• Thank you for visiting Buffy-Boards. You obviously have exceptional taste. We just want you to know that:
    1. You really should register so you can chat with us!
    2. Twelve thousand people can't be wrong.
    3. Buffy-Boards loves you.
    4. See 1 through 3.
    Come on, register already!

Question Spike Over-Saturated?

Taake

I can kill you with my brain
Staff member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
15,435
Age
33
Location
Stockholm, Swe
Black Thorn
I didn't think I was being rude. Opinions are not formed in a vacuum and pretty much everyone has biases and things that influence them. Also Dora has PMed me about their reasons behind their views so I do understand where they're coming from here and I sympathise I just don't think they're right.
Seeing as how I couldn't know about that PM I just saw you calling out someone's issues and reacted on that, which may have been an overreaction. That said, you don't have to think Dora's opinions are right, but it is rude to, instead of challenging the opinion, making it personal and publically calling out them having "issues". Perhaps you recieved a PM about it because they prefered to keep that private. It is a good idea to keep things related to the post rather than the poster. In the same line, suggesting that others "can't understand" a story because they don't agree with you, is similiarly, making something more about the posters than what they are posting. I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong or right, but suggesting that others can't understand them, is in fact rude.
 

katmobile

Scooby
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Messages
523
Age
47
Seeing as how I couldn't know about that PM I just saw you calling out someone's issues and reacted on that, which may have been an overreaction. That said, you don't have to think Dora's opinions are right, but it is rude to, instead of challenging the opinion, making it personal and publically calling out them having "issues". Perhaps you recieved a PM about it because they prefered to keep that private. It is a good idea to keep things related to the post rather than the poster. In the same line, suggesting that others "can't understand" a story because they don't agree with you, is similiarly, making something more about the posters than what they are posting. I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong or right, but suggesting that others can't understand them, is in fact rude.
Which is why I didn't mention the issue specifically. I don't agree with you here but it's a grey area I guess so I'll say ok.
Also I think what is an issue is Dora is attributing motives to RL people and at that point is a different and more problematic thing than saying it about a fictional character especially if it's really negative.
 
Last edited:

Taake

I can kill you with my brain
Staff member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
15,435
Age
33
Location
Stockholm, Swe
Black Thorn
Which is why I didn't mention the issue specifically. I don't agree with you here but it's a grey area I guess so I'll say ok.
Also I think what is an issue is Dora is attributing motives to RL people and at that point is a different and more problematic thing than saying it about a fictional character especially if it's really negative.
Yes, and we mod that all the time, which is exactly why she started her post with "Here is my view and it will probably get taken down by the mods as anti Spike". In this instance I chose to focus on on-board behavior because posters here are more likely to be affected by personal posts than are the actors/crew.

I won't discuss this anymore now, please keep the discussion about the arguments rather than the person making the arguments, it is not that hard. Now let's get back to topic because this isn't what the thread is about.
 

genghiskhan

God doesn't want you
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
439
Black Thorn
(C) Marti Noxon had a thing about JM , let's face it he was naked or had his shirt off for no reason in S6, and when some fans posted about this her reply was who would not want to see James naked
(D) After mid way through S5 what do you do with Spikes storyline if you don't get him with Buffy ? , in fact until he dies at the end what is he's story , what did he do that actually change the events of the final outcome , small things like kill the demon that came through the portal you did not need the demon to come through , or him giving Buffy the Riley talk after she was told to leave her house , can you see the Scoobies taking faith side against Buffy really ? Even Buffy coming back wrong in S6 was just to push Spike / Spuffy story it again had nothing to do with either main big bads the trio or dark Willow
(E) By the latter part of S7 Buffy had become the Spike story ,totally dominating the final episodes
So yes was there was a saturation of Spike , and yes I believe With Whedon, Noxon and Epstein fangirling Spuffy and fan pressure it was to the detriment of BTVS as a whole , especially Buffy's Character and SMG personally and why I think most like the earlier seasons best
C I would have rather not have seen Spike naked to be honest, it just kind of made me feel uncomfortable and I feel that you're right about Marti Noxon.
D I get what you mean and I was never too bothered about Spuffy (until Tabula Rasa where I go the feeling that it wasn't going to end well). I guess he blew up the hellmouth which is something he had a detrimental effect on which was a bit annoying as without the amulet they would all be dead but he did do stuff. However out of season 6, you could easily say that most characters didn't have a big effect on the final outcome apart from Buffy, Willow, Xander and Tara. I do agree that half way through season 5 Spike was only there for Buffy but it didn't really seem too out of character since he is romantic and seems to fall in love very fast so I don't think he would have ever left. You could say that a lot of things aren't to do with the main plot though - Dawn's kleptomania, Xander's construction company, Anya and Xander's engagement, it's just fleshing out the story and the characters, if you look at it from that point of view then why not just have the Willow and Tara show and cut it down to 5 episodes. This is Buffy the Vampire Slayer though, and Buffy made Spike her addiction and became isolated from the scoobies, Spike was present because Buffy made him (or rather the things they did together) one of her main priorities.
E I definitely agree with you on this. The final episodes wouldn't be better without them in it though, the potentials were the worst part of it. And Buffy being kicked out of her house just so Spike can give her a pep talk did annoy me, like in the finale where Angel and Buffy kissed for no other (creative) reason other than kick up a bit of drama between her and Spike. I give a bit of leniency however, because they knew it was the lat season and they had a character only partially on the way to redemption and it would be best to complete his arc, if they had a season 8 I believe there would be slightly less Spike as his arc would be able to span 2 seasons. The whole Spuffy thing in season 6 was supposed to be out of character , she's confused and hates herself so she thinks she is back wrong, so to me that erased the problem that 'but Buffy wouldn't do that though.'
 
HushSarah
HushSarah
Agreed on E. There was just too much useless drama to deal with.

r2dh2

Never go for the kill when you can go for the pain
Joined
Apr 12, 2019
Messages
267
I like it. Not all of it, but I like the final product (I’m one of those rare fans that prefers the final seasons). I’m a romantic at heart, probably that’s why I was drawn to it and why I enjoy it. I definitely do not mind seeing JM shirtless and I do find the Spuffy scenes incredibly hot, but I much rather seeing the Spuffy relationship develop and grow at the beginning of S6 and throughout S7. I’m also the type that roots for the underdog and Spike has been one of those extremely rare characters that I’ve fallen in love with – although I find DB physically more attractive and I’m not completely a fan of the changes that Spike’s characters went through in S7.

That's what Whedon said...not me. :rolleyes: Personally, I think Spike's singularity can be reasoned but I couldn't fit the reasoning in a nutshell.
And the more I read about it from an academic perspective, the more appreciation I have for BtVS. Literature and film studies are not my area of concentration, but my academic formation allows me and pushes me to dig dipper. I appreciate the references in your posts, I enjoy learning, dissecting and analyzing. It’s incredibly interesting to read the academic analysis that scholars have produced in the last 25 years. It gives a rational foundation to my “irrational” love for a fantasy world.
 
HushSarah
HushSarah
What was romantic about Season 6? It was emotionally draining to watch overall. I saw a lot of people falling out of love than in it.

DeadlyDuo

Scooby
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
6,701
Age
28
I thought Spike was best in the earlier seasons before Spuffy took over and dominated his storyline. Because he had no other story outside of that from Season 5 onwards, naturally he spends a lot of time loitering around Buffy, who as the lead obviously has a lot of screen time. Therefore Spike is constantly there.

JM does a great job portraying Spike and I do feel sorry for him in regards to having to be practically naked a lot of the time in Season 6 (and it's clear from interviews that he didn't particularly enjoy it. SMG probably got away with it because of the clause in her contract).

Spike is a great character, however I think the issue with him being "over-saturated" in the later seasons is less to do with the character himself and more to do with how he was used.
 

Dora

Scooby
Joined
Apr 1, 2016
Messages
983
Age
52
C I would have rather not have seen Spike naked to be honest, it just kind of made me feel uncomfortable and I feel that you're right about Marti Noxon.
D I get what you mean and I was never too bothered about Spuffy (until Tabula Rasa where I go the feeling that it wasn't going to end well). I guess he blew up the hellmouth which is something he had a detrimental effect on which was a bit annoying as without the amulet they would all be dead but he did do stuff. However out of season 6, you could easily say that most characters didn't have a big effect on the final outcome apart from Buffy, Willow, Xander and Tara. I do agree that half way through season 5 Spike was only there for Buffy but it didn't really seem too out of character since he is romantic and seems to fall in love very fast so I don't think he would have ever left. You could say that a lot of things aren't to do with the main plot though - Dawn's kleptomania, Xander's construction company, Anya and Xander's engagement, it's just fleshing out the story and the characters, if you look at it from that point of view then why not just have the Willow and Tara show and cut it down to 5 episodes. This is Buffy the Vampire Slayer though, and Buffy made Spike her addiction and became isolated from the scoobies, Spike was present because Buffy made him (or rather the things they did together) one of her main priorities.
E I definitely agree with you on this. The final episodes wouldn't be better without them in it though, the potentials were the worst part of it. And Buffy being kicked out of her house just so Spike can give her a pep talk did annoy me, like in the finale where Angel and Buffy kissed for no other (creative) reason other than kick up a bit of drama between her and Spike. I give a bit of leniency however, because they knew it was the lat season and they had a character only partially on the way to redemption and it would be best to complete his arc, if they had a season 8 I believe there would be slightly less Spike as his arc would be able to span 2 seasons. The whole Spuffy thing in season 6 was supposed to be out of character , she's confused and hates herself so she thinks she is back wrong, so to me that erased the problem that 'but Buffy wouldn't do that though.'
The over saturation of Spike
,We were told that the WB asked for Spike....But I read some time ago part of the autobiography of the WB , in that it was said that when Buffy finished a guy called Levin asked if they could have a female Character from Buffy to join the Angel team preferring Willow, as she had done so well when appearing before , The WB wanted a female to help balance the cast , it said it was Joss Whedon who insisted on Spike and said put Amy hacker in a short skirt nobody would notice , the WB felt that the appointment of Spike could overshadow the original cast members , but joss insisted , never watched Angel so do not know if this was the case,
 

WillowFromBuffy

Buffering...
Joined
May 11, 2019
Messages
271
Age
31
Television networks don't write autobiographies, because a biography concerns the life of a person and if the WB was writing a history of itself, the writing credit would go to the people who wrote it, not the entire company.

Also, I've tried google, and I can't get a single hit for "Joss Whedon," "Jordan Levin," "Amy Acker" and "short skirt."
 

Taake

I can kill you with my brain
Staff member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
15,435
Age
33
Location
Stockholm, Swe
Black Thorn
Well, they did bring over Mercedes McNab from Buffy, to balance the female cast, so I don't think Joss said "it's Spike and only Spike". I think he was planned early on, then they brought in Mercedes on top of that, but maybe someone else would've preferred Willow. I can see why.

As for Amy, I do remember some season 5 commentary about her wearing more skirts etc in this season because they were basically updating the characters a bit, making her look more feminine, or enhancing her femininity at least. But I don't think she was put into short skirts for any nefarious reasons. I imagine Amy herself was pleased to have a bit of a wardrobe update, and it fits the character as - being employed by W&H - they clearly had more money to move around with.
 

AnthonyCordova

Earth Invasion Taskforce Unlimited
Joined
Feb 18, 2014
Messages
1,921
Location
Denver, Colorado
Sineya
The show Buffy is remarkably rich in interpretive material. I would never deny the many ways that Spike specifically (as the topic of this thread) conforms to and also confirms many a theoretical interpretation in surprising ways. This thread seemed to digress, so I apologize for not addressing specifically the OP, but I just wanted to say that, while I find academic/theoretical readings worthwhile and gainful with regard to this show in particular, I do also feel like it is equally fair to interpret and also judge the merit of a show (or also just specific features of a show) on purely aesthetic grounds too. The one doesn't refute the other.

Why do I say this? I say this because, over the course of reading many, many debates concerning Spike specifically, I get the strong impression that perhaps the difference in perspective in the way the fan base divides on topics like Spike boils down to this difference, or differences in a very similar vein. So for example, in my case, I've learned a great deal from Spike over the last year by using a Foucauldian approach to better appreciate the role that power relationships have in constructing various modalities of subjectivity, and how this effects the kinds of things you can know, the threshold of what counts as 'ignorance', and so forth. The material for such an inquiry is there in the text, without a doubt. As I said, Buffy is rich for interpretation. But on the other hand, I have to admit to feeling conflicted sometimes because on an aesthetic level I tend to judge Spike and Spuffy often as an aesthetic failure for me, despite my intellectual curiosity in Spike and Spuffy and all related matters. So I'm divided.

To use an analogy, it's like the experience of going to an expensive Michelin star restaurant and not enjoying yourself. The food may have been prepared with all the newest cutting edge molecular gastronomy techniques, and the skill in the technique was everywhere evident, but despite all of that, in the end, you didn't enjoy the flavors put forward in the meal. It didn't taste good. Or to put it a little differently, it was a technical/theoretical success, yet despite that, also nevertheless an aesthetic failure also. Many Spike centered debates seem to me to pivot on something similar to this: we want different things from the same show, and the arguments we have to support our pleasure or displeasure follow from the way we prioritized what we wanted from the show to begin with. Then what comes afterward is our justification for these biases. Anyway, this is just my impression of this thread and many other similar ones. For whatever it's worth.
 
SunnydaleGlitz
SunnydaleGlitz
Really interesting analogy!

katmobile

Scooby
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Messages
523
Age
47
The show Buffy is remarkably rich in interpretive material. I would never deny the many ways that Spike specifically (as the topic of this thread) conforms to and also confirms many a theoretical interpretation in surprising ways. This thread seemed to digress, so I apologize for not addressing specifically the OP, but I just wanted to say that, while I find academic/theoretical readings worthwhile and gainful with regard to this show in particular, I do also feel like it is equally fair to interpret and also judge the merit of a show (or also just specific features of a show) on purely aesthetic grounds too. The one doesn't refute the other.

Why do I say this? I say this because, over the course of reading many, many debates concerning Spike specifically, I get the strong impression that perhaps the difference in perspective in the way the fan base divides on topics like Spike boils down to this difference, or differences in a very similar vein. So for example, in my case, I've learned a great deal from Spike over the last year by using a Foucauldian approach to better appreciate the role that power relationships have in constructing various modalities of subjectivity, and how this effects the kinds of things you can know, the threshold of what counts as 'ignorance', and so forth. The material for such an inquiry is there in the text, without a doubt. As I said, Buffy is rich for interpretation. But on the other hand, I have to admit to feeling conflicted sometimes because on an aesthetic level I tend to judge Spike and Spuffy often as an aesthetic failure for me, despite my intellectual curiosity in Spike and Spuffy and all related matters. So I'm divided.

To use an analogy, it's like the experience of going to an expensive Michelin star restaurant and not enjoying yourself. The food may have been prepared with all the newest cutting edge molecular gastronomy techniques, and the skill in the technique was everywhere evident, but despite all of that, in the end, you didn't enjoy the flavors put forward in the meal. It didn't taste good. Or to put it a little differently, it was a technical/theoretical success, yet despite that, also nevertheless an aesthetic failure also. Many Spike centered debates seem to me to pivot on something similar to this: we want different things from the same show, and the arguments we have to support our pleasure or displeasure follow from the way we prioritized what we wanted from the show to begin with. Then what comes afterward is our justification for these biases. Anyway, this is just my impression of this thread and many other similar ones. For whatever it's worth.
The only qualifier I'd add in your analogy it's not the flavours didn't make the food taste good it didn't make it taste good to you. It could be you had bad experience with one of the ingredients, that you're allergic to one or more or that you just don't like one or them. All are fine allergies happen, bad experiences and most people hate the taste of something I'm not keen on nuts and hate peanuts. So yeah this could have made it not work for you but it doesn't mean it's bad just not for you. Big difference. It ok to feel like that you just need to see it for what it is and let those who enjoy it continue to do so.
 
Top Bottom