Previous December 2002

More December 2002

[> Re: Spike and the Watcher's Council (Spoilers from latest episode) -- cougar, 19:47:34 12/09/02 Mon

I have often wondered if Giles has a long lost son somewhere, perhaps fathered in the abandon of his Ripper Days. Would be an interesting if Buffy unknowingly met him and found him "peculiar". Could add some Electral drama.

Also I can still see Spike going the way of the Jedi Knight, all Force and chastity (hope not though, terrible waste)

[> Re: Spike and the Watcher's Council (Spoilers from latest episode) -- Payola, 20:24:26 12/09/02 Mon

Recruiting Spike as a Watcher would seem to be allowing him to officially join the "Good Team". (We may not like the Watchers' Council at times, but I don't think that we've ever been led to question that they're on the side of good.) I don't think that this is possible without Spike redeeming himself. BtVS has scads of moral ambiguity, but there are limits. Evil, in the end, must be battled and punished. Spike hasn't really *done* anything to make up for the fact that he has slaughtered hundreds, and has tried to kill and rape the Slayer and kill her friends. He's suffered plenty in his mind upon regaining his soul, but morality in BtVS seems to be based upon acts, not thoughts, and these acts seem far more egregious than Giles' dabbling in black arts.

I may well be wrong here. (I'm new to the board, so if I'm covering old ground I apologize.) Willow's treatment by Giles after her murderous rampage seems to contradict my idea of morality and Buffy -- she's not so much punished for the wrong she's done as healed in order to excise the evil in her. Spike, however, hasn't even done that, just suppressed evil. Or perhaps the Watchers' Council stands on a less moral basis than I think, or perhaps tomorrow (Tuesday) Spike is about to do something that will clear his black marks; but much as I like Spike, right now he seems to be sort of a Gollum character, enslaved by his own conflicting passions, unable to become really good except by some extreme redemptive act -- which may well be self-sacrifice.

[> [> Hm. Don't agree. -- HonorH, 00:27:50 12/10/02 Tue

1) Joining the Good Guy Team *would* be a means of redeeming himself--just as it is for Angel. He hadn't exactly done much more than suffer when he joined up with the original incarnation of the Scoobies, if you'll remember. He joined Buffy in order to redeem himself, not because he was already redeemed. Furthermore, Anya has been given a place in the Scoobies, and with her lifespan, she has a lot more to make up for than Spike. If she's accepted by them, Spike can be without violating the show's morality.

2) It's going to take time for Spike to get fully into the game. Remember, he's not entirely the same creature he was up to the point that he got the soul. He's now got an added element. He has to integrate that before he can even start looking for redemption.

3) Redemption is *never* something you can earn on your own, no matter how hard you try. I believe this not just as a Christian, but as a citizen of the world. If Spike wants redemption, he's going to need help. Buffy has offered hers, and if Giles offers him an additional opportunity to help out via reconstructing the Watchers as the organization they ought to be and helping train Slayers-in-Waiting, Spike ought to take the opportunity. It's called grace, and it can't be earned. It can only be accepted.

[> [> [> Re: Hm. Don't agree. (spoilers to 7.9) -- MaeveRigan, 05:45:38 12/10/02 Tue

Redemption is *never* something you can earn on your own, no matter how hard you try....It's called grace, and it can't be earned. It can only be accepted.

Exactly. In Buffyverse terms, Giles said it first and it's been shown again and again:

GILES: To forgive is an act of compassion, Buffy. It's, it's not done because people deserve it. It's done because they need it. (2.19 I Only Have Eyes for You)

OTOH, without a soul, Spike could never have benefitted fully from this forgiveness. It kept him alive--that is, one might say it prevented Buffy from killing him (that, and her need to lose herself in passion post-resurrection) but until he truly understood his own need for "grace" after regaining his soul, forgiveness couldn't effect any permanent change in him:

SPIKE
Soul's not all about moonbeams and pennywhistles, luv. It's about self-loathing. I get it. Had to travel 'round the world, but I understand you now. I understand the violence inside.

BUFFY
Violence? William the Bloody now has insight into violence?

SPIKE
Not the same. As bad as I was, as evil and as wretched as I was, I never truly hated myself back then. Not like I do now.

Only a souled being can experience repentance/penance. Thus, Buffy tells him "I believe in you" after their next conversation. At this point in his journey, Spike needs to hear this from her much more than he needs to hear "I love you."

[> [> [> [> Don't agree. (spoilers to 7.9) -- Sophist, 13:11:24 12/10/02 Tue

Redemption is *never* something you can earn on your own, no matter how hard you try....It's called grace, and it can't be earned. It can only be accepted.

Exactly. In Buffyverse terms, Giles said it first and it's been shown again and again:

GILES: To forgive is an act of compassion, Buffy. It's, it's not done because people deserve it. It's done because they need it. (2.19 I Only Have Eyes for You)

I don't see redemption and forgiveness as the same for purposes of this discussion. As generally used in this context, someone who has been redeemed is someone who "has atoned for" (there are other meanings closer to forgiveness, though). One can be forgiven whether or not he/she has been redeemed.

In this sense, whether one has been redeemed depends on who is judging. I don't see it as an act of grace by the judge (that would be forgiveness), but a recognition that the redeemed has done something sufficient to atone.

As I say, there are other meanings of these words, but I think that in this context this is the best definition to use.

Only a souled being can experience repentance/penance.

If we take ME at their word that Spike left Sunnydale to seek a soul, then I can't explain that decision except by recourse to his repentance for his behavior in SR and his need for penance. So, again, I disagree.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Don't agree. (spoilers to 7.9) -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:56:00 12/10/02 Tue

Spike knew that any chance he might possibly have had with Buffy was shot after the attempted rape. He only saw one possible way that he could get her to love him after that: get a soul. After all, he had heard plenty about Buffy forgiving Angel for everything he had done while Angelus, so he hoped for the same piece of luck.

You said yourself that redemption and forgiveness aren't the same thing. When Spike went to get his soul, he wanted to be forgiven so that he could get back with Buffy, but really didn't care about being redeemed or making penance.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Fair points -- Sophist, 13:58:44 12/10/02 Tue

I am judging by nuance and, perhaps, by my overall view of Spike. Your suggestion is equally possible.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> OTOH (Spoilers for Beneath You) -- Sophist, 17:56:04 12/10/02 Tue

In BY, when Buffy asks "Why?", Spike answers that he did it "to be the kind of man who could never..." This strongly implies my POV.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OTOH (Spoilers for Beneath You) -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:52:11 12/10/02 Tue

1) Spike knew that as long as he was the kind of man who would do something like that, Buffy would always reject him.

2) Spike's motivation for getting a soul was also based on the fact that he knew he would hurt Buffy again, and his love of her had progressed to the state that it was almost impossible for him to be happy unless Buffy was happy. By gaining a soul, he was trying to ensure he wouldn't hurt Buffy again and put them both through that kind of torment.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OTOH (Spoilers for Beneath You) -- Sophist, 09:53:17 12/11/02 Wed

Shadowkat has made a great post in the Shakespeare thread that supports my interpretation. I'll defer to her.

[> [> [> Redemption or karma? -- luna, 13:16:20 12/10/02 Tue

I suppose all this has been debated here endlessly but worth discussing. Redemption is a concept that comes with a view that there's some external agency of good and evil. Karma, on the other hand, is the idea that your punishments and rewards are the inevitable logical consequences of your actions.

Thus Spike suffers now as a result of the pain he caused, and hopefully that suffering will lead in turn to good actions that will finally result in less suffering. So it's not so much a matter of a big scoreboard in the sky as of cause and effect.

This looks to me like what happens with these characters--but maybe not.

[> [> Re: Spike and the Watcher's Council (Spoilers from latest episode) -- leslie, 15:09:48 12/10/02 Tue

"Spike hasn't really *done* anything to make up for the fact that he has slaughtered hundreds, and has tried to kill and rape the Slayer and kill her friends."

And what better way to do so than to officially join the CoW, dedicating himself to destroying evil vampires? (Because I think now we do have to make a distinction between good and evil vamps.) I'm not saying he should take Quentin Travers' place at the head of the table, but he can work his way up--in fact, given that he is immortal and the organization seems to value seniority, he probably would eventually become the leader simply by attrition.

[> [> [> Even if he's good and sane... -- KdS, 07:01:44 12/11/02 Wed

I see Spike/William as too essentially anti-authority to end up in a hierarchical secret society.

[> Something different about that girl... (Mentions of future spoilers & speculation in this response) -- ZachsMind, 21:42:29 12/09/02 Mon

"Giles is teaching me to be a Watcher! He says I got the stuff!"
"Spike's like a son to me!"

I've often thought that as prophetic from "Restless" as much of the rest of the stuff. The whole thing with Willow's dream can be *interpreted* as prophetic now, in hindsight. She was afraid people would find out who she really was. Back then we figured it was referring to her homosexuality and also to the fact that she does witchy stuff because she thinks it makes her something more than she is, that she was afraid Tara and everybody would find out that for all the effort she'd made in college to be respected and appreciated for her abilities, people would still see her as second season Willow. However, in hindsight we can say now that Willow's got a dark side just like pretty much anybody, and it was really that, unconsciously, which she was afraid people would find out. Something she couldn't even admit to herself at the time. There's countless other examples, and they may be unfounded. Reading too much into it, but one can interpret that "Restless" was hinting at stuff that was gonna happen several years down the road.

I've also sensed throughout season five and six whenever Spike & Dawn were together, that the writers were building something special between them. Spike had a very overprotective tendency with her and there were times when she seemed to have faith in him when no one else would. The time when she asked for his help in breaking into the Magic Box for example.

CAUTION: Spoilery Speculation looming ahead.

We honestly don't know what's going to go down the rest of this season, or if there'll be a next season. It's pretty much a given though that if there is a next season, Buffy will at best be a 'recurring' character. If she's there at all. SMG's just gonna move on. Do movies. Best of luck to her. I don't think Whedon *needs* SMG to continue the story. They're gonna need a replacement. Guess what? I know a lot of you are gonna hate hearing this, but Dawn's the obvious choice.

I'm not saying she's THE next Slayer. I'm not even sure if she IS a slayer in the strictest sense of the term. They're probably gonna make us think she is for a bit, or make us think she might be. Whedon likes playing with our heads. I think what's gonna happen is they play with exploring the concept of what MAKES a Slayer, and by the time they're done with season seven, we may very well see more than one Slayer. Dawn will become an ipso facto slayer due to the confusion I'm about to try to illuminate below, and either Faith or (if Faith dies) her successor will be 'THE Slayer.'

Going back to "Restless," in the battle with The First Slayer, Buffy made it VERY clear "You are not the source of me." Y'know what I think? Buffy's absolutely right. The First Slayer is NOT the source of Buffy's power, and hasn't been for some time. The First Slayer invaded their dreams in "Restless," after it took as an offense the magic spell that Giles, Xander & Willow did to summon the power of The First Slayer to help them combine their efforts to take out Adam in "Primeval." And you'd think if The First Slayer is all that powerful - and the SOURCE of Buffy's power - it coulda taken them all out. Or at the very least strip Buffy of her Slayer powers. I mean if you're not gonna play by The First Slayer's rules, The First Slayer can just kick you out of her club, right? However, The First Slayer couldn't stop Buffy. Why?

Buffy's not a Slayer anymore. Not in the strictest sense. She hasn't been for a VERY long time. Now. Going all the way back to the last episode of the first season, here. The Master killed Buffy in "Prophecy Girl" but Xander revived her with CPR. Immediately after she got up, Buffy was ready to go. She wasn't weak from being a little dead. You'd think even a Slayer woulda been a bit slowed down from having just been dead.

XANDER: No. You're still weak.
BUFFY: No. No, I feel strong. I feel different. Let's go!

She felt different.

Now I've just scanned through the buffy dialogue database trying to find a moment in season four after Spike got the chip where Spike actually hit Buffy. I don't think he ever hit her in seasons four OR five, after he got chipped. He already knew he couldn't hit her when he found out he couldn't bite Willow. Attacking Buffy would have been a pointless act. Instead he went all Yoko Factor on the Scoobies and tried to hurt them without violence.

I could be wrong of course. There was the scene in the sun when he had the ring that kept him from dusting in sunlight. However, that was BEFORE the chip. I think from the point of the chip onward he never actually tried. Even if I'm wrong there, by the time Buffy died the second time, she was definitely feeling different.

It's quite possible, either after she died the first time in season one, or after she died the second time in season five, that whatever it is which grants Buffy the power to behave LIKE a Slayer became either a combination of The First Slayer and "something else entirely" which has yet to be determined, or after her confrontation with The First Slayer in "Restless," her powers stopped coming from The First Slayer entirely.

"You're not the source of me!"

Maybe The First Slayer and The First Evil are connected, or even perhaps two sides of the same coin? The real reason The First Evil is out to take down Buffy now is because... wait a minute! The First Evil is NOT after Buffy. It doesn't even bother to attack her. It went after Angel before. Now it's going after Spike and Andrew. The fact Buffy's there seems almost unimportant to it. Like it doesn't think Buffy is even a threat.

The First Evil is after the Slayers In Training. Why go after them? Why not try to take the Slayer out directly? Unless it KNOWS Buffy's not even THE Slayer. For that matter, why not go after Faith? The reason The First ain't going after Buffy is because Buffy's not a slayer in the strictest sense. It's going after Slayers-In-Training cuz it's trying to fix what's been broken.

There is some confusion about the Slayer line itself. We know when Buffy died the first time, Kendra was called, and after Kendra's death, Faith came along. So Buffy's completely out of the loop now. When she came back from the dead the first time, the power of the Slayer had already sought out Kendra. It was through with her. So when she came back from the dead after Xander revived her, she was different. And when she died the second time, there was no indication that a second slayer appeared, because The First Slayer had ALREADY left Buffy the first time.

I think we're gonna find out that Buffy the Vampire Slayer hasn't been "THE" slayer for over six years. She deserves the title of course. She's slain more vampires than Faith and Kendra combined, but the mystical power that gives a slayer her speed, strength, stamina, and ability to make out with cute souled gentleman vamps, that left her long ago. So her speed, stamina, and so forth is coming from within her, OR an entirely different source. ...OR a combination of the two.

Now here's the kicker. Whatever it is that now gives Buffy her power, if it's not The First Slayer, it's INSIDE her now. Maybe The First Slayer power whatsit doesn't have to permanently reside in a given Slayer to keep her powerful. Maybe it just changes her and then it's done. Alters her DNA and makes her a Slayer in much the same way vampirism turns a human into a vampire. The sire doesn't have to stick around. It can move on to someone else.

So if Buffy's not a Slayer any longer, what is she? Her biochemical makeup has been permanently altered so that she's "*A*" slayer of sorts no matter what. And if someone happens to be created by crazy monks using Buffy's own DNA without anything to dilute it, what would that new person be? Anyone who is genetically LIKE Buffy, and stems from her genetic structure, has potentially the same abilities that she does, and her powers come from the same source that Buffy's powers come from post season one "Prophecy Girl."

Dawn was made by the monks using Buffy's blood in season five, years after The First Slayer changed Buffy's DNA. She's NOT Buffy's sister. Never has been. Buffy's parents had nothing to do with Dawn's birth. Dawn was never born. Dawn is Buffy's clone. Her daughter.

so if Buffy's genetic makeup was changed by The First Slayer, but Buffy doesn't need The First Slayer to continue being Slayerific, that means Dawn has the same potential Buffy has, and always has had that potential dormant inside her. And Dawn doesn't need The First Slayer's permission to kick butts. Because The First Slayer is not the source of Dawn any more than she's the source of Buffy's power.

And remember: It's ALL ABOUT POWER. =)

That WOULDN'T make Dawn the NEXT Slayer. It's kinda like a new Slayer line which works on genetics and not on a mystical First Slayer whoozit. It would stand to reason that IF Dawn or Buffy ever had children, they too would show at least some signs of Slayeristic qualities post puberty. Probably in a diluted fashion, since whoever Buffy or Dawn had children with couldn't be Slayers. I mean.. Guys CAN'T be Slayers. Sorry about that Xander.

"I knew you'd throw that back in my face. ...I'm inadequate. That's fine. I'm less than a man."

To avoid confusion, it'd be wise of the writers to not refer to Dawn as a slayer. I mean she'll have all the powers and abilities Buffy has, but she's not a Slayer in the same sense as all the Slayers before Buffy or since. They probably will refer to Dawn as a Slayer anyway though, cuz Whedon just adores confusion.

[> [> Spike and Buffy and hittage -- HonorH, 00:31:14 12/10/02 Tue

No hitting, but I can think of at least one instance in which Spike tried to bite Buffy: in "Out of My Mind," when Spike *thought* the chip had been removed. It fired when he tried to bite Buffy, which is how he knew it was still there. That even removes the possibility of psychosomatic pain.

[> [> [> Re: Spike and Buffy and hittage -- Haecceity, 00:40:07 12/10/02 Tue

And what of "Fool For Love" when he hits her wound? Wasn't there "Ow, My Chip-age" there? Or am I remembering this wrong? Wouldn't be the first time.

Though that would almost be a shame, as I find the idea of Buffy being different all along an intriguing one.

---Haecceity

[> [> [> [> A cynical reply -- Earl Allison, 03:23:45 12/10/02 Tue

All excellent points, but the writers have shown a willingness to abandon or retcon the continuity to keep someone on, or to advance a storyline, so past examples need not hem them in.

I wish I could offer something positive.

Take it and run.

[> [> [> [> [> A less-cynical counterpoint -- HonorH, 10:12:25 12/10/02 Tue

Continuity is better on Buffy than on any other show I could name. True, there is the occasional retcon, but something that big would be something even the audience couldn't rationalize. They'd have to do an awful lot of fancy footwork, and I don't think it would be worth it to them.

[> [> [> [> Could be a matter of stages or degrees... -- ZachsMind, 11:27:48 12/10/02 Tue

After her first death she came back different. She admitted that herself. May not have been very different, but enough for her to notice. The First Slayer could still have been the prominent source of her power, but in that brief moment of her first death, something else may have intervened.

I'm not saying this is canon, just that it's plausible.

The next major event of this potential change is in the season four finale, in "Primeval." The Scoobies called upon The First Slayer to allow all four of them to become UberBuffy for a brief time. The First Slayer took offense to that and in "Restless" almost killed them in their sleep. Buffy admitted "you are not the source of me" and The First Slayer stopped fighting. Buffy just dismissed The First as if she were an unwelcome guest.

I'm suggesting that by this time, The First Slayer had been at least part of the guiding force of what makes Buffy a slayer, but that from "Prophecy Girl" onward, EITHER Buffy's power was coming from herself and TFS was secondary, or some other force was intervening and was becoming the real source of Buffy's power, and The First was slowly getting kicked out of Buffy's source center. By the end of Restless, TFS is no longer Buffy's dominant force source. "Restless" was representing the power struggle within Buffy. The First was trying to get Buffy back in line and she rebelled.

The next point of the plot arc is in season five when Buffy died the second time. I'm suggesting that upon Buffy's return in season six, by this time TFS is completely out of the loop. It's moved on to Faith and no longer has even a tenuous link to Buffy. Whatever's the source of Buffy's power, it's no longer TFS. It's either that Buffy has become so strong mystically (life force, soul, whatever you call it) that she is her OWN source of power, or there's some other unforeseen force which is her true power center, separate from The First.

Buffy came back "wrong" in that she's no longer technically human. What exactly she is, is still a mystery.

[> [> [> [> [> I think I will just quote Tara in Dead Things from season 6 -- Rufus, 20:55:30 12/10/02 Tue

Buffy is human and Tara confirmed that fact......

Cut to Buffy's house, living room. Buffy sits on the coffee-table facing Tara, who sits on the sofa.

TARA: I-I've double checked everything. (smiling) There's nothing wrong with you.

BUFFY: Then why can Spike hurt me?

TARA: Well, I said that there was nothing wrong with you, but ... you are different. Shifting you out of ... f-f-from where you were ... funneling your essence back into your body ... i-it, it altered you on a basic molecular level. Probably just enough to confuse the sensors or whatever in Spike's chip. But it's all just surfacey physical stuff. It wouldn't have any more effect than ... a bad sunburn.

Buffy looks close to tears as she contemplates this.

BUFFY: I didn't come back wrong?
TARA: No, you're the same Buffy. (lightly) With a deep tropical cellular tan.
BUFFY: You must have missed something. Will you check again?
TARA: (concerned) Buffy, I-I promise, there's nothing wrong with you.
BUFFY: There has to be! This just can't be me, it isn't me. (starting to cry) Why do I feel like this? Why do I let Spike do those things to me?

Buffy is as human as she could be considering the fact that the power that a Slayer has could be taken into consideration if we want to consider Buffy a little more than human.....but the basic package is human.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I have to side with "she's human," and I think it's important. -- HonorH, 22:13:43 12/10/02 Tue

It was very important in "Dead Things" that Buffy wasn't, in fact, fundamentally changed by coming back. She had to face the fact that her issues were really *hers*. She was still herself, ultimately, and couldn't blame her actions on being part-demon or whatnot.

I think it's just as important now. Whatever else the Slayer is, whatever she draws her power from, ultimately, she's "just a girl". That's been the theme of the whole show. To say now that she's other than human would undercut the entire premise.

[> [> You impress the heck outof me! -- rabbit, 14:41:26 12/10/02 Tue

As always, you awe me Zach... I feel a need to memorize what you write and wait for it to show up on screen.

[> [> Post-chip Buffy hittage -- Dead Soul, 19:13:34 12/10/02 Tue

Spike hit Buffy in the face in Something Blue after he'd gotten away from Giles and was looking for the entrance to the Initiative. Willow says that she bets Buffy finds Spike in 10 seconds, she does, bicker, bicker, bicker, Spike hits Buffy, clutches his head, Buffy hits him back, he grabs his nose.

Dead (and therefore all out of quippage) Soul

[> "Led" is correct. -- HonorH (the grammarian), 12:47:04 12/10/02 Tue

It gets confusing because "lead" can be pronounced the same way--only then, it refers to the metal. "Led" is the correct past tense of "to lead".

[> [> Re: "Led" is correct. -- slain, 14:13:24 12/10/02 Tue

Well, I'll restrain myself from looking through all my essays and character pages to make sure I've only ever said "led". I've often caught myself making basic mistakes as typos, as if my fingers have poorer grammar and spelling than my head does. I mean, I know there're two C's in successfully, but my fingers don't seem to be quite so sure.

Villians isn't the correct spelling anywhere, except perhaps in the 16th century. Being literate doesn't neccessarily mean you can spell, and whomever can spot the semi-unintentional irony in that remark wins some kind of imaginary prize.

[> [> [> semi unintentional irony... -- Helen, 00:40:07 12/11/02 Wed

Neccessary - oh no! One Cup "C" two Sugars "SS"!!

Do I get a gold star?

[> [> [> [> Yes, but only an imaginary one -- slain, 11:19:11 12/11/02 Wed

[> [> Re: Lead Zeppelin -- Celebaelin, 19:19:59 12/10/02 Tue

Yes, definitely "led" - past participle of to lead (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)

Incidentally the dual pronunciation of L-E-A-D is allegedly the reason why Led Zeppelin is spelt that way. So, is context everything and all truth subjective? No, because some things are universally agreed by convention in order to avoid confusion, that's why we have dictionaries (that and Samuel Johnson b.1709-d.1784).

[> I read it a different way... -- ZachsMind, 14:40:21 12/10/02 Tue

I thought maybe the scenes *after* the Cassie/Willow scene might have been filmed out of sequence. Behind the scenes, they honestly didn't know at the time Hannigan filmed those scenes if Benson would be playing The First or if it would be the actress playing Cassie, or someone else, so the wording of Willow's lines are purposefully vague to accomodate either way it went without having to reshoot the scenes in question.

I could be wrong but that's the way it looked to me. I don't think they had a lot of warning when Benson's meeting with the network fell through.

[> Maybe it's the timeline (very spoilery through 7.9) -- Tyreseus, 18:26:41 12/10/02 Tue

I've been thinking about the speed at which Buffy figured out the idenity of the First Evil, but I'm trying to construct a timeline that makes sense. We generally tend to think that a week has passed between each episode, so that the scoobies lives are happening at the same speed as ours, but that's not necessarily so in the last few episodes.

Let's start with Converations With Dead People.
Tuesday, November 12, 2002, 8:01 pm. We know this because in a rare BtVS move, they broadcast the time and date in the opening clips of the show. The events we witness take place over the course of a single night.

Sleeper.
Wednesday, November 13 -early morning, Buffy arrives at Xander's place. In London a girl is killed and a man is attacked. Anya is called to watch Spike. She watches him all day, until the sun is setting and he leaves. Buffy follows him and he bites the girl. Buffy track him down and questions him.

Thursday, November 14 - night. Spike knocks out Xander in order to leave. He goes to the Bronze, where he meets the vamp he made. He freaks out, calls Buffy. They go to the cellar where other vampires rise - butt kicking - Buffy takes Spike home to look after him. In London, Giles is attacked (good thing he found his friend ... a day later... still alive enough to speak, bad thing he didn't check the house for Bringers first).

Never Leave Me.
Friday, November 15 - morning. I make this assumption because Dawn goes to school and makes an excuse for Buffy's absense. It must either be Friday or Monday, but it makes more sense that it's Friday because eveything is still so immediate. Buffy questions Spike. They call the WC (must be a late night for them in London). Willow encounters Andrew buying blood and brings him to the house.Questioning ... Spike bites Andrew ... evening falls as Spike is chained in the basement. It's dark by the time the Bringers attack. They take Spike, Buffy figures out who she's dealing with. Principal Woods removes Jonathon's 3 day old body from the school basement, maybe it was just starting to smell. In London, the Watchers' Council is blown up. Meet Uber-vamp.

And that pretty much brings us to the weekend. Keeping the timeline in perspective, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that Willow simply didn't have time to share all the intimate details with Buffy.The more pressing matter over the last few days has been what the f*ck is going on with Spike. Couple that with the need for sleep (which they must do sooner or later), home repairs, attempted calls to Giles, eating, and mundane life requirements (classes, work, weapons cleaning and maintenance), the scooby gang is probably desperately in need of a weekend. Good thing Thanksgiving is still coming up. Maybe the Uber-Vamp is a real party guy.

[> Re: Art and Commerce: Buffy and Angel Pt 2 (long) -- Just George, 19:43:04 12/10/02 Tue

Ratings Chart:

here

So, what conclusions can be drawn from this ratings data? First, the ratings for both Buffy and Angel have declined at a steady rate over the past three and a half seasons. The trend lines suggest the ratings for each season finale will be near 3.0 (for Buffy) and 2.3 (for Angel).

Interestingly, when paired with the increasing number of viewers represented by each ratings point, Buffy's average viewership has been remarkably stable from Season 4-6. Angel's total audience has declined in both ratings and actual numbers.

Angel's ratings trend has been very steady. Once the show started, nothing that has been done on the show has caused the ratings to vary from the trend-line by more than a few tenths of a point. This is remarkable since the show has changed story direction several times (Buffy spin off with crossovers, Angel seeks redemption, Noir Angel, Angel as daddy, etc.) The show has also had a number of lead ins (Buffy, 7th Heaven, Charmed). The creative team feels that each season has been editorially stronger than the last. None of this seems to have mattered in the ratings. The Angel audience is stable, loyal, but shrinking.

Buffy's ratings were always volatile. In every season there is a significant dip in ratings during the last third of the season (the "Spring Swoon"), with a recovery just before the season finale.

Since the shows have split, Buffy's ratings have been especially chaotic. The end of Season 4 and the middle and end of Season 5 all fell over half a point below the trend line. Counterwise, the beginning of Season 6 fell almost a point above the trend line. Why? Some of the ME writing staff expressed the opinion that the Buffy story line "lost its way" during the last half of Season 4. Viewers seem to agree and "lost their way" to viewing Buffy. On the other hand, Buffy changed networks, to UPN at the beginning of Season 6. The significant "Buffy's Back" promotional campaign that UPN ran before season 6 started may explain the significant, but short lived, ratings gains there.

The most obvious ratings break occurred early in Buffy's history. From Episode 9 (Puppet Show) through Episode 27 (Phases) Buffy's National ratings average increased from 2.2 to 4.9! That is an increase of .15 per episode. But, then the ratings average fell even faster to 3.7 by Episode 32 (Go Fish). That was a decrease of almost .25 per episode. What was going on?

First, Buffy changed nights. Second, this is where Buffy's romance with Angel turned very dark. I suspect that some viewers were scared away by the Angelus story line. This story line may also have broken the "buzz" that Buffy was generating. I don't have audience demographics, but I suspect that some viewers who were watching specifically to follow the Buffy/Angel romance may have bailed on the show when Angel went bad. Buffy's ratings have never approached the heights of season 2 again.

Art vs. Commerce in Part 3

[> Re: Art and Commerce: Buffy and Angel Pt 3 (long) -- Just George, 19:44:46 12/10/02 Tue

Ratings Chart:

here

These trends raise some interesting questions of creative choice vs. commercial necessity:

Should ME have sabotaged the B/A romance in Buffy Season 2? The ratings collapse suggests that it was a poor economic decision, even if it was a very engaging story line.

Should Angel have moved away from doing Buffy crossovers? After the premier, Angel's highest rated episode was the Buffy crossover "I Will Remember You". Even though the Angel creators say it was important for Angel to "find its voice" separate from Buffy, the ratings continue to fall.

Were the lower ratings near the end of Buffy Season 6 because of Spuffy, or just another example of Buffy's "Spring Swoon"? Buffy's ratings always dip in the spring. Perhaps there is a structural reason in the way Buffy is plotted that causes the ratings dip late in the season.

Will Angel be around for Season 5? If the ratings continue to fall along the trend line, probably not. Let's hope that ME finds a way to bring in more viewers. The move to Wednesday night ,might change things, but no other move has made much of a positive difference. The move is also missed opportunity. with The Sopranos over for the season, the 9:00 PM Sunday slot just got less competitive.

Is it worth it for UPN to keep Buffy, even if SMG is only around for guest shots? If the ratings continue to fall along the trend line, it is a risk, but probably still a good investment. Remember that over 80% of new series fail in their first year. So long as UPN can keep putting something called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" on the air, they may be willing to bet they can pull in ratings that equal or better other shows in their schedule. And UPN can't say the same thing about any particular new show they would put in its place.

Ratings vs. quality in Part 4

-JG

[> [> Re: Art and Commerce: Buffy and Angel Pt 3 (long) -- shadowkat, 09:36:19 12/11/02 Wed

Interesting. Here's my take for what it's worth:

1.Should ME have sabotaged the B/A romance in Buffy Season 2? The ratings collapse suggests that it was a poor economic decision, even if it was a very engaging story line.

Actually it wasn't so much the loss of the romance or the darkness of it that turned viewers off and possibly the fact that they veered away from it entirely. Passion if you'll notice had a upswing in ratings as did BBB. What sunk was the none Buffy/Angle(and Spike/Dru) episodes: Go Fish (I remember turning off the tv when I realized that
it was just a filler episode first time it aired, how much you want to bet Neilsen viewers did the same? It feels less like one now..but still does zip to advance plot or characters.), Killed By Death (scarey but also focused on Buffy and being sick, we only had two brief scenes with Angel and none with the other two vamps), it wasn't until we got to I Only Have Eyes for You - that we got any Angelus or Spike or Dru and it was very teasing - the episode focused on two ghosts the audience cared zip about.
So I think if they had FOCUSED on the dark B/Angelus relationship and Spike and Dru more - higher ratings, but they didn't - they focused on side issues. Notice how when they go back to the main focus in Becoming - ratings shoot up again?


Should Angel have moved away from doing Buffy crossovers? After the premier, Angel's highest rated episode was the Buffy crossover "I Will Remember You". Even though the Angel creators say it was important for Angel to "find its voice" separate from Buffy, the ratings continue to fall.

Hmmm not completely sure about this. I'm glad they did and Angel has survived two years without them. See my post on ratings game.

2.Were the lower ratings near the end of Buffy Season 6 because of Spuffy, or just another example of Buffy's "Spring Swoon"? Buffy's ratings always dip in the spring. Perhaps there is a structural reason in the way Buffy is plotted that causes the ratings dip late in the season.

Actually there wasn't that much Spuffy in the lackluster ratings episodes. Double Meat Palace focused on well the DMP not on Spuffy - Spike appeared for two minutes. AYW focused on perfect Riley and perfect Sam to the extent that many viewers flipped off their tv sets - I know of at least twenty people who did. They couldn't stand Riley's performance. Spike wasn't really the focal point and there were two brief Spuffy scenes. I need to go back to your chart to see where Dead Things fell - b/c that and Gone were the big Spuffy episodes. And to be honest I don't think it was the Spike/Buffy relationship that may have turned people off but the way it was portrayed - which was painful to watch - regardless of whether you were invested in the relationship or not, actually more painful if you were. I know I find re-watching the Wrecked through Hells Bells Season 6 episodes to be somewhat painful - but not for the Spuffy so much as for lackluster editing and jarring shifts in narrative. Dead Things the only possible exception. And if you look at the shooting scripts for last season and the ones for this season - you'll notice how much more editing has occurred in Season 7. The shooting scripts in Season 6 seemed pretty darn close to the aired episodes with just a few differences in lines here and there. Season 7 scripts have whole speeches and dialogue missing. Big time changes.

But there's another point - the Spring Swoon partly occurs due to the breaks in action. We have solid Buffy from Oct to Dec. Then huge break and out of sync reruns. Viewers tend to be fickle. I know some people who just stop watching during rerun season and lose track of the show - I have to tell them when a new episode airs. And by that time - something else has grabbed their interest on Tues
nights such as well life. But sometimes they eagerly come back - and if they are rewarded by a filler or silly lackluster episode upon return? The show has lost them.

This may have been what happened last year - we got Wrecked, five weeks of reruns then Gone, then more reruns, then DMP (which disappointed lots of people), then more reruns, then Dead Things, OAFA, then AYW, then more reruns, then Hells Bells, then still more reruns, then Normal Again, then a month of reruns before Entropy. The ratings went down because of all the frigging reruns.

What Sopranos and Sex in the City do right is they show all their episodes at once - without breaks of reruns in between during each season.

La Femme Nikita lost audience members in the same way - it was hard to keep track of the show and what was happening because you'd have new episode, rerun rerun, new episode, rerun rerun rerun...people got lost.

You have to remember most people aren't obsessively following these shows - they only know whether the episode is live or a rerun when they turn it on. They get a rerun when they are eagerly awaiting the next episode? ARGH.
So the network and advertisers and writers - insistence on doing sweeps and spacing out episodes hurts them more than helps in the long run. And it has killed many shows.

So it's not the shows or the plotting - it's the dang reruns being inserted between. This is what happened in Season 2 - we had rerun - Passion. Rerun - Killed by Death, rerun...so the non B/A arc stories were that much more frustrating. People aren't patient. Particularly in a society that has fast food restaurants and quick deliveries.
You don't give them next episode quickly - they take off.

(I think I overstated my point there - this is what happens when I post without proofing...;-) )

3. Is it worth it for UPN to keep Buffy, even if SMG is only around for guest shots? If the ratings continue to fall along the trend line, it is a risk, but probably still a good investment. Remember that over 80% of new series fail in their first year. So long as UPN can keep putting something called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" on the air, they may be willing to bet they can pull in ratings that equal or better other shows in their schedule. And UPN can't say the same thing about any particular new show they would put in its place.

See my post below on art and ratings game. Personally I'm ambivalent about SMG as an actress - don't care if she continues or not. The character - I have a love/hate relationship with. While I'd love to see more of her journey, it's not the reason I'm watching right now.
Know several people who feel the same way. Spike on the other hand...well, he leaves, I may lose interest. And if Joss Whedon stops writing or producing or running it? I'll probably lose interest as well. I can see his touch this season and it does make a difference.

It's a 50/50 gambit either way. Half the audience watches for Buffy, Half the audience watches in spite of Buffy or
has a love/hate relationship with the character, or is just ambivalent and never watched for buffy (I started watching for Giles actually.)

At any rate - I think the show has at least one more season in it with or without SMG - assuming the writers don't lose interest.

[> [> [> Re: Art and Commerce: Buffy and Angel Pt 3 (long) -- Just George, 23:15:24 12/11/02 Wed

Shadowcat: "Actually it wasn't so much the loss of the romance or the darkness of it that turned viewers off and possibly the fact that they veered away from it entirely."


I hadn't thought of it that way. I still think the dark turn drove some people away. But it may have been the abandonment of the B/A story line. It is interesting that only 2 of the next 6 episodes touched on B/A in any strong way, and only 1 (Passion) really pushed the story line forward. I'll have to think about that.


Shadowcat: "But there's another point - the Spring Swoon partly occurs due to the breaks in action. We have solid Buffy from Oct to Dec. Then huge break and out of sync reruns. Viewers tend to be fickle."


This is almost certainly a part of the problem. I think an appropriate ad campaign, hyping new episodes in the middle of re-run season, could help. Also showing new episodes in bunches, instead of individually, would also help. On the other hand, Angel has the same problem with intermittent episodes that Buffy has. Both show's ratings ups and downs map almost exactly in S5/S2. But Buffy collapsed in S4 while Angel never did. And Angel fell off much earlier in S3 than Buffy did in S6.


Shadowcat: "Half the audience watches for Buffy, Half the audience watches in spite of Buffy or has a love/hate relationship with the character, or is just ambivalent and never watched for buffy (I started watching for Giles actually.)

"At any rate - I think the show has at least one more season in it with or without SMG - assuming the writers don't lose interest."


Different strokes. I'm a part of the half that watches primarily for Buffy's journey. So long as she stays an important part of the show, then I continue to give BTVS the benefit of the doubt. So long as the show is called BTVS and has Buffy's character showing up 50+% of the time I'll continue to watch and record every episode. The show would have to be bad for quite a while for me to abandon it. However if Buffy wasn't in half the shows I would treat it like a spin off.

I would checkout any BTVS spin off show that was sans SMG. But I would treat it like I did Firefly, a new show I was excited about, but a show that would have to prove itself. Firefly has. Angel didn't at first. I didn't watch much the first year or so. Angel has proven itself now. I even went back and got the English DVDs of S1 and S2 to catch up.

I would be very concerned about the quality of BTVS if Joss Whedon left. But I would judge the show based on what was on the screen rather than what was happening behind the scenes.

Given all that, I pretty much agree that a 50+% Buffy BTVS could go on for a season but probably not more.

-JG

[> [> [> [> Re: Art and Commerce: Buffy and Angel Pt 3 (long) -- shadowkat, 08:24:27 12/12/02 Thu

Shadowcat: "But there's another point - the Spring Swoon partly occurs due to the breaks in action. We have solid Buffy from Oct to Dec. Then huge break and out of sync reruns. Viewers tend to be fickle."


This is almost certainly a part of the problem. I think an appropriate ad campaign, hyping new episodes in the middle of re-run season, could help. Also showing new episodes in bunches, instead of individually, would also help. On the other hand, Angel has the same problem with intermittent episodes that Buffy has. Both show's ratings ups and downs map almost exactly in S5/S2. But Buffy collapsed in S4 while Angel never did. And Angel fell off much earlier in S3 than Buffy did in S6.

S4 as you mentioned had several problems. One their story fell apart due to the abrupt departures of two key cast members - the villain (Lindsey Crouse who played Professor Walsh) had to be written out in The I in Team - just as her story arc was reaching it's high point. And Seth Green who played OZ left just as his story was reaching a high point.
So they had to rethink the season. I think the Riley storyline may have been more interesting if Prof Walsh had stayed longer - b/c she was the main conflict and been built as the main conflict for Riley and Buffy. They were working on a sort of Mother/Son/Girlfriend Triangle with Riley having Pavlovian responses to Walsh. They even made the suggestion that Riley only went after Buffy b/c Walsh said she liked her. This was probably their big story.
With all sorts of conflict between Giles and Walsh, Walsh and Buffy, Buffy and Riley, etc. But LC left and they were left with Forrest, Riley, a bunch of interchangable commanders, and Adam. Not much to build on. So the Riley/Buffy story became incredibly dull - not b/c of Marc Blucas or his character but b/c there was 0 conflict, nothing keeping Riley and Buffy apart. For a romance to work onscreen - actually for anything to be interesting on screen including just friendships - there must be conflict!
There was more conflict in S4 between Buffy and everyone else in the cast than Riley. Actually you know there's a problem when Buffy has better chemistry with Riley's best friend Forrest and with Faith. And Faith in Buffy's body had more chemistry with Riley - why? There was conflict.
The writers had to work overtime to find a reason to keep Riley and Buffy apart. The other problem w/S4 was the whole Initiative storyline was too close to X-Files and the same fans were watching both. Several considered the Riley character and his Initiative pals to be a stupid take-off
of X-Files and ditched Buffy as a result.

Angel actually picked up Buffy viewers - for it's cross-overs with Buffy that year. Unfortunately - the Buffy quest appearences on Angel were the most interesting episodes with a few exceptions. Ats really didn't take off until towards the end of it's second year, but if you weren't a patient viewer - you may have missed it.

Ats - had a longer hiatus than Buffy did last year. Remember? It didn't even have reruns. None for about four weeks. That causes problems. We got two episodes. Then none at all after Birthday (I think). At least Btvs had reruns.
Angel's timeslot was taken by Seventh Heaven reruns.
This causes viewers to lose interest. Also in Season 3 Angel, there were intermittent showings early in season as well. I remember getting annoyed with Ats last year b/c I never knew when a new episode was going to air and kept getting Seventh Heaven or a rerun or an episode that had zip to do with the current plot arc. Ats had lots of stand alones that added little to the Darla/Connor/Holtz plot arc.
Which felt jarring.

S2/S5 - Buffy - same problems. Lots of reruns. There was at least a month of reruns before Shadow. All those episodes that dipped in ratings - happened during the rerun portion of the season -Dec- Jan, March, Apirl.

What could work? Better promotional campaign. But also a more solid block of shows and less out-sync reruns interspersed between. Most of the people I know - lose interest in shows and stop watching because of the rerun waiting periods. Another point - with syndication and cable, the urgency to watch a show goes down. People think - I miss this? I'll catch it at another time either on Tivo, someone will tape it, I'll wait for DVD, or next year on FX.
(Except of course us obsessed fans who want it now.)


Shadowcat: "Actually it wasn't so much the loss of the romance or the darkness of it that turned viewers off and possibly the fact that they veered away from it entirely."


I hadn't thought of it that way. I still think the dark turn drove some people away. But it may have been the abandonment of the B/A story line. It is interesting that only 2 of the next 6 episodes touched on B/A in any strong way, and only 1 (Passion) really pushed the story line forward. I'll have to think about that.

The first time I went online was after Innocence. I remember the excitement. People went nuts - they couldn't wait for a new episode. BBB and Passion were great - the excitement went up even more. People couldn't believe how good the show was. But then came reruns and several teasing episodes that went no where. Fans were furious. I remember one gal wrote how she was going to boycott the show and was so unhappy that we only got ten minutes of Angel or five and they were focusing all their time on other stories that meant nothing. Go Fish - caused several people to almost give up on the show - the episode was good but came at the wrong time. It wasn't the darkness that turned so many people off - actually a lot of people I knew didn't consider the show worth watching until Angel turned and it go dark. The darkness attracted new viewers - hence the high ratings of Surprise and Innocence and Passion. What turned people off was the fact that we stopped seeing much of Angel or Spike or Dru and these were the cool villains and got a bunch of stand alones.

Same thing happened in S6 - DMP - ten minutes of Spike - 0 plot advancement and lots of scenes with DMP workers, OAFA - well no darkness there, but I think you get the point.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Art and Commerce: Buffy and Angel Pt 3 (long) -- bl, 11:11:25 12/12/02 Thu

Same thing happened in S6 - DMP - ten minutes of Spike - 0 plot advancement and lots of scenes with DMP workers, OAFA - well no darkness there, but I think you get the point.

Someone timed it. There was less than 2 minutes of Spike in DMP.

They are doing the same thing this season. Cutting Spike's time in most episodes to the bone. we get Cameo Spike and PlotDevice Spike. Only in BY, Sleeper and NLM was there a good amount of Spike, but even then it was only about 15 minutes per episode. And they ruined that with the serial rapist retcon.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Art and Commerce: Buffy and Angel Pt 3 (long) -- Just George, 13:44:47 12/12/02 Thu

Shadowcat: "What could work? Better promotional campaign. But also a more solid block of shows and less out-sync reruns interspersed between. Most of the people I know - lose interest in shows and stop watching because of the rerun waiting periods. Another point - with syndication and cable, the urgency to watch a show goes down. People think - I miss this? I'll catch it at another time either on Tivo, someone will tape it, I'll wait for DVD, or next year on FX."


Ultimately, we are in the midst of a revolution in the way TV is created, delivered, and paid for. TIVO, syndication, second runs on cable, re-runs, etc. all impact viewership. The problem is that the networks are tied to the current distribution system and are dancing as fast as they can to keep their business models from collapsing.

One suggestion, show new episodes in blocks of 3-8 episodes. Announce before hand how long the block is. NBC does this sometimes. "The next 4 episdoes of The West Wing are all new!" The creators can even take advantage of the blocks to give each its own specific story arc. This would resemble the way the BBC does some shows. Think old Dr. Who story arcs.

Another suggestion, re-show each new episode a few days later at an off time period. This allows word of mouth to percolate across the water cooler and internet. Say, UPN were to offer their affiliates recasts of network shows during the 1AM to 3AM slot. Instead of being filled with old movies, these slots would be filled with 2-day-old network shows. Thus, Tuesday Buffy episodes would be recasts Thursday morning at 1 AM. This time slot would be mostly for taping/TIVO purposes, but a few hardy souls might watch live. The affiliates could sell half the ads on the recasts, probably getting higher rates than they do for old movies.

Another idea, periodically show blocks of recasts of a single show late at night. On the first Tuesday late night (Wednesday morning at 1 AM) of every month UPN would show the last month's Buffy episodes back to back to back. Tapers would know when to set their VCRs to get the whole thing. The SciFi channel does this occasionally, showing an entire 4 hour block of a show like The X Files during the daytime hours.

Finally, use episode titles (or story arc titles) in advertising. This would help inform viewers when new episodes were running. The WB does someof this, note their "Rain of Fire" ads for Angel.

I think networks and studios need to take advantage of word of mouth and TIVO/tape to build buzz in their shows. The object would be to build buzz to improve the prime time ratings of the shows. Given the 80% new show death rate, networks should be desperate to try to build buzz and audience any way they can.

-JG

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Art and Commerce: Buffy and Angel Pt 3 (long) -- shadowkat, 15:11:07 12/12/02 Thu

Another suggestion, re-show each new episode a few days later at an off time period. This allows word of mouth to percolate across the water cooler and internet. Say, UPN were to offer their affiliates recasts of network shows during the 1AM to 3AM slot. Instead of being filled with old movies, these slots would be filled with 2-day-old network shows. Thus, Tuesday Buffy episodes would be recasts Thursday morning at 1 AM. This time slot would be mostly for taping/TIVO purposes, but a few hardy souls might watch live. The affiliates could sell half the ads on the recasts, probably getting higher rates than they do for old movies.

Interesting - WB already does this on Sundays with Smallville and EverWood and to a smaller extent Gilmore Girls. They call it Easy View Sunday - starts at 5pm and ends at 8pm.

Wish they'd do it with Angel.

[> Re: Art and Commerce: Buffy and Angel Pt 4 (long) -- Just George, 19:47:07 12/10/02 Tue

Ratings Chart:

here

Do great episodes have great ratings? Certainly not on Angel:

"Reunion", the most popular Angel episode on the "Council of Watchers" web site averaged only .1 higher than the lowest rated episode that season.

"Speep Tight", the second most popular episode also averaged just .1 higher than the lowest rated episode of its season.

Great episodes of Buffy have somewhat better luck.

"Becoming Part Two", the most popular Buffy episode on the "Council of Watchers" web site was part of a ratings rebound after the "Spring Swoon" in season 2. It's ratings were .4 better than the season average.

"Once More with Feeling", the second most popular episode averaged almost exactly the same as the episodes two episodes before and after it. It's ratings were also .2 better than the season average.

But in neither case, are the most popular episodes the ones with the best ratings. What follows are the episodes with the highest average rating each season:


Buffy: The Harvest, Phases, Anne, The Freshman, Family, Bargaining Part II, Lessons

Angel: Lonely Hearts*, Guise Will Be Guise, Heartthrob, Deep Down

* because "City Of" has no episode before it to create a moving average.


In only 1 case, Deep Down, are any of these episodes listed among the top 20 most popular on the COW web site, 2 if you count "City Of". 1 or 2 out of 11, that is not a good average.


Any comments on these questions? See any other interesting trends in the ratings? What do you think about the conflicts between art and commerce?

-JG

[> [> Re: Art and Commerce: Buffy and Angel Pt 4 (long) -- JM, 20:19:15 12/10/02 Tue

Fascinating statistical study. A few things I wonder about. Will rating in general for everything get smaller and smaller, once a peak in popularity has been hit? Every year, every month, the competition and proliferation of channels increases at an amazing rate.

As long as they keep flying does it matter what the ratings are? Every new episode, is an episode eventually added to the DVD library. A tiny victory for posterity.

Also from everything I've heard, Angel has been considered by the WB a success story. Just because the ratings may have gone down overall, doesn't mean the ones they cared about declined. Angel gave them one of the best Monday 9 p.m. performances they had in years. Having unsuccessfully sought to follow up 7th Heaven for several years. Angel performed better than expected Sunday night. It's not being demoted as far as I can tell, but being used to fill in a lamented hole in their schedule. Not ready to despair yet. But definitely thanks for doing the research.

[> [> [> Re: I'm not ready to despair -- Just George, 22:48:49 12/10/02 Tue

Network ratings in general have been going down year by year, though specific networks, like The WB, have been doing better this year.

As I understand it, ratings matter because UPN and The WB pay ME to make the new episodes. Unfortunately, the networks do not make anything from the syndication or DVD rights. So the success of those venues won't get them to renew a series. As DVD and syndication revenue increase and come while the show is still airing on the network, I expect the networks to try to get a piece of that pie. That might influence them to keep a show on the air to maximize syndication and DVD income.

Some TV industry pundits, like The Programming Insider, were surprised when The WB renewed Angel. I think part of the reason they did is that The WB didn't want UPN to pick the show up and create a Buffy/Angel night. When UPN picked up Buffy, they made a side agreement concerning Angel (to pick it up if the WB dropped the show). However UPN's agreement only lasts till the end of this season. So next season, everything (BtVS and AtS) will have to make it on their own.

It is also my understanding that until Everwood came along, The WB was unhappy with everything (Angel included) that followed 7th Heaven on Monday nights. They are ecstatic now

I'm not ready to despair for Angel. I want the show to make it to at least 100 episodes so that it goes into syndiation along side Buffy. I just hope that The WB finds a way to keep the ratings from falling any farther.

-JG

[> [> Fascinating -- Vickie, 20:19:47 12/10/02 Tue

I'd be more confortable if you called part IV ratings vs. popularity. Or if you made your own case for the best episodes and then compared their ratings.

But the numbers game is very interesting. Thank you for doing all the compilation.

It appears that very little that ME does affects the shows' numbers, but that stuff that the networks do (like promoting Buffy's Back in the autumn of last year) does. Which is NOT good news for Firefly fans.

What about the ratings of the episodes rated best on this board? The recent writers thread had some people's opinions on the best written episodes. I'd love to see, say, what Whedon's best and worst ratings were, and Noxon's.

Thank you.

[> [> [> Re: Best and Worst Ratings by Writer (long) -- Just George, 00:30:25 12/11/02 Wed

I have my own favorite episodes of course. I was using the Council of Watchers fan polled rankings to have an "unbiased source" for popularity to match against the TV ratings. I may love Family more than Graduation Part II, but I understand that not everyone does. I may go through and make up my list of favorite episodes and see how they are rated.

I think the numbers show that little ME does effects the Angel ratings. I've been pretty impressed with the TV ads created by The WB this year. They seem appropriately humorous or ominous depending on the episode. And The WB runs them on appropriate action/fantasy shows (Charmed, Smallville, Birds of Prey). I like the use of episode titles in the ads. The next step for Angel promotion could be to expand the run of the ads to include cable shows like Buffy (on FX), Charmed (on TNT), or Stargate SG1 (on SciFi). But on the whole I think The WB has done an OK job promoting Angel.

On the other hand, I don't much like how UPN has been promoting Buffy. I think the "all humor all the time" previews have been disingenuous. As much as I enjoyed it, Conversations With Dead People was not the fun filled romp that UPN made it seem like. I think that with rerun season upon us, it is especially important that UPN promote all new Buffy episodes during the FX Buffy syndicated runs. We don't want Buffy fans to miss any of the new episodes. If UPN had better ads, I would also suggest they show them on Charmed (on TNT), or Stargate SG1 (on SciFi). I think extra promotion could definitely help the show.

Actually, Fox at least tired to promote Firefly. I saw some ads during Buffy runs on FX. However, Firefly lacks the easy "hook" that makes it easy to advertise. Heck, I'll bet it is easier to make exciting promos for Andromeda than it is for Firefly (and Firefly is a WAY better show).

As for highest rated episodes by writer, I can help a bit with that:

Joss Whedon
Highest rated Episode: Innocence (5.2)
Lowest Rated Episode: Out of Mind, Out of Sight (2.4)

Marti Noxin
Highest rated Episode: Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered (4.5)
Lowest Rated Episode: Forever (2.7)

David Fury
Highest rated Episode: Helpless (4.6)
Lowest Rated Episode: Sleeper (3.0)

Douglas Petrie
Highest rated Episode: Revelations (4.4)
Lowest Rated Episode: The Yoko Factor (3.0)

David Greenwalt
Highest rated Episode: Homecoming (4.3)
Lowest Rated Episode: Angel (2.3)

Jane Espenson
Highest rated Episode: Gingerbread (4.2)
Lowest Rated Episode: Superstar (2.8)


And Dean Batali & Rob Des Hotel have both the second highest (Phases at 4.9) and lowest (Puppet Show at 1.9) rated shows in BTVS history.


Top 20 Episodes By National TV Rating

1 5.2 Innocence (Part 2 of 2) Joss Whedon
2 4.9 Phases Dean Batali, Rob Des Hotel
3 4.7 Anne (SP) Joss Whedon
4 4.6 Helpless David Fury
5 4.5 Bewitched, Bothered & Bewildered Marti Noxin
6 4.4 Surprise (Part 1 of 2) Marti Noxin
7 4.4 Revelations Douglas Petrie
8 4.4 Doppelgangland Joss Whedon
9 4.4 Graduation Day (Part 2 of 2) Joss Whedon
10 4.4 The Freshman (SP) Joss Whedon
11 4.3 Passion Ty King
12 4.3 Dead Man's Party Marti Noxin
13 4.3 Beauty and the Beasts Marti Noxin
14 4.3 Homecoming David Greenwalt
15 4.3 Amends Joss Whedon
16 4.3 Bargaining (Part 1) (SP) Marti Noxin
17 4.3 Bargaining (Part 2) David Fury
18 4.2 Becoming (Part 2 of 2) (SF) Joss Whedon
19 4.2 The Wish Marti Noxin
20 4.2 Gingerbread Jane Espenson

Bottom 20 Episodes by National TV Rating

112 3.0 The Yoko Factor Douglas Petrie
113 3.0 Sleeper David Fury
114 2.9 When She Was Bad (SP) Joss Whedon
115 2.9 New Moon Rising Marti Noxin
116 2.9 Him Drew Z. Greenberg
117 2.8 Never Kill A Boy On The First Date Dean Batali, Rob Des Hotel
118 2.8 Prophecy Girl (Season Finale) Joss Whedon
119 2.8 Superstar Jane Espenson
120 2.8 Entropy Drew Z. Greenberg
121 2.8 Never Leave Me Drew Goddard
122 2.7 Where The Wild Things Are Tracey Forbes
123 2.7 Forever Marti Noxin
124 2.7 Seeing Red Steven S. DeKnight
125 2.5 Nightmares Joss Whedon
126 2.4 The Pack Joe Reinkemeyer, Matt Keine
127 2.4 Out of Mind, Out of Sight Joss Whedon
128 2.3 Angel David Greenwalt
129 2.3 I Robot, You Jane Ashley Gable, Thomas A. Swyden
130 2.0 Teacher's Pet David Greenwalt
131 1.9 Puppet Show Dean Batali, Rob Des Hotel

(SP) = Season Premier
(SF) = Season Finale

-JG

[> [> [> [> Agreeing on promos of UPN. My theory is.... (spoiler free) -- Briar Rose, 02:09:01 12/11/02 Wed

it's a misguided campaign against the backlash from last season. Since many posters on the Buffy Boards were saying that the season was "too dark" or that the story lines were "too depressing" or numerous other posted complaints about Season 6 - TPTB at UPN decided to mislead the audience to raise viewership by making all the promos mad cap hillarity and ignoring that the actual story lines aren't as billed in those promos.

I am in total agreement that the promos haven't even matched the story lines so far this season. Not one of the shows have been light and campy like the previews have described - and I am ever so GLAD! I like Buffy as it is. Dark, light or grey - that's what makes me such a fanatic about this show. And since I'm a spoiler slut all the way, I want to know what to expect, not what they want me to think it's going to be about.

[> [> [> [> [> UPN promos -- Darby, 06:55:57 12/11/02 Wed

Keep in mind that the promos aren't aimed at us - we're going to watch anyway. As BR suggests, it might be to reel in strayed viewers or to counter the rep the show built last year (or, we're dealing with a network whose highest ratings come from wrestling...). If more people tune in, more people will, one hopes or we wouldn't be here, be pulled in by the show.

Yeah, it's kind of a bait-and-switch, but is that always a bad thing?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: UPN promos -- Cheryl, 12:40:32 12/11/02 Wed

UPN promos were a problem for Star Trek Voyager as well. They were always misleading and frustrated the heck out of the loyal viewers. I would think that for a first-time viewer it would be frustrating as well, as you'd tune in expecting a certain type of episode and end up with something different - thus, wouldn't it backfire on the network?

Also, interesting to see the ratings for the different episodes from best to worst. But when you look at low ratings for a specific episode, shouldn't you see what episode preceeded it - because that's the one that may have caused a viewer to stop watching, thus impacting the following episode(s)? Just a thought.

[> [> As a Season 6 fan... -- KdS, 07:21:57 12/11/02 Wed

... it's interesting that the S6 figures in general aren't much below S5. I'll save your graph to counter some of the "S6 destroyed the ratings" claims that have turned up on this and other boards.

[> [> [> Re: As a Season 6 fan... -- Just George, 10:37:14 12/11/02 Wed

KdS: "... it's interesting that the S6 figures in general aren't much below S5. I'll save your graph to counter some of the "S6 destroyed the ratings" claims that have turned up on this and other boards."

This might help too.

Total BTVS audience for first run episodes in Millions:

S1: 30.5
S2: 82.9
S3: 90.4
S4: 78.7
S5: 76.1
S6: 79.4

-JG

[> [> [> [> Re: As a Season 6 fan - THANK YOU JUST GEORGE I TOO AM A SEASON 6 SHIPPER -- Angelina, 11:26:42 12/11/02 Wed

And I am appreciating it even more now that I am seeing the episodes every night on F/X. These episodes are brilliantly written and acted by the cast. I don't understand whey people dislike 6 so much. Perhaps the naysayers are just those of us who don't like to face the day to day reality of life - especially on a "sci-fi" show, even thought Buffy is far and away more that just that. After viewing ìAs You Wereî yesterday, in the sequence of the episodes shown on F/X so far, I was amazed at how well the story worked. I certainly understood Spikeís involvement in the egg business. That is just what he was at that point in time. A hustler, and Buffy did know it and did keep coming back for more. She realizes that she has been using Spike and that she is the one at fault. At the end of the episode when she says goodbye to ìWilliamî, just about broke my heart. I also loved Dead Things. I could never understand why Buffy beat the crap out of Spike in that scene, but now I do, her disgust with herself had reached a crescendo, and she just wailed on Spike, who else would take that from her? Only Spike. He took the beating to keep her from throwing away her life after she thought she had killed Katrina - or was he simply protecting his ìholdî over the slayer? I don't think so, I think, above all else, that Spike was and still is deeply in love with Buffy. A simply mesmerizing episode. SMG and JM were amazing. And the scene where Buffy sobs ìjust donít forgive meî in Taraís lap, after she finds out she didnít come back ìwrongî? Well, it just doesnít get any better than that!
So there you season 6 Bashers.

[> [> [> [> [> I love Season 6 too. Except for DMP, Villians, Two to Go and Grave. -- bl, 13:30:51 12/11/02 Wed

As sick and twisted as Season Six Spuffy was, it was emotionally riveting and the hotest thing I've seen on TV. (Okay. I'm shallow). And so far, I MUCH prefer it to Season 7 which I find dull compared to Season 6.

[> [> Related to F/X reruns? -- bl, 10:00:45 12/11/02 Wed

Great analysis. It was interesting to see the trends.

Some other things that might effect ratings:

Since the F/X rerun of Fool for Love was the episode that started me taping Season 6, I wonder if these reruns have anything to do with the ratings. Do especially popular episodes on F/X remind old fans of the show and snare new viewers? Considering how the episodes on F/X often relate to the new episode I bet they do and ME knows it. They manipulate which episode shows on F/X by showing only one episode on certain nights or even none other nights. New episodes often mirror an episode that will be on F/X that night so if someone likes the F/X rerun they will be tempted to switch over to UPN when the rerun ends and will find similar elements.

Do major events affect ratings? After 9/11 many viewers fled to fantasy or pap (Friends had its best season ever). Was that a factor in the higher ratings for the first part of Season 6?

Do great episodes get great ratings? Why should they? No one knows they are great until AFTER they have aired. Do episodes that follow great episodes have higher ratings? Perhaps because of fans singing their praises to irregular or new viewers? But if the next episode is not so good, is the new fan lost? I am trying to hook someone in Australia. Got her to watch last night. But it was only Flooded so she wasn't impressed. I'm trying to get her to hold on for OMWF and Tabula Rasa showing in 3 weeks.

Is the Spring slump related to spring break on college campuses? Or does the nicer weather lure viewers into staying outside while Buffy is on? This might be a special problem for a show that airs at 7:00pm in many time zones. If it's cold do you hurry home and watch Buffy? If the weather is more pleasant do you shop or socialize instead of rushing home? As the weather becomes unpleasantly hot does that drive viewers back to Buffy for the final episodes? Does the Spring Slump reflect little more than the weather? I bet there is a correlation between ratings, temperature and precipitation in major markets with better weather producing lower ratings.

[> [> [> Re: Related to F/X reruns? -- Just George, 10:49:42 12/11/02 Wed

I am convinced that the FX reruns have had a substantial effect on interest in BtVS. I know that my wife and some friends became interested in the series when they could watch the show from the beginning. They knew the series had strong continuing elements and didn't want to miss anything y starting with later episodes.

It does seem like there are some Buffy fans at FX. I just wish that UPN would do Buffy promos on FX when they had new (as opposed to rerun) episodes.

Interesting that the shows after great episodes often get better ratings. Phases, which is not a great episode in my opinion, is the second best rated episode in my chart. It helped that it followed Surprise and Innocence.

I wonder if the Spring Swoon is related to the rhythm of the show. During most years, the show turns darkest during the last 1/3 of the season. Buffy's relationships go south. The gang is broken apart. Scooby gang wins are hard to come by. There may be a portion of the audience that wishes it were different (Buffy in love, Scoobies together and triumphant). They may tune out until the end of the season, when there may be pain but our heroes will win in the end.

Or it could be reruns, weather, school finals, The Basketball Final Four, and a million other things.

-Just George

[> [> About the Nielsen Ratings System -- Tyreseus, 19:42:57 12/11/02 Wed

Curious to learn more about the Nielsen television rating system, I visited their website and found a FAQ which explains how the ratigns are determined.

While Neilson ratings are the most popular and relied upon measure of televesion viewing, many have criticizes it as becoming less than truly accurate. Nielsen hold a virtual monopoly on the ratings market, and has been criticized for the role they play on television. Since 1996, there have been several articles written on the faults in the rating system. One of the most damning is that Nielsen families don't truly reflect the average TV viewer.

Crtics have pointed out that a television household who agrees to be monitored by Nielsen's electronic recording devices are less inclined to switch channels during commercial breaks, surf to alternate programs after the first 5 minutes of a show they don't care for, or drastically modify their viewing habits. Since they know they are being studied (there are approximately 5000 such households across the U.S.), they tend to make television viewing decisions with more forethought then your average TV view, whose only purpose is to be entertained.

Someone posted a comment not long ago, that sometimes network execs base their decisions on advertiser demands as much as ratings numbers. If a show is slipping in numbers, but can still sell reliable advertising at competative rates,its cancellationis not a sure thing. The problem there is that media buying companies will use a slip in ratings to make purchasing ad time less expensive. Everyone is out to get the most money with the least expense.

I always find Nielsen ratings to be interesting, but I know that many televsion execs have been taught lately not to trust them as gospel. And the comments made by other posters about the demographic makeup of their market share being just as important as the total market share is very true.

Bottom line is: as long as advertisers are still buying enough time during BtVS or AtS to be profitable, the shows will exist (unless, of course, the talent decides to call it quits).

[> [> [> That's it in a nut shell. It's about the money more than anything. -- BriarRose, 23:49:33 12/11/02 Wed

[> Art, Commerce, ratings game -- shadowkat, 08:34:41 12/11/02 Wed

There is a tv show on the new Trio arts network called Brillant But Cancelled all through December. Two nights ago I watched a two hour documentary on this topic. What was discussed ironically enough is close to what you are discussing above related to Buff.

The documentary discussed how ratings effect tv shows and why some incredibly smart, well written shows never really made it, while other smart ones did for a limited amount of time, and others really took off - lasting seven years.

The show made the statement that most if not all long-lasting and smartly written shows - did NOT make the top ten or even the top 20 in ratings when they first aired.
Studies have shown that Neilsen audiences or in TV terms the majority of the television viewing public - want to be comforted, not forced to think when watching TV. They want laugh tracks telling them when to laugh. Easy plot lines. Happy comfy stories. And clear moral messages. Shows that broke this mold often didn't make it before the advent of cable tv.

Here's a few shows that had horrible ratings when they began but because the network had faith in them - managed to last more than one season and eventually broke top ten.

1. Cheers (basement ratings in the beginning - actually I preferred the early shows, but then I'm well aware of the fact that I'm not part of the mainstream ;-) )
2. Seinfield
3. Hill Street Blues (jumped around the schedule, appearing alternatively on Sat's, Thurs, Fridays and Wed's when it first aired. Finally stayed on Thursday nights.)
4. St. Elsewhere
5. Cagney and Lacey (was almost cancelled twice.)

Each of these shows broke new ground - did something no one else had done and was NOT comforting. Pre-view audiences for Seinfeild felt the actors where uninteresting or unattractive and the humor out there - not amusing. NBC had faith and kept pushing the show.

Here's a few shows that despite the efforts of fans and producers, could not be saved and barely made it more than one or three seasons. The ones that made it three seasons did it because certain factions of the media pushed for it.
(ie. TV Guide, NY Times, Viewers for Quality Television,
Advertisers,etc.)

1. Once and Again (huge fan write in campaign. Someone even sent the network a burnt out tv telling them they didn't need it without this show. Magazines championed it. Did it work? Well only for half a season - ended up cancelled by end of last year.)
2. Star Trek - (NBC tried to cancell after two seasons. Fans went nuts - sent buckets full of mail. NBC extended for one more but ratings didn't rise - it died.)
3. Freaks and Geeks (same story - this time by internet, did not work, just extended it by nine episodes).
4. My So Called Life (the show I was watching when everyone else watched Friends, I still think the acting and the writing was better, (oh well), the network listened and was willing to keep it another year but the star, Clair Danes wanted out for a movie career. To give Danes credit - she had real talent and did get a major movie career.)

Now here's a bunch of brillant tv shows that didn't make it past a year or even half a season.
1. Now and Again
2. Action (the show about a hollywood producer, very clever, maybe too clever)
3. East Side West Side (George C. Scott as a social worker.
One episode that turned off audiences and this was in the early 70s that show aired - had James Earl Jones playing
a man who was trying to get help for his baby who'd been bitten by a rat in a low rent project. It was too risky for its time.)
4. Bridget Loves Bernie (now this one had great ratings but also major protests, network execs got tired of crossing the picket lines. It was about a Catholic marrying a Jew.)
5. Ernie Kovacs Show
6. The Critic ( a cartoon about a cynical critic played by Jay Lovitz)
7. Gun (an anthology show that featured actors such as James Gandolfino, Roseanne Arquette...etc. But the anthology format with just a gun as the actor in each episode killed it.)
8. Orson Wells Show - way back in 50s, an anthology show too brillant for its time. It got a Peabody award and still got cancelled.
9. Days and Nights of Molly Bloom (about a single woman living in Boston - dealt with issues such as rape, etc. It was the sex in the city of its time, but b/c it was on a regular network - got canned. Lifetime resurrected it for one more season.)
10. Eerie Indiana

Then there are the cutting edge shows that manage to survive despite so-so ratings and bend television as a result:
1. Twin PEaks - was made for two seasons and changed the face of tv in the process.
2. St. Elsewhere
3. Star Trek - only 3 seasons but well we know the rest

Did you know there's a club in LA called the Other Network where you can watch unaired brillant tv pilots??

At any rate - the reasons given for the sucess or failure of these shows - was ratings and whether the network could afford to support it.

Fans have been able to save a few shows in the past. But in the majority of cases - fan mail does zip, just builds up in some office somewhere and gets read and answered by a low paid intern. Or they'll send the mail to the producer of the show.

In the 50's - fans had more power. Because at that time, the shows had product sponsors - such as Gerital or GE or
Kellogs. In the case of Father Knows Best - one sponsor announced it wasn't going to support the show anymore and another took over - based on the amount of mail the previous sponsor received. They decided that if they saved it - the fans would be indebted to them and buy their product. But after the Quiz Show scandals - networks such as CBS took over the sponsorship and control of their series. And it was no longer in the advertisers control.
Which is why fan mail doesn't bear the weight it used to.

In the past - a network would let a show last a season - but in the past - it could afford to. Production values aren't the same they are today. Also there aren't as many channels or as much competition. OTOH - if it weren't for cable we wouldn't have Btvs or Angel or the Sopranos or Six Feet Under or Sex in the City or any number of shows.
Why? Because cable gives a wider selection - for both mainstream and none mainstream and as a result networks have discovered to survive they need to specialize to offer a viewer something they won't find on another network.

UPN is focusing on twenty-thirtysomething audiences science fiction/fantasy and urban comedies.

WB is focusing on family and teen dramas, primarily 18-34 bracket. (Angel is a bit outside it's general focus so probably won't be picked up next year - not that it matters - UPN would grab it.)

CBS is focusing on older audiences and family.

So, while ratings continue to be important - what they are interested in is not the overall ratings but the ratings in the specific demographic they are going for. What were the ratings for Btvs episode 7.8 that aired on this date for 18-34 year olds and how do those ratings compare to say the Sci-Fi channel, WB, and other channels on this issue.
(Pretty good.) They do not compare them so much to say the ratings of a Friends.

From what I saw in this documentary - I thanked my lucky stars that Btvs made it this long. It seemed miraculous until I thought about it. Btvs has been on WB - it was one of the first shows on that network and at that time WB wanted something that could distinquish it and grab a specific demographic. Buffy accomplished what it wanted - it grabbed the 18-34 and 12-18 group. It focused on teenage girls. And it worked as a good companion for other teen related shows. It is noteworthy that Smallville was the replacement. Except the producers and creators of Smallville haven't proven to be as good in creating other series as Whedon has. Birds of Prey - was by the Smallville team. Angel was by Whedon's team. My quess is what little networks like WB and UPN want is something that makes them standout from say Lifetime, Sci-Fi network, etc - something that puts them in good competion with Fox. UPN loves Buffy for two reasons:1) it gives it a niche in the 18-34 female audience. It doesn't have that niche with any other program.
2) it gives it critical attention and a little respect.
It actually got a few emmy nominations and a saturn nod.
Also critics began to praise it a little. These two points have allowed UPN to keep its head above water and not just be seen as the wrestling/star trek network which it is desperately struggling to break out of, it has to - in order to survive.

So even if Buffy doesn't hit 7.0 or 4.10 ratings this year - it's still valuable to UPN which is aware of the critical and fan response to the show and is studying the 18-34 demographic more than the overall ratings demographic.

Buffy flies below the radar screen for most network people.
Brillant But Cancelled never mentioned it. But - it does apparently have an effect on culture and television.
Also Whedon - has been contracted by Fox to keep developing similar themed dramedys and Fox is keeping Firefly alive.
Another piece of evidence that Buffy is considered a moneymaker by Fox - look at how many places it appears in syndication? Three channels. One: Fox - Sat, Two: UPN - sundays, Three: FX- two back to back episodes a week.
This is more than some other shows.
If Buffy wasn't a big seller - I seriously doubt that FX would be showing back to back reruns or that Fox would be airing reruns or UPN for that matter. Or that they would be selling DVD's of it.

So the ratings can at times be misleading.

I think the reason some of the shows you mentioned had higher ratings than other fan loved shows of Buffy is that's when Neilsen box owners decided to try it out.
The higher rated episodes are less episodic and require a bit more commitment to the show. The Freshman, Lessons,
and Anne require less of a commitment. Also based on those episodes - a viewer may not stick around. I know two viewers who were new to the show who felt Lessons wasn't that great and I had to convince them to stick around, repeatedly telling them that the show hadn't gone back to the high school setting and wasn't going to be all about Dawn (who from a new viewers perspective lacked interest and seemed a retread of characters seen in other teen shows or an obvious attempt to attract teens - of course these new viewers weren't teens but fit within the 34-50 bracket, hence the reaction).

Well - hope that added something. Just some thoughts I picked up from the documentary.

Interesting post, Just George.

SK

[> [> When Good Things Come Out of Premature Cancellation -- cjl, 10:28:55 12/11/02 Wed

It sucks when a good series dies before its time. But every once in a while, the influence of a series will last beyond its brief life span. Either an actor or actress will attract the notice of Hollywood's elite, or the creator will lift an element from the "failure" and transplant it into a subsequent, longer-lived series. Some examples:

1. Now and Again (2000). Charming science-fiction/romance about a middle-aged salesman (John Goodman), who is mowed down by a subway train, then miraculously resurrected by your typical Mysterious Government Agency in a younger, Captain America-type body. Sounds like a good deal, but there a catch: he's never allowed to see his family again. Interesting premise, a welcome light touch, romantic longing, quirky villains, and a breakout performance by Dennis Haysbert as our hero's personal Dr. Frankenstein. Haysbert is now a sure Oscar nominee for Far from Heaven and plays the first black president on "24." He has arrived.

2. My So Called Life. From the creators of thirtysomething and Once and Again (not to be confused with Now and Again). A perfectly realized, painfully realistic depiction of an intelligent girl's adolescence, made all the more compelling by Clare Danes' powerful lead performance. Yes, she got the movie career, but I still think she's should have stuck around for another year or two...

3. Profit. Brilliant drama/satire about a law firm so evil and corrupt, it could change its name to Wolfram and Hart and no one would blink. Died quickly, as the U.S. audience felt it was bathing in hydrochloric acid, and tuned out accordingly. (Me? I like a good acid scalding every once in awhile. But what do I know?) BTW, the Wolfram and Hart reference is not accidental: series creator David Greenwalt transferred the firm, still untouched by virtue, to his next project--ANGEL.

And, for you Trek fans, a classic from the 1970s:

4. The Questor Tapes (1974). Failed Gene Roddenberry pilot about an android who is activated without key memories and searches the world for his creator to solve the mystery of WHY he was created. Excellent buddy movie featuring Robert Foxworth (as Questor) and Mike Farrell (M*A*S*H) as his builder. Roddenberry would later transfer Questor to ST:TNG as Brent Spiner's Data.

Any other examples?


P.S. 'kat, the name of the series was The Days and Nights of Molly DODD, starring (drool) Blair Brown.

[> [> [> I loved "Now and Again!" Really unusual blend, with some very interesting directing... -- Rob, 12:21:59 12/11/02 Wed

...For example, that episode that began with the song from "West Side Story."

Rob

[> [> [> Re: Good Things Out of Premature Cancellation -- My So Called Life and Buffy -- lenair, 10:26:40 12/12/02 Thu

My So Called Life. From the creators of thirtysomething and Once and Again (not to be confused with Now and Again). A perfectly realized, painfully realistic depiction of an intelligent girl's adolescence, made all the more compelling by Clare Danes' powerful lead performance. Yes, she got the movie career, but I still think she should have stuck around for another year or two...

Ah, My So Called Life. Just got it on DVD, and I'm falling in love with it all over again. It was the first TV show I really became obsessed with, and the first I ever discussed online (email lists, at the time).

And how has it influenced TV? Well, Joss Whedon was a fan, for one. He used to describe Buffy as "My So Called Life meets X-Files." He was so angry with that series ending forever on a cliffhanger that he vowed each Buffy season would stand on its own -- the series could end there, it and would OK. (He admitted that Season 6 was the first exception to this, with the last minute Spike ensouling.)

My So Called Life also dealt with teenage issues metaphorically, albeit through literature more than vampires and demons. But it also had supernatural elements -- ghosts, angels, magical Halloween costumes, prophetic dreams... And, like Buffy, it took the characters on surprising and revealing arcs, not shying away from the darkness.

Yeah, I definitely wish it had lasted more than 19 episodes. But at least its brief life helped inspire other greatness.

[> [> Re: Art, Commerce, ratings game -- Cheryl, 12:50:02 12/11/02 Wed

This discussion has started me thinking about the commercialism of television programs. Most of the programs that were cancelled were just tv shows. But a show like Buffy generates revenue from more than just the episodes - there are all the scifi conventions, the books, music CDs, novels, etc. Who all gets a cut in all the action? Buffy is a money maker in a number of areas.

[> [> [> Books, related products and other revenues sides -- shadowkat, 13:31:14 12/11/02 Wed

Most of the programs that were cancelled were just tv shows. But a show like Buffy generates revenue from more than just the episodes - there are all the scifi conventions, the books, music CDs, novels, etc. Who all gets a cut in all the action? Buffy is a money maker in a number of areas.

This is why Star Trek continued to make money, got movies made, and had four spin off series even though it only lasted three years, yet a show like ER? Or an even better example: Once and Again? Nope sorry no movies, no spin-offs, even though it's at the top of the ratings. Or even Friends. Or Seinfield.

Cult television - specifically in the science fiction/fantasy genre when it hits an audience in a specific way is a marketing goldmine. It's something some network execs never quite figured out.

Sopranos has become a goldmine for HBO - it has an academic program now, DVD's, games, related books, product tie-ins.
Sex in The City has a similar situation.

Buffy and Angel are major goldmines for Fox and to the channels that Fox chooses to give a segment of proceeds.
The job I interviewed for at Nickleodian this summer (didn't get it) was for Account Content Manager in their book division - basically the purpose of this job was to check the content of all books, products, etc that were off shoots of their cartoons. So say someone wrote a book on rugrats? It was the job of the Content Manager to ensure that the content of that book furthered the intent of the show and did not take the characters in a direction counter to the show in anyway - basically stayed true to it. Also the manager ensured that Nickloedian got a percentage of whatever the writer made etc.

At least 20% of Nickloedian's revenue for it's tv shows comes from marketing tie-ins, books, etc. Same thing for Fox's shows. Fox, UPN and WB figured out something that
the big networks haven't - cult tv not only gives you a devoted audience but an obessessed one - who will spend boatloads of cash on products related to your tv show.
Just recently the Soap Operas figured this out and started selling jewelry first viewed on their shows. But Buffy and Angel and Star Trek - they were ahead of the game.

Now I'm not into buying or collecting stuff like this. But I know a ton of people who are. Think of the amount of money
Fox and Kuzuis make off this stuff:

Buffy jewelry
Buffy cards
Buffy board games
Buffy dolls/action figures
Buffy posters
Buffy novels
Buffy script books
Buffy DVD's
Buffy memorabila (stuff taken from the show or props sold at auction for charity)
Buffy stickers
Buffy stationery
Buffy cards
Buffy ornaments
Buffy CD's

The list is endless. Plus there's the Con's.

This stuff does not exist for mainstream television and if it does? It doesn't make nearly as much revenue. Is Melrose Place in syndication? Do people want to rewatch it? Do you have novels about Melrose Place? Or how about Friends?
It's in syndication - sure. But have you bought a work of fiction about Friends? Jewelry? Gone to a conference where the actors are featured?

Most of the cancelled shows didn't lend themselves to this phenomen. Even though Seinfield got a few cool books released and maybe an action figure - that's where it stopped. No CD's. No posters. No trading cards.

I think it's an important distinction and may be the reason why shows like Buffy might survive bad ratings while a situation comedy like Titus might not.

[> Re: Tara's dress -- Helen, 07:52:07 12/11/02 Wed

Not aware of any previous thread on this, sorry, but happy to throw in a couple of pennies worth.

For me, this was one of those rare scenes where ME went really off beam. I'm sure we were supposed to find it touching and weep inducing (like when Buffy took the Claddaugh ring to Angel's mansion when she was finally ready to say goodbye - weep weep, but I found it really disturbing.

As you say, it was another example of how Willow seeks to control circumstances around her, viewing all potential behaviour as valid for experiment without regarding other's feelings - remember All the Way, "we'll just put everyone who isn't a fifteen year old girl into an alternate dimension." You'll do what!!?
To quote a terrible terrible film (Jurassic Park of all things but the thought really stuck): you were so busy figuring out whether you could, you didn't stop to think whether you should." To me that totally sums up Willow's attitude.

I know there are many Willow fans out there, and I was one of them, but season six was the time that Will just started to really grate on me. And the last three episodes!! Doesn't anyone else think AH's performance, was, well, underwhelming? Compare and contrast the lovely David at the end of Season 2 for friend turned evil and yuo'll see what I mean.

[> [> I don't recall any previous thread either -- Sophist, 08:59:41 12/11/02 Wed

I can't agree, however, that Willow's use of Tara's dress was in any way harmful to Tara's feelings. Tara didn't know about it and I can't see why she would have been offended if she had.

I generally give high marks to AH as an actor. I agree with you that her performance in Villains-Grave was not at all up to her usual standards (and I'd say the same about Wrecked). Since she's been so good so many other times, I blame the script and the direction for these lapses.

[> [> Re: Tara's dress -- shambleau, 09:33:19 12/11/02 Wed

See, I disagree that we were supposed to find it touching, or at least not only touching. We were SUPPOSED to be disturbed by it. It was a visual analog of what Willow was doing to Tara with her mind-wiping. It was even possible to read it as showing how Willow didn't really see Tara at all, that Tara was, for Willow, only someone who was there to comfort her and sleep with her, not be a person who could disagree or cause discomfort. That Willow had a long way to go to understanding love.

[> [> [> I would agree.... -- Helen, 00:58:07 12/12/02 Thu

..that Willow had an immature understanding of love ("Willow, not everything is about kissing" LOL! if it weren't for the fact that she had such a mature, rounded relationship with Oz (and no this isn't a lesbian bash, just genuine confusion about what ME were trying to do with Will through end season 4 - season 6).

I'm not sure what the intention was, writers intentions seem to shift depending upon what they want to do with something next, but I am at least relieved that someone else found that scene a bit off, whether we were meant to view it like that or not.

[> Excellent points and I agree with you -- Rahael, 02:51:35 12/12/02 Thu