Wood Should Have Killed Spike

J

Jonathan Levinson

Superstar!
Joined
Jan 5, 2003
Messages
19
Age
48
Location
Mt Vernon, Wa
I don't think I've ever really hated Spike until the end of this episode. 😡

I despised his self-righteousness and worse the way the writer of this episode portraying Spike in the right--

Nikki didn't "sign up" for anything. She was chosen. Slayers don't have much of a choice in that. Then Spike makes himself out to be some sort of soldier--fighting to defend himself and his cause. True, he fought in self-defense--the same way a fleeing murderer kills a cop to escape punishment. But who sides with cop killer?

And true, according to the BTVS rules, a "souled" vamp apparently isn't responsible for their actions when they were unsouled. But Spike has always been different from Angel. Whereas Angel had a Jekylll and Hyde like relationship with Angelus; William and Spike almost bleed into each other--he's not that different either way.

Perhaps, worst of all he's simply doesn't have any remorse for his reign of terror.

What I would have liked to have seen was more like this--

Spike: "You didn't sign up for it, and somehow it's my fault?"

Wood: "You murdered her!!! And that *IS* your fault!!! And here you are making yourself out to be some sort of soldier defending himself. You're a murderer; an animal that needed to be put down--and still does."

And in the end, when Spike leaned into to bite Wood in the neck, Wood should have staked him by surprise.
 
I disagree, Spike should actually have killed Wood (out of personal interest 😛).

However if I'm going to be impartial without mixing in what *I* want:
That is well how the world works, the slayer battles the vampires - sometimes the vampires win. In this case Spike won over Nikki, and Nikki did have a choice. Just because you are chosen doesnt mean you must embrace it, you can desert and stop following your path.

Nikki did have the choice to put her son before the slaying and leave her "calling" to be with him and be alive, but she chose her 'mission' which in the end got her killed. It's quite good that Spike isnt the same as Angel because it would be very repetive as well as go against all character developement ever. Spike doesnt care about Woods mother because he was a vampire and she was a slayer, he like all other vampires have killed people and sucked them dry. He knows what he has done and now that he has a soul he wouldn't do it again, at least not volunteerely.

It didn't have to be Spike that killed Nikki, it could been any vampire - truth is, she was there - he was there, she wanted to die. That's the only way a slayer can die, if they have a deathwish(Fool For Love, Season 5).

I do agree on one part though that Spike was a threat with this trigger in his head, however Buffy has never given up on her friends and she shouldn't have to give up on Spike.
 
Originally posted by Jonathan Levinson
I despised his self-righteousness and worse the way the writer of this episode portraying Spike in the right--
Click to expand...
But just because Spike didn't get staked, that doesn't necessarily mean the writer is portraying him as being in the right. While it's true Nikki didn't have a choice in being the Slayer, did Spike have much choice either? Drusilla didn't give him a really fair explanation of what it means to be a vampire (but then again how could she?).

The reason Spike didn't get staked it 'cauese James Marsters is a really good actor and they're not going to kill him off until maybe the end of the series or maybe never. 🙂

Actually, I don't think that the actions of any of Spike, Buffy, Wood, or Giles were very good in this episode. 🙂 Instead of trying to figure out which one of them was right I'm more inclined to believe that all of them were at least partly wrong.

Giles was wrong to team up with Wood because it was a stupid plan that was likely to fail and, regardless of whether it suceeded or failed, it was likely to seriously harm the relationship between Giles and Buffy and that relationship is important. After all, Buffy and Giles keep saying it's war and in war it's important to have good advisors. Now that Buffy doesn't trust Giles, she'll be missing a valuable resource. Stupid Giles.

Spike not taking the blame for Nikki's death is dubious. It could be argued either way. However, Spike was pretty darn wrong to bite and drink from Wood. That's just twisted.

Wood's quest for vengence against the vamp that killed his mom seems fine and justified on the face of it--until you think about what it really means: it means combing the Earth over looking for one stupid souless vampire. Will killing said vamp really make the world a better place? Well okay it will but... vengence is just stupid no matter how you slice it (sorry, Anya). Go watch the Godfather series of films if you have trouble understanding that. 🙂

Lastly, Buffy is wrong to let Spike off the hook for biting Wood, she's wrong for saying she'll let Spike kill Wood in the future if Spike wants to, and she's wrong for turning her back on Giles.

All in all, a pretty good day for The First.
 
I completely agree that Spike should have been staked!
He's already proved a liability (as Giles said). He acted evil to Wood and showed that he really didn't care whatsoever what he did to Wood's mom. Also saying that Wood's mom didn't love him, and not to mention that he bit Wood. He didn't kill him, yea. But letting someone know you can kill them is worse then not killing them at all. He's suppose to be making Amends for crying out loud! Now he thinks he can just blame his past evil on his soulless self without even making Amends, brooding or even caring for that matter. He's proved evil in this episode (Which, I love evil Spike, well S1-S5 evil Spike anyway but he's suppose to do good). To me, his sole reason for trying to do good is because of Buffy. Having a soul doesn't make him any different from him being soulless, it just allows him to choose either doing good or evil now. He's only trying to do good because of Buffy in my opinion. I don't think he's reformed at all. At least, I've yet to see it yet.

I say, be gone with him already!
 
We didn't see him bite Wood. He did turn vamp and move for the neck, but it cut to commercial. He may have just given him a good scare.
 
Spike's job... is to be a VAMPIRE!

Nikki's job... was to be the SLAYER (whether you see it as a job or destiny. I see it as a job... it's what you do. And Nikki obviously LOVED her job. she did't give it up. She freakin took her five year old son on the job with her. What kind of a mother does that? She did not care about him)

Therfore... the equation is VAMPIRE=KILL SLAYER. He killed her, that's what he was supposed to do.

Then, all righteous Wood come along, trying to fullfill his personal vendetta to avenge his mother's death, blaming the whole thing on Spike.
He entraps Spike, and therefore, ticks Spike off! The new equation would then be: VAMPIRE=KILL the POTENTIAL KILLER TO PROTECT YOURSELF.

Spike should've killed Wood. It's instinct.

ALSO--- how does Spike having a soul not make him any different than being soulless? It's either SOUL or NO SOUL. Spike has a soul, Angel has a soul... they are not soulless... because they are in the same situation. Therefore, Angel and Spike come in the same packaging... one is not different than the other... on the basis of a vampire with a soul.
 
One thing that everyone seems to be forgetting is that Spike asked for his soul. It was not given as a curse. He was not given his soul to be tormented for eternity. Angel and Spike cease to be similar after you say 'Vampire with a Soul'. The circumstances of their ensoulment are as different as the results.

Nowhere has it been said that Spike was on the road of Redemption. Spike wanted his soul for one reason only, so that Buffy would be able to look at him as something other than a monster, and maybe, just maybe, love him.

His soul has allowed him to see what his obsession nearly drove him to do and with the exception of when he was under the influence of the First, has done a good job at being good.

Let's face it, redmeption and long-term remourse is not Spike. That is Angel's gig.

Spike with a soul is not William the bloody with attitude anymore than Angelus with a soul is Liam with an attitude.

Liam, Angelus, and Angel are three distinct personalities. There is really not a lot that they have in common.


William, Spike, and Souled Spike are three distinct personalities. These three, unlike Angel, are actually quite similar, but that is another thread.

Bottom line is that I think most of you guys need to stop comparing Souled Spike to Angel.
 
Hey SpikedBuffy, If Spike can get away with just 'playing the game' why can't Wood? Wood hunts demons, even with a soul Spike is still physically a demon and still has the 'essence' of one inside him. Here's a new equation, Wood=Demon Hunter=kill Demons= kill Spike.

And to WyrdDemonHunter, "vengence is just stupid no matter how you slice it"? Congratulations, you just invalidated the whole legal system of just about every country in the world. Vengence is one of the prime reasons for the existance of law. There is nothing wrong with vengence, it all depends on how you go about it. In the case of vampires you can't really turn to the police or any established legal system, much like with Slayers, they have no system to deal with such beings. When it come to vampires, Slayers and demon hunters are the law. Even if a murderer reforms they still pay the penalty, be it jail or execution. Why should Spike, a changed (possibly not even reformed) man not suffer the consequences?

Another reason for the existance of law is to protect society. Spike was a danger to everyone around him. Without being forced into the situation with Wood he may not have confronted his 'demons' and deactivated his trigger. So while Wood was fighting him he WAS a danger, and if Wood hadn't done this he may have still been a danger. How can you fault Wood or Giles for this then?
 
I agreed with Spike, it's been clear that for centuries it's vampire, slayer, vampire kills slayer or slayer slays vampire, period.

Ok, he killed Nikki, but if he hadn't killed her, she would've killed him... and anyway... how many vampires does a slayer kill? do their brother/sire/apprentice decide to have an unholy crusade to kill the slayer who killed him?

i actually liked the fact that spike let wood alive just because he killed her mother...


AND happy, i disagree with your vengeance=law point of view.. if your brother is killed, and they get him, he will most likely just be locked unless he has a good lawyer and walks out, if you kill him and avenge your brother, you are locked... the vengeance equals law simply doesn't apply, just like vengeance=justice doesn't apply...
 
Plus~~ we don't even really have the FULL story on Wood.

Why did he bury Jonathan? How did he know about Jonathan? And what about that time he had the knife with the blood on it? Vampires don't bleed, so what was he killing?

These things have not been explained.

Therefore, Wood could be a potential danger as well. Plus, Spike and never done anything DIRECTLY to harm Wood, but Wood needs to fullfill his vendetta. Wood, did though, DIRECTLY harm Spike, so in my opinion, you have the right for self-defense.
So, in my opinion, Wood has the right to defend himself when he comes clean about his entire story.
 
"AND happy, i disagree with your vengeance=law point of view.. if your brother is killed, and they get him, he will most likely just be locked unless he has a good lawyer and walks out, if you kill him and avenge your brother, you are locked... the vengeance equals law simply doesn't apply, just like vengeance=justice doesn't apply..."

-Lorne The Host


Locked up. Exactly, which is still a form of vengence. Killing people isn't the only way to harm someone, taking a good portion of their life from them works equally as well. Revenge is one of the key concepts of law. It is there, in part, to make criminals pay. Law doen't equal vengence, but it is one of the reasons which the law exits.

Thing is, the laws of society don't apply to vamps. They aren't designed to deal with them. Slayers and demon hunters are the law when it comes to such creatures. You can't just have Spike convicted and thrown in jail. Wood was doing what demon hunters do. They sentence demons to death for their crimes. It is vengence, all law that penalizes the guilty is vengence. This more direct form however, is the only type which applies to the supernatural. It may be a vigilante-type action, but so is slaying in general. It is the established system of dealing with demons, and even with a soul Spike is still a demon.
 
Let me ask this question, if someone came from Angels past and had seeked vengeance for long on him - he wanted him dead and refused to realise Angel is doing good now (pretty much like Horsk). Would you say that that person/Horsk should have been allowed to kill Angel? Let me just point out the hypocricy(SP?) if you say no 😛
 
I think Wood should've killed Spike right in front of Buffy when she entered. Great way to kill off most of the characters before the series finale.
 
"Let me ask this question, if someone came from Angels past and had seeked vengeance for long on him - he wanted him dead and refused to realise Angel is doing good now (pretty much like Horsk). Would you say that that person/Horsk should have been allowed to kill Angel? Let me just point out the hypocricy(SP?) if you say no"

-Razekiel



Kind of a loaded question don't you think? Angel never had a trigger that made him kill people, Spike did when Wood was trying to kill him. Spike was dangerous, Angel wasn't.

In the Holtz-Angel senario (I think you mean 'Holtz', not 'Horsk', if I'm wrong feel free to say so), I'd have to say that Holtz would be wrong in killing Angel. At the same time I'd have to say that Wood would NOW be wrong in killing Spike (although I suppose you could make an argument for it after the death threat he made against Wood at the end. Spike was dangerous, Wood tried to stop him, Spike's 'I'll kill him if he looks at me funny' attitude could be used to argue that Spike is still dangerous).

Now, the question you should have asked is wether I thought that Holtz and Wood acted unreasonably. To that I have to say, no. They had every thing taken from them and have every right to demand retribution. Why the heck shouldn't they? Spike and Angel are still demons. The memories of their crimes are still there. The demon 'essence' is still there, and still influences their actions. They are essentially serial killers who have 'seen the light' but they are still tainted by evil. They should still pay for their crimes. At least Angel is attempting to do this, Spike on the other hand is remorseless. If a serial killer suddenly decides that what he did was wrong, and changes as a person, they are still guilty and ammends must be made.

The whole thing is irrelevant though. Spike should have been dusted when he had the trigger because he was too dangerous. In fact, he should have been dusted long before he got his soul back. The boy has always been a massacre waiting to happen. Maybe that will change now, maybe not. The point it that Buffy was just wrong to not have staked him when he was chipped, and was certainly wrong to let him run around loose when he had his trigger.
 
Agreed. Spike was and always will be dangerous no matter what the circumstances is (evil or chipped or soul). Either way, he's just as bad as any other vamp so he should be dusted a long time ago. Buffy, somehow, can't seem to see that.
 
Originally posted by Happy
"Let me ask this question, if someone came from Angels past and had seeked vengeance for long on him - he wanted him dead and refused to realise Angel is doing good now (pretty much like Horsk). Would you say that that person/Horsk should have been allowed to kill Angel? Let me just point out the hypocricy(SP?) if you say no"

-Razekiel



Kind of a loaded question don't you think? Angel never had a trigger that made him kill people, Spike did when Wood was trying to kill him. Spike was dangerous, Angel wasn't.

In the Holtz-Angel senario (I think you mean 'Holtz', not 'Horsk', if I'm wrong feel free to say so), I'd have to say that Holtz would be wrong in killing Angel. At the same time I'd have to say that Wood would NOW be wrong in killing Spike (although I suppose you could make an argument for it after the death threat he made against Wood at the end. Spike was dangerous, Wood tried to stop him, Spike's 'I'll kill him if he looks at me funny' attitude could be used to argue that Spike is still dangerous).

Now, the question you should have asked is wether I thought that Holtz and Wood acted unreasonably. To that I have to say, no. They had every thing taken from them and have every right to demand retribution. Why the heck shouldn't they? Spike and Angel are still demons. The memories of their crimes are still there. The demon 'essence' is still there, and still influences their actions. They are essentially serial killers who have 'seen the light' but they are still tainted by evil. They should still pay for their crimes. At least Angel is attempting to do this, Spike on the other hand is remorseless. If a serial killer suddenly decides that what he did was wrong, and changes as a person, they are still guilty and ammends must be made.

The whole thing is irrelevant though. Spike should have been dusted when he had the trigger because he was too dangerous. In fact, he should have been dusted long before he got his soul back. The boy has always been a massacre waiting to happen. Maybe that will change now, maybe not. The point it that Buffy was just wrong to not have staked him when he was chipped, and was certainly wrong to let him run around loose when he had his trigger.
Click to expand...

Holtz, Horsk - same difference 😛

Well if you argue that just because someone is dangerous they should die - Anya has been dangerous, Willow has been dangerous, even Oz has been dangerous. Can you say they should all have died? Anya as a vengeance demon could inflict vengeance and was therefor dangerous, she should also have been killed. Willow was dangerous while under the influence of dark magic, she should also have been killed. Oz turned into a werewolf under the fullmoon, he should also have been killed.

Now don't take this wrong, I love all those characters and don't want them dead. But there is no arguement to counter the fact that they should have died, sure Oz didn't choose to be a werewolf but Spike didn't choose to have that trigger in his head either.

And no Angel wasn't really dangerous at the time but we all know that just at the snap of the moment he can become dangerous - that's not close to the trigger but still. Ok if I rephrase the question then, if it was Angel not Spike - would you still want him dusted? It would be the exact same situation, with the exact same scenario.

Point is, Buffy has never given up on her friends - and just because Wood has a vendetta and Giles has gone boowee(nah it ain't a word) doesn't mean that she should have Spike killed. My point with the above arguement of them should having died is that neither of them have ever given up on their friends - and Spike is not an exception.
 
Originally posted by Happy
Hey SpikedBuffy, If Spike can get away with just 'playing the game' why can't Wood? Wood hunts demons, even with a soul Spike is still physically a demon and still has the 'essence' of one inside him. Here's a new equation, Wood=Demon Hunter=kill Demons= kill Spike.
Click to expand...

But it's not that simple. In the Buffyverse it is not the case that all demons are bad, and if you've been watching the series for at least a couple seasons you should already know that. In season 5, there was the episode "New Moon Rising" in which Oz came back and got captured by the initiative. Before that happens, Buffy and Riley have an argument--Riley's saying that all demons are bad and Buffy's saying it's not always that clear. Remember Angel?

Now you could argue that Buffy shoud've just staked Angel and maybe you're right, but remember that he's also helped save the world at least a couple times and if he'd been dust he wouldn't have been there so the world might have ended.


Originally posted by Happy
And to WyrdDemonHunter, "vengence is just stupid no matter how you slice it"? Congratulations, you just invalidated the whole legal system of just about every country in the world. Vengence is one of the prime reasons for the existance of law. There is nothing wrong with vengence, it all depends on how you go about it.
Click to expand...

First off, I think I made an error by not distinguishing between "vengeance" and "revenge". When I said that vengeance was bad, what I really meant was that making it personal and going around doing the vigilante thing is bad. And the main thing I was illuding to here is the situation where two different organizations (perhaps the Hatfields and the McCoys, perhaps warring families in the Godfather movies, etc) decide to start taking out vengeance on one another. The way this always works is, some time back in the past, someone starts it somehow. Then, for ever onwards, you've got these two groups killing each others family members in bloody executions. The death and the pain and anguish never end. It's brutal and ugly and stupid.

On the other hand, the legal system (and I agree with you that vengeance is on of the prime reasons for the existence of law) isn't so bad. Now, I have to say, it's still not very good. Let's face it, it's not. Example: suppose some guy kills some people, then the cops capture him, then the courts sentence him, either to life in prision or to death row. Now what about the people that were killed? Are they alive now? No they're still dead. Yes it's true that society might be better with this person off the streets and it will give the family a sense of closure and if I ever had a loved one murdered you can rest assured I'd want the killer brought to "justice". But does it really fix things? I don't think so. There are still murders in the world and the cycles still continue. I mean--don't get me wrong--I'm not saying we should abandon laws or anything--they're very important because without them people would be taking personal revenge on one another all the time... even more than they do already.

The Law is good. The Law is important. It just ain't perfect. And at it's core it's nothing more than a santized system of vengeance--and I'm still not concerned that punishment actually does anything except make the punisher feel superior over the punished.

Originally posted by Happy
Spike was a danger to everyone around him. Without being forced into the situation with Wood he may not have confronted his 'demons' and deactivated his trigger. So while Wood was fighting him he WAS a danger, and if Wood hadn't done this he may have still been a danger. How can you fault Wood or Giles for this then?
Click to expand...

It's true that Spike was a danger with the trigger. And this is another example of poor decisions on Buffy's part (letting him go when he still wasn't cooperating and the trigger was still active). The only reason why I said the plan between Giles and Wood was stupid was that, given how badass Spike is, Giles should've known the plan had a low probability of success. Besides, regardless of whether the plan suceeded or failed, Giles should've realized that Buffy would feel betrayed by Giles in the end (again). Now Buffy and Giles keep stressing how their at war with The First, blah, blah, blah. Well guess what? In a war, it's important to have good counselors. Now that Buffy has shut out Giles, she's lost that resource. Giles should've seen that coming. Stupid Giles. (Don't get me wrong--I like Giles--I'm just saying he made some bad decisions here but then--everyone did.)

Of course, it's true that some really important good came out of it too; i.e. Spike's trigger being deactivated.
 
Originally posted by Razekiel
Holtz, Horsk - same difference 😛

Well if you argue that just because someone is dangerous they should die - Anya has been dangerous, Willow has been dangerous, even Oz has been dangerous. Can you say they should all have died? Anya as a vengeance demon could inflict vengeance and was therefor dangerous, she should also have been killed. Willow was dangerous while under the influence of dark magic, she should also have been killed. Oz turned into a werewolf under the fullmoon, he should also have been killed.
.
Click to expand...

You can't say they didn't decline to kill them, but they were always stopped by love--which in a way, it's wrong. In "Selfless", Buffy was ready to kill Anya but Xander wouldn't let her. Willow didn't want to let anyone kill Oz when he was a werewolf in "Phases" because she loved him and the gang couldn't kill Dark Willow 'cause they were her best friends. I hate to say this, but in a way, maybe they should die. It's kinda half and half.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom