Oh wow! That's amazing. Is #39 your favorite in terms of the Buffy/Angel connection or would you pick a different one?
I agree. I like this reasoning, but I am not sure if that was properly portrayed by the flashbacks. It might be due to the fact David's acting in the scene made me think Angel was more confused than intrigued, protective, or concerned. I could have been the writing that really did not lend itself to that interpretation. The show seems to want to take the scenes at face value as Buffy cannon historical fact, instead of rose-coloured reflection.I think so much of that scene as others have said is coloured by the fact that Angel is in love with Buffy and sometimes when you look back at your first meeting with someone that can be coloured by the feelings you have for them at that moment. I think that what you saw from Angel initially with Buffy was empathy and compassion, a desire to help and protect perhaps. But you can tell from their Season 1 interactions that he was hesitant to have a relationship with her so I don't think he saw her and was all about the romance. I think that grew in time and now that he is love with her he thinks back to that first meeting through that lens.
What do you think about him bringing up her mentor, Merrick, in this situation? or maybe Joyce? How do you think he could make a decent argument against 'Spordelia' regression?All absolutely true, but I guess I'm just trying to reason why they might have chosen to go with that particular angle. I think Angel is also taking his cue from what she says beforehand: 'Before I became the Slayer I was... well I don't want to say shallow, but...'. She fears without her slayer powers she will regress to the supposedly shallow person she was before ('Spordelia'), but Angel's trying to say 'no, you always had that warmth and compassion in you. It didn't just come from being the Slayer'.
This was just my point of reference. If Riley ever made a good argument for knowing Buffy, I would have brought that up, too. I see the Spike scene as an expression of knowing Buffy fully, as both the Slayer and the girl. I also see this scene as Angel expressing he knows Buffy, as both the Slayer and the girl, and I know he does. I just want him to be more clear about it. He knows she is Buffy who happens to have a Slayer calling on her life. He understands that the Slayer is a necessary part of her, and he knows that it is not who she is, entirely. He is trying to encourage her, telling her that her lack of Slayer power doesn't take away who she is, and he is right because the loss of power does not cause a loss of maturity or experience. His approach to the argument is not the best, but he is successful. I just think he could have told the same story about seeing her before she was called, made a stronger point about how they both have changed for the better through their already present potential, and will not let each other regress into their former selves, echoing what she did for him in Amends. Or something like that...It's just the whole point of the episode is that the Slayer powers don't make the Slayer. She is the Slayer, even without her Slayer powers; and, she proves that at the end of the episode. I find it hard to connect the end of the episode with his argument here.Also, I think this scene is different because it has to do with Buffy as the Slayer. He is not trying to convey to her that he knew her before her powers or without her powers. It's just conveying a different sentiment. Hard to compare.
I was reading this thread all "where's Taaroko?" and here you are, so I don't have to look for that link on my phone.
Some couples stay in and watch Netflix or go to the buffet or do extreme sports.Oh they had a relationship sure, but they were never really together. At least I never viewed it as such. They weren't a couple as they never really coupled.
Having an ongoing intimate relationship with a person that is frequently sexual usually resulting in one party residing with another party for more than a one-night hook up. That is being together with someone. Otherwise you are just dating. Dating is not officially together.What is your definition of "together"?
I think most consider couples together.
What about asexuals? Or those who are permanently impotent? Or have taken a vow of chastity (Gandhi with his wife)? Or one has AIDS and fears their partner contracting it? Or women who have the psychosomatic disorder vaginismus?Having an ongoing intimate relationship with a person that is frequently sexual usually resulting in one party residing with another party for more than a one-night hook up. That is being together with someone. Otherwise you are just dating. Dating is not officially together.
Then remove the frequently sexual:What about asexuals? Or those who are permanently impotent? Or have taken a vow of chastity (Gandhi with his wife)? Or one has AIDS and fears their partner contracting it? Or women who have the psychosomatic disorder vaginismus?
But Angel & Buffy were "ongoing" and "intimate" and she spent the night at his place several times (fell asleep on his bed in What's My Line #1, fell asleep by her bed in Angel, napped next to each other on his bed in Helpless) outside of sex in Surprise. He sat by her bed and kissed her hand & forehead in Earshot.Then remove the frequently sexual:
Having an ongoing intimate relationship with a person resulting in one party residing with another party for more than a one-night hook up. That is being together with someone. Otherwise you are just dating. Dating is not officially together.
Buffy and Angel still were not officially together.
Sorry if I came across as harsh. I honestly didn't mean to. I don't find your find your wording ridiculous; I meant 'question' in the sense of the idea of it, not the actual phrasing. I was mainly responding to the idea that some have put forward in this thread that there can somehow be a concrete definition of what makes a couple 'official' i.e. the kind of objective qualification Mr Pole has suggested, which implies that if a relationship doesn't fit those criteria then it doesn't qualify as being 'together'. That's something I just don't agree with.