![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWas 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?
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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-12-17 03:36 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-12-17 03:55 am (UTC)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.