Why does Buffy stand head and shoulders over Mutant Enemy's other projects?

[shadowkat]

Was discussing this briefly on a friend's blog, and thought I'd wax on a bit more about it here in my own blog...or journal or whatever you want to call this interactive correspondence device. (No, I will not go off on another long boring tangent about why I prefer live journal to other social media outlets.)

The question is simple, and yes I know mileage is bound to vary quite a bit on this point, why was Buffy more successful or interesting than Mutant Enemy's other efforts? What made it stand-out? (If you happen to be in the minority that think it didn't, and you think I'm nutty for not seeing how Marvel Agents of Shield, Firefly or Dollhouse is by far the more brilliant and interesting series, ie. the cat's pajamas...feel free to ignore this post (I know you guys are out there). Because, like I said, mileage varies. But if you look at the critical not to mention scholarly acclaim, Hugo and Emmy nominations, ratings and pop culture mentions - Buffy was, like it or not, objectively speaking the most successful. It also inspired the most writers in and out of the television field. Shonda Rhimes of Grey's Anatomy, Scandal and How to Get Away with Murder cites Buffy as her inspiration, and what made her reconsider television. Russell T Davies stated that it inspired the character of Rose Tyler on Doctor Who. And there are many others.) So this begs the question what did they do right with Buffy? And can that magic be recreated?

I think, having pondered it off and on at different points that it was a combination of things.

* This was the first television series that many of the writers had done and it was done on an off-the-beaten path network with low expectations. Whedon had just come off Roseanne. He was young. Energetic. And had something to say. And more importantly, a network and studio that was more or less willing to let him say it with little to no interference. (He'll go on to state in later interviews that he hadn't realized how spoiled he was on Buffy until he did Firefly, Angel, and Dollhouse - where the network was constantly interfering. )

Also, the writers were less cynical, less burned out, and less big-headed (fame can be a noxious thing). Similar things have happened to Aaron Sorkin and David E. Kelley, also Diane English...they got popular, it went to their heads...and their later stuff, just not that good.

* The cast was somewhat new, eager, and pitch-perfect for their roles. The network had worked hard for good casting, and Whedon had a say in it.

* Music was selected with patience and due diligience...also the decision was made to compose music and original songs for the series, specifically for it, and feature various live bands - a new idea.

* Whedon, who had studied slasher horror flicks - had something to say about the medium, and horror in general - so saw Buffy as a sort of meta-narrative/satire of it -or his way to comment on something he'd studied. Since this hadn't really been attempted before - it was raw and in some respects more subtle and less repetitive than in future efforts.

* Did I mention the magical casting? Casting is often 98% of what makes a show work.Oddly, many of the cast members have not struck gold elsewhere, almost as if they were born to play specifically that role. James Marsters, Sarah Michelle Geller, Nicholas Brendan, Alyson Hannigan, Anthony Stewart Head and to a lesser degree David Boreanze seemed to be perfectly suited for their roles. Of the group only Hannigan and Boreanze have achieved success elsewhere. Gellar managed to capture the quippy charm, vulnerability, and outright bitchiness that made Buffy a complex and compelling character that fans loved or loved to hate. And Marsters, Brendan, and Hannigan equally pulled this off with their roles.

The show also featured some inspired guest casting in roles as varied as the Mayor, Faith, Trick, Jonathan, Warren, Jenny, Joyce, Ethan Raine, Darla, and Drusilla.

* But I think ultimately, it was the fact that the writers seemed to know what they wanted to say. They had a clear plan, a plot (well for the most part, if we ignore some of the muddle in S7), and it was drawn from the characters. Their metaphors were clear, their themes were as well. And they felt passionately about all of it. Many of the series that came after lacked that level of conviction or passion. If you don't feel passionately about your story, than no one else will.
And I think, at least for me, that's what the later works lacked - that level of passion and conviction. I'm not saying they didn't care about them, I think they did, just not in quite the same way?

* AND finally, the writers/producers/etc took risks with Buffy that I didn't see them take with the other shows, which granted weren't on long enough to take those risks.

Examples of ground-breaking or risk taking episodes:

* HUSH - a silent movie
* Restless - a stream-of-consciousness dreamscape and meta-narrative on surreal film and the horror trope all wrapped into one neat little package
* Once More With Feeling - a meta-narrative musical that makes fun of the musical trope
* Dead Things - a play on co-dependency and addictive nature of abusive relationships from multiple angles.
* Conversations with Dead People - a multiple pov episode framed with a song, sung at the beginning and the end... and written specifically for the episode
* Fool For Love, Selfless, and Lies My Parents Told Me - the flashback episode, but done in two different styles. (This has inspired everything from LOST to Vampire Diaries...in how they jump through time)
* The Body...which was an episode without music, and focused on negative spaces
* Who Are You - the body switch episode done in a manner that reveals character
* The Zeppo, Superstar, and Storyteller - the metanarrative or parody episode, which makes fun of the story...yet keeps you in the story.

I haven't really seen anything close to those in Whedon's other efforts. Everything else feels more like the first two seasons of Buffy...to the point of predictability.
Not that I didn't like the first two seasons, I did, but the show didn't really start playing with narrative format or say anything new until roughly S3. Most of the vampire shows and for that matter Whedon series that came after Buffy seem stuck in the first two season format. OR they go off the rails like the end of S7...where things get a bit defused with too many characters or too many ideas, not quite coming together into a cohesive whole?

I don't know. I can't quite decide why I liked this series better than Whedon's other efforts. Or why Whedon's other efforts tend to disappoint me, with the possible exception of Angel - which in some respects worked well as a mirror story to Buffy's.
They sort of comment on each other. Whedon's not alone in disappointing me. George Lucas, Aaron Sorkin, and David E Kelley certainly have. Television writers much like television actors tend to be highly unreliable when it comes to making great television. They can create one amazing series, and the next one...just does not work.
Making me think that perhaps creating great television is akin to magic in a box?

Perhaps...I liked it better due to time period or my mood? I admittedly haven't re-watched it in five-six years. I think my last rewatch was in 2009. So it's been a while. But I haven't re-watched the others either. Or maybe it's for the reasons stated above? Or maybe it just is. Clint Eastwood once stated the he liked what he liked and hated what he hated, didn't feel a need to examine it that closely. He also stated that after jurying the Cannes Film Festival, he felt the need to cut 30 minutes off of all his movies.

Or maybe it's the characters and their specific emotional arcs - which for some reason or other resonated with me on a level that others have not?

Comments

[treadingthedark.livejournal.com]

A lot of what you say makes sense. One thing in particular really affected my enjoyment and that was the music.
The score was really theatrical, symphonic and made the series so much richer. The songs and bands featured made me go see the bands and buy the CDs.

Sometimes the score in Agents of Shield actually irritates me. It's bad.
I just started rewatching the only other series I was really obsessed with, the Beauty and the Beast series from the 1980s. No modern music but gorgeous scoring.
Another thing that lessens my enjoyment of what Joss does now is I find myself consciously not getting attached to characters because I know there is a big chance they will turn bad or die. It's become his thing and I'm over it.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agree on the music. It's what makes Buffy stand out over the others. I don't remember the score from either Dollhouse or Firefly. Except Firefly's theme song grated on my nerves and I was not found of Dollhouse's credit music.
Agent of Shield is also distracting and grating.

While both Buffy and Angel's music actually worked pretty well. Buffy's was amazing. Plus there were so many songs created specifically for the series. The theme song was - by the Breeders, and so was Blue, all the songs in OMWF, etc. I own the Buffy music. The score and the songs. I loved it that much - that I like to listen to it outside the series. And like you I sought out the bands. I fell in love with Aimee Mann because of Buffy.

Good music and music editing, scoring makes a huge difference. I admit I'll watch Supernatural sometimes because I love the score and music. While Grey's Anatomy and Vampire Diaries scoring and music makes me cringe. As does Agents of Shield.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

I haven't really seen anything close to those in Whedon's other efforts. Everything else feels more like the first two seasons of Buffy

But then his other stuff never got more than two seasons. Maybe Shield will, but I already gave up on that one.

I think, it really was the fresh team and the opportunity to work uninfluenced for a long time, without the pressure of instant success.

I think Firefly had the potential for that. It also had a cast that was truly burning for the show and writers that really wanted to tell something. I honestly think it is better than the first season of Buffy, but it never really got running the way Buffy did.

All the extraordinary episodes you cited come from the later seasons when Whedon instead of just repeating what worked (like other shows did) went to new places, found his inner Twin Peaks geek in a way.

Everything after Firefly though? I didn't see the spark. It all just seems horribly commercial and while everybody in his family has a job in the industry now, he doesn't seem too interested in these projects himself.

[dragonyphoenix.livejournal.com]

while everybody in his family has a job in the industry now, he doesn't seem too interested in these projects himself. Yeah. That. I totally agree with that.

[dragonyphoenix.livejournal.com]

I think Firefly is quite good. Actually I'm surprised each time I review the series because I forget how good it is. It sort of sneaks up on me. I think it would have been excellent if it'd had more seasons.

The other two? I watched one episode each, said "meh", and never went back.

While it's not a tv series, I think comparing BtVS to Dr. Horrible would be interesting because the Doctor (Horrible, not Who) does succeed.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean to suggest that Firefly wasn't good. I liked it and own it on DVD.

The problem with it though was in part timing, and in part universal appeal. Let's face it - it was only going to appeal to cult sci-fi watchers. Star Trek was sort of the same way - it made it three seasons. The original BattleStar Galatica? 2 seasons. They gave shows more seasons back then. Star Trek Next Generation survived because it was on cable, and well, it had the movies which brought in a bigger audience. Farscape similarily survived for four seasons, barely, because it was on Syfy, and heavily distributed outside the US. Star Gate? It was dirt cheap and a Canadian series. BSG? Critical acclaim and on Syfy, which liked having a critically acclaimed series - it didn't have any. Doctor Who - dirt cheap and only 13 episodes a year and on BBC.

Sci-Fi is hard to grab a broad audience. Teen Gothic Horror on the other hand - not so hard. Plus it was on a channel that was marketing mainly to teens.
Fox wanted 18-35 males, who spent most of their time playing video games and watching sports - which is a tough audience. Firefly was a wee bit too...tame for that audience. That audience wants the Walking Dead, Sons of Anarchy, BSG..

Doctor Horrible..was successful but only as a web series, so doesn't really count and you can't really compare it to Buffy, sort of akin to comparing a peanut to an apple, or rather a peanut to an almond, two different mediums.
Same with the comics...totally different medium. Different audience. Different demands.

I'm trying, albeit not that successfully, to discuss this on a more objective level...if we start talking about which show we personally "enjoyed" more or "personally thought was better" - we'll go around in circles. Because seriously, you like what you like and that's more about you in the end, the tv show.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

I think Joss himself probably asks that question because honestly? I really don't think even he knows. It's part of why I think he had trouble closing the deal in later seasons. Oh, fans want this... Except they didn't.

My opinion, I think it boils down to the cast and directors. Success in Hollywood is dependent on luck, more oft than not, and ME happened to come across what BTVS needed. It's weird how not too long ago the actors got all the credit. Nowadays they get near none. Also? I think Whedon is kinda BSing a little when talking about interference growing later. I've read interviews with Ancier, Daniels and company that left me with the impression that they had a lot more say than what was let on, particularly with SMG and CC's casting. Sure, he had a vote, but when the president of the network that's the last hope of your showing getting made suggests something, it's more than just a for you consideration.

Moreover, I read about what Joss wanted to do with Firefly, with Angel...and I can't blame the networks for interfering. What would Buffy have been like without the WB nudging for Angel to remain, you know? Would it have continued to be S1?

Also, I think that by the time Angel finished, Joss's tropes had/have started to wear thin.

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

I think Whedon is kinda BSing a little when talking about interference growing later.

I think that also network interference became a somewhat easy excuse to fall back on later on. Now I was actually a fan of Dollhouse, but I can't argue that both Dollhouse and Firefly had somewhat unusual premises that weren't going to appeal to everyone, and arguably both shows had fairly shaky starts and take a few episodes to get into. Yet all you ever hear is that the network screwed Joss over by not airing the pilot for Firefly, never mind that they did give him something like another million (?) to shoot a replacement pilot, so it's not like they just aired the show with no pilot full stop. And then with Dollhouse, the one-off missions that fans complained about were apparently something that Joss himself wanted, and he went back to them again in the season 2 premiere, as well as the episode with Echo babysitting, never mind that most fans agree that the strength of Dollhouse was when they started the apocalyptic story and put together more of an arc, and never mind that they only had 13 episodes to wrap things up in season 2. Maybe the network did have some interference, but you can't lay all of the blame completely at their feet for those early Dollhouse episodes flopping, yet Joss's missteps do always always seems to get blamed on outside forces in that way?

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

I think it could partly be that Joss might have been less willful on BTVS than the later shows. He was a newbie, so much so that they brought in Greenwalt to help him.

By the time Firefly rolled around his ego rolled around, he was probably less inclined to take network notes.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Possibly, except from everything I read...he did.

It's a lot harder than it looks to change something to meet someone else's criteria. The network was a bit fuzzy on what it wanted - except that it wanted a hit that appealed to a male 18-35 audience demographic, basically The Walking Dead demo.

They also wanted lighting out of a box. Not as easy as it looks.

Plus, Firefly was a tough sell - it was a Western and Science Fiction dramedy. More Space Opera than action adventure. More Farscape than Star Gate. Probably would have been better off if it had been more like Star Gate (which I personally found dull as dirt, but a lot of folks adore it for reasons that continue to escape me, while I adored Farscape).

But it begs another question what makes a tv show work? I'm watching Ascension now, and it incredibly listless and dull. I can't get into it. Nor could my coworker. Part of it was just casting, the actors all walk around as if they are half asleep. They seem incredibly bored.
Meanwhile there are series that were cancelled out of the box that I rather liked...such as Caprica (made it sort of two seasons but barely), Now and Again (made it one season), Earth 2, Battlestar Galatica (original series - made it two seasons, then they rebooted it into a really awful action series that made no sense)....while others lasted a long time (the Bachelor), Bones, Castle, Two and a Half Men - and I personally can't watch them. So...

And I do not understand why Agents of Shield has higher ratings than all the other Whedon series...that's just plain ironic.

Most, possibly 75% of television is let's face it, not worth our time.
It's just something you turn on for background noise or to pass the time. There's a few good gems in the mix...but the vast majority of folks watch tv for a quick laugh or mindless entertainment.

So being successful on tv doesn't necessarily equal good. And taking network notes doesn't necessarily equal good tv. Although you are right, it doesn't necessarily equal bad tv either. Sometimes the network has a point. It stopped the creators of LOST from killing of the lead, Jack, stating the series needed a protagonist that the audience could root for. It also stopped OUAT from killing off Prince Charming. And in Whedon's case - it persuaded him to keep Angel and Spike around, because seriously half the audience would have taken off if he hadn't. Teen girls like hunky guys. There were no hunky guys on that show other than the vampires. Xander really didn't cut it.
Whedon isn't the best at casting choices. He didn't want Amber Bensen - Marti talked him into it. TV is a collaborative process - which I think we tend to forget. Film is less so. But TV is highly collaborative.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

Oh, of course he took them. They were still the ones signing the checks. What I meant was that by the time Firefly started, perhaps because it fell so flat with people, he was less-inclined to keep his mouth shut about it. Buffy was successful. Firefly wasn't. You get "It *would* have have been better if not for the network!" It's kinda his M.O. (to be fair, a lot of people do it). I read an interview in Rue Morgue with him--I don't know how old it was--on CITW and he was *still* complaining about Fox and Firefly.

But it begs another question what makes a tv show work?

Fincher made a comment once regarding film but I think it fits TV maybe moreso: "Film is fashion." It really depends on the climate when something airs. Tastes change quickly. Many shows now I don't think would stand a chance back then because back then people seemed to skew toward the short story format. Nowadays, most things are longform.

But TV is highly collaborative.

Yup.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'd have to agree...I don't think Firefly would have survived long anywhere. The Western Trope pretty much alienated half the audience.
And all networks require a certain level of interest - to sell commercial time.

TV shows tend to fail when you can't grab a large enough audience. And even when Firefly was airing - there were too many distractions. It had a small loyal group - enough to get a low-budget film made. But not enough to carry an expensive television series.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'd have to agree. While its easy to lay the blame at the network's feet what people forget is the network is footing the bill and Firefly was not cheap. They need to get the numbers.

They did give him a chance to fix it. He got to do a new pilot. That's more than a lot of television writers get.

It's a highly competitive field. Over a thousand pilots are shown to networks a year. Whedon has been absurdly lucky.
Many of his cohorts have had to struggle a lot more.


No, I can't say I feel sorry for him. Nor can I say that I bemoan the loss of Firefly or Dollhouse. I've seen far better tv shows get cancelled out of the box in lifetime...sometimes after one or two episodes. It's gotten so I can pretty much predict it. If the show is playing with offensive themes, sci-fi genre or cult genre, is somewhat sloppy on the fine details and the plot - it's gone.

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

Right, it's an easy excuse to fall back on that the pilot aired out of order and we scrambled to fix that, never mind that at the time Joss was shrugging it off as he understands where FOX is coming from and he's happy to work with them on a new pilot with more action. (For what it's worth, me and my sister both watched the original pilot and were bored to tears from the first five minutes, so I can also understand where FOX were coming from in wanting a more engaging episode to hook viewers with). From the way that Firefly gets talked about, you would think that all of the episodes were aired out of order and it never got a chance, but that's not exactly the case. FOX did spend a lot of money trying to get that show going, but it never had a big enough audience to justify those costs. I'm guessing that FOX were hoping that Joss would have a really popular space show that would repeat his success with Buffy, but space western just didn't have mass audience appeal, and the critics were hardly raving about it at the time either. I remember the jokes about the show using leftover lots from Little House On A Praire

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'd have to agree...because I remember the same jokes regarding Little House on the Prairie sets and lots, along with custom design. [Defiance does space western with a bit more pastiche, but it has a show-runner who did Farscape and excels in the nitty-gritty details.]

Also, only one or two episodes I think were out of order. They took bits and pieces from the original pilot and put it into the episode (I think it was entitled Serenity), which aired last, when it should have aired as the pilot. At the time I thought it was the original pilot, but it may have been an episode that used bits from the pilot as flashbacks?

FOX was hoping for something similar to Buffy or had that level of appeal. (Note Buffy wasn't THAT popular - it was always on the brink of cancellation, but it did very well in a certain key demographic 18-35, and was a favorite amongst tv critics. Never in the top of the ratings though. Buffy wasn't as high in the ratings as Supernatural currently is, to give you an idea. ) Firefly didn't even bring in Buffy or Angel numbers...it was at the bottom of the ratings.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'd have to agree with all of the above, at least for the most part. I think...the writers hit a wall. And the last several years has been about the writers attempting to get around it.

Whedon had something to say in Angel, Firefly and I'm guessing Wonder Woman - but the distributors didn't see it as something they could market, sell or want to sell to an audience. I have a similar issue right now - I wrote a book, I want it out there, the publishing folks that I sent it too - doesn't see it as something they can or want to market and sell. I've decided to say screw it, I'll do it myself. (In my defense, the publishing industry's taste isn't necessarily reliable. But this is true for television studio heads and movie studio heads as well.) Whedon, I think, is doing more or less the same thing - he's giving the studios what they want via his minions/family members, while on the sly self-producing the stuff he wants to put out there.
Whether we personally like it or not, may be irrelevant at this point. I don't know.

[shapinglight]

I think you're quite right that BtVS is Mutant Enemy's finest work. As you say, everything about it came together to make it what it is. A real lightning in a bottle effect.

I don't see Whedon and co ever bettering it, and while they can still write entertaining telly, nothing that comes after it is ever as fresh or revelatory.

And many of the tropes established in BtVS have indeed become very stale due to too much repetition.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

As far as the casting goes, I think there's an element of luck too. DB worked out much better than they could have anticipated. AH was a compromise candidate after Joss and the studio wanted different actors.

Joss has made some mistakes in his casting: ED was part of the problem with Dollhouse (which had many other problems too), and I think Summer Glau was wrong for Serenity. Again, I think luck plays a role (heh) here.

I think most of us have only a limited amount of truly original stuff to say. I think Joss used most of that up with Buffy, which is just what he should have done. That, combined with the other factors, made it uniquely successful and brilliant.

[estepheia.livejournal.com]

Interesting essay - thank you for sharing.
Personally, I think that Firefly had a much stronger start than Buffy. I would have liked to see that universe grow. The cast was fabulous - as spot on as the Buffy cast. But I do agree with you that Dollhouse and Shield are sadly lacking.
I always felt that Buffy and Firefly were transgressive. That they dared to be different (AtS always seemed a tad more conventional to me). Shield looks very commercial - I watch it, since I enjoy the Marvel movie franchise and because I like Coulson, but I still find it hard to like most of the other characters. The series has gradually improved, but that does not make it good.

I would love to find a show that I can feel as passionate about as I felt about Buffy, back in the day. A show that makes me desperate to write fanfic or read it. But even though I like a lot of shows, none of them will ever come close to Buffy and Firefly. They don't have the same magic.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think that Firefly had a much stronger start than Buffy.

Not really. Think about it? Firefly was shown out of order. It was ripped apart by the critics and fandom. And it attempted to combine space with old style western which jarred 50% of the audience.

Buffy in stark contrast was shown in order. Actually had a cohesive two-episode start. And was simply about how high school was hell and slaying the monsters of our youth. It grabbed an audience right out of the box - teen girls, and adults who liked tongue in cheek humor. It was also on a smaller network, and on during the 1990s - where there were less options.

Plus, low expectations. The movie was far from stellar.

Firefly ...no one knew what to make of it. Was it a Western or a Space Opera?
Nathan Fillon did not appeal to everyone. And a lot of people had issues with his love interest - who they found offensive. It alienated a lot of the sci-fi fans. And...well the jump between old style Western, and futuristic space opera was jarring.


Not helped by the fact that Firefly had a lot of competition.

I liked Firefly, don't get me wrong, I wanted it to succeed. But I knew three episodes in that it was dead in the water. I was reading the fan boards.
Most of the fans discovered it after the fact on DVD...which is how the movie got made.

No. I don't think from an objective perspective - you can say it had a stronger start. It was cancelled before it aired 13 episodes. Buffy, weirdly, was a mid-season replacement series - with only 13 episodes commissioned. It got picked up immediately after them. And people loved that first season.
Having seen both - I have to say the first season of Buffy was tighter and more cohesive than Firefly...even though I personally enjoyed the first five or six episodes of Firefly more.

[estepheia.livejournal.com]

When I said that for me Firefly had a much stronger start, I meant that it took me only one episode to like the characters. With Buffy it was more of a growing enthusiasm. I enjoyed the first few seasons of Buffy, no doubt about it, but I only became wildly passionate about it during Season 4.

Firefly had a very noticeable dichotomy from the start - a tension between civilization and savagery and a sense that the characters had to pick their path between the extremes. The Western elements totally made sense to me.

I remember the boards back then. People were clinging to the Buffyverse - they did not want a new show back then. They expected to catch up with Firefly later. They expected it to have a long run. There was a sense of saving Firefly until later, when Buffy is gone.

I totally agree with you that Buffy was very unsual and brought a lot of fresh impulses into television. But if I rewatch Buffy, I find the first season tedious, the second entertaining, the third even more entertaining, and so forth. But I can rewatch Firefly again and again, without getting bored. (Okay, I like some episodes better than others, but still... )

Maybe Buffy had more raw energy, but I think Firefly is more focussed.

BUT we can always agree to differ. :)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think what I was trying to get at was why Buffy succeeded and the others didn't.

Firefly unfortunately alienated half its audience right out of the box - by delving into a trope that a lot of people did not like.

The problem with tv shows...is it does not matter if you personally love a show, if other people don't - it's gone.

[atpo-onm.livejournal.com]

A couple of years ago, Bob Dylan was interviewed on 60 Minutes. Of the various (and usually somewhat cryptic) replies he gave the interviewer, the one that was the most honest and revealing was the one where he was asked, "Where did those lyrics come from-- what were your influences, your muse?"

Dylan replied, "I have no idea."

He went on to append that statement, after a short pause, with "I suppose it's from some well of creativity, but I honestly can't say. It just sort of happens."

Now, I'm paraphrasing the above somewhat here, due to memory issues, but the gist of it comes down to "I don't know. It just happens." And I think this is likely the case with a great number of people who are talented in the arts. To the extent of whatever (very moderate) talents I might have for, say, writing or photography, I have no clue how or why I think about or realize what I do. It just happens.

All that is preface to why I think Whedon will likely never have another Buffy, although I agree with the others who posted that Firefly / Serenity came pretty damn close. Nevertheless, and speaking only for myself here, I've found even his lessor efforts at least interesting, and that's still more than many other artists have going for them. ***cough*** George Lucas ***cough***

Now, I'm going to stick my neck out a little with a prediction as to a current TV show that will, if the creative team is left to do their thing, and the show doesn't get cancelled before it truly comes into its own, could very well become the next Buffy, from a from an artistic-respect and discussion-worthy standpoint:

The 100

It's mid-season 2, about to have its winter finale, and I am, officially, addicted to it. Anyone interested in SF genre fiction who isn't yet watching this, get and view the S1 DVD set, and then tune in to the current season next year.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agree with you completely on The 100, did you see my recent posts on it?
That show's blowing me away on the variety of themes its exploring.
It may however be a wee bit too horrific for some folks, Buffy was a little easier to digest. That said it is far and away better than the Walking Dead in some respects.

It messes with my head, and is rather unpredictable. Totally cult, since it is below a lot of people's radar due to the channel it's on.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Can't say I agree with you on Firefly, while I enjoyed Firefly and it had some potential, I recall all too well how it was ripped apart by the fanboards and critics. It did reference the worst of the 1950s Western Trope, War Movie Trope and the Space Opera, alienating sci-fi fans, and western fans. (Lucas did a better of melding those three tropes in Star Wars...).

I can see why it got cancelled - it had a lot of problems grabbing an audience. A good percentage of its fandom discovered it after the fact. During? People were ripping it to shreds or don't you remember some of that on the ATPO board? Quite a few diehard sci-fi and Buffy fans hated that show.

If it had been on Syfy or a cable channel - it may have lasted a bit longer. Whedon's mistake with both it and Dollhouse was in part working with FOX - which tends to be impatient. (Although I doubt he had a choice in the matter - he was under contract with Fox.) But, even if he had a choice, I seriously doubt Firefly ever would have had the success of Buffy - in part because it has limited universal appeal. Most sci-fi fans like their sci-fi hard not easy, and without the bonnets, six-shooters and horses not to mention old 1950s western style prostitutes. It's hard to meld those genres effectively - without annoying fans of both.

You have to be sly about it. Guardians of the Galaxy, Battle Star Galatica v. 2, and Star Wars were all sly about it. Battle Star Galatica version 1 (the 1970s/1980s version) was a bit like Firefly not sly about it...and erred on the side of campy, it got cancelled fast as well. The Wild Wild West sort of got away with it - but it was a 1960 series. Plus it did not help Firefly any that Farscape had just aired, dealt with similar themes, and was sooo much better, not to mention innovative. (I remember people on the ATPO at the time comparing the two - I didn't see Farscape until two years after Firefly had been cancelled.)

The other problem Firefly had...was its themes rubbed people the wrong way, Dollhouse had a similar problem. Whedon was, rather it was intentional or not, a wee bit Ayn Randian in his thematic scope on Firefly. Plus, ahem, it felt at times like Gunsmoke meets Han Solo. Now, I happen to like Gunsmoke and Han Solo, but a lot of people really didn't.

Buffy in stark contrast was a sort of a tongue firmly in cheek send-up of the high-school monster fighting trope. Unlike Firefly, there was nothing like it on tv at the time. Timing is everything. It had less competition - no cable or little of it. And it dealt with a universal theme - high school is hell, and slaying the monsters of our youth.

People identify far more with that - than the themes in Firefly, which are more politically based.

Doing a television series that delves into a socio-economic and religious themes is dicey for a couple of reasons: not everyone shares your views, it's easy to muddle the message, and it's easy to get preachy. (*cough*Aaron Sorkin*cough*). Buffy handled those themes too - but you had to dig a bit for them, they weren't obvious. Firefly shouted them loudly in the audience's ears.

Firefly was in a much harder genre to pull off, Buffy - a hodge-podge of various genres, was mainly the teen horror genre - which is easier to pull of. And a genre that Whedon was far better versed in. He's not really a sci-fi writer - he flails when it comes to the nitty-gritty details and world-building consistency that are required with sci-fi. So his sci-fi comes across as a bit sloppy. Which is okay for an Agents of Shield, but not for a Firefly - that is being directed at the sci-fi audience, who tends to be nit-picky about these sorts of things. Horror is easier - you don't have to be as detailed in your world-building or as consistent. Pulp and cheese sort of go with the territory in horror. I think that may be why Buffy fared better than Firefly...in part the genre it was in, the channel, the universal appeal, and timing.