Buffy Season 6 Discussion
#1
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
Buffy Season 6 Discussion
I was going to comment on some items in a thread, but it wans't Buffy related so I didn't want to thread-jack.
I'm inclined to agree with this. I'd have to go back and review the season, or at least which episodes she wrote.
I'm don't know that this is true. My understanding is that JW was simply a creator on Angel. In actuality Minear had the most creative control over the property from the beginning, so I don't think Joss had as much final say here as he did with Buffy. Can anybody confirm or deny?
From what I recall in season 6, it didn't feel like it progressed enough. I think there was a lot of focus on Buffy and her "recovery", but I'd be curious to know where some of the plot lines came from - Spike particularly.
Originally Posted by Elpresidentepez
Sadly, Buffy fans think Joss Whedon (Buffy's creator) is infallible. So they blamed Noxon; who was named executive producer on Buffy's 6th season, on the decline of said season. The series was showing it's age and she happened to have a lot of control over the season that many fans hate. It didn't matter that she was the writer of several of the shows best episodes. Guess what? it was Whedon's property and he had final say. She's a good writer, I doubt she's Satan.
Originally Posted by doughboy
I think for me personally, the reason I give Noxon so much grief is that she did a pisspoor job running Buffy while Jeffrey Bell and Tim Minear were given the reigns on Angel and did a really good job.
Buffy was a bit longer in the tooth than Angel obviously by the time Joss Whedon left to focus on Firefly, but it was coming off a strong 5th season and Noxon was at least partly responsible for ruining virtually every character on the show, especially Willow.
Buffy was a bit longer in the tooth than Angel obviously by the time Joss Whedon left to focus on Firefly, but it was coming off a strong 5th season and Noxon was at least partly responsible for ruining virtually every character on the show, especially Willow.
From what I recall in season 6, it didn't feel like it progressed enough. I think there was a lot of focus on Buffy and her "recovery", but I'd be curious to know where some of the plot lines came from - Spike particularly.
#2
DVD Talk Hero
Being a good writer does not necessarily translate to being a good show runner. Whedon was just split in too many directions, leaving a poor show runner to make decisions.
#3
Moderator
You know, my wife recently started watching all my Buffy and Angel DVDs and she's now up to S6 of Buffy. I will often watch some of the episodes with her since I haven't seen some of them in a couple of years or so. When she started watching S6 I was a bit worried that I remembered it too fondly from when I had watched them all the last time, but I was wrong. It remains the best season of the series, rivaled only by S5.
#4
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
Being a good writer does not necessarily translate to being a good show runner.
das
#5
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by wendersfan
You know, my wife recently started watching all my Buffy and Angel DVDs and she's now up to S6 of Buffy. I will often watch some of the episodes with her since I haven't seen some of them in a couple of years or so. When she started watching S6 I was a bit worried that I remembered it too fondly from when I had watched them all the last time, but I was wrong. It remains the best season of the series, rivaled only by S5.
#6
Moderator
Originally Posted by Jericho
I also rather enjoyed Season 6. It's Season 7 that I didn't particularly care for.
#7
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Superman07
I think there was a lot of focus on Buffy and her "recovery", but I'd be curious to know where some of the plot lines came from - Spike particularly.
Despite anything said to the contrary, the fact of the matter is that Spike should have been dusted sometime during Season 4. As each season went on, it became abundantly clear that the only reason Spike was still on the show was because he was a popular character. His plotline was particularly insulting, since the only reason he wasn't killing people like any other vampire was because he physically couldn't. That is not redemption in any way.
What pisses me off the most about it is that Xander was there from day one and got pushed to the side. He is almost completely in the background through most of Season 7.
#8
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by Draven
Despite anything said to the contrary, the fact of the matter is that Spike should have been dusted sometime during Season 4. As each season went on, it became abundantly clear that the only reason Spike was still on the show was because he was a popular character. His plotline was particularly insulting, since the only reason he wasn't killing people like any other vampire was because he physically couldn't. That is not redemption in any way.
Originally Posted by wendersfan
It remains the best season of the series, rivaled only by S5.
#9
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like most of season six, but I do have to do a fair amount of fan-retconning and special pleading to make it work.
The biggest problem I have is Marti Noxon's need to make every metaphor literal. Willow was never addicted to casting spells, she was abusive with her power. I can buy that she got high when Rack was casting a spell ON her, but we NEVER saw her get high while casting a spell herself. Willow as abuser in denial is much more interesting than crack addict, and of course all the Scoobies would just let her explanation pass without question. Plus, it makes the transition from grief-stricken to taking-matters-in-her-own-hands-by-destroying-the-world much more understandable.
Also, the style of the show changed muchly. Season five was depressing (leading up to the point where Buffy killed herself) but we primarily saw it through her friends' eyes. Season six shows Buffy as clinically depressive, and the show itself reflected that in style. Remember all those scenes of Buffy staring at water running? Or of Buffy fighting vamps with little or no sense of excitement? By this point, we're supposed to directly identify with Buffy herself. Each episode was a journey inside the mind of someone who can't even commit suicide without (eventually) failing.
"What if I kill you?"
"Trust me, It won't help."
"That's gloomy."
Season six is (for me, anyway) the Ingmar Bergman season.
I'm not sure I'd call it redemption, so much as just deciding not to kill anymore. Other than Andrew, did anyone on the show ever say that redemption was of any value? He's not currently a threat, simply because he's now in love with Buffy. (Remember, he was still willing to kill that girl in the alley after thinking his chip was malfunctioning, so the Clockwork Orange-thing was only a leash, he still wasn't trained.)
"What do you want me to do, go all boo-hoo 'cause she got tortured and driven out of her gourd? Not like we haven't done worse back in the day."
"Yeah, and it's somethin' I'm still payin' for."
"And you should let it go, mate. It's starting to make you look old."
The biggest problem I have is Marti Noxon's need to make every metaphor literal. Willow was never addicted to casting spells, she was abusive with her power. I can buy that she got high when Rack was casting a spell ON her, but we NEVER saw her get high while casting a spell herself. Willow as abuser in denial is much more interesting than crack addict, and of course all the Scoobies would just let her explanation pass without question. Plus, it makes the transition from grief-stricken to taking-matters-in-her-own-hands-by-destroying-the-world much more understandable.
Also, the style of the show changed muchly. Season five was depressing (leading up to the point where Buffy killed herself) but we primarily saw it through her friends' eyes. Season six shows Buffy as clinically depressive, and the show itself reflected that in style. Remember all those scenes of Buffy staring at water running? Or of Buffy fighting vamps with little or no sense of excitement? By this point, we're supposed to directly identify with Buffy herself. Each episode was a journey inside the mind of someone who can't even commit suicide without (eventually) failing.
"What if I kill you?"
"Trust me, It won't help."
"That's gloomy."
Season six is (for me, anyway) the Ingmar Bergman season.
Originally Posted by Draven
His plotline was particularly insulting, since the only reason he wasn't killing people like any other vampire was because he physically couldn't. That is not redemption in any way.
"What do you want me to do, go all boo-hoo 'cause she got tortured and driven out of her gourd? Not like we haven't done worse back in the day."
"Yeah, and it's somethin' I'm still payin' for."
"And you should let it go, mate. It's starting to make you look old."
Last edited by wergo; 09-27-07 at 05:43 PM.
#10
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by das Monkey
The progression of her career since Buffy has validated many of the opinions formed while watching that 6th season. Just take a look at what happened to Grey's Anatomy when she showed up or watch "Some Kind of Miracle". Characters lost consistency, all the males became assholes and idiots, and plots became ridiculously melodramatic and downright insulting. Sound familiar? Under Joss's supervision, she penned a few solid episodes, but that's really been the highlight of her career in terms of actual quality, and how she keeps getting producer work is beyond me.
das
das
#11
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by wergo
I'm not sure I'd call it redemption, so much as just deciding not to kill anymore. Other than Andrew, did anyone on the show ever say that redemption was of any value? He's not currently a threat, simply because he's now in love with Buffy. (Remember, he was still willing to kill that girl in the alley after thinking his chip was malfunctioning, so the Clockwork Orange-thing was only a leash, he still wasn't trained.)
Here's my main problem with it: They set up a very clear line when it came to vampires during Season One. Vampires are no longer human, they are demon-human hybrids and the demon has taken over. They are inherently evil creatures who must be destroyed. This is how they justify Buffy's constant slaying, sometimes of classmates who had just turned. Vampires are deserving of death by their very nature.
Angel was the exception - the vampire with the soul. He wasn't a souless demon like every other vampire. Ok, I buy that.
Then they throw Spike into the mix. Spike is still a demon-human hybrid and the demon has taken over. He's killed hundreds in his lifetime, and the only thing keeping him in check is the chip in his head. And over the course of this plot, they seem to be saying that the chip has allowed him to change his nature.
Now they've established the concept of vampire rehabilitation, which calls into question every vampire Buffy has ever killed. Since apparently vampires can be turned into helpful and trustworthy individuals (remember, Buffy routinely left Dawn in Spike's care) who are physically unable to kill people, doesn't that say that The Initiative had the right idea and maybe Buffy shouldn't be so quick to stake every undead she sees?
This mucks up the entire mythology, and what pisses me off even more is they probably did it because James Marsters is so dreamy (though he was actually in his 40s towards the end of "Buffy" and "Angel".)
#12
Moderator
Originally Posted by Draven
< much excellent prose deleted >
This mucks up the entire mythology
This mucks up the entire mythology
1) To 'retcon' a bit, perhaps the information we had about vampires in the early seasons was not entirely accurate. Perhaps slayers were told by their watchers that vamps were completely, 100% evil because that was easier than giving them a messy, complicated explanation of what vampires really were vis a vis their former human incarnations. Or maybe Spike was just "special."
2. Far more worrisome to me was the gradual shift in relative strength of humans compared to vampires as the series wore on. In S1 it was clear that, with the exception of the slayer, no human could fight one on one with a vampire and have any hope of parity, let alone victory. Then, slowly, that began to change. By the end of the series we had some humans who could almost hold their own against vampires and in some cases actually kill them. This tips the entire premise of the show off kilter. I should add that this power shift was also evident in Angel, perhaps even to a greater degree.
#13
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by wendersfan
For me, this is one of the only two valid criticisms of S6 I've ever seen (the other being the whole "Willow addicted to magic(k)) one. I have two comments:
1) To 'retcon' a bit, perhaps the information we had about vampires in the early seasons was not entirely accurate. Perhaps slayers were told by their watchers that vamps were completely, 100% evil because that was easier than giving them a messy, complicated explanation of what vampires really were vis a vis their former human incarnations. Or maybe Spike was just "special."
2. Far more worrisome to me was the gradual shift in relative strength of humans compared to vampires as the series wore on. In S1 it was clear that, with the exception of the slayer, no human could fight one on one with a vampire and have any hope of parity, let alone victory. Then, slowly, that began to change. By the end of the series we had some humans who could almost hold their own against vampires and in some cases actually kill them. This tips the entire premise of the show off kilter. I should add that this power shift was also evident in Angel, perhaps even to a greater degree.
1) To 'retcon' a bit, perhaps the information we had about vampires in the early seasons was not entirely accurate. Perhaps slayers were told by their watchers that vamps were completely, 100% evil because that was easier than giving them a messy, complicated explanation of what vampires really were vis a vis their former human incarnations. Or maybe Spike was just "special."
2. Far more worrisome to me was the gradual shift in relative strength of humans compared to vampires as the series wore on. In S1 it was clear that, with the exception of the slayer, no human could fight one on one with a vampire and have any hope of parity, let alone victory. Then, slowly, that began to change. By the end of the series we had some humans who could almost hold their own against vampires and in some cases actually kill them. This tips the entire premise of the show off kilter. I should add that this power shift was also evident in Angel, perhaps even to a greater degree.
2) I agree with this to a point - I still think the Slayer is supposed to be "The One" who can always fight the vampires. Alone, unarmed, at a moment's notice. The "reality" of the situation is that it is logical for humans with fighting skills and training (like The Initiative), extensive arcane knowledge or superpowers themselves to stand toe-to-toe with vampires. And I seem to remember that more often than not, it was Buffy (and/or Angel and Spike) who functioned as the "tanks" for the group. Everyone else was mostly getting in lucky shots.
#14
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by wendersfan
the other being the whole "Willow addicted to magic(k)" one
Regarding Draven's complaint, it wouldn't muck up the entire mythology if they simply addressed it in the writing. In fact, I think it makes an interesting evolution for everyone to step back and look at Spike and question the morality of their decisions all this time given this new information. So much could be done with that, but they never properly addressed it, and so it sticks out like a sore thumb.
das
#15
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by das Monkey
Regarding Draven's complaint, it wouldn't muck up the entire mythology if they simply addressed it in the writing. In fact, I think it makes an interesting evolution for everyone to step back and look at Spike and question the morality of their decisions all this time given this new information. So much could be done with that, but they never properly addressed it, and so it sticks out like a sore thumb.
And I 100% agree on the Willow stuff. I was fine with the "addicted to power" idea, but they completely beat us over the head with it, even throwing in drug "lingo" they seemed to crib from reruns of "21 Jump Street".
#16
Moderator
Originally Posted by Draven
And I seem to remember that more often than not, it was Buffy (and/or Angel and Spike) who functioned as the "tanks" for the group. Everyone else was mostly getting in lucky shots.
#17
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Leandro/San Francisco
Posts: 7,422
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by das Monkey
The progression of her career since Buffy has validated many of the opinions formed while watching that 6th season. Just take a look at what happened to Grey's Anatomy when she showed up or watch "Some Kind of Miracle". Characters lost consistency, all the males became assholes and idiots, and plots became ridiculously melodramatic and downright insulting. Sound familiar? Under Joss's supervision, she penned a few solid episodes, but that's really been the highlight of her career in terms of actual quality, and how she keeps getting producer work is beyond me.
das
das
I think even SMG had problems with the sixth season (Spike and Buffy having sex on the balcony of the Bronze was an example she gave in an interview once). Joss has defended it in print saying people just didn't like how dark it was. I can deal with dark (loved Angel) but everyone was so dreary and whiney that it just made the season pretty bland.
Except for OMWF, the season is a mess.
#18
Suspended
Originally Posted by wendersfan
There weren't that many fights where Buffy/Angel/Spike didn't participate. Thinking about this a bit more, it seems that, of all the characters, Gunn is the one who seemed to benefit the most (from this lapse in continuity.) Yes, I know he's a young, strong, motivated guy with a lot of experience fighting vampires. But the fact that he has a lot of experience fighting vampires is kinda the problem; no "normal" human should be able to seek out and fight vampires with that frequency and live. Not Mike Tyson, not Bruce Lee, and not Charles Gunn.
And yeah, later in the series, we had Gunn and Wesley and Xander and even Andrew taking on menaces that they could never have survived early in the series. On the other hand, they've been hanging out with Buffy and/or Angel for years at that point, engaged in a long-running battle with the forces of darkness. If they hadn't gotten good at what they do, they would have died.
#19
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought they were actually pretty consistent from season one about how vampires really were (what they showed us with Angel and Harmony and Spike and every other vampire on the show) and what the Watcher's Council claimed vampires were.
I wouldn't believe the Watcher's Council if they told me water was wet.
And in both cases (vampires aren't who they were as humans AND Willow's "Abusive, me? I'm just an addict!" copout) the writers seemed to go out of their way to show clear examples (any vampire flashback except for Harmony ('cause there it wasn't needed) and paralleling Warren & co. with Willow's actions*) just to emphasize the "who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?" aspect of the show.
*I know Marti was more interested in paralleling Willow's addiction to magick with Buffy's addiction to Spike, but that just don't make no kinda sense nohow, so I pretend she was on crack. It just makes life easier.
I'm not suggesting that this is something that was planned from the start, and it certainly appears that different writers had conflicting agendas. But just because someone doesn't INTEND to leave a clue doesn't make it any less of a clue.
I wouldn't believe the Watcher's Council if they told me water was wet.
And in both cases (vampires aren't who they were as humans AND Willow's "Abusive, me? I'm just an addict!" copout) the writers seemed to go out of their way to show clear examples (any vampire flashback except for Harmony ('cause there it wasn't needed) and paralleling Warren & co. with Willow's actions*) just to emphasize the "who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?" aspect of the show.
*I know Marti was more interested in paralleling Willow's addiction to magick with Buffy's addiction to Spike, but that just don't make no kinda sense nohow, so I pretend she was on crack. It just makes life easier.
I'm not suggesting that this is something that was planned from the start, and it certainly appears that different writers had conflicting agendas. But just because someone doesn't INTEND to leave a clue doesn't make it any less of a clue.
#20
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Leandro/San Francisco
Posts: 7,422
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by wergo
I like most of season six, but I do have to do a fair amount of fan-retconning and special pleading to make it work.
The biggest problem I have is Marti Noxon's need to make every metaphor literal. Willow was never addicted to casting spells, she was abusive with her power. I can buy that she got high when Rack was casting a spell ON her, but we NEVER saw her get high while casting a spell herself. Willow as abuser in denial is much more interesting than crack addict, and of course all the Scoobies would just let her explanation pass without question. Plus, it makes the transition from grief-stricken to taking-matters-in-her-own-hands-by-destroying-the-world much more understandable.
Also, the style of the show changed muchly. Season five was depressing (leading up to the point where Buffy killed herself) but we primarily saw it through her friends' eyes. Season six shows Buffy as clinically depressive, and the show itself reflected that in style. Remember all those scenes of Buffy staring at water running? Or of Buffy fighting vamps with little or no sense of excitement? By this point, we're supposed to directly identify with Buffy herself. Each episode was a journey inside the mind of someone who can't even commit suicide without (eventually) failing.
"What if I kill you?"
"Trust me, It won't help."
"That's gloomy."
Season six is (for me, anyway) the Ingmar Bergman season.
The biggest problem I have is Marti Noxon's need to make every metaphor literal. Willow was never addicted to casting spells, she was abusive with her power. I can buy that she got high when Rack was casting a spell ON her, but we NEVER saw her get high while casting a spell herself. Willow as abuser in denial is much more interesting than crack addict, and of course all the Scoobies would just let her explanation pass without question. Plus, it makes the transition from grief-stricken to taking-matters-in-her-own-hands-by-destroying-the-world much more understandable.
Also, the style of the show changed muchly. Season five was depressing (leading up to the point where Buffy killed herself) but we primarily saw it through her friends' eyes. Season six shows Buffy as clinically depressive, and the show itself reflected that in style. Remember all those scenes of Buffy staring at water running? Or of Buffy fighting vamps with little or no sense of excitement? By this point, we're supposed to directly identify with Buffy herself. Each episode was a journey inside the mind of someone who can't even commit suicide without (eventually) failing.
"What if I kill you?"
"Trust me, It won't help."
"That's gloomy."
Season six is (for me, anyway) the Ingmar Bergman season.