![[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 03:42 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-12-18 03:38 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-12-18 08:51 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-12-18 11:18 pm (UTC)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.