The_Philster Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Dean you disappoint me. Ok you gave Buffy a shot and watched season 1, which is the weakest season of the show, but you need to see the seasons beyond that, and only then will you see why Buffy was a fantastic show. Joss Whedon is one of the best writers/directors out there and you can see how creative and humorous the guy is. It was'nt just Buffy that made the show it was the other characters as well, especially Spike, Faith & Anya. Maybe the show was targeted more to teen girls, but that does'nt mean that adults could not appreciate it. Unfortunately nobody would watch the show mainly because of it's silly title. It was a disgrace to see the Emmy awards constantly giving blow jobs to shows like "ER" & "The West Wing", saying what great acting and writing they had, while Buffy had some of the best writing and acting on tv as well. And if you do'nt believe me you can look at all the TV critics who constantly praised Buffy for it's characters and great writing, and year after year calling it "The Best Show on TV that nobody is watching". Give the show more of a chance Dean, and you'll see how good it really is. The big difference between season 1 and the rest of the series is the fact that, like most shows, the 1st season had mostly self-contained episodes...where each episode told a story After that is where it got great...with season-long story arcs...there was still some episodic stuff like "Ted" but you wouldn't be able to understand an episode like "I Only Have Eyes For You" without having seen the rest of the season....the story arcs on Buffy set a trend that you see more these days but I don't think any shows have stuff like the story of Dawn, whose coming was foreshadowed a few years before she was written into the series. as far as characters, Spike and Xander seemed to me to be the best as far as character development overall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 The big difference between season 1 and the rest of the series is the fact that, like most shows, the 1st season had mostly self-contained episodes...where each episode told a storyAfter that is where it got great...with season-long story arcs...there was still some episodic stuff like "Ted" but you wouldn't be able to understand an episode like "I Only Have Eyes For You" without having seen the rest of the season....the story arcs on Buffy set a trend that you see more these days but I don't think any shows have stuff like the story of Dawn, whose coming was foreshadowed a few years before she was written into the series. Agree 100%. The other big difference (advantage) to the show is that nobody is safe - you never know when or if a character will die ("I died twice." ). Some main characters died in ways you wouldn't expect and they were very poignant moments. I don't want to spoil anything, so I won't talk about it in much depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 The big difference between season 1 and the rest of the series is the fact that, like most shows, the 1st season had mostly self-contained episodes...where each episode told a story No doubt that was by design. The WB and UPN (where I worked) had very small audiences, and those that watched weren't exactly habitual in the early days. The thinking among most network execs is the episodes had to be self-contained, for the most part, of viewers who might get a chance to check the show out would be lost. They realized their viewers weren't necessarily coming back week-after-week, and probably watched when their usual show was preempted or in a rerun. Also, at that time, many WB affiliates were also FOX affiliates, so they broadcast the WB shows at off hours (like weekend afternoons and such) and they weren't exactly regular and predictable (often being preempted by sports and such). Buffy attracted a relatively large audience and earned the luxury to do longer arcs. It also was at the time when The WB finally made real progress at getting better affiliates and better broadcast times for their shows in many markets. We had a great show (Nowhere Man) at UPN that never really caught on, as the producers didn't really stick to single-show arcs. Also the Net Execs and the Exec Producer (a real ass) got into pissing contests and proceeded to harm the quality of the show. Check out the pilot and early episodes if you ever get a chance. http://www.amazon.com/Nowhere-Man-Complete...d/dp/B000BC8SXS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 as far as characters, Spike and Xander seemed to me to be the best as far as character development overall Agree 100%. So you think Spike and Xander were the two best characters on the series, and that Buffy is properly placed at #3 on that list? So who should top that list, Spike or Xander? Just sayin..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 So you think Spike and Xander were the two best characters on the series, and that Buffy is properly placed at #3 on that list? So who should top that list, Spike or Xander? Just sayin..... No, was agreeing with the story arc part and you know it! I was actually never a big Xander fan. Spike was cool though. The reason Buffy was standalone episodes during the first season was because it was a mid-season replacement. There was an overall arc -- the Master -- but they stood alone better than the rest of the seasons. That's why I don't like it as much - serialized stories are much more interesting IMHO, unlike shows like CSI where the characters are static - they never learn and grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 So you think Spike and Xander were the two best characters on the series, and that Buffy is properly placed at #3 on that list? So who should top that list, Spike or Xander? Just sayin..... Did I miss the part where someone said she was properly placed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Did I miss the part where someone said she was properly placed? I think Fez and some others have defended that ranking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 No, was agreeing with the story arc part and you know it! [Edit: I should have known because you said you agreed 100%. If you really agreed with everything you would have said you agreed 110%!] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Dean you disappoint me. Ok you gave Buffy a shot and watched season 1, which is the weakest season of the show, but you need to see the seasons beyond that, and only then will you see why Buffy was a fantastic show. Joss Whedon is one of the best writers/directors out there and you can see how creative and humorous the guy is. It was'nt just Buffy that made the show it was the other characters as well, especially Spike, Faith & Anya. Maybe the show was targeted more to teen girls, but that does'nt mean that adults could not appreciate it. Unfortunately nobody would watch the show mainly because of it's silly title. It was a disgrace to see the Emmy awards constantly giving blow jobs to shows like "ER" & "The West Wing", saying what great acting and writing they had, while Buffy had some of the best writing and acting on tv as well. And if you do'nt believe me you can look at all the TV critics who constantly praised Buffy for it's characters and great writing, and year after year calling it "The Best Show on TV that nobody is watching". Give the show more of a chance Dean, and you'll see how good it really is. If the show was as good as many of you are saying and I trust some of your opinions, the creators of the show really !@#$ed up if they wanted to attract adults like me who love the vampire genre. Calling the show "Buffy" the Vampire Slayer lost a lot of us. I have no desire to watch anything with Buffy in the title (well Buffy Does Buffalo might get a look) so I never saw one episode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 I can't fault the #3 ranking for Buffy Summers...not sure who I'd put there ahead of her, whether it be Spike or Xander If the show was as good as many of you are saying and I trust some of your opinions, the creators of the show really !@#$ed up if they wanted to attract adults like me who love the vampire genre. Calling the show "Buffy" the Vampire Slayer lost a lot of us. I have no desire to watch anything with Buffy in the title (well Buffy Does Buffalo might get a look) so I never saw one episode. Changing the name wouldn't have made a whole lot of sense, though. When the name Buffy was mentioned before the series, most people think of a shallow self-centered girl...which is what Buffy Summers was before she was activated. Now, take a shallow self-centered girl and imbue her with powers and a big responsibility...pretty big adjustment. Wouldn't have seemed as big a deal to name her Betty or Marge or anything like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 If the show was as good as many of you are saying and I trust some of your opinions, the creators of the show really !@#$ed up if they wanted to attract adults like me who love the vampire genre. Calling the show "Buffy" the Vampire Slayer lost a lot of us. I have no desire to watch anything with Buffy in the title (well Buffy Does Buffalo might get a look) so I never saw one episode. You're missing the point of the title though -- the irony of a valley girl named Buffy who is chosen to save the world. It's all about shedding society labels. I looked for the interview with Whedon in which he discussed it much more eloquently than I just have, but I can't find it offhand. Basically the title was chosen to emphasize the phrase, "Don't judge a book by its title." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 If the show was as good as many of you are saying and I trust some of your opinions, the creators of the show really !@#$ed up if they wanted to attract adults like me who love the vampire genre. Calling the show "Buffy" the Vampire Slayer lost a lot of us. I have no desire to watch anything with Buffy in the title (well Buffy Does Buffalo might get a look) so I never saw one episode. I assume I am not one of the few, but to attack the creators of the show for not changing the series title is sheer idiocy. That was their tie in to the movie and helped generate interest. They had issues attracting an audience as is due to the concept. I should note that Buffy does "city" would have drawn my interest as well. In any case, the show did well enough to land Buffy in the #3 spot. So you haters can just lump it. Edit - Also see Philster's post. The bastard pulled pot the points I was saving for my rebuttal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 You're missing the point of the title though -- the irony of a valley girl named Buffy who is chosen to save the world. It's all about shedding society labels. I looked for the interview with Whedon in which he discussed it much more eloquently than I just have, but I can't find it offhand. Basically the title was chosen to emphasize the phrase, "Don't judge a book by its title." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffy_Summers http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/425/425492p6.html IGNFF: Where did the name Buffy come from? WHEDON: It was the name that I could think of that I took the least seriously. There is no way you could hear the name Buffy and think, "This is an important person." To juxtapose that with Vampire Slayer, just felt like that kind of thing – a B movie. But a B movie that had something more going on. That was my dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 K, not trying to be a prick here, but we have a thread a good 5 pages long debating where some vampire chick aimed at teenage girls should be ranked in the annals of TV. Please God, do not let my wife or 11 year old daughter see this thread, as any shred of respect they had for me may be lost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 K, not trying to be a prick here, but we have a thread a good 5 pages long debating where some vampire chick aimed at teenage girls should be ranked in the annals of TV. Please God, do not let my wife or 11 year old daughter see this thread, as any shred of respect they had for me may be lost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 K, not trying to be a prick here, but we have a thread a good 5 pages long debating where some vampire chick aimed at teenage girls should be ranked in the annals of TV. Please God, do not let my wife or 11 year old daughter see this thread, as any shred of respect they had for me may be lost Except that the writer didn't aim it at teenage girls... And she's a vampire SLAYING chick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 Except that the writer didn't aim it at teenage girls... And she's a vampire SLAYING chick! Despite what he may be claiming now the show was directly and purposefully aimed at teenage girls, at least during the early episodes. There is little doubt about that. Given the network it was on it HAD to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 Despite what he may be claiming now the show was directly and purposefully aimed at teenage girls, at least during the early episodes. There is little doubt about that. Given the network it was on it HAD to be. And I think they succeeded based on the posters here who watched the show on a regular basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 And I think they succeeded based on the posters here who watched the show on a regular basis. And the waste of skin that never watches TV chimes in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 And I think they succeeded based on the posters here who watched the show on a regular basis. For sure. The people here, and many others who it wasn't necessarily targeted too. It wouldn't have lasted as long as it did, nor been as successful in syndication, nor as generally lauded as it has been if it didn't appeal beyond it basic initial target. But I still think Buffy is wildly over ranked at #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts