Caritas is a special case IMHO (or was, seeing as how it’s blowed up and all). Lorne went to a great deal of effort to make it neutral territory where both demons and human could party. Whereas the dives in Sunnydale have clientele who apparently aren’t interested in karaoke nights or little bits of cheese on sticks.
Actual episodes? You mean vampires are real? And BUFFY’S protecting me?
MrVis, you note that in this thread I am defending the artistic decisions of the Buffy artistes?
(And perhaps it skipped/slipped your mind, but I not only watched a couple shows “live”, but digested a DVD of the series.)
Yes, Caritas is an exception. But who wouldn’t want a little kitten casino, right in the heart of Sunnydale?
What makes you think it’s not consistent? Within the rules that Joss Whedon and ME has established for the Buffyverse, it’s very consistent. Even when it gets turned on its ear (ala, Spike seeking a soul), it’s not inconsistent, it’s just that the viewer up to this point didn’t know everything there was to know about demons and vampires.
2) It is meant to be consistent. Have you watched all 124 episodes? I have. More than once. It’s so consistent that you can look back 3 seasons and find clues for what’s going on this season.
3) Discussing why vampires don’t use certain weapons or do certain things is perfectly valid, because we aren’t asking about rules that govern our universe, we’re talking about the rules that govern that universe, and for all we know, there are very specific disadvatages to using a gun. (Like I mentioned before, if you are going to shoot a Slayer with accelerated healing, you better make sure you’re a damned good shot.)
For example, we know why the Big Bads didn’t use guns or nukes.
- The Master needed to kill her himself in order to be free.
- Angelus was obsessed with her, and to him a good kill was like poetry. A bullet to the head isn’t poetic. Besides, he probably wanted to turn her, until he got the idea of Acatha, then decided sucking her into hell would be good enough.
Spike: Why don’t you just rip out her lungs?
Angelus: It lacks…poetry.
Spike: Doesn’t have to. What rhymes with lungs? - The Master didn’t think he needed to because hey, he was turning into the only pure demon in this dimension, and as far as he knew, Buffy hadn’t figured out how to kill him.
- Adam didn’t even care about the Slayer, she wasn’t his main objective.
- Glory was annoyed with the Slayer, but if she shot Buffy, she may never find her key. All she wanted to do was get home.Though it would have been funny to see Jinx carrying around a semi-automatic.
- Which leads up to Warren.
That should be the Mayor in point 3.
As far as lack of consistency, one doesn’t have to go any further than the vampire “fact” that a wooden stake through the heart kills, while a metal one doesn’t, while one through the head doesn’t, etc. Again, it’s part of the fable, it’s not intended to be closely examined for reasonablity. (Unlike, say, hard science fiction.) Again, I’m not saying this is a problem with Buffy. Note I was responding to the people in the thread who felt that it was a problem!
On a different issue, also not specifically related to Buffy, but to criticism in general:
It takes me about 2 or 3 pages to decide whether I like a novel. It takes about 10 minutes to decide whether I like a rock band. It takes a couple poems to decide whether I like a poet. For a textbook or the like, it takes maybe a half hour.
Certainly those conclusions aren’t definitive, but usually most of the first impressions are correct. Maybe not entirely, but largely.
Why then, do fans of Buffy maintain that I need to see all 124 episodes to form a critical opinion? I’ll answer. I’ve heard the same argument from friends in college who were getting degrees in comic art, regarding Spiderman, Superman, etc. They contended that the “real” art only appeared after reading hundreds of issues.
I have a different explanation: after saturating their minds with something for hour after hour, year upon year, they began to read into Superman things the artists not only didn’t intend – but didn’t agree with when asked – and which involved philosophies they’d never even heard of.
I was quite amused when a local “expert” on the Prisoner asked Patrick McGoohan about creating the show. He first explained his elaborate theory about what an epic was – then asked the very man who directed and wrote it how he’d used the epic format to tell his story. McGoohan just stared – and changed the subject.
Because BTVS is a journey. For example, I’ll use the character I know best, Spike. You absolutely cannot base all of your opinions on Spike based what you see in Season 2. Why? Because Spike isn’t that person anymore.
This was his first interaction with Buffy:
Buffy: Who are you?
Spike: You’ll find out on Saturday
Buffy: What happens Saturday?
Spike: I kill you.
Ok, kinda scary. This is the latest exchange:
Buffy: Why?
Spike:snip…And she will look on him with forgiveness, and everybody will forgive and love, and he will be loved.
So, what on Earth happened to them between S2 and S7?
So, when I say, have you seen all 124 episodes when discussing how consistent BTVS is or is not, I do so because the question is important. As Giles said, “I get it. It’s all about the journey.” There are very, very few “stand alone” episodes, and they are all connected.
As far as reading too much into it…well, the hardcore speculators only read as far as ME lets us…and they give us plenty of hints both in the show and in interviews.
pepperlandgirl, I was just thinking about this.
Before getting there, tho, I know you’ll remember that Beatle episode where a critic praised them for writing a song in “mixolydian mode”? And John thinking it was so funny he started slipping in “intellectual” bits, tongue-in-cheek? John knew how “deep” his songs were intended to be.
As for Buffy being “a journey”. I certainly understand the point. One sees characters evolve and become more complex, and enjoys the process. However, there’s a down side to this approach: which is that it’s hard for the viewer to know ahead of time whether the journey will be worth it. 124 hours is a lot of time to spend – if only to come to the realization one doesn’t like it.
Shakespeare isn’t so demanding. Dickens isn’t so demanding. The Beatles aren’t so demanding.
I haven’t seen the handout that they give to aspiring Buffy script writers, but I remember bits of the one from Star Trek (TOS). Roddenberry described it as “Wagon Train in Space” if I remember correctly. Given that extraordinary lack of depth, I as a viewer, had darn well better see some fine interpretations in the first few episodes. Later on, if they want to retrofit a “Star Fleet Technical Manual”, great. But don’t claim it was all part of the original concept!
I seem to recall Giles mentioning that most demons were not sophisticated enough for tool use, and I have simply taken it as a given that only pretty exceptional humans turn out to be smart vampires. The process seems to create a lot of dumbasses.
I’ve often wondered why sometimes Buffy has to beat up for a while on a vampire before staking it. The only blow that counts is the one to the heart with a stake, right? Me, I’d be doing called shots to the heart over and over. Maybe you have to get them down to 25% of their hit points before that works, though that’s certainly not always the case in the show. Plus, why does Buffy sometimes use a stake once and abandon it like it’s all used up?
Feh. Anyway, fantasy and science fiction often requires a certain level of doublethink.
Partly_warmer, to figure out whether you like Buffy or not may take you one episode. Excellent!
To form a coherent critique of the show, you should probably watch several episodes. The show constantly refers to previous episodes, constantly foreshadows events in future episodes. A single hour of Buffy is not a discrete unit any more than a single episode of Oliver Twist (originally published in serial form, like many Dickensian novels) was.
When you comment on the consistency of the show, you should generally defer to people who have watched the show over many seasons: they’re bound to know more about the show’s consistency.
I don’t see the wood-vs.-metal issue as one of consistency. The creator of a fantasy universe is responsible for coming up with the universe’s physics, and then sticking to them. For some reason or another, the Buffyverse contains vampires that die from a wooden stake through the heart.
It’d be inconsistent if we saw some episodes in which a wooden stake through the heart didn’t kill the vampire. If vampires couldn’t eat in some episodes, and could eat in others, that’d be inconsistent. If Buffy exhibits the ability to jump 10’ straight up in one episode, and in the next episode she’s unable to hop a 5’ fence, that’d be inconsistent.
But as long as the writers stick to their universe’s rules, there’s no problems with consistency.
Plausibility is another issue entirely; are you maybe suggesting that a fatal vampiric vulnerability to wood-in-the-heart is implausible? 
Daniel
I always figured this was at least partly intentional. I think vampires make a concerted effort to avoid turning people who are smarter or more ambitious than themselves: they want controllable minions, not competition. This is probably why they never turn Slayers. Just because you made her evil doesn’t mean she’s your friend now.
Funnily enough, the Buffy console game works exactly like that. I figure that if she only goes for the chest, the vampires are going to be able to more easily block her attacks. If she hits it in the face a couple time first, it’ll be disoriented when she goes for the kill. This works in reverse: why aren’t vampires constantly going for the neck bite?
Also, I think Buffy gets a kick out of the fighting.
While there’s nothing wrong with watching a few episodes and deciding you don’t like it, I think it is somewhat disingenuous to pretend that having watch only a few episodes is at all equivalent to having an fully informed, and hence relevant, opinion. You could read the first chapter of Moby Dick and give up because you don’t like it. But you wouldn’t try and debate the merits of the novel as a whole based on only that one chapter, would you?
This comes close to my theory, which I think can shed some light on why vampires, at least, don’t tend to use guns or other weapons. I think they just have a really strong taboo against spilling blood without drinking it…it just “feels” wrong. Plus, hey, there are starving vampires in Ethiopia, you shouldn’t let it go to waste :p.
Supporting my theory: Darla only used her guns against Angel, another vampire. Also, in season 3, you had some vampires trying to kill the mayor with a sword, but the mayor was some kind of demon, or anyway not entirely human. And in that same episode, Mr. Trick comments: “Why are they always using swords? It’s called an Uzi, chump. Would’ve saved your ass right about now.”
Yet when he finally goes toe to toe with Buffy, the only weapon he uses is his teeth.
Yes and no. Obviously I can’t see the “biggest” picture without seeing all the shows, reading the fan magazines, watching Buffy specials, etc.
But other commentary (positive or negative) doesn’t require one to be an utter devotee. Some general characteristics of a work of art will be apparent fairly quickly. Otherwise, how would any of us be able to choose which books, movies, paintings, music we liked?
Take a similar situation generated by recent “Lord of the Rings” threads. Some people have clearly read the books, and given considerable thought to them. And some are so familiar with the 1,000s of pages of other Tolkien material they can refer to it by memory. However people who have just been exposed to the books or the film can still make valid observations. For example, several people have said how much Tolkien’s style bores them. Chances are, they’d still be bored if they read the rest of the books.
I didn’t like Dickens when I first read him in my teens. No amount of attempts to reread him on the urging of friends has changed my opinion. On the other hand, I liked Shakespeare practically from the first play I saw – knowing nothing at all about Elizabethan English. Yes, reading the OED and commentaries vastly improved my understanding. No, it didn’t change my essential, original evaluation.
So it doesn’t seem reasonable or necessary to spend 124 hours forming some basic assessment of a work of art.
You’ve completely missed my point, partly. If you’re going to discuss a work as a whole, you ought to be familiar with the work as a whole. If you don’t like the work and don’t intend to familiarize yourself with it, don’t participate in discussions about it. If you really want to talk about Buffy beyond the context of the few episodes you’ve seen, bite the bullet and watch enough of the show to form a valid opinion. You can still not like it, but at least you’ll have some basis for your opinions.
Or, you could discuss the specific episodes you saw and why you had a problem with them. Saying, “I saw the episode with the puppet and didn’t like it,” is a valid position. “I saw the episode with the puppet and didn’t like it, and therefore I can say with authority that the entire show is bunk,” would be an invalid position.
And you should try Charles Dickens again, simply because you’re not the same person you were when you were a teenager (I hope 
). Almost every literary opinion I formed in my teens I ended up repudiating. Especially my opinion on Dickens.
Man, who could see the episode with the puppet and not like it? That’s the episode that hooked me completely.
What I never figured out is why shooting a demon with a gun never seems to work (cite: Buffy in the bank – “those things never work”), but oddly enough, beating them to a pulp with a pipe does. One would think that the essential mechanism is the same.
Well… that’d be me. It’s a great episode until the puppet starts talking to the Scoobies. From then on in, it gets pretty cringe-worthy.
As with anything in any universe you like what you like and
disregard the rest.
Under each of our roofs we have our own universe ( everyman’s
-sic-home is his castle etc ). The rules you live by are consistent
in your own habiat. Others probably think that you are nuts.
The Buffyverse, like all film-book-TV-music 'verses, will attract or
repel you according to your very idealised BS meter.
I love Buffy and Angel. In my world they are the best shows ever on the tube. Repeated viewings only enhance the experience.
Rewatching earlier episodes oftentimes will create a delicious
frisson of delectable irony. You know the feeling: hee hee if
you only knew what was going to happen to you in series 5!
Being totally biased I don’t believe there are gross inconsistencies. Whedon tends to explain most things in
throw-away lines; there are precious few times when we-as opposed to most of the demons and vamps-are treated like
dunces. Sure, there are explanatory eps. See " Once More With
Feeling" for a wrap of motivation and response.
Watch. Enjoy. Chuckle. Cry.
Bich, moan, and chuck things at your TV set, as well. Afterall,
it is your world. Do what you want.
The first time I saw the ep I thought, “Oooh, another evil dummy. Haven’t seen that one about a billion times.” Insert eye roll. But when the dummy turned out to be the demon hunter? Pure genius! I didn’t see it coming at all. (It was also the first ep I’ve ever seen.)
And of course there’s that wonderful exchange between Giles and Cordy.
Giles doesn’t want to hear it. He gives Cordelia a look like something’s
wrong.
Cordelia: Uhhh, what?
Giles: Oh! I’m sorry. Um, your hair, uh…
Cordelia: There’s something wrong with my hair? (pulls it behind her
ears)
Giles remains silent, but continues to stare.
Cordelia: Ohmigod! (quickly leaves)
Giles: (to himself) Xander was right. It worked like a charm.
Or, the line from Principal Snyder.
Snyder: Kids today need discipline. That’s an unpopular word these
days, ‘discipline’. I know Principal Flutie would have said, ‘Kids need
understanding. Kids are human beings.’ That’s the kind of woolly-headed,
liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.
Giles: I, I think perhaps it was a little more complex than, um…
Again I digress … not to be inflamitory or put anyoen down, but look …
Miller, I agree and disagree. I think partly is tying to anylize the series by an episode or two. While we hard-core fans migh think it’s stupid, it isn’t. After all: That’s how the peop[le who make the decisions about whether a series should go on TV or not see them.
So no, pw, it doesn’t take watching avery episode to understand or like it.
It may be that you are looking into it more than necessary. Other fans may be too defensive as well.
The show is simplicity wrapped in a complicated package. That’s it.