Arguments against Bangel that annoy you #2

[Antho]

'Angel can't stand being weaker than Buffy'

Maybe they confuse Riley and Angel. And to be honest I'm not even sure we can say Riley can't stand being weaker than Buffy. That's debattable

 

[EarthLogic]

I believe that's true. But I would go beyond just Buffy and say weaker period. I think it chaps his ass when someone is viewed as stronger than he.

No it isn't! Angel has never had a problem with Buffy's strength. He's never even had a problem with Faith's strength and he knows and accepts that slayers are stronger than vampires.

What Angel is anxious about is being useless to the fight or purposeless, which is a different matter (although physical weakness may inform it because lack of powers means lack of ability to help in the ways he wants to). His rivalry with Spike or even Groo is similarly about his purpose as a hero or champion, not about strength itself.

Maybe they confuse Riley and Angel. And to be honest I'm not even sure we can say Riley can't stand being weaker than Buffy. That's debattable

Well sometimes I see an added 'Angel cant stand being weaker, just like Riley'
FFS!

 

[Antho]

Well sometimes I see an added 'Angel cant stand being weaker, just like Riley'

I think I have read comment like that me too. I don't understand where they come from, I guess this is useless to always try understand people's opinion, people aren't always logical

 

[Skanky Vamp]

No it isn't! Angel has never had a problem with Buffy's strength. He's never even had a problem with Faith's strength and he knows and accepts that slayers are stronger than vampires.

Yes it is! But I never said he had a "problem" with it. I just said he didn't like being weaker. It's evident. Maybe moreso in his series, but to me that was always a character trait of his.

 

[RomanticSoul]

Yes it is! But I never said he had a "problem" with it. I just said he didn't like being weaker. It's evident. Maybe moreso in his series, but to me that was always a character trait of his.

When did that ever happen on Buffy? In regards to either Faith or Buffy? He can sometimes be overprotective (old fashioned custom but he's old). But that does not equal having a problem with being weaker than a slayer and wanting to prove his manhood.

And I don't see it on his show either in regards to slayers. I know people love to bring up IWRY but that had nothing to do with being weaker than Buffy unless one is really looking to accuse Angel of being something he's not.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

But that does not equal having a problem... than a slayer

I never said he had a problem. Why do people keep saying that I said he had a problem. And I never mentioned slayer either.

 

[RomanticSoul]

And I never mentioned slayer either.

Erm you said...

But I would go beyond just Buffy and say weaker period.

It's evident. Maybe moreso in his series, but to me that was always a character trait of his.

If it's a general character trait in your opinion, then that means he has a problem when ANYONE is stronger than him. Anyone includes Buffy and all slayers.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

If it's a general character trait in your opinion, then that means he has a problem when ANYONE is stronger than him. Anyone includes Buffy and all slayers.

I still never said problem. I said that I agreed that he couldn't stand being weaker. Not just with Buffy but with anyone. Angelus was even worse than Angel was in that regard.

 

[EarthLogic]

But I never said he had a "problem" with it. I just said he didn't like being weaker.

I don't see how those two assertions are not basically the same thing. Angel had always been comparatively weaker than them and he's never expressed a dislike of that fact. What he has been shown to dislike is being powerless or helpless when it comes to his job (which is either helping Buffy or helping people in L. A.)

Tbh I'm not sure you and I are dealing with the same argument here. My beef is with the claim I see put about sometimes that Angel can't handle being the weaker partner in his relationship with Buffy as a woman/slayer - which is a specifically anti-Bangel argument.

The idea that Angel doesn't like being weaker than is normal for him is a separate issue, and one which I do think is true but is tied to a frustration with not having a purpose or not being able to fight/help.

 

[MarieVampSlayer]

A recent argument on youtube that I am going on on now.

THEM: naaah angel always crawls back to buffy squirming and making her feel guilty and shit. jesus dude move on. .. spike is a way more likable and better character imo. he never felt like "only a love interest" which is the vibe I got from angel/angelus.

I want to laugh at the love interest argument because why would they make a show about Angel if he was so uninteresting? And it's also stupid to say that a soulled vampire would have a childish relationship compared to a soulless one who like it has been analyze multiple times is supposed to represent an incapacity of growth. Vampires who are soulless cannot evolve and this is actually why Spike seeks a soul to change himself knowing he couldn't do it without it. So actually Spuffy S6 is the childish relationship but just with a lot of sex.

And I agree with @EarthLogic on the sudject of Angel feeling threathed by Buffy's strenght. I think a lot of people confuse him being protective of her as him wanting to be stronger than her. Angel respects Buffy strenght and is ok with being her sidekick as we see multiples times in the early season of BTVS. OH and this:

 

[SunnydaleGlitz]

I don't think Angel has ever been threatened by Buffy's strength, I think it's one of the things he loves about her. He revels in her power in End of Days "God I missed watching this" and if memory serves even in AtS S5 he tells Spike when they're lamenting her phantom relationship with the Immortal "Nah, she'd figure it out, she's pretty smart" at the suggestion of a spell, which shows he respects her smarts. I don't see similarities between Angel and Riley. I'd agree with Spanky and EarthLogic he just doesn't like being helpless - which is different. Buffy didn't like being weak/ helpless either when she was stripped of her powers in the episode Helpless. My 2 cents and I'm not biased since I'm not a Bangel 🙂

 

[RomanticSoul]

View attachment 10931

So did we Angel. Well the Buffy that we got see 2 minutes later anyway. Definitely missed her. *sigh*

 

[Antho]

More an argument against Angel than Bangel, but still : Angel's story is already finished when we meet him for the first time !

😕😕🙄🙄Really ? Just because he has a soul the first time we met him, his story is already finished, his character have nothing more to explore ?? Too bad the writers spent 8 seasons to explore a character which has no depth apparenty !

 

[Mrs Gordo]

Angel's story is already finished when we meet him for the first time !

It's ok because @Jam has a gif set for that:

https://mrsgordo84.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F170378910326

Gosh I just love when we have concrete canonical evidence to contradict those obviously unsubstantiated arguments. Angel literally goes from not wanting to have anything to do with humanity, to helping Buffy but being afraid to help, to wanting to help people like Faith, to wanting to help people in general, to wanting to make a difference in the world, to wanting to fight a dragon in order to save humanity.

 

[LilyAnne]

Gosh I just love when we have concrete canonical evidence to contradict those obviously unsubstantiated arguments. Angel literally goes from not wanting to have anything to do with humanity, to helping Buffy but being afraid to help, to wanting to help people like Faith, to wanting to help people in general, to wanting to make a difference in the world, to wanting to fight a dragon in order to save humanity.

Snooze. That guy's so boring. 😉

 

[EarthLogic]

More an argument against Angel than Bangel, but still : Angel's story is already finished when we meet him for the first time !

😕😕🙄🙄Really ? Just because he has a soul the first time we met him, his story is already finished, his character have nothing more to explore ?? Too bad the writers spent 8 seasons to explore a character which has no depth apparenty !

Similarly: 'Angel is already good/redeemed when we meet him, because the soul was given to him - therefore he/Bangel is more boring',

I think these two arguments come from a fundamental misunderstanding of his story and how it is being told because they assume that the journey towards becoming ensouled is the most important one. I think that's because people tend to retroactively apply the structure of Spike's journey to Angel's and then by that standard find Angel's lacking. Not to turn this into a drawn out Angel v Spike comparison, but I'll touch on it here briefly because it's relevant.

We are given Spike's overall story in a linear fashion. He goes from evil to good - or evil to chipped to allied to good to champion. I understand the appeal of this: it's pretty much an upwards trajectory which all unfolds on-screen, and it's exciting to watch a character start out evil then slowly change over the course of several seasons. By contrast, with Angel we're essentially dropped into his story in media res, after the turning point of becoming ensouled has already taken place. I think that some people don't like the fact that this key turning point happens pre-show and they have to just accept that he is good because we meet him when he's already sort of fighting on that side. This is then why they consider it as a case of him being 'already redeemed' and therefore less interesting. Of course that misses the whole point of what the writers are trying to say through Angel's character arc - which is that true change and real goodness and humanity don't just come automatically with a soul; it's something you have to actively work at.

I actually enjoy watching Angel's story unfold precisely because it is told in a non-linear way. We're always going back into his history and adding little pieces to the puzzle of his life. Flashbacks are far more important to Angel's narrative than perhaps anyone else and I think that had Joss not chosen in S2 to show us snippets of how Angel's life had taken him to the point of meeting Buffy then, yes, his story would be far less interesting. But thankfully he did and I really like the little twists in the story which show his souled past to be more complex. You might think that he's been helping the good guys for a while but it turns out he was a useless bum up until a year ago when he got a kick up the backside from Whistler. You might think at first that he just became all moral when he got a dose of guilt but it turns out he didn't just immediately stop eating people. You might think he just brooded for a century - which he mostly did - but he also at one point almost made a connection with someone until he then failed to follow through on that spark of humanity.

You could say that in BtVS S1 Angel doesn't yet have a backstory so what we see is what we get, which isn't much - and that's true, but nobody has ever questioned the decision to show bits of Spike's story via flashbacks, or bits of Darla's (btw Darla didn't want a soul or try to get one either!). Shouldn't we just appreciate the fact that Joss and Co. did bother to flesh out Angel's story eventually? People put so much weight on the fact that Angel didn't choose a soul, that it was something done to him, and I'm like 'so what?' What does it matter how the event came about? The interesting part is how he responds to it and what he does afterwards. Which is in a nutshell the entire point of Angel's story. It was a point made all the way back in 'Becoming' with Whistler's 'the big moments are gonna come. You can't help that. It's what you do afterwards that counts', which ends up becoming Angel's 'all that matters is what we do' over on AtS.

So when we first meet Angel his story might look like a redemption story because all we're told is that he used to be bad and then wasn't, and now he's helping Buffy, but then we find out that he didn't even make the active decision to be a better or worthwhile person until the year before and I think that's far more interesting. I don't believe that not asking for a soul means he's 'forced' into redemption. His redemption path begins when he himself chooses to pursue it.

Anyway to bring this back to being OT, another argument that infuriates me is 'Angel groomed Buffy'. Honestly, just...

 

[DayDreamer27]

Got a slew of sad ones from someone on youtube. Gonna copy & paste their remarks.

Why do Buffy and Angel love each other? It seems to all be based on physical attraction and nothing else. Lust isn't love.

And this is coming from a Spuffy shipper!!!!!! Anyhow, more of their comments.

But look at each of the moments on this video: Every one is based on some sort of physical attraction rather than love.

The first time Angel sees Buffy when she's 15 he "falls in love with her" only because he's physically attracted to her. He admits he fell in love with her "the moment he saw her."

The reason he leaves in Season 3 is because he can't be with her physically without losing his soul. If they were okay without the physical attraction they could have made it work out, but in the end that was all they had.

The bottom line here is there really is no reason for Buffy and Angel to be in love other than the fact that they are physically attracted to each other. It's very much like Romeo & Juliet in that regard.

Throughout the series and comics I have not found a moment of love between Angel and Buffy like there have been moments of love between Buffy and Spike, like this one from Season 7.

Her allowing Angel to drink from her is definitely devotion, but she was still young and in high school: Like many of us we have difficulty understanding the difference between actual love and just being physically attracted to someone. I seriously doubt Buffy would have helped Angel or be "in love with him" if he was overweight or deformed. I don't see how deep their connection or bond is like it is shown here at 1:38 between Buffy and Spike.

In the audio commentary for the Season 7 finale “Chosen” Whedon verifies that Buffy really did mean it when she said she loved Spike.

Also, if Spike offered Buffy no comfort, why was he able to comfort her when she was abandoned by the Scoobies and Slayer’s in “Touched?”

It is established in dialogue from Spike himself that before he had a soul he did not really love Buffy: It was a “selfish bastardization of love.”

However, if we’re going to hold Spike accountable for what he was before he had a soul than we need to also hold Angel accountable for how he treated Buffy after they had sex in Season 2: Such as how he killed Jenny, tortured Giles, terrorized Buffy’s friends, broke Buffy’s heart, and trying to kill her and the world: But we don’t, because w/o a soul one is only capable of evil. Spike may be the exception here though because, as Buffy says, “There was always good in you Spike, so strong it didn’t need a soul to come out.”

 

[Mrs Gordo]

Her allowing Angel to drink from her is definitely devotion, but she was still young and in high school: Like many of us we have difficulty understanding the difference between actual love and just being physically attracted to someone.

This is Buffy in college:

(x)

This is Buffy years after high school when her mother has just died and she has gained the responsibility of raising a teenager:

(x)

This is Buffy as an adult, a short time from leading an army in the biggest battle of her life after her relationships with both Riley and Spike have taken place:

But what does she know she probably just wants his D right? Ugh..... ridiculous.

In the audio commentary for the Season 7 finale “Chosen” Whedon verifies that Buffy really did mean it when she said she loved Spike.

The actual commentary from Joss is:

I thought it was a nice comment on their relationship. But what I basically told them was "Play the romance. Be proud of him. Love him when you say you love him. Love her when you say she doesn't love you. Forget about the crumbling world. For that period of time it doesn't exist."

It's a cinematic trick but it's a necessary emotional one. I was surprised that they hadn't come there because usually the three of us come to a scene in exactly the same place. And this time it really was sort of different. And eventually Sarah said "If you have what you think you need I think we should move on, because I'm not sure I understand how this works." But I look at the two of them get together and their work is tremendous. But that is part of making TV and movies.

I emphasize the above because what is evident is that Joss gave SMG the direction to mean it when she says she loves him (that doesn't mean that Buffy necessarily loves Spike - or that she is in love with Spike. It's direction on how to play the scene.) The second line from Joss indicates that Sarah was having trouble selling the scene or getting where Joss wanted them to get. Indicating that the direction and the acting may not have been meshing, at least according to Sarah. And then, of course, JM was there when Joss gave his direction and his whole take on this scene and why JM says Buffy doesn't love him:

That's the truth. That's the truth. He shows his manhood by saying that. I thought that what the final episode did very well was admit that Buffy really is in love with Angel. And that the sexual relationship she had with Spike was unhealthy, that it was unwise, it was, you know, fun to watch, but it wasn't good for Buffy. And that, Buffy was discovering a level of respect newly for Spike that she hadn't felt before and as a friend she wanted to, she knew that he loved her and she wanted to give him something cuz he's about to die, and he shows his strength by saying well no, you know, that's very kind for you to say, but that's not true.

(x)

The scene is up for interpretation. There is no clear answer. Why do you think the s11 ILY was such a big deal to spuffies? Anyway my personal opinion is Buffy loved Spike but she was not in love with him in s7. So she was telling him the truth.

However, if we’re going to hold Spike accountable for what he was before he had a soul than we need to also hold Angel accountable for how he treated Buffy after they had sex in Season 2: Such as how he killed Jenny, tortured Giles, terrorized Buffy’s friends, broke Buffy’s heart, and trying to kill her and the world: But we don’t, because w/o a soul one is only capable of evil. Spike may be the exception here though because, as Buffy says, “There was always good in you Spike, so strong it didn’t need a soul to come out.”

This person just plain contradicted themselves in their own comment. They said that if we are going to hold Spike accountable for what he did without a soul then we need to hold Angel accoutable. We don't because without a soul they are only capable of evil. And then they go on to say but Spike actually was good with a soul, he was the exception. Ok Buddy you said it, in that case Spike, with the exceptional capacity to do good chose to sexually assault Buffy. Not ok. I don't see it that way, I'm just saying - that this argument is a logic fail EVERY SINGLE TIME.

 

[DayDreamer27]

I said the same thing, and they didn't have an answer for that. They argued with other points I made, but didn't try to defend that one about Spike's soul. My quote to them.

Also, the thing with Angelus vs. Spike. Nobody, including Buffy, gives Angelus a pass. Buffy didn't sleep with Angelus, and get jealous over him. Angelus is treated by everyone like the monster he is. But Spike is the same kind of monster, but is getting passes for everything. He has no soul, and enjoys torture & murder, but has fans treating him like a poor misunderstood bad boy that was too good for mean ol' Buffy. One minute fans are saying he shouldn't be held accountable for things he did soulless, but they turn around and give him credit for the somewhat good things he did, and say he's different. If he doesn't need a soul to love, then he shouldn't need one to know not to stalk, abuse, and try to rape the woman he claimed to love. If Spike is so different and more human than normal vamps, it makes his crimes that much worse., because evidently, he knows & can feel better than typical vamps like Angelus & Kralik. He's either a peace of trash like Angelus. Or he's a worse peace of trash because he's more human, and still does all the evil things he does. Going into it, Aneglus seemed to love Darla. But nobody considers him any less evil for that. And even with a soul, Spike doesn't regret anything he did, except to Buffy because he wants her. Spike hand waves his evil because he had no soul, and Angel tells him that having one isn't making much difference.

 

[Taaroko]

Oh oh! I think I thought of one we haven't done yet! (But my memory is garbage, so I could be wrong.)

"I like Spike better because Angel is so whiny."

I'm dead serious. If you dig back in this forum's archives far enough, you'll find me arguing with Spuffies who made this point. This is either the funniest or most frustrating argument I've ever seen them make, because it's so blatantly and quantifiably false. There are only a handful of moments where Angel complains about anything, because he is a freaking adult who is capable of recognizing when his problems are of his own making instead of just blaming everyone else. When he does complain, it's usually because he's been annoyed past his breaking point (by Spike, most often). The vast majority of the time, he bottles it up because he believes he deserves to suffer. Spike, on the other hand, whines constantly when things don't go his way (which is most of the time), and it's extremely unattractive. Especially considering how often he's whining about how the woman he's obsessed with (whether Buffy or Drusilla) isn't behaving the way he wants her to. Gross.

Did they mean they don't like that Angel is broody and struggles to forgive himself for things he had no control over? Do they just not want to sympathize with him for that and want him to get over it? If so, they could at least use the right words to describe it.