If the actresses playing Buffy were switched

Z

zobothehobo

Scooby
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
4,320
Age
35
Location
Raleigh, NC
I've been pondering this for a while and I'm wondering... Do you think the movie would have been better if SMG had played Buffy? Would the show have been worse if Kristy Swanson played Buffy? I came across this question while on the IMDb board for the movie when I saw a thread "the preferred Buffy." It honestly hadn't occured to me to compare the two... but my question isn't simply "who's Buffy do you like more?" It's "what do you think would have been the result if the actresses had been switched? If Kristy Swanson was given the TV writing and directing and SMG was given the movie script and *shudders* directing?

**this of course assuming they were both at the right age to play the part at the time. There is like an 8 year age difference in between these two lovely women, so we'd ignore that for the purposes of this discussion**
 
I'm not sure. I think SMG has much more sex appeal, so I think that her portrayal of Buffy had more staying power. Now, I am NOT saying that Kristy isn't beautiful, because she is. It's just that I think the longevity of Sarah's Buffy was due in part to the idea of how attractive she is in a sexy way. Women and girls everywhere wanted to be her, wanted to look like her, and men wanted to be WITH her. Kristy is beautiful in a sweet way, she's more like the girl next door. So if switched the movie would have had the same effect save one exception for me, SMG would have had a much bigger career than Kristy. The show however, I feel would have been canceled way before the season 7...I'm thinking season 4.

Now please guys, I'm not a nutcase, I know that the writing and directing makes all the difference. I am simply saying, these two ladies are not interchangeable. BtVS show would not have been the same at all without SMG or someone with her type of attractiveness. They are both talented, but lets face it...most of us live in places where "sexy" looks will top "cute" looks every single time...almost. I know I hate to be the kind of person who thinks looks matter, but I know we don't live in the kind of world where they don't(for the most part).
And yes, I am aware that Kristy was in Playboy, having a nice body and showing it off, doesn't make you sexy in my book.
 
I don't think SMG would have made that big a difference with the movie. The movie is so tongue-in-cheek and silly. It was the writing and direction that made the movie suck, not so much the actress, I don't think. Kristy Swanson did an ok job playing the role she was given, but if the show had been more like the movie I can promise I never would have became a fan.
 
D
dan k
[No message]
I second what HisMrs says. I think it was just kind of luck. Kristy got the bad end of the bargain in my opinion. I can't say the show would have been as successful I have only seen Kristy in a few things but who knows. I actually always enjoyed some of the other characters more than Buffy at first way more than Buffy and I love Sarah so it might not have made a bunch of difference in my eyes at first, if I saw Kristy first I would probably be used to her.
 
Would the movie been better if Sarah had starred in it? I think that it's pretty safe to say no. An actress in a movie has on the average two hours to establish her interpretation of a character, and as much as we all love Sarah, she's not such a dynamic personality that she could have overcome the movie's poor direction and mediocre script. Neither Rutger Hauer nor Donald Sutherland, both capable and much more experienced actors than either Kristy or Sarah, could do very much with their roles, so I doubt that Sarah would have been able to do any better.

Would the TV show have been any better starring Kristy than it actually was with Sarah in the lead? Certainly, the show would have been much different, simply because Kristy's interpretation would have been totally different, and the series would have had to be tailored to both her acting skills and physical capabilities, primarily for the fight scenes (supposedly, Sarah has a brown belt in Tae Kwon Do, whereas, to the best of my knowledge, Kristy has no martial arts training) but, I've seen actors with little or no martial arts background do passable jobs of faking it. A good fight choreographer could have made the fight scenes work.

Ultimately, I think that the show would have been a better with Kristy than the movie would have been with Sarah, but that's not saying that I believe that the show would have been better, or even as good, with Kristy playing Buffy.
 
BuffyElevated
BuffyElevated
[No message]
I don't think that Sarah playing Buffy in the movie would make some big difference. The movie is not that good, and an actress, no matter how good she is, couldn't change that.
 
I think the movie was a lost cause. I don't know if Meryl Streep could have done anything with it! lol

As for the show, I think it would have been lesser for Sarah's absence. I haven't seen Kirsty in much but I can't say I saw the depth in her that was required for tv Buffy. In fact, didn't Joss say during the Paleyfest that he and Greenwalt used to squee with glee when they realised what SMG could do and in turn the extra scope that gave to the show and the character? With that in mind I feel that Buffy would maybe have been less developed and less emotionally challenging, both as a character and a show if Swanson had taken the role.
 
BuffyElevated
BuffyElevated
[No message]
I don't think the movie was a lost cause at all! The movie had a great (for the time) cast. Luke Perry, Donald Sutherland, Rutger Hauer, Paul Rubens and... Kristy Swanson? Hell, even David Arquette and whats-his-name Root as the principle was funny. So yeah, you put a different actress in the role and the movie would have been better.

I do like the movie Buffy better than the TV Buffy (at least for the season) but I dont think you can really compare the actresses.
 
H
HalloweenRain
I liked the movie too, I know it gets a bad rap, but I saw the movie before the show...
It's hard to picture Kristy Swanson in the show, IMO she was pretty much too old to pull off a teenage cheerleader even in the movie, so that's definitely blocking my view. I agree that SMG would only marginally have improved the movie - it doesn't suck completely, but to me it isn't a good movie by any stretch of the imagination, and it wouldn't magically have become one with Sarah starring in it, either.
 
I've been pondering this for a while and I'm wondering... Do you think the movie would have been better if SMG had played Buffy?
Click to expand...


No. I never had a problem with Kristy Swanson's portrayal of Buffy. I thought she did a pretty good job. And she was at least 23 years old when she portrayed Buffy. SMG was 19 when she began portraying Buffy. That's not a big difference in age. Also, I thought that Swanson did a pretty good job in developing Buffy from a self-involved and shallow teenager to a vampire slayer with compassion. Frankly, she did a lot of work in developing Buffy to the stage she was at the beginning of the series. And although I happen to like the movie a lot, I could see that the real difference between the movie and the TV series was the quality of writing.
 
InsaneMystic said:
it wouldn't magically have become one with Sarah starring in it, either.
Click to expand...
But broham, an actor does make that much of a difference. Think of the unreleased pilot. Think of the chunky Willow as opposed to the Willow we know. You don't think everyone else would have been brought down (or up) to her level.

Actors make a difference.
 
Scobro said:
But broham, an actor does make that much of a difference. Think of the unreleased pilot. Think of the chunky Willow as opposed to the Willow we know. You don't think everyone else would have been brought down (or up) to her level.

Actors make a difference.
Click to expand...
I agree that one actor can make the difference between a good and and a great movie (or, for that matter, a bad and an atrocious one 😛) - but turn a mediocre-at-best flick into a good one? Nope, I don't think so. We'd more likely end up with one of those "I can't believe she accepted that role, her acting was the one saving grace of that mess" moments... we all know movies like that, right? 😉
 
SMG definitely wouldn't have made the movie better. It's so silly, a change in actresses wouldn't have changed much. However, I think the show would definitely have been different without her, though. I can't judge if it had been better or worse, just different. I don't think I've seen Kristy Swanson in any other movie besides the Buffy movie and I don't want to judge her acting and range from just that, lol.
 
Honestly, I have to disagree with what a lot of people are saying.

I think the movie would have been better with SMG. Heck, I think most movies would be better with her as the star. Why? She has so much depth, can portray such a wide range of emotions and go from one to the next in just a second. She can tell a story with her eyes alone--when you look at her you truly feel something.
Now, I think Kristy Swanson is fine and she did a good job doing what she was basically asked to do. But I think if the script was totally identical, Sarah would have brought depth and maturity to it that Kristy couldn't. Even in season 1 of the show when Buffy is like, totally wiggin' during her first year in, like, Sunnydale, she's so much more than just a valley girl. The look in her eyes when she tells Giles "Way sure." The intensity is there already.

Look at old videos of her as Kendall Hart. She was just a kid in that role (starting at age 15!) and she could make the blood in your veins turn to ice. She could make your heart melt for her. So if she'd been Buffy around the same time? No doubt she would have taken the campy feel of the movie and brought something extra to it. She's just that kind of an artist.

So, the movie would have certainly been more enjoyable, for me at least, with Sarah's wide range of emotions behind the role.
 
P
prophecygrrl
I've never seen Kristy Swanson in the role, but agreed on how amazing Sarah is!
Gum Gnome33 said:
Honestly, I have to disagree with what a lot of people are saying.

I think the movie would have been better with SMG. Heck, I think most movies would be better with her as the star. Why? She has so much depth, can portray such a wide range of emotions and go from one to the next in just a second. She can tell a story with her eyes alone--when you look at her you truly feel something.
Now, I think Kristy Swanson is fine and she did a good job doing what she was basically asked to do. But I think if the script was totally identical, Sarah would have brought depth and maturity to it that Kristy couldn't. Even in season 1 of the show when Buffy is like, totally wiggin' during her first year in, like, Sunnydale, she's so much more than just a valley girl. The look in her eyes when she tells Giles "Way sure." The intensity is there already.

Look at old videos of her as Kendall Hart. She was just a kid in that role (starting at age 15!) and she could make the blood in your veins turn to ice. She could make your heart melt for her. So if she'd been Buffy around the same time? No doubt she would have taken the campy feel of the movie and brought something extra to it. She's just that kind of an artist.

So, the movie would have certainly been more enjoyable, for me at least, with Sarah's wide range of emotions behind the role.
Click to expand...


I thought Kristy did bring depth and maturity to the role . . . especially as Buffy's character developed during the movie. Which is why I disagree with you.
 
What I said is that Sarah could bring something to it that Kristy couldn't. They're completely different actors with different styles and ranges. That's all I'm saying.
 
Gum Gnome33 said:
What I said is that Sarah could bring something to it that Kristy couldn't. They're completely different actors with different styles and ranges. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...


And perhaps Swanson brought something to the role that SMG never did. I'm sorry, but although the two have different acting styles, I have been more than satisfied with both of their performances.
 
LadyLavinia said:
And perhaps Swanson brought something to the role that SMG never did. I'm sorry, but although the two have different acting styles, I have been more than satisfied with both of their performances.
Click to expand...

I agree. As much as I love SMG (and I'm sure she would have done the move justice) I think Kristy Swanson did a good job in it as Buffy. She certainly brought something to the role (I wouldn't have wanted her in the series but that's mostly because the series is too closely linked to SMG in my head) and I don't think SMG would have done a better job with the movie or lifted it in anyway.

It wasn't Swanson who was the weakness of that production in my eyes...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom