Slashdot Mirror
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is Officially Over
tstoneman writes "Say it ain't so! Yahoo has an article says how SMG herself confirmed the rumors of the series demise. Even though it is clearly in its twilight, it's still one of the vest best shows on TV. It however points to the fact that a spin-off will emerge, hopefully one that is more successful than Angel."
I'd watch a show based on Willow. She's far and away my favorite character (since way before she was a beautiful lesbian uber witch) In fact, if the show really is over she's the only reason I'll watch a new spin off.
If it doesn't have willow, it isn't worth watching. (And god damn it, they need Giles.)
It would be interesting to do a study on how long shows last. I can guarantee that some shows aren't terminated based on falling ratings, but rather the actors stopping (Seinfeld, ST:TNG, Buffy?) While some shows seem to keep on going, like the day time dramas. Is the length of time a good show is on inversely proportional to the ratings? Does the same hold for game shows like Price is Right, or Family Feud?
Modular Redundancy--Because 4 out of 5 Nodes agree
Angel is a great show that really came into its own once BTVS moved to UPN. Its probably not doing well because the WB doesn't advertise it(alla firefly) and no one knows when its on, or it gets bumped for crap like tonight(the lone ranger). But IMO Charisma Carpenter is way hotter than SMG. I've caught the last few episodes only because someone on /. said it wasn't canned after i made some comment about great shows like firefly, farscape and angel gettign canned. I really thought it was gone. As for Buffy, its jumped the shark, this whole training school for potential slayers just bugs me, but the past few seasons, Glorie, ADAM, have been great, I'm sad to see it go.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
I'm a geek and I love this show. I think it's rather sad that everyone feels the need to compare it to typical "geek" fare such as ST or Babylon. It's not in the same vein but that doesn't mean that it doesnt have total geek appeal and asthetic.
Buffy has consistently been the most topical and best written show on TV for the last 4+ years. Admittedly the show is aimed at a younger and less "hard geek" audience, but in doing so I believe it validates itself. It's brought smart and intelligent writing (of the geek type) to "teenland". And at the same time it provides a rich and well defined fantasy "universe" that hardcore geeks can enjoy.
The fact that you can have Star Trek, Apocolypse Now!, Comics, Twin Peaks and Shakespeare referenced regularily on a popular show with a core audience of 16 year olds is a grand enough achievement. All that without mentioning the 3-5 season spanning story arcs and incredibly fun writing.
I could care less about Sarah Michelle Gellar (which seems to be bearing the brunt of the cheers about this show being cancelled) -- people really need to look beyond the fact that she's married to some other Hollywood dope, that the show has a ridiculous (but charming) name -- and really just evaluate the show for what it is. And I think most open-minded individuals who have actually seen the show would say that it is a charming, well written show with great acting and a very engaging mythos.
For example, one thing that you can't get from a brief glimpse of the show is JW's willingness to kill off a character just as you are getting attached to them. He loves to set up expectations based on your previous TV-watching experience, and then go in a completely different direction.
There's also the problem of anybody trying to tune in to current broadcasts (or recent reruns) and missing a lot of the context of what's being said and done. For example, I have one friend who's first experience watching BTVS was the season 5 episode, "The Body" (the one where Buffy comes home to discover her mother's corpse, finally taken by post-sugery complications) which is hailed as one of the best hours of television ever by those who follow the show, but utterly baffling to this friend of mine who saw it out of context after she had only seen the movie. She had a hard time seeing why I liked the show so much. Now that she's seen the first couple seasons of the show, she's yet another person who loves the show more than you are able to understand.
Believe me when I say that there's a reason why Buffy is a favorite of nearly every published TV critic, and practically worshipped in geek circles. If you know somebody who owns the DVD's, I would strongly reccomend borrowing them and giving the show more of a fair chance.
I would reccomend watching the two-part pilot, episode 3 ("The Witch"), and episode 11 ("Out of Mind, Out of Sight"). Then have a friend catch you up on the rest of season one and jump right into the season 2 DVD's, watching them in order. I think you will be surprised to discover how smart, funny, dramatic and groundbreaking this show really was.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
From what I've read, a show really needs 5 years to go into syndication, with improvements up to 7 years. As a rule, the studios don't make much money on the first-run of the show, the profits are in syndicating it afterwards. So while Fox wasn't making money off WB/UPN (probably were with UPN, who overpaid to get a hot franchise), it is making money licensing it to its FX subsidiary and the weekend syndication rights.
Once 7 years are complete, the studio has no incentive to "subsidize" the production of the show, which is why most successful shows die at that point. The actors get over compensated for 7 years, which they wouldn't past that. As a result, the actors leave, because it stops being worth it.
No specialized knowledge, just parroting what I've read... feel free to correct if you're "in the industry" and can correct where I'm wrong.
Alex
That's a bit harsh.
I would argue that it's one of the more intelligent shows on television. Buffy has always gotten a bad reputation for its name. It even turned me off from watching it.
But when I sat down and watched a few, it was surprising how dramatic the show was. The key to the show is that there's a real human element to it. The characters are played as real people despite the fantasy situation, which is incredibly rare and refreshing. How many times in mass media have you seen fantasy and sci-fi characters played out as flat caracatures? Sci-fi is often too obsessed with the technological and short changes interesting characterizations. No, this show is great because it is about people. It uses the fantasy element to put them in extraordinary situations.
Take Buffy's death. She died at the end of season five, and her friends were horrified. At the beginning of the next season, her friends had found a spell to bring her back, to save her from whatever unspeakable hell dimension she was in. (If you are finding this ridiculous, use a little imagination. I mean, Star Trek was just as hokey; how many deflector dish realignments before it got silly?) So they bring her back to life. Now most shows would have left it at that, destroying the entire dramatic element of the death. But the twist was this: Buffy had gone to Heaven, and her friends had ripped her out and brought her back. After feeling the nirvana of Heaven, it's safe to imagine it would be hard to find any joy in living once back on Earth. She had to deal with this difficult experience all season long. This, as will all of the plot elements have realistic and far-reaching consequences.
Seriously. They mix comedy, action, but especially drama. It's definitely not the cheesy show the title would have you believe.
I love Buffy the show, although I've never been crazy about SMG. My wife introduced me to the show when we were dating. We watch it every week since, and we've been married almost 5 years now. I'll miss it very, very much. Maybe it's sad that a tv show can be such a big part of your life, but it's a tradition, and it's something that my wife and I loved watching together, gave us things to laugh about together, and talk about together. It's been more than a show to me, it's been special time with the woman I love and I'll always think of those early days dating my wife, watching the 1st season episodes she taped while sitting in her tiny apartment, whenever I think of Buffy.
That said....No one wants to see a show that runs out of fuel. I also used to watch X-Files with my wife, but I hate that show, that never gave me any good answers despite dozens of promises, that gave forth a bunch of weak plots that didn't go anywhere, why oh why could they not have said, let's go out with a bang instead of slowly bleeding to death in the gutter.
Buffy could probably pull off another season, but they've already had to import some big new characters, mainly a sister. This just barely skirts around the Jump the Shark law that states that adding a kid kills a show or at least indicates the show is dying. She was kind of a teenager, so they could get away with it, but still...
So I say, Joss has killed major loved characters before (jonathon, tara, gyspy teacher). I say, Joss, kill the entire cast and keep them dead, just to show you have the balls to do it.
Firefly, the 2nd best show on TV is already cancelled from what I understand, why oh why can't we get good Sci-Fi on TV at a decent time and keep it on.
That kinda strikes me as funny, because I always thought that that was the key to Buffy. It's all about the emotion, and does stray on the side of being too angsty at times (which is why last season was so unpopular).
Honestly, these character never get a break. They often lose, and lose hard. I'd love to see a 'meddling kids save the day episode' once in a while because sometimes I think the show is way too depressing.
Buffy dies. Buffy's mom dies. Xander leaves Anya at the altar. Angel becomes evil. Tara is killed, and Willow becomes evil seeking revenge.
If that all sounded really cheesy or melodramatic, realize that we're talking about seven years of plot twists. I guess I can't really express it without it sounding stupid, but it's almost the mission statement that the characters can never be happy.
Kinda reminds me of Party of Five.
Well, the thing is the the vampire killing is really just a side show. The real stuff is played out between the characters. Mostly, it's a good show because genuinely BAD STUFF happens, to the main characters usually, which many other TV shows avoid like the plague. The series got really dark in season 3, and whatever season is on Fox now is almost post-apocalyptic in atmosphere, and I wouldn't say there's much waltzing around going on. I don't see any wise cracks (or even crax), wonder what season you're refering to here. Most shows get better as the actors settle into their characters and develop some chemistry.
Anyhow, you don't like the show, you don't like it, I'm just pointing out what makes it good for those who do.
But the X-Box jokes where not written by the ME writers, and the story lines of the TV series are nothing like what you describe. If you somehow mistook BTVS for a "moster of the week" show with lesbian titilation on the side, you probably didn't understand it.
In fact, Willow's first kiss with Tara was probably the first ever non-exploitative lesbian kiss in TV history. The characters never kissed on camera for an entire season of being in a relationship, and the first on-screen kiss was during a moment when Willow was bawling her eyes out over the death of Buffy's mom, and Tara was comforting her. It was deliberatly done during a very un-sexy moment, to avoid the usual hype that surrounds TV girl-on-girl action, and respectfully depict a deeper relationship between to characters. There have been lots of lesbian couples on TV over the last 10 years or so, but Willow and Tara was the first one that could be taken seriously. Fuck you for trying to reduce it to mere "poontang."
BTW: I consider "The Sopranos" to be the second-best program on TV today, but for different reasons. Tony Soprano's story resonates with people because we all feel the stress of competing needs of work and family. The stories on BTVS resonate with a lot of us, because we all went through the hell of High School, but Buffy takes the further step of turning shopworn genre conventions on their heads.
As for your idea that the show is "formulaic," I'm guessing you never saw the episode "Passion," a very early (season 2) example of a "statement" episode, in which they clearly established that none of the cliche's of genre TV could be counted on to be followed.
That, or you're just a trolling jackass.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Instead of a spinoff, I want Whedon to fight for a new home for Firefly. That was the best first season of any show, ever. But I guess the average viewer is too dumb to recognize a masterpiece.
Wow, seven *is* the magic number. Star Trek: TNG had seven seasons. DS9 had seven seasons. Even Voyager had seven seasons. Now Buffy. That's kind of frightening.
There are always exceptions, of course. Star Trek: TOS is in syndication still, despite only having three seasons. Of course, those were 29/26/24 episodes, unlike the twenty-ep seasons we're stuck with now. It's almost like four seasons of modern TV... not even counting the fact that each ep was fifty-two or fifty-five minutes long instead of forty-two.
I suppose it makes sense, though it puts a mean limitation on the medium. Then again, what shows haven't sucked after seven years? I haven't gotten to the last two seasons of X-Files, but I heard it got pretty dismal in the last two years...
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
" Or when Adrian Paul didn't really want to do a 6th season of Highlander "
Jesus Christ- there were 5 series of Highlander?
This is the stuff that pisses me off- they cancel Firefly, Odyssey 5 and Birds of Prey after a single season and there were 5 series of Highlander? What the hell is the world coming to?
Especially Odyssey 5 was a fantastic series. It gets cancelled after one series and yet other stuff carries on regardless. Charmed, anyone? Like, hell no.
graspee
His message is:
Here is the link.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating