Thoughts on Buffy (Spoilers)

Cafe Society
1

Apparently, they released Buffy the Vampire Slayer (seasons 1-3) on hulu.com recently. I have never seen a single scene of the show, having had the vague sense (at the time) that it was mostly a girl’s show and/or kiddyfare. With the adoration of Whedon on the boards, it seemed worth it to check it out eventually, and an immediately accessible, free version made that day come now.

Season 1 is, really, kiddyfare. I don’t think there’s much getting around it. It seemed targeted to 10-12 year olds, and quite satisfied to be in that category.

2 and 3 were much more teen-centric. I still wouldn’t say that we had adult fare here, but there was more detailed storylines and darker themes. But nothing deep nor world-changing by any means.

Gellar did a good job at the teary bits. The girl can look sad and frustrated very well, and did carry the show. However, the backstory of being a bubble-headed cheerleader seemed to never strike true with her acting. Possibly it was the fault of the writing in season 1. If they were going to show the issues that go along with changing from valley girl Buffy, to badass Buffy, that’s where it would have been. But outside of one episode on trying to join the cheerleading team, they never really delved into it. And on her first day of school, she picks the non-cool kids to hang out with, belying all the dialogue that she had been a Cordelia shortly before.

Similarly, Gellar failed to manifest the sense of being a stupid teenager, which rather hurt season 3 where she’s gung-ho to date a guy who’ll turn into a sadistic murderer if he gets a happy. As an inexperienced teen, head over heels, it made sense. But that was in the script, not in what I saw in her mannerisms and so on. (And it was wholely mindboggling why Angel was hanging around doing the same thing. They could have tried to put in some sort of explanation like after suffering eternity, he just couldn’t let go of her, but they didn’t do that.)

Willow was fun, but Hannigan didn’t do shy very well. Nerdy/geeky she was delightful as, but outside of some statements in the first couple of episodes saying she was cripplingly shy, it never actually manifested.

Xander’s actor kept reminding me of Steve Guttenberg, both in how his mannerisms and especially in the sort of personality his character was given. Quite often he came across more as an asshole than witty–like they felt that someone needed to root for killing Angel–but that seemed more like the fault of the scriptwriter than the actor’s.

Why vampires can’t use guns (nor slayers, largely) seemed blatantly silly, though it didn’t particularly take away from the experience. But it did keep the story mired a bit in seeming like it intended to be a kiddy show.

Similarly, that vampires can be knocked out by a vase over the head stuck me as being rather Glitter Vampire. What’s the point of having a Slayer if frickin Xander or any other woman with a cast iron skillet can take one down just as easy as anything. This one gnawed at me a bit more than the no-gun issue, but I went with it.

So overall, I thought it was an enjoyable enough show for teens. The characters were likeable, though there was often a disconnect between the script and what the actors were doing. I suspect that this was largely an issue that the actors simply weren’t skilled enough to play the role according to the script, and the writers (i.e. Whedon) weren’t willing to let it go and go with what the actors were doing.

Some specific thoughts on Whedon himself, I really think he shouldn’t direct nor produce his shows. He has decent ideas for settings and writes fun scripts, but his casting choices and cinematography are really 80s TV level. He films everything in about the same way, regardless of whether it’s a humorous, scary, or serious scene. His actors always seem to be not quite up to par, and ill-suited to anything but comedy. It would be interesting to see what a better director and better actors would do with his material. It’s nice to have a light-hearted approach to stuff, but it comes across as second rate to be unable to make things seem any other way, especially when the content of the scene really demands it.

2

Or not.

3

How was Firefly or the later seasons of Angel like this?

4

I haven’t seen Angel. I have seen Dollhouse and Firefly.

I’d say that’s an accurate description. Compare the cinematography of Fringe to that of Dollhouse, for instance. One looks like a movie, the other…doesn’t.

5

You do know he doesn’t direct every episode, right?

6

Uh oh. This could get ugly. I definitely have a dog in this fight but will sit out for now.

7

Yes, I often wonder how they manage to keep a consistent look on TV shows though each episode has a different director. But it still remains true that Lost looks like a JJ Abrams production, Firefly looks like a Whedon production, and Twin Peaks looks like a Lynch production. How, I have no idea, but my lack of understanding doesn’t make it any less so.

8

To broadly address some of your criticisms- Buffy can be nitpicked to death, but it is much more important than the sum of its parts. Buffy, while imperfect, sorta has everything a modern classic needs.

  • Casual Appeal----A simple and compelling enough premise that people can jump in

  • An iconic character who everyone at least knows by name

  • Themes that the audience relates to (“high school is hell”) and characters that are easy to identify with

  • Enough variation (comedy, drama, suspense) to have a little something for most tastes.

  • A lot of episodes that build the kind of mythology that creates a fanbase (aka nerds) and ensures that the characters and events stay in the pop culture conscious

  • Influence— Being one of the first shows to make popular many technique’s that shows are using today (The season arc formula, main characters being very subject to death for the sake of the story)

  • Easy to revisit and enjoy again, the grand scale and trademark style of snappy witty dialogue make for easy rewatchability, keeping it salient.

  • Enough emotional and philosophical depth to impress the academic types who want to analyze the evolution of TV shows as art.

These are a few of the reasons that Buffy really is “that good”. There will always be plenty of people who won’t like it, and that’s fine. There are also plenty of people who just don’t like to hear it said that anything is “one of the bests” with any kind of definitiveness. These people will set out to point out all of the flaws, they are quick to tell you why they hate it. None of this though changes the fact that Buffy is an important and widely loved work, much like say…Harry Potter, for many of the same reasons.

Whether or not you like Buffy or Harry Potter is all great topic for conversation. But this is the kind of show you are dealing with. A damn big one.

So welcome to the conversation, I do have a lot of disagreement with most of your specific points, but I’ll let Whedon’s army go on the offensive for a while before I really jump in:)

9

Remind me to never watch any show you like, since you are clearly watching them from a different universe to me.

I mean, fair enough that that’s your take on the show - we all have our individual tastes - but your POV is so far from mine that it would be like trying to discuss Buffy the Vampire Slayer with someone whose original post was in Norwegian because that’s the only language they speak. And they watched it in Chinese dubbing. Upside down. While wearing a blindfold. I suspect that’ll be the case for most people who like the show, TBH.

You’d probably never like anything I recommended, either.

Seriously, though, you diskliked the show THAT much and watched three whole seasons of it? How bored were you? :smiley:

10

ETA: RE: Cyclops

Being critical of something is an academic pursuit. It doesn’t impact whether one enjoyed or didn’t enjoy the show.

As said, I enjoyed it.

For most of your points though, any geek could just as well have watched any hundred of anime and gotten the same things (except perhaps the quirky dialogue) during the same time period, and of much higher quality. Though even by American standards, at the time, I wouldn’t say that Buffy was unprecedented. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers was roughly equivalent, if not quite as teen-oriented. And of course Twin Peeks had been out for a while. Anything not fully modern after Twin Peaks really can’t complain that it couldn’t be done on TV yet.

11

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers was equivalent to Buffy? In what sense?

12

Monster of the week. A band of superheroes who get together to defeat the monster of the week. One overarching uber-villain behind it all who is defeated at the end of the season. Not-taking-itself too serious. Etc.

That Buffy and crew weren’t wearing armor is about the only difference, besides who the target audience was.

And I’ll note that in Japan, there’s shows like Kamen Rider which are more adult or teen equivalents. If you like Buffy, I’d recommend Kamen Rider: Ryuki

13

Well I was trying to be all diplomatic, but you just compared Buffy to Mighty Morphin Power rangers…Which I think you know means war.

Sometimes I think that people just know it is easy to pick a fight with Whedon fans. I don’t blame them, I can see how that kind of collective arrogance(Whedon can do no wrong!) can be annoying to someone who thinks they have a broader perspective on entertainment. After all, this is a show that the internet can’t stop raving about…and when someone enters into ANYTHING with that degree of hype…well let’s just say that the critical eye is especially active.

Really though, if you keep insisting that the show is either written for or best for teens, then you really just aren’t seeing the same thing I am. I see one of the best and most tightly written shows ever written, if you see a kids show then our tastes are so different that we really can’t even have a decent discussion about the material.

Once again though, I can’t shake the suspicion that you just want to pick at the scab of a well known attack dog. I get that you don’t dig it like I do, but the fact that you would watch three seasons of a show you felt that way about strikes me as odd.

14

Some of the dialog was really good. E.g.:

Buffy: So then she’s like, ‘It’s share-time.’ And I’m like, ‘Oh yeah? Share this!’ (Buffy punches the air a few times.)
Oz: So either you hit her or you did your wacky mime routine for her.
Buffy: Well, I didn’t do either, actually. But she deserved it, don’t ya think?
Oz: Nobody deserves mime, Buffy.

15

See that says it all, you are recommending something else, something you think is better. This happens all the time when people try to take on a popular show, the assumption is that we must just be missing the better material out there that you are aware of. That is the true arrogance.

I don’t just like Buffy because I haven’t seen something better, it actually appeals to me on an intellectual level. I like lots of other things too, and I’m sure that there are plenty of things out there that I have not discovered that I would also like…most commonly though I find that I do not like the myriad of helpful alternative entertainment people have suggested to me. Everyone has some kind of obscure entertainment that they think doesn’t get its fair due, and often people are therefore jealous of the things that do get proper attention, but recommending something else to me that I’ve never even heard of is really missing the point.

A big part of the appeal, as i said, is the cultural importance of the thing. Buffy was designed to be of cultural importance, so it is fun to be a part of that.
So pop culture impact + writing I love + a mess of fans who agree with me = a show that I feel ok falling in love with. This is the formula that alludes you.

Now you’ve made your point. You don’t like a show that other people do. Hooray.

16

Funnily enough, that means it’s also equivalent to Scooby Doo, and Buffy and her friends were nicknamed the Scooby Gang in the actual show. But that’s like saying ‘Van Gogh is the same as Dave from kindergarten, because they both painted flowers.’

BTW, you didn’t say that you enjoyed the show. You said that ‘it was an enjoyable enough show for teens.’ Unless you’re a teenager, that means that you didn’t enjoy it personally.

‘Except perhaps the quirky dialogue’ is, well, excepting a major part of a TV programme.

If you’re more into anime, perhaps that explains why you thought Buffy was so incredibly bad (trust me, your review did make it sound like that was your opinion; every character and actor was awful, and the director was so bad that he should be taken off the helm); Buffy isn’t the most visually astounding of shows ever.

I’ve tried quite a lot of anime, and never found anything I enjoyed in the slightest. Lots of people I know do enjoy them, though, and those people are not stupid or brainwashed, so I just pass over it as one of those things we can never share, like the fact that my friend Jimmy and I can never share a pack of Twiglets because he hates Marmite.

Oddly, though, the people I know who are hugely into anime don’t like any of the shows I do like.

Very true about being more critical when watching a show that’s extremely popular. Pretty much everyone I know loves the Wire, and I’ve held off from watching it partly for that reason.

Thinking on, I was right the first time and you’re right now - there’s no room for discussion with someone whose take on a show is so different to yours. They can have their opinion, and we can have ours, and there’s no point trying to make the two meet.

We’re right, of course. :smiley:

17

Given the number of plotholes and rather simple format, I’m not seeing where you see that. And I don’t mean that in a confrontational manner, I’m just explaining where I’m coming from.

To me a tightly written story is one which has no plot holes, covers all the bases it should, alters tempo and tone at regular intervals, and of course is novel. Outside of altering the tone and tempo fairly decently, Buffy doesn’t seem to do well on any of these.

If you look at it at a character standpoint, the characters are all fairly one dimensional. Only Buffy has much beneath her, showing real struggle at being pulled in so many directions at once. Willow’s motivations were occasionally interesting. Spike’s affection for Drusila was interesting but never really explained, and his turnaround smacked of plot-necessity rather than character development. Cordelia, The Master, Xander, Giles, Angel, etc. all seemed rather one note.

For instance, why and when did Giles decide that Buffy was beyond control, for instance? Why did he cede the whole operation over to her? Why did he bend to her every whim? That he did is certain, but it makes no logical sense beyond that that’s how the writer felt that it should be. Tossing out that he was secretly a rebel only rubbed ones nose in how little this transformation bucked against how the character was presented. And so Giles ends up behaving in very predictable manners, but with no particular reason behind them.

True, better actors could have fleshed this out more, but that shouldn’t be necessary if there’s tight writing.

But, if you mean “tight writing” to mean quirky one liners, then yes, there is quite a lot. But I wouldn’t classify that as tight writing.

18

I enjoy things for what they are. If I say something is enjoyable, it’s enjoyable.

To me, that seems a rather particular basis on which to enjoy a TV show. If that’s all there is to Whedon-love, it seems like one should be self-aware that this what is there to offer when you recommend it to others. People have a habit to say that what they like is “good” and what they don’t like is “bad”. That serves no purpose in relaying to others what they might like, since it doesn’t actually appraise anything of value to anyone else.

By which I’m not saying it’s bad to like something only for dialogue, simply that trumpeting something as “Awesome!” and “Must see!” when only a particular minority of anyone would agree is, fundamentally, spouting untruths. It may be awesome for you, but to most people, they would assume that you meant to indicate that a certain overall level of quality would be present, not just a single, particular item and everything else was quite secondary.

I didn’t intend to make the show sound bad, I was just being analytical of the strengths and weaknesses.

Japanese don’t really have the idea of interesting dialogue. Sarcasm and wit don’t exist in Japan. So I can see why you wouldn’t find them interesting.

In terms of complex stories and characters, and high quality imagery, there are many shows which would rank higher than Buffy. That’s an appraisal that’s independent of any sort of fandom.

19

Sage Rat, I’m on your side. From what I’ve seen on Buffy (Season 1 and about half of Season 2—the other half is sitting on my DVD shelf when/if I get around to getting back to it, but I have other things that are calling to me a lot more strongly), your criticisms are mostly on target. I can see the shows appeal, and why people enjoy it, but I personally find it hard to take seriously or relate to. (Upon searching, I see that in a thread a while back, I said,

(And for what it’s worth: I like Firely, am not into anime, and might have appreciated Buffy much more if I had watched it as a teenager rather than well into adulthood.)

20

In film the director is often the “auteur,” but in U.S. dramatic TV, it’s a producer who runs the show - literally, the “show runner.” That producer is almost always a writer. In the early seasons of a show at least, it’s usually the creator of the show. They’re responsible for every creative aspect of the show, and the directors work within the framework they establish.