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
"Mercy, forgiveness, trust. Those are the things he left back there."
11943 members | you are not logged in | 16 April 2014












March 18 2006

Creator of Grey's Anatomy says she can understand how fans take the show so seriously because she felt strongly about 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' and was very emotional "about what happened to those characters". About halfway down the article.

Please. Grey's Anatomy is fucking Ally McBeal in a hospital.

Do me, and the rest of the country an enormous favor and get over yourself. You have a hot leading man who finally grew into his looks. That's all. Your writing is LESS than nothing compared to Joss's.

You ain't nothin' close to Buffy. Stop trying to get cred by comparing yourself to a real master.

I HATE it when they try to get fans by using Joss's shows. Argh and Pfft. A pox on thee!

Stats and whatnot on this show better NOT start showing up on this site. I WILL SCREAM.
Haven't seen the show - and thanks Willowy for letting me know I'm not missing much!
Umm... Xanax?

I'm quite certain that she wasn't looking to attract Joss fans to her show... a) she doesn't need to b) a passing reference on azcentral.com? Probably not gonna do the trick anyway. If they were really reaching for the Whedon demographic, I think they'd try to get a 'verse guest star on the show.

Also, let's face something that's probably pretty universal... the soap element of dramas is what makes them work. It's why we watched Buffy. While, yes, Buffy is a wonderful piece of drama that can be analyzed to death... we initially watch it for the characters. When I saw "Hush" for the first time, I didn't walk away from the TV set going, "Oh, what a wonderful show about our failure to communicate." First, I was creeped out; second, I was glad that Buffy and Riley had finally kissed.

The characters are what grab us in Joss' shows - not so much the metaphors and themes. This is what she's talking about in this article... and you can't deny that the characters of her show have grabbed a good amount of people.
Jeez, I don't see what the shows creator said that was so bad. She's a fan of Buffy, she shouldn't be allowed to mention it?

I personally love the show. First hospital show I have ever really been into. One of my favorite shows this season.
I have no real interest in Grey's Anatomy...but it's nice to see that the creator digs Joss.
adam_tvs Said:
If they were really reaching for the Whedon demographic, I think they'd try to get a 'verse guest star on the show.


Well, they DID have Kali Rocha(Halfrek) on for an episode. Although I'm sure that's not what you meant, just thought I would nitpick.
Please. Grey's Anatomy is fucking Ally McBeal in a hospital.

Do me, and the rest of the country an enormous favor and get over yourself. You have a hot leading man who finally grew into his looks. That's all. Your writing is LESS than nothing compared to Joss's.

You ain't nothin' close to Buffy. Stop trying to get cred by comparing yourself to a real master.

I HATE it when they try to get fans by using Joss's shows. Argh and Pfft. A pox on thee!

Stats and whatnot on this show better NOT start showing up on this site. I WILL SCREAM.
Willowy | March 18, 07:00 CET


Willowy, why would a show that averages 20 million viewers need to try and get Whedon fans to watch their show?

I thought it was a nice mention of Buffy, so I'm not sure where the anger is coming from.

[ edited by wrikiwood on 2006-03-18 07:52 ]
I don't think she was comparing herself to Joss. I think she was saying that she understands fans of her show because she was a fangirl herself of another show, and that's pretty much it.

I agree with Odysseus. While it might not be the BEST. SHOW. EVER. it certainly is entertaining, and possibly one of the more interesting shows this season.

[ edited by Emma Frost on 2006-03-18 08:04 ]
Don't watch the show regularly, but tune in sometimes. I can see some Xander in that George fella.
I didn't think Ms. Rhimes was trying to compare herself to Joss; it did sound like she was just trying to find a way to describe what people feel about her show. She was a big fan of Buffy, now people are big fans of her show (though for very different reasons, I'm quite sure).

But, I don't get Grey's Anatomy at all: I don't find McDreamy dreamy, I don't buy the characters (oh, yeah, there are many, many people working their way through med school as lingerie models, and interns have affairs with surgeons all the time because they have lots of time available in hospitals for hot sex {apparently at some point during their 24-hour shifts!}), the humor is not funny at all, and the drama seems too soap opera-ish for me. But, I'm a dude, so maybe I'm immune to the show; I equally don't get Desperate Housewives. *shrugs*
I consider what Shonda said to be a compliment; it's in no way a detriment to BtVS or Joss.

So why are people so angry?
So why are people so angry?

Not people, just one person.
billz...thank God. I hate Desperate Housewives too.

Now if you hate Sex and the City, you'll be my BFF. And ever.
This makes the third American show creator to proclaim a love for BtVS: JJ Abrams and Amy Palladino are the other two. On the other side of the pond, we have Russell T. Davies. While this is not quite world domination level (I've noticed, on the other hand, that every single writer for TV must express admiration for The Sopranos and The West Wing -- is this a union thing?), it is quite satisfying.

Still not going to watch the show though. And for the simple reason that shows that are pure soaps with little else going for them get tired easily. House is so my medical drama, as it stars the divine Hugh Laurie.

oh, and I adore Sex and the City. I think it's a thousand times more profound than The Sopranos, and often reminded me of BtVS: it had the outer appearance of something shallow and amusing that everyone could just shrug off, but it could be deeply moving at its heart. Frankly, this may kick me out of the guild, but I think it did heartbreak and romance better than Buffy:tVS, plus it was a socially relevant snapshot of the times as well.
UnpluggedCrazy and billz, i also happen to hate Desperate Housewives and Sex in the City, not to mention having little of anything good to say about Grey's Anatomy.

Okay, maybe hate is too strong a term. I don't care about any of them enough to hate them. Perhaps it's more of an extreme disinterest and absolute astonishment that anyone would ever find them remotely watchable. Yeah, that sums it up much better.

And is it just me or does anyone else find it hard to imagine how any of the women in Sex in the City found so many guys to even look twice at them, let alone sleep with them? I'm sorry but apart from the dark haired one (Kristen ... Kirsten something?) i wouldn't have touched any one of them with a six foot clothes line pole. Not attractive at all.
Ok. First thing I see when logging in this morning is a big bunch of misdirected anger from Willowy.

Please take the time to think about what you are posting before you hit the button. That's what the mandatory preview is for.
We don't watch any TV any more other than news, sports, food and animal stuff...and Buffy, Angel, and Firefly DVDs...but my wife was traveling with her aunt, and the aunt insisted on watching Grey's Anatomy...my wife found it repellent, as I pretty much figured based on the little I'd read.

But I totally understand that other writers would respectfully tip their hats in the direction of Mr. Sweden.
Wow, I'm very surprised about all the hostility towards Grey's Anatomy. It actually has a great deal in common with Buffy, in how it examines a group of fascinating characters living in an unusual, heightened sort of circumstance, albeit not a supernatural one. Like Buffy, its primary focus is not on its medicine/metaphysics but on the metaphors--the patients represent, psychologically, what is going on in the characters' lives in any given episode. Like Buffy, it has a very finely honed soundtrack. Like Buffy, it already has a growing pool of tertiary characters it can draw from to focus on at unexpected times. Hell, even like Buffy, a large contingent of fans post awful things about the lead! Shonda Rhimes' nod to Joss is also not just lip service. She follows his TV writing philosophy of giving the audience what they need, not what they want. At the moment, she's been taking flack for a plot line that people have been complaining came out of the blue, but she says she's been setting up for the first episode, and which absolutely had to happen for the characters to progress to the next part of the story. Sound familiar?

I've personally been very impressed with the series (my favorite currently on the air), particularly its acting and writing, which, while it wouldn't be able to compete with Joss', could certainly stand near it without feeling too out of place or inferior. I'm sorry, but this is one of the few cases where I completely agree with the masses: this is a quality show, far, far more intelligent than a simple nighttime soap. To be honest, I understand why so many people here are resistant to give the show a chance, because I had the same preconceptions about it, but a friend of mine finally convinced me to start a few months back, and very soon, I was getting the DVDs and watching all the episodes. And I fully believe, without any facetiousness, that this is one of the few shows on network TV right now that can stand up to the same sort of serious analysis that Joss' shows could.

The show also, incidentally, has an official writers' blog up at http://www.greyswriters.com where, each week, the writer of the previous episode makes a post about it, usually discussing the character motivations and the themes of each episode. While the past entry was weak, more often than not, it displays the extreme intelligence and care that goes into crafting each episode. Shonda's posts, in particular, are the most informative, dealing with the symbolism she infuses into her scripts.

IMO, making snap judgments about the show because of either having heard or having seen a random scene of interns having sex, for example (which, btw, does not happen as often as you've been lead to believe) is synonymous with the bajillions of people who decided Buffy was a dumb horror show because of having just heard the title or seen a random scene of a fight with a vampire, with no other context.
Sorry gang, should have worded it differently.
I've watched the pilot and a few episodes here and there and I have to agree that Grey's Anatomy is nothing more than "Ally McBeal in a hospital". It's not the worst show out there, but it's not a good one either. The lead character, Meredith Grey and the actress that plays her is the most annoying character and actress since Calista Flockhart/Ally McBeal. As someone who has been exposed to the medical field since infancy, I can tell you with full authority that these characters are not at all representative of real-life physicians. The writing, acting, and directing on this show leaves much to be desired. I don't understand the show's popularity. However, that being said, I see no reason to attack a fellow Buffy fan.
oh, and I adore Sex and the City. I think it's a thousand times more profound than The Sopranos, and often reminded me of BtVS: it had the outer appearance of something shallow and amusing that everyone could just shrug off, but it could be deeply moving at its heart. Frankly, this may kick me out of the guild, but I think it did heartbreak and romance better than Buffy:tVS, plus it was a socially relevant snapshot of the times as well.


Wow, really? I can't stand SatC, to be honest. The characters are selfish and shallow (maybe not in the two-dimensional writing sense, but in the actual on-screen sense) and more than just a bit annoying. Most of my friends did like the show, but I just don't get it. Can you imagine knowing these characters in real life? I'd be tempted to use physical violence (only not really, since I don't actually do that). SatC is another example of my old mantra: if I'd dislike all the characters if they were real people, I don't enjoy watching them as fictional constructs on screen either.

Of course, it also doesn't help that I can't stand Sarah Jessica Parker. I'm sure she is a great person and a fine actress, but watching her on screen just makes my skin crawl. Not sure why, I can't find a single real reason for my dislike of her, but there it is :-)

And is it just me or does anyone else find it hard to imagine how any of the women in Sex in the City found so many guys to even look twice at them, let alone sleep with them? I'm sorry but apart from the dark haired one (Kristen ... Kirsten something?) i wouldn't have touched any one of them with a six foot clothes line pole. Not attractive at all.


Hee :-). While I tend to try to not judge people on how they look, I have to agree here. With the way SatC presents itself as a bunch of woman who have lots of sex on screen, I still don't get why it starred the people it did. Not one of them was attractive in the least, except for the dark haired one (who compensated for that by being highly annoying in the show) and all of them were just people I wouldn't be caught dead with.

Nope, I just don't get the SatC hype. But it has a massive amount of fans, it was a big phenomenon and whatnot. It obviously spoke to a lot of people, so it had to do something right. It's just not something I see.

Oh, and to get back on topic: I was very glad to see the creator of a well-watched tv show mention Joss' work. I'm not sure if Grey's Anatomy is a good show, since I've never seen it, but I don't think that should matter. Hell, I've just stated my dislike for SatC in no uncertain terms but if its creator showed his/her love for Buffy, I'd be pretty happy as well.
Yup, have to agree with GVH regarding SatC. I never found it to be a show with much depth or greatness. I never found it topical because it just was completely unrealistic. The show was a poor representation of real women (IMHO). Despite all their claims at being independent and fabulous, these women were nothing more than insecure, man-crazy, self-absorbed twits. It was at a times, however, a funny and entertaining show, but I felt absolutely no connection to these 4 very unlikeable characters (esp Sarah Jessica Parker's - I can't stand her either!). It was certainly a guilty pleasure, but hardly socially relevant.
"While I tend to try to not judge people on how they look, I have to agree here. With the way SatC presents itself as a bunch of woman who have lots of sex on screen, I still don't get why it starred the people it did."

Exactly my point. I'm the same in that i don't judge a person by their looks for the most part, at least not unfairly anyway, but in this case i think the main characters very natures allows for that sort of judgement. They are set up as sex symbols and at least a part of that has to be their physical presence, something that certainly two, if not three, of the main cast of Sex in the City totally lacked, in my opinion. I think that was at least part of why i always found the show so unrealistic.
I'd like to reiterate what has been said. The creator wasn't comparing herself to Joss at all, she was simply saying how she understood how people can become emotionally invested in on screen characters and that she does that in her own show as well.

I had Grey's Anatomy recommended to me and I quite enjoy it. I like House, MD, too, but I only really think the lead actor is talented and convincing. In Grey's I think the whole cast can act, and like was said, the focus of the show is not on medicine and treatment, but on relationships.

No it's not the most phenomenal show ever. But it's decent. I bought the season 1 dvds and have no regrets. And the last television dvds I bought were the Buffy tower and my 5th set of Firefly.

I also loved Sex and the City. And hardly think that personal opinions on how annoying the characters are or how they look is really valid criticism of the show itself, which was well-written, witty, progressive, and emotionally compelling.

A lot of people found Spike annoying, and Buffy. And Willow. And I hear a lot of people saying they find Kaylee annoying. That doesn't translate to mean Buffy and Firefly suck, in my book.

Just an aside: Quickies in the hospital on Grey's Anatomy take as much time as a bathroom break, and they don't happen all the time, and usually they make the characters late for work. I think they're pretty realisitically done in that sense. Also the lingerie model character, paid for medical school with modelling gigs and stopped months before she became an intern. At least in season 1 (which is as far as I've gotten), she hasn't had time (obviously) to model.

Also, being sexy is more than physical apperance. The women in Sex and the City are confident, capable, and have high social IQs. If you're looking for the characters to meet some kind of conventional physical attractiveness quotient, they are slender with nice skin and hair and amazing fashion sense which they use to their advantage. However, the way the stories went, I don't think those elements were hugely important.

Until you've seen a few consecutive episodes of a show, I don't think you can ever know its quality.

[ edited by Carmencita on 2006-03-18 17:56 ]
Oh, i've seen plenty of Sex and the City, believe me. An ex of mine was obsessed with it and so i've suffered many an evening of that show. And i do mean suffered.

As i said, i agree that being sexy is a lot more than just physical presence but in the real world, whether we like it or not, that does play a part in what you find sexy. How much you base on looks is down to the type of person you are but there has to be at least some physical attraction, in my opinion.

Given the nature of SatC's central theme it just seemed very strange to me that the women were physically so ordinary looking and, in one case, just plain ugly. Again in my opinion, obviously.
I also loved Sex and the City. And hardly think that personal opinions on how annoying the characters are or how they look is really valid criticism of the show itself, which was well-written, witty, progressive, and emotionally compelling.


Well, in some senses this is true, obviously. But SatC, more than anything else, was a show about these women. I saw main characters, who were, to quote mai, nothing more than insecure, man-crazy, self-absorbed twits. I think they misrepresented all the women I know and I did not enjoy watching them on screen. Now I'm not trying to say SatC is not a good show. As stated, it hit home with a bunch of people, so it had to be doing something right. It's just not the type of show I liked watching.

As for the qualifications you bring forth, it all (again) comes down to a matter of taste. I did not see a witty and emotionally compelling show. I saw people I disliked in situations that - at no point - rang true with me and as such I was never emotionally compelled and did not see the 'wit'. Progressive? Sure, I guess. Well-written? It did what it did and it did it well, I think. It just didn't do anything I'd consider worth seeing.

I did see quite a few episodes, mostly because a lot of my female friends liked the show and I sometimes watched along, at one point even seeing a season of the show in consecutive order.

Also, being sexy is more than physical apperance. The women in Sex and the City are confident, capable, and have high social IQs. If you're looking for the characters to meet some kind of conventional physical attractiveness quotient, they are slender with nice skin and hair and amazing fashion sense which they use to their advantage.


Well, that may be. The funny thing is, though, that I've only ever heard my female friends mention they thought these characters were attractive. My male friends all think they were completely unattractive. Not saying that means anything (maybe it just shows the type of people I'm friends with), but still. I also don't think these women were confident or capable at all. They were insecure and all of them needed men or sex to validate their existence. High social IQs? I'm not sure there, either. People with High Social IQs should be able to make a lot of friends, be sympathetic and whatnot. At least, that's how I'd interpret it. These are all qualities I don't see in the women in SatC, to be honest.

Strong female characters I love? Look no further than Joss' work. SatC - to me - does not contain them. But that's, again, probably all a matter of perspective.
Just have to express some SatC love here... That's always been my guilty pleasure of TV shows. I in no way consider it "excellent' in the sense that several other shows are, but I love watching it. Fun, fluffy, witty, and occasionally profound more so, i think, than some people realize who dismiss it as just being about women in NY constantly hooking up. In the midst of all the unrealistic excess (like the fashions they could afford), there were often very real tidbits that many young women can relate to (though i agree the incredibly bad puns were sometimes annoying). And the idea that all four of them weren't incredibly attractive? All I can say is, you're nuts! In fact, I always found Kristin Davis the least interesting looking of the bunch - pretty in a very ordinary way, rather than striking or sexy. I certainly found them to be pretty strong, funny, smart women, even though i was disappointed that the show ended with all of them in relationships, since part of its message was supposed to be that you didn't need men to validate you. It also had a lot to say about the importance and power of good friendships - that whole "your friends are your family" theme that Joss's shows often had.

Back on topic - thanks for posting this, vampire dan! Always nice to see Buffy addicts turn up, wherever the spot. I also read it as a simple tribute to BtVS, and an acknowledgement of the passion fans can feel, whatever the object of their obsession.
I've never seen even an episode of Gray's Anatomy, so I can't comment. But I have heard from many people and critics who really enjoy it, especially this season. I've been meaning to check it out one of these days, but don't really need another show right now. i've always assumed it was a total soap opera, but a fun, captivating one - another guilty pleasure sort of show. never seen House either, though I've heard that's much better.

[ edited by acp on 2006-03-18 19:15 ]
Gre's Anatomy is actually well-written (except for the cheesy over-dubbed monologue), and it can be very funny, a lot fresher than ER, and full of interesting characters, particularly George and Cristina (how much do I love Sandra Oh?) who both have me in stitches half the time.
Let's see...another popular show has been mentioned: House. I also hate this series, though not as much as I hate Sex and the City or Desperate Housewives.

I have seen plenty episodes of Sex and the City...dear God, I must have been asking for punishment. There is no depth. There is no character development. There is no decent humor. There are however, unlikeable, self-absorbed, shallow assholes who never penetrate anything larger than that. There is nothing to them other than the fact that they are shallow and idiotic. With bad bad bad bad acting. Especially Sarah Jessica Parker, one of the least tolerable actresses of all time.

I saw the first five episodes of House, and they made me want to kill myself. How do people like that? It's just as annoying and glib as Sex and the City, though nothing but Charmed can rival Desperate Housewives' annoying glibness.

I shall continue to get my TV kicks through Lost, The Sopranos, Veronica Mars, Extras, Big Love, and Entourage.
Yes, UnpluggedCrazy, I think we are in many ways BFF -- I have to join in the SatC diss here, and also a diss of House (although I don't love Sopranos -- too much violence for me, unfortunately). I have problems with House for the same reason as Grey's Anatomy -- if a hospital were run like this, it would be shut down for sure, right away. I love Hugh Laurie and the character is great, and heaven knows I've had many doctors who acted like a real a*hole right to my face, but if I got put on the wrong treatment until that made me so sick they had to switch treatments (which seems to happen every week on House)? Man, we'd sue the hospital so fast you'd have to replay it on freeze-frame to see the lawsuit filed! ;-) The in-hospital misbehavior (and crazy good-looking people -- I believe Ms. Heigl more as a lingerie model than as an intern!) on Grey's Anatomy fits in that same ridiculous world of "only on TV." Sure, this comes from someone who enjoys shows about a high school vampire hunter, a film noir detective who is a vamp, and a post-Civil War veteran 500 years in the future! The difference is, I know that when I go to high school I won't really have to wonder where the hellmouth is (except metaphorically), and when I go to Los Angeles I won't really find Wolfram & Hart or Angel in the yellow pages, but I do go to hospitals (and clinics) and get seen by doctors and interns, so they are in a real world that I think requires at least some following of real-world rules. If that doesn't matter to you, fine, it's OK to want to be entertained, but then you might as well watch General Hospital! ;-)

As for SatC, my comment sounds like a repeat, but it's true that I see it as about shallow women who are man-crazy, materialistic and really, really selfish. As far as their being attractive, I find them "unattractive" not because of their faces or bodies or clothes, but because of their awful personalities. Who would want a girlfriend who insists on "a good ring" before she'll consider your marriage proposal (that was one episode I watched, it was really sickening), or is spending hundreds of dollars on shoes by some designer, or is really mean snarky (I thought the redhead character was really nasty) or lame snarky (I thought Sarah Jessica Parker's character's lame puns were, hmm, what's the word -- lame?)? Well, maybe I have to take that back, because I bet there are lots of men who like "trophy wives" or "trophy girlfriends," but, eww.

Again, I'm repeating what others have written, but I am entertained by characters whom I would be interested in meeting in the real world. Mal and Angel may have dark pasts, but they are struggling to find their places in the world. That interests me! The Grey's Anatomy crew are struggling to find a mate at their workplace, and the SatC women are struggling to find their way to the next sale at Manuel Blanc Shoes (spelling?)! ;-)
This makes the third American show creator to proclaim a love for BtVS: JJ Abrams and Amy Palladino are the other two.

BTW, Dottikin, Hart Hanson, creator of Bones, was also sharing the Whedonverse love. Perhaps world domination is not out of the question! ;-)
Wow, there is an incredible amount of negativity on Whedonesque today. Not what I usually see here.

Grey's is a fabulous guilty pleasure with pretty people, interesting plot twists, and crazy situations. I never miss it. Just because it doesn't hold up to Objects in Space or Hush is no reason for all the vitriol.
Personally, I would call it "dissent" or "criticism" more than "vitriol." I think it's reasonable to express dislike of aspects of shows, especially when it is specific (not just "f*** everyone in the universe to death!" ;-)) and given with explanation ("x bothers me because yada yada yada"), just as much as it is to express praise for aspects of shows. There have been some extremely negative comments and some extremely positive ones; I'd say this thread is 50/50 praise/dislike for GA at the moment, which seems like a fair discussion to me!
I'd say it is coming pretty close to vitriol, myself. It is always hard to have a good discussion about a show when one side likes it a lot and the other side says it makes them want to kill themselves. Not a lot of middle ground to be had there. But there has been no name calling yet, so that's ok.
But there has been no name calling yet, so that's ok.

Yep, that's what I meant. Your entire comment is much better stated than I could have, Lioness! :-)
billz, you wouldn't happen to be my evil twin, would you?

(Evil...'cuz, you know, you don't like The Sopranos. :-P)

(Just kidding.)

(Or am I?)

(*dun dun DUN*)

(Talking in parentheses is wacky fun.)
Didn't Rob Thomas (Veronica Mars) return the love after Joss' I Luv Veronica post here... by giving the man a cameo? :-)

Also, Tom Fontana (Homicide, Oz) has also praised Buffy in the past.
Didn't Rob Thomas (Veronica Mars) return the love after Joss' I Luv Veronica post here... by giving the man a cameo

I've not actually read he loves the show -- he just has publically loved on Joss for being a cool media figure and really supportive of the show. Last I read -- and I don't keep up that strictly on VM affairs -- he hadn't watched much of the show.

Who would want a girlfriend who insists on "a good ring" before she'll consider your marriage proposal (that was one episode I watched, it was really sickening), or is spending hundreds of dollars on shoes by some designer, or is really mean snarky (I thought the redhead character was really nasty) or lame snarky (I thought Sarah Jessica Parker's character's lame puns were, hmm, what's the word -- lame?)? Well, maybe I have to take that back, because I bet there are lots of men who like "trophy wives" or "trophy girlfriends," but, eww.

The thing is, there are many many real-life women that I've met in the real world who love clothes, expensive shoes, nice things, want nice, expensive jewelry, all that shallow stuff, who are wonderful human beings. Who aren't trophy wives or girlfriends, who make enough money to buy their own pretty baubles. And the point of that episode wasn't that Carrie couldn't marry Aiden b/c he bought her the wrong ring, but that she was freaked out by his proposal and the ring aggravated her doubts. How could she marry a man who had the least clue about her own personal taste -- it wasn't that the ring was cheap, but that it was UGLY. Which is shallow, yes, but she moved past that reaction and said yes. But the underlying problem was still there: she said yes b/c she genuinely cared about him and wanted to be with him, but she was still very unsure about wanting to actually marry him, to take that final leap. And a bunch of episodes later, after more issues (she gets hives trying on wedding dresses, starts wearing his ring around her neck on a chain), she tells him she can't marry him. The scene in which she does, SJP is heart-breaking. She pleads honestly with him to just stay with her and love her without the need for marriage, saying essentially, "isn't it enough?" And he's the one who can't live without her final proof of commitment and leaves.

I love SatC for being deep and honest about people (that scene perfectly wrapped up their relationship and was true to both characters) without forgoing the outer layers of entertainment: the funny, the clothes, the smart plottiness. Like BtVS! And the while the center of the show concerned the relationships the four main women had with men, the real emotional warmth lay in their friendships with each other. Like on BtVS as well! And well, I always believed the friendships between those four, even when the show began its eventual but gentle decline, while on BtVS, sometimes I hardly could believe the Scooby gang all really loved each other in the later seasons.
"The thing is, there are many many real-life women that I've met in the real world who love clothes, expensive shoes, nice things, want nice, expensive jewelry, all that shallow stuff, who are wonderful human beings."

See, this is why it's best to meet girls at gigs. That way you meet real women that only care if you have a guitar, a decent cd collection and can pay for a night out at the local rock club. Y'know, the important things in life.

My kinda girls.
I am surprised by the Buffy reference because on "Grey's Anatomy" the characters are so unrealistic. Their behavior does not really fully resemble human behavior, and the consequences for their behavior does not really resemble what happens to people on planet Earth.

Even with its vampires and demons and hellmouth, "Buffy" was a lot more realistic. It's hard to really care about characters who don't seem real.
Thank you dottikin! I'm glad at least someone else here shares my SatC love :-). Again, as I said, that show's always been a guilty pleasure for me, but I really do believe it gets a bum rap from a lot of people who think they know what the show is about, but instantly discount it because of something pretty superficial. Beneath all the pretty fashions and lame puns, there are some great relationships, and the occasional truth that I can relate to (as a woman who cares next to nothing about fashion, didn't want my husband to buy me a ring at all, and hardly defines my or any woman's existence by relationships). The four women are definitely not trophy wives. And I agree that it's their friendship with each other that was the most convincing relationship on the show, and the warmest. I'm not saying it's up to BtVS greatness, or even The Wire or Deadwood or VM. But it was a fun, smart, fluffy, witty, sometimes silly and sometimes profound show that i still have a lot of fun rewatching when I see it on TV (which is something i can say about very few shows). I do think it's a show that appeals much more to women than to men. My husband can watch an episode here and there, but he gets tired of it pretty quickly, and the lame puns annoy him faster than they do me. And most of the "deeper" things the show examines are questions that women wrestle with more than men do.
Even the women I know hate Sex and the City.

I dunno...maybe I'm just different?
And most of the "deeper" things the show examines are questions that women wrestle with more than men do.

This may be true, and as I am not female, I can't say for sure, and the characters did seem to have a friendship they relied on. That said, I would say that maybe the people who don't like SatC (including myself) lose patience because there are questions people wrestle with, and there are questions people wrestle with! People wrestle with, how can I pay the rent, where can I live that my family will be safe, do I trust this political system, how can I help my loved ones with their (illness, financial problems, etc.), is my job satisfying, how will I make a new life after my divorce (I recall that one of the SatC characters fell in love with her divorce attorney who adored her, and got married to him pretty soon after her divorce), and so on.

While I remember seeing that they had one of the characters deal with trying to get pregnant or adopt (and for some people, this is a process that takes years and wipes out their entire savings) and one of the characters got breast cancer, which are very serious "real world problems," again, for the most part, the questions wrestled with on SatC were more like, is this guy a good sex partner, am I ready for marriage (to an incredibly nice, good-looking man who is financially stable, I might add -- not like she'd fallen in love with someone who had a life-threatening illness, was on his way to fight overseas, had a drinking problem or was unemployed!), what shoes should I wear with my expensive new outfit, can I pick up a sailor during Fleet Week. Maybe they were still "nice" characters, but it still seemed like most of their problems and stories were based on very material issues, which was why I talked about materialism and "trophy" mates. (I would guess that a person concerned with "good jewelry" and large amounts of money could still be kind-hearted, but that would still not be the kind of person I would want to be friends with. I can't relate to concern over fashion and "good jewelry.")

Questions: did the characters on SatC spend any time volunteering in an old folks' home, a children's hospital or a low-income pre-school? Did they organize an AIDS fundraiser? Did they campaign for a political candidate, or sign up with Amnesty International? Did they donate their used designer clothes to a homeless shelter? My point here is, I felt the characters were interested in themselves, not others, so even if they were good friends to each other, they were still not the kind of "nice" I would be interested in knowing myself -- or watching on my screen!
Wow, I am totally surprised at how many people dislike Greys. I have to say, I never thought I would find another show I liked to watch as obsessively as I watched Buffy. But I stumbled on it with Greys. I've loved it from the first episode and its the only show on tv right now that I can't stand to miss. The acting is great, the writing is witty and poignant at the same time. Now I'm even more stoked to find out that Shonda is a Buffy fan. Thanks for the article link :)
Re: The women of Sex & The City

I always thought Kim Cattral was stunning, personally. Throughout the entire series. Yeah, I like women who're older than me (I think by the end of the series she's in her mid-forties), but there was also never anything about Samantha that was fake. She was blunt, passionate about every aspect of life, and loved her friends dearly. She was unconventional in many ways, in all the best ways (and yes, I realize that in real life, despite safe sex practices, all the action she had with all those various men--and one woman!--would put her at significant risk of contracting an STI some time during all that. But you don't worry too much about that sorta thing when the characters themselves aren't concerned with it either and you're, y'know, just wanting to be entertained for the most part). She also ended up being UltimateCougar by ending up in what looked to be a long-term relationship with a handsome younger guy (Smith) who was probably the most sane and likeable male in the entire series.

Realistically, I think Miranda would be the woman most guys would go for (yes, I know Cynthia Nixon is a lesbian, talking solely about her character here). Especially if you're the kinda guy who's as quick to critisize as some of the folks in this thread. Perfect mate in Miranda, mad at the world!--but for damn good reasons much of the time. And Miranda had one of the most touching scenes in the entire series, even got a couple tears outta me (the one with Steve's declining mom).

Carrie was too fucking high-maintenance. There were some times when I liked her, or at least enjoyed the humor that accompanied whatever plotline she was going through. But Sarah Jessica Parker just made me cringe a lot of the time. If there's any reason to hate the series, she it, IMO. Luckily, there were three other very entertaining woman, a strong supporting cast of recurring guest characters, strong writing, and a whole lotta eye candy.

Charlotte was hilarious in her naivete and expectations of "the perfect life". It was beautiful to watch her grow throughout those six seasons and, gradually, compromise her flawed ideas of an ideal marriage and home life and marry a guy for personality and realiability more than anything else. Kristin Davis is the most conventionally pretty of the four, but she's just so goddamn cute and endearing at times you can't help but love her.

I'm of the opinion that you (a) need to give the series a fair shot of at least five or six episodes before completely writing it off (especially need to see stuff aside from what was in Season 1, which was kinda the weakest of its years in retrospect), and (b) probably need to be able to enjoy being taken on a ride with characters you may not necessarily be friends with if they were real.

Unlikeable Characters

I think a lot of folks are depriving themselves of some incredible TV when they shy away from "unlikeable characters". Some of the best quality TV shows out there often focus on their villains, sometimes to near-exclusion of the more sympathetic characters (and no, I'm not just talking The Sopranos, which for most episodes I like a lot...though it's a slow build to being hooked, I find, but once you get well several episodes into it you're probably glued and by the time you get to the best of what Season 2 has to offer you're locked in for the rest of the run. It's just first seasons that're often the problem--many shows don't quite find their groove until introductions and setting are over with).

[ edited by Kris on 2006-03-20 10:54 ]
About unlikeable characters: it's not so much the villains that bother me. I love watching The Shield for instance, where every character has a dark side and more than a few seem to lack any significant morals. But the difference there is: these characters are supposed to be unlikeable and their bad character traits are balanced by good traites as well.

The characters are complex and often struggle with their own dark side, which makes them interesting and highly watchable. Now I don't watch The Sopranos (yet - I've been planning on just getting the DVDs for ages), but I imagine it's similar there.

I'd even go as far as saying that these highly unlikeable characters become sympathetic and likeable on screen as time goes by. Now the women in SatC, to me, have no redeeming qualities which make their annoying/unlikeable aspects acceptable. I'm sure that's different for others, and we've seen quite a few people explain why they feel these women were likeable (although I still respectfully disagree). But I know that if I knew these women in real life, I would not like to be around them - at all. And as such, I don't like to spend time with them in any kind of passive manner either.

So, no, I don't like watching unlikeable characters on screen, as a general rule. But it's not all black-and-white. I love to watch Angelus and I'd sign up to watch an Angelus, Spike, Drusilla, Darla show almost instantly. Same thing goes for Mal. He's not perfect either and in real life he might not be the most likeable of personalities. But all these characters are complex and interesting, which makes them (very) watchable. These are characters (same goes for those in The Shield), I would like to sit down and have a drink with. I mean, if the vampires wouldn't kill me that is. Not form a friendship with (if that's even possible), but I'd love to bounce questions off them and see what makes them tick.

The women in SatC I would not only avoid, but there's nothing there that makes them interesting to me. Nothing there that I'd love to learn more about. So maybe, in the end, that's the relevant criterium instead of simple likeability.
GVH pretty much just summed up my thoughts on the matter exactly. Nicely said.
When I first saw this topic pop up I thought to myself "Oh maybe I can discuss this show with someone else for a change." I had no idea there was so much hatred towards Greys Anatomy.

I dig the show. I heard a group of friends talk about how awesome the show was so I gave it a shot. Now I watch it every week. I think it's one of my favorite shows on television. The only shows I get more excited over is (ironically) Scrubs and My Name is Earl.

The odd thing is the one character I care the least about is the title character. Somewhere around the Thansgiving episode I realized I didn't really like Meredith. I find myself relating to George more than anyone.

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