Who's your Favorite Buffyverse Villain? by bobknaptor

Quote:
Originally posted by bobknaptor:
It's been kinda quiet in here for a couple days, so I thought I'd try to stir up a little debate.

So, who's your favorite Villain? Doesn't matter if they were the big bad or the little bad or just a monster of the week. Who floats your boat?

I used to say Spike, but since the chipping, I have a hard time thinking of him as a villain anymore, even when he mucks stuff up.

I think my all time favorite villain would probably have to be Vamp Willow, cuz with the outfit. But Sunday was great too. (anybody remember Sunday from "The Freshman"?) And the Gentlemen from "Hush" were definitely chilling.

What do you guys think?

______________
Look. Everyone's all afraid. It's just like old times.

Are we limited to Buffy, or can we do Angel, too?

I'll give a top three for each. :D

Buffy:

1. Mr. Trick
2. Angelus
3. Vamp Willow (yes, the outfit and the licking... good!)

Angel:

1. Holtz (damn his eyes)
2. Lilah
3. Gavin Park (sorry, but the idea of evil through bureaucracy is just too damn funny and good)

Pandora

"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies and the baby looked at me." -Ralph Wiggum

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 19, 2002 11:02 AM

BOBKNAPTOR

Of Course include Angel villains...

I am quite embarressed to admit it, but when it comes to Angel, I'm a Johnny Come-Lately. I've only seen a couple episodes. (Although I have a friend who has access to all 3 seasons on tape, and she is going to make copies for me, so that I can be as big an angel freak as I am a Buffy freak. hehe)

Mr. Trick! I forgot to put him in there. He was great too! Even as he died he was funny!

______________
Whether we're human...vampire...and whatever the hell you are, my brother. You got them spiny-looking head things. I ain't never seen that before.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 19, 2002 1:01 PM

Jeez, why did it take so long for somebody to think of this topic? Very sloppy of us! Buffy has the best bad villains ever. The thing I like most about them is that they're so sincere.

In no particular order:

The Gentleman. Surely the most wickedly beautiful of all the bad guys.

Glory. People complain that she's "one-note". But that's the whole point -- if she had any real interests beyond her skanky self, she wouldn't be evil!

Spike. Yes, he's a villain. Or at least he was until he fell in love with his arch enemy. The fact that they give him all these wonderfully ironic lines, or that it's so much fun to watch JM deliver them ("I want to save the world!") is beside the point.

Dru. Madness as Poetry.

Mayor Wilkins. Vote for clean streets, civic virtue, and The Ascension!

The Master Hey, he's just trying to keep his "family" together!

Faith If only she would use her powers for good -- she'd be a lot more boring!

Willow Willow? Yes Willow! Remember, there are at least four Willows (Geek Willow, Obsessed Willow, Vamp Willow, Dark Willow). Only one of them is good!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 19, 2002 3:15 PM

CHARLIEBLUE

Wow. We haven't done this yet. Anyway, here's mine for both shows:

For Buffy:

1. Evil Spike -- I miss Evil Spike! Stupid chipped dork.
2. Mayor Wilkins -- He tells his trained killers not to swear and gives them chocolate chip cookies. What a perfect politician.
3. Dru -- She is just plain entertaining.
Tie 3. Faith -- I hated her at first. She was so pointless. And then suddenly she was fascinating.

For Angel:

1. Lindsey -- I don't care if the writers couldn't make up their mind how to make the character. He's so appealing, with his evil-lawyer cool and Texas boy style. And so cute to boot.
2. That Telekinetic Girl -- The one who drove a pole through Angel. I'm not sure she was really a villain, but she was a villain-in-making anyway.
3. Darla -- Julie Benz did such a great job as Darla. She was one of the most interesting vamps in the Buffyverse.

Hey, three original responses. Go me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 20, 2002 9:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CharlieBlue:
1. Evil Spike -- I miss Evil Spike! Stupid chipped dork.

Hello! Chipped Spike is Evil too! Why does everybody forget that?

Quote:
2. Mayor Wilkins -- He tells his trained killers not to swear and gives them chocolate chip cookies. What a perfect politician.

Don't forget his fear of germs. Very strange in a man who's over 100 years old. What is it about the Buffy writers and phobias?

Quote:
3. Dru -- She is just plain entertaining.

Indeed. You'll note that Juliet Landau's father, Martin Landau, played Bela Lugosi in Ed Wood. Is this the start of a family tradition?

Quote:

Tie 3. Faith -- I hated her at first. She was so pointless. And then suddenly she was fascinating.

I wish people wouldn't assume that they have to like characters. I remember all the critics -- especially the "family values" types -- complaining that the girl on My So Called Life was selfish and self-centered. Hello! That's the point!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 20, 2002 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
Quote:

Tie 3. Faith -- I hated her at first. She was so pointless. And then suddenly she was fascinating.

I wish people wouldn't assume that they have to like characters. I remember all the critics -- especially the "family values" types -- complaining that the girl on My So Called Life was selfish and self-centered. Hello! That's the point!

Now not to jump in for Charlie here, but I'm pretty sure that what she was saying that she thought the character was pointless. I don't know for sure, but I think the context is implicit of Faith the character not fitting in properly with the rest of the show.

As far as my opinion on it goes, I didn't think much of Faith as a character, for good or for bad, until further into S3 either. I didn't dislike who Faith was, I disliked her place on the show. I think this might be what Charlie is saying, too.

Sometimes when people don't like a character, it's not because of personality attributes, but rather where they fit in the paradigm.

Could just be me, though.

Pandora

"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies
and the baby looked at me." -Ralph Wiggum

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 20, 2002 11:52 AM

Quote:
As far as my opinion on it goes, I didn't think much of Faith as a character, for good or for bad, until further into S3 either. I didn't dislike who Faith was, I disliked her place on the show. I think this might be what Charlie is saying, too.

Not me. I always enjoyed the character. Maybe it's just the Dirty Old Man in me. But the contrast with Buffy is fascinating.

Quote:

Sometimes when people don't like a character, it's not because of personality attributes, but rather where they fit in the paradigm.

I agree, but with a strong emphasis on "sometimes". It's my experience that most people reach for the remote control when a character that bugs them comes on. Look at all the complaints we get about Dawn's whininess.

In fact, Dawn's another one of my favorites. But, it's true, she's a whiny brat. I love watching her on TV, but if I had Buffy over for dinner, I'd ask her to leave that irritating sister at home.

Which brings me to a related point -- I'd never have Buffy over for dinner, because as a person I don't particularly like her. Are you shocked? Here I am, a rabid fan of the show, the actress, and, yes, the character. But that doesn't mean I like the character. She's precisely the kind of whitebread middle-American, personality deficient, intellectually lazy Valley Girl I've always done my best to avoid.

But my likes and dislikes are irrelevent. It's an honest portrayal of a very real kind of person, and that is what I admire and enjoy.

I guess I'm not exactly a typical Buffy fan, huh?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 20, 2002 2:43 PM

CHARLIEBLUE

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
Quote:
Originally posted by CharlieBlue:
1. Evil Spike -- I miss Evil Spike! Stupid chipped dork.
Hello! Chipped Spike is Evil too! Why does everybody forget that?

Because my pet cat is more evil than that neutered puppy. He's always going on about, "I'm evil! I'll take over the world!" But when it comes down to it, he's actually thinking, "Hey, Mr. Demon, can I have my soul back so I can be even sappier than I already am?"
I agree, he was still evil at first. Like that one scene when Faith comes back and he's going to find her and tell where where everyone is--that was classic Evil Spike. But that vanished in a big hurry to make room for Spike mooning for Buffy.

Quote:
Quote:
3. Dru -- She is just plain entertaining.
Indeed. You'll note that Juliet Landau's father, Martin Landau, played Bela Lugosi in Ed Wood. Is this the start of a family tradition?

I think I wrote a paper for school once that talked about vampirism running in the Landau family. Got an A, if I recall.
(And in case you didn't notice when you saw it, Juliet was in that movie too.)

Quote:
I wish people wouldn't assume that they have to like characters. I remember all the critics -- especially the "family values" types -- complaining that the girl on My So Called Life was selfish and self-centered. Hello! That's the point!

Like Pandora said, it wasn't so much whether or not the character gave me warm fuzzies. It was just that she was pointless. You could've taken her off the show without losing anything, which meant she was just taking screen time away from actual plot development. Once they found something for her to do, I liked her better.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 20, 2002 3:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:

Which brings me to a related point -- I'd never have Buffy over for dinner, because as a person I don't particularly like her. Are you shocked? Here I am, a rabid fan of the show, the actress, and, yes, the character. But that doesn't mean I like the character. She's precisely the kind of whitebread middle-American, personality deficient, intellectually lazy Valley Girl I've always done my best to avoid.

Actually, I'm in complete agreement with you. I like Buffy as a character because she's dynamic and layered and very very real- however, she's not a person I'd be likely to ever hang out with (though she is kinda funny). I'm a very big fan of her, and I like to watch her, but as far as characters I'd hang out with, I'd be far more likely to hang out with Willow, or Tara, or Xander, or even (especially?) Spike (if he wouldn't try to kill me) because they're not quite so... well, normal.

Although it might behoove one to have a vampire slayer as a buddy...

Pandora

"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies
and the baby looked at me." -Ralph Wiggum

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 20, 2002 5:03 PM

MOJOECA

Quote:
Originally posted by Pandora:

Actually, I'm in complete agreement with you. I like Buffy as a character because she's dynamic and layered and very very real- however, she's not a person I'd be likely to ever hang out with (though she is kinda funny). I'm a very big fan of her, and I like to watch her, but as far as characters I'd hang out with, I'd be far more likely to hang out with Willow, or Tara, or Xander, or even (especially?) Spike (if he wouldn't try to kill me) because they're not quite so... well, normal.

Joss mentioned this in his WTTH commentary. He was telling the network, who objected to Willow's nerdiness, that she would be their most popular character, much moreso than Buffy. She, Buffy, has a certain inaccessiblity, because "she's such a hero." She is a very closed off person and, frankly a little self-centered -- though saving people's lives maybe gives her right to be.

--- Joe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 20, 2002 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mojoeca:

Joss mentioned this in his WTTH commentary. He was telling the network, who objected to Willow's nerdiness, that she would be their most popular character, much moreso than Buffy. She, Buffy, has a certain inaccessiblity, because "she's such a hero." She is a very closed off person and, frankly a little self-centered -- though saving people's lives maybe gives her right to be.

--- Joe

He's a smart cookie, that Whedon. In a genre patronized by nerds, geeks, freaks, and weirdoes, while a heroine such as Buffy will entertain, a character like Willow will attach. That Willow is a sidekick is even more appealing, because a lot of the disenfranchised oddballs of the world often feel like sidekicks in their own life stories.

Whereas Willow is the lovable geek, Xander's the lovable dork. Nothing exceptional, but exceptionally accessible. Also, they're not just Buffyfoils. They're as well developed as she, which just makes us love them more.

Though I'd like to see a little more of VampWillow someday...

someday...

Pandora
watch the hands, indeed...

"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies
and the baby looked at me." -Ralph Wiggum

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 21, 2002 11:31 AM

The Mayor - perfect combination of funny and creepy.

Shug

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 21, 2002 9:43 PM

I've answered this question a lot, but here goes. I agree about the Mayor. I always put Angel, Spike, Faith, etc. in a separate category of good-bads or bad-goods - I can't evaluate them in the same terms as the Master, the Mayor, Glory, etc.

As many times as I've tackled it, I've never been able to articulate very well why I like the Mayor so much. For one, I either believe that his affection for Faith was genuine - and I know hers for him was - or it was the most diabolical case of using someone I've ever seen. But certain expressions, sayings, and actions convince me that he did. And this ties in with his whole shtick: he's like the perfect 50s TV dad - Father Knows Best - who's utterly sick, demented, twisted. I can untangle how much of that is irony and how much of that is straight commentary, but it's fascinating. And, not least, I forget the actor's name, but he played the part brilliantly. The way he plays a character who's hilarious and menacing; kind and vicious; goofy and dangerous - as one thing and not some kind of split personality, where he might weight one side or the other too heavily... just great writing and acting.

As far as Faith, I think she was serving a purpose from the start - she was a contrast for Buffy and someone to shine lights from different angles. She was used to give a better idea of Slayer lore and Watcher activities and so on. As vague as those things are, she provided a means to explore them more than they had been. And then it naturally led into her leading Buffy down a dangerous path, and further on to her outright antagonism and alliance with the Mayor. A lot of people mark s2 as the high point and it was certainly amazing but, despite cheapening the point - so to speak - by bringing Angel back, I thought s3, with the Faith/Mayor dynamics, was the best of all. So, at the start, I didn't know how the storyline was going to play out, but I felt it playing out. I wasn't sure what to make of her at first, but I liked her IN the show - I felt she fit the paradigm well. And then I just came to be fascinated with her in specific character terms as well. (Incidentally, many dislike Kendra's fate, but I thought that was a nice bit of writing in terms of introducing the weirdness of two Slayers in a relatively minor way - so that Faith could carry a major storyline without the "there can be only - two?" thing being such a stumbling block.

But then, I'm weird - I sort of liked Willow and I liked Xander a bit more, but my interest and appreciation was for Buffy. And it's gotten to where I don't really "like" any of them, but I put a lot of that down to the specifics of bad writing in s6, and I still retain more appreciation of Buffy-that-was than the others. This is the villain thread, so I won't drift too far there. Explaining why I would defend Buffy (of s1-5) - or why I'm not such a huge fan of Willow and Xander - is almost as hard as explaining the Mayor.

Back to the switch-hitters. It's a tough call with that - Faith was amazing but ultimately (or ultimately-thus-far) underused character, and I have to allow that I'm not evaluating her entirely with my brain.

So I'd have to say Spike was my favorite switcher, though he also got messed up this season. And this ties into why I'm not listing anybody from Angel - I agree with whoever said the blind assassin was the coolest. I watched Angel from the debut to about 18 eps into last season and took a break. I'll give it a brief try next season. I don't see good villains there and Angel is actually more annoying to me with his guilty broodiness than with his happy goofiness. I like the character just fine, but no way is he near the top. As Angelus he was fine but almost too one-dimensional, and I always wanted Spike to kick his ass. Spike's probably THE most complicated character on the show, which explains why he's so popular (either that or people think he's really hot, I dunno) and why he's so easy for writers to screw up. It's like the writing team began having problems handling his complexity and in his switch from "evil" to "good" (both descriptions are too simplistic by far) the character escaped their control. IMO, people who dislike him are in the minority and see what the writers are now trying to force him to be while people who like him are in the majority and are seeing where his character should naturally have gone after the alliance to defeat Angelus on over to the early stages of being chipped. It was in that zone that he was simultaneously becoming the best character they had and being ruined as a character. Remember, this is the badass who killed two Slayers and struck fear into everyone... and believably came to ally himself with Buffy and, with the chip enabling him to kick his - *flash*

Speaking of stupid magic addiction metaphors. I hated that storyline. But it's not a bad metaphor for vampirism. Spike's a blood addict and the chip is his Anabuse. Being free of the addiction, he's a dry bloodsucker, it's true, but he's able to stop centering his life on it and able to want something besides blood. Like Buffy. ("Blood" here meaning "hunted blood from a kill" - he still needs blood itself.) He's still a badass and not a "good" guy and he still has the blood grooves channeled into his brain, but it doesn't mean his ability to do "good things" is a sham or that his love for Buffy is fake or just lust. And it certainly doesn't make him "evil" or "good". With Buffy dead, if he was just lusting after her and trying to con her, he could have gotten a vamp buddy to kill Dawn and drink her blood from a cup if he couldn't kill her directly. Instead, he helped the (as he saw them) dweebish Scoobys and guarded Dawn. The chip didn't make him do that - it allows him to do that, at most. And this is the intrinsic Spike, though the writers - at the same time that they write it - are intent on disregarding for their didactic purposes.

Anyhoo - this was Spike the badass who, even when battling other vamps ("All the Way") manages to take a couple out but is a figure of fun when one of the vamps jumps him and makes him shoot the crossbow off in the air. Who, in his twisted way, was devoted to Drusilla and then is supposed to be the "bad boyfriend" that Marti Noxon (maybe, though maybe I'm just getting overly personal) wants to portray as the mistake every woman has in their life and, if their wise, gets over. Etc. Blah blah. Ran out of gas.

Sheesh. Giles would have a hard time lifting this book.

Fave switcher: Spike - complex. Check.
Fave stright villain: Mayor - psycho Father Knows Best. Check.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 22, 2002 4:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mojoeca:
Joss mentioned this in his WTTH commentary. He was telling the network, who objected to Willow's nerdiness, that she would be their most popular character, much moreso than Buffy.

Sigh. As I've said before, every network, every studio has somebody whose job it is to say, "I love what you're doing, but couldn't we make the characters a bit more sympathetic?" Or otherwise point out all the risks the show is taking, The entertainment industry is dominated by cowards.

In point of fact, JW didn't entirely win the battle over Willow. In the first pilot, Willow was played by a different actress -- more stereotypically Jewish, and much, much less sleekly sexy.

I shouldn't carp, though. AH gets almost the same effect just through good acting. But I do find it amusing that SMG, who is Jewish, plays the blonde white-bread middle-American. While Willow Rosenberg is played by an actress who is very conspicuously of Irish heritage. But hey, you have an "ethnic" actress playing an "ethnic" role, so it works, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 22, 2002 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shuggie:
The Mayor - perfect combination of funny and creepy.

Shug

Very, very true. If I had to rank the "arc" bad guys, I'd rate Mayor Wilkins #2, right after Glory.

Most people don't consider Glory that interesting -- and as a character, I suppose she's not. But the irony and sly wit of the role is great fun.

JW and company love to spring weird little suprises. One of the best of these is the moment when THE BEAST finally catches up with the monk. The warehouse door thuds, thuds, thuds, then falls, as the monk looks on in terror -- to behold a pretty woman in a cocktail dress! Delicious.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 22, 2002 6:41 AM

I'd quibble with that interpretation slightly.

I, of course, don't know what conversations the network and Joss had over the casting of Riff Regan (pilot Willow). I have seen her work and it's well - pretty mediocre.

She hasn't got Aly's charm and charisma and she hasn't got the acting ability either. She plays Willow as the slightly sad, slightly pathetic nerd. You're really left wondering whether Buffy or Xander would hang with her.

One of the main characteristics of Willow in the High School years is that she's pretty cool but you've got to see past the nerd to realize that. Buffy, Xander and Oz definitely do. Regan's Willow didn't have that - she was all nerd.

Plus she's kinda dumpy. I know that's harsh but - "This is TV get over it" - as Joss said about casting Mr Brendon as a geek. I actually think you can get away with dumpy if you've got personality. Personality, as the man said, goes a long way.

I'm sure Riff Regan is a wonderful person with oodles of personality. Unfortunately it didn't come over on the screen that day.

Shug

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 22, 2002 8:40 AM

BOBKNAPTOR

I think the beauty of Faith was that they were able to explore the darker side of all the "Slayer Power" without corrupting Buffy in anyone's eyes. They've never really had a "Buffy goes evil" storyline. She did breaking and entering into the weapons shop with Faith, but really, I think that's the most evil she's ever been.

I think up until Faith, a lot of people were saying "come on, she has all this power, and yet she is still kind of a wimp about using it!" So Faith came in, and she showed what it meant to really exploit the gifts of the slayer. At first you're thinking "Woo Hoo! Finally a slayer with guts!" Then you start to see how dark it is, and how it is such a short trip from "tough as nails vampire slayer" to "evil henchman". And all this without the inconvenience of people suddenly not trusting Buffy anymore.

______________
She's not playing with a full deck. She has hardly any deck at all. She has a 3.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 22, 2002 9:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bobknaptor:
I think the beauty of Faith was that they were able to explore the darker side of all the "Slayer Power" without corrupting Buffy in anyone's eyes.

Good point. But then, aren't all the Buffy villains like that? They're not the you-gotta-hate-em bad guys like on other action shows. They're really not that different from the good guys. Which is not unlike real life.

And once again we see how JW uses fantasy as an excuse to be real!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 22, 2002 10:10 AM

NOVAGRASS

Quote:

Actually, I'm in complete agreement with you. I like Buffy as a character because she's dynamic and layered and very very real- however, she's not a person I'd be likely to ever hang out with (though she is kinda funny). I'm a very big fan of her, and I like to watch her, but as far as characters I'd hang out with, I'd be far more likely to hang out with Willow, or Tara, or Xander, or even (especially?) Spike (if he wouldn't try to kill me) because they're not quite so... well, normal.

You say that Buffy is not a person with whom you'd ever be likely to hang out, but would you ever expect a person like Willow or Xander to hang out with her? I certainly wouldn't. The fact that she associates herself with these characters, and even persues a relationship with them, contradicts a lot of my troubles with Buffy's "type" of person (i.e. white-bred middle American valley girl). This may be a matter of her circumastances; a matter of her not being a normal girl, just like Willow and Xander are not "normal" people.

However, I am in a agreement with you. Buffy is probably not a person I would ever expect to enjoy, though looking back on previous experiences, some of my best relationships have been with people I would not have expected to like.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

The Ultimate Buffy-Angel Quote Generator™
Out of Order

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 22, 2002 3:20 PM

Well, there were stray eps like "When She Was Bad" on to parts of "Normal Again" but neither of those are really about the darker aspects of Slayerpower as such - more about Buffy as a person. They have addressed it, with Buffy's interactions with the First Slayer and Spike - raising the issue of a dark side. But your right that there's been nothing like Faith's arc for Buffy and that it was used as a contrast without having Buffy in a position of having to, uh, repent. They took Faith all the way and sent Angel that way on AtS and...

Have Australians seen all of s6 yet? I think everybody has but I'm not sure about them. *sigh* Possible spoilers if you haven't seen s6.

Select to view spoiler:

...and now Willow - which IS a problem because I don't know quite how they're going to swing her return to the fold

.

As far as the B&E though, I'm not sure I'd call even that "evil" - I think some things she was doing to people like Xander in "When She Was Bad" were more malicious, whereas that was just juvenile delinquency - but with Slayer-sized potential for trouble. Interesting that Faith also ran numbers on Xander in a similar way. If there was one problem I did have with s3 it was that the season should have been 26 eps long or so - I'd love to have seen them be able to take that arc a little slower and have Buffy flirting on the edge with Faith longer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 22, 2002 3:22 PM

This was part of the above post but it's another ridiculous ramble on a tangent, so I'm splitting it off, but I have thread-start-o-phobia so I'm posting it in this thread since comments in this thread sparked it. This way people can just skip the post if they want...

I can't help but drift into the "shallow girl" vs. "geeks we love thing" here. This is why I like Buffy so much. In "When She Was Bad" and some of her contests with Cordelia, we see a girl who is smart and sexy and could destroy people like Xander daily with a spoken word. We see that she has it in her to out-bitch Cordelia at her bitchiest. Not to mention that we see what she could be with Faith as an example of the power Buffy has. Yet Buffy is actually a very kind and compassionate person who restrains these powers - both her personal and Slayer-related ones. She was IN the in-group with Cordelia and, being new, was not trying to commit herself too thoroughly one way or the other. But one of the most winning moments early on is when Cordelia destroys Willow for drinking from the fountain. We can see Buffy dismayed by Cordelia's comments and I think she put in a slight defense of Willow, but Willow kind of whimpered and ran off. Buffy loses focus on what Cordelia's rambling about and there's a long shot of Willow looking back down the hall and Buffy looking at her. And later she goes out to talk with Willow and then Xander and Jesse. A lot of people's main reaction might be sympathy for Willow in that long-shot, but I was more impressed by Buffy's sympathy for Willow. My interest went to Buffy. And contrariwise - Willow had no power except illegally hacking (oh, isn't that cute) and equating witchcraft ingredients with stuff in the science lab (oh, how clever) and getting vengeance when she can. Cordelia: Okay, so how do we save it? - Willow: "Hit 'deliver'." So Cordy erases her work with the delete key. Yeah, it was funny as hell but Willow has been about gaining power and challenging Buffy and, when she has power, doing harm with it and stroking her own ego. She's the antithesis of Buffy and I like Buffy.

This isn't the only reason by any means, but it's one important factor. And when people talk about Buffy's self-centeredness... well, she was a Cordelia of her old school and then suddenly she's the Slayer, with the "Weight of the World" on her shoulders and no chance of a normal teenage life - or any other. It IS all about her in the sense that she has to struggle with wanting a boyfriend like most any other teenage girl - but has to reject Owen because her life is about danger and he'd get killed in it. True self-centeredness would be to keep Owen for herself, regardless of her duties, and let him get killed. Faith would say there were more where he came from. And this goes throughout everything in her life. She can't do what she wants, she has to monitor herself and train and struggle with what she wants and what being the Slayer demands and she's not happy about it. She's not some nauseating self-sacrificing saint who likes to do this. But she overcomes it. She does do what she has to, and there's a genuine nobility to that over a very real human frailty. Which is another problem with s6. The responsibilities build and build to the point of having to watch out for the sister/key and fighting a god. And she snaps, finally. And recovers (thanks to the sweet half of Willow - but don't believe for a second Willow didn't love having Buffy owe her a big one) and then dies. And the ambiguity of that is in keeping with the rest. Yes, she "sacrifices herself for Dawn" so she was once again saving the world and putting someone else's needs before her own (in the big picture)... but she was also escaping from this weight once more. It wasn't purely saintly - Buffy might have had enough. Who wouldn't? But s6 doesn't really have anywhere to go after that climactic death. (Another flash - how ironic... and disturbing. I'm pretty well convinced Joss isn't mortal

, but there is this: it's almost comparable to Ripley's fate in Aliens III and Aliens IV just did not work... and Joss, while not happy with how the movie came out, was actually partly responsible for that. Yet, contrarwise, he came in to the Aliens franchise for resurrection and began drifting from the Buffy franchise at resurrection.) I mean, c'mon - Buffy's the Slayer. We know she's going to die and we know all evil will never be ultimately defeated. Both Aliens and Buffy are tragedies at bottom and have to end in death and failure after heroic struggle. So does all life. Resurrections are anticlimactic and ring false. (Yeah, Buffy "died" at the end of s1, but "Only a little!")

So I find her flawed, yes, like any human, but I see her as an immensely likable person and agree with Giles' assessment that she's a hero, though no perfect invincible god.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 22, 2002 3:43 PM

Quote:
...though looking back on previous experiences, some of my best relationships have been with people I would not have expected to like.

Touche! And indeed, the way the relationship between Buffy and Giles evolves over the first three seasons represents exactly that kind of experience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 23, 2002 2:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by J:
...but there is this: it's almost comparable to Ripley's fate in Aliens III and Aliens IV just did not work... and Joss, while not happy with how the movie came out, was actually partly responsible for that. Yet, contrarwise, he came in to the Aliens franchise for resurrection and began drifting from the Buffy franchise at resurrection.) I mean, c'mon - Buffy's the Slayer. We know she's going to die and we know all evil will never be ultimately defeated. Both Aliens and Buffy are tragedies at bottom and have to end in death and failure after heroic struggle. So does all life. Resurrections are anticlimactic and ring false. (Yeah, Buffy "died" at the end of s1, but "Only a little!")

I hesitate to speak for Joss - especially since he has been known to visit the board - but I will anyway

I doubt that it was specifically the resurrection stuff that drew Joss to Alien 4. I suspect that was largely irrelevant, I suspect that it was the chance to work on a very popular movie franchise and bring something to it. AFAIK it's still his only sole writer credit movie (apart from the Buffy movie of course) - so it would have been a big deal to get the gig.

Also you can bet that resurrection was a non-negotiable when he took the job. They finance was probably dependant on having Siguorney Weaver on board.

I agree Alien 4 doesn't work - but it's not resurrecting Ripley that's the problem - at least not for me.

A good death scene - Alien 3, the Gift (which is a rip-off of Alien 3 in many ways - sorry Joss I meant 'homage to') - is a great ending. But I don't see why a resurrection is a poor beginning.

As for Buffy being a flawed hero - I totally agree. But somehow that doesn't make her the kind of person you'd want to spend time with. Joss's comments on WTTH commentary are basically correct. We identify with Xander and Willow precisely because they are not heroes - not superheroes anyway.

I do think that it's not so much Slayer power as the things you have to do as a Slayer that harden you. Buffy was well on her way to depression before she or even her mom died - it's the job - all that death, all that fighting, all those difficult life or death decisions - and the way the evil keeps on coming. I think over 5 or 6 years it was bound to wear her down.

Shug

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 23, 2002 5:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shuggie:

A good death scene - Alien 3, the Gift (which is a rip-off of Alien 3 in many ways - sorry Joss I meant 'homage to') - is a great ending. But I don't see why a resurrection is a poor beginning.

Well, not as such. It's just very frustrating when you bring a character to some important point in their life -- like the end of it -- and then just negate that whole apotheosis just beause it's convenient. Like the beginning of Alien 3. It's a sequel to a movie where Riply goes through hell and manages to escape with two people she loves. At the end of the movie you're cheering her on, and you're glad that all three of them made it out. Then in A3 the first thing they do is totally negate that by killing off the little girl and the marine. Which is why I never went to see it.

Other example: Hugh the Borg on Star Trek. The good guys set him free from the Borg. Episode ends with warm fuzzy feeling. Then they bring him back in an episode where he harbors a totally abusrd grudge against the good guys. But then, that episode has so many plot holes, what's one more?

That sort of thing has a lot to do with the failure of Season 6. In season 5, they kill off Joyce, and make it very clear that Raising the Dead is very Uncool. Then they kill of Buffy. Naturally everybody assumed they were going to have to do something very very clever to bring her back. But no, Willow just finds a silly loophole in the Osiris Doesn't Give Em Back policy. Very unsatisfying.

Same goes for the changes in Xander and Willow. It wasn't just that their lives got all screwed up. It's that these changes didn't grow organically out of what happened to them before.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 23, 2002 10:08 AM

BOBKNAPTOR

Yet another reason to watch the Alien series. I am embarressed to say I have *NEVER* seen *ANY* of the Alien movies. I know, I've led a sheltered life.

______________
Why couldn't you be dealing drugs like normal people?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 23, 2002 9:23 PM

Shuggie - yeah, I said that wrong. I didn't mean "for" resurrection like that was why he got involved or that it was his idea. I should have said "at the point of" resurrection. I was just struck by the odd contrast, not really saying that it meant all that much. Just that I'd figure that if he was going to resurrect Buffy he'd want to have more control over the result and it seemed like he left more control over specifics in the hands of other people.

And it's true A4 has a lot of problems. This goes to what Zicsoft said - A3 definitely was extremely abrupt with undoing the resolution of Aliens but I think in a way, Aliens was more the unrealistic ending. The only way to succeed is to stop the story at a high point. The end of any story is going to be death. It's a specific counterstatement to "and they all lived happily ever after" and, though dark, dreary and depressing (and not all that financially successful) I think it was a brilliant piece of bravery and makes the "whole" trilogy a work of art.

I agree, Shuggie, about the hardening aspects. WWII soldiers had a really hard time with it, and Viet Nam even more so, and the military got to rotating people out of action sooner and sooner when possible. Buffy is - kind of the point made with the Initiative stuff - a (nearly) lone soldier in a massive war with no possibility of being rotated out short of death - even if she does wear miniskirts or whatever. And I agree with Zicsoft about the Borg stuff and resurrection stuff on Buffy not quite making as much sense or being as hard-earned as they were supposed to be. And every character was negated in s6 - Australian spoilers?

Select to view spoiler:

- Giles, with not very plausible rationalizations, left; Spike was made to be an attempted rapist; Buffy was made to be oblivious and ineffective; Dawn was a whiny klepto; Tara was killed; Xander left Anya at the altar; Willow was some weird kind of big bad - maybe Anya wasn't too terribly slandered - but all the others were - at once. And I see some logic in Xander being a goof, but not that much. Xander's flaw is more of an arrogance hidden in his dweebishness while he was made to be a coward here: the one thing he isn't. Only the Willow arc makes sense in character development terms and they botched that terribly in actual execution.

Oh, and as to why resurrection should be a poor beginning, it isn't inherently so. You can write the death a certain way and handle the resurrection a certain way and make it work. That much of A4 was actually good. The idea of a Ripley Mark II with a new beginning could have easily been the grounds for a second trilogy as good as the first. But with Buffy all the tension of 1-5 snapped and we got this listless apathetic purgatory of s6 without any new beginning. People complain about s6's "darkness" as though it were bad. Buffy was far darker and more gothic and menacing earlier (as well as funnier). s6 was not dark - it was pale.

bobknaptor - which was the reason to see the Aliens movies? I definitely recommend them, but I wouldn't feel bad about missing them - they're one of the few movies I have seen. I miss almost everything. :)

Sorry about sort of hijacking the thread. I really thought this one was going to be a short post.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 1:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
Like the beginning of Alien 3. It's a sequel to a movie where Riply goes through hell and manages to escape with two people she loves. At the end of the movie you're cheering her on, and you're glad that all three of them made it out. Then in A3 the first thing they do is totally negate that by killing off the little girl and the marine. Which is why I never went to see it.

I agree that killing off Newt and Corporal Hicks was a horrible thing to do - but I was really talking about the end of A3 beginning of A4 not A2 into A3.

Quote:
Other example: Hugh the Borg on Star Trek. The good guys set him free from the Borg. Episode ends with warm fuzzy feeling. Then they bring him back in an episode where he harbors a totally abusrd grudge against the good guys. But then, that episode has so many plot holes, what's one more?

As only a casual Trek fan I haven't seen the later episode but I vaguely remember Hugh the Borg (terrible "Hugh", "you?", "No Hugh" jokes right?). Based on what you say sounds bad.

Quote:
That sort of thing has a lot to do with the failure of Season 6. In season 5, they kill off Joyce, and make it very clear that Raising the Dead is very Uncool. Then they kill of Buffy. Naturally everybody assumed they were going to have to do something very very clever to bring her back. But no, Willow just finds a silly loophole in the Osiris Doesn't Give Em Back policy. Very unsatisfying.

Well for me Season 6 didn't 'fail'. It's my least favourite season so far but I still enjoyed it more than not. I think the resurrection is totally consistent and here's why.

If you look at what happened in Forever you find out that

- resurrection magic is forbidden/frowned on by most Wiccans
- it usually goes wrong in some way, or has consequences
- Dawn's particular spell needed a good candidate ('good DNA'), and someone good at magic, which Dawn isn't

So Forever gives a reason why we don't see them trying resurrection spells every time someone dies, but it doesn't close the door on resurrection all together.

In the case of Buffy they add the 'mystical death' clause. And we do get consequences - pretty much a season full in fact.

Quote:
Same goes for the changes in Xander and Willow. It wasn't just that their lives got all screwed up. It's that these changes didn't grow organically out of what happened to them before.

I an accept that someone might say that Xander's actions were out of character. I think they were set up ok and I accept them. Out of character arguments are always going to be subjective and people do do things which are out of character. Not everything in life is organic growth - some changes are sudden or unexpected - although often they only seem so.

As for Willow - she's always had a dark side and the potential to mis-use power. However if you're talking about the Magic-as-addiction thing - I agree with you. It was too much of a switch from the previous view of magic with no real effort to bridge the gap. It's the one big problem with S6 in my view. If they'd stuck with what they appeared to be doing early on i.e. a 'power corrupts' storyline - then I'd have been happy.

Phew - sorry for the long post.

Shug

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 1:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
It's just very frustrating when you bring a character to some important point in their life -- like the end of it -- and then just negate that whole apotheosis just beause it's convenient.

Just had another quick thought on this.

My previous post focussed on why the method of resurrection is not an inconsistency. But this - negating Buffy's apotheosis - is really about the fact of it.

I think that what the writers did here is very clever in that they turned a problem into an advantage. Realizing that raising Buffy cheapens, and in narrative terms, negates the impact of her sacrifice - they make that very negation an in-story theme. The fact that Willow and the Scoobies effectively rob Buffy of her just reward means that we can have this negation and face up to it at the same time.

Shug
who had to look up the word 'apotheosis'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 5:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bobknaptor:
Yet another reason to watch the Alien series. I am embarressed to say I have *NEVER* seen *ANY* of the Alien movies. I know, I've led a sheltered life.

Not that much worse than me. Never saw the first one because that scene with the alien bursting out of the guys chest was too much for me. But when Alien II came out, I was still a James Cameron fan, and it got good reviews. Haven't seen any of the others.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 5, 2002 6:24 PM

KOOKYTREE

I'd say Faith, though I loved Sunday, the sarky cow. Did anyone else think she looked *exactly* like Portia de Rossi?? Every time she appeared on screen I kept expecting her to give Calista Flockhart a dirty look, or say "Hey bitch" to a passing Lucy Lui...

Stay kooky.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 5, 2002 6:26 PM

KOOKYTREE

Not that I've ever watched Ally McBeal. That would be embarrassing and...wrong. God I'm articulate. Dsylexia rules, K.O.?

Stay kooky.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 28, 2002 5:40 AM

SCORPIUS

buffy villan

1.Master
2.Mayor
3.Angelus

Angel villan

1.lilah
2.Gavin
3.Darla

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 28, 2002 10:31 AM