Question Do you think it was the right decision to have Spike fall in love with Buffy?

[Lyri]

Or she turned into a vengeance demon!

OR, she already WAS a vengeance demon, and Cecily was her cover for whatever vengeance she was trying to wreak at the time. I always imagined that Halfreck was at least a little closer to Anya's age than she would have been if she became a demon after her interactions with William.

---------- Post added at 03:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 PM ----------

Scobro agrees: or its all hogwash and was never supposed to notice it was the same actor..

Then why would they put in that line about them recognizing each other in 'Older and Far Away'?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Like you said in the other post about why things weren't cleared up.. it was just a throw away line, a nod to those that actorspot. I really think thats all it was. 'Oh, you know we have the same actress, ok, lets make this little throw away line for giggles.' I dont think it was anything more than that. Not really.

 

[Carrrrgh]

I was under the impression that Cecily was a vengeance demon and was in the process of vengeance that night we saw her at the party.

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that she was the vengeance demon and that all those people died later that night? Idk I'll try to find it

Edit: I found this on Wikipedia. This isn't what I read before but it pretty much says the same thing.

"In the season 6 episode "Older and Far Away", Halfrek recognizes Spike and calls him by his human name, William. Spike also recognizes Halfrek, but when asked to explain this they both sheepishly deny being acquainted. This implies that Halfrek had previously been Cecily. However, Halfrek once told Anya that she witnessed the Crimean War (circa 1853). The timing of this event would indicate that Halfrek existed as a demon at least three decades prior to the adoption of youthful human form in Cecily. Joss Whedon and Kali Rocha have both made statements that Halfrek and Cecily were indeed the same entity.[citation needed]

Halfrek later appeared in the comic Spike: Old Times, which established that she was 'on a job' at the time that William fell for Cecily. The night William became a vampire, she caused the deaths of the rude party-goers who had laughed at William's poetry."

 

[Lyri]

I was under the impression that Cecily was a vengeance demon and was in the process of vengeance that night we saw her at the party.

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that she was the vengeance demon and that all those people died later that night? Idk I'll try to find it

It was a comic...based on Halfreck and Spike meeting sometime before she was killed in S7. I have it somewhere, just can't remember the name of it off the top of my head.

But as we all know, the comics before S8, aside from 'Origin' and 'Tales of the Slayer/Vampire' aren't considered canon, so we still don't have a definite answer.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

The problem was that (I believe it was) Drew Goddard that said Cecily became Halfrek. But then the timelines were different. So then they made Cecily a vengeance demon herself. But I thought it was mentioned of implied that she was, ya know, someone of money and everyone knew her, etc. Not like she suddenly appeared out of thin air.

 

[Lyri]

But at that time, wasn't it, you know, common for wealthy families to just breeze in outta nowhere and become the talk of the town? Just because she was rich and everyone knew her didn't mean that she had to be in town for more than a year. And maybe she just found a lot of vengeance that needed to be handed out in that town, lol.

You say the timeline doesn't fit, if Goddard said she BECAME a vengeance demon after William, but does Anya ever mention that she knew Halfreck prior to 1905? We know they were together then, but I don't know if there's ever a canoncial mention of Halfreck being older than Cecily would have been in 1880. I know I said she might have been a demon when she met William, but I've got no proof only a comic that might or might not be canon.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

if there's ever a canoncial mention of Halfreck being older than Cecily would have been in 1880. I

Yes, there is.. hang on momma.. she said when they were all Anastasiaian it up in Russia about the Crimean War, that was the 1850s.. it was the episode where I think it was Anya liked living in Russia.. they were at the table eating.. and she was talking about that. I do not recall the episode name. I think Gategod had an avatar of Anya from that episode.

 

[Kean]

Yes, there is.. hang on momma.. she said when they were all Anastasiaian it up in Russia about the Crimean War, that was the 1850s.. it was the episode where I think it was Anya liked living in Russia.. they were at the table eating.. and she was talking about that. I do not recall the episode name. I think Gategod had an avatar of Anya from that episode.

I thought that was during the Revolution of 1905? I think it was called Bloody Sunday.

 

[Lyri]

I thought that was during the Revolution of 1905? I think it was called Bloody Sunday.

Yep, I checked the transcript earlier and it said 1905. Which is the time frame I was talking about earlier.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Icarium]

@Icarium - I think that Spike leaving Buffy to fight Angel alone in Becoming 2 was strictly a genre convention. A hero always fights his/her nemesis alone, mano-a-mano.

Be that as it might (and I do agree that whether Spike wanted to save the world or not, him leaving Buffy to fight alone doesn't make much sense), a good writer doesn't force their characters to do something just because the genre conventions demand it. There needs to be a reason for a character's actions. This is a trap in which Joss fell again and again, especially with comic relief characters like Anya, Harmony and Andrew.

In season 6 they were being destroyed by their own internal problems, in earlier seasons the problems were either in or projected onto other people who became the big bad that they needed to destroy

You mean I dreamt up Joyce dying, Hank abandoning Buffy, Xander's troubles in finding a job, Buffy, Willow and Xander being the school outcasts and the myriad of other very much real life problems that the characters had to face in previous seasons? Just because they failed utterly to deal with their problems in S6 doesn't mean they have never faced such issues before. Heck, the whole seasonal arc for Buffy is pretty much "When She Was Bad", only excruciatingly slow and about as interesting to watch as drying paint.

He's a demon character who symbolises many human traits, we can get into technicalities as to what he "actually" is, but it's pretty irrelevant as to the symbolism. For its a human show made by human beings, the characters are bound to exhibit and symbolise human traits even if they say something else on the label.

Technicality? Really? That's an odd thing to say considering the entire show is about this "technicality". Vampires are killed for being vampires, I wouldn't call it a technicality, it's certainly big enough factor to justify killing them and sparing human characters who have done the same. Even more importantly, no one in the show bothers to explore the ramifications of Spike being so "human". Even after he manages to get his soul back they continue to kill vampires. It's an exception for the sake of exception, not a gamechanger.

As for the symbolism - things need to make sense in the story itself too. For instance Angel is obviously a metaphor for bad boyfriend in S2. Does that mean the writers should have refrained from having him kill anyone since the run of the mill bad boyfriend isn't a serial murderer?

They didn't destroy the mythos for the sake of Spuffy, there is so much going on in the later seasons aswell as Spuffy. By this mythos I expect you mean repeating what they did in the earlier series rather than trying something new,

No, I meant the internal consistency of the story. If in one episodes vampires need an invitation to come in, then in another they don't without any explanation offered, that's an inconsistency. Same with vampires first being all about evil, then for no rhyme or reason, some become capable of "love" and getting back their soul. I have nothing against trying something new but a decent writer does that without violating the internal logic of their story. Any idiot can write a story that's contradictory.

Anya, an ex-demon who becomes human against her will and new to all human ways. Spike, a vampire, wise in all human ways, who decides to become human again by winning himself back his soul... Rehashing the story in the sense of completely opposite and different maybe?

Nice try but that's not really what happened. Anya without her powers is pretty much like Spike with the chip. Her mentality didn't change, she still wanted to smite people and missed her murderous ways. She was only changed by her love for Xander. And she later chooses to stop being a demon. I am not saying it was a well told story or even one that I like but it was basically the same story as Spuffy, only with 95% less angst and nakedness and dumb speeches. And it lacked the great stumbling block of Spuffy since Anya was human, so whatever changes occurred in her they didn't violate the mythos.

 

[Harley]

I voted no because it came across as ooc for Spike. He held my interest much more when he was bad and I saw it as unrealistic that he had been with Dru for so long and had gone through so much together then Buffy replaced that? Hardly...
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Moscow Watcher]

No, I meant the internal consistency of the story. If in one episodes vampires need an invitation to come in, then in another they don't without any explanation offered, that's an inconsistency. Same with vampires first being all about evil, then for no rhyme or reason, some become capable of "love" and getting back their soul. I have nothing against trying something new but a decent writer does that without violating the internal logic of their story. Any idiot can write a story that's contradictory.

Vampires weren't all about being evil. They were about being a person's ID.

From the pilot:

Xander: Jesse, man. I'm sorry.
Jesse: Sorry? I feel good, Xander! I feel strong! I'm connected, man,
to everything!
[later]
Jesse: Okay... Let's deal with this. Jesse was an excruciating loser who couldn't get a date with anyone in the sighted community! Look at me. I'm a new man!

In "Nightmares" Vampire!Buffy helps her friends, although she wants them to hurry up because she's "getting hungry".

The show always maintained emotional consistency and kept the human factor as unpredictable as it is in real life.

Both Glory and Illyria and Hellgods, but they have very different personalities. Both Clem and The Judge are demons, but they are from different clans with different behavioral patterns. Both The Master and Harmony are vampires, but they're impossible to compare.

 

[Professor Walsh]

Do I think it was the right decision to have Spike fall in love with Buffy? Yes. Do I think the relationship that developed over Season 6 was the way to go with that? Hell no. Even if I do love a lot of the little moments between Buffy and Spike in season six and seven, I would easily have sacrificed those moment for an entirely different storyline, particularly one free of balcony scenes and "Seeing Red".

That's my ideal S6. Dru comes back, Big Bad Spike comes back and they try and finish what they started in S2. Added bonus, no Troika!

Ah, yes. And with no troika, there's no bullet hole in Tara, thus no Dark Willow. This sounds like a Kinder Egg to me.

I think that Buffy and Spike were inevitable, from the first moment in "School Hard." There was so much passion between the two of them that they HAD to wind up either killing each other or being lovers.

Brilliant reason to bring Spike back as the biggest bad.

Cicelly and Buffy were different, he never had them, they were never his, and he watched from afar as they went on about their lives, thinking he was beneath them and not worthy of them. THAT'S the Spike I hate, and the Spike I wish I'd never seen again.

Oh, how I agree. I firmly believe that a good relationship has to build on feelings of equality. If one person feels beneath the other, I have a hard time seeing how a healthy relationship can come from the romance.

Yes, of course it was a good thing, otherwise Buffy would have just been repeating ground it had already covered in the first 3 seasons for the sake of loyalty to its older fans, rather than having artistic ingenuity.

Well "“ they could have tried the radical idea of letting the heroine move about without a love interest for a while.

And I'll never understand why some think it's a bad thing that Spike wanted to change himself in order to be with Buffy, especially if it's for the better, lol. Some people do want to make changes in themselves when they fall in love, if it makes the other person happy. That's what Spike thought. At first, he thought that if he gave up on being evil, Buffy would like him. She would be happy he's no longer evil. But, nope. Not so simple. He later thought that if he got his soul, Buffy would love him and be with him (since she said she couldn't love him or be with him). She would be happy he has a soul. Again, not so simple once he got his soul because of all the guilt he felt.

One thing is to change how you act because you love someone. Drinking, beating up your lover, always leaving dirty knickers on the floor in front of the washing machine "¦ There are a myriad of behaviour patterns that a person may need to change to make a relationship viable. If it feels necessary to change who you are, however, I feel different about it. I don't think you should need to change what you are unless you feel the need to do so for your own sake.

 

[Icarium]

Vampires weren't all about being evil. They were about being a person's ID.

All vampires kill people for pleasure. None except Spike wants to become good. Q.E.D.

In "Nightmares" Vampire!Buffy helps her friends, although she wants them to hurry up because she's "getting hungry".

So? Buffy's nightmare might have been to slowly become a vampire. This doesn't tell us anything about actual vampires.

Both The Master and Harmony are vampires, but they're impossible to compare.

I am not saying all vampires are exactly the same, I am saying all of them are evil. That's why they are killed while even the W&H bosses are treated as redeemable. If vampires aren't really evil then Buffy is a serial murderer.

 

[StarSlayer]

One thing is to change how you act because you love someone. Drinking, beating up your lover, always leaving dirty knickers on the floor in front of the washing machine "¦ There are a myriad of behaviour patterns that a person may need to change to make a relationship viable. If it feels necessary to change who you are, however, I feel different about it. I don't think you should need to change what you are unless you feel the need to do so for your own sake.

Yet, that's exactly what Spike did when he went out to get his soul. He not only felt the need to do so for Buffy, but he felt the need to do so for his own sake. The bathroom scene showed he could not be the man that he was trying to become. There still was a demon that was able to overpower him. The chip prevented him from being a monster. His lack of soul prevented him from being a man. As Spike said, he was nothing. But, getting his soul back, changing what he is (a soulless vampire) for his own sake and for Buffy, was the only possible and logical route to take, in order to become the man Buffy deserved. She deserved someone who loved her with all of their heart, body, and soul. Spike believed he could be that man once he got his soul.

So, again I ask, how is it bad that Spike would want to make that choice? It's hardly selfish in my eyes, nor does it destroy his character development. Instead, his choice to get his soul, change who he is to become a better man for both himself and for Buffy, is one of the best, if not the best, decision he makes in the entire series. It's a huge turning point for his character that I get so confused over when some people say it shouldn't have happened, since Spike was trying to be good and trying to find his place after getting the chip and later falling in love with Buffy.

 

[Summerlilly]

This kind of goes along with the thread about Spike being lamer when he loved Buffy. I'm a big Spuffy supporter (possibly Bangel at heart, never can seem to decide, ha ha! 🙂) My post was at the end of a very long thread but here's my thoughts again.....


Loving Buffy saved his soul, literally. Maybe he wasn't as exciting because, well....isn't evil usually more exciting? Spike's love for Buffy was one of the core themes of the entire show. No matter how you start or what you did in the past.... everyone deserves a chance at redemption, to become a better version of themselves. In my opinion, a vampire that chooses to live forever paying for his sins by regaining his soul is to be admired. Loving Buffy is what kept his character going and evolving. Spike becoming good is one of my favorite parts of the show and he would never have done it without Buffy. Crazy, evil spike could be more entertaining, but in love, good Spike is what made me love his character even more.... and its what saved Buffy and ultimately the world.

 

[Doppelgang]

Be that as it might (and I do agree that whether Spike wanted to save the world or not, him leaving Buffy to fight alone doesn't make much sense), a good writer doesn't force their characters to do something just because the genre conventions demand it. There needs to be a reason for a character's actions. This is a trap in which Joss fell again and again, especially with comic relief characters like Anya, Harmony and Andrew.



You mean I dreamt up Joyce dying, Hank abandoning Buffy, Xander's troubles in finding a job, Buffy, Willow and Xander being the school outcasts and the myriad of other very much real life problems that the characters had to face in previous seasons? Just because they failed utterly to deal with their problems in S6 doesn't mean they have never faced such issues before. Heck, the whole seasonal arc for Buffy is pretty much "When She Was Bad", only excruciatingly slow and about as interesting to watch as drying paint.



Technicality? Really? That's an odd thing to say considering the entire show is about this "technicality". Vampires are killed for being vampires, I wouldn't call it a technicality, it's certainly big enough factor to justify killing them and sparing human characters who have done the same. Even more importantly, no one in the show bothers to explore the ramifications of Spike being so "human". Even after he manages to get his soul back they continue to kill vampires. It's an exception for the sake of exception, not a gamechanger.

As for the symbolism - things need to make sense in the story itself too. For instance Angel is obviously a metaphor for bad boyfriend in S2. Does that mean the writers should have refrained from having him kill anyone since the run of the mill bad boyfriend isn't a serial murderer?



No, I meant the internal consistency of the story. If in one episodes vampires need an invitation to come in, then in another they don't without any explanation offered, that's an inconsistency. Same with vampires first being all about evil, then for no rhyme or reason, some become capable of "love" and getting back their soul. I have nothing against trying something new but a decent writer does that without violating the internal logic of their story. Any idiot can write a story that's contradictory.



Nice try but that's not really what happened. Anya without her powers is pretty much like Spike with the chip. Her mentality didn't change, she still wanted to smite people and missed her murderous ways. She was only changed by her love for Xander. And she later chooses to stop being a demon. I am not saying it was a well told story or even one that I like but it was basically the same story as Spuffy, only with 95% less angst and nakedness and dumb speeches. And it lacked the great stumbling block of Spuffy since Anya was human, so whatever changes occurred in her they didn't violate the mythos.

I like Spuffy, you don't like Spuffy, all the rest is just meaningless chatter by me and by you 😛 All I can say is you're missing out on so much in the later seasons of Buffy by being so closed-minded to it.

 

[Misty]

Yes, it was the right decision to have Spike fall in love with Buffy. I don't just think that because I'm Spuffy shipper, but because his character got really interesting when we saw different sides of him and we got to know more about him. And as much I loved evil Spike in season 2, it would have been boring if he was like that for the whole show.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

because his character got really interesting when we saw different sides of him and we got to know more about him.

But you saw that without him falling in love with Buffy; some of the Spike chip moments were very good, when he was interacting with all of the Scoobies and what not. You lost those moments when he fell in love with Buffy. I mean, really interesting? I just dont see it. No amount of Spike and Buffy interaction after they fell in lust or love could at all surpass the Spike/Willow moment when she was giving him a pep talk for his fangtile dysfunction. Those moments. When Xanders washing machine shrunk his clothes. Those moments. They were all lost when he fell in love with Buffy.

 

[BuffyElevated]

Even though I don't hate Spike with Buffy, I feel like it was the wrong decision for the character. I feel like once Spike got his chip and started falling in love with Buffy, he lost his edge and was no longer quite as badass as he was when we first met him. I miss Season 2 Spike.