The Supernatural-Buffy Cage Match

[yourlibrarian]

Not long ago there was a blog post about how Supernatural compared to Buffy, and whether the poster should try out the show. Personally I thought these were two separate issues. While I found Buffy to be a high quality show in many ways, I've enjoyed those that aren't so good and I've enjoyed ones that may be better. To me that's like suggesting

Comments

[shapinglight]

I haven't time to read this all now, but it looks absolutely fascinating.

ETA: back later.

[shapinglight]

Okay, I've read it all now, and it really is fascinating. I would no doubt get a great deal more out of it had I ever seen a single episode of SPN, but I think what you said about BtVS is spot on, and the comparisons between the two shows make for interesting reading.

[yourlibrarian]

Thanks, I'm glad to hear that! I did enjoy looking at a lot of the details individually which I'd never pondered before. The visual/sound thing for example should have been obvious, but it hadn't occurred to me.

Depending on what someone is looking for in a show, I can recommend SPN wholeheartedly. But I believe it's a show that is best watched in concert with fandom participation. Because it is there where a lot of the unexplored depths of its storylines really blossom. And even though SPN seems to have far fewer meta writers than the Buffyverse did, there are a lot of interesting ideas flying around.

What SPN has succeeded in doing is giving us two characters that people care about a LOT. And when things are happening to those two characters, or even if they're just hanging out on screen, you want to be there to hang out with them. This can overcome a lot of mistakes.

[on_verra]

Wow.

I find myself looking forward to your posts all the time, and this is why.

BRILLIANT.

[yourlibrarian]

Hey, glad to hear I'm still delivering :>

[thatotherperv]

There is no such rich tapestry in SPN. While there is no reason why some of the many interesting characters who have appeared (sometimes repeatedly) could not be broadened to have their own internal lives, their own separate, conflicting motivations, and their own reflective storylines, the writers have not chosen to do this. Characters tend to appear to serve an (often brief) narrative function but we learn very little about them, and what we do know the fandom has often assembled from very close viewing.This was my original beef I had with the show when I started watching it, and you stated it beautifully. I think, not only did btvs give us more genuine minor characters with an explicit arc, there were plenty of others that we found out very little about that were constructed in such a way that it was easy to imagine them living and breathing off-camera. we knew people *existed* outside of Buffy's view (although sometimes *she* forgot that was true, haha), whereas on spn, other characters read to me very much like props for Sam

[yourlibrarian]

there were plenty of others that we found out very little about that were constructed in such a way that it was easy to imagine them living and breathing off-camera. we knew people *existed* outside of Buffy's view (although sometimes *she* forgot that was true, haha), whereas on spn, other characters read to me very much like props for Sam and Dean's lives to happen against.

A hundred times yes. What's worse this seems to have become more true as the seasons went on. In a previous meta I talked about how, despite its other failings, S1 of SPN gave us people who we could imagine being fleshed out in the future or who clearly had independent internal lives. I think a good example of the difference is if we look at Metamorphosis. Jack's story took a LOT of screen time in that episode. But what did we really learn about him besides the fact that he loved his wife and was obviously having something weird happening to him that he didn't want to admit to?

On Buffy, those big moments had consequences and ramifications that played out

[phantomas]

Very interesting take, on both shows. I wish I had moooore time to chat about it for longer...but I don't :(

In general, yes, to everything you say. I think that Season 2 was the turn around point for SPN, where it could have become similarly rich to Buffy's verse: we had the Roadhouse, John's (and Mary's) past to discover, Ellen and Jo and Bobby, and a few of the Special Children (Andy and Ava, in particular), would have been great recurring characters with interesting and conflicting storylines and interests, especially when the Hunters had someone like Gordon (and his allies) and let's not forget the FBI agents and Hendriksen...it was at a point, a very rich tapestry, against which the focus of the show, Sam and Dean's relation and reciprocal roles, would have still have had lots of space in which to be played out.
I just think that, mostly, Kripke and the writers missed out on it. And in part I do blame the writers peeking on the fans' reaction.
Agh, run out of time. Thoughts unfinished! But, thank you for writing this!

[yourlibrarian]

Thanks for the reply, however rushed! Yes, the above was already quite long so I didn't go into it explicitly but, exactly. S1 of Buffy and S1 of SPN didn't begin at such vastly different points. While there was nothing wrong with Welcome to the Hellmouth, I think the SPN Pilot was the better show, and certainly did very well in setting up a number of things. SPN also started improving about halfway through S1, around the same number of episodes in as Buffy. The difference, as you mention, is where they took things from there.

My personal take is that BtVS was like a series of steps that peaked at S5, plateaued in S6, and dropped off in S7 (I've never been sorry it ended when it did). I think SPN may end up looking like a roller coaster.

[continuum]

I think a large part of the reason why the psychic kids/YED storyline closed was that Kripke wasn't sure he'd be back for a third season. If you watch the S2 finale, the entire thing was set up so that if the series continued, great! But if not, there was also a certain sense of closure, as well, with the YED dead.

And I believe this is also a big part of why SPN wobbles a bit when it comes to the mytharc--too much is up in the air, so their arcs tend to be introduced too big and too fast because introducing it too early could risk having the entire arc dropped when the series itself is cut short.

BtVS/AtS on the other hand didn't have as many issues when it came to renewal, especially in the later seasons. (Although AtS did have issues about coming back in S4, which is why S4 ended out in a way that felt like it "closed," with Conner safe and happy and the world saved, leaving wiggle room for the future, but not leaving any threads hanging, either.)

You could also compare it to Lost for instance, which was a surefire hit -- we're

[yourlibrarian]

Well, but that was true for Buffy too. Joss even said he wrote every season as if they wouldn't be coming back (I think the exceptions were S4 and S6). And surely the end of S1 must have been fairly uncertain with the network merger and everything but SPN S1 ended on an incredible cliffhanger. Of course part of this goes back to a different structure for both shows. Buffy always had a closed off seasonal arc where (for better or worse) some big bad would arise, a major crisis would occur, and by the end there would be some showdown with a victory of sorts for the slayer. The following season would pick up with the emotional carryover from the previous season but the slayer/villain storyline of each season was closed