Yes. Yes, I did. Because I'm not distracted from doing my posting duties already. -sigh-
The Slayerettes community actually hooked me through their poll, which I just posted on about our deep, dark, possibly unpopular opinions about our Buffyverse (that's right, Joss and FOX - move over, we're taking it - lol). That poll/my answer is HERE.
Since I started to go back in their post-history, I decided to just friend them instead of depending on the Friend of Friend - and since there are polls I missed from before, I decided to answer them now - because you are all infatuated with my opinions on all topics-Buffy, dammit, and I will not believe anything else:
I'm writing a fic, the plot involves Acathla. I can't find any explanation why it was only Angel's blood that could initiate it. Acathla "predates any settlements we've ever read about" so it definitely had been created before Angel was born. It was excavated days before the start of the events in "Becoming". How does Angel fit into it?
I don't think it was only Angel's blood that could activate Acathla - it was just he (or, well, Angelus) that found him, stole him and performed the ritual correctly.
How does [Slayer healing] work? What are the limits of it? And does it prevent her from getting a permenant scar?
I always thought that Slayer healing was partially a supercharged metabolism, partially magical elements in Slayer blood, partially demon energy and partially TPTB mysticism... in other words - It's whatever it needs to be for a story to work. In spanderverse I operate from the assumption that any wound which Buffy can survive will eventually heal completely - it's just a matter of surviving long enough. I also work under the assumption that under ordinary circumstances, she cannot get permanent scarring. I had her mention that a scar on her knee had completely healed over when her Slayer powers activated - but Angel and Dracula's bites did leave permanent scars behind (Angel's bite mark remaining is canon - Parker asks her about it). I put this down to the magical nature of vampires - mystic wounds can leave permanent markers, survived ordinary wounds only leave temporary evidence.
Is Connor stronger, faster etc than a slayer?
Good question - in canon, like with vampire strength and Slayer strength, it fluctuates depending on story needs (for instance, despite Connor growing up in a hell dimension and gaining the nickname The Destroyer, he sure does get his ass kicked a lot). I would say that when Connor first arrived, he was equal in strength to older vampires (Angelus), but weaker than old vampires (The Master, Kakistos) which would put him roughly on par with Slayers, yes. In the Angel S6 comics, there is some suggestion lately that Connor's strength is mystically increasing so he may now be stronger than newly called Slayers - though I still think that Buffy and Faith could out muscle him, at least at this point.
How do we know that at the end of season 6 Spike went to Africa to get his soul back? What if he wanted the demon to only extract the chip so he could kill Buffy? (He said that he wanted to return to his former self, and later he said "Make me what I was so Buffy can get what she deserves.")
I know that later, in S7 or in S5 of Angel, Spike claims that he went to Africa to get his soul, but I also read some fanfics or essays in which the authors assumed that Spike didn't want the soul and it was the demon who interpreted Spike's request this way.
So which one is true? Did the writers ever say anything about it?
This is one of those things that really bugs me about Buffy-canon, Spuffy fans and creative decisions by the show: I agree that absolutely 100% nothing in James' delivery of his lines, the scowl on his face, or the dialog written pointed to Spike going on a quest to re-gain his soul. Everything points to his being pissed off, saying 'screw this good guy crap' and taking off to finally do something about that chip so he could return to being the evil bad-ass he was before getting involved with Buffy.
There are a few logical arguments that also support Spike not being interested in gaining a human soul: 1) Why would Spike want to be like Angel? Being a "brooding poof" would be the last thing that Spike would be seeking out, and as far as he knows, it is Angel's having a soul that broke Angelus and turned him into the 'loser' he became. It just doesn't make sense for Spike to try to gain a soul, knowing what it has done to Angel. 2) Motivation - Spike was being driven by confusion and rejection by Buffy - not love. That is clear when he's on the motorcycle heading out of town (again, nothing in that scene says "Buffy deserves better, and I'm going to do whatever it takes to give that to her"). He was pissed off and had enough of bouncing back and forth between Buffy saying 'yes' and then saying 'no'... her running hot and cold faster than he could keep up had him frustrated past his breaking point. 3) He's a vampire, dammit. I don't care what the 'chip' allowed him to think - at his core, he was being driven by demonic impulses un-moderated by the moral compass of a soul (the soul itself is a whole other discussion because it's ill-defined in the Buffyverse). His decision do leave to "become what I was" wasn't motivated by Buffy's interest - it was all about his selfish desires and the need to punish her for pushing him away and not giving him what he wanted. 4) The restoring demon - this being is clearly not interested in 'rewarding' Spike for completing the tests. He was sure Spike would lose and be destroyed as who knows how many beings before him - he won - the demon was peevish about it. Spike asked to be returned to what he was, and like the Djinn tales, it was a case of "be careful what you wish for". The demon made Spike "what he was" alright, by restoring William - but not because Spike wanted that - it was because the demon was punishing him for defeating its tests successfully. 5) Spike's yell - this is more a matter of interpretation, but we've seen multiple times in the past that when Liam is restored to Angel, it takes him several minutes to recover and realize what has happened. There was simply no time for Spike to "feel" William's return, nor to be impacted by guilt or remorse or horror over what he had done in the past now that he has a human soul again. He screams when the demon informs him that he's returning his soul - that isn't what he meant and not what he wants!
So, how do we explain the writer's (and it seems to be their view, not just Spike twisting his history in the re-telling) telling us that Spike went after his soul for Buffy? Panic. Pure and simple panic. Joss realized over that summer that they had really gone too far by having Spike clearly attempt to rape the Slayer while she was down (again, arguments over how he could overpower Buffy is another issue entirely for another time). Spike was super-popular - probably more popular than any of the main cast since S6 had gone out of its way to make them all pretty horrible throughout the season what with Dawn whining, Xander dumping Anya, Willow being a magic-crack addict and Giles being gone completely. Buffy had already spent the whole season treating Spike like crap on the bottom of her shoe, so she was getting pretty beat up already by fans - and now they'd taken James and turned him into an attempted rapist. How could they bring him back and integrate him into the Gang again for S7 after this? Ah! We'll say he was so tortured over what he'd almost done that he ran off for his soul - on purpose - for Buffy! It's romantic! And, it'll placate the fans so that we don't have to fire one of our most popular actors in the most popular character role on the show at a time when the viewership is declining because we really fucked up season 6 - why wasn't I paying more attention to my flagship show instead of dumping everything I had into Firefly?! Doh! Marti, what the hell have you done?
And so, a myth was born about Spike's ability to ignore he was a demon, ignore that he thought a human soul was a crippling weakness after seeing what it had done to Angel, ignore his impotent rage he'd been carrying since the chip was installed and instead rise above it all - for LOVE - blech.
This isn't exactly a question, but ...
Am I the only one who thought this was pretty funny in Killed by Death?
Xander: Flowers for milady.
Buffy: I think they call those balloons.
Xander: Yeah, stick 'em in water, maybe they'll grow.
Willow: Not to be outdone...
Willow: It's my way of saying, 'get well soon'.
Buffy: You know, chocolate says that even better.
Willow: I did all your assignments. All you have to do is sign your name.
Buffy: Chocolate means *nothing* to me.
Cordelia: Nobody told me I was supposed to bring a gift. I was out of the loop on gifts.
Giles: It's, it's tradition among, um... people. Um... Grapes. Well, did you, uh, pass the night well enough?
So Cordelia didn't give Buffy a gift, but Giles brought grapes. Grapes that, might I remind you, he's eating! He basically brought a snack for himself and then put it down next to Buffy.
Not really a question I guess. Let's make it a question?
Do you think that counts as a proper gift? Yeah he brought something, but grapes? I tend to think it was kind of lame. Although I don't know what else he could have brought for her. Maybe some candy?
Nope, you're not the only one who thought it was funny (I just hope Buffy was amusingly lying when she made the chocolate comment, or I may never be able to look at her again). I hardly think grapes counts as a proper gift, especially when he obviously brought them for himself because he was snacking on them. It was funny, though.
So here's a question of no consequence...
In Something Blue, where did Buffy get the wedding topper she's playing with?
-From the Magic Shop or other store when she went out to get stuff to help Giles with his blindness problem?
-Giles had it in his house? (not likely, LOL)
-It showed up as part of Willow's accidental spell?
-Some other explanation?
What do you mean, "no consequence"? This could be the secret to unraveling all of the secrets of the Buffyverse!
But seriously - uh - hmmm - a WTH, moment, for sure, but an explanation? I'll have to go with --- Buffy, uh, bought it... at some point... for unspecified reasons... maybe during a fantasy moment about Angel? I don't know, I got nuthin'.
What does everyone think of the decision to bring back Spike on Ats 5?
I'm a huge Spike fan, but I felt it was hugely out of character for him to stay in L.A.
I generally hate the "back from the dead" cliche - too comic booky (now kind of ironic, since Buffy and Angel ARE comics and they pulled the same thing with Warren). Spike's character arc could have ended quite nicely with his ultimate redemption by self sacrificing his life (and that would have been motivated by love). But, I'm mostly okay with his return in Angel because he's just a great character and James is great in the role. As for him staying in L.A. - yeah, I'd probably agree but again, I can overlook his shaky motivation in staying.
Should Buffy have been resurrected/Should Buffy have stayed dead after The Gift?
This is a hard one. I have a lot of reservations about Buffy coming back from the dead - but I think I can justify it as a move on the PTB to play into the Twilight Prophecy now, for reasons unknown/unexplained. From a story standpoint, I think it would have been better if Bargaining was later toward mid-season, allowing Buffybot to remain for longer and then to deal with Buffy's return and how that impacts the gang. This is especially true in Dawn's case, as she could have been given some really meaty angst scenes of trying to deal with the fact that she had somehow been *fine* with her sister being dead, and now the guilt for having been okay and moved on. I could also have been fine if Buffy hadn't been resurrected, but unless they were going to bring back Faith (which I'd also have been fine with) I don't know how this would have worked, or if SMG would have accepted that sort of radical development. For practical purposes, yes, I think she should have been brought back to life - but later in the season.
What was mostly explored in the character [Buffy] after The Gift?
Her isolation from everyone else and a Buffy-centric exploration of the Angel-centric idea that "Life is the true Hell" we're already stuck in.
If Buffy wasn't brought back to life, what would have changed in the other characters' developments (offscreen or if there was a season 6)?
Hmm... let's see: Willow wouldn't have become a magic-crack addict because she'd feel too much responsibility toward the others as their de facto leader instead of dumping all the responsibility back on Buffy. Tara and her wouldn't have fought over her magical use that really started because of the universe-altering magic of resurrecting Buffy (and to which, there was never an adequate explanation of Tara's supporting such a reckless ritual), so she'd really take center-stage in keeping the gang emotionally healthy and together. Xander? I don't think there would be much of a change for Xan - I like to think that he'd follow my fanficcer's heart's fantasy by growing closer to Spike and they'd be doing it like hot bunnies instead of the vampire and Buffy, but that could be a stretch. I think his woes would have been the same - except I think he and Anya would have broken up before actually setting a wedding date. I think Xan would have used "taking care of Dawn" as an excuse to keep pushing off setting the wedding date until Anya finally had enough. Anya would leave Sunnydale following a break up with Xander. Giles would stay in England, but if the gang truly needed him, he'd come back. He would have semi-retired from the Council - taking a library position somewhere in the London Council, found a woman (Olivia?) and settled down to have a family, finally. Dawn would remain pretty much as she had - but generally less self-obsessed and whiny as everyone would have paid her a lot more attention (especially Tara, Xander and Spike). Spike would have stayed at Dawn's side for as long as he felt needed and taken over the lead role in protecting Sunnydale in Buffy's memory. He wouldn't have been motivated to seek the chip removal (or if you must insist, the soul restoration - see my rant above), but it would have been interesting to see what may have happened if the chip stopped functioning. I can see several possible storylines in that. He would find that Xander and him had far more in common under the surface, especially when it came to being 'co-dads' of Dawn and somehow, somewhere, he'd end up having a hot and cold relationship with Xan that would include a lot of banging (no, I will never give up my Spander-fantasy).
Are you happy with how things turned out [I'm assuming this means post-The Gift]?
I mostly find S6 boring. I mostly find S7 focusing too much attention away from the emotional bonds of the Scooby Gang. I liked Chosen, but didn't love it (execution wise - I loved that Buffy overturned the old male control of the Slayers and defeated The First Evil by sharing her power, ending her being so alone forever - or until the S8 comic, anyway).
What did you think about Cordelia's exit on AtS 5?
Cordy's character arc had been so screwed up by then that I was happy to just see her go and ascend. I didn't find the ending of "You're Welcome" all that emotionally affecting, nor did I think that episode was all that good, but I'm glad they gave her an ending rather than forgetting she was lying in a coma.
We all know not every Potential-now-Slayer made it out of the Hellmouth alive in Chosen. So, besides Amanda, who died? deird1 and I were trying to figure out if Chao-Ahn was one of the casualties, but we can't tell from the script. Does anybody know for sure? If so, name your source. I suppose I could just watch the episode, but why not involve everybody?
I refuse to answer on the basis that they couldn't even be consistent in having the same Potentials from episode to episode.
Was Buffy right, when she stabbed Faith?
I don't agree with asking the question. There was no right or wrong here - it was in the midst of a fight and Faith was about to throw her off of the roof.
Buffy's motives were [for stabbing Faith]:
It was instinct. Faith was about to pitch her over the side of the building. If she'd had a choice, she would have knocked Faith out and dragged her back to Angel - would she have actually allowed Angel to kill her? I think she would have faltered when that moment came, but here (stabbing her) it was all about survival.
Couldn't have Buffy offered her blood in the first place instead of hunting down Faith's one?
Of course she could have, but there was a poetic justice in forcing Faith to reverse what she did....
Was Angel right to accept Buffy's blood?
Not really an applicable question - Angel was near death and Buffy forced Angelus toward the surface with her violent attack. There was no right or wrong in his action, just consequences of Buffy's choice to force the issue beyond his ability to control.
Buffy holding Angel responsible for helping Faith [Sanctuary] was:
Understandable, even if it wasn't exactly selfless (the way Buffy tried to portray it - Angel was right, she didn't come to L.A. to 'protect Angel' but because she wanted to hunt down and hurt Faith). Angel's helping the girl that had done so much to hurt Buffy and her friends had to have come over as a betrayal - especially since Angel was fully aware of nearly all of it, including the fact that Buffy nearly died saving Angel from Faith's poison.
Buffy's attitude towards Faith was [Sanctuary]:
Understandable and not at all unreasonable.
Overall, you like these scenes [Buffy vs Faith]or...
I love them. I think they're fun, and some of them are even emotionally affecting. And their "Becoming Part I" fight? Awesome (even with the stunt-women being front and center in our face - I can suspend the acknowledgment that the bodies are changing).
What do you think about writers and artists commenting on characters?
Georges Jeanty, an artist on the Buffy Comics, said that "IMO, it's no secret that Buffy loves Angel more than Spike so having her lean into him just made more sense."
He is referring to a panel in the comics when Buffy is having a fantasy. What do you think about this quote?
I always welcome their takes on the characters, but I don't consider their opinions the last word on the subject (that falls to The Mighty Joss - and no other). However, I can't help but agree with this one - you always love your first more than anyone else, even if it is out of a misplaced sense of nostalgia for who you used to be (you know before you learned about betrayal and heartbreak and the fact that life continues to drag on long after the words "happily ever after" should have appeared).
Importance of Buffy in your life:
Buffy is very important to me. I don't know why - I am just more deeply into the universe than any other show (including the Star Trek series, which I also love enough to constantly read about).
Who's Buffy for you? [What does her character me to you?]
She's my (fictional, I'm not that far gone) hero. No matter what she does wrong (and I can criticize many of her choices), she remains my hero because she does "what other people can't, what they shouldn't have to" and somehow she always grows stronger in her adversity.
Is Buffy your favourite character?
She is one of my favorites, but she cannot eclipse my love for Xander Harris.
If Buffy's not your favourite, who is then?
What got you hooked up?/Why did you get so hooked up?
I caught Buffy's "I remember the drill... one Slayer dies, next one's called...." break down in the library in Prophecy Girl. SMG had me there and never let go.
Remember the exact year you started watching...
I have trouble remembering what I did last week....
Are you still interested in the show and how?
Oh, yes. I'm constantly trying to find new discussions of the show and characters. I'm still "friending" other Buffy-talk sites, I'm writing fanfic for Buffy and reviewing the shows and buying S8. My fandom is almost, but not quite, stalker-ish (I don't obsess on the actors - just the characters, so I still have limits to my love).
LOL.Here's a funny.What colour are Buffy's eyes?
Uh, according to the comics, they change colors frequently.