This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Wasn't that guy dead?"
11972 members | you are not logged in | 04 December 2020


November 17 2008

Is Supernatural as good as Buffy? CliqueClack asks the question and tries to find the answer.

Is it something worth getting into though?
Is it AS good? Probably not. Is it a very good show? Yes! A number of Whedon alums are involved in this show.
Some specifics that caught my eye and made me think of Buffy were some of the crazy, tongue-in-cheek baddies introduced: giant teddy bears, zombies, body-jumping souls, demons; aw, heck, Iím getting nostalgic just writing this one.

The episode with the giant teddy bear (Great episode - very funny!) was written by Ben Edlund, who has written a number of other Supernatural episodes.
*Yawns* Wait, they're seriously asking?

Ok, short answer: Stoopernatural will never live up to Buffy. Sorry.
I gave it a try four years ago, watched the pilot and the first half of the season. The series leaned too heavily on its "monster of the week" formula and didn't give enough season-arc for me to enjoy it. The two leads are cute, but their characters were bland.

Maybe it's wrong of me to judge by the start, as Buffy didn't hit her stride either the very first season. But the characters weren't bland. They and their dialogue were good from the get go.

By the way, I didn't bother to RTFA.
Supernatural has really grown on me the last two seasons, but let's not go comparing it to Buffy here.

Buffy is like a major league sports franchise that wins year after year. Detroit Red Wings, NY Yankees, etc.

Supernatural is like the farm team that can boast a relationship to the all-powerful big club, but in the end, it's not even in the same league.

[ edited by jfhlbuffy on 2008-11-18 06:48 ]
My first impulse was to all: NO!! But then I realized: BtVS is the automatic go-to comparison point means something pretty big. BtVS is the landmark series against which all others are inevitably compared, and that's pretty cool. Just like every online discussion of True Blood seems to reference BtVS, Joss's show is still the gold standard in fantasy/horror/vampire genre shows. Cool.

I've seen season one of Supernatural and spot-checked the second season. It was not bad, but not very compelling, and I felt more like it was a knock-off of The X-Files than BtVS. And I'm easy! I quite like Reaper, for example, for its low-key charm.

[ edited by dottikin on 2008-11-18 06:50 ]
Supernatural isn't as good as Buffy the Vampire Slayer ... the movie.

I suppose it's only natural to compare entertainments from the same genre, but I've decided it bothers me that Buffy's worth is often measured by comparing it only to other fantasy/horror shows. How come nobody ever debates whether Buffy was better than, say, The Sopranos?

By the way, there is one show currently on TV that might be able to touch Buffy in terms of quality ... and it's a friggin' cop drama. Sadly, there are only two episodes left. God, I'm gonna miss The Shield when it's gone.
I think Spernatural is awfully good, but it is no where near is good as Buffy. Right now, the show is striking a good balance between the monster of the week and the season-long arc.
Um...yeah no. Absolutely not.
They are very different shows with similarities, IMHO. And I'm saying this as a huge fan of both shows.
Wow...that list actually made it sound good. I've never seen the show. And I like how this article doesn't stigmatize Buffy.
Why the Supernatural dissing? It is possible to love lots of shows, you know. I think it's a really fun series and now that Buffy is off the air, it is the one show a week that I absolutely can't miss. And this season is the best yet! I will always miss Buffy, Angel and Firefly but I don't mind at all when new shows are compared to old favorites.
I read some of the comments. Without talking about SPN, which I don't watch, I always find the lack of love for Buffy's later seasons depressing. But then my greatest emotional attachment to any series is probably in Buffy seasons 5-6, so.... And the mention of "better lead actors": again, I haven't watched Supernatural, but...while I could see "as good," "better"? Than SMG and Aly and Tony and everyone? Really? Either SPN is THE MOST AMAZING THING EVER or there's just a lack of Buffy love. If it is the former, though, I should start catching up soon!

EDIT: Oh, also, I'm neurotic about my Buffy love. Got to get over that.

[ edited by WilliamTheB on 2008-11-18 07:35 ]
I wasn't impressed by the first episodes of Supernatural, but the show has really grown since then. I think it's the closest thing to Buffy currently on TV: talented leads with great chemistry, great writing (the funniest episodes written by Ben Edlund), engaging mythology, a mixture of dark themes and humour -- and demons.

Supernatural may not be as iconic and innovative as Buffy, but it has enough going for it. The fact that its audience has grown over the years speaks for itself.
Stoopernatural bored me the times I watched it, it's the FANS that annoy me. They can be the most obnoxious fangirls you'll ever meet.
No. But that's not to say Supernatural isn't awesome in its own right. There's a solid dynamic between the two main characters, a very strong overarching story, great universe of supporting characters and a sense of real dread to quite a lot of the episodes. It's a friggin' great show, especially in the latest season where the main arc is very front and centre to pretty much all the stories, and right now Supernatural is one of my favourite shows on TV.
Yes, because using terms like "Stoopernatural" isn't annoying or obnoxious.
I love both Buffy and Supernatural. Both took some investment and time to get into and before i knew it i was hooked so dismissing one out right (as some people have been pointing out) is not fair. Regardless of your feelings for the show please try and be considerate, name calling and generalizations are unfair and seem low from posters of Whedonesque. Also given both Buffy and Supernatural are fringe shows do we really need to divide? Does it need to be pointed out that Buffy went through the same comparisons with the same close minded responses back in the day? Guess so.
Stoopernatural bored me the times I watched it, it's the FANS that annoy me. They can be the most obnoxious fangirls you'll ever meet.

I would refer you to our rules on commenting about other fandoms.
I like Supernatural but the writing, the dialogue, he characters just don't match up to buffy. I can come up with so many memmorable line of dialogue from buffy, not so much for supernatural.
I adore Supernatural and anyone dismissing this show really is not paying attention. At all! There are many Supernatural episodes that are far superior to many Buffy episodes, but as a whole Buffy may be better. Maybe. Angel is definitely better, but only slightly. Those who judge Supernatural by it's first season are just like those that judge Buffy by the movie, misinformed and wrong.
In short, no. It's not as good as "Buffy." Not as good as "Angel." But as far as genre shows, it probably comes as close as "Lost." Which is about as close as you can get. The first season of "Supernatural" was bland enough, but the second, third, and now fourth seasons have really brought a lot of great stuff to the table. So far, it's been the most consistently entertaining show this season.
No. Not to say Supernatural isn't without its charms, I am a fan of the show, but it can't come close to the quality that Buffy reached in its heady days. Also, Supernatural is a fundamentally sexist show.

Jensen Ackles is, however, an unappreciated talent who deserves any acclaim he can get.
I love Buffy and have seen every episode of Supernatural. It isn't as good as Buffy, but it's basically apples and oranges outside of the whole mythological thing. They're both quality shows, and there is no point in comparing the two other than to get upset for no reason.
Those who judge Supernatural by it's first season are just like those that judge Buffy by the movie, misinformed and wrong.

This times eleventy billion. I may be biased, however, since I've only watched up till halfway through season 4 of Buffy. (Buffy and Riley live happily ever after, la la la, I can't hear youuuu!)

Anyway, SPN's story is less about demons and, at its core, more about a close-knit family dealing with their problems. Also, if you don't like classic rock, road trips, or male-centric stories (not anti-female, just a lot of father-son and brother relationship issues), then it's probably not a show you'd want to watch. I happen to like a story that puts emphasis on the kind of family ties that are forged in the fires of war the way theirs was and is. And I think the two leads are incredible actors.

And for the record, I think the sexist issues are more because of the female fanbase being so vocal about disliking the female characters, and some of the show makers tend to say 'how high' when the fanbase tells them to jump -- which is, I think, why Jo started off as one kind of character and then shifted to become a different character and then got taken out of the show entirely. Rabid female fans are a little bit scary in that fandom. And by a little bit I mean a lot.
No. But, in my mind, no show measures up to Buffy. Buffy hit *all* my geek buttons and made me a very satisfied fan. I'm also a fan of Supernatural and I've seen every episode (but I seriously disliked the B&W episode).

I don't think it is fair to compare BVtS & Supernatural. They aren't in the same class. If anything Supernatural is more of a cross between Charmed (random mythology) and X-files (creepy). In the beginning, I only watched Supernatural for the pretty boys, but the creepy, "what the heck" factor sucked me in too. I actually stopped watching it during the first season and then caught up on Netflix.

If you've never seen the show, the brothers have kind of a Mal/Zoe relationship with each other and kind of a Holtz/Justine relationship with their dad. And the monsters are less allegorical and more of a "to do" list. It is a fun show and not a bad way to spend an hour. And, you know, pretty boys.
No, it's not imho.

I watch it regularly and when it's not being overly gory (it get's worse each season) then I enjoy it. Some episodes are really good/funny - Ben Edlund's writing helps.

The main difference is that I haven't wanted to immediately rewatch an episode (or get upset if I miss one). Whereas after a Buffy/Angel ep was broadcast, I could not wait to watch it again. And there was no way I'd ever miss one either.
No, it's not. But it scratches an itch.
Just to add my two euro cents, I've watched Supernatural since it started -- I liked it, it helped a little to fill the voids left by The X-Files and Buffy, but I always viewed it as popcorn TV, a guilty pleasure. But I have to say that of late it's just been getting better and better, and I think pretty much every episode of season four has hit the ball out of the park. Is it as good as Buffy? No, not by a long way in my opinion. But is it worth giving it a try (or a second chance if it didn't grab you first time round)? Yes, very much so.

[Sorry Simon]

[ edited by dzr on 2008-11-18 11:50 ]
Did anyone catch what I said about other fandoms earlier in the thread?
Supernatural isn't as good as Buffy, but it is better than Angel.
Is Supernatural as good as Buffy? Actually, it may well be.

As others have said, going off purely the first season is like judging Buffy by it's own first season, or Farscape, or Stargate, or any other show that took the first year to introduce the basic concept and characters before really getting to the good stuff.

I started from the beginning with Supernatural, the same as I did with Buffy. Funnily enough in both cases it was a case of randomly channel hopping and seeing a show coming up that caught my eye. In the case of BtVS I actually thought it was the movie coming on (didn't even know there was a television show being made at the time) and with Supernatural even though I'd heard of the show I had actually taken very little notice of it, figuring that it was yet another WB one season wonder.

I'll admit that Buffy had me hooked sooner than Supernatural. With Buffy it was literally from episode one and job done. A Buffy fan was born! Supernatural, even though I really enjoyed it from the start, was a slower addiction for me, more akin to how Farscape hooked me. By the end of season one though, I was a massive fan.

And that is saying nothing to how big a fan I am now. the current season has totally blown me away. I won't go into too much detail in case there are UK fans here waiting for ITV2 to begin their run of the new episodes but without saying too much, it's like a whole new show in terms of structure and story. More importantly though, it is a natural progression from all that has gone before. Not a reinvention because they were running out of ideas or because the network wanted a new look but a natural continuation and acceleration of what we already knew was going on.

Truthfully, you need to watch it from the start to appreciate where we are now. In that sense it's just like Buffy. How many times have you heard someone say that they had seen the "odd episode" of Buffy and it did nothing for them or they didn't get it? Didn't you want to tell them that Buffy works best when watched from the beginning so you can really understand the growth of the story and the characters involved? Same goes for Supernatural. Not that I'm saying it will be for everyone (but then neither was Buffy) but I'd definitely say that watching random episodes now and again isn't going to give you any real feel for what the show is about.

And again, back to the main topic of the thread, if Supernatural continues along the lines it has been going into it's fifth (and supposedly final) season, then it very possibly could be as good as Buffy.
Short answer, no, and not even close to belonging in the same league. Qualifier, I only watched the first season and about half of the second. If a show doesn't really grab me by half way into the second season, I'm not sticking with it. It may evolve and get better, but I've never seen a show that didn't have the basic premise and tone well set up, in that amount of time.

Second qualifier, there aren't half a dozen shows in the history of TV as good as BtS, IMO.
BSG, The Sopranos, The Wire, Six Feet Under, Carnivale, (even nipped in the bud). That's about it, for my personal short list.

And yes I loved Angel and Firefly, but I don't feel they ever quite reached the level of Buffy or my other few all-time favorites. Firefly may have, given time, but we'll never know.

[ edited by Shey on 2008-11-18 12:58 ]
I'm amused by those who will judge the show having not watched all four seasons. Supernatural is not Buffy, nor is it X-files, but it draws themes and influences from both.

No, it's not Buffy, but it is it's own really strong series. I feel the show has grown stronger every season and that lies totally with the show runner and writers.

I am disappointed about the fandom smashing seen here though. A)We're Buffy/Angel/Firefly fans - we're on the receiving end of that crap everyday. B)This fanbase does have a 30+ crowd that thoroughly enjoys the show. Don't base the fandom off of the primary fanbase. Again, we're Whedon fans - we should know better.

Thanks, Simon, for the reminder.
I would say that Supernatural is one of the better things on TV at the moment. I'm really enjoying this season, it has had some classic moments. It is not however a Buffy clone, so to compare the two in this way is a little unfair.
Also given both Buffy and Supernatural are fringe shows do we really need to divide?

I don't think it is valid to compare Buffy to Fringe. Has Fringe gotten any better since the pilot episode? I wasn't hooked, and wondering if I should give it a second chance.

Kaiuno: I gave it a try four years ago, watched the pilot and the first half of the season. The series leaned too heavily on its "monster of the week" formula and didn't give enough season-arc for me to enjoy it. The two leads are cute, but their characters were bland.

Same here, dropped out after 5 episodes when it first came on. I wasn't horrified by the horror. I was underwhelmed by the acting from the leads (even though I liked their work on other shows), and felt like I was on a steady highway ride through the Great Plains rather than on a roller-coaster. (Characters acting too "cool" = that really wasn't a threat.) But it sounds like things have changed.
I bought the S1 DVD set and watched it through. I found in entertaining, but not groundbreaking, so for me it was simple escapism. There were no arcs anywhere near that of Buffy, and less humor. But there were also some really creepy episodes, and I mean X-Files kind of creepy. So I thought it was good but not great, and I never did get around to watching the other seasons. Which is not what happened to me with Buffy, or with CSI- when I go thooked, I had to see what happened next. This did not hook me, but I do think it was good TV.
Again, I ask, why can't they just be awesome and something I'm allowed to love without having to put them in the boxing ring together. *sigh*

They are completely different shows. Supernatural does have (or the writers do have) the good sense to pay homage and show a sense of respect to what came before (in books, TV, and movies). I love that about the show.

And, who can't love a show that let Amber Benson be a vampire AND have a giant Teddy Bear that adores Busty Asian Beauties and alcohol. Come on! ;)
No. And I've tried watching Supernatural. No.
No. But. It is good. I think a good show for general viewing because it heavily relies on standalone episodes with a back-story that smartly is pushed to the back when needed but never forgotten (I did get lost a couple of seasons back but found my way back). They did tell some great supernatural stories, and I favour the development of the brothers– some ‘recurring’ characters did grate on the nerves (though that could be blamed on the actors). Jensen is fabulous as Dean, I can’t see anyone playing him – Sam on the other hand, is well-played but I didn’t see anything special of the actor, yet. They do try to mix the horror, drama and comedy – though sometimes the writing fall short.

I can see all of its potential and a lot of it – luckily (so far) it had not headed into a Smallville route with the writing and characterization disarray, IMO. Therefore, I’m still watching and enjoying SN but not SV. And as such, it pains me that James had appeared on the latter but not Supernatural.

Is it anywhere near Buffy? Sadly, no. But it makes for some fun (and sometimes heart-wrenching) viewing nonetheless.

[ edited by Mirage on 2008-11-18 14:43 ]
It's one of the best shows today, however nothing near Buffy

With character names like Azazel and Castiel, I canít help but want to know more about how these guys fit into the story.

Sorry but this was the same I thought when started to see HEX

This season plot like Demi :)
The best of Supernatural more than stands up to the average Buffy. But the best of Buffy pretty much stands alone....

The two shows are too different to make any fair comparison.
I agree with the people who have said "why can't we like both?" But the fact of the matter is, they are both horror-based television series and comparing them IS fair. For the record, I love both.

As far as the "monster of the week" formula of the first season, I agree with that. But that's how Buffy started too, and even when it developed deeper plotlines it was something they came back to (because fighting vampires over and over is dull, which is why Buffy's patrols were never the focus of the show). What I absolutely love about Supernatural is that each and every season gets better, which I felt with Buffy as well (well, up to 6. I loved how 7 wrapped up the story and thought it was a good ending, but 6 was my favorite).

Buffy also had a larger cast. Sure, Buffy was the focus of most of the episodes, but there were TONS of characters to focus on and develop. Supernatural's scope is much smaller. It's really about the two brothers; most other characters are there to develop them (a minor complaint, boy I sort of wish that a female character would stick around for more than a season, if only to balance out my next point).

The major difference between the two is the perspective. On Buffy, most of the major character development is done from a female perspective. Supernatural is told from a male perspective; emotional development is shown but the characters are reluctant to talk about it (I think Dean even says a few lines about not wanting to talk about his feelings in the beginning), until situations become too tense and they HAVE to. Which isn't to say that development doesn't happen. Sort of like Xander's arc in Buffy. He grows and changes (and in some ways fails to and makes mistakes) but being male, it happens in a different way than the rest of the characters.

So, longwinded conclusion: a television series about emotional growth set against a backdrop of monsters with longer underlying plotlines that is aware of itself enough to laugh at itself on a regular basis. That could describe either. They're very different shows, but there is enough similarity that I can see fans of one liking the other.

The fact that I'm a huge Ben Edlund fanboy doesn't hurt.
I don't know that it's as good as Buffy, but I love Supernatural dearly and think it is terribly underrated. The show has heart. I would say it is definitely more than popcorn entertainment (like Charmed or Smallville [sidenote: I'm actually enjoying this season with no Lana to drag it down]). I know sometimes shows just don't click with people. For example, I only watched the pilot of Lost and didn't feel compelled to tune in ever again.

If you like genre shows, you should give Supernatural a chance. It's more than a monster of the week show. If nothing else, check out Ben Edlund's most recent episode. It's fairly standalone for this season and the teddy is great. Plus, Ted Raimi. I've loved him since middle school (Seaquest).
No. I've been watching Supernatural from the beginning, thought it was pretty good in the beginning, but frankly, it's starting to bore me to the point of watching only if I don't have anything better to do. Same with Heroes.
Reading through the thread, I was happy to see that Narse had summed up a few of the points I had kicking in my head. Thanks, Narse!

I'll just briefly throw my support that there are episodes of Supernatural that trump episodes of Buffy. I'll also say that I do think that Supernatural is as good as Angel. All three shows belong in a Top 5, or at least, Top 10 together, for their genre.
Only difference between the Buffy and Supernatural is that Supernatural hasn't had its 'Hush', 'The Body' or 'Once More With Feeling' episode (though, 'Monster Movie' could fall under the 'a very special episode' classification :-). Remove those grand-slams from the Buffy equation and yes, Supernatural is every bit as consistently good as Buffy was.

P.S. 'Monster Movie' was another episode penned by Ben Edlund.
"Heart" (in Season 2, the werewolf ep) kills me.

This is coming from someone who watched a couple episodes in the first season because Amy Acker had a guest spot, then stopped, caught an episode this season, and then bought the DVDs. At first it starts being more X-Files-ish, but it came into its own.

It really is a very good show, with a unique mythology that is ever building. And Season 4 is just taking it to a whole new level.
I'm shocked at the number of people in the thread saying yes. To me its like asking if margarine is better that butter. At a quick glance they look equal but upon taste the answer is clear.
Why shocked, Turokan? Surely, like anything else, it's a matter of personal taste?

I suppose it also has a lot to do with what you require from a show as well. I'm a massive Buffy fan now because when it began the show was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for but these days I'm not entirely certain that I would be so easily hooked. It's still excellent television but maybe not quite the style that I require anymore, whereas Supernatural has much darker tones, less obvious humour (although still incredibly funny in it's own way), characters that I can relate to more closely these days. Generally, and this is entirely my point of view, more obviously adult in style than Buffy or Angel were.

That's not meant as an insult to Buffy, mind you. Just a comment on why it may be that some of us Whedon fans might actually now prefer Supernatural.

And the soundtrack helps too. AC/DC, Sabbath, Kansas. What more could you want? ;)

[ edited by Highlander on 2008-11-18 16:14 ]
I love Supernatural. I've never had any dealins with the Supernatural fandom, but I highly doubt they are any more rabid than Browncoats really are- despite the charges by other people.
I think narse pretty much nailed it on the head about the differences in opportunity for character growth and just the number of characters the show deals with on a regular basis, as well as the perspective being different. There are the brothers and the occassional returning character like Bobby (who is awesome) and Ruby (who I'm still not sure about). But the show has individual episodes and an over all arc, just like Buffy did. Also, they take a lot of urban legends and spin them on their head which is always fun. And this last season has been just been beyond fantastic for me. It's the only show I record on my DVR and not erase after I watch them.
Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that I think SPN is as good, and I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying, as a Buffy fan, I came to really enjoy Supernatural, and it's now the show I probably most look forward to every week (aside from Pushing Daisies).

But I think "good" has to be defined. If "good" is going beyond fun, entertaining characters, stories, monsters and mythology to that "art" place, and using metaphor to explore growing up and personal identity, then no, SPN isn't as good.

But then, it's not trying to go to that art place, so to hold that against it would be wrong. Now, if it was trying to and failing, that'd be something else entirely.

Also, SPN's creator likes and respects Buffy, and has even given a couple in-episode shoutouts. Just thought I'd mention.

[ edited by pat32082 on 2008-11-18 16:36 ]
Only difference between the Buffy and Supernatural is that Supernatural hasn't had its 'Hush', 'The Body' or 'Once More With Feeling' episode (though, 'Monster Movie' could fall under the 'a very special episode' classification :-). Remove those grand-slams from the Buffy equation and yes, Supernatural is every bit as consistently good as Buffy was.

If that's the case, perhaps everyone should tune in to Supernatural this Thursday, as that'll be Episode 10 of Season 4 -- which matches up with the first of your Buffy examples (Hush was 4x10).

Ok, it probably doesn't work that way. But there's still a point there about giving Supernatural a bit of time to have one of those grand slam episodes when it took Joss four seasons to get the first of his. ;) And considering the fact that everyone all around seems to be saying that this is Supernatural's best season yet...well, maybe it can reach that bar that Buffy set.

Unfortunately, I have a lot of catching up to do this season (although this always happens to me): with The Office/30 Rock, Grey's, and CSI, it's a massive battle for what shows to watch/record. Considering that both my wife and I like those three, but only I like Supernatural, that's the one that tends to get pushed off (and I have to watch online).

[ edited by JMaloney on 2008-11-18 16:40 ]
If we're talking about cars, then Supernatural is better. Otherwise, Buffy, but I still enjoy Supernatural.
If the last episode is anything to go by, JMaloney, I'd say that Supernatural's 4x10 may well be just as brilliant, if not quite so "eventy" as Hush was. Can't wait to see it. My only gripe is that it's the final new episode of the show until well into January of next year. :(
Really, Highlander? Crap.
Afraid so, pat32082. At least according to TV Guide.

"Also, SPN's creator likes and respects Buffy, and has even given a couple in-episode shoutouts. Just thought I'd mention."

"What would Buffy do?" ;)
Indeed, indeed. ;-)
TV Guide story is here for anyone who wants a look. Some mild spoilers about an upcoming episode but nothing that would ruin the story.
Buffy, Angel and Firefly are (IMO) in a league of their own. I enjoy Supernatural and it is the one show I look forward to watching every week. I feel it's one of the best shows on TV at this time. The stories are well written (some are heavy on the horror while others are very funny), the lead actors have chemistry with each other and are very likable, the production value on the shows is great. I have the DVDs (not in Blue Ray) and they look fantastic on my plasma TV. For those of you who only saw episodes from season 1, I recommend watching season 2. Although any episode with the Ghost Facers, or Shape Shifter is great.

Supernatural Buffy call out -
Remember WWBD
What would Buffy do... she's so much stronger than me.
IMHO, "Buffy" is better, for many reasons, but I feel that "Supernatural" started as a good show that has really improved over the last two seasons (again, IMHO, they've learned how to tackle their emotional issues better and with more nuance than when they started). I will say that it has one of the most awesome outtakes/gag reel bits I've seen in ages -- anybody check out that Jensen Ackles lip synch of "Eye of the Tiger" on YouTube? Man's got game.
Supernatural is a fantastic show, that gets better every season, but it's not better than Buffy. It's not even on my top 10 list of favorite shows (which Angel and Buffy top).
In my opinion, Buffy had its first grand slam episode long before season 4. The last episode of season 2 "Becoming" absolutely blew me away. Of course, it had the entire season arc leading up to its emotional payoffs, so it's definitely not standalone.

I've only seen the first few eps of Supernatural. It seemed okay, but didn't immediately grab me. I plan on giving it a second look someday (when I find the time).
Oh god no! Thousand times no! In my opinion Supernatural is just infantile one note pap compared to Buffy or Angel I'm afraid.

Yay for those who love it, but it just irritates the hell outta me I'm afraid.

[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2008-11-18 18:13 ]
I don't watch Supernatural, it didn't grab me in the first season, but on the basis of the comments here I'm sure going to give it another chance. :)
I enjoy Supernatural as much as I did Buffy and Angel and I really don't like comparing these shows against each other:I think each series is in a class by itself.

But...if I had to, I'd say that SPN is as good as ATS and that ATS surpassed Btvs.

Just my two cents.
I've been enjoying SPN - it's fun and it's well done.
On that note, I just don't think you can compare it with Buffy though. It's apples and oranges like a few of the politer people said up above. I would rather that Buffy stay in the big leagues where she belongs - with all the other Whedon shows. Where no other shows can compare.
I've never watched the show but going by my well trained fandom eye, Buffy got far more interest from the critics, media and scifi genre press when it was on the air than Supernatural has been getting.
Ok, so I really, really like Supernatural. It's fun, creative, and thought provoking. HOWEVER, it can never reach the depths of my soul that Buffy has. Even though Supernatural lives on my DVR and DVD collection, if i had to choose between setting fire to either my Supernatural DVD Collection or Buffy DVD Collection, I would have to say goodbye to Sam and Dean.

Oh and also I gotta agree with shapenew about the Eye of the Tiger thing... HILARIOUS!

[ edited by montresor on 2008-11-18 18:45 ]

[ edited by montresor on 2008-11-18 18:46 ]
anybody check out that Jensen Ackles lip synch of "Eye of the Tiger" on YouTube? Man's got game.

Kind of off topic, I’ve always loved to see the following act together, but I would settle to hear these guys jamming! James Marsters, Michael Rosenbaum, Jensen Ackles, Christian Kane and (now) Neil Patrick Harris. Great talent and vocals!

[ edited by Mirage on 2008-11-18 18:54 ]
I hate comparing shows. Buffy will always have a special place in my heart, like a first girlfriend.
I realy like Supernatural, and have to give it credit as I think this season (it's 4th) may be it's best yet. Not an easy task.
Maybe the only real way to tell is a quote-off...Quote-OFF! Quote-OFF! (kidding)
I'm a huge Supernatural fan -it is really the only show I look forward to watching every week (until BSG comes back on the air).

I can see why the comparisons between the two shows are there, given that they are both "genre" shows - but I don't know why people get so hung up over saying which one is "better". Define "better". Everyone's definition is going to be different. Is it acting? Is it story? Is it mytharc? Is it characters? Is it pure entertainment value? Is it quality of production? Is it writing? You get the idea.

To bring up the inevitable fruit analogy, it isn't so much comparing apples and oranges, so much as comparing a red delicious with a gala. Both satisfy the apple craving, but both will appeal to slightly different tastes and satisfy slightly different needs.

I won't make any judgement at all about which show is "better". I can't. I enjoy both, and if it came down to choosing whether or not I wanted to watch Buffy or SN at any given time, it would depend on what mood I was in.

The one thing that I have to give SN props for though, is going where Buffy never went. We finally get to see the "other side". And their angels aren't the fuffy cuddly touched-by-an-angel type either!
Very well put, Aurra.
To put it simply...the answer to that questions is a big, fat, resounding NO. Supernatural doesn't even come *CLOSE* to being as good as Buffy.
OneTeV I meant fringe the definition given that both shows are not the mainstream, not the new fox series. Sorry for not clarifying that earlier. I agree with pat32082 Heart episode was very heavy and emotional (especially for someone who watched it the day they broke up with there girlfriend.) Just a side note i watched an interview with Kripke, which he clearly stated he was a fan of the Buffy verse and said and Iím paraphrasing here, In Buffy the general theme was high school is hell we wanted to make our show with the theme family is hell.
SilentKnight, I was just being silly. I should have followed up by agreeing with the point you were making.

MysticSlug: If we're talking about cars, then Supernatural is better.

You are chosing a muscle car, over Spike driving a Winnebago?
This is me also.

I'm one of those people who watched some of SPN first season and it didn't catch me. Friends got me back in middle of second season. It's my main MUST WATCH {with only other being Pushing Daisies} I think this season has put it in my top three shows ever. I can't put them in any order but Buffy, Farscape and SPN hold the top 3 slots.
I'm just copy and pasting this from another forum that has this disccusion.

I think Bufy surpasses Supernatural in my opinion. And I'm not saying this because I'm a hard core Joss Whedon fan, because I love Supernatural as well, it's just for me with Supernatural this whole "angel" arc is starting to get a bit ridiculous. I mean don't get me wrong I love Sam and Dean as much as the next Supernatural fan but the problem with Supernatural is I started to lose interest in the storyline after the second season. Making the story arc last five whole seasons can be insanely risky, especially when you've only got two main characters in the show. It gets boring and you feel as if you've seen that episode before.

Also, so far Supernatural hasn't had any EPIC episodes that can stand on their own. Whereas Buffy has 'Passion', 'Restless', 'The Body', 'The Gift', 'Once More With Feeling', and 'Chosen', just to name a few. With Supernatural you need to watch the other episodes to understand the one after it, whereas Buffy they had a lot of great standalones.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not just bashing Supernatural. Buffy had it's faults. Season six was pretty bad, the Buffy/Spike storyline was equally as disturbing as this seasons Sam/Ruby storyline. Buffy had some cheesy episodes and dialouge, and sometimes you couldn't connect with the actors on the character level. But when it all comes down to it Supernatural has a long way to go before it even reaches Buffy/Angel potential in pop culture or in great episodes.

But you know to be fair you cannot really compare these two fandoms without having a giant freak out of the fans. These shows are both have two different views of Demonology, and I think we all just have to except it and move on.
I highly doubt they are any more rabid than Browncoats really are

Gotta say I disagree - I've seen some appalling stuff posted on LJ and also awful behaviour reported from Conventions (and we're talking worse than that incident with poor Nathan). That said I believe it's a vocal minority. Most of the SPN fans I know are wonderful and funnily enough predominantly Whedon fans too.
Love, love, LOVE Supernatural. This season is particularly amazing. Buffy was my first love, so it's hard for me to compare anything else. But really, I love all my TV babies. I just hate comparing and ranking. I wouldn't watch them if I didn't love them.
I too was really bored by the first season or so of "Supernatural", but a friend enticed me back into watching it again, and I have to say, this season has been amazing. No, maybe not as good as Buffy when Buffy was at its best, but it's at least as good as the first couple of seasons of Buffy. The story arc they've got going, the humor, the bond between the characters... it's become really great storytelling. It's too bad it had such a weak start, because I think it really turned a lot of potential viewers off. what I learned from it is to hang on and give new shows a real chance before writing them off!
Uh, is this a trick question?

Let's see, numquam or should I say nunquam, nequequam ... shall I go on?
I enjoy Supernatural more than I ever did Buffy. The only reason I liked Buffy was for Spike, and they treated him awful. At least with Supernatural I can relax and enjoy the stories and not be frustrated at the end of each episode. Supernatural has a great story and 2 great actors that are equally cute and entertaining. So my answer to the question "Is Supernatural as good as Buffy?" is a big YES.
I can't believe this is even a serious question.

Love the Winchester boys - they've had some good shows; but, come on. Could Supernatural possibly have enough to say for eight seasons, possibly more? I was just lambasting Twilight yesterday in the sense that anyone would dare try to make a comparison between the character Buffy and the teenage girl in the books, now the movie, and a lot of people have tried. Yes, I am an elitist Buffy/Angel snob; gimme my scull, oars, letterman jacket, and Harvard accent luvvy, and shaddup. :>) And while I acknowledge there's room for all art, I have to remain loyal to the rarity of two genre shows that treated my intelligence with respect. Not that Supernatural doesn't, but it is a fish swimming in a different ocean.

Not a criticism, but Spike treated badly? He's only one of the most celebrated and revered characters ever created and nurtured. Is he perfect? Nah. But that's just the way I like him.

[ edited by Tonya J on 2008-11-19 05:21 ]
Nothing is as good as Buffy.
Why choose? I love 'Buffy' bestest of all the shows in the land but I adore 'Supernatural' too, they've both got unique qualities and have had their share of exceptionally good AND yet exceptionally bad episodes. Both have a strong emphasis on family and self reliance, and can take overtly moving moments and flip them with a wry comment.

I started watching SPN early on as they seemed to chasing the disenfranchised 'Buffy' fans by casting Amber and Amy in guest roles. I enjoyed the scripts...and the main characters weren't exactly hard on the eye, either!

I tried for years to get my family into the Whedonverse, and it just never called to them like it did to me. I popped in a SPN episode- BANG- instant hook. I even have tickets for my mother to go to a con in Sydney next year and she couldn't be more pleased, or excited- I created a middle aged fangurl!

So maybe, if you haven't done so, give SPN 40 minutes of your time as you just may be surprised. It probably won't replace 'Buffy' in your affections, but it's a damn sight better than most of what's on the tube nowadays. IMHO.
I like Supernatural, but no show is as good as Buffy- except maybe Firefly, but that doesn't count.
Love the Winchester boys - they've had some good shows; but, come on. Could Supernatural possibly have enough to say for eight seasons, possibly more?

C'mon, Buffy continually re-invented itself as the gang grew older and entered into new parts of their lives. Supernatural has allowed its own characters to grow up and change as events happen to affect them. The Winchester brothers aren't static creations, which is a hallmark of any great show. If anything, I would say that Supernatural is better planned out than Buffy in terms of overall arc. Note, I didn't say Supernatural was better than Buffy, but as I stated above, it's nearly as good.

With the acknowledged irony of the following statement on this site, I think it might help if Joss Whedon walked behind us, whispering in our ear, "I am not a God, I am not a God!" Buffy was not perfect. In fact, especially the first season had some of its stinkers (teacher as giant praying mantis? Wha?), but it did rise above it all in the end. Perhaps this really isn't a discussion that can have a conclusion until Supernatural has its own conclusion, when we can view both series, finished and completed.
"Love the Winchester boys - they've had some good shows; but, come on. Could Supernatural possibly have enough to say for eight seasons, possibly more?"

To be fair, there are a large number of Whedon fans that would tell you that BtVS would have been better off ending with it's fifth season. I'm not one of those people but many would say that the last two years of televised BtVS were two years too much. Probably just as many more that don't even bother to read season eight.

If you think back, the fourth season of BtVS was far from it's most popular year either, with many of the fans disliking the new situation and characters introduced. On the other hand, Supernatural's fourth season is not only a massive success with the established fans but actually gathering a lot of new ones.

Who is to say whether or not Supernatural could go for eight years. Personally I think five will be enough, but that is largely due to the fact I know that is how long Kripke wants it to go and I believe the show creator should dictate the length of the story, rather than the network or the fans. As far as quality goes though, this show is only getting better so I certainly don't think it will be ending on a low.
Diving into this topic that I've basically missed, even if I wouldn't have liked the "better or worse" thing to start with, after a few days of being sick and not online, I still feel like I missed out.

I think I understand most of the comments. I started out hating the idea of the show because (the late) WB executives had it as the replacement for Angel. But the fact that it was at that point part of a trend that had already lost some of its luster, ratings-wise, plus its lackluster start, quality-wise, IMO, really cost it with the critics and overall media attention, in a way that was never made up even when it started being excellent. Plus, though I'll never regret the strike, I think it hit Supernatural at a particularly hard time, when it was finally starting to build momentum off its creative development, and that was delayed too long.

But watch the rest, if you haven't yet. Rocks.
Did anyone watch last night's episode?

Cause I did and I felt the need to reiterate my comment above with a solid yes to the question posed in the topic title.
menomegirl, that last episode made me even more sure that Jensen is meant for GREAT things! Dude broke my heart! This actor went all in, and I just sat there barely breathing afraid to miss out on a single expression in that last scene. Damn.
Yes, it was an excellent performance. I thought the episode was superb. (although I miss the other actress who played Ruby)
Late to the party... To weigh in on the question, I'd have to say no. But I love Supernatural. I missed S1 but somehow got hooked in S2, which was really good. Then they picked up Ben Edlund and every 5th or so episode is brilliant. The aforementioned alcoholic giant teddy bear was holy shit funny. Also props to Padalecki and Ackles (and yeah, Eye of the Tiger, wow).

This thread has been closed for new comments.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.

joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home