they often did it pretty well.

 

That being said, I did like a lot of the dark stuff they did. Like "Memoria," which is one of my favorite episodes.

 

And you're so right about Clark coming off as a douchebag but then inevitably he was right and everyone apologised.. ugh,.

 

I actually liked Clark a lot in the early seasons. But, as the show went on, he became less and less likeable.

[Oliver Queen/Green Arrow: Taking His Fun Where He Can Find It.]

What irked me was how the show made him a fucking bully who went to the same boarding school with Lex, to make Lex look "better" and Ollie, as a douche. Did.Not.Like.  Because I actually like the character of Oliver Queen.

 

It was such a mixed bag of woobie though.  By the end of the episode Lex is the monster, betraying his true friend.  It wasn't really worth dragging Oliver down just so they could temporarily prop up Lex, ah, but what did I expect?

 

I didn't think showing that Oliver had bullied Lex was done to make Lex look good. By this point of the show, the writers seemed to be pushing the "Lex always had darkness in him" idea, usually in the most ridiculous ways. In this case, the message seemed to be, "Yes, Lex was mercilessly bullied. And the fact that he eventually snapped shows he had inner darkness. Because why else would a victim of constant bullying lose it?" Which was crap, but that seemed to be what they were going for.

 

As for Oliver, I have no problem with an adaptation adding new things to an existing character. I'm also okay with a character changing drastically (and positively) between childhood and adulthood, because I've seen it happen in real life. Plus, some of my favorite characters were once terrible people who did awful things before changing for the better. Which Oliver had done.

 

Of course, SV could've handled the whole thing better. But I can say that about a lot of the stuff they did.

[Unpopular Opinions]

3. I liked Wes and I was annoyed at the disrespectful way Buffy and Faith treated him in season 3.

 

I wasn't a fan of the character until probably season 3 of Angel. I thought he was a pompous twit. More of a caricature of the snooty Englishman than a three dimensional character.

 

I didn't really like Wesley in season 3, but I hated the way the others treated him. Not because it made me feel bad for Wesley because I don't think it really did. But because while I don't think you have to like someone you find annoying (like Wesley was), you don't have to act like a jackass towards them either. And the delight some of them took in being disrespectful towards Wesley just made them look like assholes. And made Giles look particularly petty.

 

I know, we're supposed to think that Quentin Travers is just a plain old jerk, but I think the Cruiciamentum worked as designed. Not only did it give a competent Slayer even more confidence that her talent was in herself, not in her powers (even with everything that went wrong, Buffy still triumphed;)

 

To me, the Cruciamentum doesn't have much benefit to the Slayer, or make her any better able to do her job. It doesn't even make much sense for the Watchers to do it.

 

Sure, being able to survive without her powers (if she actually survives the Cruciamentum, that is) might make her feel good. But it doesn't seem like that knowledge would help much when she had powers (as they do most of the time). And if a Slayer does lose her powers some other way, she will have to use her ingenuity and inner strength to survive, and the Cruciamentum shows that she had those things. But those are things she would have even if she never underwent the Cruciamentum. All the ritual does is give the Slayer the chance to die under circumstances (losing her powers, being totally without help) that might never have happened "naturally" in her entire Slaying career.

 

The ritual makes no sense for the Watchers because, if a Slayer reaches 18, that means she's pretty good at her job. By stripping her of her powers and putting her in a dangerous situation, they risk losing an experienced, proven Slayer. And if she doesn't survive the Cruciamentum (because the most ingenious, self-sufficient person in the world can have a bad day) they will have to start all over again with a totally new, totally green Slayer who might suck at the job. So the Watchers were doing something kind of stupid and counterproductive for the sake of tradition. Which made sense given how hidebound they seemed to be. But I was fine with Giles's feelings for Buffy making him question the Cruciamentum. 

[Buffy vs Other Genre Shows]

I also find lots of similarities between Buffy and Smallville. Main character who is stronger than everyone else learning to live with their new identities which are mostly secret.

 

Smallville also had it's own Hellmouth, in a way. The meteor rocks that covered the town mutated people/animals into the show's version of "demons." 

 

Given some things the producers and writers have said, SV was pretty heavily influenced by BtVS from the start. While the show was certainly going to show Clark Kent fighting evil, it was going to focus more on the characters and relationships, and Clark dealing with having special powers and a destiny, but just wanting to lead a normal, teen-aged life. The problem was they didn't do this stuff as well as BtVS. Not because the writers couldn't but because, half the time, it seemed like they didn't want to put more effort into things than absolutely necessary. 

 

I think part of the problem was that, unlike BtVS, Smallville had decades of Superman lore to fall back on, and they seemed to rely on that to do a lot of the work for them. For example, they rarely tried to show that Clark had these awesome qualities that would make him the greatest hero ever. After all, everyone knew he was going to be Superman one day, so we should just assume Clark had those qualities. Only what actually happened was a lot of viewers stopped believing SV's Clark had what it took to ever become Superman.

 

However I do think that, in later seasons, BtVS started doing something SV did for most of it's run. On SV, it felt like Clark was always right (even when my own common sense said he wasn't) because he was going to be Superman. Anything he did was okay because he was going to be Superman. (But someone else doing the same thing was bad.) People were supposed to blindly trust him because he was going to be Superman. (And anyone who didn't blindly trust him was obviously in the wrong.)

 

I sometimes got the same vibe late in BtVS's run, only replace "because he's going to be Superman" with "because she's the Slayer" or "because she's Buffy."

 

[Season Five: Don't Fear the Reaper]

I agree, I loved their friendship, but Tom and Allison had such great chemistry and I wanted Chloe to win for once, even if it wouldn't last.

 

I also hate how the Vessel kiss was taken away...poor storytelling not having Chloe and Clark be in an actual relationship. For however long. 

 

I guess that, for me, it wasn't about Chloe winning, it was about her being happy. And I think part of the reason I wasn't gung-ho for Chlark is I knew that they wouldn't be together five minutes before the writers had him pining for Lana. Which Chloe, being perceptive, would know and be miserable over. 

 

And while Clark might've stayed with Chloe (because it was the right thing or something), the writers would've had a ball giving Clark lots of angst. (Sad angst because he wasn't with the one he really wanted. Guilty angst about wanting to be with someone else.) And of course he and Lana would trade moony looks of pining when they thought Chloe wasn't looking. Only the writers loved to give AM a chance to play teary and heart-broken, so they'd make sure she saw.

 

Really, I can see it all so clearly. And just imagining it annoys the crap out of me.

[Lois Lane: Future Star Reporter? Maybe for a Tabloid!]

Hated, loathed, Despised Erica Dance's "Lois", because she was SO NOT Lois Lane.

 

She grated, was obnoxious, and worst of all, a moron.

 

It was like she was a parody of Lois Lane. They started by giving her all of Lois's bad qualities (because Lois can be rude and overbearing sometimes) but left out the good ones (her drive, her determination, her need to earn the right to be called the best). And they tossed in some extra annoying qualities besides.

 

I sometimes got the feeling Lois was supposed to be SV's version of Cordelia Chase, the person who's rude, tactless and clueless, and says all of these insulting things to people that you find yourself laughing at almost in spite of yourself.

 

The problem is that the SV folks couldn't write the kinds of awesome lines Cordelia had. And Charisma Carpenter hit those lines out of the park, which I can't really say for ED. (Although that could also be blamed on the writing.) So, because I didn't think Lois's "rude and tactless" routine was funny, I just thought she was obnoxious.

[All Episodes Discussion: Use Your Words,Please]

I honestly thought the show couldn't mess the Davis Bloome storyline up.  It seemed so clear that the unexpected twist should have been saving the man from that monster but instead they gave me the most rage inducing ending ever. 

 

What annoys me is that there's no way they didn't think of other ways to resolve Davis's storyline. (I did. I'm sure other viewers did too.) Yet they chose the worst option on the list. It was like they said, "We spent all season making this guy a three-dimensional character. But screw that! We're resolving his storyline by turning him into a two-dimensional psycho."

 

I can just imagine the writers when they decided this was the way to end it. "It'll be so shocking!" And it was, because it sucked, and I didn't think even the SV writers could screw up the resolution that badly.

[Damon Salvatore: He'll Kill You With His Smolder]

I don't agree that most TVD vamps don't go around killing people, because they do, and/or are prepared to if it so fits there agenda.

 

I didn't say most, I said many. My point was that there have been enough TVD vamps who don't go around killing people willy nilly for it not to be considered an aberration.

 

I do agree that being vamped makes them more ruthless. But being ruthless isn't the same as going on killing sprees when you get miffed. In fact, many of the vamps we've seen actually consider killing humans not right, rather than them just wanting to keep a low profile.

 

Now, let's take Anna. Anna could definitely be ruthless in pursuit of her goals. (Getting her mother back.) At the same time, I never saw any indication that she was interested in killing random people for kicks.

 

And take Pearl. Some could say she had plenty of reason to go on a bloody killing spree. She just wasn't interested.

 

Really, the point I was making was that Damon is no more "normal" a vampire than anyone else. Vamps are individuals and we've been shown that, just like with humans, different vamps have different beliefs, values, lines they won't cross, attitudes towards humans, etc.

 

But my real point was that it doesn't matter. Even if every vampire in the TVD universe did act exactly like Damon (thus proving he's somehow the model of "normal" vampire behavior) it wouldn't make the stuff he does okay, or somehow right. Which seems to be the argument. (Damon's just acting like a "real" vampire, so the stuff he does really isn't that bad.)

 

We have also been shown that werewolves seem to value humans as lesser beings also and are prepared for them to be collateral damage,

 

Doesn't matter. The fact that werewolves can be dicks when it comes to how they think of humans doesn't make the stuff Damon does less bad. 

 

and anyway, this show has demonstrated time and again, that humans are not to be under estimated, and are at times more than a match for vamps etc ie The council, Augustineexperiments and in TO, there are some powerful humans there too.

 

Same as above. There are definitely some nasty humans out there. Still doesn't make the crap Damon pulls more okay. It just means there are humans out there doing crappy things too.

 

It's like someone murdering only one or two people isn't somehow less bad because someone else killed three or four.

[Damon Salvatore: He'll Kill You With His Smolder]

For me the issue isn't that he kills people THAT is the vampire trait.

 

I just don't agree with this idea that Damon's just doing what vampires do, so it's somehow okay. Just because it's "in his nature" doesn't make the stuff he does less bad. I can accept that being a vampire gives him some violent tendencies. But humans have some pretty violent tendencies too. They're even natural. But if a guy gives in to an urge to shoot someone who annoys them, no judge is going to say, "Oh, it's okay. He was just doing what's in his nature."

 

And the thing is that many TVD vampires don't go around killing people. So it's obviously also in the vampire nature to be able to control themselves, and not give in to their more violent urges at the drop of a hat. Damon (and some others) just choose not to.

 

I look at it like this. It's in a zombies nature to eat brains. But while I accept that this is what zombies do, and they really can't help themselves, that doesn't make the killing and brain eating somehow okay. And zombies are mindless creatures who really don't know any better. Damon (who has the ability to think, reason, and control himself when the mood strikes him) doesn't have that excuse.

 

All that being said, the fact that Damon kills people isn't actually my problem with his character. As I've said before, I've liked characters who have done far worse.

 

My problem with Damon is that he doesn't really pay the consequences for his actions. He does all of this stuff and what it for, really? It doesn't advance or develop his character. (He's still pulling the same crap he did in earlier seasons.) The other characters don't really hold it against him for long. (Elena got over him trying to murder her brother pretty fast.) Then we get to hear him whine about how he's not a better person (right before he goes out and pulls more crap), or how Elena will never forgive him for whatever stunt he's pulled now (although she always does).

 

So, a lot of the time, it feels like Damon keeps doing bad things because a) it's "shocking," and b) it keep the viewers who like "bad boy/homicidal Damon" happy. And those are cheap reasons to have a character do anything.