Slashdot Mirror
Buffy Staked Again By Emmys
jonerik writes "Despite six witty, intelligent seasons, 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' has never been able to catch a break from the folks at the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences who vote on the annual Emmy Awards, with the show's nine nominations to date (with no wins) being mostly in technical categories. And, according to this piece from E! Online, when the ballots for this year's Emmy nominations were sent out in early June, this season's musical tour de force, 'Once More With Feeling,' was inexplicably left out of list of shows eligible for the Outstanding Writing in a Drama Series catefory. The academy has attempted to correct its error by sending out postcards to Emmy voters informing them that they can, in fact, vote for the episode, but the fix is probably too little, too late. According to awards-show expert Tom O'Neil, 'It entailed such extraordinary effort that it was unlikely the voters would do it even if they loved the episode. So it definitely curses its chances.' If you missed it the first time around, 'Once More With Feeling' will be re-run tomorrow evening at 8pm eastern time on UPN."
I think the problem (at least one of them, anyway) is that it's not "serious" enough. Given the other drek that wins constantly, I'm not sure being "serious" is such a good thing.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
Check out this CSIS report
Then Read this interview with Tom Cruise, sorta.
tcd004
The rerun of Once More With Feeling is defintely worth catching, but be warned that this is a cut down episode. The full length episode is 8 minutes longer than the standard "1 hour" slot, and it was announced at the time of the original showing that future airings would be of a much shorter version without the additional 8 minutes of footage.
I believe you'll have to wait for the Season 6 DVD to be published before you can see the full episode again.
Sailing over the event horizon
I do not think the word "inexplicable" means what CmdrTaco thinks it means.
Dare I say, who cares about shows on the WB and why is this a headline?
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Wow. What a coincidence that this story pops up, and surprise, the episode in question just happens to be scheduled to broadcast again tomorrow night.
This isn't some sort of tie-in deal is it?
They could always run it again next season, retitling it as "Once More (AGAIN!) With Feeling, Take Two."
I never could understand the attraction some people hold for the whole Buffy continuum...
Specialization is for insects. - R.A.H.
Yeah, he has convinced me to go to KFC and buy a bucket of Extra Crispy Wings at least 94 times this year.
Uh oh, slashgoth just got slashdotted.
The undead are now dead.
Uh, no. I got the point which, for those who didn't watch, was: Friends and family are what matters most.
While that's quaint and all, it's not why I watch Buffy. I don't watch a show about girls who kill daemons (heh) for the "very special episodes" I watch it for the ass-kicking, super-slam spectacular, damnit!
No kidding. I can completely vision how the brainstorming for this show went down:
Network Exec: "Alright, we take Melrose Place, make the girls slightly uglier, the stunts better, and we put it on a network so unbelievably bad that Chia Pet documentaries garner 30% of it's total viewing audience, and bam, instant gold..well, at least silver, probably copper. Maybe we need something else."
Intern Worm: "Lesbians sir. Feminine, non-political agenda lesbians."
Network Exec: "It's slightly more of an imagination stretch than vampires, but sure, what the hell."
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
It's not a well-written show.
Ok everyone, if you dont want to see bullshit news like this one turn it off in your prefrences.
What, you think LAW&ORDER is the best writing? Grow up!
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is the most popular show in my crowd - I'm 30ish, my friends are generally Masters grades in the arts... they're not a kind audience. Think about it, the Simpsons get Emmys right?
I love Buffy. The past season was masterful. Joss Whedon has really accomplished something special, just as the cast and crew have. Truly epic story telling. Into the hell-mouth with those Emmy jerks! This old Hollywood snobbery about Sci-Fi and Fantasy fiction has gotta go! It's the 21st Century people! Put the half-calf' down and wise up! This is great stuff... on TV!
Ok, I'm being slightly hyperbolic, but when you compare "Once More With Feeling" to other musicals in it's genre (comedy/horror) you have Little Shop of Horrors and The Rocky Horror Picture Show. There must be others, but that's what I can think of. I love both of those, but OMWF just blew me away. The episode stands on its own (I know, since I wasn't a Buffy fan when I first saw it), and it only gets more engrosing as you become more familliar with the series (e.g. I just loved the "bunnies" bit from Anya, but it got even funnier when I saw the previous holloween episode).
:-)
If you're a fan of the series and have friends who have held out, I strongly suggest that you tie them to their chairs for this showing (even though it's cut-down), but then if you're a fan you probably knew that
It's too bad that this episode kicked off (with a couple of set-up episodes) the least appealing season so far. I'm looking forward to next season though. I just hope Firefly and Angel don't take too much out of the creative team....
Or, said another way:
Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
-Bill
SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
According to www.emmys.com, the nominees arn't released until July 18th. Who has the time machine.
Anyway, shows that push genre boundries always have trouble getting nominated. Don't you remember when Simpsons couldn't get nominated for best comedy because it was a cartoon. Same with Northern Exposure, because it was an hour long, and hence couldn't be a comedy.
I guess they need a best PoMo series.
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
Yeah, well Darth/Annakin aint real either. Buffy is actually more real, even if you don't believe in vampires! Not to mention better written.
Shouldn't that be "Undead-in-the-water" dept?
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
If you have not seen the show, do yourself a favor and *ahem* acquire the music. Hearing the cast sing is alone worth the download (Well, maybe not Alyson Hannigan, but...).
The reason that this is news is not because we're all big fanboys and think Buffy should win an award -- that is not up to us -- the reason this is news is because the musical episode of Buffy, Once More, With Feeling, was not even available as an option on the ballot. How are they supposed to get a fair chance if voters have to go to extra measures to support it? If this happened to your precious X-Files, everyone would be singing a completely different tune. Whether you are a fan of the show or not is not the issue at stake (see me pun).
Maybe everyone should try reading the entire story before automatically dismissing it as an outcry from pouting fanboys. (But oh yes, there will be those too)
"But the cars are all flashing me, bright lights are passing me, I feel life passing me by" - Stiff Little Fingers
Besides, even at its worst, Buffy is original, creative, insightful, well-acted, and to the point. I get more pleasure out of a bad Buffy episode than I get out of the entire George Lucas "canon".
I think that the fact which most of the previous posts have missed (hey didn't read the article, there's a shocker) is that the episode was left off the list of *eligible* episodes. Not that the show wasn't nominated, but that it *couldn't* be nominated (without following a complex series of instructions applicable only to the Buffy episode). The nominations aren't out yet. Perhaps, though, there will be enough publicity about the mishap, nominators will actually go out and watch the episode, which was, indeed, groundbreaking and unlike anything else on TV last year (or maybe even ever)...
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I am a nerd. A married nerd (ok, that counts against me in 'nerdiness'), but I read /. and find most of the stories interesting.
More importantly, the *editors* and *story submitters* consider themselves to be nerds, and they consider these stories as something that "matters", in a "one story out of twenty daily stories" kind of way.
It's not like they're bitching about "One Life to Live" not getting an Emmy, after all. (Just a random soap opera name.)
Except Buffy was never simply about the ass-kicking. Buffy is a show for people who actually want an interesting story.
If all you want to watch is sexy girls in fights with no plot, there's always Dark Angel, Sheena, VIP, Relic Hunter, or any of a dozen other shitty programs which will appeal to your hormone-driven sensibilities. Clearly you are not part of the target audience for Buffy. Go watch Xena re-runs, and leave us alone.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The acting is week, the story is lame and it's pretty much on par with Charmed.
Actually I think its your "analysis" that is weak...
Buffy is one of the more interesting series on TV at the moment. It deals smartly with its characters, is often very well written and the acting is usually good and can be terrific. Sarah Michelle Gellar is a very good actress: if you tried watching some of her quieter, subtler moments you'd see some of the best screen acting currently being done.
The show is clever because it takes a dumb premise and uses it to talk about the real world. Its use of fantasy as a metaphor for the real problems that people face growing up and (now) moving out into the real world is smart and usually very well executed.
Are there weak episodes? Absolutely. Is it a shame that Joss Whedon is doing so many series that his shows are starting to suffer? No doubt. Is all the acting up to snuff? No - Michelle Trachtenberg seems to be the Scrappy Doo of BtVS.
But overall its a smart, funny well produced series that shows how TV can be non-obvious, thoughtful and entertaining.
If you truly compare it to Charmed which is at best a warmed-over Buffy rip-off written and produced by network hacks, then I'd advise you give up that dream of becoming a professional TV critic and start practicing "would you like fries with that" line...
Sailing over the event horizon
Why do Buffy fans act like this show is God's gift to television?
South Park has had witty, intelligent seasons, too, if that's the yardstick by which Emmy-worthy shows are to be judged.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
1. It's fun. It's enjoyable to watch, by and large.
2. It has attractive, intelligent and complex characters, especially compared to a lot of lesser "fantasy" type shows like "Charmed".
3. It's generally well-written. Ok, maybe the characters are a little more well-spoken and witty than most people are in Real Life, but who isn't on TV?
4. The production values are superb, the special effects are innovative and believable, and the action sequences are exciting.
I'd say those are good reasons to watch a TV show. Any deeper arguments about tapping into cultural mythos, teenage identity crisis etc. may be debatable, but are really just a bonus.
Freedom: "I won't!"
Buffy is great!!
Corporations are evil!!
Buffy is the product of a corporation!!
What to do?!?!?!?!
(Yes, this is rhetorical. It's just greatly amusing to see people bash record companies and anyone else trying to make a buck, and then to see those same people fawn all over a corporately developed and corporately marketed TV show.)
WB. UPN. Am I supposed to make some kind of distinction?
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Specifically, the post was talking about "One More, With Feeling", which is another matter entirely.
Lots of individual episodes of series where exceptional quality in some sort is displayed are recognized in the Emmys. OMWF is, in my opinion and many, many, other people's opinion (not all Buffy fans) very definitely Emmy-worthy. It's really a pretty daring and remarkable accomplishment. This season was pretty bad -- it's almost as if the writers put everything they had into that one episode.
I'm sure this'll get modded down as a troll just because I'm not praising buffy, but well, got karma to burn in order to make a point...
:)
Is Buffy really what passes for good TV nowadays in the US? I'm in the situation of being exposed to it through my girlfriend and her friends, who enjoy it, and I really just can't get into it, as much as I try and want to.
I find it ludicrous that so many people here seem so enthralled with it - the show has little depth, the characters are one-dimensional, the situations often too... silly to be believable. the plots are predictable and simplistic, and thoroughly unstimulating. compare to xena, hercules or anything like that. it's similar - and they were pap too. for people who call themselves geeks, i would have thought more brain massaging was in order.
it's light entertainment, that sometimes should be laughed at because some of it is so bad. just like star trek, for instance, should. not that this is a bad thing, it's just bizarre to take it that seriously. the acting's just as bad, too!
if you ARE after a good vampire-centric series, you cannot go wrong with Ultraviolet [world-productions.com] (warning, audio on the frontpage!) that actually has a plot (several, wheels within wheels), characters with more than one motivational factor, great acting and directing, much more tension and drama, and overall just a different class.
if you DO like stuff like Buffy, i urge you to check it out and be blown away. The DVD's available in the US (Amazon.com and others), so you have no excuse.
Fross
What next, are we going to get in a unroar when the grammy's come out too? There are things worth getting worked up about and things (like say award shows) that I could not give a crap ass about.
And yes I've seen buffy and (this is just my opinion) it sucks ass...
We now return you to your regularly scheduled slashdot.
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
Well for starters, they can post whatever they please. Essentially this is a site for Taco and a few others to post things they find intersting, and most of what they're interested in is "nerdy."
Second, there is a good reason for this story, that being that people were told they could vote for this show, but had to jump through hoops to do so. It's a classic example of The Man keeping down what they don't like, sorta like stopping black voters from getting to the ballot boxes in Florida.
You don't understand. There are lots of TV shows where you can watch pretty girls, ok? SMG is good-looking, but she's not outrageously exceptionally good-looking in a religeous-inspiring launch-a-thousand-ships kind of way. And the "hot girl on girl action" was only added in recent years, long after the show already had a raving fanbase and Joss started to run out of ideas.
There's more to this show than eye-candy for horny guys.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
U P N
Oh, also because the show is a soap opera about the undead. How innovative!
-Dean
I'm also wondering how many little girls have been beaten up because they did their best Buffy impression on someone who didn't watch the show..
:)
Or better yet thouse same girsl heartbroken when instink doesn't win a grammy
I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
Well I said I didn't care about it. First Amendment, blah blah blah.
If I were the executive producer of a television show, and there was a committee of people who recognize excellence in television, I would find it insulting that my show isn't even given the opportunity to compete.
True, but the Emmy's ain't it. They don't recognize excellence in television. The recognition of industry slimeballs? An odd facination people have with ranking art to find out which is the "best"? The media whores (Leeza Gibbons, I'm looking your way) who harp over how "robbed" someone was. And they have so many "award" shows now that it's harder not to win one.
If you want to appreciate it, watch it.
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
I'll start with a technicality first. Buffy rarely kills vampires any more, it's all ghouls and zombies and the like.
/.ers hated when hollywood got the geek image wrong, yet you buy this stereotype? I don't expect a tv show to be as realistic as the sugar in coffee, but we've gotta draw a line somewhere.
You're saying this inherently makes it a bad show? It was established in the first episode that vampires weren't all that Buffy would be fighting. They don't even call her a Vampire Slayer anymore, it's down to just Slayer. That you are using this as the opening to your argument makes the rest of it really weak.
Second, the acting is absolutely terrible. I can't remember his name, but the tall guy with the shifty mouth that's friends with buffy needs serious acting lessons. He's from the Ben Affleck squint-squirm-mumble and act-threw-your-teeth school of acting. Then, you've got Sara Michelle Gellar, who just sticks out her chest instead of getting into character, and her magical friend Willow who says every line with the same delivery, no matter if it's comical or dramatic it's always the same. Third, the writing is not good. Now, this is a tender subject because of the huge creative control from the creator and his love of the show, but his ego is just getting in the way.
Xander, the first character you refer to, is one of the most real and honest characters on TV. He doesn't act like any other character on TV. Neither do any of my friends act like any characters on TV. Or my parents. Or my parents friends. Think about it next time you watch a television show. Do people really talk like that? Do they deliver snappy dialogue? Do they get serious all of a sudden and say something important with gusto? I highly doubt it.
As for Sarah Michelle Gellar.... well this past season hasn't been a good one for her, I'll admit. The entire show seemed very blah, except for a very few episodes. Sarah was attempting to play someone who had given up on life, and in my opinion she just didn't do it. The mood of the show conveyed it more than she did. But in previous seasons her acting was excellent. She is very capable of relying on her acting ability instead of her breasts, and it has shown through time and again.
As for Willow. I think that's the actress. Watch her in American Pie or anything else she's done. That's the way she delivers all her lines. She made a breakthrough in the season finale and did something different, and it was the best acting job I've ever seen her (the actress) do.
Third, the writing is not good. Now, this is a tender subject because of the huge creative control from the creator and his love of the show, but his ego is just getting in the way. The snappy one liners after a vampire skewing were campy at first, but every character vomiting at least 6-7 of those things every episode for half a decade? Give me a break.
That's part of a comedy show. Ever watch Simpsons, another favorite around Slashdot?
As for the writing itself...there are ups and downs. Most of the time the writing is average, but occasionally it is superb. How many e you watched? If it's just a few here and there, you're not doing the show justice. Buffy isn't written a show at a time, it's written a SEASON at a time, with the expectation being that you will watch them all, and mostly in order. This creates a completely different effect, and I could see where the writing would be called into question as such.
This isn't a fourth since it's still about creative control. The movie was better.
I don't even feel the need to reply to this.
Fourth, what's with the geek patrol villians? I thought
Most fans of the show believe that the geeks were the worst thing to happen to it. You have to look at it from Joss' perspective, though. The season before, Buffy defeated a god. Where do you go from there?
This season was all about growing up and fighting inner demons. The people who didn't get this probably understood during the final 4 episodes when one of the inner demons almost literally came out. The geeks were there to act as a catalyst for the final episodes, as well as add a bit of comic relief in an otherwise depressing season.
It wouldn't matter if Buffy was on the ballot. It wouldn't matter if Buffy was the best damn show on TV (Which IMHO it isn't). It still wouldn't win because it's too far out of the mainstream to get the votes. Sorry to bust your bubble but the emmys (and the Oscars and the Grammys, etc) aren't about which is best (a subjective view), they are about self promotion by industry insiders. These people consider Buffy a silly cult show not worthy of their attention let alone their votes. Deal with it, the emmys will go to bland heavly promoted trash or Pompus BS that pretends to be artistic, just like they allways do.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
I really have to wonder how much of a chance these people have given Buffy. I used to think it was the dumbest show on TV, based solely on the premise and having seen one episode. When Buffy died, it made big news on a lot of sites and with several of my friends who were fans of the show. Then FX started rerunning it, and I gave it a shot. I came in around the second season and was hooked. The dialogue is witty (although sometimes predictable). I fell in love with the characters after about three episodes, and began to really care about what happens to them. That's the mark of good characterization. The plots are often contrived, but they're hilarious.
You really have to watch several consecutive episodes of Buffy to "get" it. The show is meant to be viewed as a whole, not as individual episodes. My bet is that most people who immediately discount it have seen fewer than three episodes, and probably didn't come to the show with an open mind.
I live in the UK, not the US, so I don't consider this list exhaustive, but here are a handful of US imports that I watch that have award-calibre writing:
1. Law & Order : A cops and lawyers drama series with some excellent dialogue. Amongst the regulars, Det. Lennie Briscoe (played by Jerry Orbach) and EADA Jack McCoy (Sam Waterston) have the best lines - perhaps some of the wittiest and sharpest on TV at the moment. The other members of the cast are less blessed - because the characters they play are less vivacious - but they still get to deliver some cutting one-liners.
2. The West Wing : What can I say? The best thing on TV. Well written, well acted, thought-provoking yet often heart-touching drama. OK, so President Jed Bartlett (Martin Sheen) lives in a world with fewer shades of grey than the real one but the contrast between a President that knows what he's talking about and the clown that's currently in the Oval Office is striking - as is the quality of this show.
3. C.S.I.: Crime Scene Investigation : Once again, great penmanship but complimented by some great special effects. Gil Grissom (William L. Petersen), head of the crime lab, gets the best lines (as all male leads tend to do) but even the lab geek, Greg Sanders (Eric Szmanda), gets some smart scenes of his own.
There are others that I can mention too - mini-series such as 24 and Band Of Brothers spring to mind - but Buffy The Vampire Slayer is way, way down the list.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Your critique makes me think you have Buffy confused with an After School Special.
I love the show. I watch the show. I bought the DVD set.
It is NOT like stopping black folks from voting. Hmmm... Yeah, I could see how you would draw a parallel... TV show is denied opportunity to get Hollywood award. Segment of population denied rights as citizens.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
fromd em yAwards/20020130/9313.shtml
http://news.theolympian.com/specialsections/Aca
"``[A Beatiful] Mind'''s Jennifer Connelly is perhaps the most shocking SAG nominee announced Tuesday -- not because she was nominated, but because she was nominated in the ``wrong'' category.Because of a clerical error at Universal Pictures, Connelly was submitted to SAG for consideration in the best-actress category. But in ads in Hollywood trade newspapers, Universal has been pushing Connelly for a best-supporting-actress Oscar nomination. "
Funny, but I know a number of gay men who watch Buffy because it has good acting, good writing, great characters, and interesting plot lines, not because of the girl on girl action.
Just because you think with your dick doesn't mean everyone else does.
When shows have episodes that totally depart from the usual 'reality' of the show, it's destined for disaster.
The Simpsons encountered this with the 'Behind The Laughter' episode. Every prank the Simpsons pulled up to that point was within a defined reality of The Simpsons being a 'real' cartoon family. That episode f*cked it all up.
And the same with this 'musical' episode. Buffy fights vampires, she doesn't dance and sing with them! I'm all for fantasy and adventure, but when you pull a set of characters from a show and make them do what the characters WOULD NOT EVER DO FOR 'REAL' then you've ballsed the whole thing up.
Ah well, at least Buffy has now 'jumped the shark'.
mogorific carpentry experiments
Imagine that the voters actually go through all the trouble of "writing in" OMWF, and it wins the emmy. It would be unprecedented. All of the sudden, Whedon's emmy would be 100 times more valuable than it would've had the voting been fair. Yeah, the whole thing stinks, (even though awards are nothing more than great marketing tools (and ego fodder)), but there's a possibility here for the show to get some MAD props.
c-hack.com |
The only character to come back from the dead is Buffy, herself.
I pretty much followed that same path. I despise Xena, Mutant X and the like, and always saw it as Xena 90210. I'm not a big fan of television, truth be told. I prefer to read.
But I have loads of friends who are tremendous Buffy fans - most have their PhDs in various fields, and are in their 40s. I finally gave it a shot when I saw that the episode "Hush" was coming on - I recalled that it had been nominated for an Emmy. So I gave it a shot. Now (thanks to FX running two episodes everyday), I've seen every Buffy episode, and think it's, by and large, one of the best written shows around.
As somebody else said in reply to this same message, if you see one or two episodes, you'll likely dismiss it. I did. I thought it was cheap escapist trash, a "Seventeen Magazine meets Vampire the Masquerade" series. It's only after you get into it that you see the subtlty of some of the things going on, and appreciate the Oscar Wilde like banter.
Good stuff, for those who appreciate it. For those who don't - ah, well. You have different tastes. It's not like that's a horrible thing.
--
Evan "Who prefers Vanilla, but can still be on social terms with those who prefer Chocolate"
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
For those of you who do not know, there was a point where Buffy was dead (OK, so this happens a couple of times :-). Buffy's friends create a robot version of Buffy, so all the demons do not know she is dead. If they knew this, the demons would realize there would be no one to stop them. So, the BuffyBot was a preventative measure. (Think a blonde firewall)
And before you ask how a bunch of kids could create a robot...one of them is a geeky computer-type (who is also a babe), and there was also an early episode that featured a crazy robot (which maybe they reverse-engineered?).
The BuffyBot did have flaws. It's AI wasn't as good as it could have been, and the robot wasn't very durable. However, these factors can be excused, given that it still looked great in leather pants. >:)
If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
Personaly, the random episode that hooked me (fortunately FX was running the etire series in reruns the next month) was an episode from I believe the 4th or 5th season in which we recieve the story of Spike as well as an interesting insight into the mind of the slayer (and potentialy any person who is trained to kill). It's a show you have to see a couple consecutive episodes, specificaly the ones without Riley (they had some rather obnoxious scenes).
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Have you watched a couple consecutive episodes? That's really the only way to judge a series. The first couple Buffy Eps I saw, I thought it was dumb. After about 4 epsiodes though, I stared seeing a bit more in the program, the show actualy deals with real human events (baring the demons unless you speak metaphoricaly) and is immensely quoteable and funny.
But as I said, you need to watch multiple consecutive episodes of a series before you can judge it. When I saw the first episode of 24, i thought it was incredible, the idea was interesting, the show had cool action sequences and it just seemed great. But after the 5th epsiode, it got repetative and boring. Yeah, 24 was OK, but it wasn't great like my first impression said it would be,
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
It's too bad they cut the overture.. I love that scene in the house.
The word was in a quote of what jonerik said. CmdrTaco didn't write it.
Crap; I hope they actually realize that the darkness wasn't really the problem; after all, a series that focused on the main characters lover turning into a homicidal maniac, then being cured just before she had to send him to hell isn't exactly waltzing in the sunshine. This season was mostly awful because, while they presented the plot as described, they presented it like they cribbed everything from "Screenwriting for Dummies". The dialogue was too often cringe worthy, the plot developed with nearly as much subtlity as a bowling ball in the head (Willow's descent into drug^h^h^h^h magic addiction could've been plucked word for word from an after school special).
All that being said, a second watching is bringing me around a bit; they suffered a lot from putting the worst episodes of the season at the start and end of breaks. For example, the finale, which devolved into a cliche slinging pile of crap, or the "alternate universe" episode, which is an indication of creative bancruptcy on par with a holodeck episode. It's a bit unfortunate, because if the quality of the writing had've been up to Buffy standards, it would've been an amazing season.
Still, if all else fails, and season 7 dissapoints as much as season 6, it's always possible to ignore everything else and consider season 5 the end (even if they get back up to Buffy quality, can they ever end the series as well as Season 5 would've ended it?).
Of course, killing off the only chick who didn't look like a high-school biology skeleton wrapped in skin didn't exactly give me a sunny outlook on the show.
How can I continue to blather in the face of such an irrefutable argument? It is so carefully reasoned, so detailed! Thank you for sharing an opinion that you truely put some real, hard thought into! I truely regret ever having disagreed with you!
"You really have to watch several consecutive episodes of Buffy to 'get' it. The show is meant to be viewed as a whole, not as individual episodes. My bet is that most people who immediately discount it have seen fewer than three episodes, and probably didn't come to the show with an open mind."
Ah, the "Babylon 5" excuse. It's not just a string of episode like that Star Trek crap, it's a _whole_. It's a _story arc_. Watch a whole seaons or couple of seasons of the show and you'll begin to appreciate J. Michael's Straczynski's grand plan.
Whatever. For all of JMS's design, "Babylon 5" still was badly written (especially when it came to comedy), horribly acted (with the exception of some of the supporting roles), and built up to one of the worst dramatic climaxes I've ever seen in a movie or TV show.
All of which says nothing about "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", of course, but I was just trying to explain that I'm no longer impressed by the "you can't see just one episode" argument. Either the writing is good--good on the small scale, good on the level of individual conversations and characterizations--or it's not. Either the acting is good, or it's not. No amount of long range planning will make a poorly written and poorly acted TV show good.
hyacinthus.
Sorry if you thought my reply was a flame. It certainly wasn't meant to be. Just a counter to your statements.
As for your response, I don't see any direct reference to my post except for the "one season at a time" bit. You just sort of restate everything you said without giving any consideration to what I said, unless it's the fact that I agreed with you on Willow and said that it was the actress. I wasn't defending the show in that case. I was agreeing that she has very little range. I disagreed with your statements on the other characters.
Anyway, they don't all end in the manner you describe. In fact, a whole slew of them simply don't. I think it's glaringly obvious that you don't watch the show. You're probably right if you look only at first season, but that's the minority.
In fact, this season is *why* I started watching Buffy regularly, and catching up with previous seasons. The show never really appealed to me before because it was very hit-and-miss, with a few good episodes surrounded by eons of mindless soulless drivel. When it was good, it was great--like when Willow first comes out as a lesbian, or when the gang has to deal with Angel's return after he'd killed and tortured people; all the great episodes had an emotional component. However, most were mindless fighting episodes with thin plots and mediocre writing, though good choreography in general. But you can get that sort of mindless fighting in any number of series--*VIP*, *Relic Hunter*, etc.
What made the 6th season attractive was that most of the episodes had emotional depth. It dealt with young adults finally growing up and out into the real world, with real-world problems--money, social workers, addictions, emptiness. It was amazing. When I started watching, I went back and discovered that much of the 5th season was the same--episodes had depth, not just the killing of stuff. But before that--phew, mostly stinkers. And unlike the guy below who bemoans the "predictability" of these emotional crises, I have to say that while themes were familiar, and sometimes bordering on trite--the addiction to magic as an analogue to drug addiction--every such theme was presented with unique twists or perspectives, such that it impressed me with the writers' inventiveness in bringing the viewer into the series through bits of real-life problems presented in inscrutable contexts.
Only those interested in emotional depth and truly superb writing will appreciate the 6th season for the tour-de-force that it was. Or are we to believe the same creative minds which brought us "Once More with Feeling" were completely non-creative for the rest of the season? A certain type of science fiction fan--the puerile type only interested in otherworldly action, not plot or feeling--would be greatly disappointed, and never satisfuied with this season, picking apart the plots with the sort of banal and useless complaining of a certain comic-store-owning *Simpsons* character. But to the rest of us, who can appreciate artful and engaging storytelling, and who can appreciate the effort to show characters dealing with the same early-20s crises many people go through once college is over and the real world hits, the 6th season was a masterpiece. It was also a critical success and a popular success, as the ratings show--how much better in the Nielson ratings could you expect a transplanted show, from one network and slot to another totally different network, to do? It was clearly a success, the bitching of comic-book-guys around the globe notwithstanding.
I have to thank the writers and producers again for letting these characters mature and grow up, and for showing us that painful process in each episode of the 6th season.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Actually the BuffyBot was commissioned by Spike the vamp, for the purpose of being his animatronic sex toy.
After the real Buffy found out, she confiscated it. Vampires don't have property rights, it seems.
After she died, the Scoobies (actually CS student Willow did the programming, Xander the hardware) brought the BuffyBot back for the purpose of posing as the real Slayer.
> SMG is good-looking, but she's not outrageously exceptionally
:-)
> good-looking in a religeous-inspiring launch-a-thousand-ships kind of way.
No, that would be her little sister on the show, Michelle Trachtenberg, who's much more launch-a-thousand-ships lovely than Gellar. Mmmmm...Michelle Trachtenberg... Jailbait: The Other White Meat. Seriously, don't you just see her on *Buffy* and wanna bend her over and grab her hair and...
Oops, did I type that out loud? Err...
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
well since the next season is the last one, they will probably wrap it up with some crazy stuff. Gellar's contract is up and she said she's done, Joss has said he doesnt have the time to devote tot he show that he wants to, and thinks it deserves. supposedly she said she was against the idea of movies in the future. there are a bunch of interviews where Joss hints at a few things to come this season. web searches will provie them, i forget where they are since the links or stories were sent to me bye a rabid fan......... i think they also said Angel is going to stay at least a year after Buffy expires (i think a few of the actors/actresses signed up for a few years or something... but i might be wrong).
p.s. i don't think Spike is going to turn out to be the spooky evil vamp this coming season..... the way last season ended implies something silly.
..."Love at first Bite"didn't win an oscar!
GReatest Vampire movie, ever.
"I don't drink wine, and I don't smoke 'shit'"
"Its a black chicken!"
"Creatures of the night, shut up!"
slashthroat.
News for Vampires. Stuff that sucks.
The show humilates nerds, glorifies selling out, and all there good episods are ripoffs.
to each there own I suppose.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
More on the Buffy/Angel deal (and that's still very early in the run): when they confront the evil Mayor who is going to turn into a giant snake demon and eat most of the town, and he taunts them... well, first of all, this is the kind of guy who has 'become invincible' on his to-do list alongside 'Plumber Union reschedule' and 'call temp agency'. It's amazing and brilliant how deadpan the guy is, and it gives him convincingness in a bizarre, disturbing and appealing way. Secondly, when he confronts Buffy (the mortal superhero) and Angel (the immortal vampire), rather than go off in a predictable immortal supervillain kind of way he acknowleges he's going to kill them both but takes a moment to criticise the stupidity of their romantic involvement! Out of genuine interest and experience! "I married my Edna Mae in ought three and I was with her right until the end. Not a pretty scene. Wrinkled and senile and cursing me for my youth, it wasn't our happiest time."
And he's right.
That's Buffy for you. Everything, everything that happens has consequences, nobody is a bit part. It takes its bizarre premise utterly seriously (or does it? In one sixth-season episode even this is brought into question, in a chilling, existential way. For those who know what ep I'm talking about- what is the LAST scene of that episode?) and develops it more brilliantly than just about any other show, past or present, I can think of.
The only comparison I can think of is Patrick McGoohan's famous 'The Prisoner'... and lots of people didn't 'get' that one, either.
It doesn't matter if it never gets an Emmy. It's made history, instead.
Is it a shame that Joss Whedon is doing so many series that his shows are starting to suffer? No doubt. Is all the acting up to snuff? No - Michelle Trachtenberg seems to be the Scrappy Doo of BtVS.
Actually Michelle is quite good when she is given something decent to do. Problem is that for much of S6 she wasn't.
"So the secret ingredient in DoubleMeat 'beef' is... beef?"
Oooooo, the sponsors were maaaad at Joss for that story arc :D I'm given to understand he got in trouble for it and had to back off from the fast food satire. But most of it had already aired, and it's lovely, ruthless, vicious mockery :)
It's news because there was a ballot foul-up.
Vicini = Wallace Shawn - and yes he's an excellent actor.
Interestingly, the WB was very tentative about the show, and series creator Joss Whedon has made the point that that may have helped rather than hurt. Having to squeeze everything he could out of a small budget in the early days made the show do things like bring in local bands for club scenes, get creative with the few sets they had (I've never seen a single hallway used so many ways :)
I can really see this when I look at Angel. A good show with all of the creativity of Buffy, but because it started off with more resources you can feel the impact on the creativity. It's like Lucas and the new Star Wars movies in a way....
I'm a Buffy fan since season 1, and when it's not in reruns I record it every week to make sure I don't miss it.
But give me a damn break; OMWF was a gimmick episode. It was "great" only because it was different. The music was crap, none of those songs would be considered good outside the context of the epsiode. Nobody on the show could sign worth a flip.
This was not Emmy-winning TV, this was a cute, fun episode of an entertaining show, and get some perspective, Buffy fans. If you want an award-quality musical, go rent West Side Story. Twenty years from now, people won't be renting OMWF.
No, I think it's more like the Nazis killing the Jews. Or maybe it's like priests raping little boys. Or the dark god Cthulu eating the world. Yeah, it's exactly like that.
The idea of a musical sci-fi/fantasy tv show isn't that new... check out "The Bitter Suite" episode of Xena (which was also really good).
Personally, i thought there were better individual episodes of Buffy this year than "Once More, with Feeling". The writing was okay, but it was hampered by the fact that only about half the cast could really sing, and that half doesn't include SMG. How come Tara and Giles got so much airtime in an episode not about them, and Willow was virtually offscreen? Balance of talent.
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
Buffy is a pretty mediocre show. And no the main actress is not that hot either. The interesting thing about Buffy is how it consistently attracts a gay male audience.
Why do gay guys like Buffy so much? Some one should really look into it. The phenomenon is so persistent that even guys that are in the closet or have not yet realized they are gay love the show. In fact if you suspect you may be gay, than ask your self "do i watch buffy regularly?" and if you answer yes watch some ricky martin videos and carefully note how they make you feel.
And a rather predictable by product of the huge gay male audience is that every one cares a lot about whether it gets a freacking emmy or not. I am sorry if suggesting that gay men tend to like those tv ceremonies is an unwarranted stereotype. But i think it is true.
There are many TV shows that i liked, including my all time favourite american show, "news radio", but i never noticed whether it got an emmy or not.
nt
Tons, my gf is a huge Buffy fan.
11*43+456^2
FLAMEBAIT???
Bleh I hope you get metamodded to hell and never moderate again. Then again I'm sure there's tons of Buffy-loving metamoderators who will exert their influence instead of being correct and fair.
Now, if my above comment had instead been "BUFFY SUX AZZ" or something, I could see "Flamebait", or maybe even "Troll" (not that there's really much difference) - but I posted an intelligent comment, based on my experience with the subject matter.
I'll re-state it again:
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a bad sitcom with a dark side. It's extremely repetitive, and the dialogue is repetitive of itself and other shows. They jump from trick device to trick device to make the shows ratings (note especially what was discussed in a Slashdot poll before abou the ever-changing identity of the shygirl-goth-slut-lesbian-witch character).
They play to the same crowd as "Charmed" and anything else that goes toward the pseudo-goth-ish witch/vampire themes. Charmed is even worse than Buffy, but it's buffy that's under the microscope in this article.
Anyways, I'm done venting, proceed to moderate badly with impunity.
11*43+456^2
I never said Buffy was unenjoyable I just find the idea that it somehow deserves an award appalling.
I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
Ah, the "Babylon 5" excuse...
:)
Whatever. For all of JMS's design, "Babylon 5" still was badly written (especially when it came to comedy), horribly acted (with the exception of some of the supporting roles), and built up to one of the worst dramatic climaxes I've ever seen in a movie or TV show.
Ahh, the old "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" routine: Millions of teenage Internet fanboys who supposedly hate movies, but can't seem to stop talking about them.
(Tongue firmly in cheek here.
SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a
Firstly, there are copies of the promotional DVD of "Once More, With Feeling" floating around on eBay (although at fairly high prices).
/.-worthy. Not that I don't like BtVS; quite the opposite. However, this isn't really "News for Nerds", and my slayage.com bookmark serves me perfectly well for Buffy news.
Secondly, you can always fire up your favourite p2p software, if you're in to that sort of thing, and grab a copy of the full first run of the episode. I'm currently using Kazaa (nicely sandboxed -- ain't VMWare great?); fasttrack seems to have a lot of Buffy fans.
Oh, but I'll have to go along with the inevitable whining and wonder whether this story is really
One more thing...
Definitely expect UPN to rerun the full episode at some point if it gets nominated.
+5 Insightful!
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
(By the way, can I stick in a flame here against losers who aren't willing to make a controversial post without being an AC? Maybe you're worried about your own karma?)
I don't care about my karma, I have plenty to burn. What I care about is my opinion being supressed. If everyone with a dissenting opinion is modded down as "flamebait", then there's not much discussion going on is there?
I gave my reasons. To me the show *is* worthless. The dialogue and acting *are* terrible. My opinion *is* valid, and it's not flamebait. I do believe people who watch it have poor taste, and that still doesn't make this flamebait.
11*43+456^2
The grounding in reality that you speak of seems to me to result in a person who cannot appreciate art simply for art's sake.
;-)
While I might not be interested in fantastical stories, games, or entertainment, I'm a bit of an art and architecture freak. It is easy to argue that architecture is practical, even in the most obscure forms.. but, you have a point on art. I appreciate art (Picasso being one of my favorites) because I appreciate aesthetics. Aesthetics is something that neither games, stories, or TV shows can really deliver.
Also, I should add, you refer to Star Trek as fantasy but not fantasy, since scientists were led by their ideas and reached similar conclusions. Before the scientists started their work and truly became interested, was it fantasy, or was it still on the not-fantasy fringe? If scientists hadn't reached those conclusions yet, would you still find them interesting?
Well, it has to be said that early sci-fi (mid 60s and before) was really just good old-fashioned 'fantasy'. Sci-fi in the 50s made as much logical sense as fantasy games do today. With the progression of technology, and an improvement in the understanding of the general populace, sci-fi presents less of a fantasy, and more of a reality now. To answer your question directly, I don't think sci-fi would exist as it does now if it were not for the scientific discoveries made in recent years.
Of course, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and they're usually full of shit
mogorific carpentry experiments
Probably because most people don't have access to a reliable news server that carries a lot of binaries groups.
My current ISP, Shaw Cablesystems, has a high group count, but expires posts really fast. And it takes a lot of effort to supplement my feed from other servers.
(Hey... anyone know of any usenet binary software that can do simultaneous downloading from multiple servers and lets one specify different socks proxies for each one? That would be really helpful.)
I don't know why that was modded as a troll....
I mean, if some comprehensive user-moderation features could be tacked on to usenet nicely, I don't think we'd be here right now. =)
Look, there are some HUGELY bad episodes, and a certain amount of cheese. And the guy who plays Xander is a horrible actor, he always sounds like he's reciting lines, instead of talking naturally. I make no apologies for him.
But when the show is good, is is fucking GOLD.
"the show has little depth, the characters are one-dimensional, the situations often too... silly to be believable. the plots are predictable and simplistic, and thoroughly unstimulating"
Yeah, they give all the shallow, one dimensional, silly, predictable, simplistic, unstimulating shows seven seasons and multiple spin-off series. Just maybe there's some substance here, ya?
I think the biggest problem with Buffy is the name itself. "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"? What a stupid, trite name. Must be a stupid, trite show. Buffy is a wonderful book with a horrible cover, and it often gets judged by it.
The thing is, the stupid title is part of one of the main themes of the series, illusion and false pretense; counterpoint. Joss Whedon once stated the original concept for BtVS was a beautiful, helpless looking blonde girl walking down an alley late at night. She is set upon by vampires, and instead of screaming, running, and succumbing, she not only stays her ground, but all-out kicks their asses.
Playing against the audience's expectations like this is EVERYWHERE in the series. Example: In season 5, Buffy's mother, a regular character in all 5 seasons, falls ill. Everyone worries, she goes to the hospital, finds out she has a brain tumor. Everyone worries some more. She gets surgery. Everyone REALLY worries. She comes out, the tumor is gone! She's going to be just fine! Everyone is all smiles. Hurray! (These events are scattered out over half a season)
Textbook predictable, standard dramatic crisis and resolution. The audience nods and smiles, and says "Yes, I knew she'd get better." Jokes about bed-head and hospital night gowns. Collective, self-assured sigh of relief.
Then they kill her.
WHAM! Out of left field. Buffy comes home and her mother is simply lying dead on the couch, eyes and mouth open, like she was about to cry out but didn't get a chance. Then they deal with it. Sarah Michelle Gellar's acting in this episode is tremendous. I don't think I've ever seen a show deal with death with such maturity and sensitivity.
Now season 1 for the most part sucked, with a couple gem episodes (the two-part premiere and the finale are pretty decent)
Now seasons 2, 3, and 4 are just about the best "arc" television I have ever seen. Characters grow, change and die. Silly? Open up your mind to the creative possibilities. Simplistic??? If you've ever heard a Buffy fan trying to fill in a newbie to the backstory, you'd know this isn't the case. Predictable? Bullshit. Buffy doesn't pull any punches. I never know what to expect, because Whedon has no qualms whatsoever about killing or twisting main characters.
If you want to see Buffy shine, I suggest you borrow Season 2 DVDs from someone, and watch the following episodes (especially the asteriked ones)
School Hard
Lie to Me
*Surprise
*Innocence
Passion
*Becoming, Part 1
*Becoming, Part 2
If you still hate Buffy after watching these episodes, well, I guess our tastes differ, and that's really all there is to be said.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
> And it takes a lot of effort to supplement my feed from other servers.
:-) In fact, the complete version of OMWF is still in the Buffy repost group in full on Easynews, since Web retention of binaries is ~38 days currently.
Easynews. Check it out. Standard NNTP access, or a searchable Web interface. I use NNTP for most things, but if I just want to browse a particular group's binaries quickly, I often use the Web interface--which is perfect for quickly grabbing an episode of Buffy.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Star Trek TNG could be said to be reasonably realistic [...] Farscape, however, stretches the bounds of realism a little with a 'living ship'. This is a concept we cannot really grasp today, and it seems a bit like 'fantasy'.
So I'm guessing that you missed the ST:TNG episode "Tin Man"? You know - the one with the 'living ship'.
So, you don't like B5 or Buffy. That pretty well clinches it: you have absolutely no taste at all. You probably don't like Farscape, either.
Well, I like Buffy, but I _abhor_ Babylon5... I second everything that the original poster said, except that he didn't spend nearly enough time trashing the CGI.
As for Farscape, it's mediocre.. not great, but (usually) not bad.
My favorite part about OMWF was the attention to detail. Everybody who's seen it knows it was shot and aired in letterboxed widescreen. But not plain old HDTV-style widescreen. It was broadcast in the Cinemascope aspect ratio, just like the grand old musicals of the 40's. They even used the "scope," or 2.35:1, version of the 20th Century Fox title at the end, after the end credits and the Mutant Enemy card.
But the big question is this: was this episode shot with Cinemascope lenses? Ordinarily when you shoot a movie in the "flat" aspect ratio (1.85:1) you matte off the top and bottom of the 35 mm frame. But when you shoot Cinemascope, you use a special anamorphic lens that squeezes the picture horizontally, so you use the whole 35 mm frame. When you project the film through another anamorphic lens, the image gets stretched out into the proper aspect ratio.
So if OMWF was shot with Cinemascope lenses, then there's a beautiful 35 mm master out there on a shelf someplace just begging for an anamorphic transfer to DVD.
Of course, unless they accelerate the process, by the time we get Season 6 on DVD, we'll probably have access to a consumer HD DVD format. We can only hope.
I know this has never stopped anyone here before, but I don't see how this is relevant to Slashdot.
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
hehe, this is why I'm buying season box sets on DVD. :)
If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
Automatic binary stiching through the web interface? /me drools. I'd actually consider shelling out some cash for that.
Actually, this thread prompted me to grab a newer copy of newsgrabber (fairly good binary sticher for evil MS OSes and very wine-friendly iirc) and check out shaw's feed againd. I was pleasantly surprised by the improved quality. (Not to mention that I'm new to yEnc and parity files; efficiency has improved, and the need for reposts has been cut down). And, since it's my ISP's fairly local news server, I get a cool 2.5mbits/sec down; I'm not sure if a 3rd party feed could compete.
Already saw it. Buffy is on on Monday nights on ASN in Canada. Ha Ha!. Here's hoping that YTV in Canada shows the un-cut episode!
YTV is indeed showing the entire episode uncut. What a relief that some airwaves aren't dominated by corporate greed.