Here we go! Go ahead and comment on your personal reactions to the episodes or respond to anything we have said. Remember to keep all comments civil (even in disagreement)! Spoilers (what happens in later seasons) are allowed, so those of you who are getting to know Buffy for the first time, be warned. And we hope you enjoy her as much as we have!
Kate says the pilot holds up remarkably well. The personalities, except for Angel, are well-established. Willow is adorable and smart. Xander is impassioned and funny. (I love his line, while holding Buffy's stake: "The only thing I can think is that you're building a really little fence.") Giles is already dry, baffled by and concerned for Buffy. Not to mention Buffy is already exhibiting both her glib wittiness and future potential angst.
The only personality who doesn't seem "set" is Angel. He comes across as too Mr. Cool-ish. Granted, Angel could be deliberately mocking himself, so Buffy doesn't see how enamored he is (in Angel, we learn that he saw her and felt a desire to help her before they officially met). Still, although Whedon & Company may have known he was going to be a vampire (and there are a number of hints to that end), I don't get the impression they knew exactly what personality Angel would have. Rather, David B. seems to have grown into the part (and man, does he look young!).
Finally, the pilot is remarkably comprehensive. It is a good introduction to the slayer and Hellmouth mythologies without an unwieldy amount of exposition (it helps that Buffy, as a newbie to Sunnydale, has to be introduced to the Hellmouth alongside the viewer). Also, the pilot already introduces the themes of Buffy's loneliness: her desire to be a normal girl versus her calling.
Makes me want to start watching the show from the beginning all over again!
Mike says WOW! For a show nearly 15 years old, this pilot was a breath of fresh air. I kept some notes while watching this through with my wife, Lanae, and a friend of ours (yes, I said notes: Don't judge me!), and I was blown away by how much all three of us actively enjoyed watching the pilot episodes. And my notes, I believe, explain why. While I did write down a couple things about characters, plot devices (example: the dreams! used sparingly, but to great effect through the show), I kept coming back again and again to the dialog. Whedon's dialog is KILLER. Whether Xander is tripping up over talking to Buffy ("Is it just me, or are you becoming a blithering idiot?" Xander: "No, it's not just you...") or Buffy dispensing advice to Willow ("Seize the moment, cause tomorrow you might be dead!"), I had forgotten how sharp the dialog and jokes are throughout the show.
And it was refreshing. This was light, but meaningful, banter between four individuals that would become the closest of friends. And the writing team NAILED it. And then, the actors nailed it. And despite a couple of dated phrases (what's the "sitch"?), it felt as new and original as it did then.
After a glorious hour and a half, the pilot ended, and I was surprised at what I felt: I was happy! Electrified. And nostalgic. I realized that I had missed Buffy and the gang. Hell, I was as homesick for Sunnydale as I am for Maine. And I didn't know how much I had missed them until I finished the pilot. I wanted to pull out the next episode and start watching again from the beginning. Now, the pilot wasn't perfect (I am, of course, guessing here; I noticed almost no imperfections, but I'm sure they're there as sure as I know I'm biased), but watching the pilot was a lot like coming home after a long time away. Sure the house is old, the decorations a little dated, and the plot a little holey, but you're so happy to be back in the place you learned to love and laugh in, along with the people that taught you how, that you honestly don't notice.
Lanae says that even though Buffy really isn't my preferred type of show, the dialogue--such as "What is your childhood trauma?!?!?!?!"--really pulled me in. The jokes and script was really witty and fun.
I also really liked the opening which played on what you thought would happen. Other movies have you ready for the girl to get killed, but then she turns out to be the monster. Very cool twist. I also liked the themes of the show, like how Buffy wanted to be a normal kid; it was good drama and really made the character feel real. There was no cheese or silliness, as opposed to if Buffy wanted to be a hero. She was real, not dancing around and posing like a superhero. And I liked the jokes a lot!!!! There was a lot of really good character development. Buffy reaches out to Willow and inspires her friends.
I really liked Willow as a character, I thought it was great how she started shy and became more confident through the show. I just wish they didn't take her as far as they did (dark witchcraft, lesbianism). But maybe Joss was trying to show how the innocent get corrupted? The show is really interesting and fun despite being out of my normal area of interest. The humor really helps, though, to draw me in and help me become more interested in what's going on. But, the humor and silliness does dispel the reality of the situation a bit, even though there isn't too much reality in vampires! (Note from Mike: Lanae's opinion has been transcribed from a conversation held after we watched the pilot together. While she did want to share her thoughts, she asked me to write it up.)
Friday, June 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I agree that the dialog is what makes Buffy so great! In terms of dated phrases, the only two I didn't get were the references to John Tesh and Debarge (although the reference to Spader was kind of funny; yeah, he didn't always used to be that guy from Boston Legal). All in all, Whedon's contemporary references aren't as distracting as such references get in other shows (it's the difference between making references the reader has to get versus references that add to the dialog but the reader doesn't have to get).
The other thing that amused me about the pilot was the principal. He was very funny, but Snyder is funnier and far more acerbic. Have you ever noticed how often the nice "boss" of a pilot or first season is replaced by a tough "boss" after the pilot or first season? I guess tough "bosses" add more conflict!
There was a bit of the show that was very 90's. For instance, Xander (who seemed to be the oldest of the kids) doesn't remotely look like a teenager. 25 year old teens was a phenomenon common in the 90's. Today, shows seem a little more willing to cast kids that look like kids. Usually. The wardrobe was a bit dated too (but how great is it that Giles, perhaps in the most dated outfit, didn't look dated at all?)
One thing I LOVE about Buffy is that it was one of the first shows to really establish in show continuity. Other shows of the time would seemingly forget the events of the last episode. But for Buffy, if something happened, it happened, and always happened. There would be references to the first season in the last, and everything between.
The End of the episode has always been a favorite for me, with the kids talking about nothing, and Giles predicting the end of the world.
The Last episode of the series recreates this scene again, just before the final battle, and it makes me cry, and laugh, almost every time I see it.
I think the thing I liked was that these are the characters lives, and everything that happened affects them. great stuff.
Another cool note I found about this episode- Xander appears in every episode of the series but one- Conversations with dead people in the last season. He was cut out because they determined there was no one close enough or dramatic enough that he knew who was dead. However, the writers did consider bringing back his friend Jesse from the first episode. But the idea was scrapped.
Despite the continuity of the show, Jesse's death was the one thing I always felt was kind of brushed under the rug. In fact, watching the first episode, he was the only actor in a major role not to continue past the first episode, or to receive a resurrection of some kind (The principle went through most of the season, but alas, no resurrection for him either) Even Luke, the vessel, would come back as another monster villain in season 2!
I always felt a little bad for Jesse, simply because, in a fictional universe where everything is remembered (Darla was only in 4 or 5 episodes of buffy before later being featured heavily in ANGEL) jesse is forgotten. Even The principle is mentioned throughout the series, even getting a mention in a last season. Not so for Jesse. Poor guy.
One last thing- Something I was admired about joss was not only his dedication to continuity, but also how this translated to actors. Joss refused to recast, almost to a fault. If he couldn't get the original actor back for a scene, that scene would be rewritten or dropped. Which made these moments so cool when a character showed up, sometimes just for a second (like amy getting changed human from a rat for 2 seconds before changing back!)
But there are other scenes, like in "Conversations with dead people," where the actor couldn't be reached, and the scene was rewritten without the character. And you know, while I love that episode, I really wish we got to see Tara!
I'm going to cheat a little, and mention Dollhouse. Joss's latest series is alot different from buffy, but Joss came up with a brilliant, plot related, gimmick that allowed him to bring back a character without the actor. The show revolves around downloading and removing memories and personalities. Do you need to talk to that guy that betrayed the cast last season? No problems! Here's his personality disk! Let's put it into one of the characters still here, and shazam! You have a returning character without the actor in a way that makes sense (mostly)!
Sorry I went a little long- I LOVE this show. and I really miss it.
Not to be pedantic, but the first episode of Buffy wasn't the pilot. The pilot has never been aired.
As for the first episode, we watched it just after Christmas (it was a gift) and was pretty good as first episodes go (though the Angel character was really rough.) Whedon clearly spent time more time in rehearsal than is normal (for cost reasons.)
One remarkable thing is that how many cast members they were able to keep for seven seasons (add in Angel and it's even more remarkable.)
I do think the first season overall was a little weak. Despite Whedon's historical revisionism, it's pretty clear that his vision shifted a bit by season two and for the better.
One thing that does annoy me about Whedon is his penchant for creating increasingly larger ensemble casts. Not only does this get his shows canceled for cost reasons, but it makes for increasingly muddled scripts and story lines. Yes, I understand the desire of fans and writers to do this, but it's a temptation best resisted. (I will say that Whedon is better at the large cast balancing act than Noxon, but its still a tendency that has, to one degree or another, negatively affected everything Whedon has done.)
I'd rather strongly disagree that "[Buffy] was one of the first shows to really establish in show continuity." Far from it.
RE: Casting kids
The reason minors are still not being cast very often is three fold. First, the working rules on minors is really restrictive. They can only work so many hours, must have a tutor on the set, can be under the lights for only so long.
Second is the maturity problem. It's hard working with kids. They get easily distracted. They don't always understand the severe financial implications of their actions (or non-actions. Unfortunately a few spoiled adult actors don't seem to understand that either.)
Finally, there is a legal problem. To prevent exploitation of minors, California (and most states) have a law which allows a minor to withdraw their contract at any time, even after the fact. Put a sixteen-year-old in your movie/show and at eighteen they could pull the legal trigger and put your movie/show in a vault.
I had no idea there was a unpiloted pilot! Does anyone know what was in it?
The thing about kids is intriguing. For example, of the three Home Improvement kids, Jonathan Taylor Thomas was far and away the best actor, but he has pretty much disappeared from Hollywood although he still does stuff now and again. The oldest boy is the only one who went on to do consistent work. You see him now and again on CSI-type shows. The youngest went into a band or something. (He also seems to have spent part of his time fighting his parents for his money.)
Where will Daniel Radcliffe really be in ten years?
I think Whedon's solution is the best one: pick a cast that more or less looks the same age, giving an impression of groupiness (although Espenson makes a very funny comment in one commentary about all the HS extras desperately trying to overact in the ONE shot they appear in: give me my chance in Hollywood! But, of course, that's not what the director wants at all).
However, it is a bit disconcerting to watch TV teens, such as athletes, and then go to a real HS football game. You spend the whole time going, "Oooh, look at the cute little boys in their uniforms." I have commented elsewhere that anyone sane would look at Tom Welling and go, "What the heck are you going in High School?! Get out of here!"
Many shows have two pilots- a small, low budget presentation put together to get an "official" pilot shot, and then the "official" pilot.
Buffy was one of these. The first pilot you're referring to, Joe, was the former- a half hour mock up to get clearance to do the show. It was never meant to be aired. Much like the 3 minute "pilot" of angel. While they exist, the are strictly outside of continuity and in many cases are a concentrated version of the pilot script.
So, in my understanding, to call "welcome to the hellmouth" the pilot is correct and proper, and traditional. When I've hung out with other fans, the "unaired pilot" in often referred to as the "original pitch," although "unaired pilot" is an easier concept to grasp.
I did see it, and it's basically the same thing. different willow, different library, but the same jokes (the fence line is in there). I think the plot is more like a regular episode though- if I remember right (and it's been awhile, so I may not be), the guy darla bites becomes a vampire, then attacks the trio in the gym, and buffy kills him, showing off very primitive dusting effects.
As for the comment on in show continuity, I see now that I omitted the phrase "That I had ever seen." Although, to be fair, shows like macgyver, the a-team, and Magnum PI, all very popular shows in the decade just prior to Buffy operated in a very stand alone episode type of way, ignoring previous episodes.
I agree that the first season was not nearly as strong as season 2, which in my mind is truly epic. Two and Three were my favorite seasons, and notwithstanding some great episodes here and there, I feel that in later seasons the show never really matched the quality of those two seasons.
I think it's interesting you took issue on the "25 year old teen" comment, Joe. While I fully understood why Hollywood chooses older actors, I still feel that younger actors are more authentic and believable, and that these days you see shows where the actors appear much younger (10 things I hate about you- the series, Secret life of an American teenager). However, I will not rule out the possibility that they look younger these days because I am getting OLDER.
In the end, I get tired of the why affecting the end product. As a viewer, I shouldn't have to say "Oh, well that was too expensive to do, and I understand that, so I'll happily accept this instead." When safely hidden in my living room, I should be able to selfishly declare "I don't care how much it costs, I want like this!"
but, as for the continuity thing, you are right. There were some contemporary shows, such as X-files, All three 90's Star treks, and Babylon 5, were all shows with strong continuity.
I still feel Buffy's was a little different though, as even Jokes are referenced from one season to another. It was not all plot.
But, I did mean to say: "One thing I LOVE about Buffy is that it was one of the first shows That I had ever watched to really establish in show continuity."
I agree that 2 & 3 were the strongest seasons. At a book group today, we got talking about Buffy, and I was interested in how many of the people there preferred 2 & 3. There was a general feeling that 4 & 5 were "eh" and the season where Buffy got all mopey was a dead loss. I was amazed! Usually I find myself arguing with people who swear by the later seasons (partly because that's when they started watching and partly because they love Spike, and Spike shows up more in the later seasons. "But he wasn't done justice in the later seasons!" I will argue.)
Sorry to those "later season" fans, but very few things top Seasons 2 & 3 (except maybe the Thanksgiving episode. First episode I saw, by the way: thank you, Mike.)
Regarding continuity. In another funny comment from Epsenson (one of their best writers) on Angel, she mentions that it is okay when the writers mess up because the fans will work out the mistake until it makes sense. I do this all the time with Star Trek. Every time something doesn't make sense, I blame it on Star Fleet (stupid bureaucrats).
I used Epsenson's quote in my thesis to show that fans will make a work their own. I think the fascination with fan fiction is to use already developed characters and an already developed world in one's own way. However, I'm a purist; I think fan fiction should stick to the canon events. That's why when I come up with fan fiction ideas, it's always about people off-camera: the guys in the basement at Star Fleet who make all the holographic equipment work, for instance.
Mike, I wasn't taking issue with the 25 year-old comment. I actually agree with you that obviously older actors can be quite distracting, especially when the actors are supposed to be playing less than 17 (Roswell anyone?)
I was simply explaining why this is done, some of the reasons not being commonly known.
Incidentally, to make it even more bizarre, when they did hire an actual teenager, Michelle Trachtenberg, they had her playing three years younger, which was simply unbelievable from both an acting and physical maturity standpoint (to the point where when her grade in school was referenced, it was very jarring.)
Speaking of age, one of the more interesting transformations is Sarah Michelle Gellar. She was 19 when Buffy started filming and did come across as an authentic high school student, though not a sixteen year old [not entirely her fault; her dialog wasn't what a sixteen year old would say either.]
By season 7, she could rarely hide that she was now a mature adult of 25. That she got married around season 6 clearly matured her as well. Unfortunately, Whedon/Noxon didn't leverage this and still had her often, and regrettably, playing a nineteen-year-old.
Contrast this to Cordelia/Charisma Carpenter who Whedon let age like a normal person. Ironically, Carpenter was 27! when she started Buffy, but managed to play 17 astonishingly well (though still not 16, not matter how much everyone wished it to be so.)
Finally, to again be pendatic. Traditionally a "pilot" is the thing you show to execs to get funding, though apparently modern Hollywood usage now calls these "demos" (at least according to Wikipedia.)
What interests me is when pilots are shown and the show is changed by the second episode. (Due to funding cycles, this change sometimes happens around episode six, which is when shows are often officially picked up for a full season or two.
Star Trek is quite notorious for having two pilots, both of which aired in some form. (Even then, the series was reworked to an extent from the second pilot.)
(BTW, the wikipedia article is quite interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_pilot, especially the latter part about spinoffs and failed "backdoor" pilots.)
Ah-ha! I know about Star Trek--at least original Star Trek. The pilot (which didn't use Captain Kirk) was later reused as a two-parter with an inter-spliced court martial hearing--talk about the studio saving money!!
This business about funding: is this why so many shows recently are starting in January, producing half-seasons? Is so incredibly disconcerting to get something like Castle with only 12-15 episodes. Hey, I'm an American! I want my 24 episodes/season!!
Mike's comment about continuity and my comment about Cordelia caused me to think about one big difference from Buffy and Angel.
With the exception of Cordelia and Faith, the characters in Buffy don't really change all that much, which I find rather aggravating by season 7.
However, in Angel, the characters change drastically from beginning to end and do so in a very logical way. To make it more interesting, Faith's change in Buffy is largely due to Angel (and ultimately makes for some excellent episodes in Angel.)
BTW, I include Willow in the "they don't change." Yes, she becomes an evil witch and then good again, but she doesn't mature. She's the same person at the end as she was soon after the beginning.
Buffy shows some maturity in seasons 6 and 7, but its not reflective of a woman who has been The Slayer for at least eight years--she actually gets rather spineless and whiny in season 7.
Worse, while Angel, Spike and Faith (and later Wesley in Angel) go through a genuine angst about their sins, Willow, Andrew and Anya don't--they cry a little and that's it.
Since I'm a stand-alone episode chick (hooray, mystery shows!), I can't comment much on continuity, but I did have some difficulty with the end of Buffy in regards to how the characters matured. Carole and I have actually discussed this in terms of House. On the one hand, core characters need to be kept; on the other hand, the suspension of disbelief gets more and more difficult when characters stick around who shouldn't or would naturally start doing other stuff. House is trying to solve this by keeping everyone around but in different roles. I'm not sure it works.
One of these days I'm going to post about why I think not having Riker leave the Enterprise didn't work but having Dinozzo stay with Gibbs does. Suffice it to say, there has be a REASON for people to stay. On Buffy, High School was the reason, and another reason never really showed up.
I do think it was a pity Angel and Buffy lost their back-to-back spots. I think that did help with pushing the characters forward while reusing characters the fans love. Using Oz, for example, on Buffy and Angel was effective. And of course, Spike on Angel was enormously effective. (One of my favorite cameos, though, was the appearance of Snyder in the dream episode. By the way, X-Files does that whole "throw in a character for two seconds just so you'll remember him later" stuff too: it is very cool.)
Do guys like Angel more than Buffy? I know I got into Buffy because Mike told me about Angel. ("Rm w/a Vu": awesome episode!)
Totally unrelated note: David B. really can't sing. He sings on Bones, and he is SO bad. But he doesn't care. Which is very cool.
I do like Angel a little more, I think. When Buffy started, it was about high school. Angel was about being a twenty something out on your own. While Buffy was about Growing up, Angel was about trying to be grown up.
I thought this worked really well, until buffy tried to move in on Angel's thematic territory by sending the kids to college and beyond, because it just never really did the job angel did in exploring those themes and issues.
Of the later seasons of Buffy, seven is the one I tolerate the most (except for the potentials... man they were annoying). Thinking back, it may be because they moved back to school! Also, this is the season with the most crossover with angel.
I agree, Joe, the Angel ensemble grew and changed far more than the Buffy cast. I wonder a little if this was a by product of angel. Because Angel was already their show about being a grown up, buffy had to kind of tread water, trying to skew young, but stay with the age range of the characters. That would also explain why they didn't do as well as angel when the characters reached the same age.
Actually, I think I have to disagree on willow. I think she matured ALOT in the first 3 seasons, and really grew as a character. In later seasons she continued to change, but as you said, her maturity stayed the same. Willow is really a sore point for me in the show. I really don't agree with the direction they took her.
Speaking of Angel, I think the first 3 seasons are probably the strongest there as well. I find season 4 pretty tedious, and I like five a lot- but the ending of five really annoys me, and probably taints the rest of the season.
BUT- I was able to work out alot of these issues with the comic- Angel: After the fall, which was AMAZING. I'd recommend it, it really does a great job tying up the show. It's an ongoing, so after the first arc it moves on to something else, which isn't nearly as interesting or good, so stick to the first... I think it's the first 18 issues.
also- a word on the buffy season 8 comic- The first arc, "The long road home" is Fantastic! From there... well, blah. Some cool stuff later, especially for the buffy comic fans- there's a Fray crossover that's cool.
Fray was a buffy related comic joss wrote that featured a future slayer who wielded a red and silver axe thingy. Fans of that comic (I was not one at the time) messed their pants when this axe showed up in the final season.
But the season 8 comic wanders and explores a lot of stuff I felt was needless, Like Buffy getting a girlfriend. But, they also resolve Xander and Dracula's relationship. so, yeah. good and bad.
The angel comic was doing really well, but sales plummeted after it was that leaked that the big bad in Buffy was (SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Actually angel in disguise.
Ah well. The books were being done by two separate companies with the rights, so coordination was non existent.
Ok, out of curiosity I checked out more of Buffy season 8- I was happy to learn that Buffy was getting feeling for Xander! Yay! Unfortunately he's way too busy making out with... *GASP* Dawn. EWWWWWWW. So, my advice- skip buffy season 8.
So I'll admit, I was a little worried I wouldn't enjoy Buffy as much as I did back in the day, but it was a refreshing flashback. A lot of wit and I loved the writing in it. Mike did warn me it might be slightly dated, but it really wasn't bad enough to distract me.
All the characters were built well except Angel. It wasn't even that they didn't give any intro for him, I hated how he came off so young. Here you have a vampire who's at least 244 years old and they make him off as some cool 20 year old. Other than that the episodes were great and looking forward to seeing more.
I loved most everything about these two episodes. The only thing that bothered me was the editing. It wasn't constant, however there were several times that the editor either held the shot for too long or didn't hold it for long enough before cutting away (IMO). It is possible that it was due to lack of usable film and they were forced to make strange cuts, however considering the frequency of them It's not likely. I am hoping that as the series goes on that will change, but none the less it is a minor thing and doesn't subtract from the overall experience too much.
The 'dated-ness' of the episodes didn't bother me much, although the skirts were so short that we almost got an up the skirt shot of Cordelia at one point!
While I enjoyed the writing (after all it is Joss Whedon) some of the comments felt a little too awkward in context of the situation. I wonder if this is due to the evolution of acting (it tends to become more realistic over time) or if it was purely the writing. I preferred Whedon's more recent (and unfortunately canceled) project "Dollhouse" in terms of writing but the humor is none the less appreciated and certainly better then most shows out there and I was laughing throughout both episodes.
My favorite character is Willow. Probably due to the fact that I identify with the geeky girl stereotype, but I like to think that it is because Alyson Hannigan does such an amazing acting job. I felt like her character was a tad more believable then the rest and her random comments fit in better with the scene then some others.
Overall I liked the first two episodes and will probably end up watching all the seasons now. :)
I had a thought about Angel. In the long-run, the handling of Angel was superb. I do agree, though, that it was a little lacking in the pilot. I'm wondering if there's some kind of unavoidable problem with male vampires that all writers have to get over: some major hurdle that says that all male vampires have to go through a Edward phase.
Ooooh, I apologize for bringing up Twilight!
But doesn't it seem like an awful lot of male vampires are leather-wearing (or suit-wearing), cosmopolitan, young, hip dudes? It took Whedon to create vampire as absolutely stellar as the hick vampires in Season 2? 3? Otherwise, they all seem to be variations on the Back Street Boys or something.
Angel did become an exception to that stereotype. My favorite Angel line:
"I'm not cheap. I'm just old."
*gasp* the book that shall not be named. You better cross yourself quick, before the lack of a plot line comes to get you!
yes, I agree that Angel's character got better as the series progressed. I wonder if they purposely made him come off so young so the relationship between 16 yr old Buffy and 244 yr old Angel wouldn't be so weird?
Suppose when I thought of Angel's character I pictured or hoped for some one much more like Louis from Interview with the Vampire.
Angel isn't handled poorly only in the first two episodes. Darla and several other vampires are also treated in a goofy, childish, almost comical way. The Darla in later flashbacks and on Angel is NOT the Darla of the first few episodes.
Moreover, the Angel, Darla, Spike, Drusilla group from later seasons ends up way more evil and threatening than than The Master.
From a dramatic perspective, the whole Master thing doesn't work very well, but Big Bad Evil / Giant Conspiracy rarely does.
One of the weirdest things about season one is that The Master only shows up in six of the twelve episodes! He's intent on destroying everything and is in only half the episodes? I suspect that Whedon knew that arc wasn't working, so he wrote The Master out of as many episodes as possible, killed him off and then adjusted Angel's character for season two.
Post a Comment