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.
share[deleted]
Wow! I thought I was the only one!
The movie was good and the series sucked in comparison because the series was dramatic and the movie was funny as hell. Now, I respect the series for the talent that went into making it, but I'll always see it as a perversion of this movie, which I love to death.
"You ruined my jacket! Kill him a lot!"
_________________________________________________________
I'm a genuine freak and you have to wear a mask!
I'll shoot the cook. My car's out back anyway.
but I'll always see it as a perversion of this movie
[deleted]
Kristy Swanson is NOT an actress. She is just a sex object, like one idiotic poster said SMG was.
Well, let me tell you this, Sarah Michelle Gellar can out-act Kristy Swanson any day. SMG IS an amazing actress and you obviously haven't seen enough Buffy -- the REAL Buffy, not the sh*tty movie -- to realize that. And no, one filler episode does not count. "The Body," "Innocence," "The Gift," "The Prom," "Earshot," "Forever," "Tough Love," "Spiral," "Weight of the World," "Prophecy Girl," "Into the Woods," "Listening to Fear," "Passion," "Becoming Pts. 1 & 2," "Graduation Day Pts. 1 & 2," and so many more all had fantastic SMG performances.
If you say Kristy Swanson is good in this role -- the only thing she does is talk like a Valley girl -- then you're clearly and blatantly misinformed. Ever wonder why she doesn't get any job offers any more? Her "scared" act sucks, her "greiving" when Merrick died was pathetic.
This was supposed to be some sort of horror movie but they turned Joss's script on it's ass until it became this. If you think Buffy the show is immature, you're an idiot. Plain and simple. You've never seen the show and you're just pissed off cause they made a show without Kristy Swanson, who you oh-so-adore. It started out as a teen show, yes, but it was never something like "Dawson's Creek" or "7th Heaven." As the show went on, it transcended into more adult fare like the characters were becoming. This movie -- this cheesy teen movie -- is immature. Not the series. Again, if it were so immature, why would collegian professors host lectures on it's themes, metaphors, and symbolism? Or is it just a little class full of 18-year-olds like that one poster said, because he's what, 19?
In short, this movie is only talked about anymore because of the show. The show is wonderful and the best. This movie is cheesy and forgettable.
I would just like to state that both actresses were cast due to their marketability and 'hotness'. However, to say that Kristy was horrible in this movie and that she only portrayed a valley girl is incorrect. To anyone who has viewed the movie without bias and loved it (such as myself) Kristy portrayed, wonderfully, the transition from vapid blonde to world weary adult throughout the duration of the film and her acceptance of being the slayer. Also, as previously mentioned, this movie was intended as a horror/comedy, therefore, she gave the role exactly what was required without taking it over the top. Then, to say that her dramatic performance was horrible post Merrick's death is ridiculous. The following scene was two minutes of her holding a pillow and crying on a bed with no words spoken. How can you criticize that? As far as the remainder of the movie is concerned, she did an amazing job with a physically taxing role and pulled off each and every one liner to perfection. Plus, to say that the action sequences were easy is a BOLD understatement. In preperation for the role, Kristy learned martial arts, cheer routines, and gymnastics. Now, by any standards, this is a huge task when you are only given a couple months and an hour and half of screen time to convince your audience. And, I dare say, her fight/gymnastic/cheer sequences were very convincing and numerous.
I know that everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion...and this is mine.
In the end, I just found Kristy more convincing than Sarah (both physically and in matters performance derived). Kristy is, and forever will be, the only Buffy for me.
By the way, I really don't find it very beneficial to the show that out of "over 144 hours" of television that were so "GREAT!" every fan keeps listing the same six or seven episodes. That just shows that the rest of the series was not up to par. So, by the rule of fractions, I would assume that what is being stated is that the show is not as good as even the die hard fans would have one believe.
"This is your defense; your puny faith?"(grabs the crucifix, which catches fire)
(pops the top off the hairspray can) "Nope, my keen fashion sense."
"Excuse much, rude or anything?" - Kristy Swanson (The ORIGINAL Buffy)
By the way, I really don't find it very beneficial to the show that out of "over 144 hours" of television that were so "GREAT!" every fan keeps listing the same six or seven episodes. That just shows that the rest of the series was not up to par. So, by the rule of fractions, I would assume that what is being stated is that the show is not as good as even the die hard fans would have one believe.
That doesn't necessarily buck the trend that has been set on this board. Of course opinion is subjective, that's why we are all here. However, I keep seeing it suggested that, if you do not believe in the show or the talent of its cast, then I should please refer to only six or seven episodes to prove the shows validity or the relevance of the cast.
That, to me, does not bode well for a show that ran past 100 episodes.
"Excuse much, rude or anything?" - Kristy Swanson (The ORIGINAL Buffy)
You're missing the point of those 6 or 7 episodes. They're not just the best in the series, they're some of the finest writing ever in television history.
Those episodes are usually mentioned so that the uninitiated can see the show at its finest.
Satan is a little man
"finest writing ever in television history"- perhaps you are giving this show too much credit. However, that's your opinion and I respect that.
Meanwhile, to call the non-watchers uninitiated is a bit creepy ;)
"Excuse much, rude or anything?" - Kristy Swanson (The ORIGINAL Buffy)
I didn't mean uninitiated in any negative terms.
And it's not just my opinion. There are many critics out there that say things similar to what I said. I was just kinda paraphrasing.
Satan is a little man
I liked this movie when it came out it's cute and kinda of silly but, I like those kind of movies sometimes. But, better than the series NO! I didn't start watching the series until about season 4 in reruns occasinally at first but, then I got more and more into until I was watching two seasons at once (reruns and the new seasons) and keeping up with Angel spinoff to. It was a wonderful show that made me laugh, cry, and scared me a little. I have all the DVD'S all six seasons and most of the seasons of Angel and they don't come cheap. I was not a kid when started watching it. The movie's cute but, the show is brillant. Just because some people don't get it doesn't make the show stupid or bad. I miss the shows and watch the DVD's.
Jennifer
Agian to repeat what some well informed posters state "comparing the movie to the TV series is comparing apples and oranges" and to state the obvious some people love apples and hate oranges and visa-versa.
As for the opinion that Buffy the TV series is the greatest series ever, well they should get thier heads checked, Buffy:TTS can not even be held in the same reagards as All in the Family, M*A*S*H, Hill Street Blues, E.R., St. Elsewhere, NYPD Blue, The Tonight Show (with Johnny Carson), Late Night/Late Show (with David Letterman), The Ed Sullivan Show, 60 Minutes,I Love Lucy,The Simpsons, Futureama, Monty Python's Flying Circus, Benny Hill, The Red Green Show and some more recent great shows as Deadwood, The Sopranos, Dead Like Me, Rescue Me and Nip/Tuck.
I have seen sufficient amount of the last 4 seasons of the series and can say it went south and "jumped the shark" after the ridiculous "Musical" episode, the inclusion of a "force" of monster hunters was insipid as well not to mention the end of the last episode was just awful, only surpassed by the weak ending to the 2nd worst Star Trek spin off (IMHO) Star Trek: Voyager.
I like the movie, just bought the DVD 2day, because I loved it when it first came out and still do to this very day (duh!), I see it as the perfect movie to attack the ridiculous concept of a chosen Vampire slayer (a concept Whedon himself oblitterated with the end of the finale)and would like to see an amped up 2 DVD version with outtakes, bloopers and an honest commentary from Joss Whedon.
You do realize that if you got an honest commentary from Joss he would point out all the wrong thing with the movie and how the show is how he really wanted it to be? Joss didn't like the movie and he pretty much hated Donald Sutherland too. So I don't think you would appreciate an honest commentary from Joss. Maybe one from the actors or director.
Satan is a little man
You do realize that 'Buffy' was included in TV Guide's 50 Greatest Shows of ALL Time- don't you? And I'll give you a lot of shows ('I Love Lucy' and a few others) but 'Nip/Tuck'? You have got to be kidding me! The popularity of a show right now does not mean it will stand the test of time. 'Buffy' has been off the air for years and still going strong. Whenever they cancel 'Nip/Tuck' it won't even be a blip on the radar a few years later.
And you do realize that you don't need an "honest commentary" from Joss Whedon, right? Just read any interview where he talks about the movie and he's being brutally honest in the fact that his script was destroyed by the people who didn't understand it.
The movie was cute, I'll give that to everyone who likes it and it obviously has lasted for years, but it doesn't match the series. At least the people who post on this board in favor of the series have seen enough of both to make their honest comparisons. Those who like the movie better, seem to have only watched one (or in some cases, half of one) episode and judged seven years on that.
Do you people realize that there were 144 episodes all together? You can no more judge a series on one or two episodes, than I could judge the movie on the first five minutes. It makes a big difference, so try judging something fairly before you criticize it.
I do realise that Buffy made TV Guide's 50 Greatest list of all time, but this is the same list that had (in my humble opinion THE LAMEST TV SHOW OF ALL TIME) Sienfeld as the greatest show of all time -I would rather watch grass grow/paint dry/Cop Rock or that dumb-a$$ Zack Show from VH-1, than watch the drek that was Stienfeld.
As with most (if not all) Top ?# Lists, they are purely a matter of opinion, and my inclusion of Nip/Tuck is because I think it blends the best parts of a medical documentary show/drama.
As for the request of an honest commentary, I have not read one interview with Joss Whedon, so I have never heard his point of view, but to "see" at what points his "vision" for the film where altered is what I would like to see.
The movie was indeed cute as the directors/producers wanted it to be-as opposed to what Joss wanted, a movie in the ahem-vein as the series. The movie's popularity has lasted a while (and I believe will last longer still) as it is a great "Cult Film") in the vein as The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Evil Dead, Black Sabbath,Ths Toxic Avenger, DeadAlive etc. (and lest we forget Plan 9 from Outer Sapce).
Would a "Whedon" Buffy movie done any better-it's hard to say-given the current state of the horror/drama/comedy genre as opposed to the time. With Hollywood it's all a matter of timing (beit in a culture's(audience's) desires in movies, a writer's and/or director's skill level, film tech. level etc. etc.).
You are indeed correct about judging a series (7 seasons long and 144 episodes) by only watching a few episodes or even a half a season, but that is how life in TV is-look at Family Guy for example (a show I still don't like) it did mediocre in the short time it was on Fox and was cancled, it was revived and has done fairly well on cable.
THe viewing public and particularly the TV executives involved with a show make or break a show-another good example of this is Star Trek:Enterpise-from the marketing faux pas of not having the preface Star Trek in the beginning/sub-par stories in the 1st season and a half/a lame-dumb-a$$ theme, but the writing did improve by leaps and bounds for this final season-can/should it be saved by cable-maybe but only if the improved writing wasn't just a last grasp to keep the show going untill they reached enough episodes for syndication and the quality of overall writing keeps this same level up.
As for judging a movie in the 1st 5 minutes the same anaolgy applies, but people are more than likely to sit past the 5 min. mark on a film as they have invested money to see it as opposed to just turning on a TV and getting a show for free (or maybe on a channel included in a cable package). I can honestly say I have only walked out on 1 movie in my entire film going life and that was a showing of The Rocky Horror Picture Show at a local theatre due to the lack of audience par-tic-i-pa-tion and not the film itself.
"I'm a cross dressing lesbian trapped in a man's body"-S. Welch II
Well, it's not like we can change each other's opinions- although, we are in 100% agreement about Seinfeld. And you are very right to say that Buffy the movie is a cult film, just as Buffy the show is a cult show. That's why they are both so popular and we can each thank Joss for both. Personally, the show will remain a favorite of mine and the move will always be a fun memory for me. I will rewatch it whenever it's on cable, but if you haven't watched much of the show, I do recommend trying to catch season 2 in reruns (preferably starting with 'School Hard') and see what you think after that. After all, Joss (more or less) had a hand in both and they will both be around for a long, long time. I'm just saying, if you're bored one day, give it a shot. It's got a genre that appeals to everyone and the storylines are (99% of the time) top notch. That's a lot better than some of the crap shows that are out there today.
shareAs for the opinion that Buffy the TV series is the greatest series ever, well they should get thier heads checked, Buffy:TTS can not even be held in the same reagards as All in the Family, M*A*S*H, Hill Street Blues, E.R., St. Elsewhere, NYPD Blue, The Tonight Show (with Johnny Carson), Late Night/Late Show (with David Letterman), The Ed Sullivan Show, 60 Minutes,I Love Lucy,The Simpsons, Futureama, Monty Python's Flying Circus, Benny Hill, The Red Green Show and some more recent great shows as Deadwood, The Sopranos, Dead Like Me, Rescue Me and Nip/Tuck.
I have seen sufficient amount of the last 4 seasons of the series and can say it went south and "jumped the shark" after the ridiculous "Musical" episode, the inclusion of a "force" of monster hunters was insipid as well not to mention the end of the last episode was just awful, only surpassed by the weak ending to the 2nd worst Star Trek spin off (IMHO) Star Trek: Voyager.
I like the movie, just bought the DVD 2day, because I loved it when it first came out and still do to this very day (duh!), I see it as the perfect movie to attack the ridiculous concept of a chosen Vampire slayer (a concept Whedon himself oblitterated with the end of the finale)and would like to see an amped up 2 DVD version with outtakes, bloopers and an honest commentary from Joss Whedon.
[deleted]
On this board, yeah. There are threads on other boards that have way more, though. If you check out the board for The Passion of the Christ, there are several threads that have well over 100 posts in them.
shareConsider a few things here when comparing the two.....The movie got horrible reviews, didn't win any awards, and the only good thing it had was the name. I have seen the movie and it just doesn't cut it. The series on the other hand got great reviews, won a number of awards (many for Sarah Michelle Gellars role as Buffy), and if it was as bad as you are saying wouldn't have ran for SEVEN (that's right SEVEN) straight years. No offense, but the fact is that the series is better.
share[deleted]
FUNNY!
this is a joke right!!??
if this movie wasn't made, then Buffy would have had more fans
well..this movie just makes the name "Buffy" stupid
well it isn't very famous....almost nobody knows it thak god for them sake
I had 2 friend that had seen the movie and said, that was the wordt 2-ish time of my life!
they din't want to see the series with me cause of the movie
well I forced them with my dvd's and eventually they have become a huge Angel/Buffy fan also
even my mom hated the movie
I don't hate it...but it just was bad for Joss Whedon..
i give this movie: 4
__________________________
Angel & Buffy forever(1996-2004)
{R.I.P.} Glenn Quinn
[deleted]
[deleted]
I loved the series first, then I saw the movie, loved the movie and still loved the series. I disliked Donalad Sutherland as Merrick but I loved the rest of the casting. It was just right for the right time in the decade. The series came out later in the 90's and I thought that was a smart move as well.
I wish the audience could have been able to see what Joss TRULY wanted out of the movie and not the *beep* by Donald Sutherland version.
Kind of OT but-
Doesn't anyone else find it a bit funny that Aly Hannigan and Luke Perry worked on the theater verison of When Harry Met Sally together? I just thought that was a bit interesting that they were both on Buffy (in some form).
The pure Joss version of the tv series is far far better than the film. You can see some of his vision in it but it really is terribly diluted. You can see what a good thing it would have been if Joss had been able to do what he wanted by the series. But then again we may not have gotten the brilliant tv series if that had happened.
share
i agree. i liked the movie..but only for what it was, a light-hearted popcorn flick. it had some interesting ideas, some good dialogue, and the actors did fairly well (david arquette was pretty one-note, though..and luke perry...sheesh).
joss whedon has made it known that the movie in no way resembled his vision, and i think that's where the movie's problems lie. i'm sure if joss got to make it the way he saw it, it would have been as good as the series.
the tv series is better than the movie, i think, but of course, we can't all agree on that. honestly, when i first saw the movie when i was 10 i thought it was the best think ever! a gorgeous blonde chosen by fate to kick vampire ass...a truly original concept. i'm glad joss got to build on his artistic vision with the series...and alyson hannigan is the better actress, but sarah michelle gellar is pretty talented herself. one question though. what's this about joss and donald sutherland? did they not get along? and i hear that alyson and sarah were at each other's throats. does anyone know what happened?
"whatever helps you sleep at night, bitch..." - stewie griffin
[deleted]
[deleted]
You must be out of your mind!! The series was SOOOOOOOO much better than the movie i have them both. The series is better. Joss Whendon was supposed to be remakeing that movie and putting the paopole who played in the series to play the parts with a better script.
shareThis will probably be too far down to ever get read but...
Joss originally intended this to be a prolouge to his series, but the editors turned it from a "darker" movie to a light-hearted vampire joke fest.
It was CLOSE to what Joss was aiming for, but still altered quite a bit.
This isn't the first time Joss's dreams have been twisted :) --
Two words -- Alien Resurrection (hehehe) Ok so he wasn't working with much to start with, there's only so many ways a dead horse can be beat, but I'd like to have read the original script. But on a personal note, I don't think the "einstein" of screenwriters could have made that story plausible, I mean she jumped into a damn inferno! NO DNA could survive! The antics of the cast was the only thing that made that movie bearable.
Ok enough tangents, the bottom line is, it was only until the series that Joss was able to make Buffy the way he wanted without interference. So if you like the movie more, you probably enjoy fun, light hearted movies. If you liked the series more, then you probably go for the darker, psychological thriller with just a touch of humor style shows.
It's all relative...heck I was one of the FEW people who thought Dances with Wolves was boring, very well filmed and directed, but boring! In my opinion the pace was too slow, it could have been edited better. :P Some will agree with me, others will not...and I loved Field of Dreams so it's not Costner I hate :)
Oh well let me close with this -- keep up the great work Joss, never let anyone discourage you, especially not FOX! *cough* Firefly *cough*
yeah, Alien Resurrection looked like it could've been better. and you're not the only one who found Dances with Wolves boring. it wasn't a bad movie, it was just boring. i think it's one of those movies that are either for you or not.
i enjoyed the Buffy movie back when it came out, but only because i thought it was a corny popcorn comedy. it wasn't til later when the series came out that i found out Joss was very unhappy with how the movie was butchered. the series is leaps and bounds better than the movie, but the movie still has it's high points. i liked it. i wonder what Joss will do with Wonder Woman now...it should be interesting.
and don't worry. no post is ever too far down for me to read...lol.
"whatever helps you sleep at night, bitch..." - stewie griffin
I have to say the movie sucks. I've only seen half of it though, as the DVD stalled halfway through it and I couldn't get it to work. Anyways, SMG is not a good actress. She was though, absolutely brilliant in the BtvS series. As for Kristy Swanson, she didnt impress me. And the only other film I've ever seen her in is Flowers in the Attic, which doesnt say much for her acting abilities. Of course, the whole film sucked, so you never know. The film was slow, the jokes weren't funny and basically I found it to be quite boring. The series was the opposite, even though some episodes sucked. The worst would have to be "Once More, With Feeling". The episode is AWFUL!!! I know that tends to be people's favorite, but I could hardly watch it it was sooo bad. Anyways thats all I have to say.
shareI saw part of the movie last night while flipping through channels at like 2 in the morning. And come on now...it's a really cheesy early 90s comedy; I don't know how anyone can turn that into something that's better in quality than the series. The series was a hit that ran for 7 seasons and was highly praised by critics as well as fans. Sarah Michelle Gellar is an Emmy award-winning actress and she wasn't hired for her looks...I doubt people look at her the first season and think "wow, SEXBOMB!" In fact, I don't think she's the greatest looking woman- she's pretty, but not "sexy" or an actress that's hired because of looks before talent (see: Pamela Anderson). Kristy Swanson...well, she's not horrible, but it's obvious they put the emphasis on looks when casting.
The movie was a cheese-fest that tanked, the series was a successful dramedy. There's really no disputing it, sorry.