Jump to content

Buffy in the Media


  • Please log in to reply

1799 replies to this topic

#1

Dazed

Dazed

Posted Jan 2, 2004 @ 7:56 PM

Read the full article here, but in the article, titled "When Trekkie Met Buffy", a particular quote struck me as "very interesting, yet sadly, very true. Excerpt below


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"With Star Trek, people are loyal to the shows, not the characters," explains Motes a short while later. "With Buffy, it's the other way around."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What do you guys think? Every character with the exception of Spike, I've liked, or was indifferent to. I love Wesley, but my loyalties still lie with the show, which explains why I continued to watch Buffy during season 6 and 7, even though I hated Spike and the direction it was taking. I'm even watching season 5 of Angel out of loyalty even though as stated above...I LOATHE SPIKE, and I'm not a fan of the direction the show is going in, but I've seen other fans state that the only reason they watch is for a specific character or actor, and if said character was would happen to leave the show, they would stop watching.

ETA: Holy crap! So that cruise thing is for real. Interesting. Wonder which actors they got to go.

Edited by Dazed, Jan 2, 2004 @ 9:18 PM.

  • 0

#2

journeywoman

journeywoman

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 2, 2004 @ 8:35 PM

I was going to agree until I read the article in full. Granted after polishing off several margaritas, a tumble with either Spike or JM might seem like a good idea, but the type of fan devotion described in that article is just creepy to me.

But if I use my original description of devotion to character (which doesn't include creepy stalking tendencies and the inability to differentiate fantasy from reality) then I agree. As an original Star Trek fan, I loved the individual characters and was delighted to see a woman and people of color in positions of authority. But it was the story in each episode that set the hook. And truthfully, the characters really were written a little bit, oh how do you say it, more to represent something or play off another character than to show layers of depth within themselves.

Now, given the storytelling in S7 of BtVS, I can honestly say it was my former love for the characters keeping me tied to the TV. What I also loved about BtVS is that I had multiple loyalties among characters. And that, well, that's just an amazing achievement. For me, the jury is stil out on Angel.
  • 0

#3

EONdc

EONdc

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 2, 2004 @ 11:15 PM

Dazed, I agree with the sentiment to some degree, but I don't agree that it's sad somehow. I am a fan of the show because of the characters but I think that was JW's intention from the get-go. While I don't share the author of the article's belief that Buffy lacked vision, I do think that it was much more character driven and about complex relationships and personalities, whereas Star Trek was more of a philosophy (I guess) and therefore the players were unimportant. Frankly, I prefer the former, not the latter. I can't imagine why one would watch Buffy if they didn't have a strong attachment to the characters, but I guess though that I don't understand why anyone would watch any show for any other reason.

I do not now, nor have I ever understood the Star Trek thing - it's so very much not my cup of tea. I would imagine that one of the reasons that the audience of Buffy is more character devoted than the Star Trek cast is the the actors themselves. They have been consistently great, whether they were given something fabulous to perform or something so-so to perform. The writing may have been uneven in the last few years, but I never felt the acting was. The Star Trek actors...well none of these people are going to be mistaken for master thespians anytime soon.

I find the fan reaction to JM in the article fascinating. He's like one of the most famous not famous people in the world. His fan base is so devoted that what it lacks for in terms of numbers it makes up for in sheer fanaticism. For 1 million girls out there, he's Elvis, the Beatles and Brad Pitt all in one. But he's virtually unknown to the rest of the world, in my experience.

I have just been taken to the wood shed by Mr. EONdc for implying that Patrick Stewart is not a great actor. My humble apologies. When I said that none of them were master thespians, I was thinking more of the original cast. But I concede the point to anyone who is thinking of parsing my post that yes, of the 40 or so people who have been cast members of the various incarnations of Star Trek shows, that one of them indeed was a great actor.

Edited by EONdc, Jan 3, 2004 @ 11:26 AM.

  • 0

#4

Nobody's

Nobody's

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 3, 2004 @ 6:02 AM

For 1 million girls out there, he's Elvis, the Beatles and Brad Pitt all in one. But he's virtually unknown to the rest of the world, in my experience.


It's probably because he's been on Buffy for so many years now, and haven't really branched out to anything else. While Buffy is a huge cult and fan favorite, it wasn't exactly one of the highest rated TV shows out there, not even in her golden-er days. I know James loves Buffy and playing Spike, but this sort of shutting out to the rest of the industry is hurting his career. He hasn't done anything significant really other than Buffy and now he's gone on to Angel, which isn't a big improvement. He's got the making of a huge star, what with his acting abilities, his looks and his charisma but I think he got somewhat lost in this role. He oughta move on to do some major movies, I think, something that would really make use of his talent. 'Cause lord knows he ain't getting any younger.

Edited by Nobody's, Jan 3, 2004 @ 6:03 AM.

  • 0

#5

marlaas

marlaas

Posted Jan 3, 2004 @ 10:04 AM

While I don't share the author of the articles's belief that Buffy lacked vision, I do think that it was much more character driven and about complex relationships and personalities, whereas Star Trek was more of a philosophy (I guess) and therefore the players were unimportant. Frankly, I prefer the former, not the latter. I can't imagine why one would watch Buffy if they didn't have a strong attachment to the characters, but I guess though that I don't understand why anyone would watch any show for any other reason.


Word to the millionth power, EONdc. If I don't find the characters compelling, I lose interest in the show, irrespective of plot points, special effects etc. I strongly believe that story stems from well-developed characters, not that characters should just be inserted into a pre-developed story.
Which brings me to why Buffy failed me the last two seasons: it's as if it had certain plot points it was determined to cover, and failed to take into account how inconsistent many of them were with the characterizations that had developed over the previous five years. Yes, I kept watching, but only because of my lingering affection for the characters that I had known and loved over the past five years and the hope that they would return to their previous, non-Pod-people selves! If I hadn't had this affection built up and the hope that the characters would revert back to what I considered normal, I never, ever would have kept watching the show.

As for JM, as talented an actor as I think he is, he may be so associated with his one very distinctive character on the ME series that other TV shows and especially films might not take a chance on him---I'm not so sure that it's about JM not wanting to branch out. I know this was SMG's fear--being so associated with Buffy that it would be impossible for her to break out of that role.

Edited by marlaas, Jan 3, 2004 @ 10:07 AM.

  • 0

#6

HeadCase

HeadCase

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 3, 2004 @ 10:36 AM

I think that article is a good example of why generalizations about fans are discouraged so many places. There's always plenty of examples of people to whom the generalization doesn't apply. Of course, these are the same people who threw a little temper tantrum on their convention forums several months ago about how Buffy fans are more interested in attending conventions to see stars than they are to see fellow fans. They frequently like to make comparisons between fan groups. The difference as I see it isn't so much about Buffy vs. Star Trek as it is the difference between the times in which each show became popular.
  • 0

#7

Bebop

Bebop

Posted Jan 3, 2004 @ 12:15 PM

They have been consistently great, whether they were given something fabulous to perform or something so-so to perform. The Star Trek actors...well none of these people are going to be mistaken for master thespians anytime soon.


I don't agree about the BtVS cast being consistently great when given so-so material (see Season 7) or the Star Trek franchise not having any first rate actors (see Patrick Stewart).

Anyway, the article describes BtVS fans who went to a particular convention. They aren't necessarily representiave all BtVS fans. For example, you'd think from that article that Kennedy was one of the more beloved characters on the show.
  • 0

#8

Ailiana

Ailiana

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 3, 2004 @ 2:30 PM

The difference as I see it isn't so much about Buffy vs. Star Trek as it is the difference between the times in which each show became popular.


Headcase, I was getting ready to post the same thing when I saw your post. Back when Star Trek was first on, there wasn't a cult of celebrity the way there is now. There was also no internet, which as I think all here realize, makes it easy to obsess about the most minute details of TV, actors, characters, and so on. Maybe the demographic of the two cons that article observed were different, but I think that reflects more the difference between the two eras in which the shows originally aired.
  • 0

#9

journeywoman

journeywoman

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 3, 2004 @ 4:38 PM

I do not now, nor have I ever understood the Star Trek thing - it's so very much not my cup of tea. I would imagine that one of the reasons that the audience of Buffy is more character devoted than the Star Trek cast is the the actors themselves. They have been consistently great, whether they were given something fabulous to perform or something so-so to perform. The writing may have been uneven in the last few years, but I never felt the acting was. The Star Trek actors...well none of these people are going to be mistaken for master thespians anytime soon.


It might depend upon your age. For the time, it was fairly daring. And some of the earlier episodes tackled fairly touchy issues for the times. I suspect younger viewers enjoy the campier aspects. And as for the acting, again Star Trek was more about the story with the actors portraying "caricatures" or "types."
  • 0

#10

HeadCase

HeadCase

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 3, 2004 @ 5:39 PM

There was also no internet, which as I think all here realize, makes it easy to obsess about the most minute details of TV, actors, characters, and so on.


Not only that, but it creates a sense of community amongst fans. When Star Trek fandom took root in the 1970s, the only place to really find a number of people who shared the obsession was at conventions. But now, a person can sit in their own home and share their thoughts on Buffy with people from all over the world. I don't need to go to a convention to discussion the feminist implications of the show or debate whether TweedyGiles or RipperGiles was sexier with people who won't think I'm insane. I do need to go to a convention to see Tony Head or Nicholas Brenden in person. I think that's the difference and not so much a difference in why people watch the shows.

For the record, the only Star Trek incarnation I've ever been a true fan of was Next Generation - because I loved the characters. But that's me, not everyone who watched the show.
  • 0

#11

picketfences

picketfences

    Channel Surfer

Posted Jan 3, 2004 @ 10:06 PM

It's probably because he's been on Buffy for so many years now, and haven't really branched out to anything else. While Buffy is a huge cult and fan favorite, it wasn't exactly one of the highest rated TV shows out there, not even in her golden-er days. I know James loves Buffy and playing Spike, but this sort of shutting out to the rest of the industry is hurting his career.


It's just my opinion of course, but I think James would be happy to do something else. His agreement to do Venetian Heat (uh, if that was the movie's name) shows that he is open to other offers. His problem is there aren't any other offers. You have to remember that James has been in the profession for many years, but he doesn't appear to be what producers want. He's found something that pays him well and gives him a regular paycheck. That's a big bonus for an actor.

All IMO of course.
  • 0

#12

EONdc

EONdc

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 3, 2004 @ 10:34 PM

Oh, and I didn't mean to imply that JM was even seeking common fame. I have three actors in my family of varying degrees of success and I know that simply being able to earn your living acting and doing quality work at that it is a huge accomplishment in and of itself.
  • 0

#13

Ailiana

Ailiana

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 4, 2004 @ 11:23 AM

Well, while James plays Spike, he also has limitations on what other roles he can play that the other ME actors don't, due to the bleached hair that doesn't carry over to other roles well.
  • 0

#14

Nobody's

Nobody's

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 4, 2004 @ 12:34 PM

I wasn't specifically talking about doing a movie this instant, but he has been on Buffy many years now, and he could have just carried on and not do it, and the minute Buffy ended he just jumped on up to Angel to do pretty much the same thing. I guess he can do as he pleases and what ever works for him, I just think it's a shame the rest of the world are missing out on him. He's a good cookie.
  • 0

#15

a2zmom

a2zmom

    Stalker

Posted Jan 4, 2004 @ 4:54 PM

I just think it's a shame the rest of the world are missing out on him.


Considering that there are a lot of actors out there just as good as he is and younger to boot, it's a wise decision on his part to milk this for as much as he can. Hoolywood is littered with people who had one great TV part and never did another thing of note.
  • 0

#16

saraamy

saraamy

    Video Archivist

Posted Jan 5, 2004 @ 9:02 PM

The Star Trek actors...well none of these people are going to be mistaken for master thespians anytime soon.

I think Enterprise and Voyager have to a certain extent damaged the Star Trek franchise and perceptions of it. DS9 was probably the most character-driven of all the series, and the acting was superb for the most part. Of course, the writing was better on that series as well (if it ain't on the page...).
  • 0

#17

EONdc

EONdc

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 5, 2004 @ 9:48 PM

Over in the Dr. Who thread there is an article that mentions that in the next incarnation of the show, they are looking to add a "Buffy" type character to the show. Really that's just the author of the article's over-simplification of the series writer's thoughts on including a strong woman, due to the influence of shows like Buffy. But since ASH has been mentioned as a possible Dr. Who, thought it was an interesting development.
  • 0

#18

Warden

Warden

    Stalker

Posted Jan 6, 2004 @ 6:07 AM

Buffy made Herc's 10 best hourlong dramas of 2003 at No. 1 of course.
  • 0

#19

Ailiana

Ailiana

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 6, 2004 @ 6:51 AM

Ugh. Half (or more) of the things he cites as what made BtVS so great in the second half of the season are things I utterly despise. Faith fighting Mr. Spock? First date?
  • 0

#20

petzipellepingo

petzipellepingo

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 6, 2004 @ 8:57 AM

While I don't think much of Herc's list of best Season Seven episodes, I do like the following statement :

a less-happy Buffy at the end would have certainly been my preference

. I'm with you on that one Herc.
  • 0

#21

valny

valny

    Stalker

Posted Jan 6, 2004 @ 9:12 AM

I also love the comment about the SiT's:

there was a real sense that they were distracting from the journeys of the core characters.

Hit that one right on the head!
  • 0

#22

EONdc

EONdc

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 6, 2004 @ 12:40 PM

But I did love the Giles flashcard bit that is mentioned in the article. One my favorite funny moments in the whole season (which was decidedly low on funny moments).
  • 0

#23

Dazed

Dazed

Posted Jan 6, 2004 @ 5:21 PM

Buffy, Angel are Top Selling DVDs of 2003 at Amazon.com

14.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer - The Complete Fourth Season

17.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer - The Complete Third Season (1998)

29.
Angel - Season Two (2000)

37.
Angel - Season One (1999)

40.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer - The Complete Fifth Season (2000)

62.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer - The Complete First Season (1996)

Edited by Dazed, Jan 6, 2004 @ 5:22 PM.

  • 0

#24

namrog

namrog

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 7, 2004 @ 10:02 AM

Interview with Nick Brendon at TVGuide.com. IMO, people in Hollywood should be beating down his door with good offers.
  • 0

#25

DeeeDee

DeeeDee

    Stalker

Posted Jan 7, 2004 @ 10:10 AM

ITA. Maybe he can wrangle a couple of guest spots on Aly's new show. I always thought the two of them had good chemistry together. I think they'd be exquisite in a half hour family sitcom. Toss in Emma and Tom and that's bank right there IMO.

Edited by DeeeDee, Jan 7, 2004 @ 10:38 AM.

  • 0

#26

JHeaton

JHeaton

    Stalker

Posted Jan 7, 2004 @ 10:30 AM

An AP article that appeared in today's Express (a free publication of the Washington Post) about Sandy Grushow stepping down as chairman of Fox Television Entertainment Group is accompanied by a large photo of Buffy and Angel (it looks to be a Fox promotional still taken on the tomb set of "Chosen"), and the article cites Buffy as oneof the successful series produced by FOX Television during his tenure as chairman. The issue containing the article can be downloaded here; the article itself is on page 14.
  • 0

#27

DJNutMeg

DJNutMeg

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 7, 2004 @ 5:28 PM

After seven years, I think [creator Joss Whedon] pretty much said my character was kinda played out a little bit. So they brought in a bunch of people.


Oh Nicky, how I would have loved to see you instead on "a bunch of people." Ug.
Here's hoping the movie happens sans all slayerettes (somehow) and crappy characterization. I think I might have to head to quality control.

Edited by DJNutMeg, Jan 7, 2004 @ 5:28 PM.

  • 0

#28

EONdc

EONdc

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 7, 2004 @ 8:14 PM

After seven years, I think [creator Joss Whedon] pretty much said my character was kinda played out a little bit. So they brought in a bunch of people.


Oh, NB, sweet, silly boy. Joss may be a genius, but infallible he ain't.
  • 0

#29

Rina99

Rina99

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 7, 2004 @ 8:45 PM

Article on Alyson being offered a specific NBC sitcom.


http://tv.zap2it.com...5565|1|,00.html
  • 0

#30

valny

valny

    Stalker

Posted Jan 7, 2004 @ 9:37 PM

Pretty picture of AH.
  • 0