Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Buffy # 9 Issue Discussion Thread(Full Spoilers)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Yeah I agree, although I feel he has improved somewhat these last couple of years I'm not a fan of his weird childlike bodily proportions that goes on with a lot of his artwork.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Stoney View Post
      Quick additional thought/query, I wasn't clear who Vicki was talking to when she said that the concentrated magic in the town smelled like 'you'. To be on that side of her as Vicki is facing us, and the hair colour, seemed to suggest it was a comment directed at Faith, but the hair length is more Willow's. But it is Faith that responds to the comment. When she does, in that next panel with Faith/Buffy/Vicki, Buffy seems to have swapped sides from where she was before and Willow hasn't stepped forward instead/too so although it is a bit confusing on positions, it does seem to support it was more likely to have been Faith she was saying it to. In that case, is Vicki saying the deaths seem to have been committed by slayers? That would at least suggest a major prompt for reversing the empowerment spell. Did anyone else think it was directed at Faith, that it was about generic magic, or possibly even Willow specific (in that it could have been somehow using or based on her drained magic)??
      I simply assumed she meant Willow, it never even occurred to me it could be anything else. I don't think she would refer to Slayers as "concentrated magic".

      Originally posted by Clavus View Post
      I also agree with KingofCretins that the story-line of Vicky's gang's set-up makes for a bit of a dubious plot-twist to now paint Buffy and the vampires as allies. I thought it was interesting that Spike was the first to admit that the massacre was the fault of his kind and to be expected after the starving conditions at camp, which leaves open the question what Vicky and the rather large roost of vampires have been eating since the break-out if they didn't snack on the citizenry of Dolan. Somehow I doubt they all just refrained out of a new-found regard for humans. I wonder if they revisit that plot-hole at some point.
      I think they had a good reason not to massacre the town - because at least some of them must be smarter than that. They should be able to restrain themselves for a bit longer and, instead of massacring an entire town, which would attract attention and make for some really bad press, as it has, restrain themselves a bit longer, go their different ways, and kill and feed as they usually do, i.e. not in such an en masse, obvious way that attracts too much attention. Vampires in BtVS very rarely performed such big attacks even on a school or the Bronze (it only happened when a vampire enjoyed attention and risk, like Spike in School Hard, or when it was a beginning/precursor of a planned invasion/apocalypse, as in season 1 with the Master's minions), let alone an entire town. After vampires became public knowledge, and got some good press, too, thanks to Harmony, it would be really idiotic to go and massacre an entire town and get caught doing it on camera, no matter how hungry you may be.

      They should still make a point that all those released vamps are going to be killing people soon, and they should have Buffy and co. feel guilty; that would be much more interesting storytelling. But I'm not holding my breath, it's going to be all focused on the government plan now.

      Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
      Could have been cute on screen --

      *Big dramatic kiss, w/ music cue*

      *beat*

      B: Spike?

      S: yeah?

      B: did you just lick blood off my face?

      S: ....

      B: *peck* you're gross *peck* I love you

      *unclench*
      You write better Whedony dialogue than Gage.
      You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

      Comment


      • #18
        I've always maintained blah blah blah
        I don't care what you've maintained. This stuff is 100% true to the canon so, like, deal with it. And for goodness' sake, it's like, you're upset that awesome shit happens. Willow super-magically smashes walls with a slayer ball! It's awesome! Buffy trashes some lame ass whatever! Yes, it's the shit, pure entertainment! Fun! What is wrong with you people? We get the funnest issue in months and you're all like blah blah politics, blah blah lore. Unbelievable.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
          Nah, still works for me. Their first dust-up was the equivalent of a pissing contest, this was a prove-or-die type situation. This not tournament, Daniel-san, this for real.
          Their first dust up involved Jordan and her crew trying to forcefully arrest Spike and Willow, and the fight dragged from her appartment to the stairwell to the street, I think it was more than a pissing contest. Why didn't Buffy OHKO Jordan then if it was that easy? Why did Spike surrender the moment Jordan gave the kill order? If these Slayers are pushovers then surely a kill order from them is nothing to be taken seriously?

          I'm disappointed because in my eyes Jordan was established as a threat early on. And even if she's subpar by Slayer standards, again -Buffy's injuries should have certainly given Jordan a huge advantage.

          I'm curious, how do you think Jordan should stack up against Simone? Spike? Angel? Kennedy? Nadira? Koh?

          LOL Spike in "Chosen", a Jonestown scale mass murderer, right? That's where this has left us.
          There are a lot of vampire deaths from the show(s) and earlier comics I'd love to revisit under the lens of vampire lives suddenly mattering now.

          I do think there is still a banality of evil issue with your hypo that would make it objectionable to me, a consequentialism I don't like. It's a very MOO line of thinking, and it strikes the same implicit objection in me that that did, you don't want that much power accruing in some bureaucratic context, and you don't want the way of life of the mortal world to have to change to accomplish mass produced Slaying. It's a personal, even intimate thing, this long age-old dance. It's maybe a more aesthetic objection than anything else.
          Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by MOO thinking?

          Would you object if any character from the Walking Dead decided to build a giant meat grinder and lure as many zombies into it as possible? What if the scoobies did that with the zompires from season 9? I remember a scene where Xander set up a trap with solarium beds designed to cook zompires who walked into it. Would it matter if he built one on a massive scale? Would it matter if Buffy wrote in the Vampyr book during season 10 "all vampires except Angel and Spike instantly turn to dust"? Would it matter if the government people who run the SZ said something along the lines of "we have assessed the vampires and come to the conclusion that they are a race of sociopathic monsters unfit to exist alongside the rest of us. We have therefore spiked their blood rations with holy water and soon there will be no vampires in the US." Would that be unethical for the people running the SZ to do? If so, how and why? Where do you draw the line? Previous to this issue, I've assumed all vampires to be "kill on sight".

          The best outcome I can think of here, lorewise, is that Willow ex machina's the supernatural world back out of the limelight. Get ALLLLLL the lethe's bramble in the turning world and "forget" the damn business, because that's about the only way you'd ever really stop a committed state-run program bent on purging the supernatural is to make it not remember it's job.
          I'm generally against ex machina stuff that retcons what people remember, I've always found it to be an incredibly lazy way of avoiding consequences. Look at how poorly received it was when Mephisto wiped away Spider-man's marriage. I don't mind the supernatural being in the public now, it was always a stretch that most of the population didn't know anyway.

          Given it's a vampire, series, it's appropriate to cite Reagan's axiom that the only thing harder to kill than a vampire is a government program.
          I think it will go the way of the Initiative or Twilight's troops where the higher ups declare it was a mistake, sweep it under the rug and forget about it.


          It's very annoying since there is a pace and cinematic quality to this mini-season that I've quite enjoyed but it's being eclipsed by this trite, mythology pillaging attempt at allegory.
          I know right? The pacing in this shorter season has been pretty tight.

          - - - Updated - - -

          Originally posted by a thing of evil View Post
          I don't care what you've maintained, I'm the rudest, most obnoxious person on the forum and my opinion is more important than anyone else's!
          When are you going to post your cringe inducing review of this issue that starts off with a character quote? I look forward to those every month. Are you still claiming to be a villain?
          Last edited by Vampire in Rug; 20-07-17, 05:31 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
            I simply assumed she meant Willow, it never even occurred to me it could be anything else. I don't think she would refer to Slayers as "concentrated magic".
            I would have too from the text, it was the colour of the hair of the person she was speaking to and their position to the left of her (going from her point of view) which threw me. I agree it would make more sense to ignore the art and go with that and can even be specific to Willow herself if her drained magic was somehow used. It may be that this is referenced again even as they figure out what the person/Government is gathering the magic for.

            They should still make a point that all those released vamps are going to be killing people soon, and they should have Buffy and co. feel guilty; that would be much more interesting storytelling. But I'm not holding my breath, it's going to be all focused on the government plan now.
            I'm still hopeful that there will be, at the least, the predictable betrayal at the end to emphasise that the soulless vamps aren't to be trusted once they've served their own interests.

            Originally posted by Vampire in Rug View Post
            Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by MOO thinking?
            I assumed it was a Gingerbread reference??

            Previous to this issue, I've assumed all vampires to be "kill on sight".
            But that hasn't been the case for a good while. The whole vamps in public aspect shifted the dynamic to be those who are doing wrong. It isn't that vamps can or should suddenly be trusted, but that you can't assume they have killed to feed I think. I don't think they shifted from that in this issue. Buffy is often playing politics with the vamps, it is in line with the whole idea of Harmony's character worth now that they should (although I wish they didn't).

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally, when Harmony first became famous Buffy claimed that she wasn't going to hunt her down because she didn't want to make her a martyr. Now, that's a pretty weak reason, but it's an excuse for the writers to not have Buffy stake Harmony like she logically should, but still maintains the idea that deep down Harmony is still a soulless monster who deserves death. She's too high profile a target to kill, but if one were to kill her, it would be ethically okay, just like any other vampire.

              Season 9 had zompires primarily.

              Season 10 had a temporary truce with Vicky to wipe out the last of the zompires. Buffy timed the battle to end at dawn so that she wouldn't have to fight Vicky when the inevitable betrayal happened. I think this is where the bizzare concern for vampire lives started. Buffy should have no moral obligation to give Vicky an "out" of that situation, especially if Vicky is planning to betray her. Later, Vicky shows up to work out a deal over the Vampyr book. Really, Vicky should have been killed on the spot the moment she appeared at Buffy's door and I can't think of a good reason why she wasn't. That said, in season 10 we had at least one scene of Buffy and Spike showing up to new nest of vamps to exterminate them. Those vamps had not hurt anyone yet, and even if they did they were under Archeus's control so their actions could be excused, but Buffy and Spike still wiped them out.

              Now in this issue, we have Buffy explicitly state that if Vicky didn't kill those people then they aren't enemies.

              One thing I always appreciated about Conversations With Dead People is just how open and honest Holden Webster was about his evil nature. He was charming, funny and helpful but ultimately both he and Buffy knew that only one of them was going to leave that graveyard alive. It didn't need to be debated, it was unspoken but it was there. She didn't kill him because he threatened anyone or because he attacked her first, she killed him because he was a vampire. No amount of pleading or promises or "I swear I won't hurt anyone" would have convinced Buffy to let him walk away. I miss those days.

              Comment


              • #22
                I agree, but I don't think they are going back on the basic premise that the vampires can't be trusted, the wider social situation has just changed and they are, in certain circumstances, working with them for their own benefits. This is how I see Vicki's character being used. It isn't the publicity aspect that kept Harmony alive but it is similar because Vicki is being used as the rep of the new vamps. They deliberately placed her alongside Harmony in the last season to emphasise her place in verse. The new vamps are harder to fight and they can hide more easily in the human community. They have a separate status really and rubbing along well together possibly takes different tactics. At times they are being used when it suits both parties, but not trusted differently I don't think. I do take the point that Buffy saying they aren't enemies if they haven't killed is separating them from being simply dustable on sight. But I do think that this is generally what we are seeing now from the vamps in public. Those who were with Archaeus were a threat so they lost any tolerance. The holstered stakes always feel pretty loose to me. So I don't think that they have moved fully away from that, but do think that further shifts have come with the new vamps that has changed the landscape a little more. The slightly different threat from them is enough for me to accept that. And yet they still also had Spike draw the distinction between himself and Vicki at the start of the season. I don't think we are supposed to see her differently in any significant way from old vamps, it is just that new times creates new temporary alliances at points. I, and I'd expect Buffy too, would still expect they could betray them once it wasn't mutually beneficial to cooperate.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Bloody hell, literally. I loved it!

                  I was already spoiled about the main points of this issue, but anyway it was exciting to read it – even though I’m not a fan of fights that stretch into many panels, Buffy, Willow and Faith kicking ass was bloody awesome in this issue (what’s up with Faith biting? ). I even liked Jeanty’s work…

                  Buffy & Willow get their powers back and Faith immediately gives the Scythe back to Buffy; it’s great that she admits she feels “not normal” without powers.

                  Jordan doesn’t have from me any sympathy anymore – I was willing to give her a break, but the way she and her team relish fighting Buffy, Willow and Faith just shows that they really are committed to the cause - the Big Bad’s cause, whomever he/she may be.

                  Willow, now at her full power again, destroys the magic field that had been keeping the supernatural trapped in the camp, and a great escape ensues, given them the opportunity to also leave, not before Buffy and Spike welcome each other with a passionate kiss!

                  Buffy, Spike, Willow and Faith reunite with Dawn and Xander at a motel in Santa Fe, and watch on TV the upsetting news: the vamps who have just escaped from the camp massacred an entire population of a small town; among them, Vicky the Vampire. Later, in Austin (at the Congress Bridge), Vicky is confronted and denies that she and her band of new vamps did the killing - and Buffy believes her; it’s all a set up by the Government.

                  It seems that from the attack by the dragon in SF to the death of these 2,000 people all are part of a well coordinate plan, with each step carefully envisioned. The Government intention has never been protect the “normal” population or investigate who sent the dragon; what they have always wanted is eliminate the supernatural beings (although I still think that the dragon may have been manipulated against his will to do the attack…).

                  So, the Big bad would have to be someone who has power in the office, which would make the President or the angry Vice we saw in the first issue the obvious choices – too obvious for my taste.

                  So, I have a new theory: maybe the higher authorities are been played by some other power all along; they are reacting exactly how he/she wants or expects them to. One of those “best experts on the supernatural” that they have put to work after the dragon attack (a group Willow declined to join in issue #2) may be the culprit. And since the big machine that is being built to wipe out all supernatural beings is at a place called the Pandora Project (in Greek mythology, Pandora was the first human woman created by the gods), maybe the Big Bad is a woman - another powerful witch, maybe? She certainly would have a way to make herself immune to the process.
                  My Tumblr: Dog is My Copilot

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Stoney View Post
                    I agree, but I don't think they are going back on the basic premise that the vampires can't be trusted, the wider social situation has just changed and they are, in certain circumstances, working with them for their own benefits. This is how I see Vicki's character being used. It isn't the publicity aspect that kept Harmony alive but it is similar because Vicki is being used as the rep of the new vamps. They deliberately placed her alongside Harmony in the last season to emphasise her place in verse. The new vamps are harder to fight and they can hide more easily in the human community. They have a separate status really and rubbing along well together possibly takes different tactics. At times they are being used when it suits both parties, but not trusted differently I don't think. I do take the point that Buffy saying they aren't enemies if they haven't killed is separating them from being simply dustable on sight. But I do think that this is generally what we are seeing now from the vamps in public. Those who were with Archaeus were a threat so they lost any tolerance. The holstered stakes always feel pretty loose to me. So I don't think that they have moved fully away from that, but do think that further shifts have come with the new vamps that has changed the landscape a little more. The slightly different threat from them is enough for me to accept that. And yet they still also had Spike draw the distinction between himself and Vicki at the start of the season. I don't think we are supposed to see her differently in any significant way from old vamps, it is just that new times creates new temporary alliances at points. I, and I'd expect Buffy too, would still expect they could betray them once it wasn't mutually beneficial to cooperate.

                    So would Buffy hang out in a graveyard these days and stake a vampire as it crawls out of the ground?

                    If she bumped into Drusilla walking down the street would she go for the kill immediately?

                    If there was some other vigilante going around killing vampires Punisher style (think That Old Gang of Mine but exclusively with vamps), would she lift a finger to stop it?

                    What if, say, Xander was sired? Would Buffy attempt to stake him before he rises as a vampire to spare him that fate just like how Angel did with Darla?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Vampire in Rug View Post
                      So would Buffy hang out in a graveyard these days and stake a vampire as it crawls out of the ground?
                      This right here. The entire newthink on vampires invalidates the archetypal day-in-the-life that was the basis of the entire TV show for... well, the whole show. I mean, it was the image upon which they staked, no pun, a lot of the iconic moments in the series, like BuffyBot reveal in "Bargaining", the cold open of "Lessons", etc. How can this be a status quo that's worth maintaining? To wit, the difference between Mephisto and Willow memory-bombing vampires back into the figurative closet (or I suppose "in the shadows" is a better image given the strained metaphor), is that Mary-Jane and Peter were awesome and vampires-in-public sucks

                      If she bumped into Drusilla walking down the street would she go for the kill immediately?

                      If there was some other vigilante going around killing vampires Punisher style (think That Old Gang of Mine but exclusively with vamps), would she lift a finger to stop it?

                      What if, say, Xander was sired? Would Buffy attempt to stake him before he rises as a vampire to spare him that fate just like how Angel did with Darla?
                      "Don't we kill 'em anymore?" Ah, Charles if only you knew. Good catch on "Reunion", I mean the entire premise of that episode is invalidated, and CwDP as well.
                      sigpic
                      Banner by LRae12

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                        This right here. The entire newthink on vampires invalidates the archetypal day-in-the-life that was the basis of the entire TV show for... well, the whole show. I mean, it was the image upon which they staked, no pun, a lot of the iconic moments in the series, like BuffyBot reveal in "Bargaining", the cold open of "Lessons", etc. How can this be a status quo that's worth maintaining? To wit, the difference between Mephisto and Willow memory-bombing vampires back into the figurative closet (or I suppose "in the shadows" is a better image given the strained metaphor), is that Mary-Jane and Peter were awesome and vampires-in-public sucks



                        "Don't we kill 'em anymore?" Ah, Charles if only you knew. Good catch on "Reunion", I mean the entire premise of that episode is invalidated, and CwDP as well.
                        That's what I've been saying. It's not necessarily Harmony herself. She, like Spike, Dru, etc., have always enjoyed celebrity status and plot armor. Her continued existence makes little sense, but in fairness, Buffy or Angel never should have let Spike walk away in S3. It's one of those things you have to go with.

                        The problem is the very idea that vamps can be so easily controlled and tamed as to not really be a threat anymore that is the issue. Throughout the entire show--both shows--it's maintained that vamps are inherently evil and untrustworthy. Harmony's first attempt at a gang demonstrates as much as well as her betrayals of Cordy in Disharmony and Angel at the end of S5. Mort and company just say to hell with it and plan to kill Dawn and Harm 'cause they're evil. Holden? Evil and pretty proud of it. They are one of the rare creatures that were evil in their very nature. Thus we have vampire slayers.

                        In the comics, they're just not. They're included in the list of kill'em if they're up to evilness. It directly undermines everything.
                        Last edited by HardlyThere; 21-07-17, 03:09 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                          To wit, the difference between Mephisto and Willow memory-bombing vampires back into the figurative closet (or I suppose "in the shadows" is a better image given the strained metaphor), is that Mary-Jane and Peter were awesome and vampires-in-public sucks
                          It's still pretty lazy to just do a global mindwipe. It's messy too, I mean maybe you could wank it so that supernatural people are unaffected by the spell -Buffy, Willow, Faith maybe Giles would keep their memories intact. But how do you keep Xander and Dawn in the loop, but not any other average citizen? Maybe you could argue that it's a chance for Xander and Dawn to have a normal, non-supernatural happily ever after and be reinserted into the Matrix, but then how do you explain stuff like Xander's eye? And if Xander and Dawn do remember vampires, what about Riley? Dowling? Billy? Gunn? How do you exempt some people from the spell and not others? The questions and implication are way messier than retroactively inserting Dawn into everyone's memories of seasons 1-4.

                          I don't so much mind vampires being public, I think the issue is with the way it's been written. The majority vampire population deciding to behave themselves is ridiculous, as is the human population's blind acceptance of them in seasons 8-10, then the sudden 180 in season 11. I don't think the idea is bad itself, but the execution of it sure is.

                          It was always kind of silly that the supernatural world could stay hidden in the 21st century anyway.



                          "Don't we kill 'em anymore?" Ah, Charles if only you knew.
                          I've been thinking about that quote from Gunn a lot actually!

                          At least with Harmony you can argue that most of the characters went to school with her and knew her before she was sired, so it's emotionally harder to kill her than most vamps. Plus she's making an effort to be "good" in her own selfish way, and even when she's evil she's a pathetic joke villain that's hard to take seriously so if you squint a bit you can sort of justify letting her live when you stack all these reasons up. But that stuff applies to Harmony pretty much exclusively and even then it's kind of a stretch.

                          For the record, this season so far Buffy has killed exactly one vampire. Willow and Spike none, Angel and Illyria none. Faith, I'm not sure if that green flash this issue was meant to be a staking when she fought that one wolf-vamp under the bridge? This season will have the fewest vampire kills of any.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Vampire in Rug View Post
                            So would Buffy hang out in a graveyard these days and stake a vampire as it crawls out of the ground?
                            Probably not, but if she did I don't think she would feel guilty about it. This is the problem I have with the vampires in public storyline, which I've never liked. The gang still don't trust vampires. They still see them as inherently evil but they are letting the social situation somewhat dictate their responses to a group of demons that they don't think are trustworthy by nature. And worse still, this point of view keeps being supported by what happens. Most of the time a soulless vampire breezes through the story they show themselves to be untrustworthy. Harmony betrays them constantly and really it is ridiculous that she is allowed to live, even with her status. Sure she might be relatively incompetent as a villain, but she still got hold of the vampyr book not so long ago and tried to enslave everyone to her whims. She and Drac shouldn't have made it out of that season. One of my most disliked scenes in the verse is Buffy etc laughing about Harmony having 'minions' when it is only a side step off that to realise this means some of those minions are likely to be her victims and that is true, Brad states she sired him. But they are still holding true to distrusting soulless vampires but are mostly following society in giving them the space to prove themselves, whilst knowing they can't/won't in the long run. But they might not choose to kill, even if they do some other evil. And so there should be some structure and form to their policing, some acknowledgement of the inherent risk they pose, and there just isn't.

                            The moment they had vampires in public choosing to fall in line and not feed on humans it put staking them on sight up in the air. It isn't that the group thinks they are equals, it isn't that they think they should have the same status/rights (as Spike clearly demonstrated this season), it is that they don't feel they are in a position to condemn them instantly now because they could choose to not feed/kill. I don't think that that breaks anything that came before in the TV series. Vampires can choose to not behave like mindless animals and have been shown as such since the very beginning. When they weren't in the public eye they chose to not resist any urges to kill/harm humans and then they became commonly 'known' and suddenly this changed that?? That is the point to have issue with if anything. Why did it change it? How does it really change the point of view that a soulless vampire would want to curb their urges to feed/hurt/kill? What was true and is still shown to be true, is that a soulless vampire will do what suits them and serves their own wants.

                            Let's go with a notion that vampires feel they are outnumbered by humans and without an element of surprise a great deal of them choose to just feed differently and not have a mass of Gunn esque gangs forming and hunting them down. But they still prove themselves repeatedly to not be trusted and, this is what really gets me personally, not all vampires do choose to follow Harmony's rules, so why isn't the defensive panic happening anyway? Feeding from other sources than humans has to be something that they will choose to do for a reason that benefits them and it should be understood and handled in this 'aware society' that others will choose not to and very importantly, the ones that have chosen to comply may suddenly change their minds! The whole way they have handled the vampires in public bit is poor. So people know about vampires and accept that they exist. They accept that they say they won't hunt/kill because they aren't able to do that under the radar of their target food source any longer. Okay, but some don't and people not feeling scared by this is a nonsense. The verse continues to hold constant that once their selfish reasons for doing anything shift, they follow their wants. Public acceptance of this situation is farcical. Our group playing along with it whilst waiting for vampires to earn staking now was an instant casualty of the social switch. We see that they don't feel guilt if they do preemptively stake (how often are they staking clearly before a vampire does anything anymore??), but they are falling in line effectively to waiting for vampires to prove themselves as a threat now because of Harmony's suggestion that it benefits vampires to not kill now.

                            If she bumped into Drusilla walking down the street would she go for the kill immediately?
                            If Dru was doing nothing and wasn't known to be siring, possibly not. But this hasn't suddenly been the change this season, this is what happened by letting the whole Harmony's rules thing happen. Dru of course has super special exit stage left directions whenever she appears anyway. If Buffy tried to stake her she would find that she wasn't at the end of her swinging arc no matter how hard she tried. Dru is the constant joke ending to Buffy vs Drac.

                            If there was some other vigilante going around killing vampires Punisher style (think That Old Gang of Mine but exclusively with vamps), would she lift a finger to stop it?
                            Also probably not. Because the group know and keep to the point of view that vampires are inherently untrustworthy. I don't think Buffy would start to protect them, even if they are conforming to the rules, or at least seeming to.

                            What if, say, Xander was sired? Would Buffy attempt to stake him before he rises as a vampire to spare him that fate just like how Angel did with Darla?
                            I think there is a chance they would try to resoul him because I don't think that Buffy would want to stake him. It is always ropey how our main characters will react to vampires who they have history with or knew as humans. Angel hasn't ever actively tried to stake Dru to free her from the evil life he thrust her into. We accept this somewhat because of the same reasons we are asked to accept that they let Harmony walk away time and again and similarly to Willow saying staking Spike once they knew him better was ooky (or some such Willow-esque phrase).

                            It all got muddled the instant they said that vampires would play along in the main. It isn't that the verse didn't support that they could, it's that the verse previously never showed that they would.

                            Originally posted by Vampire in Rug View Post
                            I don't so much mind vampires being public, I think the issue is with the way it's been written. The majority vampire population deciding to behave themselves is ridiculous, as is the human population's blind acceptance of them in seasons 8-10, then the sudden 180 in season 11. I don't think the idea is bad itself, but the execution of it sure is.
                            Exactly. How the group is responding to the social shifts isn't so much the issue as the shifts in themselves standing up to any scrutiny.
                            Last edited by Stoney; 21-07-17, 02:03 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Vampire in Rug View Post
                              It's still pretty lazy to just do a global mindwipe. It's messy too, I mean maybe you could wank it so that supernatural people are unaffected by the spell -Buffy, Willow, Faith maybe Giles would keep their memories intact. But how do you keep Xander and Dawn in the loop, but not any other average citizen? Maybe you could argue that it's a chance for Xander and Dawn to have a normal, non-supernatural happily ever after and be reinserted into the Matrix, but then how do you explain stuff like Xander's eye? And if Xander and Dawn do remember vampires, what about Riley? Dowling? Billy? Gunn? How do you exempt some people from the spell and not others? The questions and implication are way messier than retroactively inserting Dawn into everyone's memories of seasons 1-4.
                              They don't need a mindwipe. All they need is a supernatural wipe. They have the narrative already to do with it Pandora. I'm sure the crew will somehow avoid it. I'd be shocked if they re-depowered Willow and killed Spike or Dawn. Angel is in the past; no worry there.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X