# Buffy's legacy



## Dioltach (Dec 24, 2013)

Article on the BBC.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 24, 2013)

Yes, the author has a point.  TV doesn't have a huge number of decent female characters.

Movies seem to be doing worse, in that regard.  You can go to half a dozen movies now, and see not a single significant female character.


----------



## Janx (Dec 24, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Yes, the author has a point.  TV doesn't have a huge number of decent female characters.
> 
> Movies seem to be doing worse, in that regard.  You can go to half a dozen movies now, and see not a single significant female character.




Or more to the point, haven't changed at all.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 24, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Movies seem to be doing worse, in that regard.  You can go to half a dozen movies now, and see not a single significant female character.



And yet with all the movie duds of this year, films with female heroines, like the Hunger Games and Gravity, did amazingly well. Maybe a lesson will be learn.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 24, 2013)

First 3 years of Buffy were great.
But it peaked.
But the checks kept coming, so Joss kept it going. And going. And going. Until he ground it into the dirt.

And we haven't had any female lead characters as good since.
Heck, the closest I've seen to a decent female supporting character would be the techie girl on The Arrow.

Why don't we have "The Huntress" with her own show?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 24, 2013)

The female character thing is really a tip of the iceberg. There isn't much point in expecting male directors, producers, and writers to do female characters as often or as well as they do male characters. There doesn't seem to be a huge push of women into the production side of the business; a slow trickle if anything. If anything, women are better represented in front of the camera than behind it.

As to Buffy, I always thought the namesake character was the weak link of the show, and the supporting characters and some of the more innovative writing was what made it work. It seems to me that if anything Hollywood learned the wrong lesson from this show, which was that martial prowess is important. Now we see tons of frequently waiflike women beating up on much larger men (sometimes with supernatural powers for justification, sometimes not), an image that could be seen as cool and subversive when Buffy did it, but is now badly overdone. What we don't see is more reality-based images of violence _against_ women, because it would be too upsetting for the mass audience. We also don't see any really interesting and well-developed female leads who do things other than gratuitous violence, which again I suspect is due to the people writing them.

I thought BSG tackled gender issues much better (despite an almost exclusively male creative team behind the scenes), and every significant female actor on that show has had a lot of success since then.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 24, 2013)

BSG did very well. I'd argue that Starbuck was the biggest part there. Gravity and Hunger Games, obviously. 

I think there are many, many strong female parts these days. But they're not often the *lead*. 

There are plenty of comedies with women as leads. It's the action stuff that's missing.

Shows like Helen Mirren's Prime Suspect are the leaders. Not enough of them.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 24, 2013)

I enjoyed the what I call knock of shows that came out a few years after Buffy and all had female leads: Alias, Dark Angel, and Veronica Mars. It is also pretty amazing that all three of those actresses have gone on to have some pretty good careers.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 24, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> Why don't we have "The Huntress" with her own show?




Probably because their attempt at a "Birds of Prey" series back in 2002 bombed badly.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 25, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Probably because their attempt at a "Birds of Prey" series back in 2002 bombed badly.




Yeah, because they were trying to force a "Charmed" format into the DC universe, and were not allowed to use any major characters. In short, the show was shot in the foot before it had a chance. And yes, it sucked.

Zander and Willow were always way more interesting that Buffy.
Veronica Mars and other shows tried to copy the idea, but it never worked for me--usually because they were copying the idea without the writing chops to support it.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 26, 2013)

I thought Firefly, BSG and even Charmed did a decent job.  Thinking about it, though, none really were on the same plane as Buffy as far as this stuff is concerned.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Dec 26, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I thought Firefly, BSG and even Charmed did a decent job.  Thinking about it, though, none really were on the same plane as Buffy as far as this stuff is concerned.



Veronica Mars is pretty kick-ass, though. I mean, she doesn't have superpowers, but if you get on her bad side she will break you. Granted, that show ended several years ago...


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 26, 2013)

Dungeoneer said:


> Veronica Mars is pretty kick-ass, though. I mean, she doesn't have superpowers, but if you get on her bad side she will break you. Granted, that show ended several years ago...




Never seen it.  I've heard of it but that's about it.  

What about the Lana character in Archer?  She's got flaws, sure, but she's also the most sane and competent character on the show.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 26, 2013)

Dungeoneer said:


> Veronica Mars is pretty kick-ass, though. I mean, she doesn't have superpowers, but if you get on her bad side she will break you. Granted, that show ended several years ago...




Maybe. I only watched the first couple episodes. Problem for me was suspension of disbelief. I have an easier time believing in vampires, demons, witches, and a super-powered teenager capable of killing them than I do believing the set-up for the Veronica Mars series being set in the real world.

Death's Daughter in The Hogfather was closer to Buffy-level posterior-booting and more plausible, even if her role wasn't that major.


----------



## Jester David (Dec 27, 2013)

Dioltach said:


> Article on the BBC.



The author makes one pretty big mistake. Buffy wasn't the first tough, competent female protagonist in Prime Time TV. 

When the show started in the mid-90s that was the thing. It started with Xena and we say a slew of Xena clones of varying degrees of quality._ Queen of Swords_. _Alias_. _Cleopatra 2525_. _Dark Angel_. _Charmed_. _La Femme Nikita, Sheena_. 
The Spice Girls are often given some credit for the whole "Girl Power" thing of the mid-90s but I believe Xena came first. 

Buffy just stands out as the one with the most lasting affect on pop culture, as well as one of the few that didn't quickly get cancelled. It also grew into more of an ensemble show, which is odd for a show named after the protagonist. 
It might have actually hurt the creation of more shows with a central strong female character, by paving the way for more genre ensemble dramas.

--edit--
There were also a number of shows that opted to cast a woman as "the muscle" around the same time. Like _Mutant X, JAG_, _V.I.P., Lost World_. In these cases the woman was not the central character, but filled the role of butt kicker on the team.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 27, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> The author makes one pretty big mistake. Buffy wasn't the first tough, competent female protagonist in Prime Time TV.
> 
> When the show started in the mid-90s that was the thing. It started with Xena and we say a slew of Xena clones of varying degrees of quality._ Queen of Swords_. _Alias_. _Cleopatra 2525_. _Dark Angel_. _Charmed_. _La Femme Nikita_.




Here are the dates IMDB gives...

_La Femme Nikita_ (movie) was in 1990
_Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ (movie) was 1992

_Xena: Warrior Princess_ started in 1995
_Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ came on TV in 1997
_La Femme Nikita_ (TV Series) started in 1997
_Charmed_ started in 1998
_Cleopatra 2525_ started in 2000
_Dark Angel_ came on in 2000
_Queen of Swords_ started in 2000
_Alias_ came on in 2001

The only one of the TV series you mention that predates Buffy is Xena.


----------



## Jester David (Dec 27, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Here are the dates IMDB gives...
> 
> _La Femme Nikita_ (movie) was in 1990
> _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ (movie) was 1992
> ...



Right. 
Xena started things rolling. Xena was this cheap syndicated show, a spin-off of some other modestly successful show. And it suddenly became this huge cultural phenomenon and one of the most popular shows on television. So there were imitators. The ones I listed and likely a few others I can't recall. Networks clamoured for butt kicking women shows. 
And the Fox turned to the creator of a semi-popular vampire movie with a memorable name and asked if he'd be willing to turn it into a TV show. And it became the one we remember.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 27, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> Right.
> Xena started things rolling.




Okay, I misunderstood.  In your presentation, it sure looked like you were saying there was this slew of shows before Buffy, when in reality, there was just one.

There was Xena.  A couple of execs then contemporaneously said, "Hey, that works!  Let's take a movie as a basis (reliable IP!), and try to reproduce it."  Both of those worked!

Then came a slew of others in the early 00s that didn't work so well.  Which just goes to show that while badass female lead can be a good thing, it doesn't ensure a good thing.



> And the Fox turned to the creator of a semi-popular vampire movie with a memorable name and asked if he'd be willing to turn it into a TV show. And it became the one we remember.




Actually, Gail Berman was working for Sandollar Television at the time she went to Joss.  It was only later, after Buffy was well on its way, that she became an exec for Fox - if was that success that got her the job at Fox.

It is an odd irony that the woman who made Buffy happen might also be blamed for killing Joss' later show, Firefly - it was her decision to put the show in the Friday night "death slot" and run the episodes out-of-order.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 27, 2013)

Cleopatra 2525 was awesome.  Epic theme music and laser blaster that had recoil!  That's, like, one of my favorite tv things ever.  Recoil from a laser blaster.  Good times.


----------



## Jester David (Dec 27, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Okay, I misunderstood.  In your presentation, it sure looked like you were saying there was this slew of shows before Buffy, when in reality, there was just one.



There was likely others I can't even think of. Buffy was one of the first out of the gate, but it still followed the trail blazed by Xena. And some of the ones that followed Buffy were likely in the works before Buffy really aired. 



Umbran said:


> There was Xena.  A couple of execs then contemporaneously said, "Hey, that works!  Let's take a movie as a basis (reliable IP!), and try to reproduce it."  Both of those worked!
> 
> Then came a slew of others in the early 00s that didn't work so well.  Which just goes to show that while badass female lead can be a good thing, it doesn't ensure a good thing.



Buffy was popular but it wasn't what it is now. It was a hit for the WB, but never their top show and was often overshadowed by _Dawson's Creek_ and _7th Heaven_ (and, to a lesser extent, _Charmed_). It took a while before it really started getting mainstream attention. It was some time before there were "Buffy clones".


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 27, 2013)

Terminator:Sarah Conner Chronicles  had 2 female leads who overshadowed the male lead 

Then you have the whole change in TV genre which gives us things like Desperate Housewives, Sex in the City,  Revenge, Cougar Town etc. They have strong female characters and female friendly storylines anc are better suited to the tv format


Xena, Buffy, Dark Angel and its ilk were innovative for bringin movie sensibilities to the small screen but the genre is one b better suited for cinema...


----------



## Umbran (Dec 27, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> Buffy was popular but it wasn't what it is now. It was a hit for the WB, but never their top show and was often overshadowed by _Dawson's Creek_ and _7th Heaven_ (and, to a lesser extent, _Charmed_). It took a while before it really started getting mainstream attention.




It took a while? One half season.  It started as WB's #6 show, based on 12 episodes.  It jumped to #3 in the second year - an average of five million viewers per episode, and stayed in the #2 or #3 slot for the network it was on five years, even through a switch of network.

Was it competing with shows on the Big 4?  No, of course, not.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 27, 2013)

Dioltach said:


> Article on the BBC.




Buffy's biggest legacy is.....http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 27, 2013)

Aren't they all the legacy of Ripley from _Alien_?


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 27, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Aren't they all the legacy of Ripley from _Alien_?




You could argue for Linda Carters Wonder Woman being earlier and perhaps Lt Uhuru and Emma Peel of the Avengers before that. Of course WW stands out as being the title character of the show...


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 28, 2013)

Buffy was big enough that UPN wanted it enough to buy it out from under WB by paying Joss more than he could turn down.
Depends which version of Wonder-woman.
Ripley was more of a survivor chick in the first movie, and then a tough-as-nails but still maternal in the second one.

Buffy also picked up the idea of season arcs from Babylon 5 and brought it back to more mainstream non-soap opera dramas.
Now, that's old hat, and abused to the point of the stupid arcs that Moffat forces onto Doctor Who.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 29, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> Buffy was big enough that UPN wanted it enough to buy it out from under WB by paying Joss more than he could turn down.
> Depends which version of Wonder-woman.
> Ripley was more of a survivor chick in the first movie, and then a tough-as-nails but still maternal in the second one.
> 
> ...



You're saying Babylon 5 invented season arcs?


----------



## jasper (Dec 31, 2013)

No B5 was one the first scific series with preplanned and written season arcs.  Which then allowed/made acceptable other scific shows to have season arcs.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 31, 2013)

jasper said:


> No B5 was one the first scific series with preplanned and written season arcs.  Which then allowed/made acceptable other scific shows to have season arcs.




Doctor Who was doing season arcs in the 1960s. I think B5 is better known for the entire 5-year *series* arc, which I can't recall a sci-fi series doing before it.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 31, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Doctor Who was doing season arcs in the 1960s.




Um, really? Can you name one?
Key to Time was late 70s.
Trial of a Time Lord was mid 80s, and a huge portion of the fan base at the time found disappointing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 2, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Um, really? Can you name one?
> Key to Time was late 70s.
> Trial of a Time Lord was mid 80s, and a huge portion of the fan base at the time found disappointing.




Many of the old Doctor Who stories seem to be multi-epsiodes one, and that was the season/series of that year.

Unfortunately, I don't really remember all the names of them, and I hardly saw all of it. Inferno was one I distinctively remember.

But you can just ask the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials


----------



## Tonguez (Jan 2, 2014)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Many of the old Doctor Who stories seem to be multi-epsiodes one, and that was the season/series of that year.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't really remember all the names of them, and I hardly saw all of it. Inferno was one I distinctively remember.
> 
> But you can just ask the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials




Well the most obvious is the Exile on Earth/Unit HQ arc of the third Doctor which iirc started in the 60s but extended to the 70s.

You could consider Susan and Jamies stories to be companion arcs too


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jan 3, 2014)

You are giving some interesting information, but these are not season arcs.
The Unit exile was an attempt to cut down on costs and make the show more broadly accessible.
Seems more like people are trying to force the notion of a deliberate arc where none existed.
Carol Anne Ford left the show because she thought her character was too limited.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 3, 2014)

Let's take a look see 

A story arc (a contraction of "over-arching storyline") is a sequence of series installments,TV episodes, comic issues, or a certain period of time in a Video Gamethat puts characters through their paces in response to a single impetus; basically, an ongoing storyline. This can be a few episodes, an entire season, or even thefocus of the entire series. 

Arcs are not necessarily consecutive episodes. The story may reach a point where, although the arc is not completely resolved, it ceases to be of immediate concern to the characters, thus allowing the writers to intersperse (or insert) non-arc episodes. This is the case whenever an episode or a series of episodes have self-contained storylines, which are then cut-off by a continuation of the arc. Usually, the filler/self-contained stories don't have any major effect on the arc itself, set up character development to be used in the arc, or show off character development displayed in an early storyline.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StoryArc

[sblock=Doctor Who] From Classic Who



Season 8's arc introduced the Master, who was a common villain in each serial and was captured by UNIT in the Season Finale.
The Key To Time arc (all of Season 16) - the search for pieces of a Cosmic Keystone.
The E-Space Trilogy (Full Circle, State of Decay and Warriors' Gate)
Following directly on from this was the season-crossing Return of the Master trilogy, comprising The Keeper of Traken, Logopolis and Castrovalva, released as New Beginnings on DVD as it also took in the Fourth Doctor's regeneration into the Fifth.
The Black Guardian Trilogy (Mawdryn Undead, Terminus and Enlightenment) - involving Turlough's relationship with the Black Guardian.
The Trial of a Time Lord (Season 23 — the first 12 episodes consisted of three distinct stories with a common Framing Device, which took over as the main story for the two-part Season Finale)
In addition, thematic arcs showed up in the classic series: season 18 concerned the theme of entropy and decay, in preparation for the regeneration in the final episode; each serial of season 20 involved the return of a classic enemy, building up to the movie-length special "The Five Doctors".
Seasons 25 and 26 had a story arc of "The Cartmel Masterplan", implying the Doctor had some great secret. The series was cancelled before this could conclude, but some elements made it into the Virgin New Adventures. Here it was claimed the Doctor might be the reincarnation of a mysterious figure from the Dark Times of Gallifrey. However there was also a story arc of Fenric, in "Silver Nemesis" the Doctor seems to be playing chess with an unknown opponent, leading to "The Curse of Fenric", where it is revealed an evil being from the Dawn of Time had been manipulating the 7th Doctor's adventures. This involved Arc Welding with "Dragonfire" in Season 24, revealing the time storm that sent Ace to Iceworld was caused by Fenric so she would travel with the Doctor.
There was a loose story arc from "Destiny of the Daleks" to "Remembrance of the Daleks" involving the Dalek/Movellan War and Davros attempting to regain power over the Daleks.
[/sblock]


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jan 3, 2014)

OK, let's see.
Yes, the early episodes did feed one into the next. But was that a story arc, or just a transition? Sorry, transitions do not an arc make.

E-space trilogy is not a Season/series-long arc, it was 3 stories tied together.
Same for the Black Guardian Trilogy.
The Master was in all the stories as a recurring villain, but were the stories actually linked by an overall arc? No.
Seasons 26 and 27, which were A: never made, and B: not intended to be made in the 60s, but the 90s. So, no.

I was asking for what seasons in the 1960s did Doctor Who have a story ARC. So far as I know, none qualify.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 3, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> OK, let's see.
> Yes, the early episodes did feed one into the next. But was that a story arc, or just a transition? Sorry, transitions do not an arc make.
> 
> E-space trilogy is not a Season/series-long arc, it was 3 stories tied together.
> ...




then go forth and edit tvtropes..which may I reminded you started due to Buffy..so I'd like to believe that those who have worked on it over the years have some grand idea as to what they are talking about..


----------



## Tonguez (Jan 3, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> You are giving some interesting information, but these are not season arcs.
> The Unit exile was an attempt to cut down on costs and make the show more broadly accessible.
> .




yeah I know what the purpose was but that doesn't stop it being a _deliberately plotted storyline spanning multiple storys and seasons_ that introduced the theme of the Doctor as Adventurer_-Spy_ and major story elements which have had ongoing and long term effects (not least the Doctors involvement with Unit and his relationship with the Master).

The story arc may not have been as premeditated as Buffy but somebody did sit down and say "okay we need to have the Doctor stuck on earth, how do we do it?" so it does fit the definition with very little gentle forcing...


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jan 3, 2014)

trappedslider said:


> then go forth and edit tvtropes..which may I reminded you started due to Buffy..so I'd like to believe that those who have worked on it over the years have some grand idea as to what they are talking about..




OK, let's go back to history.
Someone said that Doctor Who was doing season arcs back in the 60s. I challenged that ascertain. I asked for specific examples.
None were provided.
So, if someone can correct me (citing source) with when Verity Lambert, Barry Letts, Peter Bryant, John Wiles, Innis Lloyd, Peter Hinchcliffe, or Graham Williams deliberately said "We are going to make an over-all story arc for this year", I will withdraw my objection.
Otherwise, yes, TV tropes is wrong. And they should know better.

So, the requirements are:
Season from the 1960s. (You know what, I'll be generous and add 1970s)
Premeditation (not something added after the fact or something someone chose to read into the situation) If you have to force it, it doesn't count.
A story that stretches the entire length of the year.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 3, 2014)

Isn't that impossible since British TV is not done in year long seasons like American TV? Also, what does Doctor Who doing full year whatever have to do with the legacy of Buffy the Vampire Slayer?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jan 3, 2014)

Actually, it turns out TV Tropes isn't wrong. They specifically say the season-long arcs are part of the New series, not the original.

Crotian: Yes, that was my point. If you read my last post, the history of this derailment will become clear. Or go back to page one and read the whole thing.


----------

