MovieChat Forums > Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992) Discussion > The Movie is Much Better than the Show!!...

The Movie is Much Better than the Show!!!

posted 11 years ago by MrCharmingMan
23 replies | jump to latest

Am I the only one who prefers the movie over the show?

I also prefer Kristy Swanson over Sarah Michelle Gellar any day.

First off the movie was a comedy and it poked fun out of all the stuck up valley girl types and even the vampires were goofy and comical despite being a legitimate threat. I think this works much better. There were suspenseful moments and thriller moments as well just enough to keep the audience entertained in a comedy.

Finally Swanson is way hotter and more athletic and believable as a vampire slayer than Sarah ever was.

Swanson seems much taller about the same height as most of the vampires and she had a good body frame to appear as if she really could master martial arts, gymnastics, and over all vampire slaying.

The show on the other hand tried to be all serious and dramatic and scary which to me as a man could never take seriously. The vampires just didn't seem menacing enough or scary enough for me on the show, where again in the movie they were a bit goofy and did not take themselves all that seriously.

Sarah just was too physically small and not really convincing as a bad ass or even athletic chick like Swanson pulled off in the movie.

Whenever they showed Sarah acting all tough it just irritated me on how fake her whole performance was and she tried so hard to be this wannabe bad ass that never was realistic.

I'm not sure if Swanson ever had the offer to do the show or not, but if she did they should have definitely kept her for the show and kept it closer to the movie.

[–] katesfancydress 11 years ago

In a way Sarah being so thin and short makes it more remarkable that she could have this super-human strength.

[–] MrCharmingMan 11 years ago

I think Sarah is better in those I Know What You Did Last Summer type of movies or Cruel Intentions types of flicks to cast her as a tough fighting chick is just plain garbage.

Look when Linda Hamilton transformed herself into a badasss for Terminator 2 it was believable she wasn't exactly tall or big either but she pulled off the part.

Same with Hilary Swank in Million Dollar Baby she was not big or a body builder but she trained hard and nailed the part as a tough believable boxer.

I think true actresses can pull of the tough girl who can kick your ass roles but Sarah is just not that strong of an actress to do it.

[–] rorygunn 11 years ago

No you're not the only one who preferred the movie to the tv show...everything you said was true...I never bought SMG as the bad-ass slayer..I always thought she only won because her name was in the title of the tv show...plus it left out Pike who I thought was an integral part of Buffy's team and much better than Angel..

[–] MrCharmingMan 11 years ago

Yeah the whole SMG trying to play the tough chick really pissed me off and turned me off. I remember seeing a trailer for Scooby Doo and she's pretty much playing the same part in there as well I couldn't stop shaking my head.

And you are right Pike was an integral part of Buffy's team and much much better than Angel. Pike played by Luke Perry was great. Luke was perfect as that bad boy rebellious teen with a heart of gold as he was on 90210.

Swanson was so hot back then and did a great job in the movie, I would of loved her on the show as Buffy instead. It probably would have ended up being one of my favorite shows too had she done it.

[–] andromache3 11 years ago

This movie is terrible in every way, shape or form. You're entitled to your opinion but how anyone can prefer this tripe over the TV series is beyond me.

Don't let anyone ever make you feel like you don't deserve what you want.

[–] MrCharmingMan 11 years ago

the show was horrible and this is coming from a guy who did stunt work on the show. i couldnt even watch the episodes that i was in.

the movie didnt try to take itself too seriously it was a bit comical but serious when needed, the show tried so hard to be all serious and dramatic at all times which made it a big joke.

sarah michelle gellar is not believable as a bad ass vampire slayer she was physically small and not even athletic while Swanson was actually athletic and believable.

you must be a biased fan boy of the show which was horrible again coming from a guy who did a few days work of stunt work on the show.

[–] andromache3 11 years ago

No I'm not a "fan boy". I'm entitled to my opinion though. I'm not saying the show was a work of art or award winning material but compared to the movie, it was much MUCH better.

Sorry if that bothers you.

Don't let anyone ever make you feel like you don't deserve what you want.

[–] BlueSkiesGuy 11 years ago

I agree. It's a fun B movie and Swanson was perfect. The only reason Whedonites hate the movie is because Whedon hates it.

[–] MrCharmingMan 11 years ago

Tom_Crews,

exactly LOL Whedonites

[–] Kyumonryu 11 years ago

I´m neither a fanboy not a big fan of Whedon in general.
But I think the movie was garbage and the show was lots of fun to watch.
As it goes for the actress, I prefer SMG. Size has nothing to do with it, cause her power is supernatural. Its not her strength its the strength of the slayer.

The movie was to cheesy for me (as many parts of the show). The show had a much better character development (d´uh much more time) and likeable character (hated everybody from the movie).
But and that is what is most important to me, the fifth and six season had some serious dark episodes which I loved.
If had to compare the movie to the first season, the movie would win, but not copmpared to the rest of the show

"...but they hung him anyway."
"Hanged, Ami. Your father was not a tapestry."

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrCharmingMan 11 years ago

@Shadow1314

I agree Swanson is also a way more stronger actress with far more talent and ability than SMG any day! Plus shes a whole lot hotter too!

Swanson in Higher Learning was a stronger actress than SMG in anything shes ever done.

[–] laballatician 11 years ago

Errrrr... The Buffy from the show was NEVER portrayed as a "tough chick. WTF??? Maybe Faith but never Buffy. This thread is stupid.

[–] Tiffany1567 11 years ago

I've never liked one over the other.

But Kristy Swanson, was never that great of an actress as you make her out to be, I think the reason I like the movie is because of her bad acting though.

Also size has nothing to do with how athletic someone is, if I recall Sarah did a lot of her own stunts on the show. I also found her fighting and stunts more realistic.

27 // Navy Vet

[–] MrCharmingMan 11 years ago

Buffy is supposed to be a bimbo stuck up valley chick and Swanson nailed that.

SMG tried too hard to play a hard ass tough chick it was a total joke. Actresses like Michelle Rodriguez, are believable as bad ass chicks. not SMG.

[–] laballatician 11 years ago

Nope. SMG never tried to play Buffy as tough. You're talking out if your ass. Buffy from the series was a normal teenaged girl. Vulnerable and insecure. She was NEVER portrayed as some tough chick. Not by the writing or by SMG. Try again.

[–] Tiffany1567 11 years ago

Exactly!!
I don't think the OP understood what I was saying.

27 // Navy Vet

[–] pioneergrrrl 11 years ago

I liked the movie because it came around the time of the whole grunge/grrrl--thing.

If you look past the low budget, yes, the Swanson buffy becomes awesome. She looks like she does not take crap. Pike got turned on when she castrated a hot dog!!

[–] MrCharmingMan 11 years ago

@pioneergrrrl

yes you are absolutely correct!

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 11 years ago

The film and the show are very different beasts, the former is a goofy high-concept comedy and the latter is more of a straight take on the same concept.

Personally I get more of a kick out of the film. It doesn't take itself seriously and it commits itself fully to the idea of a typical spoiled rich airheaded 'Valley Girl' turning out to be a kickass super-heroine. It's very much in the vein of all those 1980s culture-clash or fish-out-of-water comedies like 'Crocodile Dundee' and 'Teen Wolf'.

I also find Kristy Swanson to be incredibly beautiful, whereas Sarah Michelle Gellar was merely pretty. Like you state, Swanson is a healthy, built woman whereas SMG is quite petite and fragile (although that miscue between SMG's slight frame and her fighting prowess has its own benefits conceptually-speaking). However, I don't think either actress could have convincingly swapped parts. Swanson wouldn't have had the acting gravitas to play the part week-on-week whilst unearthing new depths to the character (she's still much more believable as the ditzy brat at the start of the film than the tough self-sufficient woman she later becomes), and SMG wouldn't have been nearly as funny or as evocative of a certain type of shallow late 80s/early 90s shopping-obsessed bimbo. If Swanson had appeared in the TV show she'd have been better suited to playing Cordelia or Harmony Kendall.