Does being a B/A shipper mean one does not like Spike, and vice a versa?

[Kean]

But when I, (and I think WA) say he's "better" and "more enjoyable" on his own show, what I mean is that he is more fleshed out there; that there is no fundamental change in his character, just that on "Angel" we get to see it. So to answer the question--no, it's not the same. People who say they only like Spike as a villain are saying that they only like one aspect of him and don't like the person he became. When I say I prefer Angel on Ats I mean that the show suits him; the writing fleshes him out but doesn't fundamentally change him. If I thought he was essentially a different personality on one show and I preferred him on that show, then yes, I would be saying that I only like him to a certain extent and ultimately that wouldn't qualify a "like" by my definition. Not the case!

I'm still dubious as to whether there is a real difference between the two, I think Angel was utterly fascinating and rather fleshed out on Buffy, but that is semantics and an utterly pointless discussion to pursue. But I do feel the same way about this Angel issue as you do about people saying soulless Spike is better. It's more a feeling than something I can prove, so I'll concede your point. 🙂

But by definition if someone says they only like a character when he acts one way and then they dislike him when he's entirely different, I don't understand how, logically speaking, they can say they like the character, (versus just an "aspect" of the character)? I mean I can say I dislike Angelus and I like Angel without being inconsistent; why can't people say they like season 2 Spike, (Spikus if you will) but dislike Spike? To me that would be a more apt way of defining how they feel. If someone only liked Willow when she was flaying people and trying to end the world but declared that they couldn't stand her when she's her usual Willow self, would you say that ultimately they like Willow? They like one aspect of her character sure, but not the core of what makes her Willow. 🙂

I think the problem with it is that we are ultimately saying that "I know this character better than you and I am here to say, you'd doing it wrong". I can say that I really loved Willow in S1-3 but I can't stand her after that. I know there are Willow fans having palpitations reading that, because clearly to them, I am missing something integral to Willow's Willowness that they do see and can appreciate. But I would still say that I like that part of Willow and I feel it is perfectly fine for me to say that. However, I understand that to other, more invested fans of hers, I am a total phony 😉 🙂

I honestly cannot say that about Spike. While I can enjoy elements of him in the earlier season, there is simply no way I could say I like him and mean it. My criteria is very simple: take a character out of the verse and then ask myself if I would miss them. With Willow when I ask myself this question, even when I think I can't bear her, I find that i would miss her and there are elements of her story I simply do not want to lose. I ask my self hat question of Spike and I not only realise I wouldn't miss anything about him, I find I want to do a little happy dance 😛 😛 I joke! I joke! Okay not really, but I say it in good humour 😉 🙂

So, in that respect, I absolutely agree with you. There is simply no way I could legitimately say I like Spike. There's a few more characters who, if I applied my "Would I Miss Them" theory to, I could happily do without too.

🙂

 

[Gum Gnome33]

I think the problem with it is that we are ultimately saying that "I know this character better than you and I am here to say, you'd doing it wrong". I can say that I really loved Willow in S1-3 but I can't stand her after that. I know there are Willow fans having palpitations reading that, because clearly to them, I am missing something integral to Willow's Willowness that they do see and can appreciate. But I would still say that I like that part of Willow and I feel it is perfectly fine for me to say that. However, I understand that to other, more invested fans of hers, I am a total phony 😉

Really all I'm saying is that there are certain characters in the 'verse that undergo significant transformations throughout the series. I think whether we like who they ultimately become or not, it's undeniable that they are materially different at one point than they are at another. And my point is that if one only likes them at one point or another on the spectrum of "personality traits" throughout the show, it doesn't make sense to me to say that they "like" them, but rather that they do with a caveat, just like you did above with Willow! I mean I totally agree with you; there's a big difference between early and late Willow, enough so that one could very easily like one and not the other. And as you said you "like that part of Wilow" which makes plenty of sense to me. Honestly, I'm not arguing the validity of people's opinions on the matter--(that's an issue for another thread😛)-- because of course that's not something that can be argued! Truly I'm just talking about semantics here. Best outside Btvs analogy that just popped into my head: if I only like unripe bananas but can't stand them once they've changed into yellow bananas, I wouldn't say I like bananas; I'd just say that I like unripe bananas. That's all. 😀

 

[ladydorotea]

Well, to make it simple on everybody, lets translate the 'unripe banana' metaphor into terms somewhat more applicable to the storytelling. One can easily say that they do not like character X or where they ended with his/her development, or they might say that they simply don't like the entire story of that transformation/development because it triggered too many 'ne veru' (See Stanislavsky 'I don't believe you') moments with them, while watching/reading the story.

The Truth. W. It is said of Stanislavski that at rehearsals he often called to an actor from the auditorium: "I don't believe that!" Do you often not believe actors?

With Whedon's characters , who is renown for valuing emotional truths of the moment vs consistency of the story this threshold is very easily breached - and the rest of individual response to the applied stimulus es is purely personal. I cannot make myself believe in certain inside the story moments because they trigger too many danger alerts with me that cannot be overwritten. That applies to multiple characters - but because I cannot overcome these moments of aversion ( to the story being told) I cannot make myself 'like' the character, or their 'evolution' either emotionally or logically , thus I cannot believe in them and their related emotional stuff rings hollow to me - and always will, does not matter what others think on the matter.

Going too abstract on you? Likely. But at least this sort of sums up my opinion on the matter.

 

[white avenger]

I have no trouble whatsoever in liking Angel, whichever show he is own, with the single reservation that I get seriously frustrated, irritated, and downright angry at some of his antics (but I feel exactly the same way about all of the other characters in the Buffyverse, so I think that it's allowable). What I mean when I say that I preferred him as he was portrayed on his own show is that he is THE hero, not just A hero. Heroic on both shows, with a few understandable slips (as in Angelus) But in Sunnydale, Angel can never be anything more than the most powerful weapon in Buffy's arsenal, the strongest fighter on her team. He's like a champion athlete who is never allowed to compete in the big league. Without that extra challenge, he never gets to show how much he really can do.

On his own show, he isn't anybody's Number 2 man, even when Buffy visits. LA is his town, and he's the "Big Good" there, just like Buffy is in Sunnydale. In LA, Buffy would be the most powerful weapon in HIS arsenal.

And on the subject of Spike, I'm not certain whether or not I have ever mentioned it before, but I have always seen him as the Spock to Buffy's Captain Kirk, her perfect back up, her greatest fighter, and her most powerful weapon. He was never meant to lead the team. He was meant to make the team complete. That's not saying that he isn't capable of being the leader. He is. That's shown in ATF and in Seasons 8 & 9 with his space ship and bug crew. But it's not what he wants, and it's not where he belongs. He wants to be, and belongs, at Buffy's side.

 

[ladydorotea]

[MENTION=6758]white avenger[/MENTION] - One other thing that incredibly annoys me when trying to get into a discussion with Spikefans is that they always turn any discussion topic that remotely touches their idol - even if it was peacefully headed into a direction of personal why's and why-not's - into gushing over their favorite, and writing you a page long of how 'they' see him, and then another page long explaining how they see Angel. I don't see Spike anywhere close to what you see - OK? And I don't see Angel the way you see him either. I might have even liked Spike more if Spikefans were not trying to explain how he is seen from their eyes - because of all of the whitewashing and stretching of the story that happens on the way. And the more you gush over him - the more I dislike him, because IMHO ( and by JM's own admission in his interviews about BtVS) the character of Spike was designed to be a glorious asshole - and he remained just that , more or less. Not Cpt. Kirk or anything remotely as intelligent. And yes, if we continue the thread will, once again turn into a battlefield. So, why don't we contain the character admiration spiels to the cast and characters subforum - where the folks who want to see this kind of stuff go ? And yes, every time you call Buffy 'his girl' I remember her 'Never!' - which I would never have brought up - if not for you bringing it up first. I suppose this is how it really works with shipping in the end, so lets leave it at that.

 

[brinkster130]

Just a quick reminder:

A) Lets try and keep on topic, rather than allowing this thread to be hijack and turned into another A vs. S fight.

B) Please remember that everyone's allowed to express their opinions here.

🙂

 

[ladydorotea]

Just a quick reminder:

A) Lets try and keep on topic, rather than allowing this thread to be hijack and turned into another A vs. S fight.

B) Please remember that everyone's allowed to express their opinions here.

🙂

Sorry about that outburst - but what I really wanted to say that I regret this discussion turning into another 'why I love X and his ship, and why ship Y is no good' talks. These are the ones I am trying to avoid at all cost - because they seriously bring out the worst kind of caustic behavior in me.

 

[janas]

I ship Bangel and I don't like Spike, but the two things are unrelated. I ship Bangel before Spike it existed 😛, and when appeared on the show, after three seconds I was bored to death, while I was more concerned with Drusilla. When Spike appeared I thought "Oh look, a bad guy, super idiot, blowhard, and also quite vulgar." My opinion has not changed in subsequent seasons that have continually confirmed my first impression. My not love for Spike, has become irreversible (I fear) in season five of Angel, and has nothing to do with Bangel or Angel.

 

[janas]

Gum Gnome33 disagrees: So WA can't express himself because his opinions differ from yours? His points were entirely pertinent to this thread. Also^^^this thread was addressed to everyone, hence " and vice versa"

If I had read "Does being a B/S shippers mean.." I would not have responded. Why?
because I am not a B/S shippers. 🙂
For "and vice versa" I thought that meant "Does being a fan of Spike mean one does not like B/A shipper?"🙂

 

[SlayerFest]

Nah, there are things I like about Bangel and there are things that I like about Spuffy. I mean I ship almost every relationship in the Buffyverse haha. I like some more than others but I don't hate one solely because I like it's competitor orrr whatever. For example, I love Woz and Tillow 😀.

 

[Little Miss Muffet]

No, Im a flip flopper shipper. lol I like both Bangel and Spuffy. Sometimes I find myself preferring Spuffy though. :idunno:

 

[InsaneMystic]

No. Being bored, annoyed, and (after S8) thoroughly appalled and disgusted by Bangel doesn't have anything to do with Spike. The "merits" of that ship are doing it all by itself, and did so ever since the stupid sell-out decision to not let it end with "Becoming" (which would have been awesome), but bring that guy back to drag the mess on, and on, and on... And that was long before Spike became more than a somewhat interesting villain in my eyes, let alone a potential partner for Buffy.

 

[white avenger]

AS suggested by Kana (Kana agrees: Spike=Spock?) the site here:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSpock

Suggests that the Spock equivalent to Buffy's Kirk is:

Rupert Giles in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Subverted, as he is often flustered or baffled, but forces himself to adhere to the cold-headed British persona he was raised to believe was most proper for any occasion.

To which I definitely disagree. I prefer the definition as given in "The City On The Edge Of Forever," where Spock is described as being "At (Kirk's) side, as though he always has been, and always will be." That is how I have always seen the relationship between Buffy and Spike.

May Buffy and Spike... in the Buffyverse, and in the hearts of all good Spuffies everywhere.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu1qa8N2ID0"]live long and prosper - YouTube[/ame]

...in the Buffyverse, and in the hearts of all good Spuffies everywhere.