Did Buffy Really Love Angel?

As someone who likes neither Buffy/Angel nor Buffy/Spike, and having seen very few Buffy/Riley episodes:

Yes, I think she did love Angel. I think she loved him very much. And I believe that he loved her. I think they still do love each other (as of end of Season 7), to an extent- when they meet up, after Season 3, their actions seem to suggest that they do still have feelings for each other. I believe that Buffy's "I loved Angel more than I loved or ever will love etc." (not sure if the quote is 100% correct, but you get the idea) may well imply that she doesn't believe she will ever love anyone as much as she loved Angel AT THAT POINT IN TIME SHE WAS REFERRING TO. I believe she and Angel have, to a certain extent, moved on, and are both perfectly capable of having feelings for other people- we see that with Riley, Spike, Cordelia, Nina, etc.

If Angel were to become human, then perhaps I could see a future for them as a couple. Perhaps. Though I prefer Angel as a character away from Buffy. Their relationship can be pretty destructive on both of them, and those around them.

Now, Buffy isn't psychic, it is entirely possible that at some point in her life she will love someone as much as she loved Angel at that moment. Personally, the vague idea I've always had after the show ends is that Buffy is able to think fondly on her past relationships, and remember the good times, and hold each man she cared about in her heart- but she is able to move on. And if there is a guy who Buffy spends her life with, it'll be someone we, as the viewers, never met.

Do I believe that Buffy and Angel's relationship was immature? I'm not sure I would label their relationship as immature. Both were committed to the other- they wanted to be together far into the future, that much was clear. They had very deep feelings for the other, and when the relationship ended, it ended with Buffy heartbroken, and Angel leaving for what he believed was their own good. I do believe that being in that relationship caused them to act immaturely on occasion (and even dangerously- Buffy is unable to kill Angelus in Innocence, leading to numerous deaths and near-Apocalypse)- Buffy does not tell the Scoobies when Angel returns. In fact, she seems pretty pissy that they're all being so "mean and unsupportive of her" *grumble* but that's part of my peeve with Buffy rather than their relationship.

Do I believe that her future relationships were any more mature? Well, Parker, yes- she had casual sex with a guy she barely knew, then spent several episodes pining after him (not to say that he didn't act badly- he should have made it clearer that's what he was looking for). Riley, I can't really comment on as I've not seen enough episodes. Spike... not really. Certainly not their S6 relationship, which is based largely on violence and sex whenever Buffy is feeling low. In S7- once again, I'd argue that although their relationship, however you'd categorise it, is not immature per se, and inspires Spike to become that hero that will sacrifice himself to save the world, it doesn't mean that they don't act immaturely at times. Buffy gives Spike a free pass to kill Wood? Really? I get that Wood acted badly at a bad time, but he has every reason to hate Spike. Knock him on the head, tell him to wise up or get the hell out of her fight, but saying that added another bullet point to my "Lines that make me want to smack Buffy upside the head" list. I get that Buffy needs Spike as a fighter, but when he is killing again, he is a risk. I haven't seen S7 in a while, but I do remember thinking that Buffy seemed to always put Spike at the top of her priorites, because "He had her back". And her friends apparently didn't, because they doubted and questioned some of her decisions? I mean, that's a lot to do with Buffy becoming the kind of authority that she'd always disapproved of in earlier seasons, so it might be unfair to put that as an immaturity point in the Buffy/Spike camp.

I think at the end of the day, any kind of relationship with a vampire is going to carry certain down points with it, however many Buffy dates. They are killers, there is still a demon inside of them. You will never be able to have children with them, or be able to walk in the sunlight with them. You will never grow old together. In some ways, I think it would be very hard to have a lasting relationship on this basis- and when I say lasting, I mean settling down together, years of commitment, etc. That's a lot to give up permanently- sure, not everyone wants kids. But times change, you might want them in the future. Sure, you can live without your partner going out in the sunlight, but that doesn't mean that a few years in you won't regret it. Sure, when you're young the idea of not growing old at the same time doesn't phase you. But will that still hold later in life? The Mayor's speech is an interesting one there...

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure I agree with what I've said in the last paragraph- I do believe a relationship can be mature and loving and meaningful without being lifelong, and I am aware that any relationship comes with flaws and sacrifices to be made. Just some thoughts.

In conclusion: Buffy loved Angel, part of her may still do, doesn't mean that she can't love anyone else, doesn't mean she won't find an even greater love in the future. Buffy/Angel had their immature points, no more so than the rest of Buffy's relationships.
 
What exactly is a mature or immature love? To my estimation there can only be mature or immature people in love. The genuinity of that love, if it is indeed genuine, is not reflected in the maturity of those who possess it.

A person can be utterly in love and still engage in acts of immaturity on a massive level.

Look at Xander, he was hardly the pillar of maturity when he fell in love with Anya and, nor was he Mr. Mature for a large portion of their relationship. But is there any doubt about his feelings for her? Is there any doubt in the sincerity of his feelings for her?

Same goes for Willow, you can hardly accuse her of being very mature but we have seen her love completely.

This applies to all of the ships-Spuffy included.

Buffy and Angel may have had the majority of their relationship play out whilst Buffy was in high school, but it was not of high school.

I agree. I personally wasn't talking about their individual maturity levels. But some of the major things they did in their relationship, especially at the expense of other lives and personal principles, were irresponsible. I also feel like they never really grew from those things as a couple. To me, how certain aspects of their love manifested reflects a lot on what kind of love they have. I don't deny that it exists, but that yeah, it can be irresponsible/immature.
 
True, and I see your point. But time and time again I see season 6 brought up to describe Spike as a misunderstood vampire who is capable of doing good. Why is it that he can do good as a soulless vampire but the second he does something bad it's dismissed because he is soulless?
Not brought up by me, though. I don't give a damn about the whole good/evil morality construct, and I don't think Spike ever truly loved anyone between his siring and the restoration of his soul.

(And I am not speaking of you specifically, just of fandom in general.)
Yep, I hear ya. Spuffies are individuals too, though. Some Spuffies may actually even be self-contradictory morons. 😉

Angel's love for Buffy was selfless. He loves Buffy so much that he is able to sacrifice his own personal happiness to give her the *possibility* of something more. This to me, shows not only Angels maturity when it came to his relationship with Buffy but also the depth of the love he had for her. He could have done the easy thing and stay with her in Sunnydale but he didn't. Then a little time later he gave up his beating heart for her. Gave up being able to touch and kiss her so she could live a longer life. His love for her is constantly reflected in his actions.
Hewl do I disagree. There's nothing selfless about romance. The guy used Buffy as a drug to combat his depression, and he constantly made decisions over her head (and over the heads of others, too). I'm hard pressed to think of someone "loving" more selfishly, he actually could give soulless Spike a run for his money at times.

I brought that up because Spike had just told Buffy that he will kill Wood the next time Wood "even so much as looks at him funny again". This is coming from Spike the vampire who, Buffy has been insisting, will not kill humans again because he has a soul.

At this point in the game I would have expected them to be told to get along and play nice for the greater good; not a free pass for Spike to kill a human who had every right to dislike Spike.
But he deserves that "free pass". Everyone would. If someone shows up and ambushes you with intent to kill you, you have the right to kill them. I have no doubt that Buffy would grant Dawn or Willow that right, too. (Which she actually already did, by allowing them to stake vampires instead of making them go Gandhi against them.) Why should she have any problem granting Spike as much?

Spike showed no interest in going out of his way to kill Wood on his own accord, and there's not the vaguest hint of "evil" in killing in self-defense. (If there was, we'd definitely have "Buffy the Mass-Murderer of Discriminated-Against Undead Americans On Their Way To Lunch"... stopping people from be killed? Insufficient jsutification, if self-defense is evil.) It's Spike's right to kill Wood if he tries this again; he did absolutely nothing wrong. Wood, however, had the "I will let him" coming to him to put him in his place, and if that's not stopping him, well, then him becoming Blondie Bear's next nutritional supplement is fair game.


What exactly is a mature or immature love? To my estimation there can only be mature or immature people in love. The genuinity of that love, if it is indeed genuine, is not reflected in the maturity of those who possess it.
Any "love" based on romance is immature and abusive, in my book. And I won't budge there - can't afford to budge. Been there, done that, hurt a lot of people - not least of them myself; so it's more than my life's worth to risk going down that path again. The traits I share(d) with the bad hair dude and his way of "loving" have been a constant source of guilt and shame for me for too many years.

Romance is a very bad thing. Your OTP oozes with romance and shows no sign of even trying to move away from there. Thus, your OTP is a Very Bad Thing Indeed.

a) How, then, do you define maturity?
Not directed at me, but I'll answer anyway... using people as your drug of choice is a knockout criterion. "Love" that isn't firmly based on trust, respect, friendship, and honesty = no trace of maturity in there.

(Let's not forget the bad hair dude was lying to Buffy right from the start, right? "Love", indeed. :badboy🙂

You forgot a detail... Spike didn't have a ''If he achieves one moment of true happiness, he will loose his soul'' curse... No matter how Angel got his soul, he would still have that curse...
I very much doubt that view... The happiness clause is tied to the method of soul restoration by the Gypsy spell. I'm fairly certain that any other way of ensouling Angelus would not carry the happiness clause anymore.

Like the way Buffy and Spike love each other like real good friends 😉 😛
...because that's the only way to really do the love thing maturely. 😛
 
brinkster130
brinkster130
I don't see how Angel leaving Buffy at the end of season 3 was selfish...and I'm guessing we have very different definitions of romance. I still don't think Spike deserved a free pass, but good point about Spike not showing interest in killing Wood.
Any "love" based on romance is immature and abusive, in my book. And I won't budge there - can't afford to budge. Been there, done that, hurt a lot of people - not least of them myself; so it's more than my life's worth to risk going down that path again. The traits I share(d) with the bad hair dude and his way of "loving" have been a constant source of guilt and shame for me for too many years.

Romance is a very bad thing. Your OTP oozes with romance and shows no sign of even trying to move away from there. Thus, your OTP is a Very Bad Thing Indeed.

So, your dislike of Angel is personal? There's a deeper meaning to your stance on B/A then general dislike?

Your life and experiences has led you to this place?

I respect that. A lot.

However, my life has led me in a different direction. One where romance is not abusive or "a very bad thing". However, romance doesn't make me swoon or lose the run of myself, neither.

If you knew me well you'd know I'm not all that romantic at all. Truth be told I'm an absolute cynic.

I make that point for no other reason than to say that I'm not some "little school girl" in love with the idea of love or blinded by the pretty little couple. My life and my experiences have led me to appreciate certain attributes and I see them in the B/A relationship: strength and courage and resilience.

My reasons for loving B/A are as genuine as yours are for hating them.

I don't know why I have said all of this but I picked up an air of condemnation? condescension? in what you said about B/A and by extension people shipping them. If I'm wrong in that estimation, then I apologise but I just wanted to say my bit.
 
Taaroko
Taaroko
[No message]
So, your dislike of Angel is personal? There's a deeper meaning to your stance on B/A then general dislike?

Your life and experiences has led you to this place?

I respect that. A lot.
Well, yeah. I suppose noone would react with that much emotion to a bunch of fictional characters if those characters didn't in some way hit home very much for them personally.

Lots about A's character reminds me of how I used to be, and his "love" story reminds me of the crap I've hurtfully wasted over a decade of my life on, using women to fill the voids in my character. It's been hard (and would've been impossible without therapy & medication) to stop hating myself for that, so guess how I react to a story that portrays a selfish git like that and his abusive social antics as true love and heroism.

Also, lots about Spuffy reminds me of how I used to be, and the aftermath of the bathroom scene and Spike's way of getting the soul and dealing with it resonates a lot with my life too, just this time with the reasons why I think I do have redeeming virtues after all, and managed to stop hating myself.

So, "Bad Hair Dude vs. Spike" equals "pathetic jerk that I was vs. flawed but decent enough new me"... and their relationships to Buffy are just prime examples of it. No wonder I get rabid when someone prefers the WRONG version. It kinda comes across to me as "hey dude, be abusive because that's what women like, but if you do it, you're evil and those poor women will be your victims". I don't need that kind of double-bind, had more than enough of that in my youth.

However, my life has led me in a different direction. One where romance is not abusive or "a very bad thing". However, romance doesn't make me swoon or lose the run of myself, neither.
I hope you can forgive me for not being able to see that - and please believe me that I'm not being snarky or sarcastic. Burnt kid shunning the fire; I just can't, even on a theoretical level, imagine a positive or even neutral stance on romance. To be honest, people who defend romance just scare me, and anger is a defense against that fear.

I make that point for no other reason than to say that I'm not some "little school girl" in love with the idea of love or blinded by the pretty little couple. My life and my experiences have led me to appreciate certain attributes and I see them in the B/A relationship: strength and courage and resilience.
Which I just can't see. The dishonesty and mutual abuse that I see in them just blocks the view.

My reasons for loving B/A are as genuine as yours are for hating them.
Like a mate of mine once said, I accept that your viewpoint is a viewpoint. I apologize if my inability to understand it comes across as hurtful. I absolutely do not think you're a bad person, Kean. I'm just horrified of what would become of me if I started sharing your values. If you actually manage to hold to them without becoming an abusive a**hole, more power to you; I know I certainly couldn't pull that trick off.

I don't know why I have said all of this but I picked up an air of condemnation? condescension? in what you said about B/A and by extension people shipping them. If I'm wrong in that estimation, then I apologise but I just wanted to say my bit.
I understand that. "Most people are morons", may in fact be a defense mechanism of mine against the insidious glorification of romance that's ubiquitous in pop culture. I'm not proud of that, but I won't risk the alternative; the world is much better of with me condescending towards 'mance-heads than with me becoming a 'mance-head ever again, myself.

[/therapy session] 😉
 
Lots about A's character reminds me of how I used to be, and his "love" story reminds me of the crap I've hurtfully wasted over a decade of my life on, using women to fill the voids in my character. It's been hard (and would've been impossible without therapy & medication) to stop hating myself for that, so guess how I react to a story that portrays a selfish git like that and his abusive social antics as true love and heroism.

Also, lots about Spuffy reminds me of how I used to be, and the aftermath of the bathroom scene and Spike's way of getting the soul and dealing with it resonates a lot with my life too, just this time with the reasons why I think I do have redeeming virtues after all, and managed to stop hating myself.

So, "Bad Hair Dude vs. Spike" equals "pathetic jerk that I was vs. flawed but decent enough new me"... and their relationships to Buffy are just prime examples of it. No wonder I get rabid when someone prefers the WRONG version. It kinda comes across to me as "hey dude, be abusive because that's what women like, but if you do it, you're evil and those poor women will be your victims". I don't need that kind of double-bind, had more than enough of that in my youth.

I'm not replying to this section with what originally came to mind when I read it. I think it would disingenuous to you and your honesty to do so. While I wish Angel (and B/A) didn't create such negative reactions within you, I completely understand why you'd feel the way you do. Whatever gets you through, right?

I hope you can forgive me for not being able to see that - and please believe me that I'm not being snarky or sarcastic. Burnt kid shunning the fire; I just can't, even on a theoretical level, imagine a positive or even neutral stance on romance. To be honest, people who defend romance just scare me, and anger is a defense against that fear.

Your view on romance sits uneasily with me too. In fact, I found myself equally unnerved by it right up until this conversation. Knowing a little more about the why you feel this way eases that fear.

Still don't like it much 😛

Which I just can't see. The dishonesty and mutual abuse that I see in them just blocks the view.

You don't need to see it for me to know it exists. I don't see much, if any, of what you see in B/A but I know it's real for you. Us arguing our views is pointless and maybe even a little disrespectful to each other.

Like a mate of mine once said, I accept that your viewpoint is a viewpoint. I apologize if my inability to understand it comes across as hurtful. I absolutely do not think you're a bad person, Kean. I'm just horrified of what would become of me if I started sharing your values. If you actually manage to hold to them without becoming an abusive a**hole, more power to you; I know I certainly couldn't pull that trick off.

I accept that your viewpoint is a viewpoint, too. 🙂 You haven't been hurtful in the slightest, in fact you've been quite the opposite and I know you don't think I'm a horrible person. If you don't think that is clear in these shipper threads then it is across the rest of the boards. Although, how would you know? I could be the anti-Christ! 😛

And for the record, I don't think you are a bad person, either. Not at all. Like I said, your stance on romance scared me but I always had a feeling you had good reason for having that viewpoint.

Does anyone want to sing Kum-by-ya now? 😛
 
I
InsaneMystic
have some karma for this post, because you deserve it :) *hugs*
Well, in fairness, you clasp hands with the guy whose hand is on fire-you're gonna be a little bit extra flamey. 😛

Now, if their hands had spontaneously combusted all on their own, we might have a discussion 😛 😉
Then we DEFINITELY have a discussion, because Spike didn't "go all flamey" until AFTER they held hands. In fact, Spike's didn't start to burn until after Buffy let go of his hand and turned to run away. Before that, he was only glowing (and he must've set some kind of trend, because now, all of the cool vampires are glowing)

I suggested this once before, but in the wrong forum, so I'll suggest it here, because I believe that it is a valid point. People change. They grow, mature, their attitudes change, they experience new things, live through different crises, experience new pains and joys, all of which tend to mate the person we are today quite different from the people who we were only a few years ago, and that is with only our rather mundane lives. Imagine, no, just look carefully and with an open mind, at how much both Buffy and Angel have changed since Angel left Sunnydale. Since that time, Buffy and Angel have never spent more than a few brief moments together at any given time, so those changes have never become an issue. The Buffy and the Angel who we know in Season 8 are quite different from the Buffy and Angel who fell in love somewhere between Season 1 and Season 2, and those differences might very well be enough to make the feelings that they shared in Sunnydale no longer valid. By that, I mean that they no longer know each other, and before they could truthfully say that the feelings that they have for each other now are as powerful and all consuming as they were when they first met.

Maybe mature Buffy and (maybe) mature Angel can fall in love all over again, but that's what it's going to take for them to have any kind of relationship here and now.

Or, at least as "here and now" as the Buffyverse can be in relation to the real hare and now.
 
However, Buffy did not remain as a 17 year old girl. She became a young adult. And from what I have seen and read, the nature of her relationship with Angel never really . . . changed. Despite the fact that they continued to love one another, I never saw any viable reason to continue their relationship. Were they supposed to regard each other in the same manner as they did during the series' early seasons, despite Buffy's continuing maturity? Are we really supposed to regard that kind of romance as the ultimate kind? I hope not.

At the time, they both needed to stay away from each other, because I agree with what you said, Buffy changed, but her love for Angel stayed on the lower level, as we can see in IWRY and Sanctuary. But as we can see in later seasons of BtVS, they've developed, and I think we would see different kind of relathionship if they were given the chance. In Forever, Buffy realizing Angel has his own life and that she's not his main priority anymore, but still he had time to come and give her his time. Angel is the first person Buffy seemed gladly to see after she came back from Hell, first sign of enthusiasm we saw. And again, we don't know what happened there, what they've talked about, we were ripped of. And of course, in Chosen, Buffy sending Angel back home. Because she knows it comes to her. There's her.
Buffy will probably always have that 'childish' feelings for Angel. She'll probably react over dramatic and selfish at some times if we see them in the future. What the hell, I see my mother feeling like 17 year old girl sometimes telling my father stories 'Remember that time when we were..' Is it healthy? Honestly, who are we to judge.
 
Angel is the first person Buffy seemed gladly to see after she came back from Hell, first sign of enthusiasm we saw.

As far as we actually saw on screen, the closest that we saw as a happy reaction from Buffy during the beginning of Season 6, maybe for the entire season, in fact, was her reunion with Giles. I've seen as much enthusiasm from people about to have a colonoscopy as she demonstrated when she announced that she had to see Angel, and she certainly wasn't bubbling over when she came back, either. I'm not saying that their reunion was any less touching and emotional than her reunion with Giles, but both Buffy and Angel, on his own show, returned from that mysterious meeting more, in my opinion at least, solemn than happy, as though their time together had been something less than they had expected it to be. In fact, Buffy herself described the meeting as, "Not important. Past." I wasn't expecting her to say, "Oh, it was wonderful. We spent the evening at Disneyland, and then just walked and talked all the rest of the night," but something along the order of, "Fine. Private." wouldn't have been either out of character or inappropriate. Maybe that statement, "Not important. Past." was more accurate than she was willing to admit at the time. And it wouldn't conflict in the least, if that were true, with their next reunion, at the end of Season 7. "I just want to bask. Okay, I've basked long enough. What're you doing here?" Does it seem fitting that Buffy's time alone with the man who was supposed to be her "one true love," "soul mate," and "one and only," should seem almost brusque and turn very quickly to, "Okay, let's get down to business," while her time with Spike afterwards was more intimate and tender that anything that we had seen between Buffy and Angel in the last two years?

But I'm now in the process of hijacking my own thread, so, back to the original question.

"Did Buffy really love Angel?"

I think that, yes, without a doubt, Buffy did, and and still does, love Angel, and I have no doubt that she will be able to truthfully say that if she lives to be 150 years old. I'm just not as sure that, by then, or even now, she could truthfully say that she is as IN love with him as she was when she was a senior in high school.

(And it just occurred to me that a subject that someone describes at the beginning as unnecessary and a no-brainer sure has spawned a lot of very interesting debate)
 
M
mayfever
didn't she describe the meeting as "intense"?
In fact, Buffy herself described the meeting as, "Not important. Past."

That is factually not quite correct. The transcript goes as follows:

DAWN: (awkwardly) So.
BUFFY: What so?
DAWN: So ... how was it? (nervous) Seeing Angel ... him seeing you. (Giles stands up) Was it weird?

Buffy looks uncomfortable. Dawn, Tara, and Willow look expectantly at her.

BUFFY: Um ... it was ... intense.

Giles goes to the back of the room to do something at a side table.

WILLOW: Well, i-if you wanna talk about it...
BUFFY: I don't. I-it's ... not important. Past. I'd just ... rather keep this one to myself, if that's okay.

Source

My personal interpretation is that they came dangerously close to breaking the curse that night, but of course I don't expect anyone to share that particular view 🙂
 
BuffangelLovE
BuffangelLovE
you're not the only one who has that view sometimes ;)
Then we DEFINITELY have a discussion, because Spike didn't "go all flamey" until AFTER they held hands. In fact, Spike's didn't start to burn until after Buffy let go of his hand and turned to run away.

Actually, Buffy and Spike's hands were clasped when his hand burst into flames, emphasis on his hand. Buffy's hand remained remarkably flame retardant. Although you are correct in saying that Spike only started to burn once she let go.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z56Bmeuc8k0[/ame]
 
Actually, Buffy and Spike's hands were clasped when his hand burst into flames, emphasis on his hand. Buffy's hand remained remarkably flame retardant. Although you are correct in saying that Spike only started to burn once she let go.

Chosen Shooting Script 🙂

BUFFY
Spike...

SPIKE
I mean it. I gotta do this.

His hand is held up, frozen in his rictus of revelatory pain. Buffy takes her own hand, interlocks it with his. A moment, and both hands burst into flames.

We hold close on the two of them, ignoring the flames, looking at each other.

Source: http://www.buffyworld.com/buffy/scripts/144_scri.html

Yet, even without the script, you can see (at least I do, lol) that the fire originates from the middle of their hands and encircles both. 🙂
 
I just thought it was because of the amulet that he was wearing. It was intended for a vampire (specifically Angel), and Spike was conducting the power of the amulet, so when a human came in contact with it, I just thought that was the result.
 
M
mayfever
[No message]
I just thought it was because of the amulet that he was wearing. It was intended for a vampire (specifically Angel), and Spike was conducting the power of the amulet, so when a human came in contact with it, I just thought that was the result.

For me, that doesn't make any sense because that moment also symbolizes Buffy and Spike's relationship.
 
I just thought it was because of the amulet that he was wearing. It was intended for a vampire (specifically Angel), and Spike was conducting the power of the amulet, so when a human came in contact with it, I just thought that was the result.

Me too.

Chosen Shooting Script 🙂



Source: http://www.buffyworld.com/buffy/scripts/144_scri.html

Yet, even without the script, you can see (at least I do, lol) that the fire originates from the middle of their hands and encircles both. 🙂

I've watched the video again and I'm just not seeing Buffy's hand on fire. At all. If that was the case it still would have been on fire when she pulled it away. It wasn't, her hand didn't have so much as a sunburn.
 
I've watched the video again and I'm just not seeing Buffy's hand on fire. At all. If that was the case it still would have been on fire when she pulled it away. It wasn't, her hand didn't have so much as a sunburn.

I disagree (as you'd expect, lol) because Buffy clearly felt something after the fire burst between them. That's just how I see it. 🙂

---------- Post added at 11:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ----------

Kean agrees: LMFAO. We are actually ridiculous. We can't even agree on something as simple as this. lol

LOL, completely! 😀 I've seriously watched that scene in slow motion, just so I can be sure, so I stand by thoughts. 😀
 
Kean
Kean
LMFAO. We are actually ridiculous. We can't even agree on something as simple as this. lol
P
prophecygrrl
LOL Slow motion! :D
I disagree (as you'd expect, lol) because Buffy clearly felt something after the fire burst between them. That's just how I see it. 🙂

She COULD have felt something.. but it sure wasnt her skin on fire being what she felt. As it never was.
 
S
StarSlayer
First, she DID feel something. ;) Second, I agree it wasn't her skin on fire that she felt. It was something much more powerful. ;)
Yes, I'm a total geek, lol! 😀

No, no, no... because Kean said that "I'm just not seeing Buffy's hand on fire" and you disagreed. But then you agree with me in the karma that her hand was not on fire. So now I am really confused. Did it or didn't it?
 
Back
Top Bottom