This movie was sooooo much better than the series. I hate how people say the series was better, the original is always better. Luke, Kristy, David, Paul and Donald were all great in it. Oh and I can't forget about Hillary Swank and Ben Affleck.
shareare you mad... the only time it was better was when the seris hadn't come out. I thought it was great when i was like 12 years old, but now learned that it was masacured from what joss wheldon wanted it to be, the villin sucked and donald sutherland ruined it as he rewrote lines.. what a bastard!!!
shareI agree...The show is way better. I don't know how anyone can say Sarah Michelle Gellar is not talented..She is amazing
shareAnybody who has an honest respect for acting will tell you that Sarah Michelle Gellar is nothing more than a sex object and has little to no acting capability. That's no reason to hate the show, however, but saying she's an amazing actress is just showing off your lack of knowledge about actors and what makes them good. The show can be entertaining, but its just another pop-culture disposable show. There's nothing unique or interesting about it. It's cool if you're under 15 years old. It's just not a show for mature adults. If you think it is, you clearly aren't a mature adult, which is perfectly legal.
- www.therightclique.com -
EAT MORE COPS
Would you, since you're *such* an expert, please explain all the books that are being written about the show? As in, all the books on philosophy and other ideas presented in the show? College *professors* have taken this show seriously, and have written papers and done lectures on it. Please explain how so many "mature adults" take the show seriously enough to do things like that on it? Hmm?
What a filthy job!
Could be worse.
How?
Could be raining.
*BA-BOOM!* *Rain pours down.*
Hah, nice. No wonder the other guy never responded to this. I love it when stupid and uninformed people are proven wrong.
shareThey use the show in an attempt to relate to the increasingly stupid college population in the USA. I'd bet money that all of the courses they're using these lectures in are lower-division introductory courses full of 18 year old kids. There are a lot of TV shows, movies, and books that portray philosophical, mythological, religious, and/or historical themes. The Buffy show simply happens to be very popular and widely known which makes it accessible to the youth. The simple fact that the show was on UPN precludes it from having any original artistic or intellectual value.
shareSo, networks on which one can see a show determine its value? That's a lot simpler filter than the one I'd been using, which is to evaluate shows on their own merits and my individual tastes. Please, tell us which networks are worth our time and which aren't. BBC has shown Buffy too; does that mean it's crap? I may never have to think for myself again.
shareWell, technically the show is viewed as a fine example of a moden fable: merely witty, at its most intellectual, and filled with thinly-veiled metaphors and "lessons." It's no grand masterpiece of originality, but it's hardly terrible, either.
shareYou obviously don't have any idea regardig the underlying themes of the series and the brilliance of the writing. When I read that a show would be made using the movie as its predecessor, I thought it would be a waste of airwaves. However, I accidently watched the first five minutes of the premiere and couldn't turn away. It quickly became my favourite show.
Also, I am neither a teen or college student. I am a 35 years old, a surgeon and a member of MENSA. I have also served in the military in the war. This show may have been "accissible" to youth, but I know many professionals my age who also see the excellence of the writing and acting.
The brilliance of this program was its layers. On the surface it appeared to be a silly teen show with scary monsters, but actually delved into betrayal, remorse, depression, lust, love, addiction, true friendship, family...I could go on and on.
Could it be that you are too ignorant to seee beyond the top layer?
Also, I am neither a teen or college student. I am a 35 years old, a surgeon and a member of MENSA. I have also served in the military in the war. This show may have been "accissible" to youth, but I know many professionals my age who also see the excellence of the writing and acting.
The only folks whom I’ve heard recite their c.v. credentials outside of an academic or clinical setting are assholes.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I have to say that just because a girl is beautiful doesnt mean that she has no capability as an actress. You wanna talk sex object, why do you think kristy swanson was cast? She did pose for playboy. And about the show being only for immature audiences...well if you think that then you obviously dont watch it because then you would see that at the beginning it was about the trials that one goes through as a teenager..but it grew as the character grew and soon it dealt with the issues of adulthood in much the same way. All I have to say is that you cant judge something you know nothing about, and obviously you know nothing about this show.
shareI agree - the later seasons had a much darker edge to them. Anyone who classes attempted rape on tv as being targetted for those under 15 is ill-informed. Here in the UK, most seasons of Buffy are given the 15+ rating anyway.
I think the main reason for the change is because as the characters grew up, so did the fans. Sure, when it started out maybe its main audience was people around Buffy's age - but she ended up in her 20s and the show also needed to mature in that way to keep people of that age interested.
Of course, there are younger people who came to the show in its later seasons, but they would have missed out on so much back story (imagine watching say season 6 or 7 without having any real knowledge of Angel for example, he was such a big factor in the early series) and a lot of it would've gone right over their heads.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You think she isnt an amazing actress? Watch the Season 5 episode "The Body", then come talk.
+That'll put marzipan in your pie plate bingo!+
sarah gellar can act. but she doesn't. well, most of the time. her acting skills are okay when she's just talking or slaying. but in the episode where she switched her body with faith's you could see how bad she was, and how good elizah dushku was.
sarah gellar was a weird buffy but elizah dushku was buffy, not a weird faith.
but on the other hand, when joyce died sarah did a good job.
i guess she can afford much more than she does most of the time in the show.
"Angel Investigation - we hope you're helpless" - Doyle
[deleted]
geez, next time you reply to a 5 year old post, have the decency and quote the post you're referring to.
anyways, never seen dollhouse and liked her acting on Buffy. But go ahead and discredit me as much as you want :) i don't care.
"Angel Investigation - we hope you're helpless" - Doyle
[deleted]
no, i do care about the discussion. just not about you "discrediting" me or something like that. our opinions differ, i can live with that.
"Angel Investigation - we hope you're helpless" - Doyle
First of all, Sarah Michelle Gellar is no "sex object." Just because someone is pretty that does not take away from their abilities. Sarah Michelle Gellar happened to be perfect for the role. She was young, talented and even knew some tae kwon do(making the fighting thing a bunch easier.) The whole "mature adults" thing you said is just pure idiocy. Have you ever noticed the metaphors in it, or were you too busy trying to find things wrong with the show to notice them? One thing for example is Willow's excessive magic use. It's drugs. Using some for a good reason(a disease) is perfectly acceptable. Using it just for the hell of it would consume you. The fact that you went onto a page on IMDB about a movie you don't even like to say something bad about an actress that wasn't even in the movie sort of proves that you aren't such a 'mature adult' yourself now doesn't it? Oh and 'anyone who has a respect for acting' would know how hard it is to make it out there, no matter how you look. If you're ugly then people don't want to watch you because they don't enjoy looking at your face, and if you're pretty people just assume you got hired for sleeping with the director. Anyone with an honest respect for acting would tell you that you have none. Have a nice day.
shareThat's funny because she won an emmy for her "non-acting." I can't stand people who act like they are such experts and everyone else is a complete fool who pales in comparison to their intelligence. Unless you have won an emmy or oscar, I'm gonna say you don't know what you are talking about and just like to insult people's intelligence to make yourself sound smarter than you are.
shareI might have been inclined to agree with you on SMG's acting if not for two episodes of the series: The season one finale called "Prophecy Girl" ("Giles, I'm sixteen years old. I don't wanna die.") and the episode in season 5 where Buffy discovers her mother's body (The Body). Not only were the scripts outstanding but SMG delivered some very solid performances (and yes, as a matter of fact, I *teach* acting at a university level)
I will agree that I thought the real acting talent in the show mostly resided in Tony Head as Giles and Alyson Hannigan as Willow, but SMG was able to do some very fine work and deserves praise for what she has accomplished. She is not actor enough to overcome poor writing, which I think is why her movie career never took off. But then, really, how many actors out there really CAN overcome poor writing?
As for the show being "another pop-culture disposable show," I think you don't really understand the level of the writing. Joss Whedon was creating myth, and the scripts for Buffy worked on multiple levels, the actors were all solid enough in their craft to display that and enhance the solid writing. This is a show that is currently being taught as literature as well as a pop-culture phenomenon.
I might have been inclined to agree with you on SMG's acting if not for two episodes of the series: The season one finale called "Prophecy Girl" ("Giles, I'm sixteen years old. I don't wanna die.") and the episode in season 5 where Buffy discovers her mother's body (The Body). Not only were the scripts outstanding but SMG delivered some very solid performances (and yes, as a matter of fact, I *teach* acting at a university level)
I will agree that I thought the real acting talent in the show mostly resided in Tony Head as Giles and Alyson Hannigan as Willow, but SMG was able to do some very fine work and deserves praise for what she has accomplished. She is not actor enough to overcome poor writing, which I think is why her movie career never took off. But then, really, how many actors out there really CAN overcome poor writing?
As for the show being "another pop-culture disposable show," I think you don't really understand the level of the writing. Joss Whedon was creating myth, and the scripts for Buffy worked on multiple levels, the actors were all solid enough in their craft to display that and enhance the solid writing. This is a show that is currently being taught as literature as well as a pop-culture phenomenon.
[deleted]
[deleted]
you're kidding, right?
shareThe movie rocks. A cult fave. Joss has defended it when others over-bash it. Joss didn't like the Sutherland mess but there are some great bits and really great performances in it (Kristy Swanson, Hilary Swank, Paul Rubens & David Arquette among others). The music was excellent. MUCH of Joss' dialogue survives and it is brilliant.
The bit where Buffy climbs into bed, but it's really king-of-the-vamps Lothos she's lying on & he hands her her teddy bear. Yikes! That still gives me chills.
I loved it when Buffy and Pike are dancing and he gently says (in reference to her slayerhood), "You're not like other girls". and she replies, "Yes, I am". WAY romantic.
Oh, and the wonderful Candy Clark (as Buffy's mom) as she exits the house for the weekend, "Kiss noises!"
My little girl turned 2 the year the movie came out. I will be forever grateful for its influence. Threw my husband out of the house that year too!
I wish Kristy Swanson would guest on Angel, the series, as Buffy. She's a MUCH better match for David Boreanaz. That would complete the circle.
PS Did you know that much of the film was made on the same little lot (Buffyland) here in Santa Monica where the series was filmed? (Mutant Enemy still has its Angel production offices there. It's where Joss goes to work)
Did you also know that Seth Green, who played Oz on the Buffy series also had a part in the film (as a vampire)? Seth's footage ended up on the cutting room floor, but his photo appears on the back of the video box.
Oh, how we love our local productions!!
What Sutherland mess? Why single him out? Just because you didn't like him, don't project your personal feelings about him onto everybody else. He was only in the film for the first half of it anyway.
Donald Sutherland is a great actor. So is Rutger Hauer. The fact that actors of their caliber would even want to be in a teen comedy says a lot about this film.
http://freewebs.com/roomsixproductions/
should have cast Swanson as Buffy's mom. Give her credit for being the original Buffy.
shareWhoa, whao! The movie is good and hilarious but not better than the series. Besides, Affleck is in here for five seconds.
Check out my movie reviews:
http://enterthebalcony.moviespage.com/
I'm not kidding the movie kicks some major ass. I watched the series for a season back in like 98, but I got bored of it.
"I could go at any time"
I agree, this movie is way better than they stupid series. Kristy Swanson & Luke Perry, Rutger Hauer while the series had Sarah Michelle "'I can't act worth sh-t" Geller...enough said.
I still cannot get over the fact that there are some people out there who believe that the film Buffy was better than the series. The two are incomparable. The fiulm was great when you were 12, but the series for far better in terms of its plots, characters, dialogue, etc. It wa smeant for a much more maturing audience. I mean the vampires in the film are just lame. How on earth Rutgar went from Blade Runner to Buffy about somes up his career, and what was Donald Sutherland thinking of.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I thought both were awesome!! SMG Rules though!!! But still I love Kristy Swanson! She was witty and funny as Buffy. The series was better in my mind but I still loved the movie, it's not crap like some people say it is. You really can't compare the two, I look at them as 2 seperate things, things that I love in different ways. Am I the only one who liked Donald Sutherland (a man who was born and raised in my hometown in Canada) as Merrick? I thought Donald, Kristy, Luke,Rutger,Paul and David all did a great job. The movie was a comedy while the series is a drama, so you really can't compare them. Either way they both Rock!!!
shareEWW! I couldn't stand the movie. It was not good at all and far fom scary. I love the series though. It may not have been scary, but it has it's moments, but the main reason I love the series more than the movie is because it is so much more funnier and the characters were very well written.
:::~DO THE COOL WHIP~:::
"It was not good at all and far fom scary" ((Super Gurl))
Um, it wasnt meant to be scary. It's a teen movie, and like most teen flicks, it's not meant to invoke some deeper level of thinking. I personally enjoy the movie because it is light and cheesy.
But hey, that's your opinion if you didnt like it.
Umm, it wasn't supposed to be scary. It was a teen comedy and a parody, if you will, of horror flicks. Come on - BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER??? The title alone is hysterical! And if you didn't think this movie was funny, you don't know what funny is.
There were a whole lot of very funny quotable lines in this movie. Joss Whedon is an excellent writer with a very dry/droll sense of humour. It takes someone with a bit of intelligence to get the joke when the joke isn't right in your face obvious, like so many other stupid, mindless teen flicks that are out there.
This one's a classic: "They had fangs, they were biting people. They had this look in their eyes - totally cold. Animal. I think they were Young Republicans."
http://freewebs.com/roomsixproductions/
Your not the only one daysfan, I liked Donald Sutherland as Merrick also. I just don't understand why there are so many Buffy movie haters out there. You should be greatful for the movie, if it weren't for it there would be no series. Not that I care about the series, but I know alot of people do.
"Excuse me, I believe you have my stapler"
Hm... I don't think so! If the movie hadn't come out, I don't think that that would have been the out for the series...but anyway.
You are really asking, why there are so many Buffy- the movie haters? I can tell you! Kristy Swanson is one of the worst actresses in the world. That was my impression when I saw the scene when Buffy gets frightened. That was so artificial! I really had to switch off the TV, or I had thrown anything into it. Damn, how poor this scene had been...
whoever said the movie is better than the series has obviously never even seen the series
share[deleted]
To even call the series "mature" shows how mature you are clearly not. The show is designed for teens/young adults. It's a pretty disposable show. I'm surprised that you'd have such low standards.
- www.therightclique.com -
EAT MORE COPS
The show is nothing like all those teen dramas. There are plenty of older people who love the show. No way is it designed just for teens and young adults. Anyone who's ever seen it would know that. The show is very superior to the movie. Even though I like the movie, it just doesn't compare to the show. The cast, the acting, the stories, the effects are all better in the show.
Satan is a little man
That rather depends on your definition of mature...
Personally, I consider the large number of theorists who have written on the issues, symbolism and intetextuality of the Buffy series to be mature. I also consider the university lecturers and honours students from around Australia who gave talks on similar themes at a symposium at Melbourne University a couple of years ago to be mature.
I also find it worth noting that the series' treatment of certain topics, such as the death of Buffy's mother, could be considered severely traumatic to younger minds - even as an adult, I found it deeply emotional.
Also, I have to wonder why, if you consider the series so immature and those who watch it to have such low standards, you feel the need to follow this thread at all.
Hespa.
[deleted]
I don't think the film is better. I think that the film made the series possible. remember that before the film the only vampire hunter were men. Women were the ones who were supposed to be rescued. The film established that it was not a freak accident. anomaly but a whole legend.
share[deleted]
I don't think I've ever disagreed with anyone as strongly as I disagree with you right now, my friend.
I was hugely disappointed when I first saw the movie. At the time, I'd only seen about half of Season 1 of the series and I wasn't really hooked on it, yet. Watching the movie almost put me off the whole franchise.
If I may paraphrase Xander Harris, "on a scale of one to ten, it sucks". Kirsty Swanson is utterly unconvincing as Buffy and, like most of the other characters, ends up as a meaningless caricature. Only David Arquette is worthy of note, but his makeup looks so ludicrous, I can't enjoy watching the character anyway.
Personally, I think the Merrick character was better in the series - he wasn't named and you only see him for about 25 seconds of total screen time - but he makes more of an impact than Donald Sutherland did in a whole movie. This isn't Sutherland's fault, I hasten to add - he's an outstanding actor, of course.
I don't know whether the appalling quality of the movie can be entirely blamed on rewrites, either. Don't get me wrong, I love the man, but sometimes Joss Whedon just turns out some utter drivel. I know where I'm coming from here; I've seen the pilot to Tru Calling. Alien Resurrection wasn't exactly the greatest thing he's ever written, either.
Buffy, Angel and Firefly are all superb - but only Angel maintained high quality writing from the very outset. Both Buffy and Firefly had slightly shaky starts (presumably as he was getting used to characters and the universes for the first two or three episodes), but even then, they still had those wonderful flashes of Whedon brilliance. The Buffy movie is lacking even that, as is Tru Calling, incidentally. And to think Eliza turned down a Faith spin-off...
Anyway, I personally think that Joss should make his foray into movies on a collaboration with a chap called Kevin Smith.
Now that would rock. :)
The series is so much better. The film isn't bad but the best elements of the film were picked up in the series. Kirsty Swanson was good as Buffy, she can pull off cute girl with attitude who just wants to have fun well, but Sarah Michelle Gellar can do that AND do emotional scenes well. something Kirsty Swanson was very poor at in this film. Donald Sutherland was pretty good. Luke Perry.. sorry, but he can't act at all. The best thing I've seen him do is "sideshow Luke Perry" in the Simpsons.. and he couldn't even do that well!
The one thing I hate about this film is the last 20 minutes- I didn't understand at all what was going on there. I usually understand films and ave to explain it to my friends what it's supposed to mean, but I couldn't follow what was going on in here- the plot just seemed to turn to goo. That said, I like a lot of arty films which sterotypical dumb American teenagers (no, I'm not being racist etc, I know that most Americands are intelligent, but you have to admit a lot of US films are marketed at the less than clever majority) would loudly complain that they didn't understand. Maybe they could explain the ending of this film to me.
Also this film was originally intended to be a dark comedy, but was rewritten many times to appear more lighter and more mainstream. The bottom line is this film is funny and reasonably entertaining, but if it wasn't conected to the TV series most people would never try to watch it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
um, i don't think joss has anything to do with tru calling at all.
share[url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364817/fullcredits#writers]He didn't.[/url]
shareum, i don't think joss has anything to do with tru calling at all.
shareI think to a certain extent, it comes down to which you saw first. I saw the movie long before there was a series. Therefore, it took me a good while to get used to SMG as Buffy. Eventually though, I got used to the series, and believe it is far superior to the movie. But, since I saw the movie first, it still has a place in my mind, even though it is so corny. Seeing the series first and then the movie is the equivalent of playing the latest Mario game and then playing NES Super Mario Brothers for the first time. The old SMB is nothing special to you since played the shiny new one first, so it's just an old, boxxy graphics game. To those of us that played it in its hayday, it's a classic and will always be one. Basically, whoever you saw as the first Buffy, you will always think of as Buffy.
The two Buffies are completely different animals. A tongue in cheek, cornball movie, and a serious, dark series. It's hard to compare them fairly. The movie had 1.5 hours to work with. The series had 144 hours.
The thing that gets me is, in the movie, it's directly built around Kristy Swanson's overacted stereotypical valley girl with not a lot of variance. In the series, I feel that SMG is dwarfed by the excellent ensemble cast around her, especially Aly Hannigan and James Marsters (not to discount the rest of them). This to me is why the series comes out on top. If Swanson's Buffy would have had a Willow... and a little more seriousness, who knows...
It always surprises me when people think the movie is better than the series.
Satan is a little man
[deleted]
[deleted]
Basically, whoever you saw as the first Buffy, you will always think of as Buffy.
I do not agree with the "first Buffy" notion. I've always found Kristy Swanson a very poor actress, seeming to be getting by on looks, particularly her appeal to men, though she surprised me in "Bad to the Bone". Kristy as Buffy is quite awkward at times; she simply doesn't move that well, at least in this film. My response to the movie was definitely lukewarm. Even Rutger Hauer disappointed me, which was a shock, as I usually enjoy his performances. It was an OK film that I watched again if there was nothing else available.
I was intrigued when I heard about the series. I had never seen Sarah Michelle Gellar in anything, so I had no expectations of good or bad. My family watched the first episode and found it completely entertaining but supposed it would fall into the monster-of-the-week rut that haunts many supernatural series. However, "BTVS" became a must-see on our viewing schedule, and we stayed with it to the very end. (My mother~now in her early 80s~is particularly taken with Spike.)(I, at nearing 60, agree!)
I always have done a lot of penpalling, and I know for a fact that my fellow Baby Boomers and those of other ages (younger and even older) throughout the States are loyal fans of the series. It also proved popular in other countries where I had penfriends. All of us watch reruns, too. In fact, I generally tune in at 3 a.m. to watch the nightly episode on Chiller Channel. I have the series on videotape and often treat myself to a marathon. At this point, I have no idea how many times~perhaps several dozen~I've watched the series. There are moments that still make me cry, and I don't cry at series/movies very often; and, the humor never grows stale. It's also one of the most quotable series I've ever watched.
I vote for Buffy No. 2 though I started with Buffy No. 1.
EDIT: I had to come back to say I've never been a Luke Perry fan and still am not. I don't mind him as Pike, but I had heard about him being such a sex symbol from that series, which I've never seen. I kept thinking, "THIS is who they're making a fuss about?" I simply couldn't see it. His "draggy" voice is irritating, too. So, don't think for a moment I watched the movie for him. First, I love horror~comedy and drama; and I especially like the vampire genre. The movie was and still is (I watched it tonight as a "filler") on the "blah" side. There are a few quotable lines, but it's just off for a number of reasons, most of them pointed out by others. I must say that I still do not get the attraction to/fuss about Perry.
~~MystMoonstruck~~
Whedon and Kevin Smith? What a brilliant idea; that would be awesome.
shareThe movie was a idiotic mess. Swanson was a bubblehead bimbo who couldn't act her way out of a paper bag. Rutger Hauer was wasted. David Arquette was more annoying than usual and peewee herman was straight out of a bad sitcom.
Sutherland was good, but it wasn't enough to save this travesty
But mostly, I found the movie to be boring. Not finny, not scary. It just sat there like a load of compost, slowly decaying and stinking up the joint.
To my eternal regret, I missed an entire season an a half of the wonderful TV series because of my bad memories of this piece of crap movie. Fortunately, I came to my senses midway through the second season just in time to see Buffy (the REAL Buffy, not the Barbie doll prototype) make it with Angel, which caused him to lose his soul.
I trust you have since gone back and seen Season 1 and the first half of Season 2.
The movie was great, but the series was much better. All of you are saying how awesome the actors were or weren't, but what about the characters in the film vs. the characters in the series?
The movie Buffy was a sort of bimbo in a Vally girl sence, but she also knew that she had a destiny fighting vampires and she was a pretty cool character who I liked very much. The TV Buffy was like the movie Buffy a little at the beginning of the series, but she matured during the later seasons. Sometimes I will say that I like the Buffy character in the movie rather than the one in the series, but most of the time I will say that I like the character on the TV series moer.
Buffy's Watcher Merrik was a little stuck up and I didn't really like him. Giles on the other hand is awesome! He got a little grouchie at times, but hey, that's who Giles is!
I despised Buffy's friends in the movie because they were too Vally girlish. After seeing Willow and Xander as Buffy's friends in the TV series and than seeing Buffy's friends in the movie...I couldn't handle. Willow is, without a doubt, the best character created in television history.
Buffy's boyfriend in the movie is Pike who, in the book Sins of the Father, travels to Sunnydale pay Buffy a visit among other things. I liked Pike. He is complex character and reading about him in the book was enjoyable. The thing is, Joss Whedon created the character of Angel for Buffy the series and Angel rules out all of Buffy's boyfriend on the movie or the series by far because his storyline is so amazing and very well planned out.
Joss Whedon did an awesome job on the movie and an amazing job on the series. The actors were also awesome. I for one thought that Kristy Swanson and Sarah Michelle Gellar did great jobs as Buffy. Many people probably only saw the movie because Luke Perry is in it and Beverly Hills 90210 was big at that time. Luke Perry was good though. I have heard different stories about Donald Sutherland, so I'm not going to coment what he did behind the scenes, but on screen, he was great. Anthony Stewart Head played Buffy's Watcher in the series brilliantly. Nicholas Brendon, Emma Caulfield, Michelle Trachtenberg, James Marsters, David Boreanaz, Seth Green, Amber Benson, Marc Blucas and Charisma Carpenter (sorry if I forgot a main cast member) were all really great in the series. Alyson Hannigan, in my oppinion is by far the best actress I've ever seen. Go Alyson! Apparently Ben Affleck was in the movie at one point...
Anyway, the point is that the movie and the TV series are both wonderful, but in my opinion the series was better than the movie though some people will say otherwise.
saramcollens said:
<< Willow is, without a doubt, the best character created in television history. >>
I love you, and would very much like to have your babies.
[deleted]
You obviously missed the whole point of the movie. The so-called Barbie doll prototype is the joke. Kristy Swanson played it exactly as she was supposed to. She wasn't supposed to act like Meryl Streep, genius.
Let me explain it in simple terms so you can understand it:
It's highly unlikely that someone named "Buffy", who's a high-school cheerleader and a "valley girl", would have superhuman strength and kill vampires.
Joss is someone who obviously has a love for horror/sci-fi flicks. He probably grew up watching them. The heroes in these movies are usually very strong, male, authority figures. They're usually taken very seriously. Think of Van Helsing in the old Hammer horror movies. Making someone like Buffy be the hero is totally against the stereotype of what a vampire hunter looks/acts like. Therein lies the joke. It's.... a.... parody. Get it? *nudge nudge wink wink*
http://freewebs.com/roomsixproductions/
Ha, Ha Ha......Thank Mr. Condescension.
I understand it was supposed to be a parody. But Parodies are supposed to be FUNNY. I didn't find the movie to funny in the least. Just retarded and boring. The worst sin that a comedy can commit is to be dull.
"This is why evolution is bunk. You're not smart enough to evolve FROM something."
The series is better, much much much better. I used to looove the movie before the serious came out, I was around 6 or 7, tried to be just like Buffy, it was pretty easy, she had about as much depth as a 6 or 7 year old. Now I know that the show is amazingly better then the movie, which by the way, I still enjoy. But without the movie, no show so i guess Ill give u that much, and the movie has it funny momens. The show has more of course. There is no contest between the two.
sharethis debate is wildly funny to me, the movie and series are both too different for me to compare... i love both...
the series did improve on the orginal idea though i mean just the addition of xander alone, and then the vamp turning to dust, no the series rocked for me
funnily enough though i'm not that fond of sarah outside of the series, she did good in cruel intentions but now i've notice that she doesn't really strench her acting abilities enough for each new role, but i'll always love her as buffy...
same goes for ms swanson, i loved her as the movie buffy she did a killer job, but i haven't enjoyed her work since really... cept in the movie i can't remember the name of it right now sorry...
but someone said something about there about having to love it cause it's they orginal, i have to dissagree, i respect it cause it's the original, but i don't think you have to love orginals, there is always room for improvement.... that's just my opinion though :)
-Hi your nobody!... shh don't tell anyone-
I don't know how people can really compare the two...yes the series came out because of the movie, it has the same title and same basic pretence, but they are so unbelieveably different!!! The movie is a total comedy and the series falls more under the genre of drama/suspense.
Personally I prefer the movie but I can see how people who love the show and SMG are dissapointed when they watch the movie since it isn't anything like their precious show.
Ignore the special effects of the movie---Buffy discovers her calling and that it's better to save the world than be superficial and shallow.
TV Series does have better budget, but here Buffy has entire crew to lean on. Yes she's still figuring out somethings (still a teen after all) but the BIG revelation is over.
Series never ever would have been possible to conceive of in any format w out movie first happening.
[deleted]