Unpopular Opinions

Cobalt Stargazer · September 26, 2014

I liked their stuff, too. Not because I think they were predestined or anything, but it was just... hot. I loved their hate!sex, and how mean she was to him, I loved their occasional jokes to one another after the fact, and I do think that Spike was crazy about her, no matter what. You don't have to be *perfectly healthy* to have serial sex with somebody, most people aren't - so why would Buffy have to be?

She lived, ran, worked, and socialized in the darkest of worlds, why wouldn't she have a few unconventional sexual relationships? Maybe even simultaneously? I don't see how holding a superhero who works with and kills the undead every day, to our standards of normal, healthy relationships works at all, CoStar.

I say let the gal have her masochistic fun! :D

Don't mistake me, Willowy, it's not the kink I'm complaining about, and that's the kind of thing that aggravates me about Spuffy shippers, that they suggest that it's the BDSM overtones of the 'relationship' I can't handle. It's the fact that Buffy chose to explore that kink with someone who was basically Jeffrey Dahmer without a pulse that I give the side-eye to, especially when people talk about how "realistic" it was and how much sense it made. What's so ironic is that the same people, more or less, were also responsible for my beloved Weslah, and I remain bitter that unlike Spike's useless ass, Lilah died and stayed dead. As far as I'm concerned, Buffy could have explored whatever aspect of sex she pleased and I'd have been fine with it, as long as that someone didn't happen to be a remorseless, psychopathic monster. If you can show me where it wasn't ultimately ruinous for Buffy to be whatever she was supposed to be to Spike, I'll gladly listen, but IMO all it did was drag her down to his level. And that is emphatically not positive.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Cobalt Stargazer

ladyrott · September 26, 2014

I never thought Buffy deliberately made any kind of choice in being with Spike (not in the "I think I am going to start writing to serial killers" kind of way anyway). I always saw it as Buffy just kind of going along, depressed and feeling isolated and Spike was the guy who pursued her so she kind of went "why not" and slept with him. After the first time, it gave her something to feel other than despair so she continued on with it. It would have been interesting to see what she would have done if a "normal" guy had shown an interest in her while she was doing this depression sex thing with Spike.

Jack Shaftoe · September 26, 2014

Well, she did make the deliberate choice of not staking Spike many, many times and also chose to think that he was kind of trust-worthy which was extremely silly and immersion breaking in itself.

It's quite simple for me - I just can't imagine someone risking their life on a daily basis to save people without any monetary reward (or any half-decent person for that matter) ever being involved romantically with someone who has gleefully murdered thousands and would love to murder thousands more. This simply does not happen in the real world, period (feel free to call me hopelessly naive). So why make it happen in fiction? This isn't "exploring the character's darkness", this is a complete and utter rewriting of a character. Actually, make that two characters because I don't see why Spike would suddenly fall in love with Buffy either. Or why he would stick around people who at any time might wake up from their plot induced stupidity fit and decide to finally stake him.

CinnamonCat · September 26, 2014

So I can ask you this question, since as a non-shipper you'll probably give me an answer that has some logic to it. :-)

Ha! You're assuming things I generally say have some logic to them. That, my friend, is a common but huge mistake.

What exactly made sense to you about it on Buffy's part? The part where she was banging a serial killer who tried to kill her and her friends because she needed a way to cope with her depression? And yes, that is a real question.

I wouldn't say it was her way of coping with depression, but rather a manifestation of her self-disgust and an attempt to stop feeling numb. A lot of time will pass until she admits to herself she feels simultaneously superior and inferior to those around her, but I'd say that that plays a part too. More than anything, I think she wanted to escape, to forget her loss even for a little while. At the same time, she -- at least subconsciously -- knew that whomever she chose to put her forgettin' on with would wind up hurt. And she didn't really care if she hurt Spike. So he was convenient on all fronts.

I would also argue that she felt that they were both outcasts in some way, that both of them were caught between two worlds. That's, I think, why she goes to talk to him in the first couple of episodes.

Was I supposed to see Buffy as one of those women who have so few friends and so little self-esteem that they start writing to Death Row inmates?

I can't speak for the writers, but I'd like to point out that Buffy never went to Spike for love. Quite the opposite, actually. She never asked for his validation or support. She barely considered him a person.

If she had this "darkness" in her before the thing with Spike, why wasn't she having sex with Angelus?

I never said there was darkness; I said there was potential for it. Which grew with time. And, come on: the girl's vocation is killing, she's bound to be a little fucked up.

...Maybe I used the wrong word; what I meant is, a part of Buffy likes risk and danger and dancing with death. It probably comes with being the Slayer. But it's something Riley could never understand, and Angel and Spike could. Did.

As for having sex with Angelus: 1) the doubts and fears that drove her to Spike in S6 weren't a problem in S2, 2) while she had never met William Pratt (I think that's his "official" last name?), she has met Angel. (On another note, Buffy meeting Liam would be hilarious...)

So I'm seriously asking, what about Spuffy made sense to you?

I thought both characters' actions made sense -- not in a "yeah, that's what I would do as well" way but in a "well, if you asked me what would Buffy's worst self be like, this would be it: the Stepfording, the lashing out, the cutting everyone off."

The Spuffy season six arc was, to me, an unusually accurate depiction of a destructive relationship. They were horrible to each other and they were horrible to themselves. And eventually, they grew from it.

Edit: I know this is off-topic, but could you guys please tag spoilers for Angel? Thanks!

Edited September 26, 2014 by CinnamonCat

Cobalt Stargazer · September 27, 2014

I wouldn't say it was her way of coping with depression, but rather a manifestation of her self-disgust and an attempt to stop feeling numb. A lot of time will pass until she admits to herself she feels simultaneously superior and inferior to those around her, but I'd say that that plays a part too. More than anything, I think she wanted to escape, to forget her loss even for a little while. At the same time, she -- at least subconsciously -- knew that whomever she chose to put her forgettin' on with would wind up hurt. And she didn't really care if she hurt Spike. So he was convenient on all fronts.

I would also argue that she felt that they were both outcasts in some way, that both of them were caught between two worlds. That's, I think, why she goes to talk to him in the first couple of episodes.

I never said there was darkness; I said there was potential for it. Which grew with time. And, come on: the girl's vocation is killing, she's bound to be a little fucked up.

...Maybe I used the wrong word; what I meant is, a part of Buffy likes risk and danger and dancing with death. It probably comes with being the Slayer. But it's something Riley could never understand, and Angel and Spike could. Did.

I thought both characters' actions made sense -- not in a "yeah, that's what I would do as well" way but in a "well, if you asked me what would Buffy's worst self be like, this would be it: the Stepfording, the lashing out, the cutting everyone off."

The Spuffy season six arc was, to me, an unusually accurate depiction of a destructive relationship. They were horrible to each other and they were horrible to themselves. And eventually, they grew from it.

A) Buffy going to talk to Spike is not the same thing as fucking down the house with him. It's not even in the same zip code. Wasn't there anyone else she could have done that with, anyone at all, who wasn't undead? I'm like Xander, because for me it's humans>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>vampires. Every day of the week and twice on Sundays. If that makes me some kind of narrow-minded speciest, or whatever argument the shippers like to use against Xander, then I can live with that. Hell, she could have used a vibrator she kept in the freezer for fifteen minutes and gotten the same result.

B) Killing is not the same thing as murder. Police officers kill in the line of duty. So do soldiers. Vampires kill for the same reason human psychopaths do, because they enjoy it. Buffy was never a murderer, or at least she wasn't until Joss decided that Spike was so speshul (needs) that he could choose to seek out a soul. If, as you say, he did it for unselfish reasons, then why couldn't another vampire do it? Why couldn't a dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand? How long is the waiting period supposed to be before it's permissible to kill them, and how many dead bodies will there be before that happens? Again, humans >>>>>>>>>>>>>vampires.

C) Wasn't the entire point of Faith's arc to show what can happen when a Slayer lacks friends/families/guidance? Wasn't Buffy right there when she started to slide off the rails? Granted, Buffy was too wrapped up in her DRAH-MA with Angel to do more than a half-assed job of doing something about it, but she was there and she watched it happen. Shouldn't there have been a lesson in there somewhere? I think if anyone asked Buffy if she wanted to be like Faith, she'd punch them in the mouth. So why on earth wouldn't she try to stop herself from becoming Faith To The Nth Power? Faith is Buffy's dark mirror, not Spike, IMO.

D) Did they really grow from it, though? If you've seen season seven, you know what happens. Did that look like emotional growth to you, or that they learned something? It only counts as a lesson if you absorb it and then stop repeating the pattern, not if you go forward and become an even worse version of yourself. Buffy might have started treating Spike better, and don't think that doesn't piss me off, but she started treating everyone else like garbage. So what exactly did she learn?

E) What it all comes down to is that I'm not going to pretend that what happened is not what happened. I won't pretend that Spike didn't manipulate the hell out of Buffy when he knew how fragile her emotional state was, I won't pretend that he didn't take pleasure in hitting her when he found out the chip didn't work, that he tried to Stockholm her into staying with him, and certainly not that he tried to rape her in the place where she should have felt the safest, her own bathroom. Joss can insist that Spike had a partial soul until the top of his head comes off, and I'm still not buying it. JMO.

Wilowy · September 27, 2014

Well, since he y'know, wrote it... I tend to go with his version.

It would be interesting to see you, CoStar, on a panel with Joss. I'd like to see you posit your views, and be witness to his responses. And your responses to his responses. :)

CletusMusashi · September 27, 2014

Joss has a long history of changing his canon whenever the mood suits him. Basically, any project he's with for too long becomes "Dollhouse." Buffy has a sister, Angel is a lawyer... when he's great, he's great, but when he isn't, he still thinks he's great. And he does tend to get bored and make sweeping gratuitous changes. In fact, Joss is literally the reason that we have the word "retcon" in the first place. So, him defending the crappy seasons by saying that Spike was special all along does not necessarily have any correlation to how Spike was actually written for years.

Edited September 27, 2014 by CletusMusashi

CinnamonCat · September 27, 2014

Cobalt Stargazer, I think that all this comes down to the fact that you don't like Spike and what the writers did with him. That's perfectly okay, but the only thing I can offer you here is my undoubtedly subjective and flawed take. I can't speak for the writers nor can I wrap anything in a cute little bow.

A) Buffy going to talk to Spike is not the same thing as fucking down the house with him. It's not even in the same zip code. Wasn't there anyone else she could have done that with, anyone at all, who wasn't undead? I'm like Xander, because for me it's humans>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>vampires. Every day of the week and twice on Sundays. If that makes me some kind of narrow-minded speciest, or whatever argument the shippers like to use against Xander, then I can live with that. Hell, she could have used a vibrator she kept in the freezer for fifteen minutes and gotten the same result.

B) Killing is not the same thing as murder. Police officers kill in the line of duty. So do soldiers. Vampires kill for the same reason human psychopaths do, because they enjoy it. Buffy was never a murderer, or at least she wasn't until Joss decided that Spike was so speshul (needs) that he could choose to seek out a soul. If, as you say, he did it for unselfish reasons, then why couldn't another vampire do it? Why couldn't a dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand? How long is the waiting period supposed to be before it's permissible to kill them, and how many dead bodies will there be before that happens? Again, humans >>>>>>>>>>>>>vampires.

C) Wasn't the entire point of Faith's arc to show what can happen when a Slayer lacks friends/families/guidance? Wasn't Buffy right there when she started to slide off the rails? Granted, Buffy was too wrapped up in her DRAH-MA with Angel to do more than a half-assed job of doing something about it, but she was there and she watched it happen. Shouldn't there have been a lesson in there somewhere? I think if anyone asked Buffy if she wanted to be like Faith, she'd punch them in the mouth. So why on earth wouldn't she try to stop herself from becoming Faith To The Nth Power? Faith is Buffy's dark mirror, not Spike, IMO.

D) Did they really grow from it, though? If you've seen season seven, you know what happens. Did that look like emotional growth to you, or that they learned something? It only counts as a lesson if you absorb it and then stop repeating the pattern, not if you go forward and become an even worse version of yourself. Buffy might have started treating Spike better, and don't think that doesn't piss me off, but she started treating everyone else like garbage. So what exactly did she learn?

E) What it all comes down to is that I'm not going to pretend that what happened is not what happened. I won't pretend that Spike didn't manipulate the hell out of Buffy when he knew how fragile her emotional state was, I won't pretend that he didn't take pleasure in hitting her when he found out the chip didn't work, that he tried to Stockholm her into staying with him, and certainly not that he tried to rape her in the place where she should have felt the safest, her own bathroom. Joss can insist that Spike had a partial soul until the top of his head comes off, and I'm still not buying it. JMO.

A) Of course there was. A lot of people were there for her. But Buffy didn't want to open up to them, fearing their reaction. Was her choice well thought-out? Wise? Mature? Absolutely not. But to me, it made sense she did what she did.

B1) I never said she was a murderer. But violence and death were regular occurrence during her formative years. And it affected her.

B2) I didn't say it was for unselfish reasons. I said it wasn't purely selfish. I also think his situation was different than most vampires', in that he'd spent far too much time with humans, and came too close to his human side. Again, he was stuck between being a man and being a monster, and he chose to become a man.
There is no waiting period. And there shouldn't be.

C) Yes, I agree that Faith is Buffy's dark mirror. Yes, I agree Buffy should have learned from season three. But that, I think, is something to ask the writers, not me.

D) "It's gonna choke on me."
If the whole emotional point of season seven was that strength is a choice, that being good is a choice -- and that's my take on it -- than that's what she learned. I'm not saying that that came from Spike, mind you, but I am saying that she had to go through all that -- the depression, the numbness, the numerous bad decisions -- in order to finally embrace her role. As for her treating everyone like garbage, that, again, is something to talk about with the writers.

E) I completely agree.

darkestboy · September 27, 2014

Spike's death in Chosen should've remained. Whedon shouldn't have pandered to the WB and added him as a regular to Angel's fifth season. Faith should've recurred during that season and Spike should've only appeared in two flashback episodes.

In general, though he is interesting, Spike is overrated as a character.

Cobalt Stargazer · September 27, 2014

Cobalt Stargazer, I think that all this comes down to the fact that you don't like Spike and what the writers did with him. That's perfectly okay, but the only thing I can offer you here is my undoubtedly subjective and flawed take. I can't speak for the writers nor can I wrap anything in a cute little bow.

Don't mistake me*, CinnamonCat. While I do loathe what they did with Spike, it isn't just Spike but Angel too, who came along before Buffy was the fucked-up mess she turned into. I'll admit that his relationship with her was less overtly awful than the one with Spike, but IMO it also laid the groundwork for her to see Spike as her only option. It was a writer's choice for her to get mired not only in the idea that love equals misery, but also that "normal" guys like Xander, and later Riley, couldn't cut the mustard for her. Someone in another thread said that Buffy tended to confuse the general with the specific, and I think that's a really good description. The writers fixed it so that she decided that Angel leaving her meant she couldn't lean on Riley, and then they had his insecurities explode. I'm less sympathetic to Riley than I could be, since I think that anyone who takes Spike's logic seriously deserves what they get, but that was a writer's choice too, to turn Riley into an asshole to make Spike look good.

And it isn't so much that I need things to be wrapped up in a cute little bow. What I do like is when there's some kind of baseline of sense to a storyline, and I found so little of that in the final two seasons that I wonder if I was watching the same show as someone who says it made sense to them. Between the Magic!Crack, Buffy's suddenly appearing money woes, Giles' abandonment of his Slayer when she needed him the most, and Dawn''s endless brattiness, it seems pretty clear (to me) that it was just a way to artificially drive her towards him. If they hadn't decided she should be utterly miserable instead of glad that she was alive, there would have been no Spuffy, and I personally don't see how anyone can find sense in something that's a Gordian knot of ridiculous contrivance. YMMV, though.

*I've seen the suggestion that those who didn't like the World Tour of Depression and Self-Loathing need things to be wrapped up neatly elsewhere , and its still annoying, right up there with "You can't handle the darkness!" Thinking something is garbage isn't the same thing as not being able to handle it. That's not a slap against you personally, but as others have tried to use the argument, it is a peeve of mine.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Cobalt Stargazer

Llywela · September 27, 2014

In fact, Joss is literally the reason that we have the word "retcon" in the first place

I don't disagree with your argument, but I do beg to differ on this point. Both the concept of the retcon and the word itself precede Joss Whedon's career.

Fat Elvis 007 · September 28, 2014

UO: Selfless is not that great an episode, and in fact has too many overwhelming flaws to even be called "good" unless you're grading on the curve of Season 7.

Don't get me wrong: it's an entertaining episode, the Anya flashbacks are good, "I'll Be Missus" is devastating, and it's nice to have a character-centric episode that feels self-contained and is at least consistent with itself. Unfortunately, it's not consistent with anything that came before it.

The conflict doesn't feel real at all because I remember that vengeance demon spells can be reversed by destroying the demon's amulet, and no one on the show does. Therefore, Buffy's decision to kill Anya makes absolutely no sense. And don't tell me she doesn't know about the amulet, because she could have looked it up. (Remember when the characters researched demons?) The fact that Buffy even asks Willow to "find another way" so she doesn't have to kill Anya, but never makes any effort to learn more about vengeance demons, is ridiculous. Willow knows about the amulet, because she knows Anya tried to use her to summon it back the first time they met. The idea that it never came up with Xander defies belief. And Anya herself never even suggests it, even at the end when she pleas for D'Hoffryn to reverse the spell. So it's just something the writers forgot.

The whole argument between Buffy, Willow and Xander is often hailed as a highlight of Season 7--and hey, it's kinda nice that they actually share a scene together with just the three of them for once--but it is completely nonsensical. The low point is when Buffy says she loved Angel more than she will ever love anything on this earth. Really, more than Dawn?

Not to mention that the only reason the episode even exists is because the writers went three years without ever realizing that Anya might need to show a shred of remorse for murdering thousands of people. It's nice to see her finally show horror at her actions, but it's too little, too late. TBH, the most depressing thing in Season 6 to me is Anya becoming a vengeance demon again--I hate it more than Spuffy sex AND Magic!Crack, that's how bad it is--but it makes sense, because Anya was so often portrayed as completely lacking in guilt for what she had done in the past.

Does Anya even have a soul while she is a demon? How is it possible that this never comes up? Especially this season, when the writers actually go out of their way to compare Anya with both Angel and Spike? Earlier in the season they even have Anya ask Spike "How did you get it?" and she is visibly shaken...but this moment is never clarified. Is she jealous because she doesn't have one? Is she feeling a connection to him because she still has one herself? There seems to be no real difference between Demon Anya and Human Anya other than "superpowers."

And that just goes back to a problem with the character from the beginning. I understand the writers wanted to use her mostly for comic relief, and didn't want her to brood like Angel, but the writers could have still done that while acknowledging she was newly ensouled. Instead their whole relationship makes Xander's constant anti-Bangel stance look even more unsympathetic and hypocritical.

I see a lot of fans saying that the writers only messed up Anya's arc after "Selfless," but really, the only reason the episode even exists is because the character is already irreparably messed up .

(In case it isn't clear, I love Anya and find her hilarious and sympathetic most of the time--that's why I wish the fundamental problems with her character had been addressed in a well-written way.)

CletusMusashi · September 28, 2014

I think Anya still has her original human soul, but when she's employed as a demon there's also another, eviler soul riding on top of it. And bear in mind, her original soul was fine with turning Olaf into a giant monster that probably killed, raped, ate thousands of men, women, and babies. So it's kind of having a bad conscience on one shoulder, and an even worse one on the other.

A fanwank I came up with recently is that the only reason she lost centuries of accumulated charisma and started talking like "Aud" again was that after losing her powers she found herself socializing among the victims of supernatural violence, rather than the perpetrators, causing her to lose enough confidence in her "Anyanka" identity that her old mannerisms from 800 years ago returned.

Edited September 28, 2014 by CletusMusashi

Jack Shaftoe · September 28, 2014

I see a lot of fans saying that the writers only messed up Anya's arc after "Selfless," but really, the only reason the episode even exists is because the character is already irreparably messed up .

Anya's "arc" (if we can even call it that) was messed up as early as The Prom where her character became clueless about the human ways out of the blue. And it only became even more of mess later on. I like Anya as comic relief. But as a character? She makes even Spike seem consistently written in comparison.

The fact that Buffy even asks Willow to "find another way" so she doesn't have to kill Anya, but never makes any effort to learn more about vengeance demons, is ridiculous.

Especially considering the fact that Anya became Anyanka 2.0 months ago. It's not like the Scoobies were facing with a completely new problem. Why did they let Anya grant "harmless" wishes all summer long in the first place? How could they be sure the wishes would be harmless? The whole Anynka 2.0. storyline was an epic fail from start to finish, if you ask me.

CletusMusashi · September 28, 2014

It was made more palatable by the fact that Halfrek and D'Hoffryn were more fun to see than just about anyone else on the show at the time. But, yeah.

Jazzy24 · September 28, 2014

The low point is when Buffy says she loved Angel more than she will ever love anything on this earth. Really, more than Dawn?

We are such opposites cause Buffy saying this was the best part of season 7 for me. I can understand why she said that though and sometimes I write her saying it as being her over dramatic self when it comes to her and Angel. But me being a Buffy&Angel fangurl just chooses to embrace that remark cause it makes my shipper heart happy.

But I didn't care for Selfless because I hated Anya and didn't care about her or her back story.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Jazzy24

Fat Elvis 007 · September 28, 2014

A fanwank I came up with recently is that the only reason she lost centuries of accumulated charisma and started talking like "Aud" again was that after losing her powers she found herself socializing among the victims of supernatural violence, rather than the perpetrators, causing her to lose enough confidence in her "Anyanka" identity that her old mannerisms from 800 years ago returned.

I like that explanation, and would have loved to see Anya's psychology actually explored. "Pangs" was a perfect opportunity to do this. She flat-out tells Xander that she used to inflict the kind of pain he's going through on other men, and starts to worry if he's going to die. Wouldn't this have been a good time for Anya to start realizing that this is how she made thousands of other people feel, and start empathizing with her victims? But we never saw that happen.

CletusMusashi · September 29, 2014

Oh, I know perfectly well the writers intended no such coherant explanation.

Maybe she actually did address it in "Pangs," though. A little bit. When Xander outright said something that she'd often been thinking to herself, she reacted noticeably to it because a big part of her had been hoping that he didn't feel that way.

As far as becoming a significantly better person, that would have been too much work. Instead, she shut out most social clues and retreated into her emotional safety zone of "Money and orgasms are good; complex voice inflections are stupid."

Edited September 29, 2014 by CletusMusashi

SparedTurkey · September 29, 2014

It's the fact that Buffy chose to explore that kink with someone who was basically Jeffrey Dahmer without a pulse that I give the side-eye to, especially when people talk about how "realistic" it was and how much sense it made.

Heeey there CoStar. While I have no real side in this debate, but I have a thought (that obviously you will appreciate ;) hehehe)

I don't get into the vampire = serial killers but I posit you this: While Buffy wasn't particularly the kind of groupie that seeks out serial killers, she was very depressed. Perhaps it was her depression that turned into self-destructive sexual behaviour. Though not every depressed person acts out in such sexually destructive ways, some do. And, the behaviour of depressed people doesn't always make sense. And while she had friends, what was she going to say to Willow/Xander/Giles/Dawn/Anya? "Thanks for bringing you back but I wish I was still dead?" Doubtful. I think that is what is meant when people talk about it as 'realistic'. So maybe if you think she is crazy, the Buffy/Spike thing makes more sense?

Cobalt Stargazer · September 29, 2014

Heeey there CoStar. While I have no real side in this debate, but I have a thought (that obviously you will appreciate ;) hehehe)

I don't get into the vampire = serial killers but I posit you this: While Buffy wasn't particularly the kind of groupie that seeks out serial killers, she was very depressed. Perhaps it was her depression that turned into self-destructive sexual behaviour. Though not every depressed person acts out in such sexually destructive ways, some do. And, the behaviour of depressed people doesn't always make sense. And while she had friends, what was she going to say to Willow/Xander/Giles/Dawn/Anya? "Thanks for bringing you back but I wish I was still dead?" Doubtful. I think that is what is meant when people talk about it as 'realistic'. So maybe if you think she is crazy, the Buffy/Spike thing makes more sense?

*waves at SparedTurkey*

The main reason I specifically mentioned Dahmer is because of the cannibalism thing. Vampires eat the liquid center, that's really the only difference. I've also referred to Spike as The Deliberate Stranger, and if you get that one it means you're as old as I am.

As it relates to the show, it was always the case that vampires were basically killing machines, because if they weren't why would Buffy have been staking them as soon as they crawled out of their graves, before they could do any harm? If they weren't dangerous, what's the point of there being a Slayer at all? Also, Giles tells Buffy during Revelations that Angelus "tortured me for hours. For pleasure." So it was always true that vampires don't need a reason to hurt or kill, because that's just what they do. It's like asking why the sun comes up in the east, it just does.

I might - might - have had less of a problem with Buffy banging Spike if she had done it once and then realized that she needed real help. And what's worth noting is that Buffy got all spun out back in season three when Faith accidentally killed Finch and started acting like they had to do something before it went too far, and yet when she's the one crawling under the barrel instead of just reaching the bottom of it she doesn't even try to reach out to anyone. So clearly she learned nothing from the past.

What's even more annoying is that in season seven the writers do a one-eighty and start making her have feelings for him, to the point that she actually says, "Why does everyone think I'm still in love with Spike?" Some people think that it was a line flub by SMG, and maybe it was, but just the fact that those words escaped from her mouth gives me the Jersey Trots. Spuffy was abusive and destructive and a sign of her self-loathing, and it's something she never recovers from, the (gross) cuddling in Touched aside. It was never about her being in love with him. The show had already shot itself in the first by spoofing the idea of them being together as a couple back in Something Blue, so why in the hell would they expect me to take it seriously after the disgusting mess of season sux?

Bitterswete · September 29, 2014

Spuffy was abusive and destructive and a sign of her self-loathing, and it's something she never recovers from, the (gross) cuddling in Touched aside. It was never about her being in love with him. The show had already shot itself in the first by spoofing the idea of them being together as a couple back in Something Blue, so why in the hell would they expect me to take it seriously after the disgusting mess of season sux?

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.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Bitterswete

SparedTurkey · September 30, 2014

I've also referred to Spike as The Deliberate Stranger, and if you get that one it means you're as old as I am.

*whispers* I got it hehehe

Bear with me, because I haven't watched the later parts of season 6/7 in a few years. But I think assuming that Buffy was in a healthy frame of mind is really what is preventing you from 'getting' the Buffy/Spike thing. She wasn't (and I don't know she really was recovered by the end of season 7 either, for what it is worth). So even though a season 3 Buffy knew Faith needed help, I don't know that her not getting help herself means she learnt nothing from the past, just more that she wasn't mentally 'with it'. And she did have that one moment with Tara, where she knew it was bad, or was making her feel bad, but wasn't able to stop it. Which, I mean, look at alcohol/drug abuse. Sometimes there is a flicker of recognition that it is bad for you, but you can't always help.

Now, I want to put a disclaimer that I am in no way a shipper of anyone on this show, am not at all advocating the Buffy/Spike thing and I agree that the season 7 'I loved him thing' was not on (or one of the writers just dancing to their own tune). I'm not saying Buffy/Spike was a great love affair or should be. I agree it was abusive and was intended to be so in season 6. I'm hopefully trying to make season 6 more....palatable(?) which is easier if you view it as a symptom of depression/mental illness rather than as an epic love story.

Cobalt Stargazer · September 30, 2014

*whispers* I got it hehehe

[OT] And it's why I can't with any character Mark Harmon plays as a romantic interest. He was way too effective as Bundy.[/OT]

And I don't think Buffy was in a healthy frame of mind. At all. But unfortunately, thanks to Marti Noxon and Jane "Spuffy is such a gorgeous love story" Espensen, it was presented as if Spike was her only confidant and her lifeline, in a way. And I was stunned at how many viewers turned on Buffy because she wouldn't "love Spike back", particularly in light of the criticisms directed towards Xander in the earlier seasons about how he was a Nice Guy because he asked Buffy for a date once and then didn't immediately accept the fact that she'd rather date a walking corpse. And what's even more aggravating for me is that Angel was just as petty, immature and jealous about Xander's presence in Buffy's life, but that never seems to bother as many people because of Twu Wuv. Somehow Xander is the one with the problem, which just makes me want to bang my head against a wall.

SparedTurkey · September 30, 2014

Ahh I was never part of the fandom at the time, so I had no idea there was a fan backlash over Buffy rejecting Spike. And while I got that I was supposed to see it as a love story come season 7, I just refuse to. Otherwise the show would be unwatchable. And I much prefer my interpretation

I gotta say though, I liked Xander when he was with Giles/Willow/Dawn..basically everyone except Buffy. Well, I liked him when he was just being Buffy's friend, because when she said "no, I don't want to date you", he really has no other choice but to accept it. I really, really hated that side of him. Yes, Angel was a vampire, but does that mean that automatically Buffy should date Xander because he is better? No it doesn't. I just hate that sense of entitlement.

And while Angel was a jealous prick about Xander at times, (which is another unattractive quality) I guess the only difference is Angel never harmed Xander through it or ever intended to cause him harm, whereas Xander didn't have that level of awareness(?)/Self-Control(?). Essentially, I think they both have problems though, and I was glad Buffy ended up alone at the end of the series because all he love interests sucked. (never read the comics)

Cobalt Stargazer · September 30, 2014

And while Angel was a jealous prick about Xander at times, (which is another unattractive quality) I guess the only difference is Angel never harmed Xander through it or ever intended to cause him harm, whereas Xander didn't have that level of awareness(?)/Self-Control(?). Essentially, I think they both have problems though, and I was glad Buffy ended up alone at the end of the series because all he love interests sucked. (never read the comics)

Well, Angel didn't quite never harm Xander, since Captain Forehead did punch him in the face and knock him unconscious during his (and Buffy's) asinine plan to fool Faith into believing Angelus was back. And before he and Faith stroll off-camera, he says, "I never liked that guy." Maintaining the ruse or using the opportunity to get in a free shot against somebody he knows he's physically a lot stronger than? You decide.

Beyond that, and I've said this in detail upthread so I'll give you the thumbnail version, Xander was sixteen years old. Most real sixteen year old boys tend to be immature when the girl they like prefers someone else, so why should s fictional one be any different? Angel was physically, what, in his late twenties at least? It's never made entirely clear. What is clear is that he'd lived for a very long time on the other side of the grave, and yet he was basically about as emotionally mature as Xander was. Why is a hundred and fifty year old adolescent supposed to be cute?

And I don't think that Buffy should have "had to" go out with Xander, and I can never quite grasp why anyone would think that was implied. But it's a real disconnect for me that people, whoever people might be, see Angel's emotional infancy as charming and Spike's stalking as romantic while Xander doing anything but keeping his mouth shut about Buffy's shitty romantic choices means he''s a Nice Guy. What's ironic is that he actually does accept Riley, but of course that's wrong too because Riley turns out to be a jerk. Apparently its only the vampires Buffy dates that he should approve of. It's just weird.

SilverShadow · September 30, 2014

And what's even more aggravating for me is that Angel was just as petty, immature and jealous about Xander's presence in Buffy's life, but that never seems to bother as many people because of Twu Wuv. Somehow Xander is the one with the problem, which just makes me want to bang my head against a wall.

Angel never tried to have Xander murdered by a third party (to whom he gave misinformation to make them more likely to do the deed), or withheld vital informaiton that led to him being tortured for centuries. So there's that. And Xander never acknowledges or apologizes for either. Not to Buffy and not to Faith, who would have ended up killing someone who didn't deserve to die. Plus that little adventure helps drive a wedge between her and Buffy, maybe making her face-heel turn mroe likely. And the fact is, Xander is an ass to Angel first and in much worse ways. If somebody was shooting side eyes at me and making snotty comments I wouldn't exactly want to be BFFS.

Angel gets jealous at the "Sexy Dance" but then he goes and admits to Buffy that he envies the ways Xander can be in her world that he can't. He owns up to those feelings and gets that they're immature and wrong. I can't ever remember him telling Buffy she shouldn't be friends with Xander or constructing elaborate fantasies where Buffy has a miserable future for making that decision just so he can imagine himself coming in to recue her. (In case you couldn't tell I fucking hate that monologue in "Surprise." Imagining your so-called best friend in a soul-sucking dead end job and a terrible relationship.Classy.)

As for punching Xander while pretending to be Angelus, he mighy have enjoyed it, but if he hadn't done anything, who's to say Faith might not have killed him for funzies or asked Angel to, to prove himself. To quote the show, at the time she wasn't exactly about to be on the cover of "Sanity Fair". IMO it's an ambigous situation at worst.

The Riley fight is immature but it helps that Buffy herself tells them both to STFU and stop being idiots. Xander's behavior was never ever checked in the same way. And again, when Angel gets petulent about Spike, she calls him out on it. If Buffy or Willow had ever taken Xander aside and been like, "Yes, we get that you hate Angel. You've made that very clear. For the love of God stop rolling your eyes and making pissy comments. It's not cute anymore." That would have been all I needed. My problem is that, since we never get that scene, the narrative implicitly takes Xander's side.

Loandbehold · September 30, 2014

Angel offers Xander's neck to Spike on a silver platter in Schhol Hard. It's only because Spike realized Angel wasn't Angelus that he didn't kill Xander. Also, knocking someone unconscious and leaving them on the streets of Sunnydale, a place where vampires and other demons have been known to occasionally walk around is leaving that person to be killed. Angel could have sent Xander back to the library and Faith wouldn't have been the wiser. Instead, he took advantage of the situation to attack a person that he hates. So, that's twice Angel puts Xander in a situation where he can't defend himself and could easily be killed, and afterwards, neither time does he apologize to Xander. As Cobalt Stargazer said, Xander is a teenager and Angel has 250 years experience, yet acts just as immaturely. I will take Xander's behavior, faults and all, over Angel's anyday, and twice on Sunday.

stagmania · September 30, 2014

Angel offers Xander's neck to Spike on a silver platter in Schhol Hard. It's only because Spike realized Angel wasn't Angelus that he didn't kill Xander. Also, knocking someone unconscious and leaving them on the streets of Sunnydale, a place where vampires and other demons have been known to occasionally walk around is leaving that person to be killed.

To your first point, the implication was pretty clear that Angel was acting and would have intervened before letting Spike kill Xander. He didn't end up having to because Spike realized what was going on before biting him. And as for the second: that moment was played entirely for humor. I don't think we're supposed to read anything all that deep into it.

Xander was jealous and petty about Buffy's relationship with Angel. Angel sometimes being a jerk to him doesn't erase that. And I agree with SilverShadow that it would have been nice for the show to call him out on his sanctimonious behavior toward Buffy, especially once he got involved with Anya and the hypocrisy reached astounding levels.

Jack Shaftoe · September 30, 2014

Angel never tried to have Xander murdered by a third party (to whom he gave misinformation to make them more likely to do the deed), or withheld vital informaiton that led to him being tortured for centuries.

Maybe, just maybe, that is because Xander never killed thousands of people, unlike certain vampires I might mention.

And I object to your description of the events. Xander didn't misinform Faith. In fact, he was the only one who bothered to keep Faith in the loop in Revelations (unless we count Gwendolyne Post). He also had a golden opportunity to really deceive Faith by confirming her suspicions that Angel attacked Giles. Yet he did the opposite and even told Buffy where Faith was headed, thus, ironically, ending up saving Captain Forehead. Also, I have never supported the notion that Buffy should be the one to decide whether Angel should be staked. Why not Faith (or anybody else who wasn't Angel's girlfriend)? Buffy's authority is derived from being a Slayer but unlike her fellow Slayer, Faith, she is very much biased in the situation. Sure, Xander was biased too, but objectively speaking, informing the other Slayer about a possible mortal danger is very much the right thing to do. Faith wasn't to know that the loophole in Angel's curse would hold for so long. We know Angel wasn't going to go wild and kill Buffy and all her friends because that would be the end of the show, Xander and Faith didn't know that and from their perspective, jealousy or no jealousy, bias or no bias, Angel was a ticking time-bomb.

As for Becoming, even a slight chance of giving Buffy better odds of, you know, saving, the world should trump the slight chance of Willow successfully performing a highly complicated spell right off the bat, IMO. Whedon himself gave an interview saying Xander made a "general's decision" (or something to that effect), yet judging by the way the situation is often described by fans you would think he couldn't care less about the impending apocalypse and "The Lie" was nothing less than the final result of months of plotting against pure, innocent Angel.

Plus that little adventure helps drive a wedge between her and Buffy, maybe making her face-heel turn mroe likely.

And that's almost entirely Buffy's fault, if you ask me, since she was the one who hid Angel in the first place.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Jack Shaftoe

SilverShadow · September 30, 2014

Instead, he took advantage of the situation to attack a person that he hates. So, that's twice Angel puts Xander in a situation where he can't defend himself and could easily be killed, and afterwards, neither time does he apologize to Xander. As Cobalt Stargazer said, Xander is a teenager and Angel has 250 years experience, yet acts just as immaturely. I will take Xander's behavior, faults and all, over Angel's anyday, and twice on Sunday.

We'll have to disagree to disagree because I don't think the narrative ever suggests Xander was in real danger in either situation. And I still think Xander's actual actions were far above and beyond anything that was done to him. Sending Faith to kill Angel on the sly was downright sociopathic behavior that IMO the writers didn't think through. At that time Xander was seventeen or eighteen and he'd had reassurances that Angel was re-ensouled and he still decided it was A-okay to make Faith his personal hitman. It was manipulative and gross.

But even leaving that aside, I can't think of any time when Angel (with his soul and not undercover) was half as rude and snotty about Xander as Xander was to him either to his face or behind his back. He took delight in taking shots at Angel, even when it was clearly hurting and upsetting Buffy. Sometimes especially then. IMO he liked being able to punish her for "choosing wrong". And again, there was shit like the "prime rib" monologue where he fantasized about his "best friend" being miserable and downtrodden, i.e. appropriately penitent for going with the "creature of the night" instead of Good Old Xander, and he could rescue her. That's not being immature, that's being a toxic friend and an asshole.

And again, if it was ever pointed out by anyone, I'd have much less of a problem with it. I actually really like Xander in seasons 1, 4, 5, and 7. (6 has the terrible wedding debacle). But for big chunks of seasons 2 and 3 he needed a big glass of STFU.

For me Xander being a "Nice Guy" boils down to his deep resentment of Angel, the fact that he twice took advantage of opportunities to get him out of the way permanently, and his antagonism, even when it hurts the girl he's friends with and supposedly has feelings for. I accept that others will disagree with me, but that's my reasoning.

ETA

Maybe, just maybe, that is because Xander never killed thousands of people, unlike certain vampires I might mention. [...]

And I object to your description of the events. Xander didn't misinform Faith. In fact, he was the only one who bothered to keep Faith in the loop in Revelations (unless we count Gwendolyne Post).

I don't agree that Angel with a soul is responsible for Angelus' crimes.

Xander heavily implied that Angel was a danger that needed to be stopped, despite the fact that he hasn't killed when he has his soul:

Faith: Yeah, well, I say we can't afford to find out. (has Xander's

full attention) I say I deal with this problem right now. I say I slay.

Xander: Can I come?

That's not a "general's decision" like Becoming was. (I do agree Xander wasn't being completely selfish there, but IMO the petty shit was mixed in too.) He's eager to see Angel die. That he has regrets later doesn't negate his initial reaction.

Edited September 30, 2014 by SilverShadow

moviewhore · September 30, 2014

Spuffy was hot as hell when I watched the show 13 years ago. I thought the Smashed sex scene was fabulous and so daring for network TV. Now I watch it and shudder because of what's ahead. I hated Season 6 Spuffy because of the violence of it. I hated the fact that pre-screw it was Buffy and Spike beating the shit out of each other with him throwing her across the room and kicking her and having that be foreplay. But that was, in a way, the perfect way to start Spuffy and an indicator of how fucked up it would become. And don't get me started on Seeing Red, watching Spike just attack Buffy when she's hurt and trying to tear her robe off. That killed my love of Spuffy on the spot. She should have staked him to dust. I got thrown out of two message boards due to my venting on that horseshit.

My opinion on Spuffy is that it ruined a great relationship that started out tender and with mutual respect. I loved those two in Season 5 and how Spike was protecting Dawn. I loved how they seemed to almost like each other. That was gone in Season 6 mostly.

I never liked Anya. She annoyed the shit out of me. And I thought she and Spike drunk fucking on camera was so terrible storywise and was just more angst that wasn't needed.

Jack Shaftoe · September 30, 2014

Xander heavily implied that Angel was a danger that needed to be stopped, despite the fact that he hasn't killed when he has his soul:

Whether he has killed or not with his soul is not really relevant if said soul can be lost. This is the danger they cannot afford to risk, as Faith says. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether Angel with a soul is innocent as a lamb or not. Angel himself tried to commit suicide a few episodes later because of this very danger.

I don't agree that Angel with a soul is responsible for Angelus' crimes.

Angel seems to agree, since otherwise he would have nothing redeem himself for. Deserving of blame or not, he was the one who killed all those people, so obviously other characters are likely to be far more wary of him than of someone whose worst acts merely hurt people's feelings. Xander "trying to have Angel killed" was (at least partly, if one is not feeling generous towards Xander) an effort to prevent further murders and/or save the world. Judging by some of the things Angel did in his series (or the season 8 comics), I would venture he would have been very much willing to treat Xander as "collateral damage" if Xander had superpowers and was on a murderous rampage. So it's a little misleading to suggest he never did it because he is more noble or something, rather than because Xander wasn't a threat.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Jack Shaftoe

SilverShadow · September 30, 2014

Whether he has killed or not with his soul is not really relevant if said soul can be lost. This is the danger they cannot afford to risk, as Faith says. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether Angel with a soul is innocent as a lamb or not. Angel himself tried to commit suicide a few episodes later because of this very danger.

Here's the scene:

Xander: Back in town. Saw him myself. Toting the popular and famous

glove.

He bends down again to take aim for his shot.
Faith: Angel.
Xander makes this shot and watches the balls ricochet.
Faith: Guy like that, with that kind of glove, could kill a whole mess
of people.

Xander: Said the same thing to Buffy myself. Weird how she didn't seem

to care. (aims for his next shot)
Faith: Buffy knew he was alive.
Xander takes his shot.
Faith: I can't believe her.
Xander: (walks around the table) She says he's clean.
Faith: Yeah, well, I say we can't afford to find out. (has Xander's
full attention) I say I deal with this problem right now. I say I slay.

Xander: Can I come?

Xander's not worried about Angel losing his soul. He's positing that he's a danger now, when he has everyr eason to know better. Faith doesn't think they can afford to see if Angel has his soul or not, but she doesn't know Angel. And Xander's tone isn't concerned or worried. He's angry that Angel's back, and he's eager to see him die.

Judging by some of the things Angel did in his series (or the season 8 comics), I would venture he would have been very much willing to treat Xander as "collateral damage" if Xander had superpowers and was on a murderous rampage. So it's a little misleading to suggest he never did it because he is more noble or something, rather than because Xander wasn't a threat.

I'd agree he'd sacrifice Xander to save the world if Xander were a threat. But I don't necessarily have a problem with that. My issue with Xander is entirely his attitude and his reasoning.

Buffy: What makes you think that Angel had anything to do with this?

Xander: We saw what you saw.
Buffy: So you just assume?
Xander: I didn't. Faith did.
Willow gives Buffy a concerned look.
Buffy: (very worried) What did you tell her?
Xander: Only what everyone knows. She's a big girl. Came to her own
conclusions.

Buffy: (angry) How much of a head start does she have?
Xander: Ten minutes.

Do I think Angel would be as self-rightous and snotty when telling Buffy he arranged for the death of someone she cared about because he was a threat to the world? No, I don't. If Xander came off as the tiniest bit conflicted or sad, not even for Angel, but for Buffy, we wouldn't be having this conversation. He had no empathy for her at all. And that's where he lost me.

Edited September 30, 2014 by SilverShadow

Cobalt Stargazer · September 30, 2014

Angel never tried to have Xander murdered by a third party (to whom he gave misinformation to make them more likely to do the deed), or withheld vital informaiton that led to him being tortured for centuries. So there's that. And Xander never acknowledges or apologizes for either. Not to Buffy and not to Faith, who would have ended up killing someone who didn't deserve to die. Plus that little adventure helps drive a wedge between her and Buffy, maybe making her face-heel turn mroe likely. And the fact is, Xander is an ass to Angel first and in much worse ways. If somebody was shooting side eyes at me and making snotty comments I wouldn't exactly want to be BFFS.

As for punching Xander while pretending to be Angelus, he mighy have enjoyed it, but if he hadn't done anything, who's to say Faith might not have killed him for funzies or asked Angel to, to prove himself. To quote the show, at the time she wasn't exactly about to be on the cover of "Sanity Fair". IMO it's an ambigous situation at worst.

The thing with Angel dangling Xander out in front of Spike like a doggy treat has already been mentioned, so I'll just add that if you're relying on Spike to actually think things through without acting first, you're taking a big gamble. What if Spike hadn't figured out that Angel was deceiving him? Given that Angel wasn't even man(pire) enough to stop sitting on his hands in his mansion when Buffy went off to face the Master and Xander had to force him at cross-point to get off his ass, I can't see him taking Spike on.

Also, it's an assumption to say that Angel's intentions were pure when he sucker-punched Xander. If you want to give someone the benefit of the doubt, it probably shouldn't be the guy who told Buffy while in possession of his soul "I thought about killing you tonight." And I notice that never comes up either, and Buffy never mentions it. I guess she was so busy swooning it slipped her mind, because the guy who's been stalking you like a giant pedo saying he thought about murdering you is just Teh Secks. Buffy Summers, Bella Swan. Connection? You decide.

Further, for all the talk about how Xander took away Buffy's choices with The Lie, Buffy later takes away everyone's choices when she hides Angel after he returns from hell, and ironically it's Xander who does the mature thing when he tells Giles, the actual adult in the situation, what's going on. If he was really the "sociopathic" hothead who tried to have poor innocent Angel killed, wouldn't he have kept Giles out of it? Wouldn't he have continued to goad Faith at the library instead of trying to put on the brakes when they find Giles unconscious? Given that neither of those things happened, where does the assumption come from that Xander's just as much of a murderer than Angel(us)?

SilverShadow · September 30, 2014

If he was really the "sociopathic" hothead who tried to have poor innocent Angel killed, wouldn't he have kept Giles out of it? Wouldn't he have continued to goad Faith at the library instead of trying to put on the brakes when they find Giles unconscious? Given that neither of those things happened, where does the assumption come from that Xander's just as much of a murderer than Angel(us)?

That's a radical interpretation of the text. I never said Xander is just as bad as Angelus. That doesn't mean what he did wasn't fucked up. And there's no indication he was going to tell Giles. They went to the library for weapons. He certainly din't put on the breaks on for Angel's sake. He was worried about Giles' condition and wanted to be sure of what caused it. Which is good. But that doesn't absolve him of the other stuff. And the scene with Buffy takes place after this one, where he does put forth that maybe Angel was responsible, and is still hoping that Faith will kill Angel.

I feel like we're going in circles now. But here's the main things I've put forth that have yet to be refuted:

1. Angel, with a soul, not undercover, was never as rude or snotty to or about Xander as vice versa.

2. Xander's actions and words to Buffy, RE Angel, were generally shitty and at times suggested he hated/resented Angel much more than he cared about her. Up to and including rubbing Angel's supposedly impending death in her face. With the petty snide remarks and the gross "prime rib" fantasy coming before anyone knew Angel could lose his soul.

IMO #2 shows a pretty classic example of a "Nice Guy" who feels he is stuck in the "Friend Zone". Which doesn't mean that at other times Xander wasn't a good person or even a good friend. But regarding Angel, he just wasn't.

Loandbehold · September 30, 2014

That's a radical interpretation of the text. I never said Xander is just as bad as Angelus. That doesn't mean what he did wasn't fucked up. And there's no indication he was going to tell Giles.

SilverShadow, I believe you and CS are referring to different parts of the episode. After Xander discovers Buffy and Angel(us) together, he immediately does tell Giles. That's why they had the intervention in the library. It was the later scene in the Bronze when Faith and Xander decide to go to the library to get weapons. Xander was not going there to speak to Giles at that time.

1. Angel, with a soul, not undercover, was never as rude or snotty to or about Xander as vice versa.

I disagree. Angel was on several occasions. Notably in Prophecy Girl when Xander goes to Angel's home to ask Angel, the vampire he hates and is jealous of, to help him in helping Buffy. Angel is both rude aned snotty to Xander throughout that scene. And, I'm sure I can come up with other occasions. I also will not give Angel a pass when he was undercover. As I said before, there was plenty he could have done short of leaving Xander unconscious and easy pickings for any evil walking around Sunnydale that night. As an adult, Angel knew better, but chose not just to be petty, but in doing so, leaving Xander to die. Angel cared more about the opportunity to hurt Xander than he did about Buffy and what she would feel if she learned that one of her best friends had been killed by Angel's actions.

2. Xander's actions and words to Buffy, RE Angel, were generally shitty and at times suggested he hated/resented Angel much more than he cared about her.

I also believe that Prophecy Girl scene shows remarkable maturity on Xander's part and just how much he really cared about Buffy. Even after she had rejected him, he still went to help her. And, he went to the one "person" he hated the most for assistance. Which I believe refutes, in part, your second argument.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Loandbehold

Bitterswete · September 30, 2014

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."

SilverShadow · September 30, 2014

SilverShadow, I believe you and CS are referring to different parts of the episode. After Xander discovers Buffy and Angel(us) together, he immediately does tell Giles. That's why they had the intervention in the library. It was the later scene in the Bronze when Faith and Xander decide to go to the library to get weapons. Xander was not going there to speak to Giles at that time.

Right you are. I don't think that necessarily hurts my point, because when he saw Angel and Buffy Xander was alone and unarmed. I also don't think it was pre-meditated. But when the opportunity presented itself later, Xander was very willing to let things play out.

I disagree. Angel was on several occasions. Notably in Prophecy Girl when Xander goes to Angel's home to ask Angel, the vampire he hates and is jealous of, to help him in helping Buffy. Angel is both rude aned snotty to Xander throughout that scene. And, I'm sure I can come up with other occasions.

We'll have to disagree on this one. The scene below for reference:

Cut to Angel's apartment. There's knocking at the door and Angel comes

to answer, wondering who it could be.

Angel: Oh. Look who's here.
Xander: Mind if I come in? (comes in)
Angel: (closes the door) Make yourself at home.
Xander: She's gone.
Angel: Whadaya mean?
Xander: Buffy, she's gone to fight the Master.
Angel: He'll kill her.
Xander: Rumor has it. Only we're not gonna let it happen.
Angel: Well, what do you propose we do about it?
Xander: Look, I know you can find this Master guy. He's underground,
right? Take me to him.

Angel: You're way outta your league, kid. The Master'll kill you before

you can even breathe. If you're lucky.
Xander: How can I say this clearly?
He holds up a cross. Angel growls. Xander advances toward him, and he

backs off until he falls onto the couch.
Xander: I don't like you. At the end of the day, I pretty much think
you're a vampire. (lowers the cross) But Buffy's got this big old yen

for you. She thinks you're a real person. And right now I need you to

prove her right.

Angel: You're in love with her.
Xander: Aren't you?

Angel makes a couple sardomic remarks, which Xander parries. And then he tells Xander that the Master's out of his league (which is very very true.). It's super subjective but I just don't the same kind of deep antagonism Xander gives off in spades. If anything to my ears Angel sounds kind of world-weary and self-depricating in the scene. But YMMV

I also will not give Angel a pass when he was undercover. As I said before, there was plenty he could have done short of leaving Xander unconscious and easy pickings for any evil walking around Sunnydale that night. As an adult, Angel knew better, but chose not just to be petty, but in doing so, leaving Xander to die. Angel cared more about the opportunity to hurt Xander than he did about Buffy and what she would feel if she learned that one of her best friends had been killed by Angel's actions.

We're going to have to completely disagree here. I think you're ascribing motivations that aren't in the script or the acting. TBH I think the writers just didn't think that hard about it. Given that Xander himself only brings up the punch, I feel like this is a reach. If that's your interpetaiton, that's your interpreation, but I don't see it myself.

I also believe that Prophecy Girl scene shows remarkable maturity on Xander's part and showed just how much he really cared about Buffy. Even after she had rejected him, he still went to help her. And, he went to the one "person" he hated the most for assistance.

I agree. It was an awesome and very welcome exception to what would come to be the pattern where Angel is concerned. Hence why Season 1 Xander is on my list of preffered Xanders.

Like I said, I don't hate Xander at all. Certain actions of his bother me a lot, but I enjoy the overall character.

Cobalt Stargazer · September 30, 2014

Here's a really radical UO: Xander is not required to like Angel, or be polite to him, or not snark, or do any damn thing. If Buffy wanted a cheerleader for her relationship with Captain Forehead, that's what she had Willow for, and the fact that anything less than unconditional "It's awesome to date vampires" is unacceptable is something I don't know what to think of. Because what I hear in my head, between the lines of "You'd do anything to hurt him, wouldn't you?" is "Oh, you're just so mean and you're just so evil and why don't you love Angel and think he's wonderful, and WAH!" The fact that it wasn't enough for Buffy that she had Willow's steadfast support about dating that freak makes her come off as childish and sullen to me, and not nearly as mature as others seem to expect Xander to be. Maybe he would have been less snarky about it if she hadn't come off as so whiny when he snarked.

Wilowy · September 30, 2014

CoStar, indulge me a sec because I've truly lost track... you seem to despise Captains Peroxide and Forehead in equal measure, so who did you like Buffy with (if anyone)?

Personally, I always thought the original Captain Kirk would've been a great match for her, with his bravery and giant, risk-taking leaps.

Jazzy24 · September 30, 2014

Here's a really radical UO: Xander is not required to like Angel, or be polite to him, or not snark, or do any damn thing. If Buffy wanted a cheerleader for her relationship with Captain Forehead, that's what she had Willow for, and the fact that anything less than unconditional "It's awesome to date vampires" is unacceptable is something I don't know what to think of. Because what I hear in my head, between the lines of "You'd do anything to hurt him, wouldn't you?" is "Oh, you're just so mean and you're just so evil and why don't you love Angel and think he's wonderful, and WAH!" The fact that it wasn't enough for Buffy that she had Willow's steadfast support about dating that freak makes her come off as childish and sullen to me, and not nearly as mature as others seem to expect Xander to be. Maybe he would have been less snarky about it if she hadn't come off as so whiny when he snarked.

When did Buffy act like Xander had to like Angel?

She never expected them to be the best of friends hell she didn't even talk to Xander about Angel it was always Willow or Giles who she had conversations with about Angel and Xander happened to overhear.

Buffy barely brought up her and Angel and when she did it was to Willow.

SparedTurkey · September 30, 2014

And I don't think that Buffy should have "had to" go out with Xander, and I can never quite grasp why anyone would think that was implied.

Oh, CoStar, I didn't mean to make it sound like that was what I thought you said. It was just a general/non-personal 'you' I was meaning.

And I take your point about Angel technically 'harming' Xander. But I'd echo other posters in that it wasn't intentional to hurt him. I mean, Angel was stronger than Spike so I think its a no-brainer that he would have stepped in during School Hard, if their plan hadn't of worked.

And before he and Faith stroll off-camera, he says, "I never liked that guy." Maintaining the ruse or using the opportunity to get in a free shot against somebody he knows he's physically a lot stronger than? You decide.

Well, considering Xander was unconscious, I'd say maintaining the ruse. No point taking a pot shot at someone who can't hear. hehehe

For what it is worth, I don't find Angel/Spike/Riley paticularly compelling romantic leads. But I dislike the 'Nice Guy' side of Xander because he never lets it go. Yes he is only 16 when the show starts, but Buffy pretty quickly blocks his romantic overtures. So yeah, even though Xander is emotionally immature, it takes years for him to let it go. And of course he doesn't have to like Buffy's boyfriends, but that should be because they personally don't get on not just for a simple reason being that Buffy likes him.

Regarding "The Lie" I hate it for no other reason than I find it so bloody patronising. I find Xander so patronising in that moment because of course the Nice Guy has to manage the girls mood. I don't really care why he did it, I just hate the implication of it. I don't care that it was described as a 'General's Decision' (but then, I don't care for military rules). I don't know if I find it worse because they are the same age, and perhaps I wouldn't care if it had come from Giles. But it is just such a patriarchal and patronising moment that I hate watching it.

Cobalt Stargazer · September 30, 2014

CoStar, indulge me a sec because I've truly lost track... you seem to despise Captains Peroxide and Forehead in equal measure, so who did you like Buffy with (if anyone)?

When I'm feeling objective, I think she and Riley could have made it work. She'd had the Grand Passion, and it nearly killed her when she allowed Angel to feed on her to save his (un)life from the poison Faith had inflicted on him. And the thing with Spike was not a relationship, but rather an exercise in "I hate my life and wish I was dead, but I can't even work up the energy to kill myself." With better writing (ree=ad: writing that allowed Buffy to grow past her tendency to shut people out, writing that didn't turn Riley into as asshole to make room for The Deliberate Stranger) they could have been a solid, if not always mega-exciting, couple. I don't think it can be disputed that Buffy's idea that love meant constant drama and heartache didn't do her any favors, so wouldn't it have been beneficial if she had been involved with someone who wasn't the source of constant drama and heartache? And, not incidentally, not a vampire?

When did Buffy act like Xander had to like Angel?

Well, maybe Buffy never outright said it, but IMO there's an implication in "You'd do anything to hurt him, wouldn't you?" The fact that she always tried to make it about Xander just being jealous was either her trying to deflect criticism of her actions or saying that he's just being a big meanie by snarking at her boyfriend. You are certainly free to take your pick of those options.

Well, considering Xander was unconscious, I'd say maintaining the ruse. No point taking a pot shot at someone who can't hear. hehehe

SparedTurkey, the free shot I was referring to was the actual punch in the face, not the snark after Xander was out cold. Words don't really hurt anyone, despite the complaints about Xander's verbal jabs at Angel. Forehead had to chance to lay hands on Xander and he took it, but somehow bringing that up gets a resounding "Yawn..." from the people who are determined to take everything Xander does as some kind of maniacal plot to hurt the big fluffy puppy with bad teeth.

Bitterswete · September 30, 2014

Well, considering Xander was unconscious, I'd say maintaining the ruse. No point taking a pot shot at someone who can't hear. hehehe

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.

Regarding "The Lie" I hate it for no other reason than I find it so bloody patronising. I find Xander so patronising in that moment because of course the Nice Guy has to manage the girls mood. I don't really care why he did it, I just hate the implication of it. I don't care that it was described as a 'General's Decision' (but then, I don't care for military rules). I don't know if I find it worse because they are the same age, and perhaps I wouldn't care if it had come from Giles. But it is just such a patriarchal and patronising moment that I hate watching it.

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.

SparedTurkey · October 1, 2014

the free shot I was referring to was the actual punch in the face, not the snark after Xander was out cold.

Ahhh gotcha (Clearly my reading comprehension is -1 at the moment). I guess the difference for me is intent. While I don't think Angel particularly liked Xander and was a dick to him at times, I think, to be honest, that scenario was mainly about the ruse. If he had of wanted to, he could have punched Xander numerous times over or just left him for dead. I think the bigger goal here was to get at Faith.

And at the end of the day, the street was deserted. No vampires around. And considering the death rate wasnt that high in Sunnydale (unless an episode is trying to make a point) I really don't see it as that bad. Especially as being knocked unconscious on this show meant you were out for like a minute.

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.

See, I think that given that Buffy was the lone fighter and everything was resting on her shoulders, she had a right to know everything. It wasn't up to Xander (or indeed anyone else) to cherry pick what information she should and shouldnt know. It's her ass on the line and her responsibility to save the world. And at the end of the day, she stabbed him . For all the arguments that she wouldn't have fought to the best of her ability had she known, or that she'd never be able to kill him I think that line of thought is squarely defeated by the fact she did kill him. He had his soul back and she still saved the world. I think it reeks of a lack of confidence on Xander's part that he assumed she wouldn't. And that is why I feel like it is patronising. It was disrespectful and an assumption that she was weak. Yes, she didn't kill Angelus earlier because she wasn't "ready". But considering all the other times she backed up and saved the world she deserved more.

Cobalt Stargazer · October 1, 2014

Ahhh gotcha (Clearly my reading comprehension is -1 at the moment). I guess the difference for me is intent. While I don't think Angel particularly liked Xander and was a dick to him at times, I think, to be honest, that scenario was mainly about the ruse. If he had of wanted to, he could have punched Xander numerous times over or just left him for dead. I think the bigger goal here was to get at Faith.

And at the end of the day, she stabbed him . For all the arguments that she wouldn't have fought to the best of her ability had she known, or that she'd never be able to kill him I think that line of thought is squarely defeated by the fact she did kill him. He had his soul back and she still saved the world. I think it reeks of a lack of confidence on Xander's part that he assumed she wouldn't. And that is why I feel like it is patronising. It was disrespectful and an assumption that she was weak. Yes, she didn't kill Angelus earlier because she wasn't "ready". But considering all the other times she backed up and saved the world she deserved more.

Well, your interpretation is your own, but if you're going to shrug it off that Angel, who was much stronger than Xander, took a swing at him in the name of "the mission", which at the time was to convince Faith that he was Angelus, it seems rather paradoxical to take issue with The Lie, which also served "the mission". Buffy and Angel cooking up some ridiculous plan, that they didn't tell anyone about, is exactly the kind of thing you're accusing Xander of doing, taking the choice out of everyone else's hands.

Also, you said it yourself, Buffy didn't kill* Angelus because she wasn't ready. If she had been ready, Acathla would have never entered into the equation because Angelus would have been a pile of ashes, yes? Shouldn't she have been ready to do it before the entire world was about to get Hoovered into hell? I don't see how you can have this one both ways. Either she was ready or she wasn't, and if she wasn't, then maybe she needed someone with a colder eye (Eye, 'cause, y'know, Caleb, and I'll go there and discuss that as well if you want to) to help her with that.

*And does it really count as killing someone if they show up three months later? Buffy's sacrifice may have counted in the moment, but The Powers That Screw You undid it just as she was maybe-possibly beginning to move on with her life. And then she started lying her face off to everyone about it. And you ask why they might not entirely trust her?

Edited to add: And there wasn't only Buffy on the front lines, there was also Kendra, and it never seems to occur to Buffy in the aftermath that if she had allowed the other Slayer who was around the freedom to strike, both she and Jenny Calendar would have lived. But due to her emotional connection with Angel, she forbids it. So maybe she wasn't quite as combat-ready as you suspect.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Cobalt Stargazer

SparedTurkey · October 1, 2014

Well, your interpretation is your own, but if you're going to shrug it off that Angel, who was much stronger than Xander, took a swing at him in the name of "the mission", which at the time was to convince Faith that he was Angelus, it seems rather paradoxical to take issue with The Lie, which also served "the mission".

Well, given that vampires have super-human strength and there is 'only one girl in all the world' who can beat them, surely if Angel really wanted to hurt Xander, taking a free shot or not, the punch would have killed him, were Angel not (to use a cliche) pulling his punches. That I think is more comparative to Xander attempting to dispatch Angel via Faith, rather than "The Lie" is. For all that was shown, Xander was unconscious for all of 30 seconds.

And what I am getting at is that, if there is a general to further the military analogy, its Buffy. Not Xander, not Willow, Giles, anyone else (because evidently not even Faith got a swing at leadership). Buffy is the one who had to take out all threats, at risk to her life and who even put the Watcher's Council back in the box. So if there is anyone who needs that information, it is her. If the roles were reversed between Buffy and Xander, I'd be saying the same thing. Whoever is up for killing the menace needs all information. What is to say, if Buffy had been told that Willow was gonna have a decent crack at the curse again, that she wouldn't have fought a fraction harder to prevent Angelus from starting the spell at all? Then it would have been two birds, one stone, happy ending for all etc.

Also, you said it yourself, Buffy didn't kill* Angelus because she wasn't ready. If she had been ready, Acathla would have never entered into the equation because Angelus would have been a pile of ashes, yes?

Agreed, agreed. Hindsight and all that. But that particular hesitation was months before the Acathla deal was even a factor. Buffy, at the time of 'The Lie' was ready to kill him. She wasn't hesitating, or dickering. And considering she killed him, with a soul, to save the world, tells me that yes she would have saved the world, regardless of whether she knew what Willow was doing. I think the scenario is better likened to the Master saga - she didn't want to die, but she went to fight him anyway. I don't think I'm having it both ways. At the time the world was about to be "Hoovered into Hell" (awesome term btw, it made me chuckle) she was ready to kill him and did even though he just got his soul back so I'm not sure quite what you mean when you say she should have been ready before that. I'm not saying she is perfect and made no mistakes ever. But she was ready for that battle and I don't think anyone else needed to help her with that.

** I also do think it counts that she killed him, even though he was brought back three months later, because she didn't know that would happen. As far as she knew at the time, she had killed the first person she ever loved, to save the world. That does count for something. If she had brought him back herself that would be different. But I don't think what happened in Season 3 takes away from what she did in Becoming Pt 2. It obviously screwed her up. And yes, I agree, she lied when he came back. I'm not sure where I said she was a beacon of truth at all times, but, at the time of "The Lie" she hadn't lied to anyone. She was completely forthright so I don't know why that is an issue?

But due to her emotional connection with Angel, she forbids it. So maybe she wasn't quite as combat-ready as you suspect.

I am not saying Buffy was perfect (and never meant to give that impression). And no, she wasn't combat-ready initially. I'm not at all saying she was. But by the time of the final battle, she was combat-ready. It took months and months and people died during that time (which I am not handwaving at all). But it wasn't like it was just a week between "The Sex" and Becoming Pts. 1&2. If you want to go back to it, they should never have had sex at all. I just see Buffy being upfront about what she could and couldn't handle at the times they occurred and in lieu of that, she had earned the trust and respect of Giles and the Scoobies.

with a colder eye (Eye, 'cause, y'know, Caleb, and I'll go there and discuss that as well if you want to) to help her with that.

You know, I was never a part of the fandom when this show aired (because I had no net) so I honestly, without sarcasm or offence, have no idea what the Caleb thing is. But I do like discussing this with you!

Bitterswete · October 1, 2014

And at the end of the day, the street was deserted. No vampires around.

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?

And considering the death rate wasnt that high in Sunnydale (unless an episode is trying to make a point)

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.

I really don't see it as that bad. Especially as being knocked unconscious on this show meant you were out for like a minute.

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.

See, I think that given that Buffy was the lone fighter and everything was resting on her shoulders,

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.

For all the arguments that she wouldn't have fought to the best of her ability had she known, or that she'd never be able to kill him I think that line of thought is squarely defeated by the fact she did kill him. He had his soul back and she still saved the world. I think it reeks of a lack of confidence on Xander's part that he assumed she wouldn't.

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.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Bitterswete

Mya Stone · October 1, 2014

Alright everyone. I get it. We all still have opinions on Angel and Xander 11-15 years later. If you need to continue beating this horse, please start a new thread, and take three cleansing breaths before you post. It's getting a tad personal.

Fat Elvis 007 · October 2, 2014

I find it hard to judge characters in situations where the writers are clearly putting a joke above character integrity. I believe it is the very next episode where Xander stops trying to find a school shooter he thinks is about to strike because he is distracted by jello, and I find the Angel thing only a fraction as silly. And in the episode prior, we saw Cordelia ask Wesley on a date mere moments after finding out that Willow had died and was now a vampire. Yes, Xander's deux ex gelatin ends up saving the school, and Willow isn't really dead, but the characters don't know that, so their actions are inexcusable. Or at least they would be, if I believed any of these characters would ever actually behave this way. Xander was never in any real danger of getting killed while he was unconscious in the only street in downtown Sunnydale, because plot; Cordelia never would have been made to say such a callous line if Dopplegangland were a tragic episode about Willow's death instead of a comedy about doppelgänger hijinks; and Xander would never have been distracted by jello if the writers didn't need him to be in the cafeteria to catch the lunch lady.

I love all of these episodes, and this season, but this was definitely the point when the writers started showing an increasing willingness to sacrifice characters at the altar of plot and jokes, and this is a tendency that only got worse as the show went on.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Fat Elvis 007

Sign In

Unpopular Opinions

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Sarah D. Bunting

Cobalt Stargazer

Earl Is Dead

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment