Scott Hope, what was the point?

I get that Willow wanted Buffy to move on, but why did they pick Scott?

I wouldn't really say that they 'picked' Scott.
Sure they encouraged her, wanted her to move on from the pain of Angel et al, but though hesitant Buffy clearly seemed attracted to Scott for whatever reason.

The point of the relationship to me was Buffy trying to be a normal girl, something she was rather obsessed with, and ultimately failing. She wanted to move on and hey, who can blame her? 🙂
 
I get that Willow wanted Buffy to move on, but why did they pick Scott? He seemed like a boorish, skinny pencil neck. At least Riley had a cool job and a physique that Buffy could appreciate. Scott Hope is what Willow should have dated if Willow weren't dating Oz.

Should have been Faith 😉

He was boorish, like a plank of wood but then again so was Riley and he worked for a secret government branch dealing with demons, but he was just as human as Scott Hope.
 
I honestly just think he is there. I don't mind him but I don't love him. I didn't care about his character really. He was nice I just knew he wouldn't last.
 
I think it was Buffy's to be a "normal" girl with a normal boyfriend. Also it seemed that she was trying t get over Angel. I liked Scott untill he did not take Buffy to the dance. Want Faith said to him was EPIC. I loved that. 😀
 
I think it was a combination of Buffy feeling the pressure of her friends to move on and "be normal", a little bit to do with Buffy's own loneliness and that fact that Scott was so perfectly normal, but most significantly, that he was into her and actively tried to win her affections.
 
I agree with what most people have said so far: Buffy was trying to move on, Scott was a normal guy, he was into her etc. etc.

Buffy was dealing with a lot and Scott gave her an escape; gave her a chance to be like a normal high school student...even if it only lasted a short time.
 
I agree with what most people have said so far: Buffy was trying to move on, Scott was a normal guy, he was into her etc. etc.

Buffy was dealing with a lot and Scott gave her an escape; gave her a chance to be like a normal high school student...even if it only lasted a short time.

So true, and as well as that, she didn't have to do any of the work. He pursued her, she just kinda coasted with him for a little while. Once she was seen to be moving on it didn't matter that she actually wasn't. It got everyone off her back.
 
It's too bad that R J's uncle with his enchanted jacket wasn't around during that time. That would have made for a much more interesting story than Buffy and Scott. Scott just totally overwhelmed me with his mediocrity. It will tell you just how much i disliked the guy when I say that I was actually glad to see Angel's return.
 
VisionGirl
VisionGirl
LOL about your last line! And I think it was RJ's big brother, wasn't it?
Don't we all have a Scott Hope in our dating history? We're recovering from a heart-shattering breakup, someone's being nice to us and we kind of like them to because they're sweet and easygoing and they don't have more than the one head , and we may not fall for them but maybe we stumble a little for a while.

I don't think there was a lot more to it than Buffy trying and failing to move on from Angel.
 
S
sisterofmercy
Know what you mean
Taake
Taake
agreed and indeed, I think a lot of people have a 'Scott Hope' in their past
Kean
Kean
I totally forgot about my Scott Hope until this post. Oooops!
Rebound. Total rebound.

She doesn't even count him in her list of boyfriends! In season 5, she says, "I've had exactly two boyfriends," completely discrediting her and Scott's little thing. But she does say she dated him in season 7.
 
M
mayfever
hehe that's the epitome of what I don't get about American dating behaviour. In Germany they'd totally classify as boyfriend and girlfriend.
mayfever agrees: hehe that's the epitome of what I don't get about American dating behaviour. In Germany they'd totally classify as boyfriend and girlfriend.
TBH, I don't understand it either. Everyone I've dated has been a boyfriend/girlfriend to me. There's really not much gray area, is there?
 
TBH, I don't understand it either. Everyone I've dated has been a boyfriend/girlfriend to me. There's really not much gray area, is there?

To me it makes perfect sense that she doesn't count him as a boyfriend. I most certainly does not count everyone I've dated as a boyfriend/girlfriend. If it's somewhat long-lasting or serious I do but to me a Scott Hope type of rebound romance would fall more into the category of a fling. I mean they hardly even had time to get to know each other.
 
There's really not much gray area, is there?

In Ireland there is. We basically have two operating levels "meeting" and "going out". If you are "meeting" someone you are basically kissing them a lot, but perhaps not kissing them exclusively. We don't really do dating, if you are "meeting" someone you tend to hook up when you are both out with your friends and stuff like that. Your attraction has been established but commitment has not. That's where "going out" comes in, if you decide that you only want to "meet" each other, well then you become GF/BF or GF/GF or BF/BF.

So, to my estimation Buffy and Scott were very much just "meeting". He wasn't doing little boyfriendy things for her, as Buffy said they were "pre-posy" and it wasn't a forgone conclusion that they would go to Homecoming together. So, yeah, Buffy and Scott, to my Irish eyes, were not going out. 😀
 
I think Scott was a rebound. Buffy was trying to move on from Angel, So she decides to date someone who is normal.
 
I liked Scott. He was a necessary character, to show just how much Buffy was struggling with the loss of Angel. It added more value to her leaving Sunnydale and her love for Angel. Scott was a nice, caring guy but Buffy was still haunted by memories of killing Angel and it would take a while for her to be able to move on. Angel coming back shook all that up though.
I liked him a lot. I find it funny that people find him and Riley dull and boring compared to Angel though. Sunnydale Angel was unbearably dull and self involved. Heck, if he didn't look how he did and wasn't prone to removing his shirt, Buffy would have been comatose two seconds into a conversation with him 😀.
 
In Ireland there is. We basically have two operating levels "meeting" and "going out". If you are "meeting" someone you are basically kissing them a lot, but perhaps not kissing them exclusively. We don't really do dating, if you are "meeting" someone you tend to hook up when you are both out with your friends and stuff like that. Your attraction has been established but commitment has not. That's where "going out" comes in, if you decide that you only want to "meet" each other, well then you become GF/BF or GF/GF or BF/BF.

I was aware that there was a difference between "going out with" (dating) and "seeing" someone (casually). I don't count everyone I have been "seeing" as boy- or girlfriend (in fact I've never had a girlfriend and I don't think I ever will), but I'd say in high school there was much less of a grey area, because if you were just seeing someone casually, you'd have been the school slut faster than you could say "commitment". It just wasn't on - I'm sure there were all kinds of shenanigans behind closed doors, but as soon as you were seen in public spending more time than usual with someone and God forbid, exchanging PDAs, they were your BF or GF and that was that.

So to me, Scott was definitely Buffy's boyfriend. I mean of course he wasn't because she said so, but when I first watched the beginning of season 3, there wasn't even a question.

@Kean I love Marian Keyes' explanation of Irish vs. American dating behaviour in "Anybody Out There". Remember it?
 
Buffy doesn't think of Scott as her boyfriend because they didn't last very long.
 
W
Willow My Love
She does say later that she dated him. Someone I didn't consider my boyfriend, I wouldn't consider us to have been dating.
It just wasn't on - I'm sure there were all kinds of shenanigans behind closed doors, but as soon as you were seen in public spending more time than usual with someone and God forbid, exchanging PDAs, they were your BF or GF and that was that.

It's kinda hilarious to me that in old Catholic Ireland this kinda behaviour was totally fine. Unless someone told you they were going out with someone any PDA that may have been seen was filed strictly under "meeting". These dating behaviour traditions of different countries are really interesting.

@Kean I love Marian Keyes' explanation of Irish vs. American dating behaviour in "Anybody Out There". Remember it?

I don't think I read that one, catch me up 🙂
 
Kean, this is how much I love you - I looked it up typed this all up for you:

Jacqui and I had gone to the eight-minute speed-dating that Nita at Roger Coaster's office had told me about and I'd got three matches: a handsome interesting architect; a red-haired baker from Queens who wasn't a looker but was very nice; and a young bartender who said words like "dude" and "shibby". Each had submitted a request for a date and I'd agreed to all three.
But before you start thinking a) that I'm a three-timing slut (and it's actually four because I haven't told you yet about the blind date Teenie had set up for me), or b) that the whole thing was a recipe for disaster - that I was bound to be caught out and end up with no one, let me explain the rules of Dating in New York City, especially the whole exclusive/non-exclusive end of things. What I was currently doing was Dating Non-exclusively - a perfectly acceptable state of affairs.
How it is in Ireland, is people just drift into relationships. You start by going for a couple of drinks, then on another night you might go to a film, then you run into each other at a party given by a mutual friend ad at some stage you start sleeping together - probably this night, in fact. (Sod's law: woman not in best underwear, etc.) It's all very casual and drifty and most of the initial propulsion depends on accidental meetings. But although no one ever says anything about exclusiveness or non-exclusiveness, he's definitely your boyfriend. So if you discovered the man you've been sharing fireside nights and videos with for the last few months having a nice dinner with a woman who wasn't a) you, b) a female relation of his, you'd be perfectly within your rights to pour a glass of wine over him and to tell the other woman that she's 'welcome to him'. It is also appropriate at this point to wiggle your little finger and say, 'Hardly worth it, though, is it?'
But not in New York. In NYC, you'd think: There's one of the men I've been seeing non-exclusively, having dinner with a woman he's also seeing non-exclusively. How civilized we all are... No wine gets poured on anyone, in fact you might even join them for a drink. (Actually, no, scratch that, I don't really think you would. Maybe on paper, but not in reality, especially if you liked him.)
However, it's an ill wind and during this time of non-exclusivity you can ride rings around yourself; you can sleep with a different man every night shoud you so wish and no one can call you a six-timing tramp.

So once more I'm finding myself on the Irish end of things...
 
Back
Top Bottom