Wesley Pryce
Angel Investigations
Are fans too hard on the Watcher's Council? seems they have good intentions and want to help the slayer and the people. thoughts?
Does the Watcher's council get a bad wrap?
- Thread starter Wesley Pryce
- Start date
AnthonyCordova
By suffering, learning
I think in general the watcher's council was used by the makers of the show as an opportunity to provide a criticism of old-fashioned institutions stuck in their ways, who take themselves perhaps a little too seriously, who become arrogant over time with the exclusive power and control over their domain, who might have lost touch a little bit with the original reasons for why they were needed in the first place, etc. I think it is pretty clear from the show that this was how they were intended to be understood and looked at.
I think it would have been more interesting to make the watcher's council more complicated than that. In this day and age, it is becoming increasingly more relevant (at least to me) to also point out the deficiencies of 'modern' institutions and modern sensibilities and show the ways in which they fail in certain regards by comparison to their older, old-fashioned, perhaps even crueler antecedents (in certain respects). A nice balance between the two, a watcher's council with obvious flaws but also with many good sides (that a typical too-sensitive modern person might grant only with reluctance, but would be forced to and in the process reassess themselves a little bit and their modern sensibilities) would have been better in my opinion. Maybe it's just me, but the watcher's council as we know them in the show(s) tended to come across pretty overwhelmingly in the negative. Sure, you could find a few good things to say about them (most often in theory if not in practice) but for the most part they seemed like more trouble than they were worth (and Buffy/Giles/Wesley etc. for the most part just tolerated them). It's a shame they couldn't have been offered in a more genuinely problematic and more genuinely mixed-blessing sort of way.
Since I'm on the topic, I don't like shows/movies/books/public speakers etc. that ingratiate themselves to their audience and give them a "pat on the back" for feeling exactly as they already do. Even if we deserve pats on the back sometimes, we don't need them nearly as much as things that throw into question our feelings and thoughts, especially the ones that we take for granted and are comfortable (too comfortable) with. I'd much rather have something or someone make me feel uncomfortable about things we generally take for granted. Even if in the end we don't change our minds or feelings, we are better off for it in the end for having gone through that critical process. I absolutely can't stand ingratiating/pandering/flattering people and things.
I think it would have been more interesting to make the watcher's council more complicated than that. In this day and age, it is becoming increasingly more relevant (at least to me) to also point out the deficiencies of 'modern' institutions and modern sensibilities and show the ways in which they fail in certain regards by comparison to their older, old-fashioned, perhaps even crueler antecedents (in certain respects). A nice balance between the two, a watcher's council with obvious flaws but also with many good sides (that a typical too-sensitive modern person might grant only with reluctance, but would be forced to and in the process reassess themselves a little bit and their modern sensibilities) would have been better in my opinion. Maybe it's just me, but the watcher's council as we know them in the show(s) tended to come across pretty overwhelmingly in the negative. Sure, you could find a few good things to say about them (most often in theory if not in practice) but for the most part they seemed like more trouble than they were worth (and Buffy/Giles/Wesley etc. for the most part just tolerated them). It's a shame they couldn't have been offered in a more genuinely problematic and more genuinely mixed-blessing sort of way.
Since I'm on the topic, I don't like shows/movies/books/public speakers etc. that ingratiate themselves to their audience and give them a "pat on the back" for feeling exactly as they already do. Even if we deserve pats on the back sometimes, we don't need them nearly as much as things that throw into question our feelings and thoughts, especially the ones that we take for granted and are comfortable (too comfortable) with. I'd much rather have something or someone make me feel uncomfortable about things we generally take for granted. Even if in the end we don't change our minds or feelings, we are better off for it in the end for having gone through that critical process. I absolutely can't stand ingratiating/pandering/flattering people and things.
Last edited:
thetopher
Member of the Church Of Faith
Generally speaking the Watcher's council on the show was portrayed as another authority figure to be defyed/subverted. It was to illustrate the younger/generation succeeding by going against what has gone before/authority figures.
Whether it was high school (represented by Snyder), the town and its complacency in the face of evil (represented by The Mayor), the meddling of the Military in S4 (portrayed rather negatively and simplistically in my view) then The Watcher's Council was there just as another obstactle that Buffy had to overcome by growing up.
This view changes somewhat in S5, when the characters themselves start growing up, the subvert and then work with the authority that is The Watchers council, but on their own terms.
Contrast this willingness of the Good Guys to comprise with Glory's meglomania/arrogance and the Knights Of Byzantium's blinkered view of how to deal with the Key and we see that The Council isn't really so bad, at least in contrast with some other organisations.
To be honest, I always thought Buffy got it wrong when she said that the Watcher's Council could do nothing without The Slayer working for them. (and I'm putting aside the whole Potentials angle for the moment, but there's always that factor)
But The Watcher's Council almost certainly must fight evil on their own terms using there own resources, hunting demons and vampires, collecting/cataloguing/supressing mystical and forbidden lore, not to mention keeping track of all those other magic users, (witches, seers, sorcerors) not to mention prophecies and the like.
So yeah, I guess, since we mostly see The Watcher's Council through the eyes of Buffy and her friends, its probably a distorted view of them and their activities.
They are authority, authority should be defyed where it makes sense to do so, therefore the Watcher's council, for drama's sake, must act somewhat heavyhandedly/incompetantly.
But at the end of the day they are the good guys- they want to save the world and keep it safe from the 'forces of darkness', just like Buffy or Angel.
Whether it was high school (represented by Snyder), the town and its complacency in the face of evil (represented by The Mayor), the meddling of the Military in S4 (portrayed rather negatively and simplistically in my view) then The Watcher's Council was there just as another obstactle that Buffy had to overcome by growing up.
This view changes somewhat in S5, when the characters themselves start growing up, the subvert and then work with the authority that is The Watchers council, but on their own terms.
Contrast this willingness of the Good Guys to comprise with Glory's meglomania/arrogance and the Knights Of Byzantium's blinkered view of how to deal with the Key and we see that The Council isn't really so bad, at least in contrast with some other organisations.
To be honest, I always thought Buffy got it wrong when she said that the Watcher's Council could do nothing without The Slayer working for them. (and I'm putting aside the whole Potentials angle for the moment, but there's always that factor)
But The Watcher's Council almost certainly must fight evil on their own terms using there own resources, hunting demons and vampires, collecting/cataloguing/supressing mystical and forbidden lore, not to mention keeping track of all those other magic users, (witches, seers, sorcerors) not to mention prophecies and the like.
So yeah, I guess, since we mostly see The Watcher's Council through the eyes of Buffy and her friends, its probably a distorted view of them and their activities.
They are authority, authority should be defyed where it makes sense to do so, therefore the Watcher's council, for drama's sake, must act somewhat heavyhandedly/incompetantly.
But at the end of the day they are the good guys- they want to save the world and keep it safe from the 'forces of darkness', just like Buffy or Angel.
ILLYRIAN
Druish Pervonian Wizard
Taking the watchers council and not relating them to anything not in the series.
The vampire slayers (and Buffy) appears to have been created by some form of higher being, the watchers council are those to watch and train those called, the watchers council help the slayer. But how does it help?
It took Buffy's ability's from her and put her up against a vampire, I don't see that as helpful.
It told Buffy to pass their tests or she wouldn't be told what she was needed to fight (Glory) To me that is very unhelpful.
It should be the slayers saying I need help, the watchers council should say yes, not make excuses or try to blackmail the slayers.
So yeah I don't like the watchers council at all.
The vampire slayers (and Buffy) appears to have been created by some form of higher being, the watchers council are those to watch and train those called, the watchers council help the slayer. But how does it help?
It took Buffy's ability's from her and put her up against a vampire, I don't see that as helpful.
It told Buffy to pass their tests or she wouldn't be told what she was needed to fight (Glory) To me that is very unhelpful.
It should be the slayers saying I need help, the watchers council should say yes, not make excuses or try to blackmail the slayers.
So yeah I don't like the watchers council at all.
white avenger
white avenger
Logic would seem to dictate that the Watchers are fighting a war on a worldwide scale against everything from the fledgling vampire just arisen in some small village in Ireland to the First Evil and its army in Sunnydale. They're mortal men and women fighting a literally immortal enemy. In order to do that, they would have to conduct themselves in a ruthless manner in which "for the greater good," and "the mission comes first" take on a meaning very few, if any, others in the entire world can imagine. Buffy and her friends averted at least 5 global apocalypses in Sunnydale over a period of 7 years. How many more such events have been faced throughout the world in that same period of time that we don't know about? Surely, Sunnydale, California isn't the global focal point of such things. At the least, there are two hellmouths in the the United States, and almost certainly more throughout the world, most likely all being patrolled by those tactical teams that Travers referred to just before he and the rest of the Senior Staff were blown up.
These are dedicated men and women fighting enemies of untold power, and, for the most part, they have managed to do so both successfully and in secret for centuries. If they appear ruthless and uncaring, that might be because they serve a greater cause than any other single group of people in the history of the human race, and have maintained a phenomenal track record while doing so. Are they nice people? No Are they dangerous people? Yes. Would they sacrifice lives unhesitatingly in order to attain their goals? Absolutely. Are they the kind of people you would want as friends? Possibly.
Are they the kind of people you would want as enemies? Most certainly not.
As far as their treatment of Buffy, Giles, Faith, and the Scoobies are concerned, they were the closest thing to villains in human form we ever saw over the entire 7 years. So, no, I don't think that they got a bad rep from Buffy's point of view. They really were her longest running adversaries over the series.
These are dedicated men and women fighting enemies of untold power, and, for the most part, they have managed to do so both successfully and in secret for centuries. If they appear ruthless and uncaring, that might be because they serve a greater cause than any other single group of people in the history of the human race, and have maintained a phenomenal track record while doing so. Are they nice people? No Are they dangerous people? Yes. Would they sacrifice lives unhesitatingly in order to attain their goals? Absolutely. Are they the kind of people you would want as friends? Possibly.
Are they the kind of people you would want as enemies? Most certainly not.
As far as their treatment of Buffy, Giles, Faith, and the Scoobies are concerned, they were the closest thing to villains in human form we ever saw over the entire 7 years. So, no, I don't think that they got a bad rep from Buffy's point of view. They really were her longest running adversaries over the series.