Buffy / Angel Discussion (Including Reviews)

[271286]

What is Buffy The Vampire Slayer?

- Sorry but where were you in the 90's??

Just kiddin'

[Escapay]

Regardless what I think of the show's genre (is it action/comedy/sci-fi/fantasy/whathaveyou), I could never truly get into it because Kristy Swanson was a much better Buffy than Sarah Michelle Gellar ever could be.

Okay, joking aside, I watched Buffy occassionally on WB, and didn't even bother when it was on UPN. It was one of those shows where if you catch it during an interesting scene, you could very well finish the episode, but if you catch it during a dull scene, you'll continue flipping the channel.

The entire premise of the show (high school girl kicking vampire ass, with help from friends and a librarian with knowledge of supernatural stuff) sounds like something from a comic book, and was translated onscreen almost as a parody of what it could have been.

I was much more interested in the Angel spin-off, though, because it took supernatural elements and blended it with crime elements and some melodrama was thrown in for good measure. Plus, once Charisma Carpenter left Buffy, I found little reason to tune in the little times that I did.

Escapay

[Lazario]

I could never truly get into it because Kristy Swanson was a much better Buffy than Sarah Michelle Gellar ever could be.

I look at the 2 this way : Kristy Swanson as the Movie Version of Buffy and Sarah as the Soap Opera Version of Buffy. And since more than 9 out of 10 soap operas always suck, Kristy is better than Sarah. The only reason all those fans of the show get away with saying Sarah is better is because she worked on the show for a lot longer than Kristy worked on the movie. And 1 more thing - Kristy came before Sarah, by more than 5 years. No offense to Joss Whedon, but the movie version of Buffy is still way more entertaining than the TV show!

[Escapay]

And since more than 9 out of 10 soap operas always suck, Kristy is better than Sarah.

Nitpick: There's only 9 soaps on the air now, so it'd be 8 out of 9 soap operas suck. (and if anyone cares, the one that doesn't suck at the moment is and always will be The Young and the Restless).

Though, of course, if this were 10 years ago, there were 3 soap operas that didn't suck: Y&R, All My Children, and General Hospital.

Anyway, back to the Kristy vs. Sarah. ITA that Kristy is the better Buffy, because the character was more in her element than in the series, which was trying to be too many things at once. Kristy played Buffy as the comedic heroine in a successful (or at least well-received) teen slasher comedy. Sarah is trying to be a cold killer, a high school girl, and a romantic lead all at the same time.

Escapay

[Lazario]

Kristy is the better Buffy, because the character was more in her element than in the series, which was trying to be too many things at once. Kristy played Buffy as the comedic heroine in a successful (or at least well-received) teen slasher comedy. Sarah is trying to be a cold killer, a high school girl, and a romantic lead all at the same time.

I agree, except that I don't think the series' Buffy was even that ambitious. The movie was a wonderful precursor to Clueless - Valley Girl humor is just always fun. And the movie itself was actually funny. Pee Wee Herman as that Vampire (I don't remember which one) was hilarious! And it didn't try to be too serious. In fact, in that 5-minute stretch of the film when it actually did - Merrick's death - was the only real weak part of the movie. It was fun, lighthearted, dark enough, a little scary, energetic, and truly entertaining.

[nordic]

Wow. I never thought I'd see the day when someone would openly confess to liking the movie better than the show.

The movie was campy, and... well campy. But the show was so much more. Sure, like any other show that went on for seven seasons there are episodes and plot lines that are worse than others. But most of the other episodes are miles better than the movie could ever hope to be. Did you ever see Innocence, Passion or The Body? Or Hush, Restless or Once More With Feeling? And those are just the obvious ones.

While SMG may not be the best actress in the world, I think she did a brilliant job on Buffy. I felt quite the opposite about Kristy Swanson.

[Escapay]

Wow. I never thought I'd see the day when someone would openly confess to liking the movie better than the show.

I wouldn't consider it a confession, probably more a proclamation. back

The movie was campy, and... well campy.

And that's why it worked with the story.

But the show was so much more.

Much more = too much of different genres that it was an unbalanced and uneven show to watch for story alone.

But most of the other episodes are miles better than the movie could ever hope to be. Did you ever see Innocence, Passion or The Body? Or Hush, Restless or Once More With Feeling? And those are just the obvious ones.

I did see Hush, and it was an interesting concept with a predictable ending, but the other names don't sound familiar at all (mainly because of the few episodes of Buffy I've seen, I don't think they showed any on-screen episode titles). Buffy is a show that tries to be dramatic, action-packed, melodrama-ed, comedic, and serialized, and it fails at all because it just can't pick a genre to stick to. It took itself too seriously and at the same time didn't take itself seriously enough, that it was either a love it or hate it series and in the end, the only factor about the show that will be remembered in years to come will be that it was one of the few successful vampire and supernatural shows (though of course, none will top the genius that was "Dark Shadows" or "Kolchack the Night Stalker").

The best thing about the movie is that it took a concept, and made fun of it, while at the same time, keeping a light-hearted tone throughout. It stayed true to its concept, while Buffy TV was more of a "Okay, this week, let's be funny...next week we'll be serious...and the week after that we'll try some new visual effects."

I'm not saying that I truly dislike the series. It's got some good qualities (both of whom left for a superior show called Angel), and had some okay stories at times. But I just could not invest myself into the characters. I couldn't sympathize for them, couldn't care for their problems. And if the characters don't work, the story never will.

While SMG may not be the best actress in the world, I think she did a brilliant job on Buffy. I felt quite the opposite about Kristy Swanson.

To each his own.

Escapay

[slave2moonlight]

Hmm, I was going to mention the movie, but I think I forgot to.

Well, saw that one when it sneak previewed in theaters. Didn't have a clue what to expect. Over all, even though I love supernatural stuff, whether horror, comedy, or both, the movie was a tad too campy for me. Not that I don't like some REALLY campy stuff, but, for some reason, I just didn't feel it was working in the Buffy movie. I know it was campy on purpose, but it seemed like it was trying too hard. While I'll watch it sometimes if I run across it, it always does feel like a bad movie, while the show usually feels like a good show. Also, I've never thought of Kristy Swanson as a great actress, and while Gellar isn't the best actress in the world, I find her to be much better than Kristy. Better looking too, but I guarantee that I would not watch it purely for that reason. There are plenty of shows with hot girls on TV that I avoid because the subject matter doesn't interest me. However, of course the hotness of Sarah was used to push the show, but that was always the idea of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It was the idea of the hot cheerleader in school, usually expected to be the victim in a horror film, instead being the dangerous one. Also, I think taking things a lot more seriously with the TV show was a good idea (and it did do MUCH better than the film...). There was humor, but it was mainly in the sassy comments from the characters. It was nowhere near as campy as the movie, and I'm glad. And I agree with other posters that the show did get too serious in later seasons, but I still feel they're worth watching, if only because Spike was an awesome character throughout (and on Angel as well).

[nordic]

I, on the other hand, think Buffy (the show) worked because of all the elements it combined. I think everyone would get tired after a short while if it was just a comedy (it would probably have become similar to Sabrina), it would get boring if it was a drama (and not very believable because of it's premise), and an all-action show wouldn't have worked very well either.

To each his own.

I guess that's the only conclusion we can draw from this thread.

[ichabod]

There are only 2 TV shows I own on DVD that aren't sitcoms or comedies, and this is one of them.

Why, because everything about it is just right.

Yes it has that teen show gloss to it and that perfect prom queen-ness to it, but unlike most shows like that, Buffy intends to do it. The camp, cheese is wonderfully written and because you know its almost mocking the teen show genre, it makes the cheese acceptable.

It wonderfully blends the silly, with the mature while it makes everything still remain plausible (a reason why I don't care for 'Angel', it takes it self more seriously).

As Netty has pointed out, some of the lines are just wonderfully, placed that you just can't help but smile.

In short Buffy is trash, but it intends to be trash, which it what makes it soooooooooooo wonderful!

[Disney-Fan]

- Sorry but where were you in the 90's??

In front of my VHS player, watching the latest Disney classic!
I was too young to get into it when it was just released, and by the time my interest sparked it was already over.

[Lazario]

While SMG may not be the best actress in the world, I think she did a brilliant job on Buffy. I felt quite the opposite about Kristy Swanson.

How quaint.

But again, Kristy Swanson was the first Buffy. That doesn't automatically make her Buffy superior, it makes the 2 forms different - especially in tone. However, as this is also an entirely separate ballgame, Kristy had better film instincts than Sarah has in TV. And saying she's not the "best actress in the world" is an understatement. And a gross one at that. She has the emotional range of a carrot. She's one of those actors who stayed in Acting School long enough to learn how to cry without a bowl of onions just in front of her face, but not long enough to learn what that was meant to accomplish.

I, on the other hand, think Buffy (the show) worked because of all the elements it combined.

None of the singular elements the show was comprised of were strong enough for the show to exist without the others. Therefore, it's an amalgamation of several lackluster pieces, forming an underwhelming and weak whole. Which is one of the reasons it was aimed at young people. Older audiences buy into sci-fi / action programs on TV all the time, but this show wasn't ripe enough for more than just kiddies to enjoy.

The movie was prepared - by whomever's hand - to be more of a comedy. As that, it was very successful. Regardless of your 'not liking' who played Buffy. The movie's filmmakers knew the subject of this story was never strong enough to sustain anything serious. And again, it's a strong feel-good comedy with a very smart idea, a lot of heart, a real pulse on it's teen characters, and a "keen fashion sense"

[nordic]

I'm sorry, but I find it impossible to discuss with you when you treat every opinion of yours as a fact. I think we all get that you didn't like the show, and that's your opinion. Millions of others love the show, and that on the other hand is a fact.

And SMG is a tv-actress, I'll give you that. But she's one of the best IMO. Opinion being the key-word here.

Anyway, this is pointless. I love the show, and you can't change that. You hate it, and that's fine by me. So I guess we're done.

[Lazario]

I agree, you're right - we can't change each others' minds. Fine. Than, what is there left for you to say? If you think of something, let me know.

But the difference between your opinion and my fact is I'm actually willing to take a hard, deep look into the show without making excuses for it. And you, apparently, aren't. If it was a good show, I would have admitted it already. There are a lot of good shows I don't enjoy, but I've seen them before and am more than willing to give credit where it's due. But not in the case of Buffy. Sorry.

[Siren]

I personally like SMG better.

First, the movie version was NOT true to the original. Joss has no say in the actress chosen for the title roll. When he pitched his show to WB, he had all the say. SMG is the Buffy he had always intended. The movie was okay, but after watching the series for 7 seasons, it is far superior to the movie in so many ways. And after reading the graphic novel of Joss' original script, I can see how it would have made a better movie. And we might have had the series a lot sooner then we did. He needed to wait till much of the public forgot about the egg that was laid before, so he could suprise them with the Buffy he always wanted

[Lazario]

First, the movie version was NOT true to the original.

You know something... who cares? I'm dead serious. If this stupid project had never been made into a TV show, nobody would care. Nobody would even know this guy's name. So as far as the movie version not being true to the original, it doesn't matter. It's also really pathetic for people to be splitting hairs over actresses. "The Buffy he always wanted"? Wow, let's just gift-wrap her in his saliva, if there's so much left over for other people to make this big of a deal out of it.

I'll say it again - movie and TV are 2 different worlds. And I'm not actually holding a grudge against Mr. Whedon - more power to him. It's not entirely his fault the show blew chunks. But to say Kristy Swanson was in any way responsible for the raping of Whedon's grand vision, is neither here nor there.

And after reading the graphic novel of Joss' original script, I can see how it would have made a better movie.

Okay - another obvious example of someone refusing to look at the movie for what it was. Because of their fanlove for the TV show. The movie wasn't the show - it's a simple concept. The sooner you accept it, the less hang-ups you're going to have. Maybe the movie was taken away from Joss. Boo hoo. Dust yourself off and move on (you're forcing me to say these things, you know that). The movie was a comedy boardering on a spoof. Again, maybe not in Whedon-World, but in the Real one. And it didn't have to have horribly realistic vampires who posed any threat to anyone. More often than not, the vampires were there for comic effect. And you know what? The movie's actual physical techniques of achieving special effects worked better than the stuff on the show, which was so overbearingly sparkly, it bordered on "Dungeons and Dragons" fantasy programs, which are anything but dark and edgy, m'friend. This show was always only 1 step away from being completely animated, with pencils and computers. It tried to be serious but it was way too silly. Yet, everyone pimping the show are trying to get away with saying it's so brooding and confrontational. My ass! At least the movie had the balls to actually admit, every step of the way, it was a sell out.

Look at what the movie did offer. Pee Wee Herman as a vampire (had to get that out of the way first, since I already mentioned it), a role for Luke Perry that would actually force him to act. His constantly serious tone on Beverly Hills 90210 only rears its head here when necessary and blends perfectly with his character's drifter charm and easygoing attitude. His onscreen relationship with Buffy is also very well-accented, he's a sweet but aimless bum who starts drifting at the same time Buffy is training to be the slayer, he becomes the target of other Bum vampires who basically go after him because he's so loose and disorganized that when his best friend dies he has no one else and is leaving 'another-town' with no focus on his means of escape - he's a mechanic who works on automobiles all day yet his van breaks down and he's helpless - and everytime him and Buffy meet, she catches him, saves him, and otherwise represents a harsh reality that whatever he's trying to escape from will catch up with him eventually. She forces him to 'clean' / pick himself up and it's such an effective transformation that he has to be the one to be prepared for both of them.

Then, look at how many times the movie shows how alone Buffy is in the world. That she is driven to her conformist orientation with her airhead friends because she's pretty and rich. She only has her high school friends and no family connections because her parents are such yuppies that they're only involved in their own strange existence (signaling that they're just not 'tight' with other relatives). Take away the fair-weather friends and she has no one but herself. Which makes her triumph in the film a much more valiant effort than the TV Buffy, because in a sense, she did it almost entirely by herself. Merrick only gave her instructions and served to complicate her life even more (which meant, forced her to re-evaluate and re-prioritize it). The movie was wiser than the TV show. It's whole philosophy took the story out of the context of it's time, after several brilliant scenes in the film's opening of spoofing rich Californian valley girls (which had not been done that many times). Rather, it showed a somewhat strong portrait of a girl who was set on the right path when she was given a great responsibility, and her relationship with a young man, their commonality, and the way the film shows them existing in their own reality alone. And one that suits them well since they find very little in everyone else's reality that fits. So the movie wasn't just fun but it had an important message about asserting individualism.

Everything about the TV show played it safe. In fact, it came out at a time when there was almost nothing left to do to shake the landscape of TV (Will & Grace changed that in 98'). Xena was already all the Woman hero the '90s needed. Buffy was the sexy young girl. So what? Just because she retained some modicum of femininity, she's a revelation? Hardly. The TV Buffy had her friends to help her most of the time, so the show as a structure just followed in the footsteps of stories about groups of people triumphing over evil. It's often contrived episode resolutions just served to remind people of the endings of drama shows like E.R. The characters were never much more complex than Actor Onscreen Who Cries, Says "Quippy" Line, or Kicks / Punches Bad Guy. The show never symbolized much and didn't exactly mine terrain that hadn't been before. I think for the show to have been truly dedicated to its characters, it shouldn't have always been looking for a way to sell itself to people. Everything in it was designed to highten its appeal, yet all the fans say it tells an uncompromising story. Well as drama, that can't exactly work. That's why it was a Teen Drama, and like I said before it didn't influence many young people to see young women as stronger. Rather, 99% of the time it was just a noisy, fast-paced diversion from other shows that were slower or had less good-looking cast members (concentrated more on telling a real plot with actual story complications). This was the Friends of action / sci-fi TV, in almost every way. The only way it didn't resemble Friends was the absense of a laugh-track and it's being an Hour-long program.

[2099net]

Will and Grace shook the landscape of TV? Surely you're having a laugh Lazario? A show about two gays, one of which is a textbook comedy stereotype and as a result is almost a live-action cartoon character and the other is gay only in words, because he's not (dramatically) "allowed" to have any gay relationships, you know, in case it actually offends anyone who is watching.

Wow. That show really pushed the boundries. It was so daring. American TV is so cutting edge.

[ichabod]

Wow. That show really pushed the boundries. It was so daring. American TV is so cutting edge.

Unfortunately, even though we've had sitcoms with characters and jokes like those in the Will and Grace in the UK since the '60s. As far as the US is concerned Will and Grace really was considered 'cutting edge'.

[Lazario]

Will and Grace shook the landscape of TV?

Much in the way you were saying Buffy the series paved the way for Veronica Mars and Alias, Will and Grace was the first show on American television where the audience were laughing with the gay characters and not at them. You're right that the show compromised a lot just to stay on, because even during the Clinton administration, "gay" wasn't always okay if it were too visual. And even at its heart, it's a sort of Friends with Seinfeld humor (because Friends had no humor at all, it was so stiff!). But unlike Buffy which inspired a couple dinky action shows, Will and Grace actually did a lot to boost the exposure of gay characters to TV. And in case you hadn't noticed, gay people needed all the positive exposure they could get at the time.

Surely you're having a laugh Lazario?

At you? Always.

A show about two gays, one of which is a textbook comedy stereotype and as a result is almost a live-action cartoon character and the other is gay only in words, because he's not (dramatically) "allowed" to have any gay relationships, you know, in case it actually offends anyone who is watching.

Jack was a very realistic portrayal of a gay man, because y'know we're not all the same. People don't like the stereotype because even the cattiest ones want to be taken seriously. Jack was about accepting a person no matter how flamboyant or outrageously unappealing they are. Because once Gay people are finally accepted, people will see just how boring we really are - the same as everyone else. Will was also a very challenging character and I frequently found him to the be the most annoying person on the show. If you think at there is to him is a guy who can't have lasting relationships, than you didn't watch the show. Because again, working with actually groundbreaking material as this show was, they made Will the source of all his relationship problems. And his friendship with Grace was never really all that helpful to his love life. And besides - once he does get together, what happens? The show always worked on some level because even though they weren't allowed to keep a love interest on the show. And Jack was hardly a cartoon character - cartoon characters get into adventures, Jack was the adventure. There's a difference.

Those are all very broad or general statements. But I guess you'd understand if you were gay or had any close gay friends. At any rate, it gave rise to Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and that show alone proved that we're moving up the latter. Slowly but surely. You can't fault a show for the way things are in the world. So remember to point the finger where it belongs if you're complaint really is Who Is and Who Isn't allowed to have a TV relationship. And let's not forget U.S. Queer As Folk, which actually did take a cue from Will & Grace's high marketability and found a Huge heterosexual, female audience. And that's power! Because it's a show too graphic, suggestive, and a bit raunchy at times for Network TV. In the UK QaF might not have been anything new or controversial, but in the U.S. it gave a lot of people "something to talk about." And now people are talking more about gay sex. At least, when I walk into a room full of women, more of them who've seen the show feel a little more educated about things their parents would never have told them (and didn't know). And that right there is more than simple, dull tolerance. Queer as Folk even paved the way for Nip/Tuck, which would never be airing on a channel as big as FX / Fox if it weren't for shows like Queer as Folk proving some segment of America was ready for graphic / overt sexual programs on TV. QaF had to prove that a show like that could be a moneymaker.

[2099net]

Of course everyone is different.

But Jack is still a "tick the boxes" imagining of the media's perceptions of gay men. Jack is for gay men what Tonto form the Lone Ranger is for Native Americans. Let's be honest, if Sean Hayes didn't have as much charisma as he does he could actually be seen as being offensive. You can't deny he's a walking cliché!

As for Will, I should have said, isn't allowed to have any long-term relationships. You may claim that if he did have one, it would spoil the formula of the show (which I agree with to a certain extent), but I notice Grace was allowed to get married.

And no, I haven't seen them all, because quite frankly after the first year or so, I got fed-up with it. It was the same week-in week-out. Characters never evolved, the jokes were always the same and frankly I got bored with it.

You'll probably come back now saying the characters did evolve over the 7 or 8 years it ran and give lots of examples - which I cannot dispute being as I've never really watched the later episodes, but if they didn't evolve and change over the first 30 odd episodes, then it's already missed its chance in my book.

Of course, Buffy had/has lesbian lovers in it (it pretty much ended with Willow pairing up with somebody else), and when it did show them, it didn't have to resort to cliché (well, not often, I'm sure one or two slipped in).

Finally, if American television as late as 1998 needed an in-offensive show like Will and Grace to give it a kick up the ass, you may as well all go back to living in caves - it seems to be how civilized and tolerant the nation appears to have been.