If "Seeing Red" Had Never Happened...

[DeadlyDuo]

I think the show missed a trick by not showing the demon side of things, kind of like in a two sides to every story way. Not all demons are evil and thus should not be treated as such. They're individuals, not "things".

 

[white avenger]

He's not a person, he's a demon.

The general demon community refers to vampires as "half breeds," and seems to treat them as pretty much second class citizens.

I think the show missed a trick by not showing the demon side of things, kind of like in a two sides to every story way. Not all demons are evil and thus should not be treated as such. They're individuals, not "things".

There were quite a few benevolent, or at least peaceful, demons on "Angel," and since Buffy knew the location of Willie's bar and was aware of the obvious fact that most of the patrons were not human but still left them alone, it would be safe to assume that there are at least some demons who are seen as no threat to society.

I've always thought that it would make an interesting story line to actually have a group of non human aggressive vampires somewhere. It would stand to reason that at least some of the undead community might see the advantage of peaceful coexistence. It's not as if they actually have to kill, or even to have human blood, to survive. Obviously, not all vampires are mindless monsters, and sipping pig's blood through a straw and living forever would seem, to me, at least, to be preferable to hot virgin's blood, fresh out of the vein, and the near certainty of a wooden stake through the heart, especially after Season 7, when the world seems to be relatively overrun with Slayers.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

In "As You Were", Buffy is finally shamed into breaking up with Spike, but she doesn't sound particularly convincing and Spike would interpret that as the temporary influence of soldier boy Riley. The next episode is "Hell's Bells" where Spike brings a date, most likely from "Goth Skanks R Us" to Xander's wedding. We get this exchange between Spike and Buffy:

SPIKE
Hello, Buffy.

BUFFY
Hey.

SPIKE
Happy occasion. You meet my
friend?

BUFFY
Haven't met. She seems like a
very nice attempt at making me
jealous.

SPIKE
Is it working?

Buffy looks at him a moment.

BUFFY
Yes. It doesn't change anything,
but if you're wildly curious,
yeah, it hurts.

SPIKE
(genuine)
I'm sorry. Or...
(bravado)
Good!
(genuine)
You want us to go?

BUFFY
No, no... I mean, you have the
right to... I mean I pretty much
deserve...

SPIKE
That's not true, you... God this
is hard.

BUFFY
I know.

Buffy certainly doesn't sound like she has slammed the door in Spike's face. Three episodes later, Spike still considers he has a chance with her if only he can sound forceful enough. He runs into resistance from Buffy again but he seems to think that if they had sex again, everything would go back to the way he liked it. We are presented with a very good plot progression of how he would come to attempt rape and he only wakes up to the fallacy in his thinking when Buffy kicks him across the room. Yes, the AR was horrible, but we see what leads up to it.

 

[RomanticSoul]

Buffy certainly doesn't sound like she has slammed the door in Spike's face.

Because Whedon himself changed the scene. The original scene had a much different tone to it, as it should. Just like 'Beneath You' in S7. I wish Whedon had just stayed out of it completely considering that by his own admission, he was barely involved in S6. You are either in or you are out, simple. Except for his insistence on getting his yearly Emmy grab episodes, Whedon had lost the plot.

 

[RomanticSoul]

I think the show missed a trick by not showing the demon side of things, kind of like in a two sides to every story way. Not all demons are evil and thus should not be treated as such. They're individuals, not "things".

They are individuals because they are different species. Not all demons are soulles. Not all demons are full demons, some are half breeds. The show however was always very clear with vampires and what they are, no matter their differences in personality. Because we see that even in S7 they are still killed without a second thought. The show can't have it both ways, especially since it's the sacred duty of slayers to kill them all. Red shirt vamps get killed on the spot but those with names don't? Why is that exception there? And if it exists, then the slayers are committing genocide. If you make exceptions for soulles vampires (different from those with a soul) that needs to be explained. Why them and not others? Why do vampires just crawling out of their graves not get a chance to prove they could be something special too? There is no explanation given in the show and there should have been one. And the excuse of 'well we know this vampire personally but not that one over there', so the former is a person to us that deserves to live while the latter is just a demon we kill...that's one hell of a slippery slope when it comes to morality.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

They are individuals because they are different species. Not all demons are soulles. Not all demons are full demons, some are half breeds. The show however was always very clear with vampires and what they are, no matter their differences in personality. Because we see that even in S7 they are still killed without a second thought. The show can't have it both ways, especially since it's the sacred duty of slayers to kill them all. Red shirt vamps get killed on the spot but those with names don't? Why is that exception there? And if it exists, then the slayers are committing genocide. If you make exceptions for soulles vampires (different from those with a soul) that needs to be explained. Why them and not others? Why do vampires just crawling out of their graves not get a chance to prove they could be something special too? There is no explanation given in the show and there should have been one. And the excuse of 'well we know this vampire personally but not that one over there', so the former is a person to us that deserves to live while the latter is just a demon we kill...that's one hell of a slippery slope when it comes to morality.

.
And that's an issue with the show in my opinion. It's mostly from Buffy's POV so Demons bad/Humans good. Had they bothered to explore the demon side of things then you would probably find a complicated society of individuals who are just trying to go about their day without getting killed, though this would then throw shade on Buffy for killing indiscriminately. Obviously vampires have a different set of rules they live by than humans but you probably find their "day" consists of popping out for a bite to eat then either going to the pub or just hanging out at home or with friends.

 

[Puffy]

Well, replace that scene with a new boyfriend (Riley number two?) "could" have worked, but would have felt shallow overall. What a waste.

While already building things up, with that legendary balcony scene, a rough scene like Seeing Red was needed. That was the climax.

I also think scenes like this define Buffy as a reliable role model for young women, showing them its totally normal having all this feelings (rape phantasis for example)

So, not having that scene would be a loss. There are already enough shallow, dogmatic black/white TV shows out there. No need to shape Buffy that way, so it fits for that simple minded market.

 

[thetopher]

They are individuals because they are different species. Not all demons are soulless. Not all demons are full demons, some are half breeds. The show however was always very clear with vampires and what they are, no matter their differences in personality.

Exactly. With vampires the tragedy is that even good, heroic people- like Willow and Xander- become absolute and utter monsters when turned into vampires. Sweet children (like Holtz' kids) become demons that need to be destroyed. Drusilla was a veritable saint before being made insane and undead, William Pratt was deeply romantic, hapless and harmless.
Vampirism is a corruption of what is good, twisted into evil. Spike is no different.
To somehow expect us to say that Spike has something 'extra' in his make-up when he was turned (and with no explanation as to what that is) surely diminishes all those other characters who were shown to be decent people before their siring. Is William somehow more 'virtuous' than Drusilla? Or an innocent child?

Basically speaking, there are no 'nice' vampires (except ones with souls who can choose to be nice- and even then its a constant struggle), there are simply some vampires who have certain traits above and beyond inherent self-interest/survival. For example in the early days of Buffy we were shown several vampires who put honor above survival (The Three, 'Fork-guy') but there is no doubt that they are still evil.

 

[white avenger]

Because Whedon himself changed the scene. The original scene had a much different tone to it, as it should.

Well, don't just leave us hanging, what was the original scene supposed to be? I can't see Buffy starting a fight with Spike just for showing up, with or without a "friend," since it would have been a bad thing for the wedding couple (yeah, the whole thing went south anyway, but not because of anything that Buffy did)

The show can't have it both ways, especially since it's the sacred duty of slayers to kill them all. Red shirt vamps get killed on the spot but those with names don't? Why is that exception there? And if it exists, then the slayers are committing genocide.

And that's an issue with the show in my opinion. It's mostly from Buffy's POV so Demons bad/Humans good.

But just imagine the story potential if Buffy had found out somehow that all vampires actually weren't evil from the point of resurrection. She had been killing them on sight, many, or even most, before they had anything more harmful than disturb their grave site by digging out. Technically, she was executing them for crimes that they hadn't even committed yet. Think of the guilt and remorse that the Slayer would feel at learning that the Watchers had been wrong all along, and that, by following their policies unquestioningly, was as much a monster as the creatures she had been destroying. I'm surprised that Joss, who obviously loves unusual and unexpected plot twists, never actually thought of that one.

So, not having that scene would be a loss.

Especially for those fans who hate the character. It has given them fuel for their arguments ever since. Not forgetting, also, those of us who love the character, who have to constantly defend our favorite character for his misguides, despicable actions. Essentially, the A R scene either created a win/win or lose/lose situation, depending on your fan affiliation.

 

[RomanticSoul]

.
And that's an issue with the show in my opinion. It's mostly from Buffy's POV so Demons bad/Humans good. Had they bothered to explore the demon side of things then you would probably find a complicated society of individuals who are just trying to go about their day without getting killed, though this would then throw shade on Buffy for killing indiscriminately. Obviously vampires have a different set of rules they live by than humans but you probably find their "day" consists of popping out for a bite to eat then either going to the pub or just hanging out at home or with friends.

Of course it's an issue with the show. Specifically writers who changed their mythology halfway through the show to accommodate one vampire's continued existence (and others but they weren't regulars). And of course vampires can enjoy very human things, what else are they going to do on Earth? In another dimension they might enjoy different things. It doesn't change the fact however that they are demons. Full stop. And that Buffy is the chosen one to kill them and other demons to protect humanity. Every rule has exceptions, including vampires. Such as that souled vampires have a choice to be good or bad. But soulles vampires do not. They are bound by evil to do evil.

So, not having that scene would be a loss. There are already enough shallow, dogmatic black/white TV shows out there. No need to shape Buffy that way, so it fits for that simple minded market.

I have no issues with the scene being there. It's what vampires do. And we've known since Season 3 that is is Spike's way of convincing women they love him. My main problem is who Buffy had to become and how the aftermath was handled. The scene itself I'm fine with, anything else surrounding it however was abysmal.

Well, don't just leave us hanging, what was the original scene supposed to be?

As a Spuffy shipper and Spike fan you should be aware of this fact. So why act like you don't know anything about it?

But just imagine the story potential if Buffy had found out somehow that all vampires actually weren't evil from the point of resurrection. She had been killing them on sight, many, or even most, before they had anything more harmful than disturb their grave site by digging out. Technically, she was executing them for crimes that they hadn't even committed yet. Think of the guilt and remorse that the Slayer would feel at learning that the Watchers had been wrong all along, and that, by following their policies unquestioningly, was as much a monster as the creatures she had been destroying. I'm surprised that Joss, who obviously loves unusual and unexpected plot twists, never actually thought of that one.

But they aren't all evil once they come back after being killed. Wasn't that the whole point of the way they told Spike's background in later years? The guy is still so human he wants to save his mommy, unlike all other vampires we have seen who will devour their family first thing. And then they diluted Spike's villain-ess once he became a regular cast member to the point where he was treated more human than demon. If the show goes so far to warp their original intent and mythology to such a degree then all the consequences need to be examined and addressed. And they simply refused to do that. So if they make a special snowflake vampire like Spike, they need to examine what that means for Buffy and all slayers and what they have done for thousands of years. And they can't have Buffy continue to kill every vampire but Spike without first addressing this issue because then it's mass murder and not a pre-emptive war anymore.

 

[Mylie]

Especially for those fans who hate the character. It has given them fuel for their arguments ever since. Not forgetting, also, those of us who love the character, who have to constantly defend our favorite character for his misguides, despicable actions. Essentially, the A R scene either created a win/win or lose/lose situation, depending on your fan affiliation.

I personally don't get this... Why do you have to defend him? He was soulless... it's one of those horrible things he did while soulless and it should be easy to accept? Unless it has to do with loving the character while he was soulless as much as when he does have a soul. I guess that's the difference when it comes to Angel and Spike. Spike fans got attached to the character while he was soulless (which makes sense because it's 5 seasons of screentime) while most fans of Angel feel no attachment to Angelus and would never defend anything he's done. I guess that's my problem with how Spike was written. I don't understand how we're supposed to excuse, sympathize with or want to protect characters who have no soul.

I guess that's the problem... we can't ever agree on this because the show itself made it impossible to treat Angel and Spike equally.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

But just imagine the story potential if Buffy had found out somehow that all vampires actually weren't evil from the point of resurrection. She had been killing them on sight, many, or even most, before they had anything more harmful than disturb their grave site by digging out. Technically, she was executing them for crimes that they hadn't even committed yet. Think of the guilt and remorse that the Slayer would feel at learning that the Watchers had been wrong all along, and that, by following their policies unquestioningly, was as much a monster as the creatures she had been destroying. I'm surprised that Joss, who obviously loves unusual and unexpected plot twists, never actually thought of that one.

I think that would've been a good twist. Also it could also be a metaphor for the fact that, as you become older, the world becomes a whole less black/white and more grey in terms of morality.

Especially for those fans who hate the character. It has given them fuel for their arguments ever since. Not forgetting, also, those of us who love the character, who have to constantly defend our favorite character for his misguides, despicable actions. Essentially, the A R scene either created a win/win or lose/lose situation, depending on your fan affiliation.

Agreed. In movies and tv, rape is considered worse than murder, so to have a beloved character attempt to rape another beloved character is difficult. It's difficult to reconcile the character you love with that particular action (especially when the fallout of said action is handled rather clumsily) because rape is often used to denote a villain yet Spike is a good guy since he helps the scoobies. It creates a conflict of "I like the guy but that was a terrible thing he did and there is no way to explain away that action because of how terrible it was".

Of course it's an issue with the show. Specifically writers who changed their mythology halfway through the show to accommodate one vampire's continued existence (and others but they weren't regulars). And of course vampires can enjoy very human things, what else are they going to do on Earth? In another dimension they might enjoy different things. It doesn't change the fact however that they are demons. Full stop. And that Buffy is the chosen one to kill them and other demons to protect humanity. Every rule has exceptions, including vampires. Such as that souled vampires have a choice to be good or bad. But soulles vampires do not. They are bound by evil to do evil.

So you're saying that Buffy should've killed Clem just because he was a demon (which he can't help), regardless of his actual personality?

I have no issues with the scene being there. It's what vampires do. And we've known since Season 3 that is is Spike's way of convincing women they love him. My main problem is who Buffy had to become and how the aftermath was handled. The scene itself I'm fine with, anything else surrounding it however was abysmal.

If you're referring to Spike's line in Lovers' Walk about how he would torture Drusilla until she loved him again, then that is in no way comparable to the AR scene. It's been hinted at throughout Spike and Dru's appearances that both enjoy BDSM. In fact it was practically spelled out in "The Harsh Light of Day":

Spike: We've got an extra set of chains.

Harmony: Eww. Just because Dorcas went in for that kind of stuff...

BDSM is basically about trust hence why in that episode where Spike produces handcuffs just after he and Buffy have sex, he asks her "Do you trust me?"

Spike's "torture" of Drusilla wasn't about hurting her (which would be counter-productive to Spike's goal) it was about reminding her of all the good times they enjoyed as a couple.

As a Spuffy shipper and Spike fan you should be aware of this fact. So why act like you don't know anything about it?

Well clearly @white avenger is not away of that fact, otherwise why would she/he ask.

But they aren't all evil once they come back after being killed. Wasn't that the whole point of the way they told Spike's background in later years? The guy is still so human he wants to save his mommy, unlike all other vampires we have seen who will devour their family first thing. And then they diluted Spike's villain-ess once he became a regular cast member to the point where he was treated more human than demon. If the show goes so far to warp their original intent and mythology to such a degree then all the consequences need to be examined and addressed. And they simply refused to do that. So if they make a special snowflake vampire like Spike, they need to examine what that means for Buffy and all slayers and what they have done for thousands of years. And they can't have Buffy continue to kill every vampire but Spike without first addressing this issue because then it's mass murder and not a pre-emptive war anymore.

So we agree that the show needed to address its inconsistent portrayal of vampires and demons and decide between whether it wants to portray them as mindless monsters or more nuanced individuals. Where we disagree is on which one they should've done.

 

[RomanticSoul]

So you're saying that Buffy should've killed Clem just because he was a demon (which he can't help), regardless of his actual personality?

Did you actually even READ any of my posts? Might want to do that first before you misquote me again.

If you're referring to Spike's line in Lovers' Walk about how he would torture Drusilla until she loved him again, then that is in no way comparable to the AR scene. It's been hinted at throughout Spike and Dru's appearances that both enjoy BDSM. In fact it was practically spelled out in "The Harsh Light of Day":

Spike: We've got an extra set of chains.

Harmony: Eww. Just because Dorcas went in for that kind of stuff...

BDSM is basically about trust hence why in that episode where Spike produces handcuffs just after he and Buffy have sex, he asks her "Do you trust me?"

Spike's "torture" of Drusilla wasn't about hurting her (which would be counter-productive to Spike's goal) it was about reminding her of all the good times they enjoyed as a couple.

Continue to deny that Spike has raped before Buffy. If it makes you like him more, fine. But it's been in the text and subtext of this show plenty of times which basically makes it canon. He's a soulles demon, why wouldn't he?

Well clearly @white avenger is not away of that fact, otherwise why would she/he ask.

Don't get involved there. Anyone who has even caught up a little with the BTS stuff knows in which scenes Whedon interfered. Especially a Spike/Spuffy fan when it concerns a Spike/Spuffy scene.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

Did you actually even READ any of my posts? Might want to do that first before you misquote me again.

Yes I did actually. You wrote

It doesn't change the fact however that they are demons. Full stop. And that Buffy is the chosen one to kill them and other demons to protect humanity.

Clem is a demon. If you're going "vampires kill so Buffy has to kill them" then the vampire whores weren't killing anyone but Buffy still staked them just because she was pissed about Riley. Buffy is staking vampires because of WHAT they are instead of WHO they are.

Maybe try not to be so passive-aggressive in your responses., it's uncalled for.

Continue to deny that Spike has raped before Buffy. If it makes you like him more, fine. But it's been in the text and subtext of this show plenty of times which basically makes it canon. He's a soulles demon, why wouldn't he?

Where in the text is it then? Give examples since apparently its been on the show "plenty of times". If the source of your case is "He's a soulles demon, why wouldn't he?" then it's a pretty weak case.

Don't get involved there. Anyone who has even caught up a little with the BTS stuff knows in which scenes Whedon interfered. Especially a Spike/Spuffy fan when it concerns a Spike/Spuffy scene.

How about instead of belittling people for asking you about the scene you claim Whedon interfered in, you actually answer the damn question and tell people what the original scene was supposed to be instead of going "oh you should know".

 

[RomanticSoul]

Yes I did actually. You wrote

Clem is a demon. If you're going "vampires kill so Buffy has to kill them" then the vampire whores weren't killing anyone but Buffy still staked them just because she was pissed about Riley. Buffy is staking vampires because of WHAT they are instead of WHO they are.

Maybe try not to be so passive-aggressive in your responses., it's uncalled for.

It's not uncalled for when you chose to ignore what I wrote on this very page in the thread.

They are individuals because they are different species. Not all demons are soulles. Not all demons are full demons, some are half breeds. The show however was always very clear with vampires and what they are, no matter their differences in personality.

That is what I wrote. I make a distinction between demons in general and vampires in particular. Demons and half-demons are all from different species and therefor should be a case by case scenario. Vampires are soulles, evil beings. Full stop.

Where in the text is it then? Give examples since apparently its been on the show "plenty of times". If the source of your case is "He's a soulles demon, why wouldn't he?" then it's a pretty weak case.

Many of us have had this discussion before and cited examples. You were part of that discussion. Nothing convinced you that he did. Why should I name the same examples again? It's fine if you don't see it like a lot of us do. If you need to do it to keep liking the character that's also fine, but when the character himself has basically admitted it I don't see any reason to deny that. He didn't have a soul when he did it. It only should matter that he hasn't done anything like it once he had a soul.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

It's not uncalled for when you chose to ignore what I wrote on this very page in the thread.


That is what I wrote. I make a distinction between demons in general and vampires in particular. Demons and half-demons are all from different species and therefor should be a case by case scenario. Vampires are soulles, evil beings. Full stop.

But you're still saying that vampires should be staked on what they are rather than who they are. The vampire whores weren't killing anybody yet Buffy still staked them because she was pissed about Riley. Harmony is a soulless vampire who lives on animal blood, are you saying that Buffy should stake her just because she's a vampire?

Many of us have had this discussion before and cited examples. You were part of that discussion. Nothing convinced you that he did. Why should I name the same examples again? It's fine if you don't see it like a lot of us do. If you need to do it to keep liking the character that's also fine, but when the character himself has basically admitted it I don't see any reason to deny that. He didn't have a soul when he did it. It only should matter that he hasn't done anything like it once he had a soul.

Ah yes that discussion. And as I said in that thread, where exactly does Spike say he raped. Or are you assuming that because he mentions the victims were female that they must automatically be victims of rape because women can't be victims of any other crime?

 

[cryptwarmer]

Don't get involved there. Anyone who has even caught up a little with the BTS stuff knows in which scenes Whedon interfered. Especially a Spike/Spuffy fan when it concerns a Spike/Spuffy scene.

I have no idea what the original intent of the scene was or how Whedon interfered. I'd appreciate if that info would be shared, as I am following this discussion.

 

[Bluebird]

I really don't see why it's such a sticking point that Spike raped, or why it's hard to accept. Vampire mythology is totally sexual, and vampires are evil. If the Spike from School Hard has been retconned so much that he's unrecognisable as a vampire, then that makes him super lame imo. If his character didn't change much from human to vampire then why bother having him as a vampire character? And if he hasn't changed very much, then he's as dull as a table lamp to me. I find him exciting and interesting because of his evil. The corruption of the romantic poet is way more interesting.

 

[white avenger]

Well clearly @white avenger is not away of that fact, otherwise why would she/he ask.

For the record, I am a "he." I thought that that was common knowledge.

Anyone who has even caught up a little with the BTS stuff knows in which scenes Whedon interfered.

Apparently not. I know that Joss did, in fact, edit some of the scripts that others wrote, and he did change scenes as they were written. As the creator of the series, that was his prerogative, especially if he felt that the scene in question was contradictory to the character or story line as he envisioned it. That doesn't mean that I can point to any particular scene and say with any degree of assurance that it is presented exactly as the writer originally envisioned it, and I seriously doubt that anyone else could either, unless they had access to the original scripts.

(W)here exactly does Spike say he raped? Or are you assuming that because he mentions the victims were female that they must automatically be victims of rape because women can't be victims of any other crime?

Spike said on one occasion that he was "all about the kill," and implied that Angelus seemed to prefer humiliation, intimidation, and torture, which, by implication, would probably include rape. "All about the kill" doesn't, to my mind, bring about any images of sexual assault. He also asked, "Do you know what I've done to girls Dawn's age?" which might have included rape or sexual abuse, but might just as easily meant only torture and intimidation. We assume that Spike has raped his victims in the past, just like we also assumed that he went to Africa to get his chip removed, but, though some fans refuse to accept it, Joss says that he always intended to get his soul. Just goes to show, as Samuel Jackson said in "The Long Kiss Goodnight," "When you make an assumption, you make an 'Ass' out of 'U' and 'Umption.' "

 

[white avenger]

Vampire mythology is totally sexual, and vampires are evil.

Vampire mythology does have a sexual element, since male vampires usually choose female victims, and female vampires usually choose male victims, but the act of feeding is depicted more as seduction than rape. In fact, it has been noted that the differences between a vampire attack and a werewolf attack is that the former is a metaphor for seduction, and the latter, for rape.

If the Spike from School Hard has been retconned so much that he's unrecognizable as a vampire, then that makes him super lame imo

On the contrary, having his character stay the same, without change or development, over 5 years, would be dull, and except for the exclusive blood diet and aversion to direct sunlight, neither Spike nor Angel were ever depicted as vampires. Superheroes, or super villains, depending on the particular story arc, maybe, since they have powers comparable to the show's titular character, Buffy. Typical vampires in the Buffyverse were more or less just potential dust clouds, with a few notable exceptions, like the Master, Mr Trick, and Dracula.