Buffy The Vampire Slayer
- Thread starter Neisha
- Start date
Here is "The Truth According to Histeria":
So.. yeah.
- Sutherland RUINED the movie by refusing to do the written lines (as per Joss Whendon)
- Merrick (as performed by Richard Riehle) was in a flashback in the Season 2 finale of Buffy (paty 1). He had 1 line.
- It's hard tell whether Swanson was any good, as she was lumbered with the movie. However, after 144 epodes, Gellar IS (for better or worse) the definitive Buffy, as Whedon envisaged her.
- The TV is genius. The movie is so bad it make baby Jesus cry.
So.. yeah.
Buffy is SMG's defining role and she is fantastic in it. The TV series was also a lot superior to the movie which I found rather dire, including the girl who plays Buffy in it, not a fan. But the TV series changed my opinion...
Buffy is the only role I've ever seen SMG do a good job.
Buffy is the only role I've ever seen SMG do a good job.
Bethany =)
New member
I never liked her character in the show, I preferred Willow and Xander. But to answer about it being her defining role, it's a shame she had no respect for said role, even going as far as to tell people that she wouldn't answer questions about the role when she attended a single convention (when promoting the grudge), and never attending conventions dedicated to the show as though she was too good for them. The way she quit also stank - publishing an article about how she planned to quit the show to get a big Hollywood career (uh huh, that's really worked out for her hasn't it!) before telling any of the co-stars that this had become her plan!
I think she's good in "I Know What You Did Last Summer", ironically as the blonde girl that gets chased down an alley and murdered (Joss Whedon's premise for Buffy was what if the blonde girl who looks like the classic horror victim actually turns out to be the thing the monsters fear).
Allitrya Hallows
New member
Gellar is so good that she neeRAB a double to do almost everything the Buffy character does, be it fighting or stunts onscreen. And yet Gellar is supposed to have a high ranking in Tai Kwon Do or something like that, a high ranking in sleeping with vampires more like, not killing them as the title says. Kristy Swanson doesn't, she can do cheerleader dancing and other things the role required. It is a pitty we never go to see more of her in the role. Plus Swanson kills vampires she doesn't sleep with the main ones and kill the smaller ones. The Slayer thing goes out the door on that one when Gellar is in the role.
Oh by the way, there is nothing wrong with vampires floating in the air. You are obviously no real vampire movie fan stating such a comment as that, just a little buffy fanatic and that nothing else can be compared to the show or it is "sh**e" as you so nicely put it. Salem's Lot a 1979 movie starring David Soul based on the Stephen King book has vampires floating in it, as they are a part of the super natural and is quite possible for such things to happen. Salem's Lot is ten times better storytelling than Buffy is. The atmosphere (creepiness and horror) was more in tune with what the whole vampire lore is about. Than say the watered down made for youngsters show that Buffy is. That show had one single creepy part in it, one, and that was when Buffy's mum after her funeral as a zombie staggered past the window and buffy was about to open the door to her. That was the only moment close to horror the show had.
Whedon is one over-rated little man. He is adored by teeny boppers worldwide. The buffy character he created turned out to be one two faced little hypocritical girl from season 4 onward. She was more annoying that anything, probably because she was acting like a kid would and they started to aim the shows content at youngsters more and more by making her act like that as if everything should be her way or no way. It was preaching, almost, the way of the teenager at us. That is when the show went down hill and never recovered the glory and class that the first three seasons had. The movie was a little more grittier than the pampered down TV show. And personally I think it was all the better for it.
Oh by the way, there is nothing wrong with vampires floating in the air. You are obviously no real vampire movie fan stating such a comment as that, just a little buffy fanatic and that nothing else can be compared to the show or it is "sh**e" as you so nicely put it. Salem's Lot a 1979 movie starring David Soul based on the Stephen King book has vampires floating in it, as they are a part of the super natural and is quite possible for such things to happen. Salem's Lot is ten times better storytelling than Buffy is. The atmosphere (creepiness and horror) was more in tune with what the whole vampire lore is about. Than say the watered down made for youngsters show that Buffy is. That show had one single creepy part in it, one, and that was when Buffy's mum after her funeral as a zombie staggered past the window and buffy was about to open the door to her. That was the only moment close to horror the show had.
Whedon is one over-rated little man. He is adored by teeny boppers worldwide. The buffy character he created turned out to be one two faced little hypocritical girl from season 4 onward. She was more annoying that anything, probably because she was acting like a kid would and they started to aim the shows content at youngsters more and more by making her act like that as if everything should be her way or no way. It was preaching, almost, the way of the teenager at us. That is when the show went down hill and never recovered the glory and class that the first three seasons had. The movie was a little more grittier than the pampered down TV show. And personally I think it was all the better for it.
Gotta wonder why he did that, Joss can do great stories and characters, but dialogue is where he excells, why would Sutherland refuse to read the bloody script.
Neverthought half the b*ll*x he spoke sounded like Joss.
Did he just think "I'm an experienced actor, no way am I reading some sitcom writer's lines."
Neverthought half the b*ll*x he spoke sounded like Joss.
Did he just think "I'm an experienced actor, no way am I reading some sitcom writer's lines."
Whedon is the subject of an awful lot of high-level critical praise, several Emmy nominations and academic analyses. He has also just been awarded a commendation by feminist group Equality Now. You can call him overrated (and to some he may be), but to equate his critical praise with a "teen " audience is to fundamentally miss what had made him a success.
That is, quite possibly, the maddest thing I have ever read on the subject. The show covered some very dark issues such as domestic abuse, rape and cancer. The movie was... at best ... a bit of daft fluff.
Oh.. and the movie version of Salem's Lot was dreadful.
That is, quite possibly, the maddest thing I have ever read on the subject. The show covered some very dark issues such as domestic abuse, rape and cancer. The movie was... at best ... a bit of daft fluff.
Oh.. and the movie version of Salem's Lot was dreadful.
The teen audience IS the audience that gives him this unbelieveable hype that he doesn't deliver on, unless you are a part of said audience. And hearing about the show and Whedon time and again is tiresome. It turned from a vampire slaying action adventure show to, Dawsons Creek - with vampires.
The show is as I stated above earlier preaching this and that to us about teenage life. And I for one dont like preaching. So call it what you will.
The movie wasn't dreadful, but that doesn't surprise me coming from what looks like a partial buffy supporter. Someone who is siding with a show that basically arse raped the vampire lore - in more ways than one. Peter Cushing for one, would turn in his grave if he saw what that watered down fraggle show has done to the vampire lore.
Salem's Lot lasts around 3 hours, it is a movie that was made for TV and it pisses on the buffy show. But hey, that is only my view on it. What do I know, compared to a buffy fanatic who thinks actual vampire myths and legenRAB that go against the buffy version of things...is wrong (not aimed at anyone in particular but all who it applies to).
The show is as I stated above earlier preaching this and that to us about teenage life. And I for one dont like preaching. So call it what you will.
The movie wasn't dreadful, but that doesn't surprise me coming from what looks like a partial buffy supporter. Someone who is siding with a show that basically arse raped the vampire lore - in more ways than one. Peter Cushing for one, would turn in his grave if he saw what that watered down fraggle show has done to the vampire lore.
Salem's Lot lasts around 3 hours, it is a movie that was made for TV and it pisses on the buffy show. But hey, that is only my view on it. What do I know, compared to a buffy fanatic who thinks actual vampire myths and legenRAB that go against the buffy version of things...is wrong (not aimed at anyone in particular but all who it applies to).
For the record, I'm a 31 year old male history graduate. I think the problem is that you've approached the show expecting it to be something it isn't. The series is deliberately a metaphor from the trials of young adulthood. The 'monsters' themselves are repetitive of this. The show's strength was that it could have had a satisfying episode without having to have any 'monsters' in it at all. If you were looking for a show which is "hero slays vampires" every week, with no levels of characterisation or coherent plotlines, I'd suggest you check out "Blade: The series" - currently showing on Spike TV in America. Although I'd grab it whilst you can - I'd expect something that vapid to be canned pretty soon.
No, I fear it is you that does not understand vampire "lore" - as you seem to have missed the fact that the vampire has historically been a metaphor for the generation in which it was written - a reflection of that society rather than any kind of "rules" as to what a vampire is. In fact, if you look at historical folklore of vampirism, the Eastern European stories tell of people coming back form the grave and doing things like... mending shoes... and housework. Hardly the stuff created by Polidori and Stoker.
In Stoker's vampire (and I assume that is where you draw your idea of what a "lore" is) Dracula is the metaphorical representation of fading aristocracy in the late 19th century Europe. By that definition, he is able to forward his "bloodline" without the messing about with relationships and sex and the suchlike (the vampire had not be sexualised in literature by this point). The word "blood" is used much more figuratively to represent lineage than literally to refer to actual blood in the story. By the same token, Salem's Lot represents the McCarthyite "enemy within" mentality - with implications of America during that period reflected in King's work - the cold war having a very direct effect upon the perception of "horror". This doesn't (to me) seem to be effectively reflected in the movie version.
By that same token Buffy continues that tradition - in the late 90s i swas reflecting a listlessness of the "Generation X" mentality. In this interpretation, the enemy is the "inner demons" and a such this is represented in the show effectively. Not least of which with the usage of grey-areas - where evil is not as black and white as we once thought. All very post cold war and post-modern.
Not at all . I would posit that you know rather little about "myths" of vampirism - as the modern interpretation (as used in Hammer movies, Salem's Lot, Buffy et al) were invented by Polidori and Stoker. Historical "myth" about vampirism bares little to no resemblance to this. Vampires, as we know them in modern culture, are a literary tradition - not a folklore one. As such, Buffy follow that lineage more than adequately.
No, I fear it is you that does not understand vampire "lore" - as you seem to have missed the fact that the vampire has historically been a metaphor for the generation in which it was written - a reflection of that society rather than any kind of "rules" as to what a vampire is. In fact, if you look at historical folklore of vampirism, the Eastern European stories tell of people coming back form the grave and doing things like... mending shoes... and housework. Hardly the stuff created by Polidori and Stoker.
In Stoker's vampire (and I assume that is where you draw your idea of what a "lore" is) Dracula is the metaphorical representation of fading aristocracy in the late 19th century Europe. By that definition, he is able to forward his "bloodline" without the messing about with relationships and sex and the suchlike (the vampire had not be sexualised in literature by this point). The word "blood" is used much more figuratively to represent lineage than literally to refer to actual blood in the story. By the same token, Salem's Lot represents the McCarthyite "enemy within" mentality - with implications of America during that period reflected in King's work - the cold war having a very direct effect upon the perception of "horror". This doesn't (to me) seem to be effectively reflected in the movie version.
By that same token Buffy continues that tradition - in the late 90s i swas reflecting a listlessness of the "Generation X" mentality. In this interpretation, the enemy is the "inner demons" and a such this is represented in the show effectively. Not least of which with the usage of grey-areas - where evil is not as black and white as we once thought. All very post cold war and post-modern.
Not at all . I would posit that you know rather little about "myths" of vampirism - as the modern interpretation (as used in Hammer movies, Salem's Lot, Buffy et al) were invented by Polidori and Stoker. Historical "myth" about vampirism bares little to no resemblance to this. Vampires, as we know them in modern culture, are a literary tradition - not a folklore one. As such, Buffy follow that lineage more than adequately.
That's partly the point. The character Buffy didn't like being the slayer, she had her 'sister' to look after, her mum died and her frienRAB were growing apart from her. After she came back from the dead, she hated being alive. Watch season 6 again, and then maybe you'll get why she was annoying. The musical episode (love it or hate it) explains it all about why Buffy was the way she was from season 5 onwarRAB.
The writers also take the piss out of Buffy on more than one ocassion - season 3 episode 'The Zeppo' shows Zander looking in on an intense conversation between Buffy and Angel that isn't fully shown to the audience, but was typical of the way Buffy acted. That episode was to show what went on away from Buffy 'constantly saving the world'.
Also, in series 7 when Andrew is filming the potentials, he makes references to Buffy's speaches lasting for ages. This shows that the writers are able to take the piss out of their main character, and quite frankly Buffy isn't a very nice character, and this comes across all the way through. It's nothing to do with SMG's acting, it's all to do with the writers' perception of the character.
And I don't think they started to aim the show at a younger audience from series 5 onwarRAB - storylines were darker, there was a lot more death, and more adult issues than in previous series.
The writers also take the piss out of Buffy on more than one ocassion - season 3 episode 'The Zeppo' shows Zander looking in on an intense conversation between Buffy and Angel that isn't fully shown to the audience, but was typical of the way Buffy acted. That episode was to show what went on away from Buffy 'constantly saving the world'.
Also, in series 7 when Andrew is filming the potentials, he makes references to Buffy's speaches lasting for ages. This shows that the writers are able to take the piss out of their main character, and quite frankly Buffy isn't a very nice character, and this comes across all the way through. It's nothing to do with SMG's acting, it's all to do with the writers' perception of the character.
And I don't think they started to aim the show at a younger audience from series 5 onwarRAB - storylines were darker, there was a lot more death, and more adult issues than in previous series.
I love Animals
New member
I think you will find that she was not allowed to do her own stunts or fight scenes. If she had and got injured they would have had to stop filming while she recovered and the insurers would have had to pay out a fortune.
Themilkdude23
New member
Whilst I will be the first to admit that seasons 1-3 were Buffy at it's prime (with a few notable exceptions such as "Restless", "Hush", "The Gift", "Once More with Feeling") you do have to realise that a change in character was inevitable. Think about what happens from season 4 onwarRAB.
Gonna have some kind of effect on a girl.
- You leave school and go to college
- You find out that the sister you thought you had wasn't really your sister and that your mind had been changed to make you think she was
- Your mum dies
- You have to leave college and get a job to support sister
- You die, sacrificing your self to save your sister and the world
- You are pulled back from heaven by well meaning frienRAB
- Father figure (Giles) decides that he has to leave
- You form a relationship with your enemy who then goes on to try and rape you (ok so opinion is divided on exactly who was to blame for this incident)
- Your best friend goes crazy, gets addicted to magic, and turns into Evil Willow
- The First (the biggest bad of all) threatens to destroy everything and all these annoying Potentials turn up and the pressure is on you to solve all their problems.
Gonna have some kind of effect on a girl.
southerncross440
New member
KS was pretty good as Buffy, but SMG was a lot better. I wish there was a Buffy movie with SMG starring.
+I really didnt like Donald Sutherland in Buffy the movie, something about him I dont know what.
+I really didnt like Donald Sutherland in Buffy the movie, something about him I dont know what.
suave_house1983
New member
I didn't much like the movie, and I think the TV series is definately much better. It was weird seeing a Buffy feature that didn't have Xander and Willow though.
As for who makes a better Buffy, that's difficult to answer. Buffy in the movie is a much different character to Buffy from the series, so the role required two completely different approaches. Kristy Swanson seemed to handle her portrayal of Buffy quite well, although as someone else mentioned she didn't get much to test her acting range on. Sarah Michelle Gellar was suited to her version of Buffy in general, but some things seemed a struggle for her to portray.
As for who makes a better Buffy, that's difficult to answer. Buffy in the movie is a much different character to Buffy from the series, so the role required two completely different approaches. Kristy Swanson seemed to handle her portrayal of Buffy quite well, although as someone else mentioned she didn't get much to test her acting range on. Sarah Michelle Gellar was suited to her version of Buffy in general, but some things seemed a struggle for her to portray.