 |
BSV Forum - General - The Bloodshedpub
TPTB... The Ultimate Good Guys... or not?
Jul 14 2009 06:17 am #1Guest
Guest
I was reading Anticipation and this really struck a chord with me:
-
“I’m now convinced that The Powers are not the good guys. Whoever they are, they aren’t very intelligent. Angel has a cursed soul with only one way to lose it, and yet they send him on a mission to help a young girl —totally his sicko type — who will be too much temptation for him.”
-
I never liked Angel ever since he showed up, I saw a sexual predator sniffing around a teenage girl.
Throughout the series "The Powers" are supposed to be the ultimate good guys and yet they basically offered a 15 year old, naive and sexually innocent Buffy up to Angel to get the alleged prophecy recipient on their side. Angel didn't start "fighting the good fight" for redemption, he did it because Whistler brought him to Buffy and the pedophile "fell in love" with the 15 year old that he saw sucking on her lolipop while waiting for her mom to pick her up from school.
Even if they somehow didn't know about the curse's loophole, they still knew why Angel was cursed. Although canon never flat out said what exactly Angel did that that poor gypsy girl, I can guess based on what we do know from the show, especially seeing Dru, the insane and sexually depraved girl who had been innoncent in all senses of the world before Angelus found her.
Darla got that girl because she fit his "favorite" kind of victim and the gypsies didn't take any kind of revenge on Darla, Dru and Spike for massacring an entire camp of gypsies but whatever Angelus did to that girl was so horrendus that they cursed him and then spent the over a century making sure he continued to suffer for what he did.
Anyway what do you guys think?
-
“I’m now convinced that The Powers are not the good guys. Whoever they are, they aren’t very intelligent. Angel has a cursed soul with only one way to lose it, and yet they send him on a mission to help a young girl —totally his sicko type — who will be too much temptation for him.”
-
I never liked Angel ever since he showed up, I saw a sexual predator sniffing around a teenage girl.
Throughout the series "The Powers" are supposed to be the ultimate good guys and yet they basically offered a 15 year old, naive and sexually innocent Buffy up to Angel to get the alleged prophecy recipient on their side. Angel didn't start "fighting the good fight" for redemption, he did it because Whistler brought him to Buffy and the pedophile "fell in love" with the 15 year old that he saw sucking on her lolipop while waiting for her mom to pick her up from school.
Even if they somehow didn't know about the curse's loophole, they still knew why Angel was cursed. Although canon never flat out said what exactly Angel did that that poor gypsy girl, I can guess based on what we do know from the show, especially seeing Dru, the insane and sexually depraved girl who had been innoncent in all senses of the world before Angelus found her.
Darla got that girl because she fit his "favorite" kind of victim and the gypsies didn't take any kind of revenge on Darla, Dru and Spike for massacring an entire camp of gypsies but whatever Angelus did to that girl was so horrendus that they cursed him and then spent the over a century making sure he continued to suffer for what he did.
Anyway what do you guys think?
Jul 14 2009 07:08 am #2Scarlet Ibis
Darla got that girl because she fit his "favorite" kind of victim and the gypsies didn't take any kind of revenge on Darla, Dru and Spike for massacring an entire camp of gypsies but whatever Angelus did to that girl was so horrendus that they cursed him and then spent the over a century making sure he continued to suffer for what he did.
Well, Angelus was cursed before the massacre. Once Dru, Spike and Darla had the massacre, there was no one left to do any more cursing. They singled Angelus out for whatever reason, though I agree skipping over Darla, who kidnapped the girl in the first place and sat and watched in pleasure was equally guilty, and remiss on their part for not cursing her as well. Though maybe they only had enough power to do one.
Yeah, Angel's not a pedophile...Though I can see why one would have that impression. Angelus, was more interested in corrupting/destroying purity, which can be someone at any age (Drusilla was not a minor), and Angel found salvation and forgiveness in purity that one time. If you're looking for pedophiles, the only one that is mentioned in either series was Marcus on Ats in "In the Dark."
I do think that TPTB aren't inherently good, though I wouldn't call them evil either. To me, it seems like more like a game of chess for them or something. But then it also depends on what version of PTBs we're talking about. They gave the impression of two varieties on AtS, and none really on BtVS. But it seems to me that any higher ups on either series, particularly Ats, was corrupt in some form or fashion, in that they just use the others as a means to an end.
Well, Angelus was cursed before the massacre. Once Dru, Spike and Darla had the massacre, there was no one left to do any more cursing. They singled Angelus out for whatever reason, though I agree skipping over Darla, who kidnapped the girl in the first place and sat and watched in pleasure was equally guilty, and remiss on their part for not cursing her as well. Though maybe they only had enough power to do one.
Yeah, Angel's not a pedophile...Though I can see why one would have that impression. Angelus, was more interested in corrupting/destroying purity, which can be someone at any age (Drusilla was not a minor), and Angel found salvation and forgiveness in purity that one time. If you're looking for pedophiles, the only one that is mentioned in either series was Marcus on Ats in "In the Dark."
I do think that TPTB aren't inherently good, though I wouldn't call them evil either. To me, it seems like more like a game of chess for them or something. But then it also depends on what version of PTBs we're talking about. They gave the impression of two varieties on AtS, and none really on BtVS. But it seems to me that any higher ups on either series, particularly Ats, was corrupt in some form or fashion, in that they just use the others as a means to an end.
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 14 2009 09:03 am #3Guest
Guest
Well, Angelus was cursed before the massacre. Once Dru, Spike and Darla had the massacre, there was no one left to do any more cursing.
Ummm... considering the fact that Jenny (or "Janna") and her creepy uncle actually existed, I'd say there's pretty solid proof that there were members of the gypsy clan that escaped the massacre, either by fleeing or just plain not being there at the time.
Regarding Angel and people thinking he's a pedophile:
Well, first of all, Angel was a 200+ yr old man macking on a 16-yr old girl whose only concept of a sexual relationship was through things like TV and romance novels.
Plus, I'd say that it has alot to do with the whole bit where Angel admitted that he fell in love with Buffy when he first saw her. That scene with SMG all dolled up like a little schoolgirl just screamed pedophile. They went more than a bit too far trying to make SMG seem like a much younger and naively innocent 15-yr old pre-slayer Buffy.
I like the chess game analogy: it seemed to me that the PTBs offered up Buffy, a replaceable pawn, in exchange for the Prophecy Vamp, a priceless queen if his supposed role in the prophecy was accurate.
Ummm... considering the fact that Jenny (or "Janna") and her creepy uncle actually existed, I'd say there's pretty solid proof that there were members of the gypsy clan that escaped the massacre, either by fleeing or just plain not being there at the time.
Regarding Angel and people thinking he's a pedophile:
Well, first of all, Angel was a 200+ yr old man macking on a 16-yr old girl whose only concept of a sexual relationship was through things like TV and romance novels.
Plus, I'd say that it has alot to do with the whole bit where Angel admitted that he fell in love with Buffy when he first saw her. That scene with SMG all dolled up like a little schoolgirl just screamed pedophile. They went more than a bit too far trying to make SMG seem like a much younger and naively innocent 15-yr old pre-slayer Buffy.
I like the chess game analogy: it seemed to me that the PTBs offered up Buffy, a replaceable pawn, in exchange for the Prophecy Vamp, a priceless queen if his supposed role in the prophecy was accurate.
Jul 14 2009 03:42 pm #4Guest
Guest
Angel is not a pedophile.
I don't like him anymore than you do but I'm trying to look at things a little more objectively along with personal experience.You guys that think he’s an evil perv are missing the big picture. He fell in love with her. I know you’ve all been taught since you were young that older man + younger girl = pedophile but it’s not always so black and white.
It has never been mentioned or hinted at in any episode that Angel was a pedophile.There was just that one ep with that one scene where he was in a car staring at Buffy and loved her.
Love doesn’t mean sex.
Buffy then fell in love with Angel, too. What does that make her? I’ve had crushes on men that were way older than me from the time I was 10. What does that make me?
In the realm of true love age is just a number.
So, all of this stuff you guys are saying is just the product of a corrupt society.
Messiah.
Jul 14 2009 05:16 pm #5Guest
Guest
First, it's totally awesome that something I'm involved in writing got someone thinking. Enough to actually talk about it somewhere. LOL! I can't speak for Mabel. Just myself.
I wrote the scene in question. The first thing to keep in mind is the source who is talking. It's Spike. He's not exactly unbiased when it comes to Angel. When I write, I try diligently not to become the character and say what I would say (I'm not always successful, but I try). Also, Spike is not big on authority at all. He's going to dis the Powers no matter what they do and especially when they mess up. Here, they've got this creepy demon working for them and they have introduced a vampire who like Scarlet mentions has always had a thing for the pure and innocent, and is asking him to help her. How could they not know about the curse? That happened in the past. It looks like they couldn't tell the future and Spike was one up on them with that.
But I agree with Scarlet that the age thing is not the main issue. Spike had spent enough time with Angelus to know that he liked his nuns and untouched Brides, etc. But on the other hand, I think that is the thing, deep down that a pedophile is after. Not the age of a child, but the non-threatening lure of the innocence.
My own personal take on Angel was that yes, he had a thing for Buffy because of her innocence, but he also felt bad for her when she was first called. I think he was slowly seduced by her awe and crush on him and he let her call the shots.
My husband is six years older than me. If we'd met when I was 12 and he was 18, he never would have given me a second look. But when I was 19, going to college and living on my own and he was 25, it was a different story. You can say it's because of a product of a corrupt society that it's wrong for the young to be involved with older partners, but I say it's corrupt for a man/woman to be attracted to someone who is not fully emotionally and sexually developed. I have a 14 year old daughter and if I found a man in his 20's sniffing around my daughter, he'd see the business end of a rifle.
As far as the Powers That Be are concerned, I think they were some kind of infallible group of somethings that were trying to help. They didn't always get it right and they were dealing with creatures with free will. I am sure they weren't the bad guys. Spike, on the other hand, thinks that all authority is the bad guy. LOL!
But everybody has their own opinion and it's an interesting topic to discuss.
I wrote the scene in question. The first thing to keep in mind is the source who is talking. It's Spike. He's not exactly unbiased when it comes to Angel. When I write, I try diligently not to become the character and say what I would say (I'm not always successful, but I try). Also, Spike is not big on authority at all. He's going to dis the Powers no matter what they do and especially when they mess up. Here, they've got this creepy demon working for them and they have introduced a vampire who like Scarlet mentions has always had a thing for the pure and innocent, and is asking him to help her. How could they not know about the curse? That happened in the past. It looks like they couldn't tell the future and Spike was one up on them with that.
But I agree with Scarlet that the age thing is not the main issue. Spike had spent enough time with Angelus to know that he liked his nuns and untouched Brides, etc. But on the other hand, I think that is the thing, deep down that a pedophile is after. Not the age of a child, but the non-threatening lure of the innocence.
My own personal take on Angel was that yes, he had a thing for Buffy because of her innocence, but he also felt bad for her when she was first called. I think he was slowly seduced by her awe and crush on him and he let her call the shots.
My husband is six years older than me. If we'd met when I was 12 and he was 18, he never would have given me a second look. But when I was 19, going to college and living on my own and he was 25, it was a different story. You can say it's because of a product of a corrupt society that it's wrong for the young to be involved with older partners, but I say it's corrupt for a man/woman to be attracted to someone who is not fully emotionally and sexually developed. I have a 14 year old daughter and if I found a man in his 20's sniffing around my daughter, he'd see the business end of a rifle.
As far as the Powers That Be are concerned, I think they were some kind of infallible group of somethings that were trying to help. They didn't always get it right and they were dealing with creatures with free will. I am sure they weren't the bad guys. Spike, on the other hand, thinks that all authority is the bad guy. LOL!
But everybody has their own opinion and it's an interesting topic to discuss.
I was signed in when I wrote the above post, but it still went up as Guest. Sorry about that.
Jul 14 2009 05:56 pm #7Guest
Guest
he'd see the business end of a rifle.
You have a rifle? lol
Mesh ~
You have a rifle? lol
Mesh ~
*Grins* I don't actually own one. My husband is not into hunting or other gun sports and because I have five children all still living at home, I don't think it's a good idea to have one in the home. I have no problem with those who do own guns though. In fact, I'd fight for the right to own a gun if my country tried to take that right away from me (I paid attention in my History classes).
But the waiting period to purchase a gun is not that long. I'd take lessons while I waited and warn Mr. Too-Old-And-Twisted to stay away or I would shoot. Then if I had the gun and caught him still going after my daughter, I'd shot his foot off or his kneecap, turn myself in and gladly go to jail. Of course, I'd have to fight my husband for the gun to see who'd get to do the shooting.
~Dawn (Just in case this posts as guest.)
But the waiting period to purchase a gun is not that long. I'd take lessons while I waited and warn Mr. Too-Old-And-Twisted to stay away or I would shoot. Then if I had the gun and caught him still going after my daughter, I'd shot his foot off or his kneecap, turn myself in and gladly go to jail. Of course, I'd have to fight my husband for the gun to see who'd get to do the shooting.
~Dawn (Just in case this posts as guest.)
Jul 14 2009 07:10 pm #9Scarlet Ibis
But on the other hand, I think that is the thing, deep down that a pedophile is after. Not the age of a child, but the non-threatening lure of the innocence.
Nope, pedophiles strictly go after children. Not nuns or virginal brides...hairless adolescents. Like Marcus the vampire did.
Angel I think...when he saw Buffy and her innocence and the burden she had to bear, what he knew was coming for her, his feelings went in the exact opposite direction of that of Angelus. Instead of wanting to help destroy all that, he wanted to preserve it. That's what motivated him to come out of the sewers--to help her and protect her. And yes, I realize he was all cryptic guy in season...but they did a lot of backtracking in season two :P
And Angel wasn't an old man--he was a vampire. Different set of rules no matter how you slice it. I mean, if Angel was a 200 year old sixteen year old, would people who think he's a pedophile feel the same? More than likely not.
I think he was slowly seduced by her awe and crush on him and he let her call the shots.
Totally agree there. He didn't plan their one night together, or even the fact of being with her romantically--Buffy made those calls, and while he tried to resist...Crappy circumstances and her insistence pushed them together.
Then if I had the gun and caught him still going after my daughter, I'd shot his foot off or his kneecap, turn myself in and gladly go to jail.
You'd go easy on him then, eh? :P And I'd personally attempt to plead insanity. Eh, worth a shot at any rate :P
Nope, pedophiles strictly go after children. Not nuns or virginal brides...hairless adolescents. Like Marcus the vampire did.
Angel I think...when he saw Buffy and her innocence and the burden she had to bear, what he knew was coming for her, his feelings went in the exact opposite direction of that of Angelus. Instead of wanting to help destroy all that, he wanted to preserve it. That's what motivated him to come out of the sewers--to help her and protect her. And yes, I realize he was all cryptic guy in season...but they did a lot of backtracking in season two :P
And Angel wasn't an old man--he was a vampire. Different set of rules no matter how you slice it. I mean, if Angel was a 200 year old sixteen year old, would people who think he's a pedophile feel the same? More than likely not.
I think he was slowly seduced by her awe and crush on him and he let her call the shots.
Totally agree there. He didn't plan their one night together, or even the fact of being with her romantically--Buffy made those calls, and while he tried to resist...Crappy circumstances and her insistence pushed them together.
Then if I had the gun and caught him still going after my daughter, I'd shot his foot off or his kneecap, turn myself in and gladly go to jail.
You'd go easy on him then, eh? :P And I'd personally attempt to plead insanity. Eh, worth a shot at any rate :P
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
This is really old news to me, i never saw the powers to be as the powers of good or God.
The way i see is that you got all these little players around, W&H,PTB,old ones,ect
They all have their own intrest, in the case of PTB i would say that their number one goal is balance, they let evil be done and excist but they also have their own champions(puppets) like Angel that fight for their cause.
And above all these little players i believe there's God, who never buts in and lets us all play freely this game we call life.
Angel is a good example on why the PTB aren't pure goodness as some like to believe. He wasn't a hero,champion or anything like that. He was just a monster with a disgusting past that gotten some bad luck. He wasted a 100y time and even had the nerve to lose faith in humanity.
Count me in the camp that would get rid of Angel if he were to be sniffing around my teenage daughter, i couldn't care less if he had some grand destiny or some shit like that as an excuse.
This was mainly why i always i liked Angel the show less then Buffy, overplaying Angel's importance in the grand-scheme of things. In the beginning it was just a vampire trying to do good but then they started heaping on all this bullshit about grand destiny,shanshu,the one, will either save the world or end it....yeah right pull another one.
Spike/Fray=The future
Jul 14 2009 09:15 pm #11Guest
Guest
Nope, pedophiles strictly go after children. Not nuns or virginal brides...hairless adolescents. Like Marcus the vampire did.
It's not nearly as simply as that. Marcus is an example of a "classic pedophile" but adults who fall into that category don't strictly go after "hairless adolescents" Different classifications of pedophiles have different "tastes".
And the idea that pedophiles ONLY (or as you wrote "strictly") go after children is a myth, plain and simple. Yes, there are some who are not the slightest bit attracted to individuals past a certain age, but it's no secret that there are pedophiles out there who are seemingly completely normal and they aren't found out until they start sexually abusing their children.
Besides, even if you want to argue that Angel was not a pedophile, he was still a sexual predator who was attracted to innocent, naive girls who didn't have the life experience to even imagine what kind of monster he really was.
That was my main beef with Angel: when Buffy asked him about Dru the first thing he did was ask if Buffy loved him. And after the manipulative bastard got Buffy to announce she loved him, he then gave her a VERY abbreviated summary of what he did, leaving out the "minor details" of how he destroyed the once innocent virginal nun and proudly turned her into the insane depraved vampire that was Dru. Angel knew that a sixteen year old, who'd never seen the true evil people were capable of inflicting on each other, couldn't possibly come close to imagining what all he did to Dru and, since she loved him (as he just had her reaffirm), Buffy didn't even want to think too much about Angel's monstrous past.
It's not nearly as simply as that. Marcus is an example of a "classic pedophile" but adults who fall into that category don't strictly go after "hairless adolescents" Different classifications of pedophiles have different "tastes".
And the idea that pedophiles ONLY (or as you wrote "strictly") go after children is a myth, plain and simple. Yes, there are some who are not the slightest bit attracted to individuals past a certain age, but it's no secret that there are pedophiles out there who are seemingly completely normal and they aren't found out until they start sexually abusing their children.
Besides, even if you want to argue that Angel was not a pedophile, he was still a sexual predator who was attracted to innocent, naive girls who didn't have the life experience to even imagine what kind of monster he really was.
That was my main beef with Angel: when Buffy asked him about Dru the first thing he did was ask if Buffy loved him. And after the manipulative bastard got Buffy to announce she loved him, he then gave her a VERY abbreviated summary of what he did, leaving out the "minor details" of how he destroyed the once innocent virginal nun and proudly turned her into the insane depraved vampire that was Dru. Angel knew that a sixteen year old, who'd never seen the true evil people were capable of inflicting on each other, couldn't possibly come close to imagining what all he did to Dru and, since she loved him (as he just had her reaffirm), Buffy didn't even want to think too much about Angel's monstrous past.
Jul 14 2009 10:08 pm #12Scarlet Ibis
Yes, there are some who are not the slightest bit attracted to individuals past a certain age, but it's no secret that there are pedophiles out there who are seemingly completely normal and they aren't found out until they start sexually abusing their children.
Yeah, the key word in all of that is that they go after children. When Buffy and Angel were together, she was a teenager, just turned seventeen, and not a child. But hey, when Angel did finally decide to leave so she could have her own life, a lot of folks found fault with that too. Looks to me that Angel simply. Cannot. Win.
And while Angelus may have been a sexual predator, Angel wasn't. I get that a lot of people vehemently dislike or even hate Angel, but srsly...He was a vampire who had a very unsavory past to a human view point (because really, if we were all vampires, we wouldn't bat an eyelash), but so? He reformed. What was he supposed to say to Buffy about his past? Give in blow by blow detail all the naughty things he did? Would that have been necessary? Did she really need that kind of visual? I don't think he was manipulating her so much as getting reassurance.
Yeah, the key word in all of that is that they go after children. When Buffy and Angel were together, she was a teenager, just turned seventeen, and not a child. But hey, when Angel did finally decide to leave so she could have her own life, a lot of folks found fault with that too. Looks to me that Angel simply. Cannot. Win.
And while Angelus may have been a sexual predator, Angel wasn't. I get that a lot of people vehemently dislike or even hate Angel, but srsly...He was a vampire who had a very unsavory past to a human view point (because really, if we were all vampires, we wouldn't bat an eyelash), but so? He reformed. What was he supposed to say to Buffy about his past? Give in blow by blow detail all the naughty things he did? Would that have been necessary? Did she really need that kind of visual? I don't think he was manipulating her so much as getting reassurance.
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 14 2009 10:22 pm #13Guest
Guest
It's not nearly as simply as that. Marcus is an example of a "classic pedophile" but adults who fall into that category don't strictly go after "hairless adolescents" Different classifications of pedophiles have different "tastes". And the idea that pedophiles ONLY (or as you wrote "strictly") go after children is a myth, plain and simple. Yes, there are some who are not the slightest bit attracted to individuals past a certain age, but it's no secret that there are pedophiles out there who are seemingly completely normal and they aren't found out until they start sexually abusing their children. Besides, even if you want to argue that Angel was not a pedophile, he was still a sexual predator who was attracted to innocent, naive girls who didn't have the life experience to even imagine what kind of monster he really was. That was my main beef with Angel: when Buffy asked him about Dru the first thing he did was ask if Buffy loved him. And after the manipulative bastard got Buffy to announce she loved him, he then gave her a VERY abbreviated summary of what he did, leaving out the "minor details" of how he destroyed the once innocent virginal nun and proudly turned her into the insane depraved vampire that was Dru. Angel knew that a sixteen year old, who'd never seen the true evil people were capable of inflicting on each other, couldn't possibly come close to imagining what all he did to Dru and, since she loved him (as he just had her reaffirm), Buffy didn't even want to think too much about Angel's monstrous past.
Sniff, Sniff. That was beautiful!!!! You took every single thought that I have ever had towards Angel and summed it up here.
Scarlet the topic pedophile isn't so simple. At age 16,17, and 18 girls will most likely be drawn to an older guy. I say most likely very loosely though. It can happen and it probably won't happen. In early ages it wasn't seen as horrendous that there was a 16 year old bride, but I HIGHLY doubt that this 16 year old made off with someone who was well into his 40's. Just my view on things.
What I think guest is trying to say is the UNDERLYING message was clear. Angel had a thing for the virginal and innocent girls. He was basically said to be turned what in his late 20's almost 30's. So for argument sake, let's say he's 29. That's just appauling to be having sex at 17 when the girl hasn't even reached her maturity level.
Yeah, I am one of those who does have some issues with way older men with younger women. Pedophiles can be someone who is in to really really young kids or even up to the age of 17-18. That's why I ALWAYS check when a pedophile has been released what their preference was and where they live etc. I always keep tabs of that, but even then, it can be anyone. That's why a lot see Angel this way.
For instance I was 20 when I first saw Buffy when it first started. Then I was still developing and learning. Plus heck of a lot of my own real life issues. I didn't see it at first when I first watched Buffy. I was like oh cute guy then. Yet I wasn't into Angel and Buffy together. I was just like cute actor, ya know. Then years go by and I watch it again - it literally made my skin crawl and brought up a lot of issues for me. So yeah I can see the debate on why the TPTB would be routing for Angel in the great scheme of things of being the good guys - cuz hey not so much!!!! I look at history and what I see now. Did Angel try? I'm sure he did try, but even after centuries he couldn't change who he was. He tried. On Angel I still saw the same thing. Yeah I'm totally not an Angel lover. Nothing against David - but Angel blech! Just my opinion. NO not because I totally worship Spike either...at least he was honest. Brutal, dangerous, and whatever else, he was still honest and always cut to the heart of every truth. Even if it hurt. Don't have too many people daring enough to do that. Gotta admire that for someone so apparently soulless.
~ Lizzie M
Jul 14 2009 10:33 pm #14Scarlet Ibis
But Angel isn't some forty year old man--he's a vampire. The rules are different. He was turned at age 27, I think. But if he'd been turned at age 15, and he looked like a fifteen year old, but was still 200 plus years old, would that make a difference to you?
It wouldn't make a difference to me, because again, he's a vampire. If we're basing it on age, then frankly, both Angel and Spike are too old for Buffy. Spike fell in love with Buffy when she was nineteen going on twenty, and she was still developing and learning. Well, she was still learning by the time the series ended, she of Teflon epiphanies, but still.
My bottom line is basically that it's different rules for vampires--souled, unsouled, whatever. I'm not going to hold Angel or Spike to a human standard, because that's ludicrous, IMHO.
That's all I can really say about that.
It wouldn't make a difference to me, because again, he's a vampire. If we're basing it on age, then frankly, both Angel and Spike are too old for Buffy. Spike fell in love with Buffy when she was nineteen going on twenty, and she was still developing and learning. Well, she was still learning by the time the series ended, she of Teflon epiphanies, but still.
My bottom line is basically that it's different rules for vampires--souled, unsouled, whatever. I'm not going to hold Angel or Spike to a human standard, because that's ludicrous, IMHO.
That's all I can really say about that.
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 14 2009 10:47 pm #15Guest
Guest
Yeah, the key word in all of that is that they go after children. When Buffy and Angel were together, she was a teenager, just turned seventeen, and not a child.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=46415
http://www.sheriffs.org/programs/DefinitionofaPedophile.asp
I found this very interesting
http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html
It is generally characterized as a child, yes, but in some cases is seen as a child under the age of 18. When my daughter reaches this age, yes, she is considered a teenager, but she is still my child. When I fill out forms for her I do not say she is a teenage. I say child. When she is over 18 she will still be my daughter or child, yet she is a young adult.
Some criteria for being an adult is different but for some even 18 is still too young to be considered an adult. Times are different than they were say 100's of years ago.
Uh, the whole Angelus isn't Angel thing seriously pisses me off! Because then we would have to subject Spike into the very same category and yet he is still the same with soul...Still not seeing that.
Yes people are going to knock Angel because they just don't like him period. End of sentence and call it a day!
You might like him and see him in a completely different view whereas let's say that child who grew up from their pedophile 'acting' on them watched this and it totally freaked them the hell out. The underlying message is what keys people in. Where you might not see it, others who do care for this topic will.
If my daughter was involved in something like this I would have shot the bastard or staked him (if on Buffy)
Doesn't matter if it is vampire versus real world. Ultimately, you have to look at where it is coming from and sit up and notice. Joss's view was a Romeo Juliet vibe and it just didn't do it like I will still say Seeing Red was not Attempted Rape. Views will be different in a lot what we saw.
Argument sake though - Put myself and my daughter in the BTVS world and she is Buffy. I will sure as hell be dusting that vampire soul or not for deflouring my girl becuase he wasn't adult enough to make a decision and say you aren't ready for this. I don't give a crap what others say...And I am probably putting my envious feelings out here. I would have loved to have been one of those who waited til marriage types - but I wasn't and never would be - because of a pedophile. So no way nuh-uh. So yeah I'm dusting the bastard for taking my daughter's innocence no matter how much my daughter wanted to grow. Oh yeah you can bet this is one thing I will teach my daughter to be incredibly smart about.
Ok my parent mind just ranted ;) I'm not trying to piss off anyone. I see both sides but sometimes one is seen more than the other.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=46415
http://www.sheriffs.org/programs/DefinitionofaPedophile.asp
I found this very interesting
http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html
It is generally characterized as a child, yes, but in some cases is seen as a child under the age of 18. When my daughter reaches this age, yes, she is considered a teenager, but she is still my child. When I fill out forms for her I do not say she is a teenage. I say child. When she is over 18 she will still be my daughter or child, yet she is a young adult.
Some criteria for being an adult is different but for some even 18 is still too young to be considered an adult. Times are different than they were say 100's of years ago.
Uh, the whole Angelus isn't Angel thing seriously pisses me off! Because then we would have to subject Spike into the very same category and yet he is still the same with soul...Still not seeing that.
Yes people are going to knock Angel because they just don't like him period. End of sentence and call it a day!
You might like him and see him in a completely different view whereas let's say that child who grew up from their pedophile 'acting' on them watched this and it totally freaked them the hell out. The underlying message is what keys people in. Where you might not see it, others who do care for this topic will.
If my daughter was involved in something like this I would have shot the bastard or staked him (if on Buffy)
Doesn't matter if it is vampire versus real world. Ultimately, you have to look at where it is coming from and sit up and notice. Joss's view was a Romeo Juliet vibe and it just didn't do it like I will still say Seeing Red was not Attempted Rape. Views will be different in a lot what we saw.
Argument sake though - Put myself and my daughter in the BTVS world and she is Buffy. I will sure as hell be dusting that vampire soul or not for deflouring my girl becuase he wasn't adult enough to make a decision and say you aren't ready for this. I don't give a crap what others say...And I am probably putting my envious feelings out here. I would have loved to have been one of those who waited til marriage types - but I wasn't and never would be - because of a pedophile. So no way nuh-uh. So yeah I'm dusting the bastard for taking my daughter's innocence no matter how much my daughter wanted to grow. Oh yeah you can bet this is one thing I will teach my daughter to be incredibly smart about.
Ok my parent mind just ranted ;) I'm not trying to piss off anyone. I see both sides but sometimes one is seen more than the other.
Jul 14 2009 10:47 pm #16Guest
Guest
Yeah, the key word in all of that is that they go after children. When Buffy and Angel were together, she was a teenager, just turned seventeen, and not a child.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=46415
http://www.sheriffs.org/programs/DefinitionofaPedophile.asp
I found this very interesting
http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html
It is generally characterized as a child, yes, but in some cases is seen as a child under the age of 18. When my daughter reaches this age, yes, she is considered a teenager, but she is still my child. When I fill out forms for her I do not say she is a teenage. I say child. When she is over 18 she will still be my daughter or child, yet she is a young adult.
Some criteria for being an adult is different but for some even 18 is still too young to be considered an adult. Times are different than they were say 100's of years ago.
Uh, the whole Angelus isn't Angel thing seriously pisses me off! Because then we would have to subject Spike into the very same category and yet he is still the same with soul...Still not seeing that.
Yes people are going to knock Angel because they just don't like him period. End of sentence and call it a day!
You might like him and see him in a completely different view whereas let's say that child who grew up from their pedophile 'acting' on them watched this and it totally freaked them the hell out. The underlying message is what keys people in. Where you might not see it, others who do care for this topic will.
If my daughter was involved in something like this I would have shot the bastard or staked him (if on Buffy)
Doesn't matter if it is vampire versus real world. Ultimately, you have to look at where it is coming from and sit up and notice. Joss's view was a Romeo Juliet vibe and it just didn't do it like I will still say Seeing Red was not Attempted Rape. Views will be different in a lot what we saw.
Argument sake though - Put myself and my daughter in the BTVS world and she is Buffy. I will sure as hell be dusting that vampire soul or not for deflouring my girl becuase he wasn't adult enough to make a decision and say you aren't ready for this. I don't give a crap what others say...And I am probably putting my envious feelings out here. I would have loved to have been one of those who waited til marriage types - but I wasn't and never would be - because of a pedophile. So no way nuh-uh. So yeah I'm dusting the bastard for taking my daughter's innocence no matter how much my daughter wanted to grow. Oh yeah you can bet this is one thing I will teach my daughter to be incredibly smart about.
Ok my parent mind just ranted ;) I'm not trying to piss off anyone. I see both sides but sometimes one is seen more than the other.
Lizzie M
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=46415
http://www.sheriffs.org/programs/DefinitionofaPedophile.asp
I found this very interesting
http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html
It is generally characterized as a child, yes, but in some cases is seen as a child under the age of 18. When my daughter reaches this age, yes, she is considered a teenager, but she is still my child. When I fill out forms for her I do not say she is a teenage. I say child. When she is over 18 she will still be my daughter or child, yet she is a young adult.
Some criteria for being an adult is different but for some even 18 is still too young to be considered an adult. Times are different than they were say 100's of years ago.
Uh, the whole Angelus isn't Angel thing seriously pisses me off! Because then we would have to subject Spike into the very same category and yet he is still the same with soul...Still not seeing that.
Yes people are going to knock Angel because they just don't like him period. End of sentence and call it a day!
You might like him and see him in a completely different view whereas let's say that child who grew up from their pedophile 'acting' on them watched this and it totally freaked them the hell out. The underlying message is what keys people in. Where you might not see it, others who do care for this topic will.
If my daughter was involved in something like this I would have shot the bastard or staked him (if on Buffy)
Doesn't matter if it is vampire versus real world. Ultimately, you have to look at where it is coming from and sit up and notice. Joss's view was a Romeo Juliet vibe and it just didn't do it like I will still say Seeing Red was not Attempted Rape. Views will be different in a lot what we saw.
Argument sake though - Put myself and my daughter in the BTVS world and she is Buffy. I will sure as hell be dusting that vampire soul or not for deflouring my girl becuase he wasn't adult enough to make a decision and say you aren't ready for this. I don't give a crap what others say...And I am probably putting my envious feelings out here. I would have loved to have been one of those who waited til marriage types - but I wasn't and never would be - because of a pedophile. So no way nuh-uh. So yeah I'm dusting the bastard for taking my daughter's innocence no matter how much my daughter wanted to grow. Oh yeah you can bet this is one thing I will teach my daughter to be incredibly smart about.
Ok my parent mind just ranted ;) I'm not trying to piss off anyone. I see both sides but sometimes one is seen more than the other.
Lizzie M
Jul 14 2009 10:57 pm #17Guest
Guest
Totally don't know why that posted twice!!!
But I see your point, but from what I experience and see through my own eye balls (lol) - and raising a daughter on my own knowing these types of fears - I see Angel this way. Do I see the possibility for a redeemed Angel? Absolutely! However, I think Angel did better on his own and away from Buffy.
My idea I like to think he was shown Buffy not so he could fall in love with her but find his way to his own path. I think they took the wrong turn when putting these two together.
I think a lot of fans would have a different view on Angel had it been shown differently. The way Whistler comes in presents Buffy - is like the ultimate pedophile dream. Or wait is that a school girl with pig tails?
Just a thought
Lizzie M.
But I see your point, but from what I experience and see through my own eye balls (lol) - and raising a daughter on my own knowing these types of fears - I see Angel this way. Do I see the possibility for a redeemed Angel? Absolutely! However, I think Angel did better on his own and away from Buffy.
My idea I like to think he was shown Buffy not so he could fall in love with her but find his way to his own path. I think they took the wrong turn when putting these two together.
I think a lot of fans would have a different view on Angel had it been shown differently. The way Whistler comes in presents Buffy - is like the ultimate pedophile dream. Or wait is that a school girl with pig tails?
Just a thought
Lizzie M.
Jul 14 2009 11:06 pm #18Guest
Guest
The way Whistler comes in presents Buffy - is like the ultimate pedophile dream.
I second that, especially when they have the filthy homeless looking man fresh out of the gutter watch her from a car with blacked out windows across the street and, by Angel's admission, fall in love with the pedophile's wet dream that was presented.
L.G.
I second that, especially when they have the filthy homeless looking man fresh out of the gutter watch her from a car with blacked out windows across the street and, by Angel's admission, fall in love with the pedophile's wet dream that was presented.
L.G.
Jul 15 2009 03:59 am #19Guest
Guest
Yeah the Powers actions sounds like they were strong believers in the whole "the ends justify ANY means" philosophy that turns well meaning heroes into villains.
Just once I'd like to see a discussion on this forum that doesn't involve character bashing. Ah well, today is not that day.
To address the original question, no, I never thought of the Powers That Be as the ultimate good guys or the Buffyverse version of God, though it has nothing to do with Angel's attraction to Buffy.
The PTB are neither wholly good nor wholly evil - only self-interested. They're just one of many competing forces in the universe, and we're just lucky that their own best interests tend to align with humanity's best interest most of the time. When you compare them with the Senior Partners or other less savory forces, then yeah, they seem pretty much like the good guys, but they're not benevolent or all-knowing or selfless or loving. They have poured a lot of time and effort into recruiting Angel because of the prophecy (no one knows what side the pivotal vampire with a soul will be on, so they've tried their best to ensure it's theirs), but they've never once cared whether they made him suffer, nor have they attempted to intervene on his behalf, except when it benefited themselves. There's a reason Fred calls them "the Powers That Screw You."
To address the original question, no, I never thought of the Powers That Be as the ultimate good guys or the Buffyverse version of God, though it has nothing to do with Angel's attraction to Buffy.
The PTB are neither wholly good nor wholly evil - only self-interested. They're just one of many competing forces in the universe, and we're just lucky that their own best interests tend to align with humanity's best interest most of the time. When you compare them with the Senior Partners or other less savory forces, then yeah, they seem pretty much like the good guys, but they're not benevolent or all-knowing or selfless or loving. They have poured a lot of time and effort into recruiting Angel because of the prophecy (no one knows what side the pivotal vampire with a soul will be on, so they've tried their best to ensure it's theirs), but they've never once cared whether they made him suffer, nor have they attempted to intervene on his behalf, except when it benefited themselves. There's a reason Fred calls them "the Powers That Screw You."
Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Jul 15 2009 05:36 am #21Guest
Guest
There's a reason Fred calls them "the Powers That Screw You."
Didn't Cordelia said that?
Didn't Cordelia said that?
Jul 15 2009 11:22 am #22Guest
Guest
Any "Babylon 5" fans? PTBs and Wolfram and Hart = Vorlons and Shadows. Totally. Order and free will vs. Chaos, conflict, and competition.
CM
CM
Jul 15 2009 11:29 am #23Guest
Guest
Oh, and David never played Angel as a predator until he was Angelus, so I never saw Angel that way. If Buffy hadn't pursued him, stringing him along with a bunch of hot and cold before they finally got together, Angel would have stayed aloof.
As far as the cryptic, Whistler mentioned getting him in shape and training him to help the Slayer. And how do the PTBs deliver messages? CRYPTIC. Angel had nearly forgotten how to be human at that time and pretty much lost his personality, any personality. He clung to the hope Whistler provided and he clung to the lessons that got him to Sunnydale. And then looked to Buffy to learn about humanity again. His fault was in taking his cues from her, thinking she knew more than he did about relating, when she was still a girl and a pretty clueless one at that. Predator? No.
CM
As far as the cryptic, Whistler mentioned getting him in shape and training him to help the Slayer. And how do the PTBs deliver messages? CRYPTIC. Angel had nearly forgotten how to be human at that time and pretty much lost his personality, any personality. He clung to the hope Whistler provided and he clung to the lessons that got him to Sunnydale. And then looked to Buffy to learn about humanity again. His fault was in taking his cues from her, thinking she knew more than he did about relating, when she was still a girl and a pretty clueless one at that. Predator? No.
CM
Jul 15 2009 03:37 pm #24Guest
Guest
Argument sake though - Put myself and my daughter in the BTVS world and she is Buffy. I will sure as hell be dusting that vampire soul or not for deflouring my girl becuase he wasn't adult enough to make a decision and say you aren't ready for this.
I agree with all that you said totally but.... Angel wasn't adult enough. He might as well have been 17 in my eyes as well... He was turned what, in his mid to late 20's?
Guys mature a little later than girls so... When Angel became an evil Vampire, he didn't get a chance to spend the rest of his years learning and growing and becoming more mature. He was just evil. Then he got his soul back and spent a 100 years moping and pouting.
So when we see Angel in the first season of Buffy, he's basically right back where he left off as a human only with lotsa guilt.
He, too needed time to grow just as Buffy did. He was no smarter than her and face it--as Giles put it once Angel has the emotional maturity of a blueberry scone.
The truth is, none of us ever stop growing emotionally or sexually. Each of us learn everyday. There is no point in life where suddenly we're all knowing beings.
Both Angel and Buffy made a choice and they loved each other very much. How can you mature if you don't make mistakes? They were both confused and imperfect but they loved each other. Neither one is at fault to me.
They were both stupid but who isn't at 17? And as I said before... Angel has the emotional intelligence of a 16 year old boy--no matter about his physical appearance or age.
I agree with all that you said totally but.... Angel wasn't adult enough. He might as well have been 17 in my eyes as well... He was turned what, in his mid to late 20's?
Guys mature a little later than girls so... When Angel became an evil Vampire, he didn't get a chance to spend the rest of his years learning and growing and becoming more mature. He was just evil. Then he got his soul back and spent a 100 years moping and pouting.
So when we see Angel in the first season of Buffy, he's basically right back where he left off as a human only with lotsa guilt.
He, too needed time to grow just as Buffy did. He was no smarter than her and face it--as Giles put it once Angel has the emotional maturity of a blueberry scone.
The truth is, none of us ever stop growing emotionally or sexually. Each of us learn everyday. There is no point in life where suddenly we're all knowing beings.
Both Angel and Buffy made a choice and they loved each other very much. How can you mature if you don't make mistakes? They were both confused and imperfect but they loved each other. Neither one is at fault to me.
They were both stupid but who isn't at 17? And as I said before... Angel has the emotional intelligence of a 16 year old boy--no matter about his physical appearance or age.
Jul 15 2009 03:37 pm #25Guest
Guest
Argument sake though - Put myself and my daughter in the BTVS world and she is Buffy. I will sure as hell be dusting that vampire soul or not for deflouring my girl becuase he wasn't adult enough to make a decision and say you aren't ready for this.
I agree with all that you said totally but.... Angel wasn't adult enough. He might as well have been 17 in my eyes as well... He was turned what, in his mid to late 20's?
Guys mature a little later than girls so... When Angel became an evil Vampire, he didn't get a chance to spend the rest of his years learning and growing and becoming more mature. He was just evil. Then he got his soul back and spent a 100 years moping and pouting.
So when we see Angel in the first season of Buffy, he's basically right back where he left off as a human only with lotsa guilt.
He, too needed time to grow just as Buffy did. He was no smarter than her and face it--as Giles put it once Angel has the emotional maturity of a blueberry scone.
The truth is, none of us ever stop growing emotionally or sexually. Each of us learn everyday. There is no point in life where suddenly we're all knowing beings.
Both Angel and Buffy made a choice and they loved each other very much. How can you mature if you don't make mistakes? They were both confused and imperfect but they loved each other. Neither one is at fault to me.
They were both stupid but who isn't at 17? And as I said before... Angel has the emotional intelligence of a 16 year old boy--no matter about his physical appearance or age.
Mesh~
I agree with all that you said totally but.... Angel wasn't adult enough. He might as well have been 17 in my eyes as well... He was turned what, in his mid to late 20's?
Guys mature a little later than girls so... When Angel became an evil Vampire, he didn't get a chance to spend the rest of his years learning and growing and becoming more mature. He was just evil. Then he got his soul back and spent a 100 years moping and pouting.
So when we see Angel in the first season of Buffy, he's basically right back where he left off as a human only with lotsa guilt.
He, too needed time to grow just as Buffy did. He was no smarter than her and face it--as Giles put it once Angel has the emotional maturity of a blueberry scone.
The truth is, none of us ever stop growing emotionally or sexually. Each of us learn everyday. There is no point in life where suddenly we're all knowing beings.
Both Angel and Buffy made a choice and they loved each other very much. How can you mature if you don't make mistakes? They were both confused and imperfect but they loved each other. Neither one is at fault to me.
They were both stupid but who isn't at 17? And as I said before... Angel has the emotional intelligence of a 16 year old boy--no matter about his physical appearance or age.
Mesh~
I dont find this discussion to be "Angel bashing" but it does raise some valid points. Simply disliking the presentation and introduction of Angels role in buffys life and debating it couldnt possibly be considered bashing. Many people who dislike how Angel was introduced and how his character developed do so with valid concerns. Again it cant be seen as bashing. He had endearing qualities and was a 16yolds wet dream, many choose to see him in a more cynical "real life scenario" way, which just turns my thoughts towards "healthy adult line of thought".
Some people just refuse to see him as i think he was meant to be percieved. (percived atleast until a possible later point in the universe of buffy and angel)
And i really have to read Anticipation now, this is the best sort of promotion.
Some people just refuse to see him as i think he was meant to be percieved. (percived atleast until a possible later point in the universe of buffy and angel)
And i really have to read Anticipation now, this is the best sort of promotion.
Jul 15 2009 03:48 pm #27Scarlet Ibis
Okay, but why are we putting a vampire in RL terms? Beyond a few episodes ( "Beauty and the Beasts," "Earshot," "The Body" ) I don't understand making RL comparisons in regards to this show, which lived in both the real, but mostly fantasy world. And I simply cannot compare fantasy creatures like vampires to real life men because it makes not a lick of sense to me. Mostly because there were "real life" men on the show itself. So you can't base them both on the same scale--it isn't fair and again, makes no sense.
I agree with Messiah--Angel was just as emotionally underdeveloped as Buffy was, and with CM that he (unfortunately) took his cues from Buffy. Let's cut him some slack. He was neither a pervert or a predator. He was lost.
I agree with Messiah--Angel was just as emotionally underdeveloped as Buffy was, and with CM that he (unfortunately) took his cues from Buffy. Let's cut him some slack. He was neither a pervert or a predator. He was lost.
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 15 2009 04:38 pm #28Guest
Guest
He was lost???????? No. He stuck himself in the sewer's eating rats because he felt sorry for himself because oh wait didn't Darla tell him to get lost because he had the soul? Then there is the whole issue of the 40's and then the history behind the Hyperion. LOST my ass!!!!!
Why is it that Buffy is basically being given the role of the one to have persued Angel. She was very hot and cold because he was rather cryptic towards her and he is a vampire.
Why are people basing this on real life when this is actually supernatural? Well, because the writers are basing a LOT of it on their own experiences. First off she is in high school and she is experiencing real emotions that a human does experience. How can anyone not find something that is related to our own human experiences?
To me a vampire symbolizes more than just being able to suck someone's blood or being dead. It's intoxicating, interesting, otherwordly, and by far something I am sure everyone has fantasized about at some point or other. I don't think I have ever perceived a Vamp as evil like most of Hollywood has.
I certainly wasn't bashing Angel. I just don't like him. I saw this show when I was 20. I just didn't like the character. I thought it was just a lame way of throwing in a 'love' interest for Buffy. Now nearing 33 I still don't like his character. How he is written in some fics that shed him in a different light - is a different story.
I feel the same way towards the character of Riley. The same can be said about Glory/Ben and even Warren. I even found Adam a bit of a yawn. But that is just my opinion. They can have some good lines but the overall character as a whole I just ended up not liking them. See this difference is I did like Glory but the Ben thing was too much like a Jekyl and Hyde thing to me. Lame because they had been there already. So my point is it's not so much as bashing its more of not liking how they were presented.
I have re-watched that episode with Angel and I STILL see Whistler presenting him with the ideal wet dream for a grown man. Sorry he isn't the mind of a 17 year old. He was turned roughly at 29 from the accounts I have looked at. That's an adult. He had been around for 300 some odd years? Angelus is still a part of Angel. I still can't believe the mindset people have when it comes to Angel. It's almost like people believe he literally two different beings. One had a conscience while the other didn't. Same being to me. Just had the added trait of not caring. Thrust a curse on him and he's given a soul albeit CURSED because of killing a gypsy girl. First off that was the ultimate vengeance for them...kinda wrong.
You could say TPTB had a hand in this, but look at the facts here it took him awhile to finally end up in the sewer feeling sorry for himself to finally look to redemption because Whistler showed him the Slayer who happens to be a child. This is what people are noticing. To me this makes TPTB placing pawns and watching the chaos. Cordelia does have the right. The Powers that like to screw with you.
I have said this before but this show will continuously feed debates for years to come, hmm, maybe decades to come. So many underlying factors. ;)
lizzie m
Why is it that Buffy is basically being given the role of the one to have persued Angel. She was very hot and cold because he was rather cryptic towards her and he is a vampire.
Why are people basing this on real life when this is actually supernatural? Well, because the writers are basing a LOT of it on their own experiences. First off she is in high school and she is experiencing real emotions that a human does experience. How can anyone not find something that is related to our own human experiences?
To me a vampire symbolizes more than just being able to suck someone's blood or being dead. It's intoxicating, interesting, otherwordly, and by far something I am sure everyone has fantasized about at some point or other. I don't think I have ever perceived a Vamp as evil like most of Hollywood has.
I certainly wasn't bashing Angel. I just don't like him. I saw this show when I was 20. I just didn't like the character. I thought it was just a lame way of throwing in a 'love' interest for Buffy. Now nearing 33 I still don't like his character. How he is written in some fics that shed him in a different light - is a different story.
I feel the same way towards the character of Riley. The same can be said about Glory/Ben and even Warren. I even found Adam a bit of a yawn. But that is just my opinion. They can have some good lines but the overall character as a whole I just ended up not liking them. See this difference is I did like Glory but the Ben thing was too much like a Jekyl and Hyde thing to me. Lame because they had been there already. So my point is it's not so much as bashing its more of not liking how they were presented.
I have re-watched that episode with Angel and I STILL see Whistler presenting him with the ideal wet dream for a grown man. Sorry he isn't the mind of a 17 year old. He was turned roughly at 29 from the accounts I have looked at. That's an adult. He had been around for 300 some odd years? Angelus is still a part of Angel. I still can't believe the mindset people have when it comes to Angel. It's almost like people believe he literally two different beings. One had a conscience while the other didn't. Same being to me. Just had the added trait of not caring. Thrust a curse on him and he's given a soul albeit CURSED because of killing a gypsy girl. First off that was the ultimate vengeance for them...kinda wrong.
You could say TPTB had a hand in this, but look at the facts here it took him awhile to finally end up in the sewer feeling sorry for himself to finally look to redemption because Whistler showed him the Slayer who happens to be a child. This is what people are noticing. To me this makes TPTB placing pawns and watching the chaos. Cordelia does have the right. The Powers that like to screw with you.
I have said this before but this show will continuously feed debates for years to come, hmm, maybe decades to come. So many underlying factors. ;)
lizzie m
I have to say one thing, I did percieve Angel diffrently when the show came out (I was 17 then myself) and thus saw Angel much with the eyes of a young teenage girl. I too was attracted to older mysterious men at that age and i saw nothing wrong with it. Its just rewatching the show being the age I am, and in hindsight knowing the emotional immaturity of a teen that my discomfort kicks in.
I think in viewing the show and enterpreting it we have to meet somewhere inbetween story telling and real life so to speak, its after all how we relate to the show, make some "room for maneuverability" in there. I will definately acknowledge that Angel was emotionally underdeveloped which didnt completelly right itself even by the end of Angel the show, i do believe Cordy had something to do with his development having been where it was by the end.. as in the progress he did make. I love the universe as a whole and that includes Angels part in it most definately.
I do believe Liam and Angelus were both sexual predators in their own right, so with spikes soul vs. unsouled thing in mind, what would that make Angel? in my own mind ive not landed on a solid base of belief yet so i would love to hear others thoughts on the matter.
I think in viewing the show and enterpreting it we have to meet somewhere inbetween story telling and real life so to speak, its after all how we relate to the show, make some "room for maneuverability" in there. I will definately acknowledge that Angel was emotionally underdeveloped which didnt completelly right itself even by the end of Angel the show, i do believe Cordy had something to do with his development having been where it was by the end.. as in the progress he did make. I love the universe as a whole and that includes Angels part in it most definately.
I do believe Liam and Angelus were both sexual predators in their own right, so with spikes soul vs. unsouled thing in mind, what would that make Angel? in my own mind ive not landed on a solid base of belief yet so i would love to hear others thoughts on the matter.
Jul 15 2009 05:17 pm #30Scarlet Ibis
I still can't believe the mindset people have when it comes to Angel. It's almost like people believe he literally two different beings.
That's because for the most part, mentally, he was. We can't compare what happened to him to Spike because they are not the same. Yes, Angel has a cursed soul, and that makes a big difference.
And as for basing it on real life, sorry, but there's no real life equivalent to slayers, vampires, demons, or hell gods. There is no teenaged girl out there who has the burden of humanity on her shoulders, and the only guy she can really relate to is a vampire with a cursed so. I see the show as it was. I get that some of the stuff was metaphor, like in "Beauty and the Beasts" for abusive relationships, but for the most part? Take it as it is. I find it extremely hard to believe that the writers went in with the intent of portraying Angel as some real world equivalent of a pedophile or sexual predator, by pairing him up with the lead character, and then giving him his own show three years later. That makes no kind of sense whatsoever no matter how you spin it. What kind of message was that sending, exactly?
Except that wasn't the message. At all. Angel was not a metaphor for the perverted old man wanting to steal young daughters away. He just wasn't.
That's because for the most part, mentally, he was. We can't compare what happened to him to Spike because they are not the same. Yes, Angel has a cursed soul, and that makes a big difference.
And as for basing it on real life, sorry, but there's no real life equivalent to slayers, vampires, demons, or hell gods. There is no teenaged girl out there who has the burden of humanity on her shoulders, and the only guy she can really relate to is a vampire with a cursed so. I see the show as it was. I get that some of the stuff was metaphor, like in "Beauty and the Beasts" for abusive relationships, but for the most part? Take it as it is. I find it extremely hard to believe that the writers went in with the intent of portraying Angel as some real world equivalent of a pedophile or sexual predator, by pairing him up with the lead character, and then giving him his own show three years later. That makes no kind of sense whatsoever no matter how you spin it. What kind of message was that sending, exactly?
Except that wasn't the message. At all. Angel was not a metaphor for the perverted old man wanting to steal young daughters away. He just wasn't.
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 15 2009 05:19 pm #31Guest
Guest
Except that wasn't the message. At all. Angel was not a metaphor for the perverted old man wanting to steal young daughters away. He just wasn't.
What I don't get is that there are so many that rush to defend Angel for going after a 15 year old Buffy and yet if Spike had started sniffing around a 15 year old Dawn in Season 6, they'd be just as quick to label him a pedophile.
What I don't get is that there are so many that rush to defend Angel for going after a 15 year old Buffy and yet if Spike had started sniffing around a 15 year old Dawn in Season 6, they'd be just as quick to label him a pedophile.
Jul 15 2009 05:21 pm #32Scarlet Ibis
Also, I was 12/13 when the show first came out, and while I didn't mind the Angel/Buffy relationship then, now, at age 23, I'm pretty "meh" about it. It was puppy love. Whatever. It happens. I'm not squicked or appalled or whatever by their relationship.
And I would never compare Spike to Angel and vice versa, souled or unsouled or whatever, because the circumstances under which they got their souls are completely and utterly different. They are not the same. And Liam wasn't a sexual predator--he was a womanizer. A player. Not the same as Angelus, not even close. In fact, Liam wasn't interested in purity. The pure, virginal girls weren't giving it up, or out drinking late at night at bars.
ETA: I would not call Spike a pedophile if he was with Dawn in an AU s6. I haven't heard any who would call him that, actually. I don't mind canon Bangel, and I don't mind fanon Spawn.
And I would never compare Spike to Angel and vice versa, souled or unsouled or whatever, because the circumstances under which they got their souls are completely and utterly different. They are not the same. And Liam wasn't a sexual predator--he was a womanizer. A player. Not the same as Angelus, not even close. In fact, Liam wasn't interested in purity. The pure, virginal girls weren't giving it up, or out drinking late at night at bars.
ETA: I would not call Spike a pedophile if he was with Dawn in an AU s6. I haven't heard any who would call him that, actually. I don't mind canon Bangel, and I don't mind fanon Spawn.
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
On the sexual predator comment i didnt mean that they were "of the same sort" at all, i simply mean they both went after women in their own predatory way. (liam smelled "gullible/willing female" and pounced, and Angelus.. well thats something else)
I do think they meant to show Liam in such a way not to show off his "Jack the lad" personality as a human but as a "Cad". (jack the lad; meaning typical popular with the females male mentality at a certain age)
I didnt mean for my question to be misunderstood. I dont mean to brush Angel and Spike over the same comb so to speak. I meant with how the show makes us face up to what a soul really means. Wouldnt these other two sides to Angels character color him?
edit/// i am stuck for as how to explain what i wanted to say, so i edited a bit.. and im still not sure i can make what i want to say "come across" as i wish it to :/ , im beginning to smell a fail on my part in expressing myself lol
Jul 15 2009 05:41 pm #34Scarlet Ibis
Ah, sorry for the misinterpretation.
I meant with how the show makes us face up to what does a soul really means.
If the BtVS and Ats showed us anything, is that a soul varies. A soul does not determine someone or a demon to be good or evil without. The show showed that one cannot make a blanket statement in regards to souls or lack thereof because it varies from situation. However, it did show that if one has a soul, they should be more inclined to good, and without, not so much (from a human viewpoint), but that that is not always the case. Spike, Harmony, Maggie Walsh, Faith, Mayor Wilkens, Kralik (who was an evil, perverse human being before his turning, as well as Marcus, I think), Pete the abusive boyfriend, Veruca, the lawyers at W&H, and many more I'm not going to list, all prove the point that it goes to the individual how good they are or are not.
ETA: Yes, I will also include Buffy and Willow and Giles and Anya on that ambiguous list up there. Not Xander though. He didn't kill or attempt to kill any humans.
I meant with how the show makes us face up to what does a soul really means.
If the BtVS and Ats showed us anything, is that a soul varies. A soul does not determine someone or a demon to be good or evil without. The show showed that one cannot make a blanket statement in regards to souls or lack thereof because it varies from situation. However, it did show that if one has a soul, they should be more inclined to good, and without, not so much (from a human viewpoint), but that that is not always the case. Spike, Harmony, Maggie Walsh, Faith, Mayor Wilkens, Kralik (who was an evil, perverse human being before his turning, as well as Marcus, I think), Pete the abusive boyfriend, Veruca, the lawyers at W&H, and many more I'm not going to list, all prove the point that it goes to the individual how good they are or are not.
ETA: Yes, I will also include Buffy and Willow and Giles and Anya on that ambiguous list up there. Not Xander though. He didn't kill or attempt to kill any humans.
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 15 2009 06:25 pm #35Guest
Guest
If the BtVS and Ats showed us anything, is that a soul varies. A soul does not determine someone or a demon to be good or evil without. The show showed that one cannot make a blanket statement in regards to souls or lack thereof because it varies from situation. However, it did show that if one has a soul, they should be more inclined to good, and without, not so much (from a human viewpoint), but that that is not always the case. Spike, Harmony, Maggie Walsh, Faith, Mayor Wilkens, Kralik (who was an evil, perverse human being before his turning, as well as Marcus, I think), Pete the abusive boyfriend, Veruca, the lawyers at W&H, and many more I'm not going to list, all prove the point that it goes to the individual how good they are or are not.
There in lies the problem because looking at what you wrote in my viewpoint you are basing this on your human viewpoint. Were there not issues on the show that pertain to real life? Absolutely! If I wasn't clear with that. I apologize and yes I know you love all the characters and different pairings ;) however, I think I tend to have a more emotional and therapeutic view of how this show presented itself and their characters. Because that list you could also include Buffy, Xander, Willow, and Giles. Heck you could include all of them with their souls. My point was the underlying messages. What I didn't see at the age of 20 looking through star glassed eyes - I saw in my late 20's.
Even though it is a land of complete 'make believe' the writers did use very humanistic issues. This is where the line definitely blurs on how to view say Bangel versus Spawn. The difference there is Dawn had a crush on Spike that didn't develop because Spike was in love with Buffy. Buffy and Angel were paired by the writers.
This went way off topic though lol. Ultimately, the TPTB caused some chaos that kept us watching...But I like to think these so called powers were the writers giving us something to obsess over and lead us to where we are now...debating and writing using our own imaginations. So were they the good guys - yes and no. They gave us something to watch but they caused friction, plots, and themes that we could relate to.
I wasn't suggesting you were wrong and I agree with some of your viewpoints but not all because of what I see is something entirely different to what you would see. Just how Joss see's things one way another writer like Williamson sees entirely different. Whata world we all seem to like to but heads - it could be funny and sometimes it gets really heated...God look at how the new show Vampire Diaries is already getting ripped apart because of the cast.
There will always be some themes that will have different views because, yeah, we are going to use our own personal beliefs and experiences to come to that conclusion of what we saw. I just can't think strictly supernatural because they used some very real issues that matter to me and lots of other people. But that is another topic entirely.
The short answer The Powers that Be really loved to screw with you.
There in lies the problem because looking at what you wrote in my viewpoint you are basing this on your human viewpoint. Were there not issues on the show that pertain to real life? Absolutely! If I wasn't clear with that. I apologize and yes I know you love all the characters and different pairings ;) however, I think I tend to have a more emotional and therapeutic view of how this show presented itself and their characters. Because that list you could also include Buffy, Xander, Willow, and Giles. Heck you could include all of them with their souls. My point was the underlying messages. What I didn't see at the age of 20 looking through star glassed eyes - I saw in my late 20's.
Even though it is a land of complete 'make believe' the writers did use very humanistic issues. This is where the line definitely blurs on how to view say Bangel versus Spawn. The difference there is Dawn had a crush on Spike that didn't develop because Spike was in love with Buffy. Buffy and Angel were paired by the writers.
This went way off topic though lol. Ultimately, the TPTB caused some chaos that kept us watching...But I like to think these so called powers were the writers giving us something to obsess over and lead us to where we are now...debating and writing using our own imaginations. So were they the good guys - yes and no. They gave us something to watch but they caused friction, plots, and themes that we could relate to.
I wasn't suggesting you were wrong and I agree with some of your viewpoints but not all because of what I see is something entirely different to what you would see. Just how Joss see's things one way another writer like Williamson sees entirely different. Whata world we all seem to like to but heads - it could be funny and sometimes it gets really heated...God look at how the new show Vampire Diaries is already getting ripped apart because of the cast.
There will always be some themes that will have different views because, yeah, we are going to use our own personal beliefs and experiences to come to that conclusion of what we saw. I just can't think strictly supernatural because they used some very real issues that matter to me and lots of other people. But that is another topic entirely.
The short answer The Powers that Be really loved to screw with you.
Didn't Cordelia said that?
Nope, it was Fred, in "Deep Down."
Simply disliking the presentation and introduction of Angels role in buffys life and debating it couldnt possibly be considered bashing.
No, it's not. Calling someone a pedophile when they clearly aren't, though, is what I'd consider character bashing.
Nope, it was Fred, in "Deep Down."
Simply disliking the presentation and introduction of Angels role in buffys life and debating it couldnt possibly be considered bashing.
No, it's not. Calling someone a pedophile when they clearly aren't, though, is what I'd consider character bashing.
Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Jul 16 2009 06:44 am #37Guest
Guest
Calling someone a pedophile when they clearly aren't, though, is what I'd consider character bashing.
I'd hardly say the Angel is "CLEARLY" not a pedophile. That scene where Sarah was all dolled up to be a fifteen year old is as others stated "a pedophile's wet dream" ... I found that whole scene creepy. I know that it wasn't intended to be but having Angel covertly drive up like he did while the oblivious girl sucks on a lollipop while waiting for her parents to pick her up from school, come on, be honest "clearly not" ?
I'd hardly say the Angel is "CLEARLY" not a pedophile. That scene where Sarah was all dolled up to be a fifteen year old is as others stated "a pedophile's wet dream" ... I found that whole scene creepy. I know that it wasn't intended to be but having Angel covertly drive up like he did while the oblivious girl sucks on a lollipop while waiting for her parents to pick her up from school, come on, be honest "clearly not" ?
Jul 16 2009 07:36 am #38Scarlet Ibis
I know that it wasn't intended to be but having Angel covertly drive up like he did while the oblivious girl sucks on a lollipop while waiting for her parents to pick her up from school, come on, be honest "clearly not" ?
Poor scene set up does not a pedophile make.
Would it have helped if she had taken out a stick of gum as opposed to a lollipop?
Here is the order of events: Angel sees Buffy alone on the steps of school, looking pensive.
Buffy on her first night of patrol, and she's freaked out and scared.
Buffy trying not to listen to her parents fighting--loudly.
She's alone and recently forced into an existence she doesn't want, but one in which she's trying to cope with.
Angel can relate.
From that day on the school steps onward, he sees her innocence being stripped away against her will. Her happiness and joy were slowly shriveling up and dying. He wanted to help and protect her, but didn't know how. IMO, that was the point of those flashbacks.
I don't deny that some found that first scene with the lollipop creepy. However, that was not the intent of the scene.
Poor scene set up does not a pedophile make.
Would it have helped if she had taken out a stick of gum as opposed to a lollipop?
Here is the order of events: Angel sees Buffy alone on the steps of school, looking pensive.
Buffy on her first night of patrol, and she's freaked out and scared.
Buffy trying not to listen to her parents fighting--loudly.
She's alone and recently forced into an existence she doesn't want, but one in which she's trying to cope with.
Angel can relate.
From that day on the school steps onward, he sees her innocence being stripped away against her will. Her happiness and joy were slowly shriveling up and dying. He wanted to help and protect her, but didn't know how. IMO, that was the point of those flashbacks.
I don't deny that some found that first scene with the lollipop creepy. However, that was not the intent of the scene.
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
You might like him and see him in a completely different view whereas let's say that child who grew up from their pedophile 'acting' on them watched this and it totally freaked them the hell out. The underlying message is what keys people in. Where you might not see it, others who do care for this topic will. If my daughter was involved in something like this I would have shot the bastard or staked him (if on Buffy) Doesn't matter if it is vampire versus real world. Ultimately, you have to look at where it is coming from and sit up and notice. Joss's view was a Romeo Juliet vibe and it just didn't do it like I will still say Seeing Red was not Attempted Rape. Views will be different in a lot what we saw.
The thing with trying to make a connection or reference to Romeo and Juliet and Buffy and Angel/Angelus is the Element of Experience - The first set of lovers have lived pretty much through the same experiences in their short lives - this cannot be said about Buffy and Angel and that is a vital aspect for the viewers that see Angel as totally in the wrong with regards to his emotional desires. Buffy is depicted in the series as an inexperienced and very young girl only just becoming a young woman. That her duty as The Slayer is subverted by her emotional attachment and love for this older male turned ruthless killer and psychological horror, I think emphasis her complete vulnerability. People were killed because she was devastated by where her sexual needs and love took her. Another thing is that, as previously stated Angel very often let the young teen/woman set the dynamics and actions for their relationship - he was the person with the experience of life and his life as a vampire, plus he knows himself as a human as Liam as well. Being The Slayer did not make Buffy experienced in love or life - Angel/Angelus in all his layers and years does know life.
What I see in his character and love for this young girl/woman is a complicated emotional need to somehow attempt to atone for his killings of innocent woman and victims through Buffy. In the scene when he sees Buffy crying because of her parents, it is, IMO, suggested that he feels a great sympathy for her. I don't think that viewers that were against Angel's love and emotional need for her in anyway think that Buffy did not feel a great love for him, we all remember and understand the intensity of emotions that teens and young people feel. But it is that very fact of being so young and having all these intense emotions unfiltered through experiences of life that we factor into our interpretation and reaction to Angel's involvement and handling of the circumstances. Even after Acathla, and all the hell on earth he puts her through he still does tries to be in her life. Angel, IMO, should have taken himself away from Sunnydale just as soon as he was able to function again - that is what a man of honor and facing his responsibility ought to have done.
Angel/Angelus had a deep need to, beyond physical love with his connection to this young woman warrior - to me it always felt that he connected her with Drusilla and his victims - "Nausea" is a good metaphor for Buffy and his attempt to both feel and paint a new life to help him survive his life as Angelus.
The idea of "unconditional love' makes for a great metaphor and vehicle for contemplation but it stinks mightily when we try to apply it to everyday life and social structures. Buffy found out in the most horrendous way what her love and emotional vulnerability brought into her life and the lives of other people. Another thing that is sometimes not brought into the discussions of her relationship with Angel is that even after the tragic events of Acathla she is still so emotionally attached to Angel/Angelus that she is willing to attempt a retrieval of Angel. The very first and obvious fact that she, her friends and Watcher should have dealt with before any attempt to bring back of his soul was the fact that his soul can be lost. The Slayer and her adult guides had the obvious duty and responsibility to understand the parameters of the curse - can it be anchored, and if not, how can Angel exist and still be safe in the normal human world.
It's a very complex theme - what to do about Angel/Angelus because obviously, that controlling element of his soul can be lost - what rights does Angel have as a man/vamp trying to redeem his past life vs the potential killer that he will revert to without his soul being anchored?
In my real life world - that axe that Joyce used against Spike would have been used with as much intent against Angel. Certainly there will always be unusual circumstances, people and events where lives and love between such different ages and life experiences would work - but I firmly believe that this was not the case with Buffy and Angel.
I really hope that I don't come across as "bashing" Angel/Angelus - this is not my intent - frankly I don't think that Buffy and her Love Life was ever really honestly dealt with in the series - so many complex themes - Clem had her right "issues."
The thing with trying to make a connection or reference to Romeo and Juliet and Buffy and Angel/Angelus is the Element of Experience - The first set of lovers have lived pretty much through the same experiences in their short lives - this cannot be said about Buffy and Angel and that is a vital aspect for the viewers that see Angel as totally in the wrong with regards to his emotional desires. Buffy is depicted in the series as an inexperienced and very young girl only just becoming a young woman. That her duty as The Slayer is subverted by her emotional attachment and love for this older male turned ruthless killer and psychological horror, I think emphasis her complete vulnerability. People were killed because she was devastated by where her sexual needs and love took her. Another thing is that, as previously stated Angel very often let the young teen/woman set the dynamics and actions for their relationship - he was the person with the experience of life and his life as a vampire, plus he knows himself as a human as Liam as well. Being The Slayer did not make Buffy experienced in love or life - Angel/Angelus in all his layers and years does know life.
What I see in his character and love for this young girl/woman is a complicated emotional need to somehow attempt to atone for his killings of innocent woman and victims through Buffy. In the scene when he sees Buffy crying because of her parents, it is, IMO, suggested that he feels a great sympathy for her. I don't think that viewers that were against Angel's love and emotional need for her in anyway think that Buffy did not feel a great love for him, we all remember and understand the intensity of emotions that teens and young people feel. But it is that very fact of being so young and having all these intense emotions unfiltered through experiences of life that we factor into our interpretation and reaction to Angel's involvement and handling of the circumstances. Even after Acathla, and all the hell on earth he puts her through he still does tries to be in her life. Angel, IMO, should have taken himself away from Sunnydale just as soon as he was able to function again - that is what a man of honor and facing his responsibility ought to have done.
Angel/Angelus had a deep need to, beyond physical love with his connection to this young woman warrior - to me it always felt that he connected her with Drusilla and his victims - "Nausea" is a good metaphor for Buffy and his attempt to both feel and paint a new life to help him survive his life as Angelus.
The idea of "unconditional love' makes for a great metaphor and vehicle for contemplation but it stinks mightily when we try to apply it to everyday life and social structures. Buffy found out in the most horrendous way what her love and emotional vulnerability brought into her life and the lives of other people. Another thing that is sometimes not brought into the discussions of her relationship with Angel is that even after the tragic events of Acathla she is still so emotionally attached to Angel/Angelus that she is willing to attempt a retrieval of Angel. The very first and obvious fact that she, her friends and Watcher should have dealt with before any attempt to bring back of his soul was the fact that his soul can be lost. The Slayer and her adult guides had the obvious duty and responsibility to understand the parameters of the curse - can it be anchored, and if not, how can Angel exist and still be safe in the normal human world.
It's a very complex theme - what to do about Angel/Angelus because obviously, that controlling element of his soul can be lost - what rights does Angel have as a man/vamp trying to redeem his past life vs the potential killer that he will revert to without his soul being anchored?
In my real life world - that axe that Joyce used against Spike would have been used with as much intent against Angel. Certainly there will always be unusual circumstances, people and events where lives and love between such different ages and life experiences would work - but I firmly believe that this was not the case with Buffy and Angel.
I really hope that I don't come across as "bashing" Angel/Angelus - this is not my intent - frankly I don't think that Buffy and her Love Life was ever really honestly dealt with in the series - so many complex themes - Clem had her right "issues."
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Jul 16 2009 10:58 am #40Guest
Guest
A creative work should not be considered without taking the author's intent into account. The fact that Angel wasn't written or portrayed to lust after Buffy until after they had sex shows that Joss and Co. had at least some sensitivity about how young Buffy was. He cares for her and they share mutual puppy eyes, but never has the look of "damn that's a fine piece of ass".........which all men in real life are capable of having.
away from Sunnydale just as soon as he was able to function again - He did, in a way, as he removed himself as soon as he knew he could function without Buffy. That they couldn't save the world and have love, too. I don't think it was wrong that he stuck around to help in the Fight, and with Faith. Yeah, he's an Achilles heel for Buffy, but so is everyone she cares about.
Frankly, it's not Angel's fault that the Writers wrote him very young to begin with, then filled in all they did afterward. Blame the lack of planning on Joss' part for developing Angel's background when he created the character. That's the problem with an ever-evolving TV series - there's no editor at the end of the "book" to make sure everything lines up and makes sense.
~Caro Mio
away from Sunnydale just as soon as he was able to function again - He did, in a way, as he removed himself as soon as he knew he could function without Buffy. That they couldn't save the world and have love, too. I don't think it was wrong that he stuck around to help in the Fight, and with Faith. Yeah, he's an Achilles heel for Buffy, but so is everyone she cares about.
Frankly, it's not Angel's fault that the Writers wrote him very young to begin with, then filled in all they did afterward. Blame the lack of planning on Joss' part for developing Angel's background when he created the character. That's the problem with an ever-evolving TV series - there's no editor at the end of the "book" to make sure everything lines up and makes sense.
~Caro Mio
Okay, but why are we putting a vampire in RL terms? Beyond a few episodes ( "Beauty and the Beasts," "Earshot," "The Body" ) I don't understand making RL comparisons in regards to this show, which lived in both the real, but mostly fantasy world. And I simply cannot compare fantasy creatures like vampires to real life men because it makes not a lick of sense to me. Mostly because there were "real life" men on the show itself. So you can't base them both on the same scale--it isn't fair and again, makes no sense.
Why I even care about this show is that it, IMO, did attempt to reflect RL - would we still be going through all these discussions if we saw the series as primarily fantasy or supernatural? How many fantasy or supernatural films or novels have had such powerful connections with their audience or readers - most of them we enjoy for a short period or while we are watching or reading then they are no longer particularly important to us. But with Buffy and Angel, like great literature, art or film and histories that force us to question our world and ideas - we are intellectually and emotionally engaged way beyond the short time of our initial experience. As much as I loved reading and seeing the LoTR works - I am not still thinking about them nor did they make me actively do research on world religions and mythic history in our cultures. Great novels like Anna Karenina make its readers think deeply about Love, personal freedoms, and the consequences of our actions. The same with Angel/Angelus and Buffy and Spike - it is Real Life that we are concerned with. When I think of Angel/Angelus and his desire and love for Buffy I am thinking also about Anna K and all those women and men that have become victims of their real life temptations and sexual desire and changes of Love for their partners. It's a very serious thing this giving into sexual desire and emotional needs - LOVE between Buffy and Angel was certainly there, but when Angel, IMO a mature and experienced man makes the choice to become involved with Buffy, a young woman with little experience of Life or Love - it is the same as RL people making the choice to put aside the marriage vows or to cheat on their current partners. The honorable and difficult and right thing to do is face and confront all the hurt and problems that you will bring about with your actions to your partner, family or spouse. It's not that Angel loved Buffy that I have a problem with, it's that he knew that it was not the right thing to do - if it were not wrong he would not have been bothered about his attraction to her in the first place.
Angel was not, IMO, incapable of understanding his current life - he is shown as a man who with enough intellect to be reading Sartre and even if he was a vampire, that does not mean that he was incapable of intellectually understanding his life and the world he lived in. He may not have cared that he was a ruthless killer and took great pleasure and satisfaction in his killing but he certainly understood the human world and its concept of Good and Evil. Angelus and Darla were both very intelligent beings - Drusilla is the only one of their foursome that was not fully aware of how she lived.
Why I even care about this show is that it, IMO, did attempt to reflect RL - would we still be going through all these discussions if we saw the series as primarily fantasy or supernatural? How many fantasy or supernatural films or novels have had such powerful connections with their audience or readers - most of them we enjoy for a short period or while we are watching or reading then they are no longer particularly important to us. But with Buffy and Angel, like great literature, art or film and histories that force us to question our world and ideas - we are intellectually and emotionally engaged way beyond the short time of our initial experience. As much as I loved reading and seeing the LoTR works - I am not still thinking about them nor did they make me actively do research on world religions and mythic history in our cultures. Great novels like Anna Karenina make its readers think deeply about Love, personal freedoms, and the consequences of our actions. The same with Angel/Angelus and Buffy and Spike - it is Real Life that we are concerned with. When I think of Angel/Angelus and his desire and love for Buffy I am thinking also about Anna K and all those women and men that have become victims of their real life temptations and sexual desire and changes of Love for their partners. It's a very serious thing this giving into sexual desire and emotional needs - LOVE between Buffy and Angel was certainly there, but when Angel, IMO a mature and experienced man makes the choice to become involved with Buffy, a young woman with little experience of Life or Love - it is the same as RL people making the choice to put aside the marriage vows or to cheat on their current partners. The honorable and difficult and right thing to do is face and confront all the hurt and problems that you will bring about with your actions to your partner, family or spouse. It's not that Angel loved Buffy that I have a problem with, it's that he knew that it was not the right thing to do - if it were not wrong he would not have been bothered about his attraction to her in the first place.
Angel was not, IMO, incapable of understanding his current life - he is shown as a man who with enough intellect to be reading Sartre and even if he was a vampire, that does not mean that he was incapable of intellectually understanding his life and the world he lived in. He may not have cared that he was a ruthless killer and took great pleasure and satisfaction in his killing but he certainly understood the human world and its concept of Good and Evil. Angelus and Darla were both very intelligent beings - Drusilla is the only one of their foursome that was not fully aware of how she lived.
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Fairly sure that Angel/Angelus has big sexual desires for Buffy early on:
excerpt from "Angel" season
ANGEL: When I am all I can ever think about is how badly I want to kiss you.
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Jul 16 2009 04:29 pm #43Scarlet Ibis
Fairly sure that Angel/Angelus has big sexual desires for Buffy early on:
I still find that doubtful, but the important thing is that he did not act on them.
I still find that doubtful, but the important thing is that he did not act on them.
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
Jul 16 2009 09:00 pm #44Guest
Guest
I still find that doubtful, but the important thing is that he did not act on them.
But he did, if Angel had truly NOT acted on his sexual impulses then they would not have had a sexual relationship: and yes reciprocating romantic gestures is acting upon sexual desires.
I hate the argument that the older man was "seduced" but the underage girl and I'm disgusted and horrified that people actually believe that to be a valid excuse: it's still statutory rape when the "innocent man" finally "succumbs" to the girl's advances.
Angel, vampire or not, was an adult he should not have engaged in any type of romantic or sexual relationship with a 16 year old girl regardless of how much "she wanted it" or "was asking for it".
Hank
But he did, if Angel had truly NOT acted on his sexual impulses then they would not have had a sexual relationship: and yes reciprocating romantic gestures is acting upon sexual desires.
I hate the argument that the older man was "seduced" but the underage girl and I'm disgusted and horrified that people actually believe that to be a valid excuse: it's still statutory rape when the "innocent man" finally "succumbs" to the girl's advances.
Angel, vampire or not, was an adult he should not have engaged in any type of romantic or sexual relationship with a 16 year old girl regardless of how much "she wanted it" or "was asking for it".
Hank
Jul 16 2009 09:56 pm #45Guest
Guest
But he did, if Angel had truly NOT acted on his sexual impulses then they would not have had a sexual relationship: and yes reciprocating romantic gestures is acting upon sexual desires. I hate the argument that the older man was "seduced" but the underage girl and I'm disgusted and horrified that people actually believe that to be a valid excuse: it's still statutory rape when the "innocent man" finally "succumbs" to the girl's advances. Angel, vampire or not, was an adult he should not have engaged in any type of romantic or sexual relationship with a 16 year old girl regardless of how much "she wanted it" or "was asking for it".
I understood everything you said and I’m not flamin’ on you for thinking. Everything you said is valid and makes perfect sense and all that jazz but you’re not looking at both sides of the picture.
As I said in one of my earlier posts: Angel is just as confused as Buffy.
You have to think of his entire past in the show including that of when he was human and be able to analyze it accordingly without barriers or personal conditioning.
And you have to be able to accept that boys will be boys etc…
All this “he should have known better blah blah…” isn’t going to change the fact that Angel, like Buffy, was still growing up (if not physically). And you’re forgetting another important factor -> He really did love her and didn’t mean any harm.
And as Dawn said—he let her call the shots which meant he loved her enough to respect her.
And let’s be fair—he was a GUY for crying out loud. Of course he’s going to give into lust and want to kiss her. And of course she’s going to want to kiss him back because she, too has feelings for him.
You guys are making this all into some big evil scandal about a pedophile and a minor and forgetting that they were young, stupid and in love. (Sure, he’s dirt old but as I said before: when he got his soul back he was right back where he left off).
Do you really think he did all this and fell in love with Buffy because he’s an evil man and should know better than to ruin her life? If so than you’re talking about the majority of relationships on the planet.
He’s a guy and will have manly desires and will make mistakes and will screw things up.
I don’t think of it as statutory rape...
I think it's life..it's growing up.
It would be statutory rape if he knew exactly what he was doing and had evil agendas--Did he?
Angel, vampire or not, was an adult
No, he wasn't. By law, sure-- but that means next to nothing to me and shouldn't to you either.
"Oh, son, you're 18 now so you should know everything!"
That’s pretty narcissistic.
In an ideal world I'm sure it would all work out fine, though.
Maybe you’re thinking of your own son if you have one or of yourself as a man but that’s where we read again about what I said in the beginning that we gotta look at both sides of the picture. Think "outside of the box" so to speak.
Being an adult takes time and effort and many learning experiences along with many mistakes.As a human, Angel was a womanizer controlled by hormones (Like Scarlet said)And as a Vampire, he was just evil and incapable of learning and growing (except in an evil way) spiritually and mentally.
Angel was still leaning to be a good man(pire) and a responsible adult when we first saw him.
Mesh~
Jul 16 2009 10:40 pm #46Guest
Guest
Yeah, the whole "18 = adult" deserves a little leeway but Liam was in his late twenties when he was turned and Angel's soul was restored decades before he even saw Buffy. How much more time do you are you willing to give him before holding him responsible for being able to make adult decisions?
He really did love her and didn’t mean any harm.
Yet another excuse I've heard many, many times to try and justify or defend rapists and pedophiles. I got news for you, there are pedophiles out there that "have relationships" with underage kids and they honestly don't see why they get arrested for having sex with a kid because the kid "wanted it" and "enjoyed it". Not all pedophiles are violent and in many cases the kid believes she is in love with their much older "boyfriend"
And as Dawn said—he let her call the shots which meant he loved her enough to respect her
The former womanizer and man who is VERY sexually experienced was in a relationship was a signifiantly younger, sexually innocent, naive, and UNDERAGED, teenage girl who wasn't even mature enough to say the word "sex" when she spoke to Willow about it. Do I really have to point out the wrongness in that? HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH HER. PERIOD.
Hell, ask any womanizer (something Angel (Liam) has a profound amount of experience in), the best cons are the ones where it's the girl who is "calling the shots". If Angel really loved and respected her, he would have stayed away and waited until she was AT VERY LEAST able to talk about sex in a mature fashion.
And let’s be fair—he was a GUY for crying out loud. Of course he’s going to give into lust and want to kiss her. And of course she’s going to want to kiss him back because she, too has feelings for him.
It's call having self control. I'm a guy and just because I have testosterone I'm not going to miraculously incapable of resisting a woman's sexual advances just because I lust after her, even if she's throwing herself at me - and it's even easier if I care and respect her because that just strengthens my resolve to not do something I believe will end up hurting her.
Hank
He really did love her and didn’t mean any harm.
Yet another excuse I've heard many, many times to try and justify or defend rapists and pedophiles. I got news for you, there are pedophiles out there that "have relationships" with underage kids and they honestly don't see why they get arrested for having sex with a kid because the kid "wanted it" and "enjoyed it". Not all pedophiles are violent and in many cases the kid believes she is in love with their much older "boyfriend"
And as Dawn said—he let her call the shots which meant he loved her enough to respect her
The former womanizer and man who is VERY sexually experienced was in a relationship was a signifiantly younger, sexually innocent, naive, and UNDERAGED, teenage girl who wasn't even mature enough to say the word "sex" when she spoke to Willow about it. Do I really have to point out the wrongness in that? HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH HER. PERIOD.
Hell, ask any womanizer (something Angel (Liam) has a profound amount of experience in), the best cons are the ones where it's the girl who is "calling the shots". If Angel really loved and respected her, he would have stayed away and waited until she was AT VERY LEAST able to talk about sex in a mature fashion.
And let’s be fair—he was a GUY for crying out loud. Of course he’s going to give into lust and want to kiss her. And of course she’s going to want to kiss him back because she, too has feelings for him.
It's call having self control. I'm a guy and just because I have testosterone I'm not going to miraculously incapable of resisting a woman's sexual advances just because I lust after her, even if she's throwing herself at me - and it's even easier if I care and respect her because that just strengthens my resolve to not do something I believe will end up hurting her.
Hank
Not speaking from the "what was intended" from creative staff, but we were presented with a great visual scene and metaphor with the Angel-Buffy kissing scenes and with the movement away from Darla his creator to Buffy his newly perceived guide to a transformed life. What the art and costume staff was excellent work - their visuals and set decorations added so much to the story and each episode.
The kissing scenes in "Angel" make clear that Angel is conflicted and clearly has big reservations about being attracted and having a relationship with this very young girl - The scripts describe their kisses as passionate and strong sexual qualities - in their last scenes Angel becomes aroused enough to have his vampiric demon take precedence.
It it very difficult for me not to make the connections to religious, moral and social structures when we are presented with these elements.
Older Male - conflicted with his attraction to a very young woman
Young Girl with no real experience or understanding of the sexual urges on this intense level or love of a deep, mature and complex nature
The obvious cultural and mythic symbols of sins and redemption and transformation -
Darla is clearly his sire and Buffy is clearly his new vehicle and symbol of "resurrection and sacrifice as a female Jesus." The scenes ends with Angel being burned/imprinted with the crucifix symbol of sacrifice, death, cleansing, and resurrection. Buffy is his way to a new life and man.
But the complex questions aside from the metaphor quickly become part of how viewers will interpret what is shown - An much older male with over 200 years of life and experiences (Buffy gives it as 224) and this very young girl with her first experience of love and intense sexual desires. Where the metaphor and visuals give a wonderful and powerful theme of a fallen man/angel seeking redemption/atonement from his dark and horrific history, many viewers have a difficult time ignoring the social and moral implications that come with Angel's attractions and how this love plays out in the series.
Their last kissing session, when Angel makes the choice to not "Angel: I just gotta... I gotta walk away from this." ends with his being imprinted from the symbol that is suppose to protect her. How are the viewers suppose to interpret these scenes and all that happens after Buffy gives her body and spirit to him and what she is immediately confronted with after they have sexually consummated their relationship? Sure, it makes great story telling to have everything go directly to "living hell" with this forced control of Angel The Cursed Vampire - but the viewers are left with all the symbols and metaphor and the very irksome complexity of "real life" that Joss Whedon and the writers presented.
The kissing scenes in "Angel" make clear that Angel is conflicted and clearly has big reservations about being attracted and having a relationship with this very young girl - The scripts describe their kisses as passionate and strong sexual qualities - in their last scenes Angel becomes aroused enough to have his vampiric demon take precedence.
It it very difficult for me not to make the connections to religious, moral and social structures when we are presented with these elements.
Older Male - conflicted with his attraction to a very young woman
Young Girl with no real experience or understanding of the sexual urges on this intense level or love of a deep, mature and complex nature
The obvious cultural and mythic symbols of sins and redemption and transformation -
Darla is clearly his sire and Buffy is clearly his new vehicle and symbol of "resurrection and sacrifice as a female Jesus." The scenes ends with Angel being burned/imprinted with the crucifix symbol of sacrifice, death, cleansing, and resurrection. Buffy is his way to a new life and man.
But the complex questions aside from the metaphor quickly become part of how viewers will interpret what is shown - An much older male with over 200 years of life and experiences (Buffy gives it as 224) and this very young girl with her first experience of love and intense sexual desires. Where the metaphor and visuals give a wonderful and powerful theme of a fallen man/angel seeking redemption/atonement from his dark and horrific history, many viewers have a difficult time ignoring the social and moral implications that come with Angel's attractions and how this love plays out in the series.
Their last kissing session, when Angel makes the choice to not "Angel: I just gotta... I gotta walk away from this." ends with his being imprinted from the symbol that is suppose to protect her. How are the viewers suppose to interpret these scenes and all that happens after Buffy gives her body and spirit to him and what she is immediately confronted with after they have sexually consummated their relationship? Sure, it makes great story telling to have everything go directly to "living hell" with this forced control of Angel The Cursed Vampire - but the viewers are left with all the symbols and metaphor and the very irksome complexity of "real life" that Joss Whedon and the writers presented.
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Jul 16 2009 11:10 pm #48Guest
Guest
Ditto to all that you just said Messiah.
Look if you guys are going to keep taking this to an RL perspective, than Angel dating a minor is the least of his problems. Both he and Spike and all of the other vampires should be on death row if not already killed by the state for all of their past crimes. But hey, they're vampires--the rules don't apply. If they did, Angel would have been too much decomposed ash to have a relationship with anyone, since it was well over 200 years since he'd been born.
Angel at that point was just as emotionally immature as Buffy. Maturity really does not go to age, but experience. There are plenty of immature thirty and forty somethings that I know of that prove this.
As fir Angel having self control, um yeah, he did. The night they actually had sex at Buffy's insistence, by the way (and sorry--a seventeen year old is NOT a child. A minor? Yes. A child? Absolutely not), was the same night that they were both almost horribly killed at the hands of the Judge. Life or death circumstances is what brought them together--not some nefarious plan of Angel "the malicious pervert, hellbent on corrupting Buffy." That's a big steaming pile of B.S. right there.
~Scarlet
Look if you guys are going to keep taking this to an RL perspective, than Angel dating a minor is the least of his problems. Both he and Spike and all of the other vampires should be on death row if not already killed by the state for all of their past crimes. But hey, they're vampires--the rules don't apply. If they did, Angel would have been too much decomposed ash to have a relationship with anyone, since it was well over 200 years since he'd been born.
Angel at that point was just as emotionally immature as Buffy. Maturity really does not go to age, but experience. There are plenty of immature thirty and forty somethings that I know of that prove this.
As fir Angel having self control, um yeah, he did. The night they actually had sex at Buffy's insistence, by the way (and sorry--a seventeen year old is NOT a child. A minor? Yes. A child? Absolutely not), was the same night that they were both almost horribly killed at the hands of the Judge. Life or death circumstances is what brought them together--not some nefarious plan of Angel "the malicious pervert, hellbent on corrupting Buffy." That's a big steaming pile of B.S. right there.
~Scarlet
THANK YOU and from a GUY'S point of view too!!!
I am very curious to know how many here are parents? I know Dawn mentioned she is. I wasn't at the time when watching this show - so I didn't see it then. When I became a parent - which considering my background swore I wouldn't do - I was terrified. I looked at all of these shows and I want to lock my daughter up and never let her out, but yet I don't want her to experience the world and do appropriate things. At 16 it is not appropriate for a 27/29 year old to be oggling and 'doing' it with a child. She is still a child whether she has the label teenager or not. CHILD.
I gave perfect examples in a post before. The horrors we face in this day are different than they were 50 years ago. We evolve. In the 'fantasy' world it was ok for the writers to write in a 27 or 29 (I have seen it more as 29 though) to be falling in love with a 16 year old? Girls at that age have absolutely no clue what real love is. God, not just girls. Most don't really understand what real love is. Most experience it but few really truly understand it - lol unless you are Spike who falls in love never reciprocated, then that just sucks ;).
Some people feel age is just another number - yes and no. Depends. Use your head. If you are ready then yes. BUFFY WAS NOT READY! She was young careless and pretty much hated her responsibilities because they ruined Buffy fun time. Angel should have known better.
I understand this is canon, but I seriously wonder why most are here on a Spuffy site? Has anyone wondered that? I know I don't like Angel but that is just my thing. I know they had a relationship in canon. I know it was supposed to be based on love but re-watching it, it was disturbing. I am not saying he wasn't ever with her but a lot seem to have this Bangel respect going. I actually find that odd on a Spuffy site intead of a general ship site and well I just find Bangel kinda disturbing.
So very curious and I get this vibe A LOT on most of those who post. Yes I know it is Canon based, but um, isn't it your preference of Spuffy that lead you here? I find it odd that few saw the disturbing image of Angel being shown Buffy in her uniform sucking on a lollipop, think this was okay? I would be kinda creeped out if some guy was oggling me like that especially looking all creepy looking. Shudders at that imagery.
I so agree with everything you said Hank!
Lizzie M ~*~*~
I am very curious to know how many here are parents? I know Dawn mentioned she is. I wasn't at the time when watching this show - so I didn't see it then. When I became a parent - which considering my background swore I wouldn't do - I was terrified. I looked at all of these shows and I want to lock my daughter up and never let her out, but yet I don't want her to experience the world and do appropriate things. At 16 it is not appropriate for a 27/29 year old to be oggling and 'doing' it with a child. She is still a child whether she has the label teenager or not. CHILD.
I gave perfect examples in a post before. The horrors we face in this day are different than they were 50 years ago. We evolve. In the 'fantasy' world it was ok for the writers to write in a 27 or 29 (I have seen it more as 29 though) to be falling in love with a 16 year old? Girls at that age have absolutely no clue what real love is. God, not just girls. Most don't really understand what real love is. Most experience it but few really truly understand it - lol unless you are Spike who falls in love never reciprocated, then that just sucks ;).
Some people feel age is just another number - yes and no. Depends. Use your head. If you are ready then yes. BUFFY WAS NOT READY! She was young careless and pretty much hated her responsibilities because they ruined Buffy fun time. Angel should have known better.
I understand this is canon, but I seriously wonder why most are here on a Spuffy site? Has anyone wondered that? I know I don't like Angel but that is just my thing. I know they had a relationship in canon. I know it was supposed to be based on love but re-watching it, it was disturbing. I am not saying he wasn't ever with her but a lot seem to have this Bangel respect going. I actually find that odd on a Spuffy site intead of a general ship site and well I just find Bangel kinda disturbing.
So very curious and I get this vibe A LOT on most of those who post. Yes I know it is Canon based, but um, isn't it your preference of Spuffy that lead you here? I find it odd that few saw the disturbing image of Angel being shown Buffy in her uniform sucking on a lollipop, think this was okay? I would be kinda creeped out if some guy was oggling me like that especially looking all creepy looking. Shudders at that imagery.
I so agree with everything you said Hank!
Lizzie M ~*~*~
Jul 16 2009 11:30 pm #50Guest
Guest
Yeah, Buffy wasn't wearing a uniform.
You're imposing views from a parental standpoint, while adding an RL twist, which is understandable. But still not fair. Teenagers/high school students have sex all the time, and usually, quite frivolously. Buffy more than likely would have waited longer, had it not been for that life or death situation, but she did wait, and made love to someone who loved her back. Not many people get to have that. For someone with an expiration date like Buffy, and who had died already? Yeah, how long was she gonna wait exactly? What was it that you were expecting? You can hate Angel all you want to, but you can't deny the fact that he did love her very much then. If so, you were watching a show that was else.
And just because I'm a Spuffy? Albeit a fanon and not canon Spuffy, that does not mean that I have to hate/be creeped out/be anti Angel. He was the first. It happened. Just because I love Spike, it does NOT mean I have to hate Angel, or Xander, or whoever. That is not...logical to me. You don't have to forfeit one for the other.
And I don't support the Bangel relationship--it was actually quite dull to me. However, I am also not against it for being a Spuffy, or for age reasons.
~Scarlet
You're imposing views from a parental standpoint, while adding an RL twist, which is understandable. But still not fair. Teenagers/high school students have sex all the time, and usually, quite frivolously. Buffy more than likely would have waited longer, had it not been for that life or death situation, but she did wait, and made love to someone who loved her back. Not many people get to have that. For someone with an expiration date like Buffy, and who had died already? Yeah, how long was she gonna wait exactly? What was it that you were expecting? You can hate Angel all you want to, but you can't deny the fact that he did love her very much then. If so, you were watching a show that was else.
And just because I'm a Spuffy? Albeit a fanon and not canon Spuffy, that does not mean that I have to hate/be creeped out/be anti Angel. He was the first. It happened. Just because I love Spike, it does NOT mean I have to hate Angel, or Xander, or whoever. That is not...logical to me. You don't have to forfeit one for the other.
And I don't support the Bangel relationship--it was actually quite dull to me. However, I am also not against it for being a Spuffy, or for age reasons.
~Scarlet
Here are some of the excerpts from Angel script - which show that Angel is conflicted about this relationship and might help with the discussion -
Angel: And just thought about a lot of things. Buffy, I... Buffy: My diary? You read my diary? (goes to put it in a drawer) That is *not* okay! A diary is like a person's most private place! (comes back to him) I... You don't even know what I was writing about! 'Hunk' can mean a lot of things, bad things. And, and when it says that your eyes are 'penetrating', I meant to write 'bulging'. Angel: Buffy... Buffy: And 'A' doesn't even stand for 'Angel' for that matter, it stands for... 'Achmed', a charming foreign exchange student, so that whole fantasy part has nothing to even do with you at all... Angel: Your mother moved your diary when she came in to straighten up. I watched from the closet. I didn't read it, I swear. She just looks at him. Buffy: Oh! (looks down, realizing what she just said) Oh. Angel: I did a lot of thinking today. I really can't be around you. (Buffy looks up) Because when I am... Buffy: (looks down) Hey, no big. Water... over the bridge, under the bridge... Angel: When I am all I can ever think about is how badly I want to kiss you. Buffy: ...over the dam... (looks up at him) Kiss me? Angel: I'm older than you, and this can't ever... I better go. Buffy: H-how much older? Angel: I should... Buffy: (approaches him) ...go... You said... They kiss. They kiss again. They kiss passionately. She puts her arm around him. The kiss goes on for several moments. Angel suddenly pulls back and looks away. Buffy: What? What is it? What's wrong? He turns to face her and growls. She sees he has his game face on and screams. He takes a last look at her and jumps out of the window. He slides down the roof and off onto the ground. Buffy goes to the window and watches him run away. Her mother comes running into the room. Joyce: Buffy, what happened? She backs away from the window. Her mom takes her by the shoulders. She looks at her mom and shakes her head. Buffy: Uh, nothing. I saw a shadow. They both look out the window.
ending scene)
Buffy: ...ever be anything. I know. For one thing, you're, like, two hundred and twenty-four years older than I am. Angel: I just gotta... I gotta walk away from this. Buffy: (nods) I know. Me, too. (whispers) One of us has to go here. Angel: (whispers) I know. They look at each other a moment longer and then close in to kiss. Their kiss becomes passionate. Buffy reaches her hands up to Angel's neck. Lyrics: Your eyes / That always make me shiver / Now they are closed / They just sometimes twitch a little Cut to Willow and Xander. Xander: What's going on? Willow: Nothin'... Xander: Well, as long as they're not kissing. Willow just watches and says nothing. Cut to Angel and Buffy. Lyrics: And your body / I could hold for an hour / It sent me to Heaven / With its heat and power They separate. Buffy: You okay? Angel: It's just... Buffy: ...painful. I know. See you around? Lyrics: I'll remember you / You will be there in my heart / I'll remember you / And that is all that I can do / But I'll remember Buffy walks away. Angel watches her go. The camera pans down to his chest where her cross has left a deep burn.
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Jul 16 2009 11:51 pm #52Guest
Guest
Just because Angel was conflicted about what he was doing doesn't excuse his actions. People are often conflicted when they are doing something they know is wrong, it's part of having a conscience.
Newsflash: People do bad things for good reasons all the time. Everyone has their own reasons for their actions. The frightening thing is that people can find a way to justify just about any action, no matter how bad it is. Know matter how much you my like Angel, you can't judge him SIMPLY by what he felt or thought, in the end it's what he DID that matters.
Yes, Angel was conflicted about what he did, but in the end, what he did what he did. Good intentions and being conflicted don't change what happened.
Scarlett: if Buffy had been in a relationship with another high schooler, I'd have no moral problem with it, even if it was Xander whom I do not like at all. But, and a big BUT: Angel was no high schooler or anything close to Buffy's maturity level.
Newsflash: People do bad things for good reasons all the time. Everyone has their own reasons for their actions. The frightening thing is that people can find a way to justify just about any action, no matter how bad it is. Know matter how much you my like Angel, you can't judge him SIMPLY by what he felt or thought, in the end it's what he DID that matters.
Yes, Angel was conflicted about what he did, but in the end, what he did what he did. Good intentions and being conflicted don't change what happened.
Scarlett: if Buffy had been in a relationship with another high schooler, I'd have no moral problem with it, even if it was Xander whom I do not like at all. But, and a big BUT: Angel was no high schooler or anything close to Buffy's maturity level.
And just because I'm a Spuffy? Albeit a fanon and not canon Spuffy, that does not mean that I have to hate/be creeped out/be anti Angel. He was the first. It happened. Just because I love Spike, it does NOT mean I have to hate Angel, or Xander, or whoever. That is not...logical to me. You don't have to forfeit one for the other.
Because some viewers have very negative reactions to the Angel-Buffy relationship - I don't think that this puts us in the Anti-Angel Camp. It is not his love that is the big negative for us - it is his choices that we have big problems with - if Angel had been in a relationship with Buffy in the same time frame that Riley-Buffy happens this would have been a very different circumstance. Buffy is still on her path to becoming to learning about life and how to survive and learn how to deal with all the shit that lives throws at you - But that is not Buffy from high school. And Buffy from college is still just learning how to Love and Live - Look how she reacts to the Riley Vamp Feeding Dens. Buffy is still very inexperienced about herself and how to be in deep and mature Love relationship - that Buffy in the alley killing those vamps is not Slayer Buffy that is a woman filled with anger and pain and taking out all that fury on vamps instead of the persons that she is really angry with, Riley and Spike.
And Angel has lived amongst people after being en-souled and he has made conscious efforts to live with his soul - He lived in LA in the 50's trying to learn how to live, he lived through WW 2 and made conscious choices that require his intellect - Lawson was turned because he was needed to save the submarine and people. He may have ended up living as a homeless down trodden man/vamp - but it is not like Angel/Angelus did not have experiences as Liam and as Angel/Angelus.
Why do you think that Angel has reverted to a being that is playing life at fairly much the same level as Buffy or as a stunted life? It has been a long time since I watched Angel, does the series give an explanation of the time frame for his homeless alley life?
Because some viewers have very negative reactions to the Angel-Buffy relationship - I don't think that this puts us in the Anti-Angel Camp. It is not his love that is the big negative for us - it is his choices that we have big problems with - if Angel had been in a relationship with Buffy in the same time frame that Riley-Buffy happens this would have been a very different circumstance. Buffy is still on her path to becoming to learning about life and how to survive and learn how to deal with all the shit that lives throws at you - But that is not Buffy from high school. And Buffy from college is still just learning how to Love and Live - Look how she reacts to the Riley Vamp Feeding Dens. Buffy is still very inexperienced about herself and how to be in deep and mature Love relationship - that Buffy in the alley killing those vamps is not Slayer Buffy that is a woman filled with anger and pain and taking out all that fury on vamps instead of the persons that she is really angry with, Riley and Spike.
And Angel has lived amongst people after being en-souled and he has made conscious efforts to live with his soul - He lived in LA in the 50's trying to learn how to live, he lived through WW 2 and made conscious choices that require his intellect - Lawson was turned because he was needed to save the submarine and people. He may have ended up living as a homeless down trodden man/vamp - but it is not like Angel/Angelus did not have experiences as Liam and as Angel/Angelus.
Why do you think that Angel has reverted to a being that is playing life at fairly much the same level as Buffy or as a stunted life? It has been a long time since I watched Angel, does the series give an explanation of the time frame for his homeless alley life?
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
That scene where Sarah was all dolled up to be a fifteen year old is as others stated "a pedophile's wet dream" ... I found that whole scene creepy.
And you are more than welcome to think it's creepy, and to call it creepy. But that doesn't make Angel a pedophile, which is a psychological disorder. You'd think, if he was a pedophile, that he'd show more signs of it than a single scene of him looking at a girl, like perhaps having sex with or even wanting to have sex with children? He had one consensual relationship with a 17-year-old girl. You can call it statutory rape if you like, since she's under 18, but there's a huge leap from that to "pedophile."
And you are more than welcome to think it's creepy, and to call it creepy. But that doesn't make Angel a pedophile, which is a psychological disorder. You'd think, if he was a pedophile, that he'd show more signs of it than a single scene of him looking at a girl, like perhaps having sex with or even wanting to have sex with children? He had one consensual relationship with a 17-year-old girl. You can call it statutory rape if you like, since she's under 18, but there's a huge leap from that to "pedophile."
Writing should feel easy, like a monkey driving a speed boat.
Here is a question for the writers - Does age of the writers factor into writing Buffy-Angel and Buffy-Spike in the same time frame? Same for readers - I have read some stories where Spike in paired with Buffy in the same timeline and was faced with the same problems of Age and Experience. I do very much enjoy reading Spike in the high school period of Buffy and her friends - but I have to admit that hot and heavy sex between them makes me just as uneasy as would Buffy and Angel. I am more accepting of Spike loving and wanting Buffy when some attempts are made to acknowledge her youth and waiting for to mature a little more.
It is just as difficult to handle Spike-Buffy as Angel-Buffy and all the age, experience and moral issues - they apply to both pairings - I wonder what the age distribution of the writers might be. I know that I have a very hard time doing Buffy-Angel as Lovers but I had to pay tribute to such a fundamental part of the series and will add more images of their relationship to the Buffy 12 Years project -
It is just as difficult to handle Spike-Buffy as Angel-Buffy and all the age, experience and moral issues - they apply to both pairings - I wonder what the age distribution of the writers might be. I know that I have a very hard time doing Buffy-Angel as Lovers but I had to pay tribute to such a fundamental part of the series and will add more images of their relationship to the Buffy 12 Years project -
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Here's a thought. Anything on television is pretty much stretching was could/can happen in RL. Just because some of us watch a program and think 'God that's horrendous' doesn't mean we are wrong because we are putting our personal viewpoint to it. Because if we didn't use some part of our beliefs, geez, our brains, then we would be pretty much walking zombies.
The point is the writers used RL experiences. I don't give a crap about oh Bangel this and Bangel that. I look at the message it's sending. Because honestly in real life your 12 or 13 year old is going to watch this show and guess what parents are being more lenient about it. I am pointing out that this is why our kids are growing up so fast. Parents who are loose with their kids and the media.
Buffy may have not been wearing a 'uniform' but she was still the idealic symbol of a cute girl sucking on a lollipop edging fantasies for a man who for all intents should not have been watching her this way.
He was shown her - yes. He may have fought the attraction but from a lot of viewers points of views he had quite some 'similarities' to Angelus.
AND on a RL note it still doesn't make it right that a grown man should be 'trying' to avoid temptation. Uh, do I need to get biblical? Adam was tempted by Eve just as much as Eve was tempted by Adam.
I am a Spuffy shipper to a point. They have great potential or at least could have had great potential had it continued.
Even if Buffy and Angel happened later it would be a different story but the fact remains I felt he wasn't good enough for Buffy. As Angel wasn't good enough for Buffy either. To me their relationship wasn't substantial enough to last. Which leads me to - why get hung up on an experience. Yeah I was devasted losing my true first love. Took me a long time to get over it but we are human. We are made to adapt. To evolve. To move on. It's like this...Instead of Angel going evil what if he had dusted instead? Devastating completely but even in television shows or movies somehow they adapt them to come out stronger and move on. Yes they have their mourning period and loss piled on with loads of devastatingly horrid thoughts of despair and I want to die mentality. But this is what bothered me. Everyone in their life has a first love...some, though, very few are still with their first love. Angel and Buffy was immense care for each other, but love? No. Even not liking Angel I still say he did better with Cordy - god even Nina.
No this has nothing to do with my feelings for Spike either...he's just bad boy charm and upfront about it. That's appealing rather than hiding who you are - not so much what you are. We got that loud and clear.
He struggled in the vampire/human world. I get that but Angel had years to learn to cope. He didn't. He is all woe is me let me wither and die. The writers might have tried to convey that he was watching her innocence to give him the spark to go down the right path but I guess with knowing the future history of the show (lol) as well as his history - it has made me think otherwise.
Not gonna lie - I liked Angel in the beginning until he started getting cryptic and definitely dishonest. The car thing yes that creeped me out but I still gave it a chance. In real life that creepy car would have been called in the moment it was spotted on school grounds especially given the rise of school incidents and crimes.
I'm not as concerned with the age thing had he been say between 18-20. He DID not have the mentality of a teen. He had been around for centuries. He gets cursed what he automatically forgets everything he learned besides the torture and killing (god knows what else)? Not buying that. It was like a teacher getting it on with a student. Look what happens to those in real life...It's not pretty. Lifetime does plenty of those. And wow The Life of a Teenage American Daughter (I don't watch it and I think it's called that) but a 'fantasy' show. Anything that is written based on fact or fiction for tv is still all part of 'entertainment'. So that show has a teenage pregnant child. This is how the world changed because now it does happen. Yes kids are all having sex, and yet we wonder where they learned. Some are raping girls in school bathrooms...Just happened in my daughters school district in the high school. This is what our media has done this next generation. It was starting to corrupt long before this.
Them having sex has nothing to do with the appropriateness of the Angel and Buffy relationship. Vampire or not he was still an adult. If Angel was considered a teacher or Watcher and he fell in love with Buffy consumating it -he would be in some serious shit. Consensual or not its still an adult with a child. 17 she is still a child unless she divorces her parents. It may differ in different countries but ready for that kind of responsibility - they still haven't a clue. Had Buffy waited been responsible...Now there is a question. Had Angel stopped and been an adult...there's a thought. He should have stopped and if he truly loved her waited until she was mature enough...She may be a Slayer with a death sentence around the corner but Spike had it right - protect her best he could so she could go on living. Keep her alive for as long as he could. That's love. Gotta wonder and my rant is over...Tired of topic cuz it's just gonna go back and forth until that fat little cow jumps over the bloody moon! Age - creepiness - lollipops - supernatural....Regardless what it is we, the viewers, read between the lines and look at what we are seeing and so totally analyze the crap out of it. I know I did. TTFN If I went off on a tangent sorry it's late...I'm exhausted but we just had our first really humid day ugh...
Question who the heck thought up the name Buffy in the first place? Nickname for Elizabeth? Huh...if it is I think I will tell my daughter that...LOL total out of left field question!!!! ;)
Lizzie Mel :} ~*~*~*~*~*
The point is the writers used RL experiences. I don't give a crap about oh Bangel this and Bangel that. I look at the message it's sending. Because honestly in real life your 12 or 13 year old is going to watch this show and guess what parents are being more lenient about it. I am pointing out that this is why our kids are growing up so fast. Parents who are loose with their kids and the media.
Buffy may have not been wearing a 'uniform' but she was still the idealic symbol of a cute girl sucking on a lollipop edging fantasies for a man who for all intents should not have been watching her this way.
He was shown her - yes. He may have fought the attraction but from a lot of viewers points of views he had quite some 'similarities' to Angelus.
AND on a RL note it still doesn't make it right that a grown man should be 'trying' to avoid temptation. Uh, do I need to get biblical? Adam was tempted by Eve just as much as Eve was tempted by Adam.
I am a Spuffy shipper to a point. They have great potential or at least could have had great potential had it continued.
Even if Buffy and Angel happened later it would be a different story but the fact remains I felt he wasn't good enough for Buffy. As Angel wasn't good enough for Buffy either. To me their relationship wasn't substantial enough to last. Which leads me to - why get hung up on an experience. Yeah I was devasted losing my true first love. Took me a long time to get over it but we are human. We are made to adapt. To evolve. To move on. It's like this...Instead of Angel going evil what if he had dusted instead? Devastating completely but even in television shows or movies somehow they adapt them to come out stronger and move on. Yes they have their mourning period and loss piled on with loads of devastatingly horrid thoughts of despair and I want to die mentality. But this is what bothered me. Everyone in their life has a first love...some, though, very few are still with their first love. Angel and Buffy was immense care for each other, but love? No. Even not liking Angel I still say he did better with Cordy - god even Nina.
No this has nothing to do with my feelings for Spike either...he's just bad boy charm and upfront about it. That's appealing rather than hiding who you are - not so much what you are. We got that loud and clear.
He struggled in the vampire/human world. I get that but Angel had years to learn to cope. He didn't. He is all woe is me let me wither and die. The writers might have tried to convey that he was watching her innocence to give him the spark to go down the right path but I guess with knowing the future history of the show (lol) as well as his history - it has made me think otherwise.
Not gonna lie - I liked Angel in the beginning until he started getting cryptic and definitely dishonest. The car thing yes that creeped me out but I still gave it a chance. In real life that creepy car would have been called in the moment it was spotted on school grounds especially given the rise of school incidents and crimes.
I'm not as concerned with the age thing had he been say between 18-20. He DID not have the mentality of a teen. He had been around for centuries. He gets cursed what he automatically forgets everything he learned besides the torture and killing (god knows what else)? Not buying that. It was like a teacher getting it on with a student. Look what happens to those in real life...It's not pretty. Lifetime does plenty of those. And wow The Life of a Teenage American Daughter (I don't watch it and I think it's called that) but a 'fantasy' show. Anything that is written based on fact or fiction for tv is still all part of 'entertainment'. So that show has a teenage pregnant child. This is how the world changed because now it does happen. Yes kids are all having sex, and yet we wonder where they learned. Some are raping girls in school bathrooms...Just happened in my daughters school district in the high school. This is what our media has done this next generation. It was starting to corrupt long before this.
Them having sex has nothing to do with the appropriateness of the Angel and Buffy relationship. Vampire or not he was still an adult. If Angel was considered a teacher or Watcher and he fell in love with Buffy consumating it -he would be in some serious shit. Consensual or not its still an adult with a child. 17 she is still a child unless she divorces her parents. It may differ in different countries but ready for that kind of responsibility - they still haven't a clue. Had Buffy waited been responsible...Now there is a question. Had Angel stopped and been an adult...there's a thought. He should have stopped and if he truly loved her waited until she was mature enough...She may be a Slayer with a death sentence around the corner but Spike had it right - protect her best he could so she could go on living. Keep her alive for as long as he could. That's love. Gotta wonder and my rant is over...Tired of topic cuz it's just gonna go back and forth until that fat little cow jumps over the bloody moon! Age - creepiness - lollipops - supernatural....Regardless what it is we, the viewers, read between the lines and look at what we are seeing and so totally analyze the crap out of it. I know I did. TTFN If I went off on a tangent sorry it's late...I'm exhausted but we just had our first really humid day ugh...
Question who the heck thought up the name Buffy in the first place? Nickname for Elizabeth? Huh...if it is I think I will tell my daughter that...LOL total out of left field question!!!! ;)
Lizzie Mel :} ~*~*~*~*~*
Jul 17 2009 06:44 am #57Scarlet Ibis
Because honestly in real life your 12 or 13 year old is going to watch this show and guess what parents are being more lenient about it. I am pointing out that this is why our kids are growing up so fast. Parents who are loose with their kids and the media.
I was 12 when this show first aired, and watched all of the Bangel angst, etc. It didn't screw up my morals or values. I was able to watch fiction and not be corrupted by it, and was able to keep in mind it was in fact a fictitious show based on the supernatural. Go me!
Buffy may have not been wearing a 'uniform' but she was still the idealic symbol of a cute girl sucking on a lollipop edging fantasies for a man who for all intents should not have been watching her this way.
Well, what way was he watching her? All he did was look at her. You're projecting your feelings onto the scene, that weren't there. Just like how you thought she was in a uniform, when she certainly wasn't. There was nothing sexual or suggestive in his gaze. All he did was look at her. That's it.
He was shown her - yes. He may have fought the attraction but from a lot of viewers points of views he had quite some 'similarities' to Angelus. AND on a RL note it still doesn't make it right that a grown man should be 'trying' to avoid temptation.
What similarities were those in seasons one and two of BtVS? And what does an RL grown man have to do with Angel? No, seriously. Because that isn't what we're talking about. At least, that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the show.
It was like a teacher getting it on with a student.
Actually, no, because that presents ethical problems. That would be more along the lines of Buffy/Riley.
If Angel was considered a teacher or Watcher and he fell in love with Buffy consumating it -he would be in some serious shit.
If he had been, that would have put him in the human category, and therefore, that makes a helluva difference. Though oh say, Giles is way younger than Angel, people would have been more squicked out by a Giles/Buffy pairing on the show as opposed to Buffy/Angel.
It may differ in different countries but ready for that kind of responsibility
Wait--back it up.
So you mean to tell me...that Buffy can handle the responsiblity of saving the world, and patrolling nightly, putting her life on the line, since age fifteen about, but she wasn't responsible enough to have sex with her boyfriend who she loved and loved her back, after they were almost killed that same night?
He should have stopped and if he truly loved her waited until she was mature enough..
Well, now you're contradicting yourself. According to your interpretation, Angel had been lusting after her body since point one when he saw her on the school steps that day, not that I agree with that (at all). But they'd been dating for what, about a year? Does that not count for waiting? Especially since certain events lead to their coupling to begin with--it wasn't planned by either of them.
And sorry if I'm coming on strong or something, but I really don't understand this line of thought.
I was 12 when this show first aired, and watched all of the Bangel angst, etc. It didn't screw up my morals or values. I was able to watch fiction and not be corrupted by it, and was able to keep in mind it was in fact a fictitious show based on the supernatural. Go me!
Buffy may have not been wearing a 'uniform' but she was still the idealic symbol of a cute girl sucking on a lollipop edging fantasies for a man who for all intents should not have been watching her this way.
Well, what way was he watching her? All he did was look at her. You're projecting your feelings onto the scene, that weren't there. Just like how you thought she was in a uniform, when she certainly wasn't. There was nothing sexual or suggestive in his gaze. All he did was look at her. That's it.
He was shown her - yes. He may have fought the attraction but from a lot of viewers points of views he had quite some 'similarities' to Angelus. AND on a RL note it still doesn't make it right that a grown man should be 'trying' to avoid temptation.
What similarities were those in seasons one and two of BtVS? And what does an RL grown man have to do with Angel? No, seriously. Because that isn't what we're talking about. At least, that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the show.
It was like a teacher getting it on with a student.
Actually, no, because that presents ethical problems. That would be more along the lines of Buffy/Riley.
If Angel was considered a teacher or Watcher and he fell in love with Buffy consumating it -he would be in some serious shit.
If he had been, that would have put him in the human category, and therefore, that makes a helluva difference. Though oh say, Giles is way younger than Angel, people would have been more squicked out by a Giles/Buffy pairing on the show as opposed to Buffy/Angel.
It may differ in different countries but ready for that kind of responsibility
Wait--back it up.
So you mean to tell me...that Buffy can handle the responsiblity of saving the world, and patrolling nightly, putting her life on the line, since age fifteen about, but she wasn't responsible enough to have sex with her boyfriend who she loved and loved her back, after they were almost killed that same night?
He should have stopped and if he truly loved her waited until she was mature enough..
Well, now you're contradicting yourself. According to your interpretation, Angel had been lusting after her body since point one when he saw her on the school steps that day, not that I agree with that (at all). But they'd been dating for what, about a year? Does that not count for waiting? Especially since certain events lead to their coupling to begin with--it wasn't planned by either of them.
And sorry if I'm coming on strong or something, but I really don't understand this line of thought.
"Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly."
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
https://www.facebook.com/FangirlNovel
I was 12 when this show first aired, and watched all of the Bangel angst, etc. It didn't screw up my morals or values. I was able to watch fiction and not be corrupted by it, and was able to keep in mind it was in fact a fictitious show based on the supernatural. Go me!
Never said anything about your morals or values. From my long list of the horrors I have seen in life and what the writers took from their own experiences - uh it came from humans to help make a tv show. I certainly look at it as Supernatural just as I look at say Underworld in the same way. We are still going to use our human minds to process what we see. I wasn't corrupted by it either. I enjoyed watching it as I love vampires. That's what I love. I didn't love that story line. Moving on.
Well, what way was he watching her? All he did was look at her. You're projecting your feelings onto the scene, that weren't there. Just like how you thought she was in a uniform, when she certainly wasn't. There was nothing sexual or suggestive in his gaze. All he did was look at her. That's it.
What person A see's is VERY different from what person B or C and so on see's. I found it creepy. END of discussio regardless of it being a tv show want someone watching me that I don't know in a darkened vehicle that screams 'caution'. Agree to disagree on this. And yes, I will use my experiences to relate to what I see on television or even the news. It helps me grow and process my own life. You differentiate in other ways. Probably why my job is as an Records Clerk Analyst. I nit pick. And second I'm exhausted mentally and physically it's way too damn hot...I went on a rant and my mind rambles.
What similarities were those in seasons one and two of BtVS? And what does an RL grown man have to do with Angel? No, seriously. Because that isn't what we're talking about. At least, that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the show.
To be honest I really didn't like season one and two of Buffy. Grown man have to do with Angel. Besides the fact he is a vampire he is still a man. I'm talking about the show and my comments weren't towards yours they were generalized.
Actually, no, because that presents ethical problems. That would be more along the lines of Buffy/Riley.
Um actually correct me if I am wrong Angel did at the request of Buffy pretend to be Buffy's tutor. Still in the wrong still applies to ethical problems. Buffy/Riley is on a whole different level.
If he had been, that would have put him in the human category, and therefore, that makes a helluva difference. Though oh say, Giles is way younger than Angel, people would have been more squicked out by a Giles/Buffy pairing on the show as opposed to Buffy/Angel.
I gave a what if scenario here. So being a vampire doesn't apply any of the rules because they don't matter then? So human rules don't apply. So, actually, it was ok for him to continue a sexual relationship with a child. (You see her as a teenager whereas Joyce saw her as her baby - her child) It was ok for him to do all the things he had done over the course of his vampiric unlife but once he is cursed he is suddenly atoning but his past is all washed cleaned and doesn't apply because he has a soul now? Cursed no less. OH, but wait, then he somehow is in LA and also in a submarine in the 40's. I get the love for Angel as a character and trying to do good. But, the soul thing is what still gets to me. We are to stop and forget what he's done and yes this is an adult vampire. He had centuries on him. Yet Spike they could never forget what he had done. He was reminded everyday. I'm not saying he couldn't change. He could but he was dishonest. It's late I'm not explaining myself well here, but all I can say it just seems like Angel isn't Angelus when in fact it is a part of him. So agree to disagree here.
Wait--back it up. So you mean to tell me...that Buffy can handle the responsiblity of saving the world, and patrolling nightly, putting her life on the line, since age fifteen about, but she wasn't responsible enough to have sex with her boyfriend who she loved and loved her back, after they were almost killed that same night?
Actually she disliked that responsibility immensely. She did it because she had to and I understood that while watching it. But my opinion...Responsible or not sex is a big step that she was still to young to understand. You may be ready or not...Someone else might not be or might...explain that to the child who doesn't understand that then. These are issues that are presented for major debates as to the morality of the show and what it's doing to our kids. I was in your position but that changed when I became a parent. It's a tough call I can see it both ways but seeing as I have already lived out my childlike teens sex is a very big responsibility. Some see this as consumating your love but like it happened on Buffy it went south didn't it? Just like some go south in RL. So yeah I see the comparison. I can look at both supernatural and RL. Analyze the crap out of it. It works for both worlds because then you contradict Angel because he is cursed with a soul so he should be treated like a human when in fact he still is a vampire. So I am seeing some contradictions with this but hey that's just me. I so need to get to bed...
Well, now you're contradicting yourself. According to your interpretation, Angel had been lusting after her body since point one when he saw her on the school steps that day, not that I agree with that (at all). But they'd been dating for what, about a year? Does that not count for waiting? Especially since certain events lead to their coupling to begin with--it wasn't planned by either of them. And sorry if I'm coming on strong or something, but I really don't understand this line of thought.
Uh, yeah, you kinda bashed me there a bit Scarlet. I don't mind I can handle a bit of heated rants unless the stubborness and my parenting kicks in cuz hey still learning AND on my own as a single mom with one of those kinds of ex's. So yeah, and I'm in my 30's. Life is a learning experience and ultimately you do get kicked in the but by it. Dating for a year. Like I said not a big Bangel fan...never was. She wasn't ready. She was still dealing with so many other issues that still effected her. Her parents splitting for one. If you call dating kissing in cemetaries and meeting up and patrolling together dating then good luck to you. I just didn't see their relationship at all. Agree to disagree on this ok...I'm soooo very very tired lol. I should have waited til tomorrow but got greedy and came on damnit! LOL. But my question is how is not waiting until she was mature enough if he really truly loved her contradicting myself? I am placing myself in Buffy's shoes...I love this guy but I know I have all of these responsibilities. I want more out of the relationship but honestly...too many think sex is the answer to bring more into the relationship...
That's why I said that. She was being a teen wanting something she wasn't ready for from an adult vampire/man. He is still ultimately a man with the same parts just with a vampire demon. She had the world on her shoulders sure and I'm not even going into that discussion because it's a part of who she is, yes, but it doesn't tell her what she can or can't do in all of her relationships, does it? Part of her accepts this need to protect but part of her then...didn't. She wanted Buffy fun time and this point she wasn't thinking straight. I don't care how long you wait sex comes with big responsibilities. And guess what it ultimately damaged her...
And no prob with the smack, it's all good, now I must sleep...And if I just ranted sorry...I'm a jumbled, sleepy...yeah :)
Never said anything about your morals or values. From my long list of the horrors I have seen in life and what the writers took from their own experiences - uh it came from humans to help make a tv show. I certainly look at it as Supernatural just as I look at say Underworld in the same way. We are still going to use our human minds to process what we see. I wasn't corrupted by it either. I enjoyed watching it as I love vampires. That's what I love. I didn't love that story line. Moving on.
Well, what way was he watching her? All he did was look at her. You're projecting your feelings onto the scene, that weren't there. Just like how you thought she was in a uniform, when she certainly wasn't. There was nothing sexual or suggestive in his gaze. All he did was look at her. That's it.
What person A see's is VERY different from what person B or C and so on see's. I found it creepy. END of discussio regardless of it being a tv show want someone watching me that I don't know in a darkened vehicle that screams 'caution'. Agree to disagree on this. And yes, I will use my experiences to relate to what I see on television or even the news. It helps me grow and process my own life. You differentiate in other ways. Probably why my job is as an Records Clerk Analyst. I nit pick. And second I'm exhausted mentally and physically it's way too damn hot...I went on a rant and my mind rambles.
What similarities were those in seasons one and two of BtVS? And what does an RL grown man have to do with Angel? No, seriously. Because that isn't what we're talking about. At least, that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the show.
To be honest I really didn't like season one and two of Buffy. Grown man have to do with Angel. Besides the fact he is a vampire he is still a man. I'm talking about the show and my comments weren't towards yours they were generalized.
Actually, no, because that presents ethical problems. That would be more along the lines of Buffy/Riley.
Um actually correct me if I am wrong Angel did at the request of Buffy pretend to be Buffy's tutor. Still in the wrong still applies to ethical problems. Buffy/Riley is on a whole different level.
If he had been, that would have put him in the human category, and therefore, that makes a helluva difference. Though oh say, Giles is way younger than Angel, people would have been more squicked out by a Giles/Buffy pairing on the show as opposed to Buffy/Angel.
I gave a what if scenario here. So being a vampire doesn't apply any of the rules because they don't matter then? So human rules don't apply. So, actually, it was ok for him to continue a sexual relationship with a child. (You see her as a teenager whereas Joyce saw her as her baby - her child) It was ok for him to do all the things he had done over the course of his vampiric unlife but once he is cursed he is suddenly atoning but his past is all washed cleaned and doesn't apply because he has a soul now? Cursed no less. OH, but wait, then he somehow is in LA and also in a submarine in the 40's. I get the love for Angel as a character and trying to do good. But, the soul thing is what still gets to me. We are to stop and forget what he's done and yes this is an adult vampire. He had centuries on him. Yet Spike they could never forget what he had done. He was reminded everyday. I'm not saying he couldn't change. He could but he was dishonest. It's late I'm not explaining myself well here, but all I can say it just seems like Angel isn't Angelus when in fact it is a part of him. So agree to disagree here.
Wait--back it up. So you mean to tell me...that Buffy can handle the responsiblity of saving the world, and patrolling nightly, putting her life on the line, since age fifteen about, but she wasn't responsible enough to have sex with her boyfriend who she loved and loved her back, after they were almost killed that same night?
Actually she disliked that responsibility immensely. She did it because she had to and I understood that while watching it. But my opinion...Responsible or not sex is a big step that she was still to young to understand. You may be ready or not...Someone else might not be or might...explain that to the child who doesn't understand that then. These are issues that are presented for major debates as to the morality of the show and what it's doing to our kids. I was in your position but that changed when I became a parent. It's a tough call I can see it both ways but seeing as I have already lived out my childlike teens sex is a very big responsibility. Some see this as consumating your love but like it happened on Buffy it went south didn't it? Just like some go south in RL. So yeah I see the comparison. I can look at both supernatural and RL. Analyze the crap out of it. It works for both worlds because then you contradict Angel because he is cursed with a soul so he should be treated like a human when in fact he still is a vampire. So I am seeing some contradictions with this but hey that's just me. I so need to get to bed...
Well, now you're contradicting yourself. According to your interpretation, Angel had been lusting after her body since point one when he saw her on the school steps that day, not that I agree with that (at all). But they'd been dating for what, about a year? Does that not count for waiting? Especially since certain events lead to their coupling to begin with--it wasn't planned by either of them. And sorry if I'm coming on strong or something, but I really don't understand this line of thought.
Uh, yeah, you kinda bashed me there a bit Scarlet. I don't mind I can handle a bit of heated rants unless the stubborness and my parenting kicks in cuz hey still learning AND on my own as a single mom with one of those kinds of ex's. So yeah, and I'm in my 30's. Life is a learning experience and ultimately you do get kicked in the but by it. Dating for a year. Like I said not a big Bangel fan...never was. She wasn't ready. She was still dealing with so many other issues that still effected her. Her parents splitting for one. If you call dating kissing in cemetaries and meeting up and patrolling together dating then good luck to you. I just didn't see their relationship at all. Agree to disagree on this ok...I'm soooo very very tired lol. I should have waited til tomorrow but got greedy and came on damnit! LOL. But my question is how is not waiting until she was mature enough if he really truly loved her contradicting myself? I am placing myself in Buffy's shoes...I love this guy but I know I have all of these responsibilities. I want more out of the relationship but honestly...too many think sex is the answer to bring more into the relationship...
That's why I said that. She was being a teen wanting something she wasn't ready for from an adult vampire/man. He is still ultimately a man with the same parts just with a vampire demon. She had the world on her shoulders sure and I'm not even going into that discussion because it's a part of who she is, yes, but it doesn't tell her what she can or can't do in all of her relationships, does it? Part of her accepts this need to protect but part of her then...didn't. She wanted Buffy fun time and this point she wasn't thinking straight. I don't care how long you wait sex comes with big responsibilities. And guess what it ultimately damaged her...
And no prob with the smack, it's all good, now I must sleep...And if I just ranted sorry...I'm a jumbled, sleepy...yeah :)
JOYCE: Oh. I understand Buffy spent the night.
ANGEL: I'm sorry about that. We came back after patrol...
JOYCE: I, I'm not interested in the details. That's not why I'm here.
ANGEL: Okay.
JOYCE: I'm here because I'm worried about you two. In general.
ANGEL: What happened before, when I changed, it won't happen again.
JOYCE: That's not all I'm concerned about. I don't have to tell you that you and Buffy are from different worlds.
ANGEL: No, you don't.
JOYCE: She's had to deal with a lot. Grew up fast. Sometimes even I forget that she's still just a girl.
ANGEL: I'm old enough to be her ancestor.
JOYCE: She's just starting out in life.
ANGEL: I know. I think about it more now that she's staying in Sunnydale.
JOYCE: Good. Because when it comes to you, Angel, she's just like any other young woman in love. You're all she can see of tomorrow. But I think we both know that there are some hard choices ahead. If she can't make them, you're gonna have to. I know you care about her. I just hope you care enough.
This is the official parental position on the Buffy-Angel relationship - We can all take what Joyce tells Angel and make of it what we will. Was it right for Angel to become sexually involved with Buffy? The Parent clearly does not think it proper or good for her daughter - As I understand it, Joss Whedon's position is that they did nothing wrong.
On this issue, I am totally on the side of Joyce, while she may have had problems with understanding and knowing what Buffy's life as The Slayer, she loved Buffy and cared deeply about her daughter. And boy, if you ever want to see how times have changed check out late 50's or early 60's film "Susan Slept Here" - that little lady has Buffy totally beat on the taking charge of the dynamics of the relationship - a 16 year old (if you can believe Debbie Reynolds in that mode) She sets her mind on getting her hooks on a very mature older man and reels him in - all with the help and good wishes of the adults concerned. This film is total fantasy and Hollywood Bubble Gum - the twisted and dark reversal is the great Lolita by Kubrick -
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Jul 17 2009 12:55 pm #60Guest
Guest
But my question is how is not waiting until she was mature enough if he really truly loved her contradicting myself? I am placing myself in Buffy's shoes...I love this guy but I know I have all of these responsibilities.
This made me think that maybe in the long run, Buffy needed a mature partner that understood her and her problems and her needs.
Not saying Angel was the perfect example but--do you think Buffy could have made it with a nice normal high school boy?
If I try to imagine Buffy with Xander, I don't see it working out at all even though he's in the loop with the slayage.
I'm just saying that Buffy has fairly advanced problems and responsibilities which force her to think differently that everybody else. Maybe she needed someone wiser that understood her worries and her fears and her desires etc...
Think about it....
How many 18 year old girls date 16 year old boys? Not a lot. Usually it's the other way around because... Well let's just say you know why... Just so all the guys here reading don't become defensive lol
Sure, Angel wasn't the best potential love for Buffy but he loved her.. And I'm not talking about what Hank said "That's the same excuse pedos and rapists use"
I've fallen in in love and I've been with the guy for like, ever. So it's pretty easy to tell the difference... I'm talking about L.O.V.E not D.E.L.U.S.I.O.N.S
or pathologically affected head cases because that's another sub altogether.
On this issue, I am totally on the side of Joyce, while she may have had problems with understanding and knowing what Buffy's life as The Slayer, she loved Buffy and cared deeply about her daughter
Yeah, I agree on that. Joyce was concerned with Buffy but she also respected her. She gave her time to work it out for herself and when she realized that maybe she wasn't ready, she had a nice, humane conversation with Angel telling him to cut her loose.
So, in the long run Buffy's mom only interfered when she thought she was needed most.
My perogative is "Live and let learn...unless it's dire"
---
As for the Buffy name thing. I believe it's old american english for "Buffalo".. I looked in my baby names book once and that's what it said.
*sips coffee*
By the way, good mornin' y'all lol
You should try the way I make my coffee.
I put cream, sugar, cinnamon and cocoa powder.. Tastes like a dessert
Mesh ~
This made me think that maybe in the long run, Buffy needed a mature partner that understood her and her problems and her needs.
Not saying Angel was the perfect example but--do you think Buffy could have made it with a nice normal high school boy?
If I try to imagine Buffy with Xander, I don't see it working out at all even though he's in the loop with the slayage.
I'm just saying that Buffy has fairly advanced problems and responsibilities which force her to think differently that everybody else. Maybe she needed someone wiser that understood her worries and her fears and her desires etc...
Think about it....
How many 18 year old girls date 16 year old boys? Not a lot. Usually it's the other way around because... Well let's just say you know why... Just so all the guys here reading don't become defensive lol
Sure, Angel wasn't the best potential love for Buffy but he loved her.. And I'm not talking about what Hank said "That's the same excuse pedos and rapists use"
I've fallen in in love and I've been with the guy for like, ever. So it's pretty easy to tell the difference... I'm talking about L.O.V.E not D.E.L.U.S.I.O.N.S
or pathologically affected head cases because that's another sub altogether.
On this issue, I am totally on the side of Joyce, while she may have had problems with understanding and knowing what Buffy's life as The Slayer, she loved Buffy and cared deeply about her daughter
Yeah, I agree on that. Joyce was concerned with Buffy but she also respected her. She gave her time to work it out for herself and when she realized that maybe she wasn't ready, she had a nice, humane conversation with Angel telling him to cut her loose.
So, in the long run Buffy's mom only interfered when she thought she was needed most.
My perogative is "Live and let learn...unless it's dire"
---
As for the Buffy name thing. I believe it's old american english for "Buffalo".. I looked in my baby names book once and that's what it said.
*sips coffee*
By the way, good mornin' y'all lol
You should try the way I make my coffee.
I put cream, sugar, cinnamon and cocoa powder.. Tastes like a dessert
Mesh ~
Afternnoon now, lol
I think what it all boils down to is a person's preference of what they wished for on Buffy that clouds this very theme of TPTB showing and presenting Angel his atonement. When I first started watching this show - I was literally glued to the tv because it was a vampire show.
Like now, I am literally glued to the tv when True Blood is on. Buffy reeled me in, yet Blood Ties or Moonlighting didn't. That's just me though. Just wasn't my thing.
Angel (David) - tho good looking wasn't my type lol. So that kinda clouds my opinion on his character. Not to mention things I experienced and with the themes given did make me uncomfortable when I wasn't in denial of what I was seeing. You can say that this is a show all you want but the reality of it is this...The arcs, the plot, and vampires aside represented experiences that these writers wanted us to be reeled in to and relate to. Just because they are vampires doesn't mean a damn thing. It's just a show. Like Saw is just a movie and definitely could happen. Vampires - imaginative - is what reels us in and quite seductive actually.
I'm not surprised Buffy was reeled in by the seduction of vamps like Angel and Spike. They have that sexual prowess, no? Sexual appeal definitely. It's their lure. Buffy basically succumbed to that. And yes she did - what girl wouldn't?
I think considering what I have experienced does effect what I see . Ugh problems at work later and thanks for the answer Mesh! :)
I think what it all boils down to is a person's preference of what they wished for on Buffy that clouds this very theme of TPTB showing and presenting Angel his atonement. When I first started watching this show - I was literally glued to the tv because it was a vampire show.
Like now, I am literally glued to the tv when True Blood is on. Buffy reeled me in, yet Blood Ties or Moonlighting didn't. That's just me though. Just wasn't my thing.
Angel (David) - tho good looking wasn't my type lol. So that kinda clouds my opinion on his character. Not to mention things I experienced and with the themes given did make me uncomfortable when I wasn't in denial of what I was seeing. You can say that this is a show all you want but the reality of it is this...The arcs, the plot, and vampires aside represented experiences that these writers wanted us to be reeled in to and relate to. Just because they are vampires doesn't mean a damn thing. It's just a show. Like Saw is just a movie and definitely could happen. Vampires - imaginative - is what reels us in and quite seductive actually.
I'm not surprised Buffy was reeled in by the seduction of vamps like Angel and Spike. They have that sexual prowess, no? Sexual appeal definitely. It's their lure. Buffy basically succumbed to that. And yes she did - what girl wouldn't?
I think considering what I have experienced does effect what I see . Ugh problems at work later and thanks for the answer Mesh! :)
Here is my final and position from which I can never retreat - I can try to spin it anyway I want but the fact always comes back, inescapable - This relationship turned Buffy into an attempted murder - she found that this love for Angel took precedence over her duty as A Hero-A Slayer-To Sacrifice One Life For Her Own Agenda. Some viewers will take the position that Faith was evil or had it coming to her - that her history justified Buffy's willingness to sacrifice her life for Angel. In human law, it is wrong, by Buffy's Slayer ethics and law (we had the entire Dark Willow Revenge Arc to support this position) - Buffy crossed the line of human law and the very foundations of how a society can function unless it wants to run on sheer chaos, brutality, violence and the fabric order that accepts the idea that Might Is Right - that because I can force my agenda on another being to fulfill by needs and desires, it will stand.
Buffy attempted to sacrifice Faith to Save Angel - if I am mistaken that Angel's cure was to drain Faith or that Buffy and the others involved were unsure that this was the procedure, please someone correct me. This situation was not The Slayer doing her duty, this was a young woman acting solely on her desperate desire to save her lover - this is a real life situation presented in the series - it had nothing to do with monsters and vampires and fantasy - it reflects on what love for Angel caused in this young girl - Looks like Angelus was not so wrong in those monologues of his in "Passion."
I know that readers here will probably think - not this same old rant again - but here's the thing - I will die soon, we will all move on from the Buffyverse and our interest and love in the Spuffy relationship, but the laws, morals, ethics and fabric of our civilized human social foundations - the ideal that we human justice and dignity demand that we treat other beings as we would have them treat us will never change unless we turn away from the concept of Justice and Morality as understood and accepted in our society and by great majority of peoples in our world.
How can a Love that turned Buffy, or anyone one into a potential killer, be something good - where is the parent that would accept the sacrifice of their child to save the lover of another? This was not a circumstance of killing and eradicating a mass murderer or political leader like a Hitler - this was Buffy working on her own agenda to save Angel/Angelus.
I would be very interested to here from the young viewers on how they connected with and interpreted the Buffy-Angel relationship - particularly in the Angel cure arc.
With respect to TPTB - I like the description of The Game Board - it makes a great analogy to what happens in the supernatural world of The Whedonverse and what happens in our Real World - the powerful and rulers using and manipulating vast groups of people to serve their personal agendas - be it religious, economic or personal power.
Sorry for the rant -
Buffy attempted to sacrifice Faith to Save Angel - if I am mistaken that Angel's cure was to drain Faith or that Buffy and the others involved were unsure that this was the procedure, please someone correct me. This situation was not The Slayer doing her duty, this was a young woman acting solely on her desperate desire to save her lover - this is a real life situation presented in the series - it had nothing to do with monsters and vampires and fantasy - it reflects on what love for Angel caused in this young girl - Looks like Angelus was not so wrong in those monologues of his in "Passion."
I know that readers here will probably think - not this same old rant again - but here's the thing - I will die soon, we will all move on from the Buffyverse and our interest and love in the Spuffy relationship, but the laws, morals, ethics and fabric of our civilized human social foundations - the ideal that we human justice and dignity demand that we treat other beings as we would have them treat us will never change unless we turn away from the concept of Justice and Morality as understood and accepted in our society and by great majority of peoples in our world.
How can a Love that turned Buffy, or anyone one into a potential killer, be something good - where is the parent that would accept the sacrifice of their child to save the lover of another? This was not a circumstance of killing and eradicating a mass murderer or political leader like a Hitler - this was Buffy working on her own agenda to save Angel/Angelus.
I would be very interested to here from the young viewers on how they connected with and interpreted the Buffy-Angel relationship - particularly in the Angel cure arc.
With respect to TPTB - I like the description of The Game Board - it makes a great analogy to what happens in the supernatural world of The Whedonverse and what happens in our Real World - the powerful and rulers using and manipulating vast groups of people to serve their personal agendas - be it religious, economic or personal power.
Sorry for the rant -
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Jul 17 2009 07:58 pm #63Guest
Guest
How can a Love that turned Buffy, or anyone one into a potential killer, be something good - where is the parent that would accept the sacrifice of their child to save the lover of another?
What Buffy did reflects upon her--not Angel, who was half dead and delirious while all that was going on.
The arcs, the plot, and vampires aside represented experiences that these writers wanted us to be reeled in to and relate to.
Yes, for one to relate to. But you're letting personal experiences, and how hot you find an actor to be, color your opinion of the character, and that isn't giving Angel a fair assessment. That's a clear case of a biased opinion, which you're entitled to. But it is biased.
What Buffy did reflects upon her--not Angel, who was half dead and delirious while all that was going on.
The arcs, the plot, and vampires aside represented experiences that these writers wanted us to be reeled in to and relate to.
Yes, for one to relate to. But you're letting personal experiences, and how hot you find an actor to be, color your opinion of the character, and that isn't giving Angel a fair assessment. That's a clear case of a biased opinion, which you're entitled to. But it is biased.
Jul 17 2009 10:46 pm #64Guest
Guest
How can a Love that turned Buffy, or anyone one into a potential killer, be something good - where is the parent that would accept the sacrifice of their child to save the lover of another? What Buffy did reflects upon her--not Angel, who was half dead and delirious while all that was going on.
While I am by no means a fan of Angel, I have to agree that Buffy's willingness to become a murderer rests on her shoulders. Free will and all that, plus you have to remember that NOBODY even HINTED that Buffy should feed Faith to Angel to save him, she came up with that all on her own.
While I am by no means a fan of Angel, I have to agree that Buffy's willingness to become a murderer rests on her shoulders. Free will and all that, plus you have to remember that NOBODY even HINTED that Buffy should feed Faith to Angel to save him, she came up with that all on her own.
Yes, for one to relate to. But you're letting personal experiences, and how hot you find an actor to be, color your opinion of the character, and that isn't giving Angel a fair assessment. That's a clear case of a biased opinion, which you're entitled to. But it is biased.
I can relate until the end of the world comes near all I like. The point is that was part of it that may have clouded my thoughts on a character. So if I think Willow is absolutely gorgeous and quirky but needs some serious help with her magic is that being biased to the character? No. That's having my own opinion. Angel may not be what appeals to me, but it was his dishonesty and my general distaste for his character that ultimately steered me completely in another direction. Geez, I'm entitled to not like characters in the aspect of how I saw them. Like I said we interpret scenes differently.
I'm not crazy about Bill on True Blood but I am intrigued as well as glued to the screen when Eric comes on during True Blood. So I shouldn't have an opinion on whom I like...Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sure seemed like you were insinuating that.
Letting my personal experiences color my opinion of a character like Angel? Uh, we all go into shows and groan god this one is boring...this one is hot...this one just can't hack the acting...NEED I go on. Personal experiences though do give you basis in what you are watching. Funny cuz this sounds like the BIG argument I always here of don't live in the past when actually your past shaped you and molded you to who you became today...Today is who you can change and evolve to the future. It's along the same lines. People don't get that - if the badly abused girl grows up along with the girl who lived a perfect life - the abused girl is shy and recluse whereas the perfect girl had it all...the friends...the grades...I could go on. That is just an example because sometimes and very rarely it can swap roles that the girl who had it bad got it all later. You see these issues in Buffy. You see all of these conflicts and struggles of the child growing into a teenager to a young adult. How can anyone not base experiences and knowledge on these arcs?
Unless you were never educated or had no source of outside involvement and were basically learning from this show then you have an argument , but you can't base this on what we have learned in our own lives and come to your own opinion about it.
See this show is a major tool for use in debates so we can analyze it. There were problems and issues. God I remember One Tree Hill had to not release an episode and this show is still in the realm of non reality. Maybe there is no supernatural aspects to it, but still. They couldn't release the shooting at the school episode until a real life event calmed down before releasing it out of respect for those families. So yeah shows and movies somehow or someway do depict from real life and we are going to relate regardless what it is.
Underworld Rise of the Licans had that Romeo and Juliet theme going. It was forbidden and the child she was carrying was an abomination. People are still going to base their opinions and use their experiences to draw their own conclusions. So an unwed mother of one race had sexual relations with a man she loves of another race and is carrying a child who is of another race. Sounds racial but actually it's not. You can put that into so many different contexts. And it could be a 16 year old having a kid and some VERY strict parents would call that child an abomination. That she was forbidden to do such things. This is where people form their opinions. I use those examples loosely because its the core of the arc of where it comes from.
It's like finding that trigger. Where did it start? This came from an incredibly intelligent woman I know. I dig deep for the route of the problem. So see Analyzer, lol.
So went off on a tangent but I want to prove we do use our brains, our knowledge, our experiences to process what we are seeing.
I can relate until the end of the world comes near all I like. The point is that was part of it that may have clouded my thoughts on a character. So if I think Willow is absolutely gorgeous and quirky but needs some serious help with her magic is that being biased to the character? No. That's having my own opinion. Angel may not be what appeals to me, but it was his dishonesty and my general distaste for his character that ultimately steered me completely in another direction. Geez, I'm entitled to not like characters in the aspect of how I saw them. Like I said we interpret scenes differently.
I'm not crazy about Bill on True Blood but I am intrigued as well as glued to the screen when Eric comes on during True Blood. So I shouldn't have an opinion on whom I like...Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sure seemed like you were insinuating that.
Letting my personal experiences color my opinion of a character like Angel? Uh, we all go into shows and groan god this one is boring...this one is hot...this one just can't hack the acting...NEED I go on. Personal experiences though do give you basis in what you are watching. Funny cuz this sounds like the BIG argument I always here of don't live in the past when actually your past shaped you and molded you to who you became today...Today is who you can change and evolve to the future. It's along the same lines. People don't get that - if the badly abused girl grows up along with the girl who lived a perfect life - the abused girl is shy and recluse whereas the perfect girl had it all...the friends...the grades...I could go on. That is just an example because sometimes and very rarely it can swap roles that the girl who had it bad got it all later. You see these issues in Buffy. You see all of these conflicts and struggles of the child growing into a teenager to a young adult. How can anyone not base experiences and knowledge on these arcs?
Unless you were never educated or had no source of outside involvement and were basically learning from this show then you have an argument , but you can't base this on what we have learned in our own lives and come to your own opinion about it.
See this show is a major tool for use in debates so we can analyze it. There were problems and issues. God I remember One Tree Hill had to not release an episode and this show is still in the realm of non reality. Maybe there is no supernatural aspects to it, but still. They couldn't release the shooting at the school episode until a real life event calmed down before releasing it out of respect for those families. So yeah shows and movies somehow or someway do depict from real life and we are going to relate regardless what it is.
Underworld Rise of the Licans had that Romeo and Juliet theme going. It was forbidden and the child she was carrying was an abomination. People are still going to base their opinions and use their experiences to draw their own conclusions. So an unwed mother of one race had sexual relations with a man she loves of another race and is carrying a child who is of another race. Sounds racial but actually it's not. You can put that into so many different contexts. And it could be a 16 year old having a kid and some VERY strict parents would call that child an abomination. That she was forbidden to do such things. This is where people form their opinions. I use those examples loosely because its the core of the arc of where it comes from.
It's like finding that trigger. Where did it start? This came from an incredibly intelligent woman I know. I dig deep for the route of the problem. So see Analyzer, lol.
So went off on a tangent but I want to prove we do use our brains, our knowledge, our experiences to process what we are seeing.
The point is the circumstance of where this relationship took Buffy and her judgement and actions - that is what I am speaking about.
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
The point is the circumstance of where this relationship took Buffy and her judgement and actions - that is what I am speaking about.
And this I completely agree with. Well said in such a short sentence. I need to learn to not give every detail lol.
And this I completely agree with. Well said in such a short sentence. I need to learn to not give every detail lol.
Jul 18 2009 07:38 pm #68Guest
Guest
The point is the circumstance of where this relationship took Buffy and her judgement and actions
Still, it comes down to Buffy's choice and Buffy's will. She could have let him die, or offered up herself instead of committing attempted murder in the second degree.
Still, it comes down to Buffy's choice and Buffy's will. She could have let him die, or offered up herself instead of committing attempted murder in the second degree.
Buffy loved him enough to kill for him because to her, she was the most important person alive. In the end she did sacrifice herself.
It's not all about crime and law but about what she thought was best in her heart.
Sure, it was wrong and all that jazz, but she cared about him more than anything. She already killed him once and I guess she felt completely responsible for what she did and she didn't want to let it happen again.
She knew how painful it was the first time he died so she made a completely selfish yet logical choice. Just as Faith made the choice to become an evil killer--she became worth killing.
If for you you had the choice to kill a murderer to save someone you love, do you think it would be worth it?
It's like that old saying ' to the world you are just one person but to one person you are the world' and 'the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one'
So if angel was her 'many' who outweighed 'the few'--she would have done it.
It's not all about crime and law but about what she thought was best in her heart.
Sure, it was wrong and all that jazz, but she cared about him more than anything. She already killed him once and I guess she felt completely responsible for what she did and she didn't want to let it happen again.
She knew how painful it was the first time he died so she made a completely selfish yet logical choice. Just as Faith made the choice to become an evil killer--she became worth killing.
If for you you had the choice to kill a murderer to save someone you love, do you think it would be worth it?
It's like that old saying ' to the world you are just one person but to one person you are the world' and 'the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one'
So if angel was her 'many' who outweighed 'the few'--she would have done it.
- If you want to win a war, you must serve no master but your own ambition..
-The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do.- A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend.
Could not we say the same about Faith and her attachment The Mayor, the only person that she felt loved her and that she owed her life to - Faith, like Buffy followed her own agenda - and her own desperate needs. And this is my point - That Buffy and this relationship sent her to a place that was not a good place to be - not in the picture of her entire life and how people must function in civilized society. The very foundations of any social order, some might argue ones very life, is being able to pull back from the extremes when it is needed. No one has the right and privilege to take another being life to satisfied their personal needs - Buffy always had the first choice of sacrificing her own life or putting her own life on the line to see what happened - SHE NEVER HAD THE RIGHT TO SACRIFICE FATH. That she ultimately put her own life as the sacrifice does not in anyway, IMO, exonerate what she did to Faith - especially as she usually takes the high ground of duty as The Slayer.
Again, my perspective and point of reference is that she was totally incapable from her youth and experience to make this choice of action from a more rational judgement - Read again what her mother tells Angel about where Buffy's emotional and mind set is - I think it's a powerful and awesome description. LOVE does not give you the right to take a life that is not yours.
Willow thinks she is equally justified, with Buffy saying over and over to her that she cannot kill for revenge - what has changed? Life, Experience, Perspective, knowledge of all the crap that we must learn to live with? Buffy at this part of her life was not prepared to either emotionally or through having experienced life to be involved in a relationship that was so intense and demanded so much of her. There is no denying that being The Slayer forced incredible hardship and having to face monsters and death all around her every day or that her life was so burdened from her duties - it is not a normal teenage life - but what I think is an extremely important element in the discussion is that Buffy was acting as the magnificent Slayer that she could be when she finally understood that Angelus had to be destroyed - Sending Angel through that vortex was The Slayer & Buffy having passed through her "rite of passage" trial. Buffy of the "desperate savior of her Lover" has committed, IMO, a reprehensible act from that desperate love .
Perhaps I am completely wrong, for sure there will be many who think I am totally out of touch - but I can't see how this was a good relationship for Buffy - Frankly at this stage of her life, as The Slayer and as the young woman, Connor, had his life not been completely utterly destroyed by the history of Angelus, would have been the kind of relationship that probably would have worked. They would have learned about being Warriors together and have learned about life and relationship together and had some guidance from Giles and Joyce and her inner circle of slayage friends. Of Course we, the viewers, would not have had such a strong connection with the characters nor would we still be interested in all the discussions from the series.
Back to Torchwood and watching JM as Capt John - I am so excited about the mini-series that will start on the 20th. Hope you all get BBC America.
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Jul 19 2009 05:48 am #71Guest
Guest
I think one big problem is that many think that just because Buffy has to deal with the things that go bump in the night and has to make life and death decisions, that that somehow automatically makes her able to make mature decisions regarding romantic relationships.
Just because Buffy was the Slayer doesn't mean that she was mature enough to be ready for a sexual relationship.
Just because Buffy was the Slayer doesn't mean that she was mature enough to be ready for a sexual relationship.
I think one big problem is that many think that just because Buffy has to deal with the things that go bump in the night and has to make life and death decisions, that that somehow automatically makes her able to make mature decisions regarding romantic relationships. Just because Buffy was the Slayer doesn't mean that she was mature enough to be ready for a sexual relationship.
Wow, I think that is about the smartest thing I have heard. That sums up what I would say in regards to Buffy. Bravo for pointing that out. She may have taken a different turn because she was called doesn't automatically make her mature just gives her more to deal with as a teen child growing up! Well said!
Wow, I think that is about the smartest thing I have heard. That sums up what I would say in regards to Buffy. Bravo for pointing that out. She may have taken a different turn because she was called doesn't automatically make her mature just gives her more to deal with as a teen child growing up! Well said!
Jul 21 2009 10:11 am #73Guest
Guest
I think one big problem is that many think that just because Buffy has to deal with the things that go bump in the night and has to make life and death decisions, that that somehow automatically makes her able to make mature decisions regarding romantic relationships. Just because Buffy was the Slayer doesn't mean that she was mature enough to be ready for a sexual relationship.
Wow, I think that is about the smartest thing I have heard. That sums up what I would say in regards to Buffy. Bravo for pointing that out. She may have taken a different turn because she was called doesn't automatically make her mature just gives her more to deal with as a teen child growing up! Well said!
Ditto to what both y'all said.... (I would say more but my brain is too foggled)
Mesh ~
Wow, I think that is about the smartest thing I have heard. That sums up what I would say in regards to Buffy. Bravo for pointing that out. She may have taken a different turn because she was called doesn't automatically make her mature just gives her more to deal with as a teen child growing up! Well said!
Ditto to what both y'all said.... (I would say more but my brain is too foggled)
Mesh ~
Jul 21 2009 10:21 am #74Guest
Guest
And what the hell.. I know it's off topic but I'll ask any way..
What are these new vampire tv shows you all keep talking about? Like Blood Ties.
I looked it up and all the descriptions say is how much better than Buffy it is and that it's about vampires.
Is it really that good?
It looks to me just like another cheesy drama about blood suckers.
---
And why is the guest avatar a large bearded man? lol
What are these new vampire tv shows you all keep talking about? Like Blood Ties.
I looked it up and all the descriptions say is how much better than Buffy it is and that it's about vampires.
Is it really that good?
It looks to me just like another cheesy drama about blood suckers.
---
And why is the guest avatar a large bearded man? lol
Jul 21 2009 03:58 pm #75slaymesoftly
Moderator
Hi Guest,
The guest avatar is a shot of David Fury (a major writer and producer on BtVS) in his "They Got the Mustard Out" number during "Once More, with Feeling" episode. You'd have to ask Dia why she chose that for the guest avatar. Maybe she's a David Fury fan. lol
Can't say about the new shows - they often come and go so quickly, I can't even keep the titles straight. Moonlight wasn't bad, IMHO. But it wasn't good enough, often enough to build a big audience. I think Blood Ties is the current one based on the Sookie Stackhouse series of books. It seems to be pretty popular, although I only watched the first couple of episodes, so not a fan, obviously. :) There have been some in the past that were good for their time. Forever Knight is one I remember liking, although it was hard to find and watch regularly. I'll be interested to see what they do with the proposed new version of Dark Shadows.
ETA My bad - True Blood is the newest one. I can't remember what Blood Ties is about. (Obviously)
The guest avatar is a shot of David Fury (a major writer and producer on BtVS) in his "They Got the Mustard Out" number during "Once More, with Feeling" episode. You'd have to ask Dia why she chose that for the guest avatar. Maybe she's a David Fury fan. lol
Can't say about the new shows - they often come and go so quickly, I can't even keep the titles straight. Moonlight wasn't bad, IMHO. But it wasn't good enough, often enough to build a big audience. I think Blood Ties is the current one based on the Sookie Stackhouse series of books. It seems to be pretty popular, although I only watched the first couple of episodes, so not a fan, obviously. :) There have been some in the past that were good for their time. Forever Knight is one I remember liking, although it was hard to find and watch regularly. I'll be interested to see what they do with the proposed new version of Dark Shadows.
ETA My bad - True Blood is the newest one. I can't remember what Blood Ties is about. (Obviously)
I am not a minion of Evil...
I am upper management.
I am upper management.
Yeah, I found Blood Ties kinda cheesy. I can't speak for Moonlighting because I didn't even know about it. I haven't really watched anything new except for my regular shows I have been watching. I'm so tired of reality tv shows. I usually toon into the movie channels now or Lifetime lol.
If you have HBO try watching True Blood. It's more adult viewing. Hopes you are adult lol. Sometimes it's cheesy sometimes it's not. Personally, I find the whole worship God thing a bit over the top. It seems more like those under some mind control out to kill vamps. True Blood killing vamp style is way way messier too.
But try looking them up on imbd.com
Also another vampire series is coming out...personally I think it's gonna bomb and hope this isn't a strike against Williamson so guess we will find out. It's called Vampire Diaries. A lot of people are hung up on the appearances of who is portraying their beloved character in the books but I'm more hung up on what were they thinking who they cast. There are so many out there who could have done a better job in the 5 minute trailer than what I saw. Plus too many details were changed. But hey that's me. I understand shows changing things to fit their needs but important details of why a ring is the way it is seems a tad important when it comes to describing the leading lady. Oh well. I think it will be a bomb even though this series as a book came out way before Buffy did. The series will look like Buffy without the Slayer. Anywho...
Have no idea why the guest avatar looks like a bearded man lol. Maybe because he is protesting rather largely? A debating avatar lol.
Huh totally forgot that's David Fury. Oops.
If you have HBO try watching True Blood. It's more adult viewing. Hopes you are adult lol. Sometimes it's cheesy sometimes it's not. Personally, I find the whole worship God thing a bit over the top. It seems more like those under some mind control out to kill vamps. True Blood killing vamp style is way way messier too.
But try looking them up on imbd.com
Also another vampire series is coming out...personally I think it's gonna bomb and hope this isn't a strike against Williamson so guess we will find out. It's called Vampire Diaries. A lot of people are hung up on the appearances of who is portraying their beloved character in the books but I'm more hung up on what were they thinking who they cast. There are so many out there who could have done a better job in the 5 minute trailer than what I saw. Plus too many details were changed. But hey that's me. I understand shows changing things to fit their needs but important details of why a ring is the way it is seems a tad important when it comes to describing the leading lady. Oh well. I think it will be a bomb even though this series as a book came out way before Buffy did. The series will look like Buffy without the Slayer. Anywho...
Have no idea why the guest avatar looks like a bearded man lol. Maybe because he is protesting rather largely? A debating avatar lol.
Huh totally forgot that's David Fury. Oops.
Blood Ties could have been a good series with better writers and production, particularly costume and set and actors. Good coincidence that this topic came up as I have been thinking about what separated these vampire shows to the mass of devoted fans for Buffy. With Blood Ties, I think one of the problems was that the novel series was all about three characters and unless you really cared about the relationship, the monster of the week mode, was not strong enough to carry the series. Primarily everything was just somehow "not good enough" - like a good episode story but with really bad acting or bad directing - or campy costumes that did nothing but come over as, IMVHO, silly attempts at parody or satire - or good acting with really bad scripts. Every episode had something that was obviously a poor element and detracted from the episode. The three prime leads were very good, but other things always were behind their excellent contributions.
Blood Ties is available on DVD and may be available for rent -
True Blood is on HBO - and it too has some elements that I personally find distracting and kind of silly - primarily the destruction and death of the vampires is, IMO, something that takes away from the action - what it remains me of is coagulated blood exploding out of a balloon. Their are some very good actors, and the have two male leads that have the same powerful screen presence as JM did with Spike - the Eric Vampire character and the gay character Lafayette. The actor that play Lafayette and the prime lead Jason Stackhouse are both excellent. The cast is generally, IMVHO, good.
This season, the series is getting heavy into religious and political commentary, which to me makes it much more interesting than the first season - which is logical as the series had to first gather in their potential audience and introduce the characters. True Blood is available to rent and is on Comast on Demand in the HBO ODM section. True Blood can also get on the "over-the-board" road - sometimes they use sex too often as filler - this is definitely an Adult or older teen series.
What makes these series, Blood Ties and Moonlighting, less compelling and with much less powerful connections to the viewers is that the characters and stories did not powerfully reflect real life circumstances like the Whedon series did. Where BtVS and Angel and Firefly always made a connection of the real life experiences of the viewers, these other shows were just a way to spend an hour with some supernatural and neat characters.
True Blood is much better series and if the creator and writers keep to strong story arcs and keep the Dark Goddess arc of this season contained to a relevant story, it will be a good season for them. Some elements do seem way over the top, but if you compare what happens in our everyday world, their supernatural realm, like the Buffyverse, does speak to the world of the viewers.
Blood Ties is available on DVD and may be available for rent -
True Blood is on HBO - and it too has some elements that I personally find distracting and kind of silly - primarily the destruction and death of the vampires is, IMO, something that takes away from the action - what it remains me of is coagulated blood exploding out of a balloon. Their are some very good actors, and the have two male leads that have the same powerful screen presence as JM did with Spike - the Eric Vampire character and the gay character Lafayette. The actor that play Lafayette and the prime lead Jason Stackhouse are both excellent. The cast is generally, IMVHO, good.
This season, the series is getting heavy into religious and political commentary, which to me makes it much more interesting than the first season - which is logical as the series had to first gather in their potential audience and introduce the characters. True Blood is available to rent and is on Comast on Demand in the HBO ODM section. True Blood can also get on the "over-the-board" road - sometimes they use sex too often as filler - this is definitely an Adult or older teen series.
What makes these series, Blood Ties and Moonlighting, less compelling and with much less powerful connections to the viewers is that the characters and stories did not powerfully reflect real life circumstances like the Whedon series did. Where BtVS and Angel and Firefly always made a connection of the real life experiences of the viewers, these other shows were just a way to spend an hour with some supernatural and neat characters.
True Blood is much better series and if the creator and writers keep to strong story arcs and keep the Dark Goddess arc of this season contained to a relevant story, it will be a good season for them. Some elements do seem way over the top, but if you compare what happens in our everyday world, their supernatural realm, like the Buffyverse, does speak to the world of the viewers.
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Yup, what nmcil said. Interested to know what your feelings are on Vampire Diaries or actually book versus movie or tv series. Do you think the details of a book are important and should/could they have importance on the show?
Example: The ring the vampire brothers wear for Vampire Diaries protects them from the sun. It had a lot to do with the color of Elena/Katherine's eyes - it was blue. If they had changed that detail to say a brownish color then it wouldn't matter so much but they didn't. I'm curious to know their reasons of change behind this very crucial detail. Perhaps it was overlooked as unimportant to the screenwriter? I would be questioning that though. It's the very reason they can go out in the daylight. When Elena becomes a vampire she couldn't unless she too wore this ring. Details, I tell ya. (Oops sorry didn't mean to give out a spoiler there but it is kinda crucial to question although I do no more afterwards lol)
I find it extremely hard to understand why for some very important things to be taken out and yet they still include minor themes in movies or series.
This also brings me to the thought back to the original question. On Buffy TPTB were mentioned a few times in the beginning however, never the Oracles. This idea of TPTB and Oracles takes place primarily on Angel. I wonder why? It was like that idea died out when Whistler was introduced and it was gone. However, in Angel it was taken further. Taking the discussion back to the original question lol.
Example: The ring the vampire brothers wear for Vampire Diaries protects them from the sun. It had a lot to do with the color of Elena/Katherine's eyes - it was blue. If they had changed that detail to say a brownish color then it wouldn't matter so much but they didn't. I'm curious to know their reasons of change behind this very crucial detail. Perhaps it was overlooked as unimportant to the screenwriter? I would be questioning that though. It's the very reason they can go out in the daylight. When Elena becomes a vampire she couldn't unless she too wore this ring. Details, I tell ya. (Oops sorry didn't mean to give out a spoiler there but it is kinda crucial to question although I do no more afterwards lol)
I find it extremely hard to understand why for some very important things to be taken out and yet they still include minor themes in movies or series.
This also brings me to the thought back to the original question. On Buffy TPTB were mentioned a few times in the beginning however, never the Oracles. This idea of TPTB and Oracles takes place primarily on Angel. I wonder why? It was like that idea died out when Whistler was introduced and it was gone. However, in Angel it was taken further. Taking the discussion back to the original question lol.
This also brings me to the thought back to the original question. On Buffy TPTB were mentioned a few times in the beginning however, never the Oracles. This idea of TPTB and Oracles takes place primarily on Angel. I wonder why? It was like that idea died out when Whistler was introduced and it was gone. However, in Angel it was taken further. Taking the discussion back to the original question lol.
There is an excellent article on this theme by Wendy Love Anderson "Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy - fear and trembling in sunnydale"
There is an excellent article on this theme by Wendy Love Anderson "Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy - fear and trembling in sunnydale"
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Jul 23 2009 03:43 am #80Guest
Guest
There is an excellent article on this theme by Wendy Love Anderson "Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy - fear and trembling in sunnydale"
where's it posted?
where's it posted?
I have the book but you can try slayage online - you can probably find the essay there, along with tons of others -
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
What is vital in the transference of elements of novels to film sometimes needs to happen for the film or tv project - and oftentimes it is a major element that gets change without causing a decline in the quality or impact. With the Anne Rice Vampire novels, the character of Claudia was changed from the very young child of the novels to a much older child. For the film, it would not have worked as well in the production to have the novel's character - The change allowed for much more acceptable and interesting, I think, film and interaction between all three characters.
In the case of the ring and eyes from Vampire Diaries, it depends on the results - the magic and protective qualities of the ring are what is vital - if there are magical qualities that were established that had to be transferred through the ring and the color of the eyes are a described result then it would be important. However, if the TV series does not reference that, it may be something very special in the novels but for the new viewers the color of eyes would not matter - what would matter is the ring must be worn, just like the Gem of Amara -
For me, what matters if any transfer from novel to film is the fundamental traits of the characters and the foundations of the story arcs. Back to Anne Rice and her wonderful vampire novels. Had Claudia been changed into an older teen or into a young women the vital foundations of the novels and the characters would have been totally changed, something vital to the novel's story and dynamics would have been lost and would have changed everything about how the characters lived together and their lives. Having a vampire teen or young adult female is completely different than having a child vampire in the mix.
One thing that has changed with the more modern vampire model is that it brings in new visions and gives the vampire character so much more to play with. All the first vampire films were confined by the Dracula novel - the expanded mythos allows for much needed changes to the vampire genre. We have the obvious fact from 30 days where vampire have all the long dark time period to the Underworld Realms. The theme of how Vampires with control of their natural feeding system with synthetic blood opened up a whole new way to write about vampires, politics, and social structures - the Anita Blake (early novels particularly) were good for letting vamps live amongst humans as were the Kindred realms. From the pov of the vampire condition.
I am surprised that more novels or film are not created around the theme of vampires trying to discover ways to get out into the daylight as a transition from the familiar Dracula - many new projects simply state that night time is not the world in which vamps must live - which frankly I like much better - where is the logic that confines vampires to only exist in the night time? It is a wonderful part of the vampire myth but it narrows much that can be presented in the vampire mythology.
This viewer and reader is very happy to see the changes that are taking place in the books and films. Can't say I much cared for the whole "diamonds in the sky" from Twilight - it is too much of a teen or young adult metaphor or vision for my taste -
In the case of the ring and eyes from Vampire Diaries, it depends on the results - the magic and protective qualities of the ring are what is vital - if there are magical qualities that were established that had to be transferred through the ring and the color of the eyes are a described result then it would be important. However, if the TV series does not reference that, it may be something very special in the novels but for the new viewers the color of eyes would not matter - what would matter is the ring must be worn, just like the Gem of Amara -
For me, what matters if any transfer from novel to film is the fundamental traits of the characters and the foundations of the story arcs. Back to Anne Rice and her wonderful vampire novels. Had Claudia been changed into an older teen or into a young women the vital foundations of the novels and the characters would have been totally changed, something vital to the novel's story and dynamics would have been lost and would have changed everything about how the characters lived together and their lives. Having a vampire teen or young adult female is completely different than having a child vampire in the mix.
One thing that has changed with the more modern vampire model is that it brings in new visions and gives the vampire character so much more to play with. All the first vampire films were confined by the Dracula novel - the expanded mythos allows for much needed changes to the vampire genre. We have the obvious fact from 30 days where vampire have all the long dark time period to the Underworld Realms. The theme of how Vampires with control of their natural feeding system with synthetic blood opened up a whole new way to write about vampires, politics, and social structures - the Anita Blake (early novels particularly) were good for letting vamps live amongst humans as were the Kindred realms. From the pov of the vampire condition.
I am surprised that more novels or film are not created around the theme of vampires trying to discover ways to get out into the daylight as a transition from the familiar Dracula - many new projects simply state that night time is not the world in which vamps must live - which frankly I like much better - where is the logic that confines vampires to only exist in the night time? It is a wonderful part of the vampire myth but it narrows much that can be presented in the vampire mythology.
This viewer and reader is very happy to see the changes that are taking place in the books and films. Can't say I much cared for the whole "diamonds in the sky" from Twilight - it is too much of a teen or young adult metaphor or vision for my taste -
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
So it all comes down to the presentation and the lure of the series or movie? Guess I will keep an open mind for this new series, lol. I'm just not too keen on this 'main' actresses acting. That's what it boils down to, right? If I was watching a show of my fave characters in the book - I would at least want decent acting following the characterizations in the book. I can let details go, but now I'm hearing even HP movie (I haven't seen it yet) missed a pretty big arc from the book. Then again you need to think how can you fit all these details from a 700+ book into a 2+ hour movie. They have to work around this and that is a difficult feat to begin with. I commend them for that though.
However, I agree I don't much care for the sparkely vampire either. Weird much? Imaginative - yes. Weirdness factor - oh yeah.
However, I agree I don't much care for the sparkely vampire either. Weird much? Imaginative - yes. Weirdness factor - oh yeah.
However, I agree I don't much care for the sparkly vampire either. Weird much? Imaginative - yes. Weirdness factor - oh yeah.
And what importance does it bring to the vampire mythology? It makes for lovely special effects and it does gives a new reason for vampires not being able to expose themselves in strong sun light but also allows for them to exist in the daylight with care - but for me it comes over as just a tad too much fancy. Sorry but all I can every think of when I see that sparkles in the sky scene is "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" - but it is a magical and wonderful fantasy, all that beauty and magic and power that as a mortal/vampire couple is out of reach - they can never fully share their lives completely in their physical form.
Hope you get a chance to watch "Being Human" tonight - the series premiere is on BBC America - from the trailers and interviews it looks like it might be a good series. I really need some great TV series to take away some of my big blues over the loss of my beloved Torchwood and how the killed yet another of my favorite TV characters with Lanto - it was a heart wrenching scene - so much like the death scene of Fred and Wesley and when Connor is taken from Angel/Angelus - your sins and history of the past will haunt your future life or those of your loved ones.
I loved "The Children of Earth" - I thought it was splendid - no easy answers and so many hard questions - especially with Jack.
And what importance does it bring to the vampire mythology? It makes for lovely special effects and it does gives a new reason for vampires not being able to expose themselves in strong sun light but also allows for them to exist in the daylight with care - but for me it comes over as just a tad too much fancy. Sorry but all I can every think of when I see that sparkles in the sky scene is "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" - but it is a magical and wonderful fantasy, all that beauty and magic and power that as a mortal/vampire couple is out of reach - they can never fully share their lives completely in their physical form.
Hope you get a chance to watch "Being Human" tonight - the series premiere is on BBC America - from the trailers and interviews it looks like it might be a good series. I really need some great TV series to take away some of my big blues over the loss of my beloved Torchwood and how the killed yet another of my favorite TV characters with Lanto - it was a heart wrenching scene - so much like the death scene of Fred and Wesley and when Connor is taken from Angel/Angelus - your sins and history of the past will haunt your future life or those of your loved ones.
I loved "The Children of Earth" - I thought it was splendid - no easy answers and so many hard questions - especially with Jack.
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Here is a good article by Guirellomo del Toro and Chuck Hogan on the vampire mythology and the changes that are taking place - Is from the NYT. It touched on some of the same topics we were discussing here on novel to film or TV transference.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opinion/31deltoro.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opinion/31deltoro.html
” Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
If you are under the age of 17, please use your head and do not read fics that are labeled "NC-17". Parents, I cannot control what your children are reading, so please be advised that the majority of the fics archived here are NOT suitable for those under the age of 17.
I do not own Buffy the Vampire Slayer and I am in no way making any profit from this site. This is for pure entertainment purposes only.
Concept: (c)bringonthebloodshed.com (2004), Code & Design: (c)Diabola (2006), Graphics: Selene & Always