AuntEverest

I have noticed a trend in action TV shows, in which the main protagonist(s) will commit an act that is considered wrong or a crime and is usually excused by the shows' fans. Acts such as Angel arranging for Buffy, Connor and the Fang Gangs' memories to be wiped and ordering Lorne to kill Lindsey MacDonald, Buffy killing that vampire whore who had been used by Riley and molesting Spike, Spike's near rape of Buffy, Wes murdering Knox and stabbing Charles, both Charles and Fred being involved in Professor Siedel's death and etc. Many of these actions have been condoned or excused by the fans, because these characters are supposed to be the "good guys" or the victim was a "bad guy". The heroes. And many fans seem unwilling to accept their actions as bad, or realize that these characters need to pay a price for their actions.

Karbear3916

I'm a bit confused on what this thread is supposed to mean? Can you let me know?

~*Magical*~

Why do you think the fans do this? And what kind of price do you want to see the characters pay?

Riley wasn't using that vampire any more than that vampire was using him. And Buffy killed the vampire because she was a vampire who still had the ability to greatly harm humans and she was in the group of vampires that had come to get revenge and kill Buffy(for burning their place). Buffy is the vampire slayer. And who molested Spike?

m&m fkan

This exact thread is here, on the Buffy Board.

I personally don't think that their actions are bad. Buffy killed a vampire...that's her purpose.

Angel saved his son...(and a bunch of people that Conor was going to kill) when he did the memory thing..

Lindsey had betrayed Angel more than once, and was going to kill him, so he got killed first.

Wes killed Knox because Knox was mental and had brought a being into the world who was trying to destroy it (the world).
He stabbed Gunn in anger. Nobody has absolved him, there.

the professor had sent Fred to that dimension, and had plans to send her back. (we still don't know if he actually died)

Spike had no soul when he tried to rape Buffy...After he got his soul, the anguish and remorse drove him temporarily insane.

I am not even going to adress the "molesting Spike" part, because it is just a ridiculous idea.


Did I forget anything?

Claudia

~*Magical*~

I'd still like the original statement of this from the first post to be explained to me.

JediBlastoise

spike's a lucky guy to get molested by such a fine girl tho.

crzy4fun

Can you molest someone who is more than willing?

Take advantage of, yes. Use shamelessly, sure. But molest?

m&m fkan

I stand by my statement that it's ridiculous.



Claudia

Walloo

I think that they each paid the price for their actions...

AuntEverest

MOLEST. Watch the scene again. Buffy throws him against the wall and starts to rip off his clothes. It wasn't until she spoke aloud that Spike finally realized who she was and eventually agreed to the sex.



Angel saved his son...(and a bunch of people that Conor was going to kill) when he did the memory thing..

Lindsey had betrayed Angel more than once, and was going to kill him, so he got killed first.

Wes killed Knox because Knox was mental and had brought a being into the world who was trying to destroy it (the world).
He stabbed Gunn in anger. Nobody has absolved him, there.

the professor had sent Fred to that dimension, and had plans to send her back. (we still don't know if he actually died)


If I didn't know better, I would swear that you were excusing all of these actions.

~*Magical*~

First of all, Buffy and Spike had a very physical relationship. They were fighting just a few seconds before. And who else would Spike think it was? They were the only ones in the abandoned building.

And what she did by pushing him against the wall was not "molest".

According to dictionary.com

"annoying sexual advances"? I don't call what she did to him that. It didn't annoy him, its what he had wanted from her for awhile.

crzy4fun

I was getting ready to post the Webster, but ~*Magical*~ beat me to it. Thanks!!!


Also, AuntEverest I'm going to take it you're not a fan of the show and didn't watch it that often. And if you did watch it I wonder why you watched a show that you had such moral problems with?

It's a battle of morals. No one person has the right to say what is and isn't ethical. I may believe one thing and you may believe another, but neither is wrong.

AuntEverest

"First of all, Buffy and Spike had a very physical relationship. They were fighting just a few seconds before. And who else would Spike think it was? They were the only ones in the abandoned building."

Wow! I never thought I would live to see the day someone actually defend someone else (whether that person was live or a fictional character) who tried to physically molest someone else. How sad!



"Also, AuntEverest I'm going to take it you're not a fan of the show and didn't watch it that often. And if you did watch it I wonder why you watched a show that you had such moral problems with?"

Let me get this straight! In order for me to be a fan of the shows, I have to be willing to condone the dark actions of the characters? Is that what you're trying to tell me? What kind of morality is that?

I have no problems with Whedon showing us that his "heroes" are capable of committing crimes. I have a problem with the fans who are willing to condone such crimes, because they were committed by the "good guys" or the leading characters. "It's okay to dismiss Wes shooting an unarmed man in cold blood out of revenge. The guy was responsible for Saint Winifred's death and he's a 'bad guy', despite the fact that he was unable to defend himself or wasn't attacking someone at the moment. It's okay to kill out of revenge." Or, "It's okay to sexually attack a vampire in his crypt, while invisible. After all, he's a souless vampire and he don't mind such things . . . despite the brief expression of fear on his face." Oh please!


I don't think Whedon had any intention of the fans to condone such actions either. It's one thing to understand why characters like Willow, Wes, Gunn, Buffy, Spike or Angel had committed their crimes. It's another to condone it or dismiss as if no crime had been committed. Or that it wasn't wrong.

justsmile

WTF. Really? Obviously you don't like Wesley or Fred, and possibly a number of other characters... but you're not making any sense. Knox already killed someone. Period. So he didn't have a gun on him, but then he didn't kill with one either. So you're saying that even though someone murdered someone, no one should do anything to them because the weren't caught in the act or aren't hurting another at the moment of discovery? That is ridiculous. Should Wesley had gone and found another parasitic god to kill him then?

Vengenous isn't a nice subject. And no one is dismissing the fact that Wesley killed Knox. But it wasn't in cold blood. Cold blood is when someone just kills out of malice, thinks it out, and gets pleasure from it. Wesley killed Knox out of an "Eye For an Eye". Both are extremely different and even our judicial system sees this. Knox took away Freds life so Wesley took his... only after Angel told Illyria that he'd save Knox's life.

Wesley gave him the honor of a quick death, unlike what Knox did to Fred. She suffered for hours on end.

m&m fkan

I don't know if you know better, but....I am excusing all of these actions.

I stand by all of my statements.

I don't have any problems with FICTIONAL characters on a television show murdering each other.

They are not in reality so the rules of our society need not apply, unless the writers decide it should be so.



claudia