|
|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Feb 23, 2010 18:32:33 GMT -5
I'm totally on Spike's side, and disagree with the people who say it was bad writing/OOC. Spike isn't some nicey nicey guy who's going to mollycoddle people. At the end of the day, he was a vampire and Nikki was a Slayer. Why should Spike apologise for that? They fought and she lost, shit happens. Should Buffy apologise to the families of all the demons and vampires she kills? Yeah, why should Spike be sad he killed a woman who was trying to make sure that no bloodsuckers ever got their fangs in her son's throat? Why should a woman who devoted her life to making the world a better place get sympathy? Sorry for the tone, I didn't know how to express that without using sarcasm. But to be fair, I didn't try very hard.  Point is, Spike killed a person. He should feel like hell over it. True, it's not as bad as killing someone who's completely helpless, that is even more evil, but to say that Spike should treat her memory like she's worth less sympathy than other people, I don't get. He might feel proud that he can kick ass, but he should be ashame over killing her, and he should not have kept the coat as a trophy. |
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Feb 23, 2010 19:43:25 GMT -5
I'm totally on Spike's side, and disagree with the people who say it was bad writing/OOC. Spike isn't some nicey nicey guy who's going to mollycoddle people. At the end of the day, he was a vampire and Nikki was a Slayer. Why should Spike apologise for that? They fought and she lost, shit happens. Should Buffy apologise to the families of all the demons and vampires she kills? Yeah, why should Spike be sad he killed a woman who was trying to make sure that no bloodsuckers ever got their fangs in her son's throat? Why should a woman who devoted her life to making the world a better place get sympathy? Sorry for the tone, I didn't know how to express that without using sarcasm. But to be fair, I didn't try very hard. Point is, Spike killed a person. He should feel like hell over it. True, it's not as bad as killing someone who's completely helpless, that is even more evil, but to say that Spike should treat her memory like she's worth less sympathy than other people, I don't get. He might feel proud that he can kick ass, but he should be ashame over killing her, and he should not have kept the coat as a trophy. He shouldn't feel bad because he was a soulless vampire and not by choice. Nikki was a Vampire Slayer. She fought him, she lost. Boo hoo. That was the reality of the situation. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, vampires gotta kill people. Nikki accepted her responsiblity as a Slayer and willingly paid the price for it. She deserves respect, not sympathy. And Spike does respect her, he wouldn't wear her coat otherwise. I like that, whereas Angel chooses to cry over and atone for his past, Spike embraces his. It's part of who he is, and it led him where he is today. It would be boring if the two characters had the same arc. That's why I don't get the "why isn't Spike as guilty as Angel" complaints. They're not the same person, Spike's a more realistic hero than Angel is. |
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Feb 23, 2010 19:57:15 GMT -5
Why should a woman who devoted her life to making the world a better place get sympathy? Hmmm... I ask the same question each time I see a "Die Kennedy DIE!!!" post. Perhaps I'm just fair like that... |
|
|
|
Post by thisyearsgirl91 on Feb 23, 2010 21:55:14 GMT -5
I'm totally on Spike's side, and disagree with the people who say it was bad writing/OOC. Spike isn't some nicey nicey guy who's going to mollycoddle people. At the end of the day, he was a vampire and Nikki was a Slayer. Why should Spike apologise for that? They fought and she lost, shit happens. Should Buffy apologise to the families of all the demons and vampires she kills? The truth is, Spike isn't responsible for the crimes he committed without a soul and I think he's practical enough to know that. He was turned into an evil demon against his will and did evil things. Sure, he feels guilty, but he's not going to grovel for forgiveness over something he isn't really his fault, especially to someone who just tried to kill him. I hate these characters who only care about vengeance, whether it makes sense or not. Holtz was an annoying idiot, whining about his dead family and trying to take revenge on a killer who didn't even exist anymore. Buffy and Spike were right to treat Wood like they did; he was living in the past and jeopardizing their current mission for his own selfish revenge. To his credit though, he overcame his hate and came out a hero. As for the coat, I think it is was it is: a trophy. Spike's proud of the fact that he killed a Slayer, it's one of his biggest achievements. Even with a soul, he's proud of his Big Bad reputation. If he was wearing the coat of some helpless victim, it would be sick, but Nikki was a powerful warrior who knew was she was doing and accepted the cost. Why would Buffy say sorry about killing an evil demon? Spike killed a person. She may have been strong, but since when does that make it ok? If Spike was a good person, why would he want to wear the jacket of a mother he killed? If Spike had killed your mother in battle would you really think, 'Well you did work hard in killing her, so it's ok.'? I'm sorry, but no truly good person would be proud that they killed someone like that. Wearing the coat of a person you killed is sick, no matter the reason. |
|
El Diablo Robotico
Ensouled Vampire
Robo Pimp-Daddy
"Surely you have heard about our great victory over the Devil's Robot."[Mo0:3]
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by El Diablo Robotico on Feb 23, 2010 22:21:10 GMT -5
Spike didn't wear the coat for most of S7--probably for the very reasons you anti-coat folks are bringing up. But you gotta take into account the context that he put it back on in. It wasn't just a, "Hey, I look cool in it, and it's a nice shiny trophy that I earned by offing that poor kid's mum." Buffy had just called him out and made it clear to him--and everyone around them--that she thought he was too soft to fight at her side anymore. The coat became a symbol--a talisman, even--of the dangerous version of himself that she said she wanted to see again. He put it back on as a way of trying to recapture the "old" Spike--you know, to help Buffy, and help save the world. |
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Feb 23, 2010 22:24:07 GMT -5
Please use the "edit post" function to correct any mistakes to avoid double posting.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisyearsgirl91 on Feb 23, 2010 23:06:50 GMT -5
Please use the "edit post" function to correct any mistakes to avoid double posting. Sorry, I didn't notice. |
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Feb 23, 2010 23:36:42 GMT -5
Under my understanding and interpretation of souls and vampires within the Buffyverse, soulless Spike and ensouled Spike are different people, thus neither can truly be held responsible for what the other does. I know Robin lost his mom and everyone will get pissed that I'm saying this, but did Robin really need to be so damn whiny? I can understand him still being upset and seeing Spike bringing about a lot of emotions, but he was a 30-something year old man. He also betrayed Buffy which pissed me off terribly. Why should a woman who devoted her life to making the world a better place get sympathy? Hmmm... I ask the same question each time I see a "Die Kennedy DIE!!!" post. Perhaps I'm just fair like that... Yeah, 'cause, ya know, all the wonderful people who've dedicated their lives to making the world a better place start by yelling at a teenage girl and calling her a "maggot" hours before she kills herself. :P |
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Feb 23, 2010 23:46:21 GMT -5
Yeah, 'cause, ya know, all the wonderful people who've dedicated their lives to making the world a better place start by yelling at a teenage girl and calling her a "maggot" hours before she kills herself. :P Kennedy was playing the part of a drill sergeant. Chloe was weak, and an idiot. I'm paraphrasing Buffy there. It was the First that convinced her that she was doomed... not Kennedy's berating. Besides, the point is, Kennedy is now a Slayer, who tries to make the world better, and yet people don't care if she dies or not. I'd call that bias. I guess she'd be more sympathetic if she was pathetic and wimpery. Boy, did I derail this topic...  |
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Feb 24, 2010 0:11:05 GMT -5
Yeah, 'cause, ya know, all the wonderful people who've dedicated their lives to making the world a better place start by yelling at a teenage girl and calling her a "maggot" hours before she kills herself. :P Kennedy was playing the part of a drill sergeant. Chloe was weak, and an idiot. I'm paraphrasing Buffy there. It was the First that convinced her that she was doomed... not Kennedy's berating. I know this is veering off-topic, but the First didn't just walk up to her, tell her to kill herself and she then obeyed. The First chose her for a reason. While her little conversation with the First certainly had some affect, the whole point of that scene with Kennedy was to show how stressful the situation was to a young girl like her. I don't understand how you can defend Kennedy's comments. What she said was ridiculously unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Feb 24, 2010 0:25:29 GMT -5
It was stressful to all of them. But Chloe broke down. I'm not defending Kennedy. But I'm not going to blame her for the suicide of a scared girl either. Especially since she already kinda blames herself for it, from the look on her face. The First convinced Chloe that she would die a horrible death, and she took her own life.
I will however say that life should be treated with respect, and if we're supposed to value the life of a Slayer because they're "good", then I don't see why Kennedy is the exception.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisyearsgirl91 on Feb 24, 2010 0:26:56 GMT -5
How old was Chloe? About 15? I don't know why Kennedy thought that by shouting at her and calling her names, she will suddenly be stronger. Buffy didn't do that, so why did Kennedy?
|
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Feb 24, 2010 0:32:44 GMT -5
How old was Chloe? About 15? I don't know why Kennedy thought that by shouting at her and calling her names, she will suddenly be stronger. Buffy didn't do that, so why did Kennedy? Erm... ever been in a military setting? Yelling at recruits is kinda an everyday event. Kennedy was placed in charge of the girls, while Buffy worked her day job. And the reprimand was justified, since Chloe seriously fumbled. It was training for their life, not a stroll in the park. What do you think Kendra's training was like? Or the training of hundreds of Potentials all over the world? I'm not saying Kennedy didn't let the power get to her head; she was pretty gleeful. But she didn't cause Chloe's death. And as for yelling, after she buried Chloe, Buffy did yell at them. Pretty much told them all to shape up. |
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Feb 24, 2010 1:25:14 GMT -5
How old was Chloe? About 15? I don't know why Kennedy thought that by shouting at her and calling her names, she will suddenly be stronger. Buffy didn't do that, so why did Kennedy? From some of the comments in that episode, 15 sounds like a good guess. While the age of the actor/actress is never a perfect way of determining the age of the character, Lalaine was about that age at filming as well. Erm... ever been in a military setting? Yelling at recruits is kinda an everyday event. Kennedy was placed in charge of the girls, while Buffy worked her day job. And the reprimand was justified, since Chloe seriously fumbled. It was training for their life, not a stroll in the park. What do you think Kendra's training was like? Or the training of hundreds of Potentials all over the world? I'm not saying Kennedy didn't let the power get to her head; she was pretty gleeful. But she didn't cause Chloe's death. And as for yelling, after she buried Chloe, Buffy did yell at them. Pretty much told them all to shape up. At the risk of veering this tread even more off topic, you'd be the last person I'd expect to make a "the army does it, so that makes it right" argument. Chloe wasn't a volunteer either. She was an underage girl shoved into a dangerous situation she knew little to nothing about with no one who understand or cared. I don't get how anyone could argue Kennedy was anything but out of line. |
|
El Diablo Robotico
Ensouled Vampire
Robo Pimp-Daddy
"Surely you have heard about our great victory over the Devil's Robot."[Mo0:3]
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by El Diablo Robotico on Feb 24, 2010 2:43:02 GMT -5
Erm... ever been in a military setting? Yelling at recruits is kinda an everyday event. Kennedy was placed in charge of the girls, while Buffy worked her day job. And the reprimand was justified, since Chloe seriously fumbled. It was training for their life, not a stroll in the park. What do you think Kendra's training was like? Or the training of hundreds of Potentials all over the world? I'm not saying Kennedy didn't let the power get to her head; she was pretty gleeful. But she didn't cause Chloe's death. And as for yelling, after she buried Chloe, Buffy did yell at them. Pretty much told them all to shape up. At the risk of veering this tread even more off topic, you'd be the last person I'd expect to make a "the army does it, so that makes it right" argument. Chloe wasn't a volunteer either. She was an underage girl shoved into a dangerous situation she knew little to nothing about with no one who understand or cared. I don't get how anyone could argue Kennedy was anything but out of line. Doesn't everybody love Buffy's speech at the end of "Bring on the Night"? Even people like me, who think it ultimately falls flat because nothing she promises that they're going to do actually happens in the next few episodes, I'll still admit that it's a great and stirring speech. And one of the lines in it is, "Because we just became an army." This is the way armies have been trained for thousands of years. You don't mollycoddle (sp?) the trainees--you're tough on them. Because when the battle comes around, they have to be physically and mentally strong enough to be able to handle it. If they're not, they're going to huddle in their foxhole, cry for their mommies, wet their pants, and get killed. And you need to be even tougher on the weak ones, because they have further to go. I don't see any problem with what Kennedy did. And it's true that Chloe didn't volunteer for this, but many, many armies throughout the centuries have been made up of conscripts and draftees who didn't volunteer, either. But unlike all those other cases, where deserters were usually hanged/shot, nobody was forcing Chloe to stay there. She could've left at any time, and taken her chances avoiding the Bringers on her own. But she chose to stay. |
|
gumgnome
Junior Vampire Slayer
Who has got the button?
Get out of my BRAIN![Mo0:1]
Posts: 970
|
Post by gumgnome on Feb 24, 2010 3:07:00 GMT -5
I'm totally on Spike's side, and disagree with the people who say it was bad writing/OOC. Spike isn't some nicey nicey guy who's going to mollycoddle people. At the end of the day, he was a vampire and Nikki was a Slayer. Why should Spike apologise for that? They fought and she lost, shit happens. Should Buffy apologise to the families of all the demons and vampires she kills? The truth is, Spike isn't responsible for the crimes he committed without a soul and I think he's practical enough to know that. He was turned into an evil demon against his will and did evil things. Sure, he feels guilty, but he's not going to grovel for forgiveness over something he isn't really his fault, especially to someone who just tried to kill him. I hate these characters who only care about vengeance, whether it makes sense or not. Holtz was an annoying idiot, whining about his dead family and trying to take revenge on a killer who didn't even exist anymore. Buffy and Spike were right to treat Wood like they did; he was living in the past and jeopardizing their current mission for his own selfish revenge. To his credit though, he overcame his hate and came out a hero. As for the coat, I think it is was it is: a trophy. Spike's proud of the fact that he killed a Slayer, it's one of his biggest achievements. Even with a soul, he's proud of his Big Bad reputation. If he was wearing the coat of some helpless victim, it would be sick, but Nikki was a powerful warrior who knew was she was doing and accepted the cost. I was going to write something fairly similar to this yesterday morning (although I doubt it would have been as concise or well-expressed - karma) but part of this argument bothers me. I agree with you when you say that Spike isn't really responsible for the crimes that he committed without a soul and think that Angel should feel the same way. However, it then struck me that if Spike shouldn't find himself responsible for the bad things that he did without a soul, then he shouldn't really be able to take credit for or grow from the good things that he did while soulless, including the motivation to get back his soul! If Spike isn't responsible for his misdeeds in the past, then his whole arc in the show, of finding a need to do good from love while intrinsically evil, is meaningless. This whole soul stuff really is the most confused aspect of the mythology and this just adds a further inconsistency in the whole affair. I may have to start a different thread on the subject to explain my gripes in full - I don't to derail the derailing of this thread completely! |
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Feb 24, 2010 8:27:32 GMT -5
At the risk of veering this tread even more off topic, you'd be the last person I'd expect to make a "the army does it, so that makes it right" argument. Chloe wasn't a volunteer either. She was an underage girl shoved into a dangerous situation she knew little to nothing about with no one who understand or cared. I don't get how anyone could argue Kennedy was anything but out of line. El D pretty much addressed this, so I'll just respond in brief,. Chloe was scared, underaged, and inexperienced. True. But so are most Potentials when they begin their training. She was there not entirely by choice, but because it was the safest place she could be at the moment. But fact remains, she's a Potential. Meaning that someday, she could be a Slayer. And right now, she's part of the Slayer-Potential army. Her job isn't to just sit pretty and be kept alive. She needs to learn how to stay alive, should the occasion arise. And why did you make that assumption about me and the military? It's true that I don't agree with everything that they do (eg "Don't Ask Don't Tell"), but I was merely comparing the discipline system. Kennedy wasn't out of line, because that was what she was supposed to do. Train the girls, prepare them for what's to come. What's to come scared Chloe. She said so herself... saying that she was too young to be a Slayer. She provided the perfect opening for the First to exploit, and the result, she decided that suicide was better. Her choice. And pfft... if you think Kennedy was evil for what she did, I guess the Spartans must revel in hell. Without Kennedy, many more Potentials would have fallen in battle. A Slayer without proper training is not a well-oiled machine. She's got power, but it's raw power. From being scared girls, the Potentials were able to take down vampires and Bringers by themselves, instead of just cowering and dying. Okay, so not-so-brief. More like boxer briefs. |
|
Kratos
Potential Slayer
[Mo0:15]
Posts: 190
|
Post by Kratos on Feb 24, 2010 9:32:28 GMT -5
I think Buffy tried to give him a little sympathy, but that wasn't what was important in her battle. I don't think it was kind in any way, but she knew Spike was the stronger fighter therefore he was more valuable in the fight. Again, I don't think it was great and I think this was near the beginning of Buffy losing herself and becoming too much of just a fighter, especially with the whole "The mission is what matters" thing and forgetting about you know, human decency. I understand why Wood wanted to kill Spike, and Spike was a threat because of the trigger, but of course I didn't want Spike to die. I seem to be more on the fence than ever about how I feel about Spike biting Wood. However I do think continuing to wear the coat was in essence simply a cover so he could pretend he didn't care and to prove to Buffy he was still the fighter he always was. I mean he did get it back in "Get It Done" because Buffy wanted him to be his old self again before he even knew who Robin was. That was pretty much the the whole point of the episode, the mission is what matters. Human decency has nothing to do with it. Wood was endangering Buffy's mission which is to save the world. And i think even if there wasn't an upcoming apocalypse, she would still choose Spike over Wood. Spike means a whole lot more to her. Giles saw their connection and Wood saw it too in First Date. Wood didn't care one bit about Spike being a threat because of the trigger. He just wanted plain revenge. As Buffy put it, on a man that doesn't excist anymore, hasn't for a very long time. I do think Spike feels bad about killing the slayers but Wood didn't ask for an apology or an explenation on why he killed his mother. I think Spike would have had the deceny to talk if Wood had come to him for the right reasons. But Wood didn't want any of that, he just wanted revenge. He's been nothing but hostile since the day he met him. Spike just copied his attitude. Spike's first trophy was the scar over his eye that he got from the Chinese slayer, his second was Nikki's coat. Other vampires would have done far worse against Slayers. Spike didn't rape,humalite,degrade any slayer. He respected them for what they were, warriors and fought them fairly. I don't believe this scene is comperable to Angel trying to rejoin the gang after he was soulled. Spike didn't want to do evil, he was challenged/set-up by Wood and he fought him yet he didn't kill him where as Wood surely would have. Angel was weak, he wanted to rejoin the gang and justified killing to achieve it. Spike and Angel are worlds apart, their journey's,origin,actions,characters are very different. The concept is interesting ofcourse, a ghost from the past comes back for revenge. Spike:Asylum also touches upon this. Spoilers for Asylum Were a couple set up Spike under the false pretense of needing him to save their daugther out of an evil Asylum. Spike ends up taking the case and once he's in the asylum he very quickly comes to realize that there is no girl to save. Spike had killed her long ago along with many others. He fully understands the parents actions and doesn't blame them for doing it. He loses his fire for a while until another young girl Beck gives him hope again where the message was essentially "You can't change the past but you can do good in the present", which was very much like Buffy's message in s7. Spike accepts the bad he's done in the past and knows that he can't change it. And it shouldn't determine how he lives his life now or in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Feb 24, 2010 11:12:40 GMT -5
Yeah, why should Spike be sad he killed a woman who was trying to make sure that no bloodsuckers ever got their fangs in her son's throat? Why should a woman who devoted her life to making the world a better place get sympathy? Sorry for the tone, I didn't know how to express that without using sarcasm. But to be fair, I didn't try very hard. Point is, Spike killed a person. He should feel like hell over it. True, it's not as bad as killing someone who's completely helpless, that is even more evil, but to say that Spike should treat her memory like she's worth less sympathy than other people, I don't get. He might feel proud that he can kick ass, but he should be ashame over killing her, and he should not have kept the coat as a trophy. He shouldn't feel bad because he was a soulless vampire and not by choice. Nikki was a Vampire Slayer. She fought him, she lost. Boo hoo. That was the reality of the situation. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, vampires gotta kill people. Nikki accepted her responsiblity as a Slayer and willingly paid the price for it. She deserves respect, not sympathy. And Spike does respect her, he wouldn't wear her coat otherwise. I like that, whereas Angel chooses to cry over and atone for his past, Spike embraces his. It's part of who he is, and it led him where he is today. It would be boring if the two characters had the same arc. That's why I don't get the "why isn't Spike as guilty as Angel" complaints. They're not the same person, Spike's a more realistic hero than Angel is. Paul, the whole ”Spike was souless at the time, he shouldn’t feel bad about that now” argument never worked with me. If I get pushed when I’m walking down the street, and that makes me accidentally push someone else who falls onto the road and gets driven over and killed by a car, I’m not going to say “It wasn’t my fault; I don’t feel bad about it”. Or if I get drugged and kill someone from sadistic needs because of the drugs(which is a metaphor I often use for vampire’s soulness). I would feel like hell over it. I would try not to, but part of what makes me a good person would be that I would feel bad. Or at the very least not proud over that I killed a strong warrior who was trying to protect people from my drug-induced “evil”, like Spike does. I realize he does feel quilty, but not quite as guilty as he should have. Of course, not everyone would feel bad about accidentally killing someone. Those people scare me. But it’s not like I can say that Spike’s reaction isn’t normal or unhealthy. It would be impossible for any of us to put ourselves in a 120+ newly ensouled vampires’ shoes and say”This is how he should act”(even tough I love telling people what to do). Not exactly a perfect fit. I can agree on that Spike shouldn't feel as quilty as Angel. That would be boring to watch twice, and I didn't very much like it the first time around. But the main reason for Spike not to feel so guilty would be that he doesn't deserve too. I think something between what Angel feels and what Spike feels now would make me like Spike more. Guiltier than he is now, but not as guilty as Angel. |
|
|
|
Post by henzINNIT on Feb 24, 2010 12:00:23 GMT -5
The point of the vampire with a soul is that you remember enjoying the murdering hundreds of people, but now you care. I think Paul has a point that Spike "gets on with it" in ways that Angel doesn't, yet it's clear that he actually feels about the same way. He was such a dick to Wood because he needed to make it clear that Wood had to get over it himself, which is fair enough; but biting him was unnecessary.
|
|
