My Blog

"I think it's a toss up between season 2 and 3. Buffy really seems to get it together near the end of the season. Don't know why. I liked the way they dealt with Angel leaving and the final episode resembled something out of LOTR, Buffy style. On the final two episodes, however, I believe that season 2 ended much better then 3. Buffy is forced to grow as a Slayer and as a person so much in two episodes that you can't help but feel sorry for the poor girl. There are some real moral lessons to be found here that I have yet to see on any other show. I also like how Anya becomes a member of the regular cast, that is if I remember the episode I saw on TV recently correctly."

Yeah, as I said, seasons 2 & 3 are the best. I like the epic feel of season 3, but it does suffer from a serious lack of Spike. I think the one episode with him coming back in season 3 is the best of the season. Once Angel leaves, Spike is really the only reason to watch the show.

"In fact, the whole of season 3 sees the regular cast in a whole new
light. Every major character grows in importand and poignant ways. I was most impressed with the progression of the Willow character. Willow seems to have quickly become the spiritual "rock" of the show and has quickly become one of my favorite characters. Dependable, as she puts it. Not to mention that Allison Hannigan is just plain cute to begin with."

Yeah, Willow is great. That's why I think it's stupid that they just kill the character development in Season 4 just to have something controversial, as I explained. Maybe I missed something, and maybe once you finally watch it you'll love season 4. I just think it's teh poopie. More on that in the next episode.

"Unfortunately, Buffy herself seems to have been caught in a permanent holding pattern. She always finds herself wrestling with the same issues over and over again. On with Angel, kill some vamps, off with Angel, slaughter some demons, on again with Angel, solve paranormal phenomenon, off again with Angel, cycle, rinse, repeat. Is this all the character is capable of? It seems to be all she's really accomplished since season one. I'm beginning to believe you're right about Angel being the best thing about the show. However, I have yet to pass judgement on season 4, so don't hold your breath."

Well, obviously the Angel thing changes in season 4. Or at least you'd like to think that. Buffy gets a couple of new boyfriends (kinda). One just uses her for sex quickly, then ditches her. When she goes to talk to him about their relationship, he starts talking about how it was nothing special, using the same words Angel (or should I say Angelus) used after he lost his soul. I thought that was an interesting angle to take, show how for some guys, sex is what girls are all about, and once that is achieved they no longer have a use for the woman. Suggesting that some people don't even need the excuse of not having a soul to be an asshole. Unfortunately, who steps up and defends her "honor" (for lack of a better term) in a later episode? Her new guy, Riley. Yet another reason I don't like season 4, this guy is a carbon copy of Angel. A buff brunette guy who fights evil while trying to maintain a relationship w/Buffy. To give you a little background (and spoil some things about season 4 so if you don't want spoiled, don't read it.) Riley works for a government sponsored demon research group called "the initiative". These guys capture Spike and put a chip in his head that prevents him from harming any living creature. In one of the bright points of this season, when he finds out about it the writers of the show compare it to erectile disfunction in that he keeps trying to bite Willow but can't. I won't ruin some truly funny dialogue, just know that this is one of the good bits about season 4. Anyway, at the end of season 4, after a failed "Frankenstein" experiment by the leaders of the initiative (the weakest "big bad" storyline of all 7 seasons of Buffy), the government abandons the initiative program, Spike forms an uneasy alliance with the Scoobies, and Riley decides to stay in Sunnydale to be with Buffy. Ok, end spoilers.

"Yeah, it occurred to me that the reason we didn't actually like the shows is continuity. I don't want to get off on a rant here, but shows with continuity are fantastic only if you get time to watch week to week. Unfortunately, it also presents a significant barrier to entry. If you can't keep track of what's going on or have someone knowledgeable beside you to fill you in then you're up Shit Creek without a paddle. This is Buffy and Angel's problem: not any stand-alone episodes. That, and from the outside they just look silly. Admit it."

That's exactly it. The continuity, while giving the shows a much more "epic" feel (good for the die-hard fans), make it hard to catch up (bad for new viewers). That's one of the big changes in Angel season 5. The WB ordered that they make more stand-alone episodes after season 4 (which, admittedly, had a grand total of 0 stand-alone episodes). They knew the die-hards would keep watching and wanted to capture some new viewers.

And yeah, the shows do look silly from the outside. I remember telling my sister, after seeing Lorne in a commercial during Smallville, "I just couldn't take a show seriously with a character like that." Boy, this is some good crow!!!

"You could say that by the very definition of an episode is that it stands alone. However, perhaps due to Whedon's writing style, these "episodes" do not truly stand alone. (Also note that my definition of episode excludes the well know two-parter.) In order to fully appreciate the show, its characters and especially its innuendo, you have to watch the episodes in order first to last. Therefore, this leaves the poor Nielson box out in the cold with the exception of the hardcore audience that watches every week or is lucky enough to own a Tivo (or - *gasp* - a VCR). With no choice except to watch what's on right now, prospective viewers are sharply divided into two groups. The first group is intrigued by what they see to the point that they continue watching. They might even be interested enough to buy it on DVD. On the other hand, the second group will commence channel surfing to something that they can sink their teeth into immediatly. This is, after all, the ADD society nowadays isn't it?"

That was my problem with Lost. It was on the same time as Smallville, and I watched Smallville instead (my mistake, as what I watched of Smallville season 4 was even worse than Buffy season 4). Once I gave up on Smallville I wanted to watch Lost, but couldn't because I had missed the first 4 episodes. That's the beauty of shows on DVD.

"I offer up three radically different solutions to this problem and examples for each. All have their benefits and drawbacks from one extreme to the other. My first example is the time honored "Simpsons." The episodic format in the show keeps it extremely simple. With the sole exceptions of the Sideshow Bob, Who Killed Montgomery Burns, and Halloween special episodes, every last episode of The Simpsons returns Springfield precisely to the the same state it started in by the end of the episode. Each one stands on its own and the only things that persist from show to show are the characters and occasional vague references to earlier episodes when comedic timing permits. The Simpsons is actually fairly ingenous when it comes to working around its own strict limitations and this, I suspect, is the chief reason the show has been able to maintain it's success so long. KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid is the name of the game for this show format. Each individual show doesn't have to develop the characters in the traditional novelistic sense. All it has to do is expose a different side of them each episode to keep things interesting. Instead of peeling back the layers on the character onion, metaphorically speaking, it simply continues turning the onion around looking for weaknesses to expliot for a cheap laugh. For these reasons, writing a show of this type is both easy and elegant. Another thing working in The Simpsons' favor is the fact that all the show really has to do is toss out a few good jokes before every commercial to keep folks watching. The quality of the the writing or character development in a show such as this doesn't figure in as much because it only needs to engage the audience long enough to get them to laugh. Hence the sitcom branding."

I think that's one of the things that led to the decline of the show in recent years. After 16 years (or is it 17? I'm not sure) you've picked over all the bad spots of that onion, so you've got to go over the exact same spots 3, 4, maybe even 5 times. This year's season premiere? Marge finds a great guy who wants her to leave Homer for him, but she decides she really does love Homer. Watching this show's classic years over again on DVD made me realize how wretched the show has become. They actually commented on the continuity thing in the episode "Homer loves Flanders", from season 6 I believe. Homer and Flanders became friends. Bart was worried about it, but Lisa explained "Don't worry, something will happen and they'll be back to how they were before next week." When nothing happened, Bart questioned Lisa, and she couldn't explain it. It then flashes forward to "One week later." Homer is explaining another crazy scheme when Flanders comes over. "Hidelly-ho neighborieenies". "Get lost Flanders" "Oakely Dokely". You wouldn't find a joke like that within 100 yards of a recent episode.

"On the polar opposite of your TV addiction agenda - both figuratively and literally - is a little show called 24 (or "When will Jack go to the fucking bathroom?"). An episode of 24 is only called an episode because they can only block out an hour of time at once during prime time. Each episode really comprises one twenty-fourth of one long ass real-time movie. As I mentioned earlier, in order to become involved in a show, the viewer must either be intrigued enough by what they see Right Now to "engage" or have a knowledgable buddy about who's willing to miss half the show whilst explaining shit to the newbie. 24 goes through great pains to make sure that the show moves along quickly and almost always presents something interesting on the screen. If the show can't differentiate itself from the rash of other crap on TV, the show won't garner a following and the show will fail (See Firefly). 24's strict real-time format allows no room for error in any department. The writing must support the high concept from beginning to end The direction and suspense must keep up. The writing must be clever and solid. Characters must develop like peeling onions, slowly exposing new layers to the characters. Continuity errors must be scanned for constantly. It ain't easy, but somebody's gotta do it. Shows of this type also present a longer addiction curve - you gotta watch it longer to get hooked on it. This presents a plot development juggling act. How do you keep the action moving, develop the characters and present the story while staying within the show's real-time parameters? 24 is forced to solve these problems each and every new season."

Nothing to add here, other than to say that Fox totally screwed Firefly. The show exploded on DVD, the movie ain't doing too bad, and it will also make a killing on DVD.

"Then there are shows that fall down somewhere in the middle. I can't think of too many shows that skate the line between continuity and stand alone episodes. The only two that come to mind are The X-Files and Ghost In The Shell: Standalone-Complex. GITS is actually unique (as most Japanese shows are) in that the episodes are actually labeled either stand-alone or complex. "Stand alone" episodes never mention or make reference to events in the complex episodes. "Complex" episodes contribute to an overarching story that takes place in only in episodes labeled as such. The X-FIles doesn't label theirs, but they do the same thing. This show format offers writers both the freedom of stand alone episodes but also the flexibility to develop their characters and story beyond the parameters offered by a stand alone episode."

Cowboy Bebop is kinda like that. I don't know if you've seen the whole thing, but only 6/22 episodes deal with an overall story arc. The rest are stand-alone. I actually like continuity. Like I said, it gives it a more epic feel. It's why I like Trigun more than Cowboy Bebop. It's why I like Angel more than Forever Knight (which Angel basically ripped off). See if this sounds familliar. A centuries old vampire, one of the baddest around, doesn't want to kill anymore. He moves to a big city, becomes a detective, and helps the helpless while driving around in a 60's convertible. That's the premise for Forever Knight, an early 90's genre show. There is a quality difference between it and Angel (the show pre-dates Hercules and Xena, so the budget wasn't the greatest), but the main reason I like Angel more? Continuity.

"Buffy slips cleanly between 24 and The X-Files. It's comicbookish format allows for great storytelling opportunities but presents a significant barrier to entry. Add to this it's sometimes morbid occultish (to most people) subject matter and you have a show that only the most devoted fan will watch from week to week. It must also contend with the character development arc. Trying to cram a unique story into each episode and develop the characters in continuity with the rest of the season is where Buffy frequently falters. The writing simply is too continuous for most people to get a handle on. Add to that the fact that the first 4 episodes of each season seem to be below par and you get a show that I'm honestly surprised made it thru the first season."

Oddly enough, I think the show where Joss Whedon achieved a perfect balance between continuity and stand-alone? Firefly. Each episode (aside from the pilot) is stand-alone, yet each develops at least one character a little bit. Maybe it's because it never had a chance to bloom, but it has that perfect balance.