Buffy Series Finale Tonight

roothog writes "I just finished watching the series finale of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, an episode that sparks with the writing of Joss Whedon. Strangely, there weren't any commercials :). One of the best written shows on television comes to an end tonight in North America. A very accurate script summary is available for any spoiler-seekers. I'd suggest skipping the spoilers: it's worth the wait...for a season 7 episode..."

Comments

It's true

[showmeshowyoukikoman]

This is the season finale. I'm curious to see how they will incorporate nathan fillian leaving for outer space though to run a smuggling ship. Firefly was a buffy spinoff wasn't it? I can't wait for season two!

nooooo!!!

[borgdows]

I am insomniac and watching Buffy is one of the only ways to fall asleep instantly!!

Re:nooooo!!!

[KilerCris]

Oh don't worry, i'm sure some station (Read: SciFi) will buy off the rights to air reruns and then show it constantly for a few months.

Re:nooooo!!!

[Happy Monkey]

Where've you been? It's on about 15 times a week, at least in DC. Fox, WB, and FX are all showing several episodes a week.

Bittorrent ;-)

[FyRE666]

I'm in the UK, and watched the finale last night courtesy of BT ;-) In fact I've been watching the entire series 7 using Kazaa and BT - it's nice to be able to see the episodes without the censoring we get on Sky and the BBC over here... Of course, no adverts is also nice!

Re:Bittorrent ;-)

[koh]

I don't think BT is such a good shortcut for BitTorrent... especially since you live in the UK ;)

Re:Bittorrent ;-)

[interiot]

Is there a command-line linux version of bittorrent? Looks like the official one requires GTK libraries and such...

Re:Bittorrent ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

try btdownloadheadless.py

Re:Bittorrent ;-)

[stratjakt]

Neither of my sibling posts are really "commandline" versions. If you dont have the GTK libraries, and a metric assload of X-specific libraries for Python and all this crap, it wont work.

I spent wayy too much time trying to get it working on a bare bones slackware box (no X or any other fancy gui crap). It needed this library, which needed that one, which needed another one.

After about 30 megs of bloat installed on my system to run a 6k script, I still wasnt close..

Re:Bittorrent ;-)

[interiot]

• btdownloadcurses.py is your friend.

Thank You!. You don't have to install wxPython or GTK libraries or anything. :)

My cable modem is contributing a paltry 12KB/s now, best I can do. :( But I'm at work, so I don't care that my downstream is now shit.

Re:Bittorrent ;-)

[zapp]

Maybe I imssed something cuz im from the states, but what is the BT you are referring to?

Re:Bittorrent ;-)

[Snaller]

Now if you'll just leave your name and adress the RIAA will mail you a bill ;)

Re:Bittorrent ;-)

[ChrisTaylor2904]

I first noticed it in the first ep of season 6.
Spike saves Giles from a vampire, and Giles thanks him and says "My whole life flashed before my eyes."
Spike replies with something like "Must have been fun. Cup of tea, cup of tea, almost got shagged ... cup of tea."
The BBC completely ruined the joke by cutting out "almost got shagged!"

Michael plays it safe....

[FurryFeet]

...by not adding anything. Guess we learned something from the "Lone Gunmen are dead" fiasco? ;)
What? Yeah, they're dead. Get over it.

Too much

[blogeasy]

Seems like they are really pushing these season finales this year with all the show. There must be a real need to increase the number of viewers.

Re:Too much

[decepetion]

SERIES not season finale......

Re:Too much

[www.whitehouse.org]

SERIES not season finale......

Actually, it's both.

I haven't seen it yet, or read any spoilers, so I'm wondering if there's going to be a Faith spin-off. Not that I'd be all that interested in watching it, I think the franchise is pretty much done with the whole Slayer-facing-ultimate-evil thing. Wonder how well Angel is going to fare without the Buffy tie-in. Assuming there is any more Angel.

Re:Too much

[plague3106]

It'd be kinda pointless...while demons would still be around, they'd face, um, a HUGE problem getting anything done...

AWW MAN!

[freeze128]

I haven't even seen the MOVIE yet...

Re:AWW MAN!

[quantaman]

I haven't even seen the MOVIE yet...

Consider youself lucky.

The show on the other hand in actually pretty good. If you want to know what happens when a studio is allowed to ruin something watch the movie. If you want to know what happens when they don't, watch the TV show.

Re:Not trolling.

[mb12036]

I just wish that Buffy had its own topic like Anime so I could remove it from my news... =(

Singular vs. Plural (nt)

[Kwil]

nt really means no text.

None at all

Stupid lame filter.

Thank the gods for TIVO!

[tizzyD]

Stuck in the UK on business, but I know my TiVO is at home working its way to saving my shows.

Now that Faith (can't remember the actress' name) has committed to another show, something like a 7 Days but only going back over one day, I wonder how it will end?

Oh well, too bad I don't touch spoilers!

I'd rather watch that special on Hitler on CBS.

[bluemeep]

Vampires or Nazis... Vampires or Nazis... Hmm. I can point my NES Light Gun at the Nazis and pretend I'm playing a crazy Wolfenstein mod... Yeah, Hitler it is.

Re:Not trolling.

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Not really neccessary at this point, is it?

Full Script?

[Richardsonke1]

Full script here: part one and part two. Even mentions TROGDOR, the BURNINATOR! :-)

Re:Full Script?

[dsyu]

This isn't the true script? At least the second half is somewhat different from what was actually shown. Truthfully, it's more interesting than what was actually shown (IMHO).

Spoilers

[SimJockey]

Watched it last night, some of it was OK but the very end was a bit of a cop out and a disappointment.

Although the Trogdor reference made me laugh my ass off.

Good Science Fiction

[LamerX]

I think that this show IS totally revelant to Slashdot. It comprises a genre, which totally appeals to nerds. It's so different for the kind of shows that we usually watch. Usually we are watching Space-Based sci fi, like Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate, etc. But here is a down to Earth show that takes place on Earth. It's the classic Vampire horror, reborn into a modern reality. (Not to mention the hot girls!) It has everything that appeals to geeks.

Re:Good Science Fiction

[pldms]

It has everything that appeals to geeks.

I don't know. The series initially had great geek appeal in the form of Willow, who spent years showing the Sunnydale Water Company that the system holding the sewer plans was hopelessly insecure.

Alas Willow went to college, discovered Wicca, and her laptop gathered dust.

The message for geeks is "you'll grow out of it". And, er, become a lesbian. And become addicted to magic.

Ok. Confusing message. But anti-geek.

(btw the finale demonstrates that you can't fix a bad season in the last episode. Good explosions, mind)

Re:Good Science Fiction

[geekoid]

no.
It is a modern horror show, not sci-fi.
Actally, its more of a fantasy show, since the horror isn't horrorifying.

Hot girls are nice, but I have an internet connection, so I don't need to see a show just for that.
Just because it comprises a genre doesn't make it geek oriented. Sheesh.

Re:Good Science Fiction

[LamerX]

Yeah, you all are right, I was just trying to whore up some Karma... Looks like it backfired. :)

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the best written shows on television comes to an end tonight in North America.

We're still talking about Buffy here right?

Re:Huh?

[stratjakt]

Yeah, really.. How lame is that?

Slashbots spend countless hours whining about how lame the MPAA is and how all the movies are bad and not worth watching.

But when Star Trek Nemesis or the Matrix comes out, they cant laud enough praise on it. Just brilliant. The robots are really people? Wow. True shakespeare.

And now we're to believe that a TV show, from the Dubbya-Bee no less, about a teeny bopper girl who hunts boogeymans is somehow the 'best written show' on television?

It's a fucking live action Scooby Doo, with Sarah Michelle Gellar stepping in to play the dog.

Sheesh.

Re:Huh?

[uberdave]

Perhaps it loses quite a bit in the acting and post-production stages.

Re:Huh?

[WINSTANLEY]

An ignorant comment, pure and simple. If people knew how many prestigious awards the show has been nominate for and how many critical raves Buffy gets or read any of the background articles written about the writers and the show in some fairly august places (e.g., the NYT's) they might be less prone to embassing themselves with such drivel.

Re:Huh?

[mj01nir]

Amen. The raving fanboys on /. need to understand that SF on television has been in serious decline since the original Twilight Zone went off the air.

Babylon 5, Buffy, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Lexx. Lame plot hooks, shallow charaters, stunningly bad dialog. But at least the SFX are good!(?) I've really tried to give SF on TV a chance, but I've been disappointed time and again.

Then again, I though the first Matrix was pedestrian. Maybe my standards are too high.

Oh, and by the way, the best written shows on television are coming out of HBO. Period.

Re:Huh?

[sabinm]

What do you mean by pedestrian? Could you elaborate for those who found it entertaining?

Re:Huh?

[quakeroatz]

"Then again, I though the first Matrix was pedestrian. Maybe my standards are too high."

Maybe you're just a stuck up asshole with a short guy/small penis complex?

Do ya think?

Re:Huh?

[Brendan Byrd]

Blasting Babylon 5, ST:TNG (or ST:DS9 as well), and Lexx (okay, it's corny but in a quirky way)? Fine, it's not as good as books, but then again, books don't have continous storylines that span 5 years worth of episodes. Yes, I think your standards are too high.

Oh, and by the way, there's really nothing special about HBO. Sci-Fi (aka USA), WB, and all of the rest of basic cable have the same studios, even if they can't show a little boob or say *#&% once in a while.

Re:Huh?

[Brendan Byrd]

I could quote a few episodes of X-Files that were absolute shit, too. Unforunately, long-running series are at the whim of multiple show writers, some of them bad.

Besides you wouldn't be a deprived geek and "different" person if you were reading Slashdot, News for Nerds. At least I'm not reading Ain't It Cool News or videotaping myself waving a shower rod in crazy motions.

Re:Huh?

[Kappelmeister]

And now we're to believe that a TV show, from the Dubbya-Bee no less, about a teeny bopper girl who hunts boogeymans is somehow the 'best written show' on television? It's a fucking live action Scooby Doo, with Sarah Michelle Gellar stepping in to play the dog.


Hmm...

Hmmmmm.....

Hmmmmmmmmm.......

Re:Huh?

[AutumnLeaf]

Lexx had a lot going for it, including the characters. Especially the satire. I think Lexx's problem was that nobody got it.

Re:Huh?

[AutumnLeaf]

Amen. I've enough close friends into this shite, wife included, that I have been unable to avoid the Buffy-world. I want to ignore it, yet I know about Spike's lameness in the latest season, how they are ignoring lots of the consequences of magic set forth in the previous season, etc...

The best thing about tonight's Buffy? It's the last one!

Re:Huh?

[AutumnLeaf]

So I'm responding to my own comment because it was a bit more forceful than intended. Maybe it was years of repressed anti-buffy feelings. But in fairness, I have to say my taste in television probably couldn't withstand critical scrutiny. So...

Anyway.

Re:Huh?

[mj01nir]

Actually, of the shows I mentioned, Lexx is probably the one I come closest to liking. At least it tried to be fun.

Re:Huh?

[mj01nir]

FWIW, I was including ST:TOS in there as well. Has mainstream television ever seen a worse actor than William Shatner? Good lord. (And before you start, yes he was an absolute ham in his Twilight Zone episode(s?) as well. I didn't say they were all good :^).

As far as HBO goes, the other nets may have the same access to the studios, but they don't seem to be using it. While broadcast television is mired in reality-of-the-week programming (with a side-order of horrible sit-com), HBO continues to put out high-quality ongoing series (and they'd still be good if the boobs and *#&% were removed).

As an aside, I can't believe that my original comment hasn't been moderated back to the stone-age yet! I thought sure I would be branded a Troll (I'm not, I meant what I said.)

Re:Huh?

[mj01nir]

Someday, when you're older, you'll understand that SF can be so much more than shit blowing up and latex masks. The problem is, the factory that churns this stuff out doesn't need to bother with things like a cohesive plot, quality acting, and reasonable dialog. As long as the garbage that comes out is successful, it will be more of the same. This is known as the "George Lucas theory".

Re:Huh?

[rabidcow]

If people knew how many prestigious awards the show has been nominate for and how many critical raves Buffy gets or read any of the background articles written about the writers and the show in some fairly august places (e.g., the NYT's)

blah, blah, blah.

I don't care how many fasion critics rave about the emperors outfit, naked is naked.

they might be less prone to embassing themselves with such drivel. ..or are you just a troll? Stop expressing your opinion, you're just embarrasing yourself.

Re:Huh?

[fenix down]

As scifi, the first was pretty pedestrian. It was a great action movie, and it works pretty well as a geek masturbation fantasy and as something for first-year philosophy students to bore us to fuck with, but it really had negligable scifi value. WW3, man-vs-machine, post-apocalyptic nomads, the world isn't real... all that's pretty basic. It's a good framework for other stuff, but in terms of scifi, it walks a lot more than it jumps.

Using people as a beowulf cluster would've been good, nothing Douglas Adams hasn't done, but at least it would've been something that's at least underexplored. If you erase Morpheus's battery speech, the next two movies stand to be pretty new.

Re:Huh?

[robson]

And now we're to believe that a TV show, from the Dubbya-Bee no less, about a teeny bopper girl who hunts boogeymans is somehow the 'best written show' on television?

Saying something like this only reinforces the appearance that you either A)Haven't watched the show or B)Were so prejudiced against it that when you *did* watch, there's nothing the show could've done to change you mind.

(And I'm not even going to ask what "The robots are really people" has to do with Star Trek, Matrix, or Buffy...)

Re:Huh?

[sabinm]

It is pretty hard to say that the Matrix was pedestrian because it contained fundamental beliefs that most humans embrace.

If you saw beyond the guns (and I don't have any idea of the Wachowski Bros intended it so) you have a pretty strict gothic tale, along the lines of Caleb Williams--that is the paradox that we reject the tools and premise of modern society, but at the same time find ourselves beholden to the very things that we detest. . . No one finds it powerful that we wage a war of machines by using the machines themselves? That because machines are evil and man created the machines, that by extension that man is evil? The truth is that even those who lived without the Matrix, in order to survive had to live by its rules. It is only by "obeying" the laws of the Matrix that the humans in Zion were ever able to defeat the machines. Kind of ironic. In order to beat the machines, we had to think like machines, in other words, man evolved (or de-evolved) into machines in order to survive the evolutionary flood that almost overtook them. We are fascinated by micororganisms that exist for billions of years because of their simple genetic adaptability, but humans have a remarkable abilty to evolve (we rarely think of it that way, but human evolution is mostly within the head with very little cosmetic changes)

So in one movie you have the gothic premise of knowledge and enlightenment will always come back to bite you, the co-dependency of man and machine, robotics and cybernetics as an evolutionary principle etc. . . Like I said, there is no way that we actually know that the Bros. intended it that way, but when one confronts art, the true experience is the one that requires an exercise in thought to apreciate the metaphor.

Re:Huh?

[nalfeshnee]

Right with you there, man. Never seen (and 'seen' here does mean I watched more than a couple of episodes for those who jump on me for judging it after 5 minutes' worth) a crapper show to be honest.

Script is laughable, acting is so wooden I'm surprised that Ms. Gellar & Co. don't sprout leaves (and if you want to see more examples of her so-called talent then I highly recommend the even worse remake of Les Liaisons Dangereuses she 'starred' in), and they borrow the oh-so (oh and here I'm gonna get really flamed) innovative idea from Babylon 5 of making any kind of monster (or alien) simply have a funny-coloured head to indicate its non-human status.

Long Live the B-Movie, say I.

Nalfy

Not trolling either

[dragoncortez]

why does this come up every time Slashdot posts an article on Buffy? I am a nerd, and it does matter to me. There are plenty of other nerds who also care about Buffy. The CNN article even makes a point of saying that nerds and other social outcasts could relate to the characters, and that this fueled the show's cult following. I mean, if you need a scifi tie-in, Nathan Fillion (the actor playing the major villain in the finale) was the captain on Firefly.

Re:When was this due?

[iion_tichy]

It doesn't matter to me that it doesn't matter to you. So why did you have to post it on slashdot?

Re:Not trolling.

[uberdave]

Well, there is a television topic from which you could opt out.

In Canada...

[Dixie_Flatline]

You may have already seen it. At least, in Alberta, it was on last night.

Here's a no-spoiler summary: the ending doesn't suck. I really mean that. I hate nothing worse than something that ends poorly, be it a book or a movie or a television show, because it tends to ruin all the good things that went before. This is an ending worthy of Buffy.

Re:In Canada...

[homer_ca]

"I hate nothing worse than something that ends poorly"

You mean like the cliffhanger season finale of Dark Angel where they thought they'd be back for next season but got cancelled and replaced by Joss Whedon's Firefly? Yeah, that really sucks.

Re:In Canada...

[Brendan Byrd]

Heh...one word: Farscape.

The movie was outstanding

[eGabriel]

Rutger "Batty" Hauer, and Paul "PeeWee" Reubens stole the show. Kristy Swanson was beautiful and perfect, and the cast was filled out with both stars and people who would become stars. It was hilarious (the Paul Reubens death scene was classic), smart, silly, and fun.

Because of this, I held off on watching the TV series. How good could that be compared to the film? I finally caught a couple of episodes over the last couple of weeks, and it does look like a clever show, but they should have called it something else, and let the film stand by itself.

Re:The movie was outstanding

[Rorgg]

I also enjoyed the movie, but the TV series differed from it significantly. Joss Whedon wasn't happy with what happened with the script and wanted something closer to his original vision, thus the show, and it succeeded quite well for about 3 1/2 seasons.

After that, it's had its moments, but not quite where it was. Still worth watching, though. I'll tune in tonight.

Re:The movie was outstanding

[tealover]

Yeah, the movie is seriously fun camp. I like scene where they're going to the cememtary and Buffy says she doesn't feel well and the guy asks her if she's cramping, Buffy gets all indignant and says "what's your deal, God !!!"

I don't know... just a weird camp moment.

Re:The movie was outstanding

[Zoop]

I thought the same exact thing, but a few months back finally started watching a few re-runs...and now I'm hooked. I've seen almost all the series, thanks to the two-a-day showings on FX (which just restarted for some reason, so try to catch it). This is the best TV writing since B5. It has the same humor as the movie, but a little bit more darkness and teen angst. However the writing more than makes up for it.

The Cordelia and Anya characters really make it.

One question I've always had that was not answered tonight (no spoilers): in the very first ep Xander surprises Buffy by saying he knows she thinks she's the slayer--and then starts to say how he knows but she cuts him off. So how the hell did he know? I thought it might be a cool bookend, but alas that wasn't answered. Anyone who can clue me in wins Karma the next time I have points.

Re:The movie was outstanding

[questor]

Maybe it's a bit that FX edited out of "Welcome to the Hellmouth" to squeeze in an extra commercial or something, so check the DVD; Xander was shown in the library's stacks overhearing Buffy and Giles discussing her resumption of slayer activity. Nothing mysterious.

Re:The movie was outstanding

[questor]

Today's jump by FX back to the first couple of episodes is a one-time thing; tomorrow it'll be back to season 4 where they were yesterday (Monday). (However, they skipped season 4 episode 3, "The Harsh Light of Day", for some unknown reason...)

Re:The movie was outstanding

[Zoop]

That's what I get for waiting. And thanks for the explanation of the sudden skip back to Season 1 ep 1--and also confirming that I didn't just forget to watch one of the season 4 eps--that caused some confusion for me (I only saw about half of season 4 last time around).

Now, if only Lackluster would rent the stupid DVDs...

Re:The movie was outstanding

[Thyamine]

The difference between the movie and the series really comes down to what Joss wasn't allowed to do. He's talked in interviews that he wanted the movie to be more like the television show, but the studio had to make all their adjustments and in the end was something he almost didn't want to put his name to.

Re:the decline of slashdot

[uberdave]

Get yourself a userid, then you can customize Slashdot, and not see TV related stories.

Can someone please explain...

[WIAKywbfatw]

What's the big attraction with Buffy? What makes it so worthy of attention? Why does Buffy count as "News for Nerds" or "Stuff that matters" whilst the similar Charmed doesn't rate a mention?

I'm not suggesting that Charmed should register on Slashdot's radar, rather I'm asking why Buffy does. Can someone please explain it to me?

I've watched several episodes of Buffy, as well as a handful of Charmed. I can't say I've ever for a split second thought that either show had much merit but, obviously, there are those out there that disagree with me?

Not that I think she's that attractive but is it a Sarah Michelle Gellar thing? I've read so many posts on Slashdot, in various discussions about quality television and I find it amazing that Buffy is even mentioned in the same breath as shows such as CSI, The West Wing and 24.

I'm not looking to troll here - seriously, that's an honest statement - but just what is it about Buffy that has some of you ga-ga over it? Schoolboy fantasies? Demonic possession? Please elaborate.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Brymouse]

Hot lesbian witches! Think about it! It's fucking genius!

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Rorgg]

Nah, I don't think so. While I think there've been a number of reasonably attractive women over the years on the show, they're not really doing much for me. Personally, I enjoy the writing and the consistent mythos for the world they build. Plus, there have been a handful of episodes that stand singly as just great works of television. May not be for you, but it definitely has its merits.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[tealover]

You have to understand that the series although seemingly about vampires and werewolves was a thinly veiled analysis of high school life and much of the symbolism explored the aspects of fitting in and getting bullied, two topics that practically all geeks can identify with.

Also, a couple of years ago there was the Columbine incident. John Katz wrote an article that to this date is still the second most visited story.

The name of the story is Voices From the HellMouth, a reference to the mystical portal from whence the creatures that Buffy battles come.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Dr_LHA]

Unfortunately a couple of episodes won't do it for you. Try watching a whole season of Buffy and a whole season of Charmed and then come back and explain how you can't tell why one is good and one isn't. Buffy has a mythos and a running storyline in each season - you need to give it time. Everyone I know who had your opinion of Buffy has changed their opinion after watching it for a while.

Quite simply Buffy has been one of the best shows on TV, and some of the epidodes (e.g. Hush, The Body) rank amongst some of the best TV ever made. This is why people like it so much.

Buh-bye Buffy

Re:Can someone please explain...

[knewman_1971]

Hot lesbian witches! Think about it! It's fucking genius! I almost pee'd my pants when I read this line. If I had the mod points, I would deify you for this.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[pod]

Can't believe you stole my sig! Aww, that's ok, I didn't attribute it either. It's from Being John Malkovich.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[lubricated]

The reason that Buffy makes it to slashdot is simple. The people that run slashdot like it. Therefore they choose to run Buffy stories. That's one of the perks of running your own website.

Either that or there's some kind of payoff.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Steveftoth]

You need to give it time? Screw that.

The Simpsons is a great, amazing show because you can step in and out of it with no consequence. It doesn't matter if you miss an epoisode or twenty because every episode can stand on it's own without the need to watch 20 billion hours of crap to get the point of it all. It's just funny, or not funny.

If the whole reason that buffy is good requires me to watch 50 hours of tv to understand then forget it. I think many people feel this way about long running shows like this. Farscape was the same to me as was B5.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Evan]

Yep. My wife and I are longtime Buffy fans, and a few months ago we decided to give Charmed a try. It wasn't worth it, and its faults highlighted for us all of the reasons that Buffy is so excellent. Charmed has decent characters and reasonable acting going for it, but the writing is abysmal -- cliched, arbitrary, formulaic, unimaginative. Several episodes left me wanting to punch the writers in the nose for subjecting me to such manipulative stupidity, and hardly one went by where I didn't groan about the failure of a character to do or grasp the blindly obvious.

Buffy, while it has had its weak patches, is consistently funny, intelligent, insightful, and unpredictable. I don't like soap operas, but I love the soap opera-ish continuity and flow that is fundamental to Buffy, and which is my prime candidate for the reason non-fans are left cold by viewing individual episodes.

As LHA says, the best of Buffy stands up against the best of anything else on television.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[vTalon]

There are a whole lot of reasons why Buffy rocks much...

1) It's fun. Cute woman with mad martial arts skills kicks bad monster ass every week. How can you complain?

2) It's clever. It takes cliches and flips them upside down. Joss Wedon (the show's creator) has stated that the inspiration for the show was the typical cute blond who gets cornered and savaged by the monster in your basic horror movie. What if the cute blond was ready for the monster, and kicked its ass instead? Reversals like that are fun.

3) It's funny -- and the geekier your are, the more sly references you get and the more you appreciate the interesting things that the writers do with the English language. From one character's comment that somebody "makes Godot look punctual" to Xander's perfect sumnation of the effects of an all-night study session: "too much research...need beverage," the writers delight in bouncing their jokes off of culture high and low, and in simply messing around with the language.

4) And, most importantly, the characters ring true. Every character on Buffy is well drawn, three dimensional. Even though they're combating fantastic monsters every week, the characters behave like real people, experiencing all the joy and hurt that real people experience. And the fantastical situations they run into are often just exagerations of events that all of us have experienced.

Basically, the show engages you on visceral, intellectual, and emotional levels; it's exciting, witty, and touching. What more could one ask?

Re:Can someone please explain...

[quantaman]

A number of factors. One is well developed characters and huge plot archs. This really helps viewers relate to the characters and is one of the reasons why critics are some of the ones that mention Buffy "in the same breath as shows such as CSI, The West Wing and 24." (I personally prefer Buffy). On the same note the characters are very relatable and sympathetic and do noticably change with time depending on their circumstances. You get to see one character who started out as very nice and unassuming go off the deep end with magic and watch her slow recovery and attempt to control her powers (something that occurs over the entire season rather than a couple episodes) or someone getting left at the alter and the slow rebuilding of that relationship over time. Another character that starts out as pure evil slowly turns good over a number of seasons and is an extremely interesting character. The show has the characters change noticably but slowly over time like would happen in real life, this is something that shows rarely do (static characters == boring).

Humor is another big thing. There's always (not as much in this last season) an irreverent sense of humor that is very similar to the humor young people actually use, ie sexual references (but tasteful), lack of tact, embarassing situations to name a few.

Breaking of genre is another since it always tries to be origional. 2 great examples are "Hush" an episode that for the most part has no talking (won an Emmy I think) and "Once More with Feeling" a very well done musical episode. It was also possibly the first show on American network TV to develop a long-term lesbian relationship. It's easily one of the most origional shows on television.

Finally there's the fun involved dealing with fighting demons and magic and all that but the appeal there is obvious enough. My advice is try a couple more episodes if you feel like it (not from this last season though as this was the weakest season up till this last ep:), it becomes MUCH better once you learn the different characters. But in the end it just comes down to taste, I personally can't stand CSI and have never really cared for either of those other 2 either. Maybe you'll start to like it maybe you won't.

ps. Never saw Charmed so can't comment on that but in general I've heard Buffy is much better.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Dr_LHA]

You need to give it time? Screw that.

Ah, another member of the ADD generation I see.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[osgeek]

If any story needs more than 2 episodes to not suck, it isn't worth it.

I don't know. I didn't really start enjoying B5 until I had seen a good four or five episodes.

I started enjoying Buffy after I watched the first three or four. Like B5, season one was rather weak, and if you want someone to enjoy the series, they should start watching the beginning of season two. I'd say from there, three or four episodes are enough to see the cleverness of the writing.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Steveftoth]

TV is for the ADD generation. Most of what is on TV is fast paced quick cut nonsence. MTV being the extreme, but everything on TV has moved twords a faster paced program.

Actually I don't watch more then a couple of hours of TV a week, most of which is the simpsons. I try to watch the news, but LA local news is the worst.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[osgeek]

I'm not suggesting that Charmed should register on Slashdot's radar, rather I'm asking why Buffy does.

I think that if you'd examine the demographics for the two shows, you'd find the Charmed audience to be centered around teenaged girls.

You'd find the Buffy audience to be centered around older females and young and middle-aged men.

Case in point, my sister and her 15 year old daughter just love fantasy programming, and wouldn't miss a Charmed episode. I've tried to get them into Buffy, but I think it's a bit to "male" for their tastes: more action, more male-oriented humor, less PMSing witches living together.

Not that I think she's that attractive but is it a Sarah Michelle Gellar thing?

*shrug* Not for me. I much preferred Charisma Carpenter (Cordelia) for the eye candy value. For me, it's all about the writing.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[switchbaby]

I find Buffy compelling because of the genre/setup is used to explore certain societal questions, the character development and affectionate dynamics of the core players (Giles, Buffy, Willow, and Xander), and the episode vs. the season idea. And I'm a girl so it ain't the schoolboy-fantasy-thing.

Many things have been written about the use of the teenage years as a framework for addressing complex adult issues. Other shows have tried to explore the nature of maturing human condition in adult scenarios with much less success. Think of NYPD Blues - it's pretty much all about Andy Sipowicz and how he grows up. But it is almost impossible to see because of all the other noisy components of real life: stressful job, money problems, spouse problems, previous child abuse, alcoholism, on and on.....but with the teenage years, the stress is the same (and always will be) but the amount of baggage in the setup is less; they have shelter, pocket money, and they can't get fired from their jobs if they don't do their homework along with a bit more freetime than in adult life. Most importantly, the teenage years (for most of us) are in the past which means hello! selective memory. This lean and mean setup accentuates the issues at hand - nothing lost in the noise.

I know I listed character development but I'm running out of time, so I'm going to jump to the last point - episode vs. season.

Agreed. Watching one or two episodes is does not impart enough information to fully engage the viewer - you actually need the whole season. It's a gestalt thing - the sum is greater than the parts. Buffy and the Scooby gang are not placeholders with unchanging reactions; they are scripted as evolving humans who do not behave in predictable ways. This means that their nature and full spectrum of personality is not displayed every episode in order to inform the viewer of what the character is all about. And because they are all mostly sort of grownup, they can speak in that sassy, tongue in cheek patter that is just so darned appealing!

It is the scripts that make it strong - if taken as a larger body of work. Can't think of it as episodic TV - try and look at it as a book of many chapters. What pulls me to Buffy is the girl parts: wanting to be cool, feeling a little vulnuerable, and (wishful thinking here) kicking a bit of ass everynow and then, with friends who just don't let you down. Oh yeah, older, tall, mysterious, dangerous bad boy as a lover. It also appeals to wanting to believe in something mystical and unknown without turning to religion-thingy.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[dvdeug]

I find it amazing that Buffy is even mentioned in the same breath as shows such as CSI, The West Wing and 24.

I haven't seen the recent seasons of Buffy. But at the heart of Buffy is a show that plays off high school, and what it means to be a geek or an outsider there in. From what I've seen of Charmed, it's just another sitcom once you remove the magic. Also, there was a lot of continuing plot and character changes in Buffy. You don't get a stream of redshirts; major characters die, or undergo huge changes. It's not like everything always turned out fine at the end of the episode.

The West Wing plays in the same ballpark, but doesn't aim at the Slashdot crowd. I really don't see why you would put CSI in the same group. Outside a light dusting of character development, there's no character growth or overall plot; it crams two murder investigations into 30 minutes, and doesn't even touch on modern events or emotional subjects. Buffy has story arcs, and has characters you can feel for.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[JudgeFurious]

You should get over your Buffy issues and move on with your life. It's a TV show (that after tonight will only be seen in reruns), release your anger and let the pain go.

Did you feel left out of the Buffy fan club? Were some Buffy fans unsupportive of your fanfic efforts? This is the second thread I've run into with you venting over Buffy so something must have happened.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Overly Critical Guy]

"Try watching a whole season of Buffy."

Why would I do that if a couple of episodes won't grab me?

It seems that people simply like the idea of there being a "mythos."

Buffy has not been one of the best shows on TV, not by a long shot. "Best TV ever made?" Have you ever seen Cheers, or Mash, or the Sopranos?

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Xerithane]

Did you feel left out of the Buffy fan club? Were some Buffy fans unsupportive of your fanfic efforts? This is the second thread I've run into with you venting over Buffy so something must have happened.

Nah, just a slow day at work. Buffy is a dumb ass show. I just don't understand why people like it then try to dignify themselves by watching it by claiming it has some superb acting or writing or some such nonsense.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[RedWizzard]

Buffy has a depth to it that few shows on TV achieve. It has brilliant writing, complex and believable (if fantastic) characters, a very high level of production quality (especially amazing given the resources they had for the first few series), great acting, and an interesting premise. It doesn't fit in a single genre but instead covers many genres. It has a very nerd feel to it and includes a lot of pop culture and nerd references. At times it has been extraordinarily innovative, e.g. the episodes Hush and Once More With Feeling. Buffy is a truely seminal piece of work.

the similar Charmed

I have not watched a great deal of Charmed, but IMHO, Charmed is at best a successful ripoff of the concept. But it's closer to "Melrose Place" with magic. The quality of the writing and production is much lower. A telling point is that Buffy has had many Emmy nominations despite not being the mainstream drama or comedy that the Emmys overwhelmingly prefer to honor. Charmed has had none.

I'm not suggesting that Charmed should register on Slashdot's radar, rather I'm asking why Buffy does.

Buffy has a big nerd following. It is a show a lot of nerds relate to.

Not that I think she's that attractive but is it a Sarah Michelle Gellar thing? I've read so many posts on Slashdot, in various discussions about quality television and I find it amazing that Buffy is even mentioned in the same breath as shows such as CSI, The West Wing and 24.

It's not a SMG thing. And you won't just find comparisons to CSI, West Wing, and 24 on Slashdot. You see it in the mainstream media from time to time, too. Just look at the coverage Buffy got when the end of the series was announced. Look at the coverage the last episode is getting. Look at the attention Buffy gets from academics.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[lamontg]

1) It's fun. Cute woman with mad martial arts skills kicks bad monster ass every week. How can you complain?

I've watched a few Buffy's and so far my impression is that Jennifer Garner would kick Buffy's ass all over the place. Maybe the bar for ass-kicking women has just been raised since the series started...

2) It's clever. It takes cliches and flips them upside down. Joss Wedon (the show's creator) has stated that the inspiration for the show was the typical cute blond who gets cornered and savaged by the monster in your basic horror movie. What if the cute blond was ready for the monster, and kicked its ass instead? Reversals like that are fun.

That isn't an impressive reversal these days. Its almost becoming as cliche as as the cliche it is based upon.

3) It's funny -- and the geekier your are, the more sly references you get and the more you appreciate the interesting things that the writers do with the English language. From one character's comment that somebody "makes Godot look punctual" to Xander's perfect sumnation of the effects of an all-night study session: "too much research...need beverage," the writers delight in bouncing their jokes off of culture high and low, and in simply messing around with the language.

Those jokes are kinda high school / college jokes. I dunno, maybe I've just moved on to the point where I only find jokes about Project Managers to be funny...

4) And, most importantly, the characters ring true. Every character on Buffy is well drawn, three dimensional. Even though they're combating fantastic monsters every week, the characters behave like real people, experiencing all the joy and hurt that real people experience. And the fantastical situations they run into are often just exagerations of events that all of us have experienced.

This is the defense of Buffy that I don't get. My impression of Buffy and Willow on the show is that both of them are just highly neurotic whiny high school girls. That isn't very interesting or appealing. And the fact that they're conflicted all the time doesn't give them "depth." Watching the show gives me the same kind of icky feeling that I get watching Ally McBeal.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[osgeek]

So, in your journal, you deride the Matrix:Reloaded as being a bad movie while claiming that Daredevil (which I found to be a poorly written, poorly acted, contrived, piece of utter shit) was an enjoyable movie.

After reading those entries and your condescending comments here, I'm fairly convinced that you're a pseudo-intellectual who criticizes things that he can't really understand. Stick to the simple movies and shows with the easy-to-understand characters and plots. Enjoy them, but get off your high horse if you think you have any basis for being so insulting in your criticism of things that may confuse you a bit.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[RedWizzard]

Same for me. My wife got me watching Buffy and it's a great show. A friend of hers has been trying to get her watching Charmed so I've seen a few episodes and it's just crap. I just can't watch it.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[seawall]

Mostly it was pretty good (personal opinion) but every once in awhile: Wow. Buffy generally had a few of those Wow episodes every year.

A really excellent example being the famous "Earshot" which was pulled from the air when the Columbine shootings happened a few days earlier which had some parallels. This named the whole "Hellmouth" discussion of Columbine on Slashdot.

Another example: "The Body". Somebody just dies. Bang. More or less natural causes and then dealing with the paramedics and doctors and such afterwards.

Another: Buffy wakes up in a mental institution, which is an often used device but we don't really know which is 'real' in Buffy: The institution or Sunnydale. The doctors make an awfully strong case for her being mentally ill.

Or maybe the whole "High School as Hell" thing just resonates for the nerdly among us (a feature that some of the other similar shows lack).

Throw in some nice character twists (just when you think you know who a character is, some new and often unexpected side turns up....and that twist usually stays with the character...it usually doesn't just disappear the following week as so often happens in series TV), some snappy banter and a willingness to do something unusual from time to time (e.g. the episode "Hush" had almost no dialog and "Once More with Feeling" was a musical) and a penchant to run a parallel between the outer story (e.g. demons steal the voices of everyone) and the inner story (e.g. how DO you communicate with your new love?) and usually a sense each season of a season-long story being shown via the individuals episodes and you have a pretty cool series.

I'm going to miss it. If you don't care for it: that's fine too.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Ilan Volow]

And to think all this time I've been deleting those "Hot Lesbian Witches Are Waiting For You!" messages from my e-mail account.

What was I thinking?!??

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Sloppy]

Can't speak for others, but I can tell you what I liked. I should also mention that I only really liked the first 3 seasons. After that, the show rapidly went downhill IMHO. There were still a few good lines as late as season 6, though I had to sit through a lot of tedium to hear them. 7 has been a complete stinker, but I'm going to stick it out to the bitter end .. which is just a few more hours.

It isn't about SMG. I would even say she was almost expendible, except for being the title character, so... Anyway, no it wasn't SMG. Not that I have anything against her, but I think Xander and Willow and Cordelia were all portrayed by better actors than Buffy.

One thing I liked was that it was a horror show, and there aren't really many of those. Well, horror with some humor added. Later it became just another dreary drama, with a vague horror backdrop.

WBut back to the humor... Here, have a sampling of lines:

Cordelia: "Oh, I'm not saying that we should kill a teacher every day just so I can lose weight. I'm just saying, when tragedy strikes we have to look on the bright side, y'know? Like how even used Mercedes still have leather seats." [How I loved to hate Cordelia. Unfortunately, she starts to become a "person" and thereby loses the appeal. I watched a few episodes of "Angel" and it was unbearable. What a waste.]

Anya: "Look, I know you find me attractive; I've seen you looking at my breasts."
Xander: "Nothing personal, but when a guy does that, it just means his eyes are open."

Buffy: "Sorry, but I'm an old fashioned gal. I was raised to believe that men dig up the corpses and the women have the babies."

Buffy: "So something ripped him open and ate out his insides?"
Willow: "Like an Oreo cookie. Well, except for, you know, without the chocolatey cookie goodness."

Principle Snyder: "There are things I will not tolerate: students loitering on campus after school, horrible murders with hearts being removed, and also smoking."

Spike: "You were there? Oh, please! If every vampire who said he was at the crucifixion was actually there, it would have been like Woodstock. I was actually at Woodstock. That was a weird gig. I fed off a flower person, and I spent the next six hours watching my hand move."

Buffy: "Vampires are creeps."
Giles: "Yes, that's why one slays them."
Buffy: "I mean, people are perfectly happy getting along, and then vampires come, and they run around and they kill people, and they take over your whole house, they start making these stupid little mini-pizzas, and everyone's like, 'I like your mini-pizzas,' but I'm telling you, I am---"
Giles: "Uh, Buffy, I believe the subtext here is rapidly becoming, uh, text."

Cordelia: "But she's like this superman. Shouldn't there be different rules for her?"
Willow: "Sure, in a fascist society."
Cordelia: "Right! Why can't we have one of those?"

Spike: "I'm gonna do what I should've done in the first place. I'll find her, wherever she is, tie her up, and torture her until she likes me again."

The show was perverted, and I like perverted stuff.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Xerithane]

So, in your journal, you deride the Matrix:Reloaded as being a bad movie while claiming that Daredevil (which I found to be a poorly written, poorly acted, contrived, piece of utter shit) was an enjoyable movie.

Daredevil is supposed to be contrived. The acting was comic book "POW" "ZAM" style, overly dramatic and Adam West would have been proud. That was why it was enjoyable.

After reading those entries and your condescending comments here, I'm fairly convinced that you're a pseudo-intellectual who criticizes things that he can't really understand.

What is there to understand in Buffy? Is there really something outside of a soap-opera to be had there? I'm dying to hear of something deep and philosophical that stems from Buffy.

As for Reloaded, the reason why I didn't like that is because it tried to be philosophical with very contrived and simplistic concepts that have more holes than Baghdad.

Enjoy them, but get off your high horse if you think you have any basis for being so insulting in your criticism of things that may confuse you a bit.

When did I say I was confused? And I can be as insulting as I want to be, because I don't give a fuck. Why should I care one bit about what you think about me? I don't. You can think I'm a condescending asshole that insults without cause, and I'll agree. If you think I care what you think, sorry bud.

No one is forcing you to talk with me, so if you don't like what I say then don't talk. But don't make up shit about me being confused about overly simplistic movies.

Here's another little bit of advice: Most movies are made to be simple so people can understand them. Including Reloaded. Reloaded was so painfully simple so that your average suburbanite and trailer trash dwelling folks can understand it. Same thing with Buffy. It's made to be dumb, otherwise people wouldn't buy into it.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[CaptainPhong]

The writing is excellent for one. The dialogue is clever, witty and actually sounds like it's suppose to be spoken by teenagers. The characters (not just the human ones) are well developed and realistic (aside from the obvious vampire/demon elements, which is just the vehicle for the show). The writers are exceptionally creative at coming up with new ideas for the show and new challenges for the characters. How many shows could pull off an episode like "Hush" (an excellent episode with almost no dialogue because some monsters stole the town's voices), or "Once More, With Feeling" (the musical).

The Buffy universe is self-consistant (compared to, for example, Star Trek). The writers don't waste time trying to scientifically explain all the fantasy stuff. That's something annoying that happens all the time in other shows/movies and only serves to show how badly the writers misunderstand the applicative sciences. In Buffy, the magic is just magic. When they make up "rules" that govern the Buffy universe, they rarely break them, and rarely come up with new arbitrary ones to explain away things. A few times when I thought they had, I went back to look at older episodes and found out I was wrong. (An example: when Willow can't ressurect Tara, Osirus (sp?) say's it's because she wasn't killed by mystical forces, which I thought was a stupid new rule, but it turns out it was explained way back at the beginning of the season).

The show rewards the loyal by having interesting story-arcs that stretch over more than just a few episodes - many last a whole season, some even longer. The current "big bad", The First Evil, was introduced early in the third season (almost 5 years ago), and was intentionally left unresolved then (cleary Whedon was planning on The First being the final baddie of the series).

Compared to most Sci-fi series /.ers are familiar with (again using ST for the example,) Buffy more consistantly delivers a high-quality episode every week. Sure, the first season (and to a lesser degree, the second) spent a lot of time engaged in cheesy horror stuff, and the quality of the story has dropped off in the past two seasons, but it's Shakespeare compared to Voyager or Enterprise.

To those not familiar with the show, you might think it's just a cheesy horror series, but to the contrary, like any really good show, it's actually about the people in the show, not the "stuff". I challenge anyone who doesn't "get" the show to watch "The Body" (one of many episodes that just blew me away) and not tell me it's some of the best television they've ever seen.

The best part of the show is how it never takes itself too seriously (how can it?) It can deftly jump from deadly serious to hilarious, and it's always natural. The show freely makes fun of the fact that many of the demonic elements are silly and don't make sense, or the fact that all the students manage to block out the memory of being chased around the school by Hyena people. Characters will discuss how to confront the upcoming apocolypse and in the same breath, complain about the shortage of jelly donuts.

Actually, in the last paragraph I lied. The best part of the show is Willow (sigh). She's so adorable it HURTS. She's geeky, cute, lesbian, has purdy red hair and when she gets pushed too far and needs to kick ass, she doesn't screw around. She's the one who flutters the hearts of fanboys everywhere. (Sarah Michelle Who?) I'm ashamed to admit it, but I had to do a little dance when she flayed Warren.

Thinking about Willow makes me... Umm... I gotta go...

Re:Can someone please explain...

[saforrest]

You'd find the Buffy audience to be centered around older females and young and middle-aged men.

I knew a lot of girls in university who watched Buffy. In fact, my university (Waterloo) even had a Buffy Watchers Club.

Still, I think your list is fairly complete with the addition of young women (i.e. > 16 but 30).

Re:Can someone please explain...

[saforrest]

I'm not looking to troll here - seriously, that's an honest statement - but just what is it about Buffy that has some of you ga-ga over it? Schoolboy fantasies? Demonic possession? Please elaborate.

Intelligent and witty script-writing. Original ideas. Well-balanced interplay between comedy and actual drama. Camp that recognizes itself as camp and evokes a laugh still.

A bit part of Buffy is the dual-life thing: ditzy highschool chick versus demonic arse-kicker. Every superhero has to face this, but Buffy carries it off with a sense of balance and self-referential humour that I've not seen done before. And playing with and poking at the nature of reality is a favourite pastime of all us geeks: witness the appeal of The Matrix, as only the most hyped among many other possible examples.

As for the Sarah Michelle Gellar theory, I think that I'd probably go for Willow before Buffy.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[sparrow_hawk]

Whaaaaa..................?

Run that by me again: _Daredevil_ (haven't seen it) is great because it's made to be dumb, but _Buffy_ (ditto) or _Reloaded_ (how long 'til November?) is t3h sux0rz because it's made to be dumb.

I'm obviously missing something. Right?

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Squideye]

You only need to watch one episode.

It could be any one of a number of them, but if you catch "Lie to Me", "Hush", "The Body", "Becoming", any of 20+ episodes out of the 155 ultimately made, you will be hooked without delay.

If you watch a whole season, you're guaranteed to see three of these "hook" episodes. Not *every* ep of *any* show is perfect, and Seasons 6 and 7 had some clunkers, but most of Buffy was gold.

Honestly. Find any of those eps on any file share engine.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Xerithane]

You only need to watch one episode.

I've watched 3. They all sucked. They were a freaking soap opera. If I wanted to watch a soap opera, I wouldn't watch a Scooby Do meets La Femme Nakita.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[vTalon]

I've watched a few Buffy's and so far my impression is that Jennifer Garner would kick Buffy's ass all over the place. Maybe the bar for ass-kicking women has just been raised since the series started...

True, there has been much female ass-kicking in the media of late. But Buffy can kick ass in pink high heels...which is a funny twist on the old SoCal girl cliche. It sets her apart from other action heroes; makes her unique.

That isn't an impressive reversal these days. Its almost becoming as cliche as as the cliche it is based upon.

Ah, but Buffy is the show that spawned much of the current crop of cliches. Not to say that it wasn't in turn inspired by earlier stuff, but the reversal felt fresh at the time of the show's inception.

But that's only one example of the way that the show twists. Here's another: In the episode, "The Wish," stuck-up Cordelia wished that Buffy had never come to Sunnydale, thus spawning what seemed like a standard parallel universe episode. Some of the characters are evil in this new universe, and the good characters are a ragtag bunch, just clinging to survival.

The usual way that this works is that we have at least one character (in this case, Cordelia), who knows The Way Things Should Be, and she sets out to make things right.

But, halfway through the Buffy episode, Cordelia gets killed, because she's not ready for this new, violent world, and you're left genuinely wondering how the rest of the episode is going to go.

Plotting like that makes the show fun -- set up the audience's expectations by using a set of cliches, and then suddenly shoot off wildly in another direction, thus surprising and delighting this jaded scifi/fantasy fan.

Those jokes are kinda high school / college jokes. I dunno, maybe I've just moved on to the point where I only find jokes about Project Managers to be funny...

I think that may be the root of your dislike of the show. It's definitely a show about growing up, and if you're finished with the growing up thing, I can see why it might not appeal to you. Nothing wrong with that, just that's probably the reason why it doesn't click with you...

This is the defense of Buffy that I don't get. My impression of Buffy and Willow on the show is that both of them are just highly neurotic whiny high school girls. That isn't very interesting or appealing. And the fact that they're conflicted all the time doesn't give them "depth."

Again, it's probably a matter of taste. My top three TV shows right now are "Buffy," "Farscape" and "Cowboy Bebop." So I go for the angsty stuff. If that isn't your cup of tea, then I suppose Buffy simply isn't the show for you (which hopefully answers your original question -- there are things in it that appeal to some people that don't necessarily appeal to you).

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Xerithane]

Run that by me again: _Daredevil_ (haven't seen it) is great because it's made to be dumb, but _Buffy_ (ditto) or _Reloaded_ (how long 'til November?) is t3h sux0rz because it's made to be dumb.

Daredevil is a freaking comic book. I remember reading it when I was a kid... the dark lawyer, who has a thing for justice in his own way. They made the movie like the comic book.

Buffy is a soap opera.

Matrix is a pseudo-intellectual poorly construed philosophy debate.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[blazerw11]

...Hush" an episode that for the most part has no talking (won an Emmy I think)

It didn't, but should've. That episode is one of the best I've ever seen on TV. The scene with Giles explaining the Fairy Tale using overheads where he puts a tape of scary music into his portable player is hysterical. (FYI: Parts of the scene were censored when played in the US.)

Re:Can someone please explain...

[sparrow_hawk]

Good. That was the clarification I needed.

Oh, and the Matrix is a pseudo-intellectual poorly-construed philisophical debate (with guns). :)

Re:Can someone please explain...

[osgeek]

Daredevil is supposed to be contrived. The acting was comic book "POW" "ZAM" style, overly dramatic and Adam West would have been proud. That was why it was enjoyable.

Hmm, since it was meant to be a piece of shit, it was enjoyable... interesting. Campy, it wasn't. Tongue-in-cheek, it wasn't. Classic Batman, it wasn't. It was junk for the pre-adolescent crowd. Face it and stop criticizing others for enjoying Buffy -- something you deem for "14 year olds".

What is there to understand in Buffy?

I was wondering that myself. Seems like straightforward well done monster-slaying drama to me. I don't quite understand your confused bitterness toward it.

As for Reloaded, the reason why I didn't like that is because it tried to be philosophical with very contrived and simplistic concepts that have more holes than Baghdad.

Not that Reloaded's plot is perfect, but anyone can take a look at your log and see that you disbelieve obvious explanations for plot happenings and call them contrivances or bullshit. See your comment about "silver bullets" for an example of where a simple obvious explanation didn't occur to you for some reason.

If you think I care what you think, sorry bud.

Ah, the irony of watching someone protesting in a public forum about how little they care about the opinions of others. Such an uncaring centered person would never be so insecure as to say have a well-stocked journal of their opinions to share with others. My apologies for making such a feeble accusation.

But don't make up shit about me being confused about overly simplistic movies.

I dunno. You're the one calling things "inconsistencies" and "plot holes" when anyone paying attention to the movie would see otherwise.

Most movies are made to be simple so people can understand them.

Of course they are, however, the very skilled movie-maker builds a certain mainstream accessibility into their movies while also having depths to be plumbed for those paying attention. If you don't see it in some works like Buffy and Reloaded because you're too busy being condescending and imagining plot holes, that's too bad. Being such a pompous ass about it is really cool, though. It works for you.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[fenix down]

I never liked Cheers that much. Maybe there's drama somewhere in there or something, but I never found it all that funny, at least. M*A*S*H is definately #1 of all time and space, but I'd put Invader Zim or something ahead of Cheers, to be honest.

Buffy's big thing for me is dialogue. I'm not big on mythos or whatever, I always liked the funny one-shot X-Files episodes better than the conpiracy ones. Buffy has a bit of the West Wing/Sports Night sickness where the characters all talk like scriptwriters, but I like that. I can see where it gets annoying, though.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[fenix down]

Please, Adam West must be rolling in the creepy coffin-bed he sleeps in to be compared to Ben fucking Afleck. It is possible to do a good-but-corny movie, but you need way more talent than ever got near that turd. Just like good real ham, good movie ham is only available from peculiar old men living in the deepest woods of New England, who rarely venture forth from their hermit shacks, and hardly ever help produce your adaptations of second-string Marvel characters.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[fenix down]

Oh, and congratulations on making "Pretentious Art Fag". Don't worry, in a few months you'll be able to have fun again, you just have to adjust to enjoying things for their value as ironic social commentary. Oh, and hold off changing your wardrobe, you can make that ironic too.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Happy Monkey]

Should all TV shows be short, mindless entertainment and all books should be long and require deep introspection? Is there no place for long stories on TV or short stories in books?

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Happy Monkey]

Charmed is a fetish show. Best not to watch it with your wife unless she's into that kind of thing.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[bnenning]

FYI: Parts of the scene were censored when played in the US.

Which parts? Did Giles have even more gratuitously grotesque slides of them ripping people's hearts out? I entirely agree, that episode was brilliant.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Steveftoth]

Maybe, but what's on TV is not long deep introspective programming, but rather short, mindless drivel.

TV is a product driven by ratings, if long tv shows were what people wanted, then they would keep them on more.. How many shows longer then an hour are on TV that are not live or talk shows?

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Overly Critical Guy]

You can troll so much better. There are so many places you could take this. Try again.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Dude, I love 24, but it regularly has major weak momemnts that are in a league far and beyond the worst episodes of Buffy. Half the story lines with the daughter are crap, just a reason to get a pretty girl on screen. And besides, the ending for Buffy was 10x better than this season's finale for 24, talk about weak.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Happy Monkey]

Buffy is not longer than an hour per week. But to get full enjoyment, you have to watch the show for several weeks. There are a lot of shows like that (Buffy, Angel, 24, Farscape, Alias, Smallville and Babylon 5 are some that I like). Of course, the majority of what's on TV is short, mindless drivel, but does that mean that the good stuff should be cancelled?

How many shows longer then an hour are on TV that are not live or talk shows?

Not many, but when they happen, it is for ratings purposes, and usually during sweeps. They are called miniseries, and are generally much harder to manage than a show like Buffy, since there may be 4-10 hours to watch in a single week. That's when the "not enough free time" issue comes into play much more than getting into Buffy or 24.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[mrscorpio]

Could you decisively state that LOTR is one of the best fantasy books of all time in the first 50 pages? No, of course not.

Some books allow you to jump right in. Other take time and build the story. Both have their merits, and neither method is better than the other. The same goes for music...it might take a musician an entire album to say what a different musician can say in a one-minute-thirty-second song.

All forms of art are the same way, why should television story telling be any different?

And for the record, I love both the Simpsons and Buffy, but it took some time for me to be able to accept the latter. I don't expect anyone to arbitrarily give it a chance, I had to have my wife force me to watch it at her sister's house a bunch of times :)

Chris

Re:Can someone please explain...

[justytylor23]

Easy: Charmed is really bad. Buffy has come up with the funniest (The Zeppo, Hush, Storyteller), scariest (Hush, again) and most powerful (The Body, Becoming 2) episodes on TV. Charmed is three hot witches in bad outfits. Even at its best, its fluff (and oddly watchable... Rose McGowan... drool) But anyway... Oh, besides, how can anyone take an Aaron Spelling show seriously?

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Xerithane]

Hmm, since it was meant to be a piece of shit, it was enjoyable... interesting. Campy, it wasn't. Tongue-in-cheek, it wasn't. Classic Batman, it wasn't. It was junk for the pre-adolescent crowd. Face it and stop criticizing others for enjoying Buffy -- something you deem for "14 year olds".

Uhm, aren't you the one who admitted that you never saw it? Contradicting yourself, are we?

I dunno. You're the one calling things "inconsistencies" and "plot holes" when anyone paying attention to the movie would see otherwise.

Sorry, sparky, but you are the one who said the Architect wasn't omniscient when he puts up on the monitors what's happening everywhere. And you say I'm the one who wasn't paying attention.

Ah, the irony of watching someone protesting in a public forum about how little they care about the opinions of others. Such an uncaring centered person would never be so insecure as to say have a well-stocked journal of their opinions to share with others. My apologies for making such a feeble accusation.

It's my rant and mental dump space. My last JE asks why I have over 200 fans... that's just absurd. I don't ask anybody to read it, I just write because it's something I enjoy doing. Just because I write, doesn't mean I care if people read it. If I cared what the fuck people said I wouldn't bash feminists, movies, or hippies. You just don't pay attention much.

Of course they are, however, the very skilled movie-maker builds a certain mainstream accessibility into their movies while also having depths to be plumbed for those paying attention. If you don't see it in some works like Buffy and Reloaded because you're too busy being condescending and imagining plot holes, that's too bad. Being such a pompous ass about it is really cool, though. It works for you.

You sound like a little 5 year old kid who just got told Santa wasn't real. Get the fuck over it. You are all pissed off because I find the Matrix to be contrived, with weak story lines because I can find and demonstrate plot holes and weaknesses that you just ignore.

Your life must be really fucking horrible if you get this irritated because someone finds a movie overly contrived and a television show more reminiscent of a soap opera than anything else.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Xerithane]

Please, Adam West must be rolling in the creepy coffin-bed he sleeps in to be compared to Ben fucking Afleck. It is possible to do a good-but-corny movie, but you need way more talent than ever got near that turd. Just like good real ham, good movie ham is only available from peculiar old men living in the deepest woods of New England, who rarely venture forth from their hermit shacks, and hardly ever help produce your adaptations of second-string Marvel characters.

Seriously man, think of it this way: Ben Affleck only does Daredevil for the next 20 years of his life. You know by the end of it he would rival Adam West.

I really wish that they picked someone other than Ben Affleck... the only movie I've ever liked him in was Sum of All Fears, and I think that was just because it was a pretty cool movie. At least it wasn't Tom Cruise.

Bullseye was great. Kingpin was freaking awesome. Just Daredevil had some overly dramatic moments. I felt like a 13 year old kid all over again when Kingpin decides to fight Daredevil.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[imroy]

Charmed? You're comparing Buffy to Charmed? Right. Charmed, A.K.A those six bouncy things that get us cheap ratings.

In next weeks episode of charmed: More breasts!

Re:Can someone please explain...

[osgeek]

Uhm, aren't you the one who admitted that you never saw it? Contradicting yourself, are we?

Wrong. You are confused... again. Swing and a miss.

Sorry, sparky, but you are the one who said the Architect wasn't omniscient when he puts up on the monitors what's happening everywhere. And you say I'm the one who wasn't paying attention.

He puts up what's happening "everywhere"? How do you know that? Maybe he has lots of eyes and ears, but that doesn't mean he's omniscient. Maybe he is able to pull some things out of Neo's mind to put up on screens. Who knows, but the assumption that he's perfectly omniscient seems to be an unfounded one.

Additionally, my arguments didn't completely rely on whether or not the Architect is omniscient. You assume to know how the Architect would act (or even have the ability to act) based upon his perfect knowledge. We don't know what the Architect's ultimate motives are and what his abilities to act upon those motives are. He may be omniscient, but impotent to act. The reasonable explanations are many, but in your mad dash to cry "INCONSISTENCY!", you're not worried about any of that.

I really had to chuckle when I saw where you wrote "I should be employed by the studios to validate continuity." in your journal. Please. You couldn't figure out a simple few plausible explanations that were obvious to many people. Who exactly would hire you?

Just because I write, doesn't mean I care if people read it.

Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. If you believe that, you're even less bright than I gave you credit for. In terms of this discussion, it's an obvious plot inconsistency. If you didn't care whether or not people read your journal, you'd put everything in a text file or in some type of personal email directory. You want people to read your writings, so you put them up in a public forum. Further, if you didn't care what people thought, you wouldn't bother responding to them. You'd let some asshole like me criticize you, and you'd just ignore it and move on.

If I cared what the fuck people said I wouldn't bash feminists, movies, or hippies.

You're like a classic little kid looking for attention. You post your writings hoping that people will at least read them, but you're a bit of an asshole, so your bashing can't be restrained. When that happens, you get negative attention, but like most attention-hungry people, better negative attention than no attention, right?

You are all pissed off because I find the Matrix to be contrived, with weak story lines because I can find and demonstrate plot holes and weaknesses that you just ignore.

Not really. I think you're a condescending ass who forms unfounded negative opinions about things without the mental capacity to understand them. Your ability to find plot holes is really so far mostly in your own mind, but I'd dislike for someone to unknowningly ignore Reloaded or Buffy because of the poorly formed opinions of one like yourself -- so I respond to them.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Xerithane]

Wrong. You are confused... again. Swing and a miss.

Sorry, different conversation. Senility is creeping in on me, my apologies for confusing you with someone else.

In terms of this discussion, it's an obvious plot inconsistency. If you didn't care whether or not people read your journal, you'd put everything in a text file or in some type of personal email directory.

While I do not care if people read my journal or not, people do. Denial of that fact would make me dumb, so I do not put things that I would not tell a stranger. That really is a stretch, but keep going, maybe someday you will actually hit something that's close to correct.

You want people to read your writings, so you put them up in a public forum. Further, if you didn't care what people thought, you wouldn't bother responding to them. You'd let some asshole like me criticize you, and you'd just ignore it and move on.

As I said before, I like writing. If someone reads my writing, then fine. If someone responds ot my writing, great. I'll respond, too. I like to write. I'm a quiet individual unless I have something to say, but I'll write anything I feel like writing. You're falling into a fallacy here by thinking that I am oblivious to the people who do read what I write, and mistaking that for caring what they think of me.

I think you're a condescending ass who forms unfounded negative opinions about things without the mental capacity to understand them.

I'm the condescending ass... I've already proven you were wrong about the Matrix. The Architect is at least omniscient. That is a fact, you are wrong. Your lack of ability to comprehend your own flawed understanding doesn't speak well of you, especially since you are attempting to insult me along the same basis. Outside of interprative opinions, the facts are on my side. You are the one who missed points of the movie.

Your ability to find plot holes is really so far mostly in your own mind, but I'd dislike for someone to unknowningly ignore Reloaded or Buffy because of the poorly formed opinions of one like yourself -- so I respond to them.

You may think they're poorly formed opinions, but I'm pretty sure you slept through Reloaded. I'm professing it as my opinion, as well. I'm not saying, "It is a fact that Reloaded sucked!" You are having some serious issues with my opinions, which is fine.

You've already foed me. You've called me a condescending ass. You can't back-up your stances on Reloaded. You haven't even defended the soap-opera that is Buffy. What are you attempting to do here? When you figure out the answer to that question, get back to me.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[osgeek]

While I do not care if people read my journal or not

Yeah, that's why in your new journal entry, you're trumpeting how many "fans" you have in a not-so-subtle way. Because you don't care. That's more than a bit self-delusional.

You've already foed me

Nothing personal, but I normally don't sink into discussions like this. Marking someone as a foe to me is just a way of filtering out the useless noise for next time.

You've called me a condescending ass.

Cry me a river. Rather than posting an intelligent critique of Buffy, you chose to come and just be insulting to fans of the show, by basically saying that those fans had the appreciative abilities of "14 year olds" -- when you even admitted that you didn't watch more than a few episodes (God knows which episodes you even watched and whether they're representative of the show). What flew your way after that was really your fault.

You can't back-up your stances on Reloaded.

Notice how you ignored the substantial parts of my argument regarding the motives and abilities of the Architect, while focusing on the minor part. Additionally, you still claim Architect omniscience, when that is never said or shown in the movie. Sure, he has a great deal of knowledge and may very well be omniscient, but once again, even if he is omniscient, YOU HAVEN'T FOUND A PLOT HOLE. I've backed up my stances. You're the one ignoring the tough arguments so you can feel good about your opinions.

What are you attempting to do here?

I've always had that "right every wrong" mentality that leads me to sometimes get into useless hair-pulling contests like this one when I'm not careful. People like you who spout strong opinions based upon minimal knowledge (Buffy) or lack of comprehension (Reloaded) rub me the wrong way.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Xerithane]

Yeah, that's why in your new journal entry, you're trumpeting how many "fans" you have in a not-so-subtle way. Because you don't care. That's more than a bit self-delusional.

Saying, "What the fuck is wrong with you people" isn't trumping. It's asking, "What the fuck is wrong with you people?" I think it's funny. I sit here and write whatever the fuck comes into my head and people either get pissed about it (you) or laugh about it (the 200 folks)

Additionally, you still claim Architect omniscience, when that is never said or shown in the movie.

Uhm, when he says, "All the people will die" and it shows all the people in the Matrix. Or "Trinity will die" and it shows what Trinity is going through.. Yeah.. that sure isn't omniscient.

I've backed up my stances. You're the one ignoring the tough arguments so you can feel good about your opinions.

You haven't even made any "tough arguments". Hell, you haven't even made any 98-pound weakling arguments. You just say, "Well, you didn't understand the movie!" Then you spout of shit that the movie tells you is wrong. If the movie didn't have the Architect being omniscient, than you would be right. But the movie does! You are wrong!

I've always had that "right every wrong" mentality that leads me to sometimes get into useless hair-pulling contests like this one when I'm not careful. People like you who spout strong opinions based upon minimal knowledge (Buffy) or lack of comprehension (Reloaded) rub me the wrong way.

I find it funny you are still back on this lack of comprehension bit. You are the one who can't back up what you are saying. You missed a few major events in Reloaded, and are saying that I'm not able to comprehend it? Riiight.

Apparently you also have that "I'm too stupid to just admit that I'm wrong" mentality as well. I watched 3 episodes of Buffy. They were all dumb soap-opera meets Scooby Do. They all had horrible writing and dialog. This is called "Subjective." Tou can't convince me that the writing is good. It's my opinion that it was shit. If someone can't convince me in an hour that they know what they're doing, I don't normally give them a second chance. Buffy got more than an hour and still fell short.

You started out actually being able to comment respectably, and now you are just in this mode where you are spouting off just plain wrong (Matrix) shit and invalidating my opinions because I obviously haven't dedicated enough of my life to a show I find to be retarded. Keep it up, your life must be very fullfilling.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[ronfar]

The scene with Giles explaining the Fairy Tale using overheads where he puts a tape of scary music into his portable player is hysterical.

Scary Music: I'm pretty sure it was Saint Saens Danse Macabre.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[osgeek]

Uhm, when he says, "All the people will die" and it shows all the people in the Matrix. Or "Trinity will die" and it shows what Trinity is going through.. Yeah.. that sure isn't omniscient.

Funny, I could have sworn that she was alive at the end of the movie.

To be specific, the Architect said that entering the Matrix to save Neo would cost her her life... it doesn't. Sure, it could be said that she "died" briefly, but it didn't cost her her life. Neo was there to save her.

Interesting. So something the Architect said turned out to not be true. The Architect claimed that Neo would lose Trinity no matter how quickly he tried to get to her.

The Architect also says that all humans will die and that he and Neo won't meet again. How much you want to bet that he's wrong about those things too? The Architect gives a decent impression of omniscience, but he's most likely not.

You can't be omniscient and wrong at the same time unless you're lying, which leads into my whole question of either the Architect's omniscience or his motivations.

He's either not omniscient or his motivations or abilities to act on those motivations are other than you think... or it's a plot hole. But since those other explanations are good enough for anyone who doesn't know how the Revolutions ends, I once again contend that you see plot holes where good explanations exist.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Xerithane]

Funny, I could have sworn that she was alive at the end of the movie.

The Architect says, "You can choose to save humanity or try to save Trinity." He then shows what is going on with Trinity (ie, Her getting smacked around by agents)

To be specific, the Architect said that entering the Matrix to save Neo would cost her her life... it doesn't. Sure, it could be said that she "died" briefly, but it didn't cost her her life. Neo was there to save her.

When did the Architect say that? By the time Neo saw the Architect, Trinity was already in the Matrix... what the hell are you talking about?

You can't be omniscient and wrong at the same time unless you're lying, which leads into my whole question of either the Architect's omniscience or his motivations.

You know, I'm starting to think that we just didn't watch the same movie. The Architect says that if he tries to save Trinity, Zion will be destroyed and no one will be able to rebuild it.

He's either not omniscient or his motivations or abilities to act on those motivations are other than you think... or it's a plot hole.

He states his motives: Destroy Zion, Rebuild Zion, Destroy Zion, Rebuild Zion...

He is also all-knowing. One would assume since Agents are Agents of the Matrix, they work for the Architect. The Architect would want to delete the unused programs. The Architect is omniscient (as proven already) so why can he not delete the rogue/exile programs?

That is just one of the plot holes. There are others, but at least you are acknowledging their is a conflict here. Too bad you have to accuse me of lying to see there could possibly be a conflict.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Razor Blades are Not]

If they were in the last 2 seasons, then you I'd have to agree - you probably caught some bad episodes.. The last 2 seasons didn't seem to match up with the first 5.
I would suggest that you might start at the beginning in season 1 and see if it grabs you before the established storylines lock you out.

One thing that prevented me from getting into some of the "best" TV was trying to get into it halfway through the story. 24 was supposed to be great, but I never got into it. Same for West Wing and Alias. Each of these have some sort of running thread throughout the seasons which make it difficult to pick it up midway. Its worse when that thread goes over the entire series. Babylon 5 was the same. I kept asking myself "What was the relevance of that?"

To me, it's this development which separates a decent show from "story of the week" shows. That's not to say that soaps (which share this attribute) are great TV - the key difference is the underlying direction and meaning of the character/story development.

If you can also add individual episodes which break out of the standard, then you have something fairly remarkable.
Buffy did this. (see "The Body", "Hush" and "Once more with Feeling" for examples of the risks the show took with breaking the mold for television)

Fandom aside - you may not like the show, you might think it's completely pointless as I did to start with. Of course, there's no way anyone can convince you to give it another try - after all, not everyone likes the same things. Not everyone is open to new ideas either.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[osgeek]

The Architect says, "You can choose to save humanity or try to save Trinity."

He says a lot more than that.

Google is my friend:

*Images of Trinity fighting the agent from Neos dream appear on the monitors*

Neo - Trinity.

The Architect - Apropos, she entered the matrix to save your life at the cost of her own.

Neo - No!

Then later, the Architect says:

.. she is going to die, and there is nothing that you can do to stop it.

When did the Architect say that? By the time Neo saw the Architect, Trinity was already in the Matrix... what the hell are you talking about?

Read my sentence again. "Would" goes with "cost her her life", since she was very much alive when he said that.

You know, I'm starting to think that we just didn't watch the same movie. The Architect says that if he tries to save Trinity, Zion will be destroyed and no one will be able to rebuild it.

Partly. He says that he CAN'T save Trinity even if he tries, but trying will destroy all life within the Matrix *and* Zion, which was going to be destroyed no matter which door he chose. If he chose the right door, he would be able to begin repopulating Zion, continuing the cycle of the anomally.

The Architect is omniscient (as proven already)

He said that Trinity would Lose her life and that there was nothing Neo could do about it. He said that all humans would die if Neo chose the Trinity door. He said that they would never meet again. The first one was demonstrably wrong. The second two will be wrong unless the next movie really bucks the whole "good guys win" action movie paradigm. Unless he's lying, he can't be omniscient and wrong at the same time.

Again, my argument is that the Architect is quite probably not omniscient. He has abundant information sources, to be sure, but great information does not omniscience make. We don't understand the limits of his powers, his motivations or the powers and motivations of other entities (exiles and Neo) within (and out of) the Matrix. There's too much happening with too many parties of too many unknown abilities and motivations to be crying "plot hole" at this point.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Xerithane]

Partly. He says that he CAN'T save Trinity even if he tries, but trying will destroy all life within the Matrix *and* Zion, which was going to be destroyed no matter which door he chose. If he chose the right door, he would be able to begin repopulating Zion, continuing the cycle of the anomally.

And the Oracle told Neo he wasn't the one. You are confusing infallability with being omniscient. The Architect is still omniscient, and leading back to my original point as the exile programs are poorly contrived plot devices setup purely to "guide" Neo without much thought to their consistency... why does the Architect allow them to survive? Why do the Agents allow them to survive?

Again, my argument is that the Architect is quite probably not omniscient. He has abundant information sources, to be sure, but great information does not omniscience make. We don't understand the limits of his powers, his motivations or the powers and motivations of other entities (exiles and Neo) within (and out of) the Matrix.

How can he not be omniscient? He is all-knowing. Everything that goes on in the Matrix, he knows. He shows people through the world, and what they are doing. That's pretty damned all-knowing. Even if he, in the program constraints, isn't all-knowing, he has the ability to know all through the monitors. Since he can control the monitors at will, he can technically "know" anything that is happening anywhere.

There's too much happening with too many parties of too many unknown abilities and motivations to be crying "plot hole" at this point.

Again, this is why I thought the movie could have been written better. The abrupt ending to the side-plots leaves one feeling like he got ripped off by a hooker. The main reason why I didn't like it is because it tried to reach climactic moments and never hit it. It always fell short, then tried to add special effects to bring it there. That just doesn't work.

My favourite quote

[turbo-paul]

I haven't seen the finale episode yet,
but this is my favourite quote from the script

--- mini spoiler ---

BUFFY (to ANGEL)

Why are you so -- Are you gonna come by and get
all Dawson on me every time I have a boyfriend?

--- mini spoiler end ---

*bigsmile*

Don't worry no spoilers

[quantaman]

I watched it and it ended as well as it could have. The problem with this season has been the lack of definition. The fact that the First appears as dead people means that it doesn't really seem to have any strong characters of its own. They tried to have intermediate baddies like the Seekers. the uber-vamp, and finally Caleb but none of them really developed. Also there was alot of ambiguity in what the First wanted to do other than kill all the potential slayers and do general evil, along with any clear idea about what they were actually fighting. Many of the episodes suffered because there was no clearly defined goal or threat. In addition there were a lot of writing problems earlier in the season like everyone leaving town in fear of an apocalypse that wasn't manifesting itself at all. Over all this has probably been the weakest season due to these problems. That being said Joss Whedon did a very good job of pulling it up for the last episode and bringing the show to a good conclusion. Not one of their best episode but certainly one of the best this season, either way regardless of what I say you'll watch it anyways for the closure if nothing else :)

Re:Don't worry no spoilers

[mkro]

In addition there were a lot of writing problems earlier in the season like everyone leaving town in fear of an apocalypse that wasn't manifesting itself at all.

But it was! People acted all mad and aggressive when the seal was open, especially in the school ("MARCHING BAND RULES!", "DIE CHEERLEADERS, DIE!").

People were leaving because of feeling the evil and craziness in the city coming closer, and that makes it more believable (Uhm, you know what I mean) than if they were hanging around 'till the hordes of evil roamed the streets. IMHO.

But yeah, I can agree with you on The First. No clear goals, no real surprises and just not 3V1L enough. A wannabe-evil slacker, that is what is.

Re:Don't worry no spoilers

[blonde rser]

I disagree that it was the best episode this season; I thought "Lies my parents told me" and "Conversations with dead people" held their own. But I agree that the season seemed to lack a direction. In fact I think there was a direction and at one point someone decided to actively change it. In the first half of the season there were all these Joyce Summers cameos that seemed to mean something and then they were just dropped. Sure they could have been the first the whole time but it really seemed like they were going somewhere with them: especially the whole "in the end she will stand against you." Sure Dawn ends up kicking Buffy out of the house but usually the fore shadowing is so much better.

Re:Don't worry no spoilers

[bill_mcgonigle]

also there was alot of ambiguity in what the First wanted to do other than kill all the potential slayers and do general evil

He wanted to bring forth upon the Earth an army of true vampires which would wipe out the human race. When enough humans were killed such that the vampires outnumbered them, the First could take form and be made flesh.

So, it was a mystery. Now whether the writers worked with it all season or just made up nonsense as they went along is debatable.

WHAT!?!

[Skyshadow]

The Lone Gunmen are DEAD?!? Thanks for the spoiler, prick. I guess I should really catch up on the shows stored on my TiVO.

Seriously: I think that Buffy has taken a serious step down this year. It's disappointing that the last few episodes end up concentrating on insignificant new characters (Kennedy, Wood) and got away from the things which made the scoobies a cool group of heros in the first place (how many superheroes prepare for battle by doing research?).

But oh well. Must be a universal truth that while all good stories deserve an ending, and not all good stories have good ones (Neil Stephenson fans, represent!).

damn it... the show without its coolest part

[botzi]

First of all, I should say that I've never believed Buffy's gonna make it to /. , but well, .. sh1t happens.....;oP

Strangely, there weren't any commercials :)

Come on, now, what's the point of watching Buffy without the 320lbs guy doing his barbacue???... Sure BtVS was (hehe.. past tense) one of the "most stupidest" shows ever....

<mega small font>
I still cann't understand how did I managed to watch all the 6*22 + 1*12 episodes... *cough*,*cough*.....
</mega small font>

Censoring?

[lightspawn]

It's nice to be able to see the episodes without the censoring we get on Sky and the BBC over here...

What censoring? I know shows from Europe are censored when they're shown in the states, and that since there are more commercials here, the euro versions of some american shows are actually longer sometimes. I never knew shows were also censored the other way around. What's missing on Sky/BBC?

I remember somebody mentioning a short scene from Babylon 5 that was missing in the UK (the Narn ambassador drawing blood from his hand, each drop symbolizing the Narn dead in the wars). Cutting this scene made no sense at all.

Re:Censoring?

[pldms]

What's missing on Sky/BBC?

Sky don't cut it, AFAIK. BBC do for the Thursday showing (6.45pm) but show it uncut on Friday night.

Of course C4 had the bright idea of show Angel at 6pm (think that's right), which is more violent. The result was often amusing, and invariably baffling. The endings (where the fights normally are) would become a rapid succession of cuts. Perhaps that's what the poster had in mind?

Re:Censoring?

[lightspawn]

The endings (where the fights normally are) would become a rapid succession of cuts. Perhaps that's what the poster had in mind?

Now I see the pattern.

In europe, adults believe kids should not be exposed to violence.

In the states, adults believe kids should not be exposed to sexuality.

Re:Censoring?

[ShawnDoc]

In the UK they consider violence taboo on TV, but have no problem with tits and ass. In the U.S. they will allow almost any level of violence, but don't allow T&A and swearing.

So people in the UK missed out on Sylvester McCoy getting all shot up in the Doctor Who movie, while American viewers don't get to see any tits (Unless the program is airing on PBS).

Re:Censoring?

[91degrees]

That's really quite accurate. Apparently Lexx had whole scenes written and one complete episode that had lots of nudity, but added nothing to the plot, so that they could be added to the german broadcast, but ccut out of the US broadcasts seamlessly

Re:Censoring?

[91degrees]

Sky cut it a little. They didn't show Warren being flayed. They tend to only be minor cuts though.

The reason they're not cut in the US isn't anything to do with Americans being less keen on censorship. Just that when they're made, they're targetted towards American sensibilities.

Re:Censoring?

[RatFink100]

Sky showed Warren's skinning - it was just really really brief. Instead of the 3-4second shot it was a 1/2 second shot.

Re:Censoring?

[FyRE666]

Erm, they both censor (BBC and SKY). If you've seen the video/DVD versions of certain episodes then you'll notice gaps in the TV editions. EG, the episode where Spike was boning the buffy-bot had quite a bit removed. Likewise the episode where the 3 stooges had convinced Buffy she'd killed that chick. The scene where she continually punches Spike's face to a pulp was cut completely from the TV feeds I watched...

Re:Censoring?

[Citizen of Earth]

In europe, adults believe kids should not be exposed to violence.
In the states, adults believe kids should not be exposed to sexuality.

In Canada, we get both violence and sexuality on TV. Awesome!

Re:Censoring?

[Knara]

I wasn't aware Dr Who aired on any station *other* than PBS in the US.

Re:Censoring?

[Snaller]

Now I see the pattern.

In europe, adults believe kids should not be exposed to violence.

In the states, adults believe kids should not be exposed to sexuality.

On the whole that might be a good idea - there might eventually be fewer of them ;-)

Re:Censoring?

[CptCook]

Didn't C4 also show the first series or 2 of Angel completely out of sequence when they showed it at 6PM, thoroughly confusing everyone?

Poll

[graveyhead]

Submitted this, but of course:

• 2003-04-30 15:01:48 How should Buffy end? (polls,tv) (rejected)

within like 10 seconds of submitting it :)

How should Buffy end?

( ) David Lynch Ending: The entire series was just a masterbatory fantasy for Zander. Somehow he still manages to lose an eye.

( ) Kubrick Ending: Calib chases buffy around the hedge maze and ends up freezing to death.

( ) Spielberg Ending: Buffy is revived by alien robots in the year 3010 who create the illusion of Angel for one day and then they euthanize her.

( ) Lucas Ending: "Buffy, you've turned off your targetting computer! What's wrong?"

( ) Joss Whedon Ending: The gangs carrers' suddenly end when they decide to write a sci-fi western.

( ) CowboyNeil Ending: CowboyNeil doesn't end.

Re:Poll

[Anonymous Coward]

Missing option: "Let's do the Scooby Doo ending..." :-)

Re:Poll

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, this is Slashdot. Don't you mean

()Lucas Ending: JAR JAR COMES OUT "MEESA SELL SOME ACTION FIGURE$ FOR LUCA$ NOW OKEYDAY AND THEN RAPES MY CHILDHOOD and HOLDS A GUN TO MY HEAD AND MAKES ME BUY THE DVD etc. etc. etc. HAHAHA I AM TEH COMEDY GENIOUSE +5 FUNY"

Re:Poll

[Isca]

Don't forget:

() The Admiral Ackbar ending: "It's a trap!"

(required nerd joke)

Re:Poll

[sharkey]

() Stephen King Ending: Buffy takes Jakes virginity, which allows Roland to get farther along the Beam and Thomas and Dennis to catch Flagg, but results in Ted Brautigan's death.

Re:the decline of slashdot

[mog]

Most geeks I know love Friends. Go figure.

What's that? She was a ghost all this time? No!

[Heywood Yabuzof]

Oh wait, she actually did die already, didn't she?

I don't really life Buffy that much, but after reading that recap, I really am tempted to watch at least the last few minutes of the finale (especially since it's on right before 24's season finale).

Re:What's that? She was a ghost all this time? No!

[fenix down]

24, now there's an overrated show. Everybody's so fucking humorless all the time. I watched most of the first season, and it felt like they were just sucking my soul out through my eyesockets. That show alone probably accounts for 78% of Viagra's business, for fuck's sake. Who can get it up after being violated like that?

Re:What's that? She was a ghost all this time? No!

[Happy Monkey]

Do you usually get horny watching an action movie?

Spin-Off Idea

[Skyshadow]

I think a terrific spin-off would be to have Caleb (easily the coolest new character this year) survive the final episode, then to follow him around the US as he goes around doing bad in a sort of American Gothic-ish manner.

I think it'd fly if you could find the right writers... I wonder if Neil Gaiman would be up for a season of episodic TV writing...

Re:Spin-Off Idea

[Tumbleweed]

Sorry, you'll have to have two shows if you want to see Caleb on TV after the finale. :)

"julienned preacherman" oh yeah

Re:the decline of slashdot

[deaddrunk]

If Ross was sacrificed to the God of Crap TV Characters I would probably like it too.

Re:the decline of slashdot

[Jellybob]

I know I shouldn't be grabbing the bait, but I've had a crap day, and need someone to take it out on.

And this AC is it.

NOBODY MAKES YOU READ THIS!

And the only reason people are playing games on Friday night, is because they're big boys and girls, who are allowed to go out on a school night.

Thank you, this has been a pointless flame brought to you by One Pissed Off Bunny productions.

Buffy is NOT Good Science Fiction

[WIAKywbfatw]

How in the hell is Buffy "good science fiction"?

OK, the "good" bit is open to debate but where's the "science fiction" that you're talking about?

Philip K Dick is science fiction. Ray Bradbury is science fiction. Isaac Asimov is science fiction. Star Trek, Star Wars and Stargate are all science fiction (although, for Star Wars at least, the term space opera is more accurate) but Buffy is not.

Why? Because it's not science fiction. Period.

Buffy is fantasy fiction, just like Xena, Hercules, etc.

Pedantic perhaps but sci fi and fantasy are two seperate genres. Please, don't interchange the two.

After all, you wouldn't say Windows when you mean Linux would you?

Re:this doesnt belong on slashdot

[colinramsay]

News for nerds mate. Sounds right to me.

Listen To Yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

nerds who also care about Buffy.

Holy Jeebus. You talk as if she is your girlfriend. Even tho Buffy comes in to your mom's basement via the TV, doesn't mean that Buffy loves you. When you worship her on line, she never knows. Knowing every little detail about the show doesn't increase your ranking in the 'get to fuck Buffy' line. Despite all your fan fueled idiocy, in the end, Buffy will never know you and will go home and fuck her boyfriend. You, on the other hand, will just have to be happy with fucking a tube sock while watching Buffy shows you download from Kazaa. Please grow up, soon. Honest.

Re:this doesnt belong on slashdot

[mattlary]

I think this does belong here; while I'm not a "Buffy" fan, I do realize that many members of the target audience would be interested in this story. The theme of this site is News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. While a story on Buffy may not be part of Stuff that matters, it could surely fit with News for Nerds. If there's a different theme for the site that I don't know about, I'd be interested to know what it is.

Re:When was this due?

[Blkdeath]

It doesn't matter to me that it doesn't matter to you. So why did you have to post it on slashdot?

Well said!

If people don't like television shows being mentioned, disable the television category. It's one checkbox, people. Consider it a test of nerdiness; can you sucessfully edit preferences on an online news site? (Poll to be held next week. CowboyNeal can do it - can you?)

Yes, Buffy has geek appeal. Sci-Fi, monsters, babes, lesbians, magic, evil, the conquering of good over evil by way of Googling; it's fantastic. Is it for everyone? Hell no! But are Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc. for everyone? Another hell no! So why is this even an issue? If you don't like it, don't watch it, just don't bug me about watching it, mmm-kay?

Re:this doesnt belong on slashdot

[thegrommit]

Why? It's a show with *gasp* great writing and long running story arcs - unlike 99% of "prime time" TV. It's themes are understood by many "nerds" who didn't exactly enjoy high school.

A quick news google might be worthwhile if you're judging it purely by it's title and pretty cast.

Buffy Nerds

[eegad]

On the contrary, Buffy is a very nerdy subject. If you haven't noticed the intellectual side, you might check out The Online International Journal of Buffy Studies. I mean they've got PHDs writing papers about the show, for crying out loud.

More than Two episodes

[cquark]

While you need to see entire seasons to get the most out of Buffy, there are a number of excellent episodes which are great by themselves. Try some of these:

• Hush
  
• The Wish
  
• Dopplegangland
  
• The Body
  
• Once More with Feeling
  

Re:More than Two episodes

[Communomancer]

Please don't introduce Buffy to folks with those episodes. Don't get me wrong, each and every one is a hallmark episode, but they're meant for longtime fans, not for newbs. With the exception of Hush, each of the eps you mentioned depend heavily on the pre-established mythos. In Hush, no one even speaks for 75% of the ep. You have to rely on your pre-existing knowledge of the characters to keep it interesting.

I dunno; I'm open to suggestions on a listing of the best "intro" Buffy episodes...things to placate the "if you have to watch a whole season to like it I won't get into it" crowd. But I think the trio of "Surprise", "Innocence", and "Passion" would do the trick.

Re:the decline of slashdot

[geekoid]

you ned to find different geeks.

Re:Buffy Fans == Teh Gayest

[Carnivorous Carrot]

No shit.

Grow up, children!

It's not like Monica Belluci demanding to kiss me in The Matrix, for god's sake.

PHD's

[codepunk]

PHD's write about buffy because they cannot code!

Re:this doesnt belong on slashdot

[Overly Critical Guy]

I don't get it when people make fun of TV and its braindead shows like American Idol and 7th Heaven, yet they will freely defend Buffy The Vampire Slayer for having "great writing" and "long running story arcs." I've seen the show; it is hardly great.

Did anyone else mis-hear his name?

[Ben Jackson]

and finally Caleb

When he first introduced himself in the truck, did anyone else think he said his name was Kaylee? Man that cracked me up.

really, I'm not trolling, but

[bhsx]

I think you gave away the main trait of those that dig Buffy, versus those that don't. It's summed-up in one word: "Mythos." Mythos is a word commonly used to describe H.P. Lovecraft-style storylines. The "Cthulhu Mythos" is typically used to describe these types of stories.
But that doesn't really explain why it's considered so good. It is, however, a suitabe explanation of Buffy vs Charmed, and I have the sneaking suspicion that if you look at the shows that /.ers like, they'd fall into this similar "mythos" storytelling genre.
My problem with this type of thought is this:
Why don't you all watch that piece of crap daytime soap that centers around the "vampire mythos"? My mother watches it all the time, and she's facinated by it. She friggin time-shifts the thing (makes me sick, really). I find it hard to believe that the writing in Port Charles is any less believeable or fun, or "out there" as Buffy, which leads me to believe the one thing it's lacking truely is Sarah Michelle Gellar.

Re:really, I'm not trolling, but

[fenix down]

I saw that fucking show once! That shit rules. It has a creepy-ass midget baby, and they had a portal to hell or something in the closet. The only problem was they went to a wedding or something halfway though. That was even pretty good though, because I think they decided not to rescue somebody's daughter from this big demon thing because they were late for it, and I think somebody asked them about the daughter at the wedding, and they pretended not to know anything. So fucking high.

Re:really, I'm not trolling, but

[Planesdragon]

Why don't you all watch that piece of crap daytime soap that centers around the "vampire mythos"? My mother watches it all the time, and she's facinated by it. She friggin time-shifts the thing (makes me sick, really). I find it hard to believe that the writing in Port Charles is any less believeable or fun, or "out there" as Buffy, which leads me to believe the one thing it's lacking truely is Sarah Michelle Gellar.

Because I don't know what it is?

Plus, daytime TV tends to be, well, mushy. But give me a name, and I'll take a look at it.

SMG has, really, be the worst part of Buffy this past season, IMO.

Re:really, I'm not trolling, but

[plague3106]

Why don't you all watch that piece of crap daytime soap that centers around the "vampire mythos"?

Dark shadows? I actually do like that show...but its not as good. If you watch closely, sometimes you see a stagehand closinga door that shouldn't have bounced back open...

Re:really, I'm not trolling, but

[bhsx]

I think it's called Port Charles, a spin-off from General Hospital that airs at 11am (here in Chicago anyway)

Attention Buffy fans:

[Johnny5000]

If any of you have a tape of last week's episode of Buffy and would be willing to part with it (or make a copy) please let me know. I missed it due to some unforseen circumstances... reply to this and I'll post some contact information.
thanks.

-J

Re:Attention Buffy fans:

[nemski]

If anyone has the entire season or the season before that -- and probably any other season -- please mail them to me. It seems I missed out on the 'best show ever.'

Re:Not trolling.

[RobotRunAmok]

Whether it's "in your news" or not, what compels you to *read* it, let alone, ahem, *posting* about it?

I mean, Dude, c'mon... It's a "news for nerds" Website, not a mind-control device!

To everyone whinging about this story...

[Acheron]

Everyone seems to think that "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." is connected by a logical AND, but it's really a logical OR. Stop the whinging, you'll be alright.

Re:To everyone whinging about this story...

[Happy Monkey]

Not an XOR?

best death scene ever

[turbosk]

ever.

Re:best death scene ever

[Zoop]

I also quite like the line:

"Oh, I don't like that. Kill him a LOT."

Re:this doesnt belong on slashdot

[maddskillz]

Reminds me of a quote from a song "And though I have nothing to say, I have to say it anyways"

Re:Huh? Buffy Studies on NPR

[dubbayu_d_40]

Believe it or not: http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfI d=1262180

OK, OK I GET IT

[interstellar_donkey]

Ok. I get it. It's a good show. I never watched it, and I probably missed out on it. Heck, I missed out on "Babylon 5" too, despite being told by everyone how it was the best sci-fi show ever and was a million times better then star trek. And yet, I don't feel any worse off for missing it.

So despite the fact that it's got a stupid name, and the commercials make it look stupid, I'll concede that it may be pretty good. Oh well. It's over now. And as soon as this episode airs and the hullabaloo of whatever super great DVDs of season whatever are released, I'll never have to hear about it again.

Yay.

+4 insightful isn't bad..

[mb12036]

Posting is cheap. I guess that Slashdot would be better if people with dissenting viewpoints didn't post at all? That way the editors will keep posting the same crap assuming that everyone thinks its great.

Somebody's modding me up, guess I must not be the only nerd that feels that way.

Re:+4 insightful isn't bad..

[RobotRunAmok]

With your first post, I thought you were just having a bad day. Now I see that you're wound too tight, period.

Fact: This is a news aggregation site, and the target community is way too broad. No one is interested in everything that is posted on SlashDot, it is genetically impossible.

As for being "modded up," please! I have "Excellent Karma" and doled out five mod points today. What does *that* tell you? You're being naive...

As a better judge, look at the number of people posting with interest on this thread, and also the follow-through "Buffy" conversations in the SlashBack.

You want to "make SlashDot better?" Great! Make positive suggestions, recommend new topics beyond the same tired RIAA paranoia and Sci-Fi Movie Fanboy-ism. Better still, *submit* some stories on topics that interest you. Maybe they will get used, generate some interest that the editors will see, and more such stories will be posted. *Grow* the site, Bunky, don't waste energy trying to cordon off sections of it.

Re:+4 insightful isn't bad..

[mb12036]

Ah...I see. That way I can get baraged with a greater breadth of crap. You know, eventually, we could just start posting every story that appears on msn.com.

The point is that I do not disagree with you. Slashdot is an aggregation site, BUT, as noted in my original email the aggregation capabilities are not granular enough to keep Buffy out, but other TV news stories in.

Joss Whedon Q & A in Todays NYT

[good soldier svejk]

Joss answered answered reader's questions in this feature in today's Times online.

$0 reg. etc.

Godd writing?

[ellem]

They said words?

All I ever saw was tight red leather pants!

and FAITH!!!!!

and CORDELIA!!!

EVIL WILLOW

OH GOD I NEED A MOIST TOWELETTE...

oh yeah!

I'll take the stand

[Crashmarik]

The show was crap.

By the finale I was rooting for the first and thinking that I was likedthat wisecracking preacher. This was no lord of the rings. It was no matrix.

To define how little it was able to hold my attention, in the middle of the episode I started building a system.

A Grande Understatement

[AquaRichy]

The show understated itself. There's value in that. Especially when everything else is trying to be grand, this show simply understated itself. No Buffy falling downwards into the pit of vampires. No Willow melting or destroying or enlightening the enemy. No Dawn assuming any new role. It was a lot like life, things just happened, and not in the most spectacular manner. Hopefully the writers won't carry over to the spin-offs :)

Re:Hardly

[fenix down]

Because an even shittier show got canceled a week or two into the season, and since Paramout consists of nothing but Star Trek and shitty 80s teen movies, they decided to adapt a shitty 80s teen movie. More Star Trek, or lesbians that say "nifty". I think we came out ahead on this deal.

Buffy was good along time ago.

[Acidjunky]

I'm more upset that Smallville wont be having any new episodes all summer than of the last buffy. Smallville Rulez

Smallville rocks!

[oogoliegoogolie]

Yeah, now that it seems everyone except Clark's parents and Lana turned evil, and Lex looks like he is totally fscked, Sept. is too long to wait for new episodes.

Buffy Schmuffy...

[dentar]

24 is the thing to catch!

Get over it

[acoustix]

'nuff said.

Buffy

[methangel]

Buffy Who?

Buffet? Whoo hoo!!

Only one nit...

[Darmox]

Spoiler if you haven't caught it yet...

All in all, I saw the ending as pretty cool, and about the only way it could end... my only question is: How did Spike get into the school? It was broad daylight when they went there.

bah... at least I've got that monkey off my back.

Free! Free at last!

Trogdor!

[MoonRabbit]

Looks like Trogdor has made it into Buffy. On the lips of the whiny geek, no less. How appropriate.

Re:the decline of slashdot

[Happy Monkey]

Ross? Isn't he Aiesha Tyler's boyfriend or something like that?

No Commericals??? Huh???

[kalmite]

I don't know where you live, but here in the States there were normal commericals in all the normal places. I could only wish there were no commericals. Of course I could have downloaded it, but the quality versions aren't available yet.

So...

[CdotZinger]

It's written in a style that's indistinguishable from that of Dawson's Creek or Gilmore Girls, but of course it's nothing like Dawson's Creek or Gilmore Girls, because, lacking the Dawson/Gilmore homo/soap stigma, it appeals to repressed would-be Dawson/Gilmore fans who need the reassuring bully might of majority consensus, which responds to any criticism with award litanies, various forms of "You're too stupid/ADD-ridden/West Virginian to understand the height of civilization marked by this major-network television show for teenage girls," and mass down-moderation of posts such as this.

That's some quality sick rationalization, right there.

Re:So...

[wan23]

In the final episode four major characters were playing D&D. They were fighting Trogdor the Burninator. LOL! You would *NEVER* see something like that on Dawson's Creek. Say what you will about the show but it was written for people like me, and the final episode certainly qualifies as News for Nerds :-P

finally

[maloneoni]

Thank God i thought that show would never die. Oh no!!! Now we have re-runs

Trogdor

[Fubar411]

This article became relevent when Giles, Andrew, and one of the Jr Slayers were playing a little DnD and were confronted by Trogdor the Burninator!

Hilarious!

Willow

[Cackmobile]

Buffy is ok. It was entertaining. But I salute it for bringing Willow to my attention.

She is my god!!

Re:the decline of slashdot

[Jellybob]

Funny? Now *that* was unexpected. /me is once again confused by the people with mod point to burn on modding me in a bad mood to funny.

Can't see it; always censored in my area

[AtariAmarok]

Part of one of the recent telecommunications acts resulted in our cable company being banned from carrying a UPN affiliate in our area. They would have to pay fines to the government if they put a UPN affiliate in their line-up.

We might eventually get the show a week or two or three later.

Bittorrent Link

[zbob]

Here's a link to one of the better quality BitTorrent versions.

Re:this doesnt belong on slashdot

[justytylor23]

Um, what awful animated features? It was that (admittedly cheesy) Kristy Swanson movie first, then the series, then Angel. That's it. There's an animated series in development, but I hear it's so ambitious that there's probably no way it'll be produced.

Not a spinoff

[zackbar]

"Angel" was a spinoff of "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer". "Firefly", although a great show IMO, wasn't a spinoff. It was just another show by the same writer.

A spinoff show would be a show that takes characters from the first show into a new one based in the same universe.

"Firefly" isn't in the same universe as "Firefly" otherwise Nathan would have had a vampire as a pilot.

Actually SF IS fantasy

[Shadowmist]

Or at least the way it's presented on media. What's packaged as science fiction (particurlarly on a lot of Trek) is essentially wish fulfillment magic dressed up in plastic and silicon. (or just plastic). "The Truman Show" was a better example of Analog style science fiction than virtually any movie broadcast to date.

Science Fiction has always been in the main an outgrowth of fantasy even the so-called "hard" variety. Which is not a criticism of either, just the way I see it.

But you are right, the Buffster was not SF, but then again it was never billed as such.

Re:this doesnt belong on slashdot

[justytylor23]

Hell, not even David E. Kelly is David E. Kelly anymore. The parent post implied that there had been animated features based on Buffy, which is not, in fact, the case. Whedon also might be credited with the script for Alien 4, which he has since disowned. I'm not sure what his relationship with the script for Titan AE was (sure, he's a screenwriter on it with two other guys, so what role did he actually have? I agree that Titan AE sucked, though). To be honest, Whedon's Buffy run, Firefly, and Angel, though sometimes spotty were all IMHO excellent. Even the best hitters only hit 3 of 10 pitches (maybe 4).

Re:That funny ball of light in the sky...

[dentar]

Damn! I don't know how the Hell this got modded up to 5, but it was actually (sort of) flamebait. HAHAHAAHAHA!

BUFFY

[alcharn]

Was anyone really impressed with the season finale of Buffy??? I was expecting something a little better. The most excitement I got was from the lack of commercials.