Jump to content

Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

TV the Movie Slayer

A few points:

  • which is most popular, the TV series or the film? -- might it be better to have this page as "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and the fim as "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film)"? -- or even both on one page?
  • when did the term "Scooby Gang" crop up? as far as I vaguely remember, Faith first used it in a derogatory way. Correction: just seen in the repeat of "What's my Line pt1", Xander uses it when he & Cordelia enter Buffy's house. -- Tarquin

The series seems to be much much more popular. I recommend moving the series page to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The film should be treated as a quick paragraph in this article. If no one objects, I'll do this in a bit. --Brion

I've swapped the articles, the series is now here at the plain title and the movie is at Buffy the Vampire Slayer (movie). There's not much there, though, so I might merge it into the main article. --Brion


Spoilers

The following text comes from Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer television show:

Note to the person who removed the spoiler: the consensus policy on spoilers on Wikipedia is that we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, and so it is acceptable (and indeed encouraged) to provide full discussion of the plot of any creative media. However, because people may not know this policy when they come to a page, people should add a disclaimer to the top of the page, usually just a link to the Wikipedia contains spoilers page. Merely that some part of an article is a spoiler is *not* sufficient grounds to remove it. --Robert Merkel

---

Noted. In my defense, the original article did not contain *any* spoiler warnings, and I was quite disappointed to discover a spoiler for an episode that hasn't even been shown in New Zealand or other parts of the world. In addition, I don't see what this sentence contributes to the Wikipedia entry, in the way that a spoilers for The Sixth Sense would be necessary. Why not mention how Angel got his soul back but got killed by Buffy to save the world anyway? He was a much more important character, and even got his own spinoff! --Carey Evans

Fair point. If I had realised it *was* still a spoiler to a signifacant number of people, I would have put the warning in beforehand. And I have to say that from my perspective Buffy is a *much* more important character than Angel. I know which one I prefer seeing onscreen :) --Robert Merkel

That didn't come out right anyway. I meant to say something like how Angel's story was more significant than what the fifth season is leading up to.

I'll leave the page for now, anyway. A better solution in my mind would be to write a description of the main arc story for each season, giving the spoiler some context and showing readers what they're going to see if they read further; but I'm not going to commit to that right now.

Character Pages

just some ideas for future pages names for characters:

I've been working a bit on adding information for the characters that don't have entries yet. Did one for Anya, and have added a few minor character links at the bottom of the main page.

Would it be reasonable to do entries for *all* of the characters in the show? They all have such distinctive personalities and would be fun to write! --wapcaplet

If it is possible to write an entry for each character, and if this is the most efficient and usable way to present the information, feel free. See List of Simpsons characters. Tokerboy 03:20 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

Ripper

Among many recent improvements by Barkingdoc to the article, I see that the following sentence has been removed:-

As of January 2002, there is some discussion that Buffy's Watcher, Giles, may get his own series set in England; an animated Buffy has also been proposed.

Is this no longer true? Or was it not true in the first place? Some explanation of removed sentences would be nice! -- Oliver PEREIRA 20:51 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Gah. This is like "Mulder is leaving the X-files" -- it's a rumour that comes up each year, but never happens (okay, so now that one has.... but for about 4 years it didn't). My personal throey is that it was a rumour deliberately leaked by the makes of the show, to scupper existing internet rumours and make Giles' return at the end of Season 6 more of a surprise. Well, that's what I 'd do ;-) -- Tarquin 21:01 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

There has been legitimate talk about Head leading a BBC series as Giles, but Head has never confirmed that he himself was offered a role or a series. BBC is generally loathe to produce spin-offs. It is more likely that he will develop a more traditional detective-style series as a new character. Since it hasn't come to fruition (nor has the cartoon) and probably will not at this point, it seemed better to cover all of it under "other proposed series." --BarkingDoc

A page for "Ripper" has been on IMDB for quite a while. It's dated 2002, so obviously the show did not get produced when it was intended to. I haven't heard anything other than rumor about it, so I think BarkingDoc was correct to remove it. -- Wapcaplet

Dawn

The following paragraph has ben removed, with no explanation in the edit summary or here:-

"The sudden introduction in the show's fifth season of Buffy's younger sister Dawn was greeted with concern by fans that this was the 'beginning of the end' for the program (a recently observed cultural phenomenon known as jumping the shark), but the internal consistency of the program made such a radical cast alteration feasible, and in fact pivotal to the storytelling throughout the remainder of the season."
Dawn's entré was not some sudden, nonsense way to just quickly introduce a new character, indeed her appearance was hinted at seasons before.

The introduction of Buffy's sister was surely a very important part of the development of the series, and in the current version of the article, doesn't get a mention. Is there anything factually inaccurate, POV, or otherwise bad in the paragraph above, and if not can I put it back? -- Oliver P. 14:19 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

The paragraph discussing Angel is relevant because it explains how the character got a spin off show, but I find it very jarring for the appearance of Dawn to be the only major plot point discussed in the entire article. Dawn's appearance was interestng, but not the most important thing that has happened on the show-- Buffy coming back from the dead, for example, could be said to be a lot more dramatic than her getting a little sister. A lot of people have come to and left the show. It seems unbalanced to me for this to be highlighted so strongly, especially since the purpose of the paragraph seems, to me, to be mostly to state the opinion (not fact) that it didn't hurt the show.
What I would really like to see is a summary of the show by season. I have started this several times, and it is probably time for me to just get down to it. Help would be much appreciated. BarkingDoc
I agree, the paragraph about Dawn always seemed kind of out of place. A summary by season would be great, since each season typically has a "big bad" story arc (The Master, Mayor Wilkins, Glory, Adam, First Evil, etc.) Gotta say, this article has grown a lot since I started following it! I've only contributed bits here and there, but it looks great. -- Wapcaplet

Whedon v Kuzui

One fact that has been left out is that Whedon considers the movie to be a pathetic shadow of the series, over which he has creative control. Should this be mentioned somewhere? I'm a newbie so I'm a little loath to change this article. Wnissen 03:20 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

If it's verifiable, stick it in. Be bold! :) Probably best to give his exact quote with a reference, in my opinion; otherwise it may sound like a rumour. -- Oliver P. 01:07 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Sections

The following stuff needs to be moved, not sure to where:

Siring relationships

Intimate relationships between vampires

  • Darla - Master: suspected
  • Darla - Angel: confirmed sex
  • Darla - Drusilla: confirmed kissing
  • Drusilla - Angel: confirmed sex
  • Drusilla - Spike: confirmed sex
  • Spike - Harmony: confirmed sex

Intimate Relationships Between Vampires and Human

  • Angel - Buffy: confirmed sex
  • Darla - Lindsey McDonald: suspected(Did they kiss?)
  • Drusilla - Lindsey McDonald: suspected
  • Sandy - Riley Finn: suspected
  • Spike - Buffy: confirmed sex

Evercat 01:04 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

If I've understood the situation correctly, 24.112.136.178 started a new article today on the relationships between the characters in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and possibly also in the spin-off series Angel, consisting pretty much of the above lists. Zoe incorporated the material into the main Buffy the Vampire Slayer article, but I agree with you that this is not the best place for it. There's a bit of a discussion at Talk:Buffy Vampire Relationships. -- Oliver P. 01:07 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

One might note that these are not simply relationships among characters, but relationships involving vampires. And, not just possibly also in the spin-off series, but definitely. The character Lindsey MacDonald, specifically, has never even appeared on Buffy. Several of the other relationships (such as Angel and Darla) have only been seen fully on Angel. Like most everyone else, I don't really think this deserves its own article, but at the same time, I don't think it should go on the main Buffy page, either. Perhaps it should be deleted? john 05:44 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

No objections here. Evercat 01:03 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Gay Now

I find it sort of suspect and exclusionary that any mentions of the genesis of Willow's homosexualtiy is completely lacking from this entry. I'll be changing that shortly.

You find it suspect? As though it was mischeviously done on purpose? One could argue that, since it is only one of several hundred different story lines, that including it would be more discriminatory than leaving it out. BarkingDoc

I think the paragraph on Willow's sexual orientation is good, but some of it sounds like rumor rather than real fact. Was it really "decided" in season 2 that a character would become gay? Were those characters really designed specifically to allow their change to homosexuality (which would have been fairly prejudiced, if it is true). As a pretty avid follower of the series and its social context, I would love to know where some of that specific information comes from. BarkingDoc

I'd like to know the answer to this, too. The way it's written, it sounds like rumor. The way the show progressed, it was sort of implied that Willow's social context made her orientation uncertain; maybe she was gay all along, but Oz was something special. The first clear indication I remember of a gay Willow was season three's "The Wish", in which Vampire-Willow was pretty obviously gay. Anyhow, I'd vote to remove the rumor if it can't be confirmed with some statements from interviews with Whedon or the like. -- Wapcaplet 01:21, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's made all the more dodgy by stuff I've read that Tara's fate was originally planned for Oz. Evercat

From my memory, I believe that if we check through interviews or articles by Joss we would find:
  • He planned to have a gay character from the beginning of the conception of the show, or at least by the first season
  • He decided who would be gay, Zander or Willow, in the second season.
  • In reference to "The Wish", Vampire-Willow is not only gay or bisexual, but Angel confirms that this means non-Vampire-Willow is. Hyacinth 19:51, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I recall from "The Wish," Buffy tells Willow that the vampire's personality (i.e., VampWillow's sexuality and sadism) has nothing to do with the person it once was, and Angel sort of weakly disputes it before pretending to agree (to make Willow feel better). As it's sort of implied that all vampires are by nature bisexual (since vampiric reproduction is asexual), it's not a confirmation of Willow's bisexuality at all. --70.156.16.155 20:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Got to admit that I was surprised by the absence of sexuality discussion (I expected to see a gay vs bisexual edit war ;-), but surely it belongs on Willow Rosenberg's own page rather than in here? Kinitawowi 15:16, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I am going out on a limb and pruning the homosexuality section, which has grown to include a large number of unreferenced opinions and trivial asides. I believe there may be a place for all the information, but it isn't in the main article, which should be of service to someone who isn't a fan of the show. Also, the shocking number of "some have said" instances in this article has become very daunting to me--- those aren't references, they aren't informational, and I am not sure how important it is to recount the many discussions which have taken place on fan posting boards. (of which I am a proud and far too active member, so I am not being eliteist.) Anyway, I'm hitting this article again today, so please give my streamlining efforts a chance, or bring a discussion here if you disagree with me. BarkingDoc

I agree that an entire section devoted to one character's sexuality seems like over-kill. If Willow's sexuality is going to be discussed in such depth, it seems like Buffy's abandonment issues, or Xander's lack of ambition are getting the short shrift. I think the homosexuality discussion should be relegated to Willow Rosenberg's page.--70.156.16.155 20:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The section isn't devoted exclusively to the one character--- more to the idea of sexuality in the show. I think the criteria for inclusion should be the likelihood that someone will be looking for that information if they come to this page: since the homosexual plot line was a subject of media discussion, I can imagine folks might come to the article looking for information on that specific topic, and I think the section as it stands provides a nice compact overview. If someone could craft sections that weren't just speculation and opinion, I would be all for there being paragraphs on some of the other major ongoing themes in the show. But it seems difficult to do and remain simply factual. BarkingDoc

Influence

I am skeptical of claiming that Buffy has had a powerful impact/influence, despite the fact that there are a few shows with a distant resemblance to it. Certainly "Bring It On" owes nothing at all to Buffy, except sharing an actress. Is it fair to suggest that any show about a girl or any show that is supernatural owes its inspiration to Buffy? It strikes me as pure opinion, not fact, and I think this idea should be addressed, if at all, very lightly. Although I am as much or more of a Buffiphile as anyone, I am hoping to limit the amount of subjective praise we allow on this encyclopedia page. BarkingDoc

  • Bring It On steals Faith (Missy) and barely even bothers to clip her superpowers, as her opening acrobatics show.
  • (Dushku also plays Faith-lite in Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back)
  • Bring It On director Peyton Reed is scheduled to direct Buffy scribe Doug Petrie's Fantastic Four adaptation [1].
  • Buffy affectionately acknowledges the larceny twice 1) by stealing Clare Kramer (Glory) and 2) Willow's "Bring it on" line in Season 7 [2].
  • Bring It On is all Buffy all the time at the verbal level (cf. [3]):
    • "Changing the routine now would be total murder-suicide" [4]
    • "Let's not put the duh in dumb"
    • "Missy is bank"
    • "... we were just flying ignorami, for sobbing out loud"
    • "Jan's straight, and I'm... controversial"
    • "Come on, Torr... I can't mack on you in front of the parentals"
    • "Can we just beat these buffys down so I can go home?"
    • &c.
  • The Buffy movie is listed in the IMDB recommendations for Bring It On [5] and vice-versa [6].
  • "Is it fair to suggest that any show about a girl or any show that is supernatural owes its inspiration to Buffy?" Who suggested that? If you disagree with the statement "2003 has seen a number of new shows going into production which feature strong girls/young women privy to some supernatural power or destiny that they are forced to come to terms with while trying to maintain a normal life" then please provide some counterexamples. I believe it is fair if the shows and showrunners themselves namecheck Buffy, or their authors graduated from Buffy, or commentators and networks acknowledge their indebtedness to Buffy; and I think I've provided ample support for that.
  • "It strikes me as pure opinion, not fact". Fuller's quote isn't my "opinion". Nor is the statement: Buffy was ranked as one of the 50 most influential TV shows of all time [7]. I would be interested to know why you think the sudden appearance of a bunch of supernatural shows with young female heroines "coping under the weight of fate" [8] has nothing whatsoever to do with Buffy when so many showrunners, scriptwriters and commentators acknowledge Buffy's influence?
  • Yes, Barbara Hall (Joan of Arcadia) credits this new post-Buffy mood to the aftermath of 9-11 (which strikes me as classic warballs), but Bryan Fuller has a more pragmatic take: "I'd like to say that this series [Wonderfalls] is in response to 9-11 or some need that has come out of the war on terrorism," creator Bryan Fuller, who also created "Dead Like Me," says. "But really I think it's just because I'm like a lot of other writers from 'Buffy' and 'X-Files' who are just out looking for work and doing what they know best." [9]
  • More data points:
chocolateboy 23:31, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thoroughly convincing. Thank you. BarkingDoc

Previous Slayers

Is there a partial list of previous Slayers anywhere? I think it would be good to add it. The Fellowship of the Troll 23:14, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Annoying One

I have added the Anointed One to the list of little bads in Season 2. However, you could say he belongs in Season 1, because that is where he first appears, and he is there to throw the viewer off track as much as he is in Season 2. Given Spike kills him right after he gets to Sunnydale in "School Hard" and we don't have a little bad in Season 1 yet, I'd be just as happy with the little snot nose there, too. If anybody seconds this, please go ahead and move him. The article is a stub, by the way. -- Wolf Deunan 01:03, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Format

Format suggestion -- Curps suggested on my talk page to switch to the convetion of putting

(Buffy episode)

after an episode name (shorter, more specific, avoids duplication problems in cases like "The Initiative"). Then, all other things Buffy could be tagged as

(Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

that is, characters, places, etc. I would like to second that and will be putting "(Buffy episode)" after future episode entries, unless someone has a better suggetion ... this could then be carried over to "Angel", and (pause for prayer) "Ripper" -- Wolf Deunan 08:58, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

And it's not just the episode "The Initiative", which would conflict with the already existing article The Initiative (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) about the organization... there is also an episode of Buffy named Angel and an episode of Angel named Darla. So we really need episode names to be in their own separate namespace, otherwise major confusion ensues. -- Curps 13:19, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Loss of Virginity Metaphor/Morality

I don't think "celebrated" is quite the right word for what a lot of people think about the message that the series is sending when Buffy and Angel have sex: "controversal" fits it better, because for every person who thinks that it is a good warning against teenage sex, there is another one who see this as one one of the places where American conservative values are being heaped on the viewer. I've changed the text accordingly, adding a line to that effect for balance and refering to "Beer Bad" as another prime example of morals in action. -- Wolf Deunan 00:53, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Somebody changed "controversial" back to "celebrated" without checking this page or offering up his or her rational. I'm changing it back (see above), since this is obviously POV. -- Wolf Deunan 10:38, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think "celebrated" is quite the right word for what a lot of people think about the message that the series is sending when Buffy and Angel have sex
If a "lot of people" think this way, then it should be easy to document here. No attempt has been made to do so, so this argument remains hearsay.
"controversal" fits it better, because for every person who thinks that it is a good warning against teenage sex, there is another one who see this as one one of the places where American conservative values are being heaped on the viewer.
They're both the same position ("sex is bad, mmkay?"). The dichotomy we're discussing here is between those many critics who appreciate the episode's central metaphor on aesthetic grounds and those who object to its apparent subtext on moral grounds.
I've changed the text accordingly, adding a line to that effect for balance and refering to "Beer Bad" as another prime example of morals in action.
"celebrated" is a documentable response to Whedon's favourite episode. Instead of censoring it, I forked this and its undocumented opposite ("controversial") into two separate paragraphs, strengthening both positions instead of compromising them. This is the Wikipedia way:
The neutral point of view policy states that one should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly.
The neutral point of view policy is easily misunderstood. The policy doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from just a single unbiased, "objective" point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct.
Here is a defence of the "celebrated" status of this metaphor (from an article entitled Show's creator takes a stab at 10 favorite episodes):
1. Innocence (Jan. 20, 1998)
Every girl's nightmare, and one of the show's most sly yet most powerful uses of metaphor. Buffy has sex with Angel, who immediately turns into a monster. Though devastated, Buffy realizes that her mission is more important than her feelings.
  • Why? "It's a mission-statement show, and one of the ones where I first found out what we could do."
You have reverted without providing any evidence to support the "controversy" of "Surprise/Innocence", which I elaborated in good faith. Either way, it does not change the fact that the metaphor has been widely acclaimed:
Buffy slept with Angel and he went evil - what a great way of telling the old age story of when a relationship goes bad and a boyfriend gets nasty but depite yourself you still love him. Now that was a wonderful metaphor. [11]
Like a comet, the most brilliant monster metaphor knocked the whole show onto a new course: Whedon and Noxon had Buffy lose her virginity on her 17th birthday, and the next morning her kindly boyfriend turned cold and cruel due to an ancient curse. [12]
In Buffy’s most famous allegory of teen trauma, the boy who took her virtue not only abandoned her, but then reverted into the ultra-evil Angelus [13]
&c.
chocolateboy 13:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that we have a problem with the reference of "celebrated" here. I have no objections to "powerful", "brilliant", "famous", the terms you have quoted, since they refer to what the writers have chosen as a tool to convey meaning. I think we agree that the writing in terms of craftsmanship and using the curse as a metaphor is a briliant choice, that is was carefully perpared for episodes, skillfully built up to a climax (no pun intended) at the exact right moment, and takes the story in a totally new direction while retaining its internal logic.

The way this entry is currently written, however, sounds to me like it is the moral lesson transported in this episode is what is being celebrated, as in "good thing they showed those kids what can happen when they have sex as teenagers" in the sense of the government-funded American "Staying a Virgin is a Good Thing" campaigns used in lieu of sex education as it is taught in, say, schools in most of continental Europe (though not to start a flame war on that here -- it is up to each parent to decide what to teach their children).

There are lots of references to the moral question in the early Buffy episodes, this is basically an exercise in googling. I direct you to Slayage TV, where, for example, we have Dan Heinecken's "Fan reading of Sex and Violence on Buffy the Vampire Slayer":

In the world of Buffy, sex is dangerous and to be a real man is to be a monster. Buffy sleeps with her first vampire lover Angel and causes him to loose his soul.

Or try here, where there is a category about "What does Joss have against sex?". Or this fun quote from the Salt Lake Tribune about why Buffy is good for Christians:

"I cannot imagine anyone being able to give a more persuasive advertisement for chastity as the hell Buffy went through following their night together," Kuykendall says. "It just, essentially, ruined everything, and Buffy admitted time and again that it had been a mistake."

Try this review by 11th Hour of the episode itself, which is brutal and to the point:

And the moral is: Sex is bad. By the time Joss is through with you, you will learn this well.

While we are at it, here is a quote for "Beer Bad", which is of course infinitely worse because the plot is made to serve the moral. The BBC Review:

Buffy faces the demon drink with an American puritanism rarely found anywhere else in the series. Black Frost beer turns students into Neanderthals. If you miss that message, turn off your TV before watching it. Its text with no 'sub', which is shocking as Buffy's main strength is intelligent allegory.

Now that we have both proven we know how to google: I think we should be able to find a term that at the same time praises the writing but points out that the message here is not appreciated by all. I would suggest to "powerful", since it is neutral about the message but does the writing justice.

I notice you have also removed the note that the moral stance of Buffy changes over time, with the writers becoming more daring as the seasons progress. I wouldn't have thought that is disputed by anybody, but would be interested to hear your arguments.

On the long run, Buffy and Morals might merit a separate section.

-- Wolf Deunan 00:24, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the examples.
I agree that we have a problem with the reference of "celebrated" here.
Agree with whom?
I have no objections to "powerful", "brilliant", "famous"
"Famous" means "celebrated". "Fame" means "celebrity".
The way this entry is currently written, however, sounds to me like it is the moral lesson transported in this episode is what is being celebrated, as in "good thing they showed those kids what can happen when they have sex as teenagers" in the sense of the government-funded American "Staying a Virgin is a Good Thing" campaigns used in lieu of sex education as it is taught in, say, schools in most of continental Europe (though not to start a flame war on that here -- it is up to each parent to decide what to teach their children).
This para is off-the-charts POV. Not a problem here. But it is a problem when you parlay these sentiments into encyclopaedic "truths" in articles such as "Beer Bad ":
"Beer Bad" only gets worse when translated, mainly because American attitudes towards alcohol are not shared in most other countries. In cultures where binge drinking is not the endemic problem it is in the US and where you don't have to be 21 to drink like in California (the reason Xander has to fake his ID card), the episode is widely seen as a heavy-handed morality play and an example of how American Puritanism is transported even in shows that otherwise dare to defy the norm.
"Beer Good" and "Buffy Sleeps With Angel And They Live Happily Ever After" would make for less interesting TV. In the immortal, Mick Jaggeresque words of Whedon: "I don't give the audience what they want. I give them what they need." The paragraph above belongs in a different article.
In the world of Buffy, sex is dangerous and to be a real man is to be a monster. Buffy sleeps with her first vampire lover Angel and causes him to loose his soul.
How does this:
  1. corroborate the "controversy" of the metaphor?
  2. refute its fame and acclaim?
Or try here, where there is a category about "What does Joss have against sex?".
There's also a "What does Joss have against miniature golf?" section. Should Joss' widely publicized antipathy to this healthy pastime also be addressed in the article?
Or this fun quote from the Salt Lake Tribune about why Buffy is good for Christians:
"I cannot imagine anyone being able to give a more persuasive advertisement for chastity as the hell Buffy went through following their night together," Kuykendall says. "It just, essentially, ruined everything, and Buffy admitted time and again that it had been a mistake."
How about the "fun" quote immediately before it which pitches its tent quite emphatically on the celebrated side of the fence:
Kuykendall was "blown away" by the show's depiction of a simple idea: "love hurts," he says. "You make sacrifices for the one you love."
Try this review by 11th Hour of the episode itself, which is brutal and to the point:
And the moral is: Sex is bad. By the time Joss is through with you, you will learn this well.
What other morals do we find on that page?
And the moral is: Nicholas Brendon should wear less shirts.
And the moral is: Please, for the love of God, don't ask David Boreanaz to do an Irish accent.
Hardly a serious discussion. I can't see how a pair of facetious simplifications constitute "controversy".
While we are at it, here is a quote for "Beer Bad", which is of course infinitely worse because the plot is made to serve the moral. The BBC Review:
Buffy faces the demon drink with an American puritanism rarely found anywhere else in the series. Black Frost beer turns students into Neanderthals. If you miss that message, turn off your TV before watching it. Its text with no 'sub', which is shocking as Buffy's main strength is intelligent allegory.
Fair enough (the suckage of "Beer Bad" is hardly something that needs to be proved by algebra, which is why it holds pride of place in the "puritan" paragraph).
Now that we have both proven we know how to google: I think we should be able to find a term that at the same time praises the writing but points out that the message here is not appreciated by all.
Yes. The two terms are "celebrated" and "controversial". They are both in the article. The "one term" solution betrays a misunderstanding of Wikipedian NPOV (see above).
I notice you have also removed the note that the moral stance of Buffy changes over time, with the writers becoming more daring as the seasons progress. I wouldn't have thought that is disputed by anybody, but would be interested to hear your arguments.
The onus is on you to demonstrate that this is a truth universally acknowledged. Every healthy experience (work, sex, love, school) is a horror movie for Buffy because that's the premise of the show. I see no "change". Wikipedia isn't fanwank.
On the long run, Buffy and Morals might merit a separate section.
A separate article, perhaps. But I see no reason to turn this article into an anti-American soapbox: Buffy is celebrated for its metaphor(s) (16,800) much more than it is chided for its "puritanism" (597).
chocolateboy 02:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not exactly convinced by your replies -- saying that the 11th Hour's review of the sex moral is irrelevant because some of their other conclusions are flippant is sort of like saying that Newton's theory of gravity is bogus because he dabbled in astrology. I still think "celebrated" leaves the entry open to misunderstanding at best and should be changed.

However, I am going to abort this part of the discussion here, because I don't think it makes sense for us to squabble about the meaning of a single word at this stage of the Wikipedia. I suggest we both go on to things more productive and resume the debate when we run out of better things to do -- say, 2045 or so. By then somebody else will probably have changed the entry anyway.

As to question of how Buffy is received in other countries and your accusation of anti-Americanism, this is a different topic, so I stared a new heading below. -- Wolf Deunan 23:02, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Wow. I just discovered this extensive discussion--- ironically, I wrote the word "celebrated" when I first composed the sentence, and it was much more a matter of verbal color and style than my hope to point a great deal of praise toward the episode. I am changing it to the neutral word "noteworthy" which I think conveys all the meaning that is necessary for the paragraph. BarkingDoc

Translations and POVs of Other Cultures

(This refers to the discussion about "Beer Bad" further up and a comment by chocolateboy)

I take issue with you characterizing the quoted section of the "Beer Bad" entry as anti-American, not only because I am an American: A full quote would have shown that this is part of the "Other Languages" section of the entry. This section, when present in an entry, deals with translation oddities (removal of Nazi references in German), instances when there was something special about how the episode was received (no identity cards in "Tabula Rasa" are hard to believe for most of the world), or if it was changed in any special way (heavy editing of some Buffy-Spike scenes for British TV). Buffy is of course an American series made by Americans for Americans, but it has a world-wide audience, and any detailed discussion of an episode in an international forum such as the Wikipedia must have a small corner to deal with these phenomena.

Now of course you can argue that problems with cultural references are nothing special. Germans, for example, missed a large part of "The Matrix" because "Alice in Wonderland" is not required childhood reading; "Apocalypse Now" has an added level of fascination for those who know "Heart of Darkness", and as a more recent example, the parallels between the suicide attack of the riders of Gondor in "Return of the King" and poem "The Charge of the Light Brigade" were not obvious for non-English-speakers. Buffy itself has a reference to this problem (of course) when the Scoobies all sit around watching Indian TV in one episode, guessing at the symbolism.

However, Buffy is exceptional in the extent to which it draws on the common experiences of growing up in the U.S. for its full impact (duh). Since many of these experiences are not shared in other cultures -- no cheerleaders in Germany, to use the example again -- this means that parts of Buffy can cause more confusion, be cryptic or cause disbelief than, say, full-fictional tales such as "Star Trek".

And is some of these cases, unfortunately, the way the episode is received will dovetail with existing prejudices. In "Beer Bad", like it or not, the aspect evoked is that of American Puritanism, fitting just too nicely with the TV pictures of Ashcroft covering up the statue of Justice, the reaction to Jackson's uncovered breast, or all those times on MTV when "the f-word" is replaced by a beep. Prejudices are not automatically a sign of anti-Americanism -- just because my concept of a normal day in the life of Beijing housewife doesn't come close to reality doesn't mean I hate her -- though it of course can be. Normally, though, it is only an unfortunate if widespread aspect of human behavior. Listen to American teenagers watch their first Mangas and exchange their enlightened views on Japan, and you'll see what I mean.

To get back to my point: A section about translations and Buffy in foreign countries is important for a show that is so strongly rooted in the common experiences of one single cultural group. But this doesn't mean you are going to like everything that belongs there, because some people do take a dim view of some things American and will see their prejudices confirmed even where we -- well, at least I -- as an American would not. But to paraphrase you, this is not about "countrywanking", it is about documenting. Which this section does, and the BBC quote given above serves as backup even from a close cultural relative.

We can take heart in that "Beer Bad" is probably the most extreme example in Buffy of this problem, because, well, the episode simply sucks even to us Americans. But even so (or maybe even because of it), the trans-cultural impact gives a good example of another aspect of a very complex series. For this alone, the section is justified.

Now. I think there are about 130 episodes that are waiting to be covered in any form...

-- Wolf Deunan 23:00, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Production Companies

One shouldn't list just Mutant Enemy, Whedon's company. There was Sandollar Productions, which is Sandy Gallin and Dolly Parton's company, as well as 20th Century Fox. Fox is especially needed as they control all the rights. PedanticallySpeaking 17:11, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

How involved were Sandollar, Fox, and (don't forget) Kuzui Enterprises in the actual day to day running of Buffy? AlistairMcMillan 17:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I haven't any idea how involved they were, but Sandollar and Kuzui had some ownership stake in the show, e.g. the review in Variety in March 1997 begins with this line: "Filmed in Los Angeles by Mutant Enemy Inc. and Kuzui/Sandollar, in association with Twentieth Television." Fox, as I said, controlled the rights (the copyright in the show and the various official books is in their name) and the show was filmed at Fox's facility in Santa Monica. PedanticallySpeaking 14:45, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Namesake, Perhaps?

I wrote the article on Montague Summers, who was an expert on Restoration drama and the occult and the author of several books on vampires. Does anyone know if Joss Whedon perhaps named Buffy in homage to him? PedanticallySpeaking 18:01, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I believe she's actually named after Scott Summers, aka Cyclops. Joss is a big X-Men fan. Khanartist 00:08, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's also speculation that she's named after the store Ann Summers.

Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 04:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

new edits--moral values and Tara's death

I added 2 edits: one about Whedon dismissing moral values and emphasizing consequences. This a theme in DVD commentaries, interviews, etc., that I think needs to be made. From reading the article here, it would seem as if the puritanical debate is HUGE and it really isn't. I mean, no one is comparing this show to "7th Heaven" for god's sake, albeit there was nothing on the air as sexually explicit and morally defunct as "Life as we know it."

Also I added a bit about Tara's death, b/c it was strange no one mentioned the dead lesbian cliché which is a HUGE controversy, and also fans who left simply b/c they saw it as an outrage that the healthiest lesbian relationship on TV had been treated in such a manner.

--Dounia 07:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is probably a mistake to suggest than any issue relating to Buffy is a "huge" controversy. Though certain insulated groups are certainly very heated in their discussion, it doesn't exactly take place on a national or even a noteworthy scale. At best it is more akin to a heated academic debate. 67.40.226.35

A "huge controversy among viewers" would be probably be appropriate. Khanartist 03:27, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

General Prose

This article has been growing for many years, and I find that it has become bulky and difficult to understand. I am going to try to streamline it and make the text more direct and informative, but it may mean taking out some of the tiny details that are crammed into almost every sentence. Just a warning that it is not personal--- I think when an article become 60 percent asides and parentheticals, something needs to be done. I will try and do as much restructuring (not just cutting) as I can. --BarkingDoc 02:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article occasionally does something that an encyclopedia should not: it decends into jargon. While JW and company have a gift for coining phrases that is not to be overlooked, use of those phrases should be avoided in a article where that jargon may be confusing or just unfamiliar to the reader. The best example of this was the section heading "big (and little) bads" which was really a bad section heading. (I changed it to "Important Villains".) Anyway, those editing this article should keep the prohibition on jargon in mind. And someone might want to read through a few sections and clean up the use of jargon already present. Philosofool 31 July 2005

Writers

I'd suggest a section at least mentioning the writers of the show...Buffy is known for the tremendous quality of its writing, and several of the writers have fan followings of their own (Drew Goddard, David Fury, Jane Espenson, Drew Z. Greenberg especially pop to my mind). I know people who will start watching other shows, even, if a former Buffy writer starts working for it (like Goddard on Alias and Lost, Espenson on Gilmore Girls, etc.). I'm not sure where it should go...perhaps with the cast in a "cast and crew" section?

Spike aka Randy?

As far as I can recall, Spike was only known as "Randy" for part of one episode--Tabula Rasa. If thats the case it should probably be removed, but I've only watched the series once, so I'm not positive.

absolutely you are correct. There are a few a.k.a's that are just silly. "Anne" and "joan" are also both from one episode each and attributed to Buffy. That sort of thing should be in the individual episode page (if one exists). I got rid of them. --jenlight 06:44, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it seems unnecessary to list names the characters have only used in single episodes. The names used in Tabula Rasa are mostly gags, probably not worth mentioning here at all. Anne is a more important episode to Buffy's character development, maybe it should be mentioned on this page, but not as a nickname. Rhobite 00:44, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

The moniker, Hostile 17, however, arises in a number of episodes. It is the only way the military people refer to Spike. Laszlo Panaflex 22:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Individual Season Additions

I was wondering if a new series of insertions for each individual season is something we want to add. Considering that series had so many turning points that are easily attributed to each new season to longtime fans.

I thought I'd run it by anyone interested before writing up a decent sized synopsis for each season since it'd be pretty time consuming just to have it reverted. --Son of lucas 13:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

  • It's probably unnecessary, as there's already a Buffy plot synopsis. Very succinct, as in one or two sentence, synopses would be fine, in my opinion, but there's no reason to duplicate an existing article. Khanartist 17:20, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Collapsing witticisms

As I belatedly got around to watching Firefly (a serious competitor with Buffy as Joss Whedon's best, IMHO), I found myself wondering about something. One of many recurring entertainments of these Whedon shows is the occasional witty line that suddenly dies in the middle, as if the wit suddenly ran out. Here are Buffy and Firefly examples:

Buffy: Giles, it's one thing to be a Watcher and a librarian. They go together, like chicken and… guh, another chicken… or… two… chickens, or… something — you know what I'm saying!
from Buffy, "What's My Line?", Part I
Mal: Well, looks can be deceiving.
Jayne: Not as deceivin' as a low-down… dirty… deceiver.
from Firefly, "Out of Gas"
Jayne: Captain says you're to stay put. Doesn't want you to run afoul of his blushin' psychotic bride. She figures out who you are, she'll turn you in before you can say… "Don't turn me in, lady."
from Firefly, "Trash"; somehow Firefly's always come from Jayne ☺

I haven't seen Angel enough to provide an example, but I'd be shocked if it didn't have plenty to offer. What I'm wondering is whether Whedon-show fans have come up with a term for these collapsing witticisms, like MST3K's "Crow Syndrome" (extending suggestive quips to an extreme, only to be shouted down). The structure certainly isn't unique to Whedon's shows — Blackadder has a good measure of these — but I was hoping that there was a shorthand term among the Buffy/Angel/Firefly crowd. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suspect "collapsing witticisms" is more felicitous than anything any "pros" would come up with. I was gonna suggest "Blackadderisms", but you beat me to it...
Jerry Seinfeld has an even more truncated simile in "The Switch":
JERRY: I mean - how can I be with someone that doesn't laugh? It's like... well, it's like... something... [14]
chocolateboy 01:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MadTV sketch

Is the "Buffy the Umpire Slayer" sketch on MadTV the same sketch that had Michelle Trachtenberg in it? Or is this a previous one? --Dara 00:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's a previous and much older one, from what I recall, with Nicole Sheridan as said Umpire and no mention of any other cast that I can remember at all...

"Better Picture"

I've reinstated the old picture. There's nothing wrong with the logo per se, but no reason was given for the removal of the season 2 DVD cover.

The latter has the virtue of depicting Buffy (and Angel), whereas the logo is much smaller, and reveals far less about the show.

chocolateboy 13:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

You have explained the good points of the DVD cover very well, but there more poor qualities. It shows an image of Buffy and Angel together, which was only an underlying theme for three of the seven seasons. It is a DVD cover, and therefore not a good representative of the television series as a whole. I was persuaded to change the image by viewing the Angel article, which is very well done, image-wise. The DVD cover could very well easily moved to another part of the article, maybe in a section detailing Buffy and Angel and/or Season 2. I am re-instating the other image, which is the series logo, therefore corresponding with the Angel article and putting across a more formal and professional impression. --Speedway 21:56, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The Angel image is not "very well done". It's a screengrab of the word "Angel", and it tells you nothing about the show. "It is a DVD cover, and therefore not a good representative of the television series as a whole" doesn't make sense. How does the logo reveal anything about the show or about Buffy? The logo is worth just four words, while the picture is worth a thousand. I agree that there's room for both images. Why don't you reinstate the logo somewhere else rather than demoting an image that depicts the subject of the article?

The Buffy logo doesn't correspond to the image used on most of the TV shows or movies referenced in the article: Wonderfalls, Tru Calling, Dead Like Me, Charmed, The Life and Times of Juniper Lee, Hex, The Faculty &c.

chocolateboy 05:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


I agree that the DVD cover is a better image than simply the logo, but I think the best option would be a full cast photo or a representative screen shot--- perhaps an "action" shot, since physical combat is probably the only element of the show which was a consistant focus throughout all seven seasons. I am actively looking for a quality image of that description, but it is proving more difficult than I expected. But there must be one. If anyone has a source... BarkingDoc

Faith

Though I admire the person who dug up Faith's last name, I still believe that the surname only appears in later manifestations, and was intentionally never established in the series. Since the article is about the Tv series, I am removing the last name. BarkingDoc

Archiving Talk Page

If there are no objections, I will be be moving this talk page to an archive page later today. Most of these discussions are very old, and the page has become difficult to navigate. I might leave currently active discussion topics here, if there are any. BarkingDoc

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer/Archive_1&oldid=1136582702"