Buffy

I am going to repeat the criticism that I made on the predecessor of this forum.
It seems terribly convenient that Angelus preferred to draw a taunting portrait of the sleeping Buffy when he could have killed her.
Likewise at moments when Adam, Glory and Caleb had Buffy well and truly beaten, they all deliberately allowed her to live. Even supposing Glory was not entirely bad (and it is interesting how she had no such 'humanity issues' when it came to sucking the mental essence out of many another victim), or that she simply was not prepared to stoop to the level of killing a mere vampire slayer, it all detracts from the worthiness of Buffy's eventual triumphs.
Furthermore those potential slayers were utterly annoying and exasperating, and the one Willow took up with was a poisonous character who encouraged rebellion against Buffy. When, having made it too uncomfortable for Buffy to stay inside her own house, they all walked straight into the trap that she had warned them against, they really did not deserve it when she came to their rescue. They were only assets worth preserving in the sense that, properly deployed by Miss Summers, their physical strength eventually helped save the world and in particular Buffy herself. It was only on that instrumental account that Buffy was right to save those moral liabilities (even though as a heroine she would do so anyway) because without her they were basically just a sad bunch of losers. Every time I watch them being reprimanded by Spike, a far more interesting and entertaining character even when bad, I cheer him all the way.

It's a story. You must observe willing suspension of disbelief in certain respects. After all, it would be far more advantageous for Buffy to just walk around with a flame-thrower and toast all the vamps rather than fight hand-to-hand. Buffy could've killed Angelus rather easily in Innocence but didn't because she still loved Angel. Angelus didn't kill her because that's not how he gets his kicks; he loves to torture and twist.

Adam needed Buffy to help carry out his plan in the Initiative.

Glory kills Buffy, she never learns who the Key is, a possible source of info.

Caleb, as instructed by the First, they didn't want her dead...yet. Probably because the First didn't believe he could remove the Scythe. Only Buffy could.

While I agree on a fundamental level with the last paragraph, there are people who like Kennedy and feel the same way about other characters like Spike, Angel, Xander, Faith, etc. It's all a matter if taste in that arena.

OK, thanks for clarifying these points.

[ohiofan]

Well said - both of you. As you pointed out, FallenAvarice - in the end - it's just a story and it's up to the writer's imaginations. It is indeed truly wonderful that it sparks our own imaginations and leads us to the Buffyverse where we can lose ourselves and immerse our minds in what might have been and what could be.

[eadweard]

What hath Joss wrought: it's amazing isn't it, that we can debate so many different aspects of the Buffyverse; that we can read so many different points from so many different views. I believe Joss himself put it best: Bring your own subtext. This is the joy of Buffy's World: diversity of views...except in one area: Sarah Michelle Gellar is a goddess and Buffy is her avatar. If you don't believe that, well, we'll find you and convince you...slowly.

In Season Two we learn that Buffy had never known anything about Vampire Slayers until suddenly being told that she was 'the chosen one' herself, and it was only then that her training had started. Yet Season 7 featured an army of silly potentials who were already in training.
When Buffy was 'killed' by the Master she was succeeded by Kendra. When the latter was killed by Drusilla, she was replaced by Faith, even although there already was a slayer, the revived Buffy herself. By this logic, despite there already being a slayer in the form of Faith, whose incarceration diminished her significance anyway, Buffy should have been replaced a second time when she died properly after defeating Glory.
When in Season Two Buffy informed Joyce, her mother, that she was a Vampire Slayer, it seemed to be for the first time. Yet, in Season Six it emerged that Buffy had already told her parents this when living in LA, which was why she had been committed to a psychiatric hospital.
Are we to give Joss Whedon the benefit of the doubt, by taking these and other inconsistencies to be his deliberate way of letting us know that the Buffy fantasy really is just the product of a mental patient’s imagination? After all, after Buffy had finally decided that this was not the case but that she indeed was a slayer, the audience is again shown her (catatonic) in the asylum at the end of the episode concerned, as though this is the actual reality.

[eadweard]

Personally, I choose to ignore that scene. And I give Joss every benefit of doubt - and I DON'T think that includes Buffy is drooling in some catatonic state in an asylum somewhere. Joss has said his intent was to create a cult figure. Visions of a nurse changing her diaper don't fit into that.

I am as big a fan as anyone of Buffy as a person, whom I have always admired as a wonderful individual. She is nevertheless a fictional character in a fictional story, the overall structure of which merits discussion.
It is amazing that on being resurrected at the start of Season 6, after a blissfully happy period in Heaven or of sanity in the later alternative explanation, Buffy was able to start enjoying life again in Sunnydale. It was even more incredible that this included a willingness to fight on many more occasions to save the world, despite having by then experienced an alternative state which she preferred, and would presumably wish for her friends who were as entitled to it as she was herself. It is interesting that this time was definitely remembered as a perfect period in Heaven, rather than of sanity, even though she did recollect her admission many years previously to a mental hospital.

[andrew r]

Originally Posted by sarah_m_g_4_oscar

When Buffy was 'killed' by the Master she was succeeded by Kendra. When the latter was killed by Drusilla, she was replaced by Faith, even although there already was a slayer, Buffy herself. By this logic, despite there already being a slayer in the form of Faith, whose incarceration diminished her significance anyway, Buffy should have been replaced a second time when she died properly after defeating Glory.

That, according to the show wouldn't have happened. Even though Buffy died only for a few minutes. It was long enough for the line of Slayers to end. Therefore a replacement had to Chosen. Which was Kendra. She died and Faith was called. Faith didn't die, so no new Slayers could be called. One would have been called if a fellow inmate had killed Faith in S4 of Angel (with a Bringers knife). But we know what happened.

I can see your point in pointing out mistakes. But it's a usual result of a show like Buffy. Star Trek is full of contradicions (due to time travel) so don't worry too much. Also Warren tried to kill Buffy, kinda succeded too. In the sense she was dead for a few moments, before Evil Willow removed the bullet.

Plus Spike was originally hell bent in making Buffy his third slain slayer when he originally appeared.

So your point is that Buffy could only be replaced the first time she died, as by her next death she had already been replaced? It would certainly clarify matters, but was it ever actually stated by any of the characters on the show? (Incidentally, when someone passes out as Buffy did after being attacked by the Master, I myself would still think of them as being alive, for so long as they are revivable. I have never understood how anyone in such a state could be considered properly dead. That to my mind only applies to those who are beyond revival.)

[Jeff]

you know, i was never a buffy fan... not that i didn't like the show, just never got into... now i read all this stuff and wish the show was still on!

I've always seen the institution as merely a fabrication in Buffy's mind, not as an alternate dimension or anything of the sort.

As for the parting shot, I think it's a beautiful allegory of Buffy finally 'giving up' on that normal life she's always struggled to have. The scenario, as imagined by Buffy, is somewhat of a perfect life for her, maybe something that was always at the back of her mind as possibility. If you look at the cinematography of the final shot, it's one of an outsider (Sunnydale Buffy) looking in, not of one (Institution Buffy) looking out.

Or on a more ominous note, it could signify the death of happy-go-lucky Buffy... Gone.

[andrew r]

Originally Posted by sarah_m_g_4_oscar

So your point is that Buffy could only be replaced the first time she died, as by her next death she had already been replaced? It would certainly clarify matters, but was it ever actually stated by any of the characters on the show? (Incidentally, when someone passes out as Buffy did after being attacked by the Master, I myself would still think of them as being alive, for so long as they are revivable. I have never understood how anyone in such a state could be considered properly dead. That to my mind only applies to those who are beyond revival.)

Yeah it is. Remember in 'Hope Faith and Trick' when Joyce asked about how Faith became a slayer? Buffy answered that each time a Slayer dies, a new one is called. Which obviously shocked Joyce asking Buffy when did she die.

Plus I remember Xander sort of making that point with Faith as well, but including Kendra in what he was saying.

Yes, and these comments could easily involve Buffy being replaced again, the second time she died. Did anyone ever say explicitly that she could only be replaced once, regardless of how often she was killed and revived or resurrected?

On the show? No. But Whedon did specifically say that in an interview.

[andrew r]

It kinda said that when a slayer dies a new one is called. The new Slayer is the chosen one. When they die, even for a moment, another is called. Like with Buffy for the first time. Hence the First wanting to end the Line of Slayers, by killing all the potentials.

Does anyone think that SMG's appearance in the first season of Buffy differs from her appearance in future seasons of Buffy and from her appearance in her film roles?

[eadweard]

Her hair is definitely different from subsequent Buffy seasons and, dare I say it, she is heavier - she herself in some interview commented on losing her baby-fat at this time. Actually, I think she looks TREMENDOUS!

[andrew r]

I think you're right. I've watched some of the first two series of Buffy and yes, she does look a little different to now. But they are almost 10 years old now.

[ohiofan]

You guys are right. In the second and third seasons she started training heavily in her Tae Kwan Do, Kickboxing and plain old street fighting. She worked it off the hard way.