Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Buffy didn’t kill Spike in Season 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7?

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

  • Stoney
    replied
    I don't see how people can get too uppity anyway about Spike's plot armour around Buffy when School Hard saw Spike out fight Buffy and have her pinned and then run off because Joyce bopped him with an ax. Sure we don't know how things would have played out if she hadn't but that is the plot armour talking too. He had her, she was a lot younger and inexperienced and he got the better of her in that fight and it would have been more realistic for him to break Joyce's neck and continue fighting rather than run off. It happens all over the place for different characters, that's part of accepting the fictional story, that it flows where it wants to flow and oxbows off the parts it wishes to ignore. As long as the 'ignored' part doesn't irretrievably compromise the overall plot/characters etc it keeps hanging together. The story tells us they were well matched fighters at first, then made a truce and then, when he was chipped she didn't kill him because they wanted info and because he was 'harmless', later he helped, then became a true ally/lover/friend. Rightly or wrongly, that is why Buffy didn't kill Spike.

    Leave a comment:


  • BuffySpike
    replied
    I think it was explained that Buffy has issues with killing him in seasons 4 - early 5 because when he has the chip he's all weak and helpless and cant fight back.
    It didnt seem to matter how much he actually could screw with everyones heads. Also him saving the gang in Primeval seemed to be a reason why they decided not to kill him after his antics in season 4

    Thats the only really solid one I have.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoney
    replied
    Originally posted by Lostsoul666 View Post
    I'm not even going to bother trying to make sense of the Season 6 episode where we learn that he's selling demon eggs under the name "The Doctor".
    I have always taken it at face value that he stupidly agreed to help someone store them for some cash in hand. The idea that he was working as some international demon egg dealer is ridiculous. He would not have put himself and Buffy knowingly at risk either. Equally, I find it laughably ridiculous personally that some people insist that Riley must have set him up and was clearly stalking Buffy and planning this all along. I do think Riley's prejudice allowed him to smugly assume he had solved it because all roads of evil lead to Spike, goodness knows who 'The Doctor' really was, probably the contact that got Spike involved. Oh, and another big to the idea that Spike would ever have given himself a pseudonym like 'The Doctor' for his demon egg black market operation, so not him it is belly achingly funny. I don't think it is any more complicated than that, another example of his moral compass/decision making process as a demon not hitting the mark.
    Last edited by Stoney; 22-09-12, 10:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lostsoul666
    replied
    There really is no good reason why Buffy didn't kill Spike.

    Spike's a popular character so the writers had to make the other characters ignore some of the things that Spike does.

    Personally I find it very OOC for Buffy and the others to let him live after he helped Adam start a war that was going to kill a lot of people.

    The problem is made worse in "Out of my Mind".

    The biggest thing is that Spike's actions in Season 4 with Adam and "Out of my Mind" are never bought up again.

    I'm not even going to bother trying to make sense of the Season 6 episode where we learn that he's selling demon eggs under the name "The Doctor".

    Leave a comment:


  • BuffySpike
    replied
    He was kind of in shade too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoney
    replied
    Originally posted by BuffySpike View Post
    One particularly interesting instance is where she rips the gem of Amara off of his finger, she could have held him there until he burned up but she lets him go before he does.
    She doesn't make sure he is going to be safe though! She may have just thought the sun would do its job but he (luckily) gets to the sewer.

    The sunlight thing is always a bit inconsistent and I have heard arguments that the older the vamp the more sun resistant they become. Some seem to go *poof* the moment a stray beam gets them, whereas others get to rush around with a blanket over their heads and just smoulder (). Some vamps catch fire and go up like tinder, whereas another vamp's hand catches light as they are passed out drunk and they get to wake up and put it out (). I think on this topic it is simply fairer to just say it works as the plot needs it to and if you are fortunate enough to be the second type of vamp your plot armour allows the sunlight to be not as strong, or your age does protect you, or maybe the soap you use makes a difference!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • BuffySpike
    replied
    One particularly interesting instance is where she rips the gem of Amara off of his finger, she could have held him there until he burned up but she lets him go before he does.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Forehead
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoney View Post
    Welcome!!

    I can only assume you haven't been around fandom much then! It took me aback how much some people hate Spike when I first came on the forum, I mean really hate him and don't care about his redemption. But you kind of get used to it and it makes you examine your own opinions more I suppose. I know some of my thoughts on Angel get scorned by Angel fans sometimes and I certainly don't hate his character story at all. Anyway, there is a reasonable mix on here I think and definitely plenty who defend Spike.
    Thanks!

    You are correct. I haven't really bothered to get involved in fandom until now. I've recently started to look into the comics and forums because I found myself wanting more from the Buffyverse and to be able to talk to somebody about them after I recently rewatched both series for about the 100th time! Literally nobody I know has watched Angel or Buffy, I'm surrounded by imbeciles!

    I agree with the whole plot armor thing with Spike by the way but I don't see that as a bad thing. I mean why would they kill off one of their more popular and badass characters? It'd be plain dumb. I don't think Buffy/Angel would've turned out as awesome as it did without him. Why else did they bring him into Angel Season 5? Just my opinion though.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingofCretins
    replied
    Both of which are also examples of plot armor, actually, so that really doesn't make the argument that plot armor did most of the work saving Spike from early on until up through at least, say, "Crush" very controversial. It is a pretty ubiquitous trope, nobody has said otherwise.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimeTravellingBunny
    replied
    Originally posted by Francy View Post
    Thing is, I don't think Spike needs to be defended, no more than any other character ... so I don't bother anymore. Haters gonna hate, I'll just enjoy my favourite character and his amazing arc!

    On topic, Btvs is not the first and only show where some plot contrivances occur, or where a character miraculously never dies - defying the laws of nature, or where the writers stretch credibility, or where things don't make sense if you scrutinize them through a looking-glass.

    Sometimes you just have to accept the contrivances.

    Buffy didn't kill Spike because the writers didn't want her to, because they had plans for him... does it seem silly at times, in-universe? Yes. But what is done is done, and the show was infinitely better for having Spike in it (lalalalalala nay-sayers, I can't hear you!!! ). The people (mainly Spike dislikers) who at this day still resent this are not making themselves any favours, since it's not something that is going to retroactively chance.
    I'll say this: Buffy not killing Spike is far less implausible than Angelus not killing Joyce and Willow and leaving them for Buffy to find, but just killing Willow's fish instead and leaving pictures of Joyce and conveniently prolonging things until they did the disinvitation spell.

    Leave a comment:


  • Francy
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoney View Post
    There is a great degree of that, always happens in shows/films etc. But taking the decision and running with it you have to conclude that in S2 Buffy had thought she had killed Spike and then he made the truce to bring down Angelus. In S3 Angel/Buffy thought they had to go along with him to save Willow/Xander and then when he revealed where they were he was able to walk away without them stopping him. In S4 she could have killed him in Harsh Light he just managed to get cover. Then once he was chipped he was 'harmless'. Of course he could still pose a threat, he could get minions to do deeds etc etc but he wasn't, he had come to them and firstly they wanted information about the soldiers and then in later seasons, well, as vamps says he was a person and Willow is right it would have been 'icky'. This whole disagreement reminds me of the torture/ethical treatment thread. There is a distinct difference of opinion it seems between what does and doesn't fit into the behaviour of a hero. That debate ended up circling and did run its course, which is why I haven't thrown myself into this one, it is very similar.

    Yes, I think it would be wrong for Buffy to stake a chipped Spike who is just stood there defenceless. I think it would be dark for her to do that whether or not he is begging to live. The only time I can think of where I would have possibly not questioned Spike being staked when chipped was in S4 when he was discovered to be helping Adam. At that point he has made himself a threat again, actively and intentionally so. Would she have not killed any other demons who were on Adam's side? I don't know completely what I think on that one.
    Most of the times it's certainly possible to find an in-story explanation that makes sense, besides the plot-armor thing. I just think that the resentment some people keep having after all these years about Spike being kept in the show is... not good. Whether they like it or not, he was made a main character and given a big storyline, and hammering on the fact that he should have been killed-murdered-dusted-disposed of is futile, and it sours their enjoyment of the show a great deal.

    But we know all topics in fandom are cyclical, in 20 years we will probably still be talking about this! LOL

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoney
    replied
    Originally posted by Francy View Post
    On topic, Btvs is not the first and only show where some plot contrivances occur, or where a character miraculously never dies - defying the laws of nature, or where the writers stretch credibility, or where things don't make sense if you scrutinize them through a looking-glass.

    Sometimes you just have to accept the contrivances.

    Buffy didn't kill Spike because the writers didn't want her to, because they had plans for him.
    There is a great degree of that, always happens in shows/films etc. But taking the decision and running with it you have to conclude that in S2 Buffy had thought she had killed Spike and then he made the truce to bring down Angelus. In S3 Angel/Buffy thought they had to go along with him to save Willow/Xander and then when he revealed where they were he was able to walk away without them stopping him. In S4 she could have killed him in Harsh Light he just managed to get cover. Then once he was chipped he was 'harmless'. Of course he could still pose a threat, he could get minions to do deeds etc etc but he wasn't, he had come to them and firstly they wanted information about the soldiers and then in later seasons, well, as vamps says he was a person and Willow is right it would have been 'icky'. This whole disagreement reminds me of the torture/ethical treatment thread. There is a distinct difference of opinion it seems between what does and doesn't fit into the behaviour of a hero. That debate ended up circling and did run its course, which is why I haven't thrown myself into this one, it is very similar.

    Yes, I think it would be wrong for Buffy to stake a chipped Spike who is just stood there defenceless. I think it would be dark for her to do that whether or not he is begging to live. The only time I can think of where I would have possibly not questioned Spike being staked when chipped was in S4 when he was discovered to be helping Adam. At that point he has made himself a threat again, actively and intentionally so. Would she have not killed any other demons who were on Adam's side? I don't know completely what I think on that one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Francy
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoney View Post
    Welcome!!

    I can only assume you haven't been around fandom much then! It took me aback how much some people hate Spike when I first came on the forum, I mean really hate him and don't care about his redemption. But you kind of get used to it and it makes you examine your own opinions more I suppose. I know some of my thoughts on Angel get scorned by Angel fans sometimes and I certainly don't hate his character story at all. Anyway, there is a reasonable mix on here I think and definitely plenty who defend Spike.
    Thing is, I don't think Spike needs to be defended, no more than any other character ... so I don't bother anymore. Haters gonna hate, I'll just enjoy my favourite character and his amazing arc!

    On topic, Btvs is not the first and only show where some plot contrivances occur, or where a character miraculously never dies - defying the laws of nature, or where the writers stretch credibility, or where things don't make sense if you scrutinize them through a looking-glass.

    Sometimes you just have to accept the contrivances.

    Buffy didn't kill Spike because the writers didn't want her to, because they had plans for him... does it seem silly at times, in-universe? Yes. But what is done is done, and the show was infinitely better for having Spike in it (lalalalalala nay-sayers, I can't hear you!!! ). The people (mainly Spike dislikers) who at this day still resent this are not making themselves any favours, since it's not something that is going to retroactively chance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoney
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Forehead View Post
    I wasn't even aware that there were Buffy/Angel fans out there who hated Spike and actually wanted Buffy to kill him all those times. Interesting back story, hilarious exchanges with the other characters and awesome hair, what's not to like?
    Welcome!!

    I can only assume you haven't been around fandom much then! It took me aback how much some people hate Spike when I first came on the forum, I mean really hate him and don't care about his redemption. But you kind of get used to it and it makes you examine your own opinions more I suppose. I know some of my thoughts on Angel get scorned by Angel fans sometimes and I certainly don't hate his character story at all. Anyway, there is a reasonable mix on here I think and definitely plenty who defend Spike.

    Leave a comment:


  • BuffySpike
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Forehead View Post
    I wasn't even aware that there were Buffy/Angel fans out there who hated Spike and actually wanted Buffy to kill him all those times. Interesting back story, hilarious exchanges with the other characters and awesome hair, what's not to like?
    It doesn't surprise me. When someone is a serious threat to someones ship the claws well and truly come out

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X