Ralancian said:
This confused me because you answered a comment I made to someone else...I have no idea why you did but you can see why I was confused right?
Not really. These are open forums where people have open discussions. I don't normally expect that people responding to me were the ones I responded to. I got confused recently when someone responded acting as if my post was specifically talking about them when I quoted someone else and was talking to someone else about...well, not them, but as a rule, such replies are common on any board with open discussion. You brought up age, and being that I was almost legally an adult when Buffy first dropped, that got my attention. As did the claim of innovation. So I responded to ask what that even means. And I'm still not sure.
Also, I would hope one would be able to distinguish someone named Something Amyss from someone named Souplex. Especially since he has a static avatar of someone being suplexed and mine is an animated GIF of She Who Must Not Be Named, Eater of Popcorn. Though I guess both our usernames are pun-based. I think that might be the only similarity, though. Well, we may also both be Queen fans, based on his profile.
However, I don't entirely think he's off-base with his assessment of Whedon. I dislike use of the term "hack," given it's tossed around on the internet almost as much as "nazi," but Joss' primary strength is emulation. Which is why I thought he would be and was great for superhero movies. I could easily see him emulating the comic book style. I love Once More With Feeling in part because it showed off how good Whedon is at emulating various music styles. He understands how the music works, and he can emulate it. From showtunes to light metal. Firefly seems to emulate every space Western I've ever watched that isn't explicitly Star Wars, and that's part of what makes it cool. Space+Western=awesome, in my book. But it's not so much that firefly is new, it's just slapping his usual dialogue on a different background. And, I mean, that's okay. I'm a fan of more of the same, so long as it's good/fun/entertaining.
I will point out that this in no way means that I can't enjoy his programming. That still doesn't make him new or innovative. It absolutely doesn't make his women strong or positive.
And while I'm on that subject, one more thing (since you said you don't want to discuss it). The argument that Buffy and other Whedon characters are empowering is often touted out by men, and as such tends to ring as tone deaf at best and condescendingly hostile at worst. One of my problems with Whedon is that he clearly has fucked up ideas about women, but even mild criticism gewts him whining about radicals and extremists, and gets him saying things to the effect of "why don't you get what a good feminist/ally I am?" or "why don't you understand how much I'm empowering you?"
But then, that's often how the "empowerment" angle reads.
I would certainly argue that Bella Swan is a worse role model for girls I(given she's in an abusive relationship), but that's not saying much. I honestly can thnk of a few women who get damseled or fridged I'd still rather look up to than Buffy Summers.
I don't think you give DS9 enough credit and sound like a very typical B5 fan boy not given it credit where it deserves.
I gave it far more credit than your average "fanboy" would by even mentioning Lesser Babylon 5 by name.
But if we're talking fandoms, Star Trek isn't necessarily one of them for me. I don't like DS9 or TNG. I like TOS mostly for the cheese factor. I do like four of the six TOS movies, even love a couple of them, and find Voyager to be watchable. But again, it's not so much based on quality as it is I like to picture Captain Janeway as being slowly driven batshit crazy with guilt, leading to her further erratic decisions.
This isn't about being a Bab 5 fangirl so much as it is when I hear the qualities people associate with Buffy thinking of Babylon 5 as an earlier and often better example.
But let me also be honest: I would rather young girls aspire to be Susan Ivanova than Buffy Summers. Susan is a competent leader, who has demonstrated that she's actually strong and independent in real world situations (rather than declaring she don't need no mayun!), and still manages to be very flawed and human. You see the burden of command weigh on her, as it does everyone else in the series. And I'm pretty sure which bathroom she uses never becomes a controversy in the show.
BTVS is more about telling you Buffy is a strong woman while every dude in town either props her up or knocks her down. Buffy claims women can do everythying men can do. Commander Ivanova shows it. Ivanova says that girls can command spaceships. Buffy says that even if you're the chosen one, you're not special.
Shows post Buffy I'm mainly thinking Smallville but nothing else really caught same time SG-1 but that's younger than I thought it was.
Ooooo-kayyyy...and here's the problem. I'm not even sure what about Smallville could be considered Buffy-like. I mean, if I'm stretching it, there's the "monster of the week" format of the first two seasons, but that was considered a negative point of Smallville and was only noteworthy in the case of Buffy because it somewhat subverted it with the season arcs.
SG-1, a lot of that came from RDA being RDA. Part of what makes O'Neill so awesome is that RDA is amazing at being bitchy. But yes, a show that also came out in 1997 with similar qualities probably isn't fairly called a successor.
Appeal to a broad range of people but specifically teenagers whilst not making a no adult go zone,
I couldn't even name you ten shows aimed to appeal to teenagers, let alone one with broad appeal intended for teenagers.
I can immediately name The Adventures of the Galaxy Rangers as a show that didn't preclude adults. In fact, half its fans were already adults when it aired in 1986. And this is not a show that was super original in the strictest sense. It still borrowed from Star Wars, Clint Eastwood movies, the X-Men, etc.
let's be honest here B5 and DS9 only appealed to us hardcore scifi nuts.
I'm not sure I count as a hardcore sci-fi nut. I've covered Star Trek. Other than that, most of what I watch is Doctor Who (old and new series), Star Wars, and I suppose Farscape counts. I haven't really watched Farscape or B5 in YEARS, though. I'm not even sure I have a full B5 set anymore. It does not, however, take a fangirl to note that much of what you attribute to Buffy happened in B5 first.
Oh, and Stargate and Eureka.
Buffy can fairly be attributed to broadening geek appeal much like I say LotR did. In school in the UK lots of kids watched it (13+ I was) whereas I was the only person who watched Star Trek. That was helped by the BBC2 used to show it early evening 6:45 I belive.
Modern day setting which goes a lot to adding to its appeal.
Okay, but in the US, it basically tied with Charmed in terms of ratings, which is neither what I would call popular nor a particularly good argument for its role in geek culture.
Maybe it was super popular in the UK specifically. I don't know. Maybe it brought geek culture into pop culture. I don't know. But here? Really didn't seem to have that impact.
Easy to digest subtext (don't do drugs, guys you sleep with may turn....yeah it's basic and hammer hitting obvious)
So...a show for teens...with blatant morals?
General humorous attitude throughout. Whilst not a comedy most find the show funny throughout yes there is very much what's referee to as Whedon-esque quips and snark....but there's a reason we call it that right? I mean if it's his trait he can hardly be accused of not being different to others.
Calling it Whedon-esque is generally done because he has a habit of writing very blatantly robotic characters with top-line snark detection units. Though being a codifier doesn't mean you did it first. Just because people use "Xbox" as a term to describe video game consoles doesn't mean they were the first company to make a console. Hell, the same goes with Nintendo.
This just means they were identifiable at some point, in some way. And since Whedon-esque is often used in a derogatory fashion, I would equate it more with the Pinto. People don't know the Pinto because it's an awesome and reliable car. They know it because of its tendency to do one specific thing that people didn't like.
Actually, Joss kind of is like a Pinto. He goes up in flames whenever anybody even brushes against him with criticism.
When I hear Whedon-esque, I think tiresome.
Now I'll admit some shows tick some of those boxes and like I said you make fair points about characterisation of the lead.
Some of your criteria are either amazingly vague, or ridiculously specific. Anyway, I can name a bunch of shows that tick most of those boxes, and apparently you can, too. The commonality here would indicate that this isn't such a unique position.
My point was simple the argument that Whedon can't do anything new or innovative is not a fair argument given Buffy genuinely was back in 1997.
Except you haven't made a case for Buffy being new and innovative. At best, you've made a case for it being a slightly different version of the same formula. ReBoot did most of these things. Hell, Dinosaurs--written off as a Simpsons clone--did most of these things, and managed to do so in a way that was so subversive as to get all sorts of awesome shit past the censors. And again, I don't even need to step outside a very narrow area--this time, shows where a main character is voiced by Michael Benyaer.
Hell, I would personally think the fact that one of your first examples of a Buffy-like show was not a successor, but a contemporary, would be demonstration enough.