• Thank you for visiting Buffy-Boards. You obviously have exceptional taste. We just want you to know that:
    1. You really should register so you can chat with us!
    2. Twelve thousand people can't be wrong.
    3. Buffy-Boards loves you.
    4. See 1 through 3.
    Come on, register already!

Characters You're Too Harsh On vs Characters You're Too Easy On

thetopher

Member of the Church Of Faith
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
9,894
Location
The Moot, England
Sineya
Not quite sure how you guys are managing to answer this. If you're aware you're being too hard/easy on a character wouldn't you just change accordingly? Seems like the sort of question you'd need an outside opinion on to say "hey you're being too hard/easy on them".
Head over heart like always. 'I like this person- for whatever reason- so my mind constructs arguments to back up my emotions.' Or sometimes its the other way round. Human nature.
Everyone has biases about all sorts of things and can't always reign in inherent bias. Acknowledging it is something else.
 

Ethan Reigns

Scooby
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
5,795
Location
Canada
Sineya
@Meliza

The point of this thread is to assess whether you believe your own opinions of the various characters are excessively favourable or unfavourable. I agree with most of your analysis of the characters but what I tried to include was the idea of whether I like or dislike a character in a direction that sways my subjective self away from an objective opinion based on facts. I tried to base my assessment of my own bias on what my reaction would be if confronted with this person or somehow dropped into the narrative and forced to live in the Buffyverse.

I should add that Faith never made the cut because she is only in 20 episodes of Buffy and 6 episodes of Angel. She is the opposite of Gunn in that respect - she seems to be everywhere even when she is in few episodes whereas Gunn is net that noticeable and I never would have guessed his episode count of 91 - it didn't seem like half that. Like Spike, she is the rockstar who commands all of your attention whenever she is on screen. Maybe I identify with Professor Worth and maybe I just don't buy into the idea of redemption but I have met people like her and although her path seems to go in the right direction, I am hard on her because she seems to have little in the way of a moral compass. Yes, she finally does become a worthwhile person but I am hard on her for how she started off.

BTW Lorne did kill someone - Lindsey.
 

DeepBlueJoy

Lion Faced Kitteh
Joined
May 5, 2014
Messages
707
Location
East of Trouble
I thing the best use of character we hate is heroic deaths! I like making people (including me) cry for people they really hated in canon!
 

Mrs Gordo

Bangel extremist...
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
3,997
Location
Texas
Black Thorn
Head over heart like always. 'I like this person- for whatever reason- so my mind constructs arguments to back up my emotions.' Or sometimes its the other way round. Human nature.
Everyone has biases about all sorts of things and can't always reign in inherent bias. Acknowledging it is something else.
Basically this - I dislike a character due to patterns of behavior. My reasons for disliking said character at valid in my eyes but they do color my view of that character - creating a bias against that character. And I can acknowledge it.
 

Alittlegrim

Stuck In The Middle
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Messages
198
Age
38
Location
thetechteatime.blogspot.ca
I try my best to take all the characters for what they are meant to be. The only characters I really dislike are Wood with his insane vendetta against Spike and Mayor Wilkins and teenaged Connor who are both just too annoying for words. There are other characters that are annoying that are written that way like Merle on AtS and Wesley on BtVS. They aren't my favorite characters but serve the purpose. Angelusand Spike are evil but play their roles deliciously and give the heroes a real challenge. It is possible I am a bit too easy on Faith. She's got a plucky, underdog element that really appeals to me. I also seem to be more forgiving of "dark" Wesley than most but this could say more about my moral relativism.
 

Mrs Gordo

Bangel extremist...
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
3,997
Location
Texas
Black Thorn
The only characters I really dislike are Wood with his insane vendetta against Spike
Real question, not trying to stir things up but if your mom had been murdered by a guy as a kid and then the guy remained at large and he had taken your mother’s coat as a trophy to brag about the murder wouldn’t you be ticked off?

I’m not saying Wood was completely justified but I guess I’m hung up on the word “insane” vendetta.
 

Meliza

Scooby
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
635
Age
28
Location
Canada
@dcai0830 , It is one of those days where Angel's presumptuous white knighting of Cordelia, the women with the visions, who shouldn't lay her delicate eyes on the crime scene photos really gets to me. Not necessarily because men can not or should never be kind and considerate but that this chivalrous, not for a lady eyes B.S, lays in patriarchy and is its self a serving sexist lie, historically women would stay inside when the chivalry rode into town for their own safety. Buffy was the antithesis of her spin off show, sometimes the conventionality of Angel reminds you of this fact. Like for instance one example that comes to mind is a half naked Nina cowarding from Angel who basically goes "Hey girlie, how am I suppose to protect you all the way over there" uh, right. The damsel in distress lie, the antithesis of the revolutionary spirit of Buffy. Not because no men are heroic but because men are what women need protecting from, that men would be the answer to their problems is ridiculous. Men are just as likely to cower in fear or explicitly gain to benefit from the weak position of women in society. It is women who protect themselves, organizing and championing themselves, it is not feminist television it is reality, we created and create the feminist movement.

As often as men like Angel and Wood would be our alies they would be just as likely to fail, in that instance more so, then to be our knights in shining armor.
 
Last edited:
Mrs Gordo
Mrs Gordo
I agree with much of this - not sure how this relates to my post - but I see where you are coming from!

Alittlegrim

Stuck In The Middle
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Messages
198
Age
38
Location
thetechteatime.blogspot.ca
Real question, not trying to stir things up but if your mom had been murdered by a guy as a kid and then the guy remained at large and he had taken your mother’s coat as a trophy to brag about the murder wouldn’t you be ticked off?

I’m not saying Wood was completely justified but I guess I’m hung up on the word “insane” vendetta.
This is a fair point and yes, I would've ticked off. Though, I hope, not to the point of risking the fate of the world by blindly and doggedly trying to kill that person after they have reformed and stand as the best chance to stop the end of the world. Would I still be angry? Sure but I wouldn't be part of a side vendetta to kill him knowing what that could mean. I think Buffy was right when she said "I don't have time for vendettas." When I say "insane" I am referring specifically to Wood's actions in that particular context, letting his emotions over-ride his common sense, not that I think such a desire for revenge is insane in and of itself. Perhaps "reckless" would be more accurate.
 
Mrs Gordo
Mrs Gordo
Me thinks you overestimate Spike’s role in the battle (magic necklaces notwithstanding). But that is a topic for another thread :)

Meliza

Scooby
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
635
Age
28
Location
Canada
A bit off topic but discussion is what we want it is good for its own sake and this is what sprang to my mind. On one hand Spike has killed slayers, Buffy is a slayer, why isn't this her vendetta? is that not a position of strength? on the other hand, retribution is not the way? the mission is what matters.

@Alittlegrim , "Kill a person after they have reformed" is one thing, the person with the best chance to stop the end of the world is Buffy. Nobody in verse had knowledge of the role Spike would play in the apocalypse and many disagree with the centering of him in it, just pointing that out.
 

Alittlegrim

Stuck In The Middle
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Messages
198
Age
38
Location
thetechteatime.blogspot.ca
A bit off topic but discussion is what we want it is good for its own sake and this is what sprang to my mind. On one hand Spike has killed slayers, Buffy is a slayer, why isn't this her vendetta? is that not a position of strength? on the other hand, retribution is not the way? the mission is what matters.

@Alittlegrim , "Kill a person after they have reformed" is one thing, the person with the best chance to stop the end of the world is Buffy. Nobody in verse had knowledge of the role Spike would play in the apocalypse and some disagree with the centering of him in it.
Buffy refers to him as "the strongest fighter I have" putting him second only to her in the combat front which, since they are going to war, is why she is so mad at both Giles and Wood for trying to take him out if the equation, realizing the tactical advantage an immortal with over 100 years of comat experience brings to their side. It is not about canon, prophecy a or foreshadowing as much as pure strategy. You don't take out your best, or even second best, fighter before the battle, even if you don't like them. To do so makes no logical sense.
 

DeepBlueJoy

Lion Faced Kitteh
Joined
May 5, 2014
Messages
707
Location
East of Trouble
If Wood did not hate Spike, that would have been insane.
It is more the dividing buffy & Giles at the end of the world that was a bit crazy. The real tragedy and betrayal was Giles' behavior.
Note: I am NOT justifying Wood's trying to kill half the super powered people at the most treacherous time possible. But Spike killed his mommy. No one gets over that.
 

Meliza

Scooby
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
635
Age
28
Location
Canada
Good point. I am thinking how it would have looked dramatically if Buffy had taken out the Watchers Council herself, hmm or even sacrificed Angel not because the world was going to end but because it was her duty to slay vampires and then Spike to avenge her slayer sisters. But the world is complicated and the purpose of the soul canon was to convey that. Buffy is the all stronger, not the weaker for having to traverse these murky waters. There isn't always clearly white hats and black hats, as the point was made many times over. We make difficult choices because we must, its hard and its everyday.

Yeah, as kind and fatherly as Giles was to Buffy, he was still sending a innocent out every time to face her death to keep them safe, he worked within the same male dominated system with a young girl as their sacrificial lamb. Buffy only survived because she was unorthodox, she did that or she would be dead by now. Though Giles was driven by his love for her to follow her, by the end he was still very much a product of the system,, the ends justify the means utilitarianism of the Watchers Council. Who would murder Ben and have human blood on his hands. Then why did the Watcher Council go after Faith who uses the same reasoning? only because they could no longer control her as their own object/tool.

Which is fitting by the end Buffy has outgrown Giles. Contrast him with Buffy/Dawn, he is more like Ben/The Knights Templar/The Council.
 
Last edited:

Alittlegrim

Stuck In The Middle
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Messages
198
Age
38
Location
thetechteatime.blogspot.ca
If Wood did not hate Spike, that would have been insane.
It is more the dividing buffy & Giles at the end of the world that was a bit crazy. The real tragedy and betrayal was Giles' behavior.
Note: I am NOT justifying Wood's trying to kill half the super powered people at the most treacherous time possible. But Spike killed his mommy. No one gets over that.
This is a fair point and I agree about Giles. I also didn't
mean to say that Wood shouldn't hate Spike. Just that he could have picked a better time to try and kill the decades old ensouled immortal who scares other demons with his legendary fighting prowess.
 

crazysoulless

Scooby
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
1,099
Location
Las Vegas, US
I'm not too easy on Buffy. She has earned every ounce of my stanning. If anything, I defend her from those who are too hard on her. She gets called a bitch for rolling her eyes while other characters can get away with torture, rape, & murder.

I'm too easy on Drusilla. I know she's a soulless demon who murders children but that just makes her more tragic. She's the product of Angelus. She can't choose to be evil, this was done to her. Turning her into a monster was another way of victimizing the sweet pious human girl she would've continued to be if not for going to confession on the wrong day.

I'm easy on Connor. He was kidnapped in infancy and raised in a demon dimension for 17 years by the person who hated his birth parents the most. He didn't grow up in the bad side of town. He was literally in Hell and that was his entire exposure to what life is. But he did kill an innocent woman and sided with Jasmine even though he wasn't mind controlled like the rest of them. I don't blame Connor for trapping Angel in a wooden box in the ocean for months. I mean, someone had to punish Angel for being so OOC and fickle he was going to ignore all the reasons he got a spinoff (he left Buffy because the happiness curse and his immortality prevented him from being in a romantic/sexual relationship) and be Cordelia's boyfriend. And the bastard did not even learn his lesson.
 
Last edited:

brinkster130

Riley's BFF
Staff member
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
6,071
Location
Los Angeles
Sineya
I'm too hard on Xander. I don't find him funny, charming, or likable. Because of that, it's really hard to see thing from his point of view and/or give him the benefit of the doubt.

I'm too easy on Buffy. I just like her and find myself not caring about her bad decisions.
 

Mrs Gordo

Bangel extremist...
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
3,997
Location
Texas
Black Thorn
I mean, someone had to punish Angel for being so OOC and fickle he was going to ignore all the reasons he got a spinoff (he left Buffy because the happiness curse and his immortality prevented him from being in a romantic/sexual relationship) and be Cordelia's boyfriend. And the bastard did not even learn his lesson.
I’m not sure I agree with this BUT I find it hilarious. And also, the idea that the writers are like “Ok guys Angel tried to be too effing happy this season lets trap him in a steel box under the ocean for a few months to teach him a lesson.” When really the writers should have been put in a steal box in the bottom of the ocean for the ridiculousness that was AtS s3.
 
Top Bottom