Sarah's Sober Second Thought Series: With Heavy Hearts

[Primetimer]

The Buffy Rewatch contemplates Slayer solitude and sartorial non-splendor.

Read the story

[JennB]

Yes, Anya's character "development" made exactly zero sense. It would be one thing if she'd been brought to the 20th century straight from whatever century she came from and couldn't adjust. But being 1100 years old means she's seen the world develop through multiple eras. We saw in flashbacks that she was able to fit into those different eras. Why couldn't she adjust to the 20th and 21st centuries? Freaking Angel did it. I mean, he wasn't a technology wizard or anything, but he watched hockey and appreciated the humor of Carol Burnett.

I have a lot of Anya hatred, if it's not clear.

[EricJ]

I think you touched on one of my big problems with Season 5 - putting a lot of weight behind Glory being a "God," when from what we see on screen the difference between a God and a very powerful demon is that Glory is slightly less powerful.

[John Ramos]

I never thought about it in quite those terms before, but excellent point about the show failing to explain/demonstrate the functional difference between a demon and a god. Hardly the only example of the show not having a handle on its own mythology, of course.

[ferretrick]

It's still my view that The Body might have won that goddamn Emmy if not for the vampire at the end. And then they were all oh wait, this is the show about a teenage vampire slayer. Can't go rewarding that...

[RoyRogersMcFreely]

LVP - JOYCE'S NEUROLOGIST... made me laugh for like a full minute.

[Sarah D. Bunting]

"from what we see on screen the difference between a God and a very powerful demon is that Glory is slightly less powerful"

Yep, that. And dumber and more insecure.

[ferretrick]

from what we see on screen the difference between a God and a very powerful demon is that Glory is slightly less powerful.

Hey, don't forget, neither of them is as all powerful as The First Evil, which CAN'T EVEN TAKE CORPOREAL FORM!...

[Sandman]

Of course, it doesn't help that neither Clare Kramer nor Charlie Weber (the latter currently winning no hearts on How To Get Away With A Really Cruddy Show) is particularly charismatic or imposing as the divine or mundane side of their merged being (which, why, again?). Kramer in particular seems to be conflating "godhead" with "airhead."

 

JennB, I'ma come sit over by you, and we can glare at Anya together.

[Fat Elvis 007]

I agree that Anya's "I don't know anything about you beings called hyoo-muns" schtick got old, but I don't remember the exchange with Tara about computers being one of those times. Old people have trouble with computers all the time, and it was actually Tara who ends up coming across as less computer-savvy in that exchange. Plus, it contains one of my favorite Anya lines, in which she actually seems to have lived through human history instead of being teleported directly from the past:

"Oh, at first it was confusing. Just the idea of computers was like... Whoa! I'm eleven hundred years old here. I had trouble adjusting to the idea of Lutherans."

[AndySmith]

 

but also a solid argument for not hewing to 22-episode orders any longer

 

I'm surprised by this point nobody is telling Buffy to just chill, and that whatever problems they're having with Glory won't begin to really be taken seriously until April, and then everything will be resolved sometime in May.

 

As for Glory's lack of "godhood"...they show should have really emphasized or driven home more that Glroy's arrival to our dimension stripped her of much of her nature and power, and the Dawn sacrifice/ritual would restore that. I think they might have mentioned it a couple of times, but it just seemed like random lip service.

 

They could have also shown this by giving her more power besides her super-strength and durability. Then again, maybe they were worried about how overpowered she was to begin with.

 

 

[Fat Elvis 007]

Part of the problem is how early Glory was introduced. She shows up in episode 5, and she has all of her powers. We know exactly what her goal is. She fights Buffy right away.

The mayor was also introduced in the fifth episode of his season, but there were a lot of differences. Buffy didn't become aware of him until halfway through the season. He didn't gain his full strength until the episode after, and also gained a new ally which revealed new dimensions to the character. And his goals were fairly nebulous until towards the end end, plus there were explanations for why he couldn't reach his goal until that point. He never really seemed to consider Buffy much of an obstacle to reaching his goals either, so him not killing her earlier made some sort of sense.

Glory, by contrast, never had these plot beats. There are a few big reveals like the fact she was a god, that she was also Ben, and finding out Dawn was the key, but she is too powerful throughout the season and so many of her scenes seem like the same thing, with her whining about the key and the writers reminding us that she can brain suck people. Having her revealed later in the season, like Angelus or Adam, would have helped her seem less repetitive.

The writers also could have deepened her connection with Ben, but given their respective acting limitations, it's probably best that they didn't try. The inevitable comparisons to Faith/the Mayor wouldn't have helped.

That said, "The Gift" remains one of my favorite episodes (plot holes aside) and the final fight with Glory is fantastic.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Fat Elvis 007

[cheezwhiz346]

"so many of her scenes seem like the same thing"

Yeah, exactly. Most of her scenes have all the same elements; I feel like you could switch some of them around within the season and it would make very little difference.

Also, backing everyone up on Anya's overall lack of real characterization throughout her tenure on the show. I still think the actress was great and brought a lot of warmth and humor and pathos to the character, but I feel like the writers depended on her skills too much, and left out quite a bit of actual characterization.

Finally, ugh, Xander in Into the Woods. The show's seeming backing of his speech will never fail to tick me off.

"Buffy should take romantic advice from a guy who stopped being in puppy-love with her all of ten minutes ago and run after a dude who basically cheated on her because Cheaty McGraw loves her and Slayers can't be choosers"

This exactly. Like what the hell, Xander? It also gets to my larger issues with Xander (which I'll have to actually take to that thread when I get the chance) regarding people tending to view him as the 'everyman.'

[John Potts]

You know (not just to be contrary), I think The Body is overpraised. I have no problem with Buffy's reaction but it seemed that the entire demonic population of Sunnydale took the week off to mourn. It'd be better (IMO) if there was some supernatural crisis and Buffy went "Fuck it! I'm burying my mum and the rest of the world can go to hell!" and somebody (Giles? Spike?) has to take up the slack - OK, they did show Spike patrolling, but it seemed like he didn't actually have anything to do.

And while I think that for a God Glory was unimpressive (other than physically, she was less threat than any previous Big Bad) I actually liked the actress' portrayal - entitled but bat-frack insane. Not saying it was a great season (only S6 was worse) but that doesn't mean it didn't have its moments.

[Fat Elvis 007]

Well, "The Body" only takes place over the course of a few hours; it makes sense to me that there is no supernatural threat in the episode until the very end in the hospital. Also, Spike is mercifully absent from that episode. You might be talking about the next episode, in which if I recall the supernatural threat is caused by Dawn, but that's no that uncommon either. A lot of episodes have no supernatural threat until the Scoobies inadvertently summon one.

[Bitterswete]

Finally, ugh, Xander in Into the Woods. The show's seeming backing of his speech will never fail to tick me off.

"Buffy should take romantic advice from a guy who stopped being in puppy-love with her all of ten minutes ago and run after a dude who basically cheated on her because Cheaty McGraw loves her and Slayers can't be choosers"

This exactly. Like what the hell, Xander?

 

Have to say, I agreed with him too. But that might be because I took what he said a totally different way. I didn't think he was saying, "All things considered, you're lucky the guy even fell in love with you," or anything like that. The gist I got from what he said was that if Buffy thought she would actually be fine with Riley being gone, then let him go. But if she thought she might actually want to work things out with Riley, it wouldn't matter if he was already gone. (And was going to be totally beyond reach.) Basically, Xander thought that, once her anger cooled, Buffy would be miserable that Riley was gone. Which was a totally logical thing to think, and he had every right to step in and try to prevent his friend from being miserable. 

 

And I'm not sure Xander once having feelings for Buffy meant he was somehow disqualified to talk to her that night. Maybe if he'd been trying to stop Buffy from going after Riley, you could question his motives. But, since he was doing the opposite, I think he had every right to say what he felt needed saying.

 

As for Riley being a cheater, he really wasn't. The vamp 'ho thing might have been a metaphor for cheating. But a metaphor for cheating isn't cheating.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Bitterswete

[Sarah D. Bunting]

 

But a metaphor for cheating isn't cheating.

Wellllll okay, but given what Buffy is/does (slays vampires/the undead to protect humans), and how closely the act of feeding is allied with sex, here and elsewhere, this is a distinction without a meaningful difference.

[Bitterswete]

Wellllll okay, but given what Buffy is/does (slays vampires/the undead to protect humans), and how closely the act of feeding is allied with sex, here and elsewhere, this is a distinction without a meaningful difference.

 

There is in my mind. I get, on an intellectual level, how it's a metaphor for cheating, and can even see how the writers tried to play that up. But my gut just doesn't see it as the same. So I just can't see what Riley did as cheating. 

 

I can appreciate a good metaphor (although I think this one was a tad clunky). But, as often as not, I just don't see the metaphor as the actual thing it's a metaphor of. If that makes sense.

[cheezwhiz346]

Have to say, I agreed with him too. But that might be because I took what he said a totally different way. I didn't think he was saying, "All things considered, you're lucky the guy even fell in love with you," or anything like that. The gist I got from what he said was that if Buffy thought she would actually be fine with Riley being gone, then let him go. But if she thought she might actually want to work things out with Riley, it wouldn't matter if he was already gone. (And was going to be totally beyond reach.) Basically, Xander thought that, once her anger cooled, Buffy would be miserable that Riley was gone. Which was a totally logical thing to think, and he had every right to step in and try to prevent his friend from being miserable. 

 

And I'm not sure Xander once having feelings for Buffy meant he was somehow disqualified to talk to her that night. Maybe if he'd been trying to stop Buffy from going after Riley, you could question his motives. But, since he was doing the opposite, I think he had every right to say what he felt needed saying.

 

As for Riley being a cheater, he really wasn't. The vamp 'ho thing might have been a metaphor for cheating. But a metaphor for cheating isn't cheating.

Well, to be clear, I said the show's backing of Xander's speech never failed to tick me off. I never said anything about what Xander had the right to say or not say. It was the way in which the whole thing was presented and framed, that, IMO, was the problem, and people can obviously take that different ways.

[Sandman]

I'm not convinced Whedon or whoever at Mutant Enemy ever handled the distinction between metaphor and the thing symbolized neatly or consistently. Riley's letting a vamp feed on him was ... whatever it was. Angel's vampire nature was treated as a metaphor for addiction, up until the script had him say "I'm not a blood-aholic!" And then there was Willow's magic jones. Which was stupid.

 

Frankly, Riley's behaviour bothered me because it was self-destructive (and kind of hypocritical) in a really gross way.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Sandman

[Fat Elvis 007]

I personally found Riley's behavior worse than cheating. Cheating is horrible, but most people can understand it on a primal level. Letting vampires feed on you is a few degrees more messed up and horrifying, IMO, and I never felt it was in character. The other self-destructive behavior, like going after vampires alone, I understood, but this was a bridge too far.

And I have to agree with damngoodcoffee that the show seemed to want us not only to see Xander's speech as persuasive to us, not just Buffy, they also repeatedly framed the breakup as being at least half Buffy's fault, which I've never been able to stomach. Being a little emotionally distant while your mother is dying and your sister isn't real =\= letting vampires suck your blood and then giving your girlfriend an ultimatum. Riley bears 99% of the blame for how things ended.

[Jack Shaftoe]

Riley's character was mauled beyond all recognition even prior to the vamp-prostitutes debacle. Namely in Out of My Mind, where he seriously contemplated letting himself die because he couldn't bear to live without his (rather limited) superpowers. This is also the episode featuring Spike's first wet dream about Buffy and something tells me those two things are connected. Though sheer incompetence might be a better explanation than the writers deliberately writing Riley out of character to make room for Spuffy. For some reason they seemed to forget he worked at the college and had a psychology degree and turned him into a simpleton who couldn't live without military discipline.

 

To be fair, Buffy didn't treat him particularly well during this period of time and saying that her mother "was dying" relies on knowledge of certain events the characters didn't posses at the time. And wasn't he the last of the gang to learn about Dawn? Or maybe he was never even told what she really was, frankly I remember little details of the whole thing.  It was silly from start to finish, including the ridiculousness of the US government sending Riley to fight demons in the "Central American Republic of Where-in-the-hell", while not bothering to help Buffy and pals fight demons in the US in any way.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Jack Shaftoe