You can't really say a tv show like Buffy wasn't written well.
Parts of it were absolutely written terribly. It's not even controversial or difficult to say.
Anything ridiculous would have applied here because it is sci-fi.
That.... does not have to do with what we are saying.
Well no, but you would have to be humble on what you say since you've never been put in his shoes.
Well, they've never been in my shoes either, so they should be humble to me as well? Where does this "humblness" come in in regards to criticism, exactly?
Also, I've read most of the thread and I agree with some things you said, but I still don't get what's the big deal about Joss deciding to bring up money issues during a season. Sure it didn't really make sense considering Spike could have easily stole money or gave the Amarra teasure to Buff, but there's inconsistencies like that in EVERY movie or show out there. You can find them everywhere...
Ok, two things on this, as Icarium and I have already clarified this several times.
1. Focusing on the so called "money issue" misses the forest for the trees. It is an example of a broader point that is the main issue.
2. Assertion by generalization does not a fact make. If you are going to argue that detrimental inconsistencies are everywhere, then please provide examples of them in the various examples we've given when asked.
Oh and I had to ask you... Why do you consider Lost ending to be a total mess? I am one of those who really loved it, it was emotional and gripping. I've checked the websites you peoples have linked and I think these peoples wanted answers to everything, which is ridiculous.
*sigh*
If you read that entire, thousands of words long breakdown Fishbiscuit gave and think her problem was simply "she wanted answers to everything", then I just don't know what to tell you. You simply did not pay attention to what she said. Quite honestly, the "they wanted answers to everything" is an insult that Cuse and Lindelof started amongst fans to try and draw heat away from the fact that they really had no idea where they were going for like... the last season and a half.
The key word in my previous post was "sometimes."
Yes it was. It's a word that allows an arbitrary decision to be placed on when, and where, it is effective. In other words, it over simplified the quote even further. It's tantamount to saying "Good stuff works".
I'm saying based on what Hitchcock accomplished in his work, his words about drama turned out to be true.
This doesn't make any sense. If ones accomplishments determine the veracity of your words, then by this logic, Aristotle should be correct that the earth is the center of the universe cause he was the greatest philosopher of his (and maybe any) time.
His accomplishments give
weight to the words, but they do not, alone, make them true.
Can you maybe explain this more?
The pages of information Icarium and I have written haven't been enough? I mean, why do we need to
constantly reiterate the things we've been saying?
In the first three seasons, just about every single episode is strongly based on real world events that happen to real people in high school. In the first season we have the episode with Amy's mother for example that is basically just a supernatural twist put on an age old situation where a parent lives vicariously through their child (only in this case it was literally). We have an episode that deals with depression and teen suicide, one that focuses on abusive relationships (the Jekyl & Hyde one), the pressure to use steroids to compete in sports, coping with all your friends going to college without you, and the list goes on.
I highlighted an important part of this quote, "supernatural twist". Indeed, the show used such issues by
infusing them with supernatural elements. Once doing so, it changed the nature of these elements in a way as to make them a part of the real world elements. In other words, it wasn't
really about dealing with the real world, it was about further the supernatural elements that were the core of the show.
Take, for example, when Joyce got cancer in season five. Not only had we, the viewers, been so indoctrinated into thinking that the "real" elements of the show must be enhanced by the supernatural, but the Buffy character herself had as well. Her first reaction to her mothers cancer was to be
sure it was the work of the supernatural! And why not? That's what we had been accustomed to.
Of course, that turned out not to be correct in this case, but the line of thinking was there, and that was the point. When the show dealt with the real world, it tried to do so with a "supernatural twist", because that was the construct they had built for their world. Season six tried very, very hard to remove those supernatural elements for the sake of real world story telling.
You could make the argument that the writers failed to do a good job depicting these dilemmas and I would completely agree with you. Hank disappearing off the face of the earth was a tremendous plot hole and certainly contributed to making season 6 bad but the reason that Buffy having to deal with money problems felt poorly conceived wasn't because real world situations don't come up in the Buffyverse.
That is why it was poorly conceived, though. When we were shown real scenarios in the past, they were subservient to the fantasy and supernatural elements of the show that had been established as it's crux and raison d'etre. Season six tried to inverse that without antecedents in that vein. In other words, we were suddenly supposed to grasp that Buffy's real life was more important than the supernatural world we had always been shown to be more important. Without proper definition or structure, it collapsed as a starting point.
In my opinion, if anything, season 6 and certainly afterwards was when the real world started to really be abandoned and the scoobies began to live in a complete fantasy world
I agree with the sentiment behind this comment.
For me (and I know he'd deny this to the death) I think Joss Whedon just didn't care as much after season 5. He'd gotten the money and recognition for Buffy he so (rightly) craved (that was the entire point of the channel change, make no mistake), so he let Marti Noxon take over as showrunner and he started, mentally, moving on to other things and pet projects. I am convinced this is when Firefly was really born (it aired a year later on Fox, actually), this was why he did a musical episode, and he spent more time writing and working on Angel. So, Buffy got sloppy. He tried to right the ship in the last season, but just couldn't pull it off.
And quite frankly, if you can't do that, I'm not sure why you'd like Buffy at all...
Ooo, ooo, ooo I can answer this! I get asked this all the time anyway by Buffy fans who use the word "epic".
See, I enjoyed Buffy when it played out as it was originally intended, a light hearted, cheesy send up of B-horror movie tropes. When the show didn't take itself seriously and instead tried to simply entertain me, it was fantastic. When it tried to do serial drama and social commentary, it came across as inferior to many other offerings.
Most of the bad things that happen this season aren't brought on by mystical forces, they're brought on by people... and that terrifies some viewers... it makes others extremely uncomfortable. Bottom line, that fact rubs people the wrong way, and I'm sorry if it rubs you that way.
Yes, of course. That is what bothers me. I feel icky about bad things being brought on by people... which is why I mentioned
The Wire as my favorite bit of television writing ever.
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about "real world" in the context of this conversation. I can't speak for Ruminator, but for me the point is that certain aspects of the real world were removed from the fiction of Sunnydale. Which is a valid writing choice and one that made the show's premise work actually - had the citizens of Sunnydale not been in wildly implausible comic denial, either everyone would have fled the city or the existence of vampires and demons would have become common knowledge long ago. The problems start when the writers start to sort of turn on and off the level of "reality" in order to suit plot needs. Like if they need Buffy to be extra-depressed, money is a real issue. If they don't money stops to being a problem without any explanation. It's a consistency problem.
Precisely! The inconsistency with the way this things were (or were not) portrayed is the problem. It's not that money was brought up, its that it was brought up and never mentioned before or since. It's very confusing.
And I am tired of the people insinuating that those who don't like S6 don't get it. You hardly ever see people who like S1 or 2 or 5 doing that but somehow it's very common to see with S6. Sorry for the gross generalization but this really annoys me. And not just "you don't get it" but often "you don't get it because...". It's borderline insulting, IMO.
I am right there with you buddy, but trust me, it goes beyond season six and it certainly isn't confined to Buffy alone. As one of the few who watched the show since it's inception, I've run into many cases where I get this kind of gruff brush back when I fail to tow the fan orthodoxy.
When I suggested that the Buffy/Angel arc in season two was cheesy and full of cliches, I was told that I just didn't get romance.
When I suggested that the dramatic weight of Becoming was largely lost once Angel inexplicably returned from Hell a few months afterwards, I was told that I must not like the show very much.
When I suggested that the character of Faith was a walking cliche, I was told I didn't understand women (odd, since the person writing the show was, like me, raised by a teacher mother and was male).
And so on. Just look at this thread. I suggested that a quote from Hitchcock was overly simplistic and didn't do enough to explain drama, I got raked over the coals, then later on we get a comment unabashedly comparing Joss Whedon to
the Bard of Avon. Nothing fans do surprise me anymore.
I was commenting on some things I read in the 8 pages of this thread but not talking to anyone in particular.
No offense but, if you are talking about things you read in this thread, where Icarium and I have been heavily critical of season 6, who else
could you be talking to? If you are going to make a statement like "some of you are crazy", which you did, then it would probably behoove you to be clear as to whom you are speaking about.
What changed about the characters to make you say the writers were "pissing all over them"?
I'll go with my "favorite" example, Xander leaving Anya at the altar. It made
no sense save for the writing teams desire to make sure no one was happy and completely regressed all the forward momentum the character of Xander had made in five years towards becoming a more self confident and aware person.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it was that moment I gave up on the show making sense going forward. It was clear right then that the goal was no longer developed plot, but just to throw a bunch of things together in the hopes of making things stick.
IMO, a good writer shouldn't let slavishly clinging to flawless internal consistency stand in the way of telling a great story.
This only works, though, if we believe that somehow this two things are not dependent upon each other. Which I don't, and I think you will find many who would agree. A good story requires internal consistency, otherwise, it's not that good. Narrative, arc, development, characterization... these things require internal consistency in order to pull them together. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of stuff that happened. Now, just a bunch of stuff that happened can be entertaining (see: Restless), but it isn't a great story without an internal narrative.
