February 23 2006
When supporting characters save shows.
The author includes 'Buffy' on her list of shows where she preferred the supporting characters to the main one.
This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
Also, Season 2. In "Becoming" she shows she will do anything to fulfill her role, even kill the man she loves. It's such an act of sacrifice, signifying that her personal dreams will always take a backseat to her destiny... I've never empathized with her more that when she walked away from the school and got on that bus.
But I would agree that to a great extent, she "owned" the Slayer role so well in later seasons that it was harder to feel for her (with notable exceptions, such as in OMWF).
jam2 | February 23, 02:26 CET
ZachsMind | February 23, 02:34 CET
rockchalkwatcher | February 23, 02:38 CET
Berry | February 23, 02:38 CET
And to think I enjoyed your Bushwhacked commentary... ;)
Grounded | February 23, 02:41 CET
*I should note that hubby telling me stories about Angel actually got me started, but I didn't drown in it until Spike...
Rogue Slayer | February 23, 02:42 CET
Simon | February 23, 02:47 CET
I haven't read the article, but me too :)
Grounded | February 23, 02:51 CET
alien lanes | February 23, 03:01 CET
[ edited by dashboardprophet on 2006-02-23 01:02 ]
alien lanes | February 23, 03:01 CET
(Side note: the author of this article has interviewed Joss in the past - profiling him and "Once More with Feeling" for Emmy magazine a few years back. Sadly, even an interview in Emmy magazine didn't lead to an Emmy nod for him!)
crossoverman | February 23, 03:07 CET
Now, originally, I grew a dislike to Buffy. However, upon rewatching (I haven't seen most of these episodes for many years) - I actually like the character now. In fact, I like her probably more than the others.
Also, I've grown to spot SMG's acting skills.
So, in summary: looking back, Buffy good. I can relate to Mrs Summers. But we all know I like
Amber BensonTara best.gossi | February 23, 03:16 CET
Calledon | February 23, 03:18 CET
No, I disagree. There were always elements of Buffy that we could empathize with - that was a big point of the show, was it not? The "ordinary" girl who feels different, excluded, who gravitates to other outsiders? Sure she had super-powers, but she was so vulnerable in other ways, and she yearned so much to be just like everyone else. I warmed to that instantly (and to Xander and Willow and Giles too). SMG's non-pareil portrayal didn't hurt either.
Some leads are stoic and stable: Buffy was vivid, flakey at times, and usually vivacious (at least until she started getting beat up by life toward the end). My favorite character, from 1 to 144.
SoddingNancyTribe | February 23, 03:26 CET
spikeylover | February 23, 03:33 CET
By season four she's really beat down. Episode The Freshman is perhaps one of the lead role's lowest ebbs ever, and here is where her ensemble supporting players really start to open up like a lotus blossom. I mean she had an okay core support team in the high school years but college really opens up variables. By the opening episode of season six we got an acting troupe so impressive they can carry the episode with SMG just playing robot.
ZachsMind | February 23, 03:33 CET
And Gossi, I hope you're not watching BtVS on Sky? They edit so much out that I find their episodes almost unwatchable. Get the DVDs!
zz9 | February 23, 03:35 CET
And ZachsMind, I tend to disagree with you here and there, but about Season Six we're in total accord.
SangChaud | February 23, 03:41 CET
Melisande | February 23, 03:42 CET
Related to the topic though, I think it's hard to say supporting characters "save" a show. The way I see it, if you don't like the main character, you are going to have a bitch of a time liking the show at all. However, if you take Tru Calling for instance, I guess it makes sense. I liked Tru alright, but my Harrison and Davis love really got me hooked. If that's what the author is getting at, then I guess I do agree (hope no one picked up on my contradictions...)
[ edited by MySerenity on 2006-02-23 01:55 ]
MySerenity | February 23, 03:53 CET
Her ongoing struggle to be part of life was endlessly fascinating, whether she was winning or losing. Yes, sometimes I didn't like her much and I preferred following someone else's story but I always came back to her. Well, except in Season 7. Her speeches drove me crazy.
Lioness | February 23, 04:09 CET
Christopher | February 23, 04:13 CET
What? After years of Spike using other people at playthings, to have someone use him? Turnabout not fair play? How more could a slayer slay this particular vampire? It was a fate worse than undeath.
I thought that was brilliant writing, and some of Marsters best acting throughout the series. When she admits to him and to herself she's been using him and can't do it anymore? Great work there!
ZachsMind | February 23, 04:17 CET
Firefly Flanatic | February 23, 04:19 CET
I think "unrelatable" is the key word as for why some people don't like early Buffy as a character in the early seasons, and others don't like her during the later seasons. Being in high school myself, I find the character of Buffy much more relatable during the first three seasons (although I do find Buffy interesting as a character even later on).
But regardles of how much I liked the character at various points in the series, I think SMG did a great job of evolving her acting throughout the series to fit Buffy's growth from a teenager into an adult. All of the actors did, actually, which is part of why I think the series works so well. Compare this to a series like Smallvill in which none of the actors or characters have evolved at all from season 1 to season 5.
vampire dan | February 23, 04:27 CET
[ edited by risingwaves on 2008-06-02 01:52 ]
risingwaves | February 23, 04:29 CET
I think some fans had hoped the hero of the show wouldn't behave like a soulless thing.
And I didn't really hate Buffy, I just found her unsympathetic. But I don't have to sympathize with a character to be entertained and drawn in. And I liked Buffy's journey, it felt pretty real for what she was going through. I just didn't always like her. Just like I don't always like people in real life, but I can still respect them, or even grow to like them later.
Rogue Slayer | February 23, 04:33 CET
In my experience, people loved the ensemble for most of the show's run, but only in the last two seasons did opinions begin to polarise. I'm sure some of my friends only kept watching for Spike.
crossoverman | February 23, 04:49 CET
killinj | February 23, 04:52 CET
I think Buffy has as similar love/hate relationship for her modern audiences that Everyman had for his back in the 1400s.
ZachsMind | February 23, 04:54 CET
Was she my favourite character? Nope, that would be Spike. Did i always agree with her choices? Not in the least! Sometimes she was unfair, selfish, even mean, but then again sometimes so am i! Give me the power of a slayer and i'd imagine that i'd still occasionally do things that others won't like.
When i was at school and college i was fortunate enough to walk that fine line between the popular crowd and the nerd squad. I was intelligent enough to be in the majority of the high level classes yet good enough at sports and attractive enough so that my brain didn't get in the way of me having a hot girlfriend or getting to go to all the good parties. By the way, this isn't me blowing my own trumpet. I do have a point to make, honest! ;)
That point being that i understood Buffy's difficulty in finding her place in the world. Belonging to two social groups but not entirely fitting in either. Having her loyalty to her friends and her responsibilities in life sometimes get in the way of being the person she believed she was meant to be. When Buffy decided to go up against Cordy for homecoming queen i totally understood where she was coming from. Okay, not so much with the homecoming queen part exactly but certainly with wanting to prove something to herself. That she still could cut it in the popular world. It may have seemed superficial or lame to some people but it made sense to me, given who she had been prior to being the slayer.
I can almost understand why some of the fanbase find Buffy an unsympathetic character and hard to identify with but for me she is, and probably always will be, the most realistic teen superhero i know. The issues some people have with her are ironically exactly what made me love her so much.
Having said all that, the supporting characters on all three of the Whedon shows were just as important in making them the success that they have become. I can't imagine the series without the likes of Willow, Xander, Cordy, Wesley, Jayne or Wash. As much as i loved Buffy, Angel and Mal i can't argue that all three series were far more than the lead character. That fact may be true for many series, from Farscape to 24, but when it comes to shows created by Joss Whedon the term "supporting character" generally translates to "another lead character who just doesn't happen to have the show named after them but is just as important to the story anyway". It's just that "supporting character" is way quicker to say! :)
Buffysmglover | February 23, 05:57 CET
It's also funny that I always thought that maybe my issue with the character was that I didn't like SMG, but that I have come to have a great admiration for her performances and how she handled the character.
Still, Buffy can annoy me. But, of course, she's meant to sometimes. There are two scenes that really stand out to me that address this and also perfectly exemplify why I think the show is so amazing--one is the argument with Xander when Riley is leaving and the other is her duel with Willow at the end of season 6. I just absolutely love the way the show can have two people argue and have both of them make good points with neither being wrong. I mean, everything she says to Willow is absolutely true but, come on, "Buffy, you really need to have every square inch of your ass kicked," was absolutely true, in a sense, from Willow's perspective. Even though I had finally come to like the character by then, and I of course sided with her in the battle, I did cheer a little bit when Willow said it.
marmoset | February 23, 06:09 CET
Then I actually watched an episode on FX. Then I couldn't stop watching them. Then I started watching Angel and then Firefly came on. Then I started embarrassing myself by using Buffy slang or references in conversations.
It isn't any particular character that makes it or breaks it for me on a Whedon creation. It is the dynamics and interaction. It is the dialogue and the way that Joss can make every single character matter to the story and every single word spoken or expression hold volumes of meaning. If you want to find it. I love my towering stacks but I wallow in whedon. I am a figurative pig in metaphor mud way down in allegory alley. I am onomatopoeian on the leg of conventional entertainment and I am driving with a suspended artistic license.
DejaThoris | February 23, 07:21 CET
That said, I have never straight-out disliked any Buffy character, including Buffy, because I empathise with them far too much. I feel like my emotions are a puppet and Joss is the puppet master. Not that it's a bad thing, of course..
non sequitur | February 23, 07:24 CET
Which is why I never get why people can side with one or the other in that argument - or even the earlier one between Buffy and Riley. Those arguments are so well written, so well balanced and in character that it's a pleasure to watch.
crossoverman | February 23, 07:25 CET
[Zach takes off his glasses and wipes them clean with a handkerchief.]
I honestly don't know what you mean by that.
[Zach puts his glasses back on and stands there with a stolid poker face.]
ZachsMind | February 23, 07:29 CET
Still mine, too. I generally liked Buffy, but not always - and I think that was the way it was supposed to be. Our heroes (and antiheroes) were never perfect, which is what made them so great. While it's true there were characters I liked better than Buffy, most of the characters would not have worked as well without her.
Nebula1400 | February 23, 07:50 CET
As for Buffy, she was never the real reason I watched the show. I watched, and experienced the show, through Willow, and I find her arc far more compelling than Buffy- Buffy started out as the Slayer and ended up as one of the slayers; Willow started out as a nerd and ended up a goddess- and along the way fell in love with the character I came to care most about, Tara, whom I felt has never really been given the props she deserves.
Dana5140 | February 23, 08:11 CET
As far as Buffy the character, I was always back and forth with her, sometimes I hated her, sometimes I loved her. But that's what made the show interesting in a way, she had different levels, she changed, she grew, she had her moments. But she didn't always *make* the show. There are some great Buffy moments but there are also great Giles ones, Xander ones, WIllow ones etc.
nna_funk | February 23, 08:31 CET
My Buffy love definitely started out as physical attraction, but when she started to suffer and die (and date people other than me) I grew to appreciate her story. I especially loved her post season 5. I love the idea that she was sucked out of perfect bliss, and how Spike was her only refuge. I loved where that loss took her character.
But yeah above all else, Wesley is my absolute favorite. Without a doubt. He embodies everything I love about the darkness of Joss Whedon's stories: the loss of everything (Watcherhood first, then Angel and his new family, then Fred (it still stings)) and the strength of character to keep fighting when everyone is against you. He became so dark. I loved the dark places that the characters went to and I loved the eventual redemptions in whatever form they came.
So yeah. Conclusion: Wesley is the best Whedon character EVER, and let's all admit it.. he carried both series singlehandedly so I don't even consider him a supporting a character. =p
Awkward Saw | February 23, 08:51 CET
Buffy started out as the one and only Slayer and didn't want the responsibility. She grew and shared her power with others (the Scoobies and the Potentials, metaphorically and actually) and was able to accept her position in the world finally.
I'd say Willow went through way more changes in the series, but I wouldn't say her arc was that much more compelling.
crossoverman | February 23, 09:06 CET
kmb99 | February 23, 09:22 CET
haranguesessays--on all you poor people.I thought that was brilliant writing, and some of Marsters best acting throughout the series. When she admits to him and to herself she's been using him and can't do it anymore? Great work there.
With you all the way on that!
SangChaud | February 23, 09:49 CET
PS Just wanted to add that the supporting cast rocked and made the stories so much more rich and compelling.
[ edited by cookie_dough on 2006-02-23 07:57 ]
cookie_dough | February 23, 09:56 CET
Elliott | February 23, 10:02 CET
Ginny | February 23, 10:55 CET
In Firefly, I equally like all the characters...
Le Comitι | February 23, 11:43 CET
Excusez moi. En Francais, je suis tres, tres rouille.
Feel free to correct. Again, apologies for the errors. Wesley did indeed have an incredible arc. And I miss him. Aw, hell, I miss them all so very much.
SangChaud | February 23, 12:32 CET
As far as ANGEL goes, beginning with Season 3 it's all about the Wes. That's what kept me glued to ANGEL. I like Angel--like him a lot, I'm a big Bangel 'shipper. But! As far as the show goes, Wes develops into the most interesting character to me.
FIRELY--Mal. But again, I also wanted to see and get to know each and every one of those people.
I see two testaments in this thread to the talents and genius of Joss and Co. 1) All the people who don't even like the main character in BUFFY yet are still big fans of the show and 2) the amount of "supporting" characters Joss et. al. can create and make every single one of them interesting and compelling. At least they were to me. I can't get enough of any of them!
Except the Immortal. I hate him.
batmarlowe | February 23, 13:07 CET
For me that is exactly the Key.
Rush no1 was the thrill of seeing the episodes for the first time. When you had unwrapped the DVD and saw the plots unfold, Spikes reappearance, dark willow etc. And the characters hits me on an emotional and uncritical level. For example the grief in The Body, the annoyance at Buffys treatment of Reilly and Spike, bad Angel.
Rush no2 is hearing the commentaries explain the huge amount of things I had completely missed. Thereby giving me a very clear perception of my unability ( is that a word?)to understand other peoples motives and drives. And thereby initializting my own analysis of what was really going on.
I have most of the time been extremely annoyed with Buffy the character, but very soon I understood why. It is the annoyance I often feel towards my sister (whom I love dearly) and sometimes towards myself ( whom I am trying to love):
" I care to much to see you behave like that. I want you to know better !"
But the more annoyed I have felt, the more my respect for SMG the actor have grown.
Today my appreciation of BtVS is completely different but definately greater. I credit this to Joss, the actors and you all in the black.
onesnailshort | February 23, 13:24 CET
rockchalkwatcher | February 23, 13:44 CET
I'm with these guys. I liked Buffy herself less and less in seasons 6 and 7 - I'm also a Spike fan, so that may have coloured it. But she was always a compelling and interesting character - I can't think of anyone I like all the time in real life either. She was always human, always plausible, always beautifully acted.
Mehitabel | February 23, 14:19 CET
I always liked Buffy the character tho' Buffy the person was sometimes a bit annoying (but always for understandable reasons - if we were mates in real life it'd be 'she's going through a bad patch and needs help' rather than 'she's gone off the rails and is now dead to me, better get my Tom Petty CDs back off her'). For a character to sometimes disappoint you as a viewer or do things you don't agree with while still holding your attention and having you ultimately rooting for them is the mark of greatness, IMO.
I think, as some have mentioned, one of Joss's strengths is that you're really behind whoever's episode it is and for that ep. you totally see them as the hero. If it's a big Buffy episode (e.g. 'The Gift') then Buffy is without a doubt the hero. During 'The Zeppo' it's totally Xander. This also applies across shows so that 'Sanctuary' in AtS S1 has Angel being totally right (and vindicated by Faith's decision to confess), then later in BtVS, he's apologetic (even tho', IMO, he was bang on in what he said) since clearly Buffy is the hero of her own show.
Agree with the Wes love as well. He had, for me, the most compelling arc of any supporting 'verse character and I was ecstatic (in the sad and unhappy kind of way ;) when the creators had the courage to round his arc off in the way most consistent with his character, as a glorious and magnificent failure.
Saje | February 23, 14:23 CET
Lince | February 23, 15:26 CET
sethsky | February 23, 16:22 CET
Spike, however, was always my favorite from the first moment he appeared, and I think it is a huge credit to Marster's phenomenal portrayal of this character that kept me hooked. I think I actually 'lived to see what was going to happen to Spike next'....
There have been other shows where I prefer the supporting characters as well, but Spike just added so much to BTVS and to Angel as well ...he made all the other characters stories more interesting...at least IMHO.
kathylovesspike | February 23, 16:40 CET
I never really saw her as accepting her position in the world and basically she did to all the other girls what the Watchers did to her - gave them powers and responsibility they may not have wanted. If anything, I thought she saw it as a way to free herself so she'd have time to have that "normal" life she'd been wanting. Although, I don't think it worked out that way.
killinj | February 23, 17:36 CET
With that said, there's really no wrong or right here. It all falls in the way you looked upon the show. The best description I've ever heard about BtVS was that it was layered like an onion. I think Joss even said once that if 12 fans sat down and watched a show together, in the end, you would have 12 different opinions. And he loved it, that was the plan. He wanted people to actually think about what they were watching.
So this writer didn't care for Buffy until season five. An opinion. Some fans didn't care for (insert character/season here). Again, just another opinion. And that's another aspect that I loved about BtVS and rooms just as Whedonesque. The opportunity to discuss our different views. Always interesting.
Now, let me say my piece on Willow.......;)
Madhatter | February 23, 17:52 CET
As to the main discussion, I too am a Spike fan, and there was a time when I really disliked Buffy herself. But being able to watch her story unfold without commercials or weeks in-between stories has made me far more sympathetic. That happened with Dawn too; I loathed her the first time around but grew to care about her character in later viewings.
It is interesting how many shows put the viewer in a position of preferring the supporting characters to the lead. And I think this often happens because the lead is not given enough human foibles. For instance, on "Smallville," give me Lex and his struggle over Clark's anyday. What Joss did with BtVS (imo) was to walk a fine line between having a HERO and having a heroic, but falliable, lead. In that, I think Buffy was far more like Capt. Kirk than like Clark Kent. You can love Buffy or Kirk because of their flaws, not just in spite of them. It also gives the actor something 'meatier' to play.
It is rare to have a show where you like the lead as much as or even more than the supporting players. But as I was watching Tuesday's "Boston Legal" I was actually thinking to myself how much I appreciate not only Alan Shore (the lead) but Denny, Shirley, and Paul as well. Not one of them is flawless, and not one of them is always right, but many times you can see their point of view and sympathize just as you can with Whedon's characters.
With respect to "Angel" I have to agree with those who feel Wes was the heart and soul of that series. Angel himself was just never as interesting to me as those around him.
Miss Edith | February 23, 18:38 CET
I think part of the problem with lead characters in general (I don't think Buffy falls into this category) is that it's hard to strike the balance between making the show itself about them and making everything in the world of the show about them. If you do the latter, they come off as self-centered and absorbed. To me, the archetypal example of this is Carrie in Sex and the City - it always felt like the other girls were revolving around her axis.
I do, however, think that Buffy resisted this temptation very well except, perhaps, during parts of season 7.
gilraen | February 23, 18:44 CET
cmbackshane | February 23, 19:37 CET
For me, though, I was always a Buffy fan. I wouldn't necessarily say she was my favorite character on the show that fell to Spike and to Willow in the early seasons, and I was also a big fan of Giles but she was ultimately the one I cared about most, and who I trusted to get everyone out of whatever dire situation they were in. I think, sometimes, we take the hero for granted, which is maybe why we're drawn to the peripheral characters more. Buffy is a little harder to relate to, because she has fewer flaws and has extra-human powers, but she's still, ultimately, the center of a show that would cave in without her. I ached for her during Prophecy Girl, and Becoming, and the Prom, and the Gift, and so many other times, and trusted her to do the right thing. But it didn't make her the person I would most want to hang out with, or who was the most fun.
The only time I actively started to dislike her on the show was during the self-righteous speeches of Season 7, and I hated the writers for making me feel that way about her. Even then, I was furious at the rest of the gang for kicking her out of her own house and forgetting the many times she'd saved them. And I was so glad to have the four core scoobies, being themselves, back for the finale.
acp | February 23, 19:42 CET
Ilana | February 23, 19:50 CET
I see what you're saying; for me, though, the brilliance of Buffy's character was that she showed how little those external things (beauty, intelligence, strength) matter when you're struggling under the weight and pressure of your own and other's expectations and when you haven't found a center within yourself. But you're right - probably the real brilliance of the show is that we can all plausibly have so many interpretations. :-)
gilraen | February 23, 20:07 CET
ACP, I think you said it best... Willow was my favorite, but I cared about Buffy the most.
And on a side note - I completely disagree with the author about Veronica Mars. I find Kristen Bell and her character to be increasingly static/annoying, and would never watch for her alone, whereas Logan and other characters keep me coming back for more.
bravegal | February 23, 20:12 CET
Interesting, I didn't get that at all. I always felt like the first impression she made on people was as a cute, bouncy cheerleader - and that was what part of her wanted to be but that her abilities put her far out of reach of it and created a deep loneliness and outsider-feeling that she could never quite get beyond. Prophecy Girl was the first perfect embodiment of that. And that was why the finale, and her smile, were such a perfect end to the series for the first time, she wasn't alone. And I felt like that loneliness, that other-ness, had been a running theme through the whole show.
Even in high school, Buffy was never in an in-crowd that fell more to Cordelia and her friends because no one outside of the Scoobies understood her, and they were all a bit weirded out by her. That's why the award at the prom was such a surprise, but even that was more a token of respect and gratitude than affection or friendship.
But, as you say, part of the brilliance of the show is that we all have such different interpretations :-)
acp | February 23, 20:28 CET
Buffy wasn't my favorite character on BTVS, (Spike was) but as I said, she was an interesting character study. My problem may be that she was impossible to understand and relate to at times (as were ALL the Scoobies, IMO), and frankly, none of them were saints by a long shot. Strangely, of the two top of the line series, BTVS is my favorite and I think it's due largely to the fact that the actors were so perfect for the parts and Gellar/Marsters chemistry was so incredibly huge, no matter what was going on..
With ATS, I completely loved that the demons and one vampire hunter (who was fighting his own demons) were the ones left at the end of both series.. They were truly the unforgiven and I adored those four with everything in me.
[ edited by spikeylover on 2006-02-23 19:16 ]
spikeylover | February 23, 20:44 CET
ChosenGuy317 | February 23, 22:14 CET
Like has been said, she was the Slayer, so she was used to the lonely existence. Acting once others (Giles and the gang) researched her the whys and wherefores. Her role as instructor was something thrust upon her shoulders by Giles, and it was rather unfair I thought, because as the one remaining Watcher (i.e. trainer of Slayers), he should have shared the burden with her.
But all he did was add to it, telling her that she had to make the hard decisions, that people were counting on her, that fun couldn't be had because it was a dire situation. So I lay some of blame for Buffy's attitude at Giles' feet, because she trusted his counsel, and followed along the best she knew how.
Because you notice, once she told him off after he went behind her back with Spike, she was action girl again. Fed up, she took the girls to the vineyard. It blew up in her face, true, but she turned out to be right in the end.
I always got the feeling that Giles was being extra hard with her in S7, because after the wayward year that was S6, he came back and essentially overparented. I understood where he was coming from, but it was the first time Giles really ticked me off.
pat32082 | February 23, 22:32 CET
DejaThoris | February 23, 05:21 CET
Deja Thoris, Wallower of Mars?
I love your post. I made that same journey. Who knew that fateful day at Best Video when I picked up the oddly beckoning box that I had passed by so many times before, I was embarked on the Whedon way. Life has never been the same.
barboo | February 23, 22:41 CET
Funny. I have that same complaint about Angel in season one. Spike in season two. Then Buffy shoulda staked Faith in season three, Riley in season four, Glory in season five, all three of the geeks with a very large spoon in season six (cuz it'd hurt morrrrr!) and then she shoulda staked Anya in season seven and married Xander.
But that's just me.
ZachsMind | February 23, 22:43 CET
acp | February 23, 22:48 CET
ChosenGuy317 | February 23, 23:19 CET
Madhatter | February 23, 23:20 CET
I loved Xander...the days leading up to Chosen I was literally sick to my stomach in fear that Xander might die.
Chris inVirginia | February 23, 23:27 CET
ChosenGuy317 | February 23, 23:35 CET
Would totally agree with this. That said, I'd want to keep Nick Brendon around for a (possible) Buffy movie - that actor deserves a big screen. Give it 5 years, and I really do think one of the things Joss should start tossing around is a Buffy movie - a lot of that cast are geninue movie stars.
gossi | February 23, 23:41 CET
So here we go again...
Buffy the Vampire Slayer has always been my LEAST favorite of Joss' shows. Which still puts it lightyears above and beyond anything else on television (or anywhere else for that matter), but just the same, BtVS comes in a solid third place in the Whedonverse television popularity contest for me. Now to be clear, I watched every single episode from Day One and, for the most part loved them all. I give BtVS all appropriate respect and adulation for being what it is/was and creating the world that it did. But when Angel showed up it quickly proved to be the superior show (in my opinion), even through all of it's growing pains and first season stumblings. I STILL watched the parent series, and often enjoyed it more than Angel. But even at those times I recognized that the spin-off was the story I was destined to care so much more about. There's any number of reasons for that...
But that's not what we're actually discussing, is it? Well, not exactly. What we ARE discussing is the appeal of lead characters versus "supporting" characters. So... Buffy Summers? Hated her. Throughout the entire series run my feelings towards her ranged from mild interest at best to outright loathing at worst. She occasionally earned my sympathies, and I did cheer for her and worry about her from time to time. But far more often than not I found myself annoyed to the point of my SKIN crawling. She was rarely someone that I could empathize with. Initially I bought into her "poor me" life as the Chosen One. But for seven years her attitude did nothing but deteriorate. And worse, every two or three episodes she would have some kind of "epiphany" where she ostensibly learned a valuable lesson about life and how to treat other people, only to have that little development completely disappear a week later... many times to be followed by ANOTHER "epiphany" about the very same thing. I quickly stopped caring about what life lessons Buffy was learning because I knew she'd forget all about it by the next episode.
It was ALWAYS her so-called supporting cast that held my attention. But even they fell apart by degrees as the series wore on. In particular Xander became an obnoxious, judgemental bastard by the last couple of years. For my part one of the most interesting and captivating aspects of the series was the idea of watching this cast of social misfits and outcasts creating their own "family" with each other and learning to get through life even while being cut off from the rest of "normal" society. I mean there were countless times when we were meant to sympathize with one of the Scoobies because of the way they were segregated for being "different". Xander was a "loser", Willow a "nerd", Buffy was "weird", etc. But it didn't take long for Buffy and her friends, newly secure in their own "In Crowd", to begin treating anyone not in their Scooby Gang in precisely the same demeaning, ostracising manner in which they had been treated in high school. In other words we no longer sympathized with them for being picked on outcasts because they began picking on OTHER outcasts in turn.
Not admirable behavior in my eyes. And it's not like it was part of a learning curve for them. It was never resolved, never even really addressed. Which means it was apparently acceptable, possibly even "understandable". Only not so much.
Back to Buffy, her appearance on the Angel season one episode "Sanctuary" epitomizes my opinions of her. I'm fully aware that the lead protagonist of each series is entitled (even required) to be cast in the better light when appearing in their own given series (i.e. Buffy gets to be "right" on Buffy while Angel gets to be "right" on Angel), and that doubtless colored the way Buffy was represented in that episode. Nevertheless, her arrogant, childish and uncompromising attitude there is EXACTLY the way that I have ALWAYS thought of her.
Also, her decision to break the Slayer rules and empower all the worlds Potentials at the end of Buffy season seven struck me as hypocritical to say the least. We'd spent seven years listening to her piss and moan about how she never ASKED to be the Slayer, and there had been more than one rape metaphors made about how the decision had been forced upon her. So the denouement of the series then turns out to be her making that choice for thousands of other young women? Granted, we find out later that apparently there's a new Watcher's Council going around trying to find all these poor girls and help them deal with the change... a bit late, but what the heck, at least poor Buffy Anne Summers gets to feel more "normal" now and not be the ONLY Chosen One.
(And at least on Angel we got to see some negative repercussions to that very questionable decision in the form of psycho Slayer Dana.)
Okay, that was all ranting. I apologize. The point (as much as I ever have one) is that the "supporting" cast is often AS important, many times MORE important to me than the so-called "star" of a show. That was certainly true of BtVS, and to a lesser degree on Angel (Wesley is my favorite Whedon character of all time). Firefly redefines the term "supporting cast" as I find it difficult to identify Mal as THE "star". That was the truest example of an ensemble show I can think of.
[ edited by Haunt on 2006-02-23 21:44 ]
Haunt | February 23, 23:42 CET
Um... not sure I understand the defensiveness, haunt. A good chunk of this thread is posts by Whedonesquers who feel the same way you do about Buffy maybe not quite as extreme, but people who also dislike her, or dislike her in certain seasons, or feel much more empathy for the supporting cast. I think you're making a me-against-the-rest situation where none exists.
For my part, I feel differently (see above), but, as I said, to me that's part of the beauty of this show: it can attract so many different people who all love the show, but for different reasons, and who react totally differently to the various characters, episodes, plots, etc. I also see all three of Joss's shows as the epitome of ensembles, where the supporting characters were generally every bit as important as the leads, and the notion of "family" was redefined as the friends you make for yourself.
I do agree with your point that some of the supporting cast on BtVS deteriorated in the final seasons I always adored both Xander and Willow, but found them both more grating, for different reasons, in the final two seasons (though I still loved them). Still, BtVS will always remain my favorite of the Jossverse, perhaps in part because it was my first television love (obsession?).
I was surprised by your characterization of the transfer of slayer powers in Chosen as hypocritical. I thought the reason Buffy had always felt burdened by being a slayer was because she was alone. It was a burden and a responsiblity that she alone could understand, and it weighed on her heavily. By endowing every potential with slayer powers, she gave them the ability to stand up to injustice and fight back, without that overwhelming loneliness. None of those girls will have the burden of being the only one who has to save the world, but they'll have the ability to do so. I saw it as an empowerment thing, that fit perfectly with BtVS's brand of feminism, that ended Buffy's lonely ordeal, and that was a fitting metaphorical cap of the series.
But again, we all have different interpretations just one of the things I love about both the show and its fans. :-)
acp | February 24, 00:05 CET
I see your point, but she asked the potentials that were there to make a choice, and the point was that since there were now many other Slayers then the girls could choose whether or not to follow their calling. They didn't have to be slayers. Before the spell that Willow performed they didn't have that option, they were going to be slayers no matter what and if they didn't in fact become the slayer they were still going to be burdened with training and the such because of the "just in case factor". Buffy made it so that they had a choice in the matter.
ChosenGuy317 | February 24, 00:07 CET
And I'd also like to thank you for taking the time to explain your interpretation of of the slayer power transfer. I confess I have never gotten far enough past my own take on it to think of it in the terms you describe. It seems likely that your explanation is the one that the writers INTENDED, because frankly I've always been puzzled what message was being sent with that.
However, as rational and reasonable as your interpretation is, I still disagree. Even assuming that was the writers' intent, and granting that perhaps that was Buffy's intent as well, I don't believe that ultimately is the most complete or accurate interpretation of the final results. It's a nice "positive spin" to put on it, but in the end I think the situation that occured with Dana in 'Damage' is a much more realistic glimpse of what Buffy REALLY did with her decision.
I'm grateful for the fresh (to me) perspective though. Thanks. :)
ETA: To follow up briefly to ChosenGuy317, I don't believe that every single one of those Potentials would ultimately have been gathered up and trained by the Watcher's Council. For one thing, there WAS no Council anymore thanks to the First. Perhaps there would have been again eventually, but even at it's height I'm not convinced that the Council found or chose to train every single Potential from ever last nook and cranny of the world.
But let's assume for the sake of argument that they DID find AND collect them all. Those Potentials would have received training in the use of their very gradually developing powers and abilities. What Buffy did was instantly bring all of them "up to speed" all at once, with no explanation, preparation or training. Dana from the Angel episode 'Damage' may have been an extreme example given her already fragile mental state at the time of her empowerment, but it couldn't possibly have been an isolated incident. Certainly there are other Potentials out there with less than stable mental states. In fact it's probable that some (many?) of the Potentials that were suddenly empowered were something less than MORALLY stable. Faith (another of my all-time favorite Whedon characters) gives us a small glimpse at what a morally questionable girl with superpowers is capable of. Imagine dozens or hundreds of them running around.
The new Watcher's Council that Andrew talks about are likely more about cleaning up the mess Buffy has created than they are about gathering new Slayers to train in the proper use of their powers.
But I suppose it's all left to our imaginations... until such time as Joss gives us the REAL continuing story. *shrug*
[ edited by Haunt on 2006-02-23 22:29 ]
Haunt | February 24, 00:17 CET
ChosenGuy317 pretty much already summed up my opinion here but i have to say how much i also disagree with the above comment.
All Buffy did (well, with the help of Willow anyway) was to activate the power of the slayer in all the potentials around the world. The concept of the "Chosen One" no longer comes into it. She didn't ask any of them to fight evil, stop an apocalypse or guard a hellmouth. All that they have to do is now live with the increased physical abilities that come from being a slayer and do with them whatever they wish. 99% of those girls would probably live out their lives exactly as they would have done previously, but now with the bonus of having this supernatural power to take care of themselves and their loved ones. Hardly what i would call a massive burden.
Buffysmglover | February 24, 00:21 CET
Except that one of those slayer powers that have now been activated happens to be a shared psychic experience. All those girls now have access to the collective memories and experiences of all the slayers that have come before. In most cases that manifests as dreams/nightmares, but it's likely that some experience it a bit more vividly.
See also my comments above about what it means to suddenly have hundreds of superpowered adolescent girls running around.
And why is it okay for Buffy to make even that "positive" a decision for all those girls? It shouldn't matter that what Buffy did is decide to give all these girls superpowers. The point SHOULD be that BUFFY made that decision and the girls (most of them at least, not including the tiny fraction of Potentials that were there with her to give their consent) had no say in the matter. It doesn't matter that the choice granted them superpowers and doesn't force them to do anything in particular with them. It matters that it wasn't their choice to make.
Anyway, this isn't really the point of this thread and I don't want to be responsible for "hijacking" the topic. Obviously I have a problem with that particular plot point that most other fans didn't/don't. Fair enough.
[ edited by Haunt on 2006-02-23 22:36 ]
Haunt | February 24, 00:33 CET
I agree: I don't think that Buffy felt a huge burden because she had those powers; she felt a burden because she was the only one that had those powers, and thus it was her responsibility to use those powers to save the world whenever world-saving was needed. But as Haunt pointed out, her decision to give everyone powers could have harmful consequences in certain cases, as in Dana's. I don't think she really had time to think about that when she made the decision to give Slayer power to all the Potentials, since she was kind of in a rush to save the world again. But if there ever are any canon Buffy stories in the future, I think it would interesting to see Buffy deal with the consequences of her decision and wonder if she made a mistake giving Slayer power to hundreds of girls.
vampire dan | February 24, 00:44 CET
Whilst i won't disagree that there may be unfortunate consequences to her choice (such as what we saw with Dana), i think it's a little unfair to suggest that she did what she did in order to take the burden of being the slayer off her own shoulders. She activated all the potentials in order to stop the First, not to stop being the Chosen One.
I think any unforseen side effects, such as the odd psycho slayer here and there, is slightly preferable to having the ultimate evil rule over earth for all time, don't you? ;)
Buffysmglover | February 24, 00:57 CET
I agree. I don't think it was an easy, or a black-and-white decision, and I was glad the Angel writers showed us some of the potentially harmful effects of it with Dana. I'm sure there are others as well, though my guess is that the vast majority of consequences will be positive ones. As haunt says, Buffy made the decision for those girls, which is always problematic. For me, the extenuating circumstances here were: a) they were in an all-out battle to save the world, and this seemed their best hope. If it didn't work, chances were everyone - potentials, non-potentials, men and women would die. They had no way of knowing what the amulet would do. b) There was no way to ask the thousands of potentials what they wanted, so Buffy had to make the best guess of what that was and chances were most would be happy for the empowerment. As evidenced by c) All those potentials who were gathered and training did get a say in the decision, and agreed with it.
But again, that isn't to say it was easy or perfect or black-and-white, and Dana was an excellent example of how it could go wrong. I was glad they acknowledged that, and I'm glad it wasn't a perfect solution, as those rarely exist. Instead it was as most decisions are imperfect, but the best they could do. I agreed with it and found it inspiring; haunt and, I'm sure, many others didn't. It's good debate fodder.
acp | February 24, 01:04 CET
I agree. It absolutely was a hard situation that demanded a hard decision. True enough.
However, many of Buffy's hard decisions have had just the slightest tinge of selfishness. The most shining example for me (aside from the one we've been discussing) is her death at the end of 'The Gift'. That scene, indeed that entire episode, was touching and poignant. I don't deny that. But even as I enjoyed the story and maybe even cried a little bit (mostly for her FRIENDS' pain, not so much for hers I admit), I couldn't help but feel just the tiniest bit of "that was a pretty convenient suicide opportunity for poor, put-upon Buffy, wasn't it?"
*sigh* I suppose ultimately my impressions of Buffy Summers would be that she was a nice girl that was forced into a pretty horrible life and ended up dealing with that by becoming a bitter and obnoxious young woman. Realistic maybe, but not my favorite storyline.
And somehow, even though the character of Angel was most DEFINITELY flawed and made his own fair share of poor decisions during the course of his series, he never ever annoyed me NEARLY as much as Buffy did. Not sure why that is. I'm sure someone somewhere will tell me I'm being sexist. I'm not, but there it is...
Haunt | February 24, 01:07 CET
That's certainly one take, which you're perfectly entitled to. My chief response is, wow, if you think Buffy is bitter and obnoxious, you must associate with much nicer and better-rounded people than I do!
She had her moments - and so did Xander, Willow, Giles, Faith, Spike, Angel, etc. Was Buffy really the only character who was ever unlikeable? We feel it more because, back to the thread topic, she was the "main" character, but surely she wasn't the only one? At least, I never felt so.
SoddingNancyTribe | February 24, 01:18 CET
Miss Edith | February 24, 01:22 CET
I couldn't agree more, SNT. Bitter and obnoxious? Not the Buffy i saw.
Ultimately though, Haunt, you are of course entitled to your opinion and i've no doubt that any decision you saw Buffy make will be coloured for you by your prior take on her character. Where you saw Buffy making a decision that could ruin the lives of girls all around the world i saw a heroic young woman doing everything she could to prevent an impending apocalypse that could well have brought about the end of the world as they knew it. Funny how one action can bring about such radically different viewpoints.
Buffysmglover | February 24, 01:30 CET
Even though I liked Buffy as a character more than you did, Haunt, I admit that I found her annoying at times, whereas, like you, I liked Angel as a character even when he made much worse decisions than Buffy. I think the reason for this is that Angel's motivations for his acting badly were always explained, whereas sometimes when Buffy made bad decisions, I didn't feel like understood why she had done so.
vampire dan | February 24, 01:35 CET
Although I do think Giles was kind of harder to like at certain times in season seven, his motivation and out of character actions were kind of frustrating. And honestly I kind of got a little disinterested in Spike occasionally because he seemed to get over exposed (often literally!) whilst characters like Xander and Anya were overlooked.
I do think the lack of a sympathetic main character can really blight some shows. Smallville, for example. I have always been interested in watching Lex, Lionel, Chloe and hopefully I will enjoy watching James Marsters on it too. Clark is as dull as dishwater, and both Tom Welling and Kristen Kreuk are hopeless actors and fail to produce any chemistry or any sense of being a believable or likeable character. Unfortunately when the show focuses too much on their on/off romance it suffers.
The OC suffers similarly. Ryan and Marissa are the least interesting couple on TV. I also think Mischa Barton is more of a clothes horse than an actress. But the ridiculous number of times they have broken up and then got back together again is too high to count. Even Seth and Summer have commented on it. And those two are probably the best reason to watch The OC. Luckily they don't have a constantly changing relationship, fraught with drama at every turn, but they're still much funnier and more likeable than Ryan and Marissa.
Seth's parents Kirsten and Sandy also have a fairly stable relationship which is much more believable and interesting than that of the teenagers on the show. And of course Melinda Clarke, as Julie (who played Nandi in Firefly's "Heart of Gold") steals almost every scene she is in, treading the fine line between ridiculous soap opera and drama very carefully, and is very engaging to watch.
Alias is one show that has an amazing ensemble cast, and so many great characters, that it would be easy to watch it for the supporting characters- however instead of the numerous Tom Welling and Mischa Barton types, we have Jennifer Garner as the lead character, someone who manages to do everything required of a difficult role, whether it be intense drama, stunts and fighting, or simply breaking into a building to steal some dangerous item using only a wig and what looks like lipstick. Somehow she manages to hold her own against some amazing actors such as Ron Rifkin and Victor Garber, and anchor the show with a sympathetic and strong lead character.
That's how I felt Sarah Michelle Gellar did. Buffy always felt more of an ensemble show than Angel, and I think somehow every actor managed to make their character a vital part of the show. With Angel, obviously it started off with a much slimmer cast which required David Boreanaz to really hold much of the weight of the show, which he did terrifically, however in time we also saw people like Charisma, Alexis and Amy grow as actors and become incredibly important parts of the show.
Firefly was definitely an ensemble piece however I also think Nathan Fillion was holding the show together, and as is mentioned in the Serenity DVD special features, Nathan was Mal. He acted as a leader both in and out of character. I think the whole cast of Firefly got the chance to shine in both the series and movie, although the movie was obviously slightly more focused on Mal and River, but I dearly hope we will get to see in the future the new dynamics of the crew, and see how their relationships and characters evolve.
Razor | February 24, 01:37 CET
But again, as you say, I'm sure that was (in part) because she was the series lead. As such we "got to" (I say "HAD to") witness Buffy's point of view in virtually every episode.
To answer your question, no Buffy was not the only character that was ever unlikeable. I've already mentioned that by the end Xander was nearly as unpleasant a character as Buffy herself. While I never detested Dawn the way it seemed most Buffy fans did, she too had her unlikeable moments. Even Willow brushed up against "disagreeable" a time or two. But Buffy far and away was the most consistent, continuous and over-the-top annoying character. Which is deeply unfortunate BECAUSE it was theoretically her show we were watching.
So (back to the thread topic) what does that mean? It means that my memories of Buffy the SERIES are tragically marred by my dislike for Buffy the CHARACTER. I own the entire DVD series, and will likely someday breakdown and buy the Chosen Collection box set. But it's UNLIKELY that I will ever sit down and rewatch the series as a whole, at least not with the kind of enthusiasm with which I've already watched and rewatched Angel and Firefly as wholes... over and over again.
The factor of lead vs. supporting cast at play here is that 99.9% of what would lead me to rewatch any Buffy episodes is one or more of the supporting cast, NOT the series lead. In fact I am eager for a continuation of the Whedonverse mythology in canon television/film format (despite being a comic collector for nearly thirty years I'm not satisfied with any of the proposed canon comic spin-offs or series continuations now on the schedule, regardless of whether Joss himself writes them or not), but would very VERY much prefer that continuation to stem primarily from the Angel series than from primarily Buffy. I'd like to see returning characters from both series, naturally. But would truly prefer that Buffy Summers NOT play a role in that ongoing story.
Just me, though.
ETA: Since Razor brought it up, I have to say that I agree, The OC is another example of a series where the "leads" have virtually no draw or appeal for me. Now I've only watched the first season of that series, but the characters that I still care about are NOT the leads, but rather the much more interesting and appealing Seth and Summer, and yes Seth's parents.
While Battlestar Galactica is much more of a true ensemble series (more like Firefly), with no real "leads" to speak of, I can say that my favorite characters on that series tend to be the more "peripheral" ones like Chief and Danny. I LOVE Gaius and Six, which I suppose don't really count as "peripheral" characters, but if you had to pick a lead or leads for that series I don't think most would list them for the position.
Haven't watched Smallville for quite awhile, but Chloe and Lex were my characters of choice on that one.
Lost also doesn't really have a lead, but most people would say that Jack is the closest thing that show has, and he's my LEAST favorite character probably.
And the list goes on. Clearly for many, and most definitely for me, the lead of a given series is not very likely to be the real draw.
[ edited by Haunt on 2006-02-24 00:01 ]
Haunt | February 24, 01:45 CET
Couldn't agree more. Actually, I'd say Jack and Kate (and maybe Locke) are the two leads, and they're both two of my least-favorite characters. Locke is falling quickly in my estimation too. That show is all about the supporting characters for me.
As for others - I only watched the first few episodes of Smallville before losing interest, but I agree that Chloe and Lex were far more interesting than Clark or (blech) Lana.
In Alias, which I followed through three seasons, I did like Sydney quite a bit. But I prefered Will, Jack Bristow, and even Marshall.
Gilmore Girls and Veronica Mars however? All about the leads for me.... As is Deadwood (if we consider Al Swearengen, rather than Seth Bullock, who's a bit blah for me, as the lead....)
acp | February 24, 02:15 CET
Veronica Mars appears to be one of the exceptions to the rule. All the characters on that show are interesting, but seriously I (so far at least) am invested in the lead character moreso than anyone else. Her dad and Logan vie for second place though.
Haunt | February 24, 02:21 CET
But again, as you say, I'm sure that was (in part) because she was the series lead
That may be the crux of our difference in viewpoint. I'd say her speechifying and taking the high moral ground (which was intermittently seen, but more later on, certainly) has less to do with being the series lead, and everything to do with being The Chosen One, the One Person in All the World, blah blah blah. Wouldn't that kinda sorta be a justification, if not an excuse, for the propensity to get on the high horse? That's how I always viewed it - in fact, I tended to pity Buffy, not get pissed off at her, when she did her morality schtick, because it always underscored how little she wanted to be that person, that world savior, and how she wished she could lay it all down and be "normal."
It is very interesting to hear different opinions, because it forces me to think about my own. Thanks for that H.
SoddingNancyTribe | February 24, 02:50 CET
Me too, SNT. In fact, I often felt not only sorry for Buffy during those times, but very protective of her. During Season 7, especially, I also got incredibly annoyed at her for the self-righteous speeches (well, more annoyed at the writers, actually, since it seemed a downward turn in quality to me), but I still saw where it came from, and felt really angry at her friends and the potentials when they kicked her out of her house. The same anger i felt during "Dead Man's Party" when everyone turned on her. To me it seemed both the height of ingratitude for all she'd done in the past, as well as a complete lack of understanding and empathy from those who should know and understand her the best. Buffy had plenty of selfish moments, and plenty of self-centered moments, and plenty of times (such as in season 6) where I just wanted to kick some sense into her. But like SNT, I always attributed a lot of that as a direct result of being who she was. She was selfish and self-centered and had a tendency to disregard others' opinions because, ultimately, she knew that the responsiblity lay on her shoulders and no one else's. That realization forced a maturity on her early on, and it also forced her to sometimes make some decisions that could seem less than compassionate.
I think my caring about her, and feeling protective of her, stemmed from the fact that it was so clear she didn't want any of that it was forced upon her and she accepted the burden.
acp | February 24, 02:59 CET
Absolutely, and I got that. Unfortunately, I got that from pretty much the first season, and having it crammed down my throat for six more years got old. I don't deny that Buffy had it rough. I agree that hers was a pathetic and difficult life and she had every reason to feel the weight of her chosen-ness... -icity? -ocityness?? Anyways, I grant she had a tough road. But there's only so much of that I can listen to before it just becomes boring. And having her make declarative speeches about how she is the one and only moral authority, while deeply insightful into her tortured psyche, do not make her any more sympathetic in my eyes.
It's all ridiculously out of proportion to reality of course, because how many of us deal with the impending doom of humanity on a daily basis (usually only once every four years in the presidential elections), but I have to say that if my best friend consistently risked her life for the sake of saving mine, it STILL wouldn't give her the right to be a bitca. Period. I can understand someone in Buffy's difficult position developing some attitude problems. I can see where that comes from. But it's not excuseable. In MY eyes the more heroic feats are overcome crap like that and being a good person.
Saving the world? That's awesome. Managing NOT to become a monster while you fight monsters? Priceless.
Haunt | February 24, 03:17 CET