The Supernatural-Buffy Cage Match
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 that one should only read one book series ever because others just aren't as good.
However the short answer is no, but I was intrigued by some of the arguments people made for why it was. The most interesting to me was where someone pointed out that the first of Buffy's landmark episodes, "Hush" didn't come along until S4, and we've only just reached that milestone with SPN. Aside from saying emphatically that "Heaven and Hell" was no "Hush," I thought that this wasn't true. I think the first landmark episode for Buffy was actually "Innocence."
Virtually anyone who watched the show in order (or even went back and watched it in order) seems to agree that the show hit a turning point with that episode and the Angelus plot twist. Up until then the show had had some good episodes and some wobbly episodes but the overall arc of the show had never been anything special. That episode however, as well as several that followed, was striking because the show suddenly became about something. From day one, of course, we were told the show's setup was a metaphor and some of those metaphors were fairly heavy handed but consistently there. But that episode turned the entire season into something else. S2 was about betrayal. Not just that but the way the show handled the issue of betrayal made the show speak about life in a very visceral way, not just an intellectual one.
In Innocence everyone is getting betrayed. Buffy lies to Joyce about what she's been up to. Angel and Buffy were both betrayed by Jenny. Willow discovers Xander has been lying to her. Willow's willing to betray the sincerity of Oz's feelings for short-term gain. And in the other key plot twist for the season, Dru is soon going to be betraying Spike, leading him to team up with Buffy and start any number of other storylines rolling. At the end of the season he turns against Angelus, Xander betrays both Willow and Buffy with his lie about Willow's plans, Buffy's continual lies to Joyce finally result in her own betrayal when Joyce fails to support her, Giles betrays the Scoobies by revealing his secrets to "Jenny", and of course we have Buffy's betrayal of Angel's trust in the last scenes. In between the two episodes Cordelia dumps Xander, and Oz lies about being a werewolf, both for selfish reasons, and earlier in the season Giles lied to everyone in The Dark Age (with Lie to Me, perhaps deliberately, being the episode immediately before it).
This larger canvas is, to me, part of why Buffy will always be a stronger show than SPN, regardless of what they manage to do in their remaining season and a half. On the one hand, the bond between the Winchesters is a fulcrum for the show. This is a show about the development of a relationship, not just the growth of a character, and what those bonds can lead to. It is compelling and the reason why at least 50% of its viewers (not fans) watch. But it is also a weakness because that relationship and those 2 characters are burdened with carrying everything in the show - it must all go through their experience or else it becomes rather irrelevant.
By comparison if we look back at Buffy S2, the theme of betrayal (and its companion, forgiveness, which is less universal) is filtered through the experiences of many characters. Even though most of these turn on a type of romantic betrayal, there are familial ones as well - Spike and Angel, Giles, Buffy and Joyce, Jenny and her family - even Oz, who is bitten by his werewolf cousin, whom his aunt and uncle never protected him from. The betrayals also range from the small to the vitally important, and the way they are handled changes from person to person. There are all sorts of ways to explore the theme, the repercussions, and the responses. 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 is a detriment to the show not just in the short run but the long run.
For example, Bobby is a character we have now known for 2 and a half seasons. We know a few things about him, but his views on any number of topics are left in the dark even though they would be highly informative about (1) the SPN verse (2) the history of the Winchesters (3) the nature of his relationship to each of them and (4) Bobby himself. By comparison after 2 and a half seasons (Spike made just one appearance in S3), we get a rich origin story for the vampire in BtVS. We get the same for Darla in a companion episode on Angel - a character who appeared in even fewer episodes than he did. And both of those origin stories told us about still more characters, such as Angel and Dru. To be fair we did finally get an origin story about Mary in S4, but the real purpose of that wasn't so much to tell us about Mary but about the overall arc. Think, for example, how little we learned about John Winchester. I really enjoyed meeting all the Campbells but they were essentially one-shot characters. We don't suddenly get development on a character who has been with us repeatedly and who will continue on their journey in the future.
This is also not to say that everyone on BtVS got this treatment. Anya was around for 5 seasons before she got her story, Tara's background (3 seasons) was very slight, we got no background on Oz at all (2 ½), and very little for Cordelia, Giles or Wesley. However there were numerous recurring characters on this show, some, such as Jonathan, Harmony, and Amy, appearing from S1 through the final episodes of the Buffyverse. All of them got some kind of character development over the seasons. By comparison when characters don't even reappear on SPN, there's no way they can go anywhere or contribute to the storyline. But even when they do, such as Bobby, there are often diminishing returns. This season, for example, complaints have begun about how Bobby has become a convenient crutch to provide answers or handle things offscreen that would otherwise be done by the Winchesters, or which end up being pat solutions. The fact is Bobby had begun serving that purpose as early as S2. The difference is that we were just getting to know Bobby then and having any character provide some sort of other perspective in the show, however slight, was welcome. (This role was made quite literal in Tall Tales).
That issue about perspective is also important to the verse as a whole. While there is no reason that the SPN verse couldn't have, say, a spinoff show with an entirely new cast of characters, I think it would be a hard sell. In SPN, the verse does not have the same range or the same emotional impact as it did in the Buffyverse. In part this is because Buffy starts with a clear mytharc - the slayer legend - and that slayerhood is just as critical in BtVS's very last episode. "Angel" had less range but it too, after 5 seasons, ended with a battle against the foes presented in the very first episode. It's too soon to say whether at the end of SPN we'll see a very clear series arc in terms of the Winchesters' battle. But because the show's focus is so much on them, the larger issues of good and evil, a timeless fight, and distinct groups who are on different "sides" really fall by the wayside. It may just be my perspective, but to me the focus of SPN has always been (in a seasonal sense) on Sam and Dean's lives. And I think this is largely because the mythology of hunters has not been built out and we have seen very few hunters in the series. There was an opportunity to do this in S2, but this was done fairly haphazardly and we only got fragments. By comparison, even though Buffy was supposed to be the one and only, there was always access to Slayer history through Giles, and we met new slayers as early as S2 and S3. We also had dealings with the Watcher's Council in S3 and S5 and some more bits about them in S7. In short, there was far more building of Buffy's role in the verse, and more contact with various players, than there have been for Sam and Dean in their verse. Everything about them is centered first on their family background and secondarily on their profession.
Another issue with the verse development is that when you start out with a large verse, it leads to curiosity about exploring different parts of it - which (depending on how competently it's done) can lead to satisfaction in new storylines which go in those directions. For the most part the boundaries of the Buffyverse didn't change that much over 7 seasons (although I think they broadened farther and faster on Angel, which was less focused on Angel himself than BtVS was on Buffy). Which is one reason why I think the sudden and bizarre appearance of the Guardians in S7 was a real misstep. Had it actually been more developed it would have shifted the development of the mythos rather abruptly - as it was it just seemed a strange and ill explained anomaly in the final episodes.
By comparison, things have been shifting all over the SPN verse, particularly this year. We started out with Sam and Dean as monster hunters, broadened into Sam being possibly demonic, then looked at Sam as possibly being some important tool for evil, then broadened into a (rather ill executed) demon war, and now have both Winchesters in potentially critical roles between heaven and hell. That's a heck of a shift. What's more, it's a shift they have nothing to do with. As I mentioned in a meta over a year ago, one of the important differences between the two series has been in the difference between sacrifice and loss. For example, the reasons why Buffy or Sam were chosen have been random and largely unexplained. For both there was a cycle to the choosing and both, at least in the beginning, resisted what had happened to them. The difference of course is that Buffy was shown her abilities could be used as a force for good and Sam was told (inasmuch as anyone told him anything) that they were evil. Ironically both of them developed powers as a result of a demonic infusion, although the first time we even get hints of that with Buffy is in S5.
As a result Buffy was quickly able to own who and what she was and act accordingly, to understand her own place in the world. Sam (and by extension Dean) have been muddling around in the dark for several seasons, and thus losing agency as a result. They've had (we now know) bad things happen to their family as a result of their mother's chance encounter with the YED, bad things happen to them as a result of their father's decisions and silences, bad things happen to them as a result of the YED's decisions, and now bad/good things happen to them as a result of angelic intervention for reasons we still don't know but might be random chance yet again. And if - just a wild speculation - we end up having SPN conclude with Dean becoming an angel, for example, we're not only talking a major change in the show from Day 1, but also a storyline more tightly centered than ever on these two individuals. Because it will all have been about outside things happening to them.
By comparison while Buffy has always been presented as being unique among slayers, she is still one of a long line of them (and at this point, one of many). She also has ties with many people, some positive, some negative, some shifting, who share decisions with her, who are affected by her choices, and with whom she has to deal when she does things. In fact, one of the things often complained about by viewers is when Buffy doesn't seem to consider those things and acts as if everything is about her. Sometimes this is just writing sloppiness, but in other cases it is part of her character - and the fact that there are other important characters to highlight this flaw or to actually take her to task in the text, is an option we rarely get with the Winchesters. When we do get it, it is easy to dismiss these things. When Isaac complains about the Winchesters' recklessness, whether we agree with him or not he's dead soon himself of equally reckless causes so there goes that argument. In 4.02 when the dead come back to accuse the Winchesters of their callous behavior and the body count and suffering they've often left behind them, well, they're ghosts not acting of their own free will. Either way, there is no one to stick around and be a consistent reminder of these issues or a voice of constraint. This is one of the areas in which Bobby's silence can be seen as support, but in other cases his silence is something of a void. To a large degree, Sam and Dean are accountable to no one - it's one of the reasons John Winchester had to leave the storyline early on. All other figures who try to hold them accountable - other hunters, law enforcement, occasional helpers - can ultimately be dismissed in the face of the circular obligations that Sam and Dean have to one another. As a result the most profound consequences of what they do are again with one another. Dean's deal is what has brought the most dramatic changes in their relationship For example, even when John died and Dean had confirmation he'd made a deal, Dean resisted trading himself for John and Sam never suggested it at all. (I've always thought, though, that this was a factor in Dean making his own deal later for Sam). On the other hand, Sam decided at once he was going to try and break Dean's deal and we know he later tried to trade himself for Dean.
This lack of outside impact and the circularity of what does have consequence also means that it's difficult to have a lot of independent character development because so much of what occurs is about one another and the relationship. The most interesting change on the horizon is Dean's hell storyline. While for Sam his time apart was all wrapped up in Dean and his own failure to help his brother, for Dean it was finally all about himself. He is also quite right when he says it's something Sam will never be able to understand. While Sam spent (between MS and post-S3) less than a year apart from Dean, and another 3 months going through the fairly hellish experience of watching Dean die over and over, Dean has spent longer than Sam's been alive away from him. Dean's been dead longer than he himself was alive. No matter how he'd spent that time, he is forever going to be distant from Sam in some ways. And now Sam knows it too. I don't actually expect the show to make much of that, but if they wanted to they now could.
To some people, of course, all of these differences will simply be a matter of story preference. Some respondents cited SPN as being a darker show, for example. While I think Buffy had more darkness than people seem to remember, I do agree with this although I think the darkness in SPN is more often suggested than explored. Others think that the lack of metaphorical structure in the show's premise and in its story arcs is a plus rather than a minus. I think though that this suggests that SPN doesn't use them when in fact they use them often on an episodic level. What they do not seem to have done is set up the original premise of the show - two ghost hunters on the road in search of their father - as a deliberate metaphor. However, I would argue that the lack of deliberation does not mean the metaphor didn't exist. The road trip concept itself is a longstanding metaphorical structure for identity development, self-discovery, and American history. Certainly Kripke's choice of names for his characters reveals he couldn't have been unaware of this issue. That they begin on a road trip to find their father (and therefore the truth about their own past) just makes that metaphor even clearer. Somewhere I wrote a bit of meta about how the theme of both shows was actually the same - a journey to adulthood and independence by the title characters. I think this is somewhat obscured by the fact that Sam and Dean are much older when the series begins and are going through uncommon experiences rather than the relatable high school issues. But I think the mirroring of Mary and Jess's death sending Sam on the road, and Sam's words to Dean ("Dad lets you hunt alone?") in the Pilot shows that the framework is in place, it's just given a different setting.
When it comes to what suits people's tastes, it's impossible to say anything in response to an "I just like this show better." That's why we have so many different kinds of entertainment. And to some degree comparing the shows on a production level comes down to a simple difference of opinion. But I did find it an interesting exercise.
For one thing, it seems to me the SPN fandom is particularly visual (and I'm not talking about the eye candy). For example while I've seen meta on how visual symbolism is used in BtVS, I think there tends to be a lot more discussion about issues such as cinematography, direction and set design in SPN. Maybe this is just because the show is still in progress and so there's a lot of close attention being paid to these issues. But I do think that the look of SPN is quite important and that it's been a concern from early on. I know that these fandom discussions have changed the way I see things and what I watch for.
That said I see a real difference in terms of cutting corners on SPN. BtVS also used dual cameras in their shots but they tended to shoot a lot more coverage in scenes than I've seen used in SPN. This ends up meaning a much smoother transition among characters and within a setting when things get edited together. On the other hand BtVS did much less location shooting than SPN does (most shows do, in fact) and weather and light conditions generally demand a quick pace in that respect. One thing BtVS generally lacked are the often gorgeous establishing shots SPN does. On the other hand there was some rather awful green screen work in SPN S1.
Music is a bit of a toss-up. It certainly is a more crucial element in setting tone at SPN, whereas the music used on BtVS didn't really separate it from any other shows on the WB which all tended to integrate contemporary songs in some way. When it comes to scores though both shows do pretty well and have come up with some memorable material.
Special effects? Honestly not a plus for either show. Given the speed and extent to which they must be produced I suppose it's too much to expect this area to be really seamless. For the most part they work, and I have seen worse in other projects.
Makeup, hair and wardrobe is rather different for both shows. For one, make-up and prosthetics are a far less demanding job on SPN. Most of their MotW are humans with ghoulish makeup or CG effects. By comparison on Buffy even the vampires had considerably more work done than the vamps on SPN, and as often as not there were full body casts of monsters. Also, the large cast (and a heavily female cast) demanded a lot of the hair and make-up people. By comparison SPN has a small cast, few guest stars, and male leads. And even so I've often been annoyed by make-up that ends at the neck and thus stands out as make-up, and I think everyone will know what I'm talking about when I mention JP's hair in ELaC. Points definitely go to BtVS on this one. Wardrobe though? Usually less challenging on SPN (although personally I love the fact that Sam and Dean's clothing gets recycled regularly). However BtVS had some truly horrible wardrobe choices over the years. I call this a draw only because BtVS also did some lovely period pieces (though I gather, not all that historically accurate).
Set design is something I have trouble figuring out, if only because SPN does a lot of location shooting whereas BtVS had a lot of standing sets. I think that SPN tends to use its sets in a more central way than BtVS did though, so I'm giving this to them.
Then there is casting. I always thought that BtVS and AtS tended to do a really good job with casting. There were certainly some clunkers in 13 combined seasons although there were a lot of regular and recurring roles (which is where weakness tends to show up most clearly) and they were pretty well filled. Some have argued that Marc Blucas was a real mistake for Riley, and anyone watching S1 of BtVS might question why David Boreanaz was hired either. Of course Boreanaz blossomed in his own series, and I think whether or not Blucas was a poor choice has more to do with who Riley was supposed to be. Personally I thought Blucas's woodenness tied into his combined stoicism/lack of questioning, but overall he certainly wasn't a cast standout.
SPN's casting has been hit and miss with fewer roles in a shorter time. Some of the choices have been outstanding (Sterling K. Brown and Amy Gumenick come to mind). Others, dragged down episodes (Lori in Hookman, Cassie in Route 666). In at least one example casting mistakes may drag down a whole season.
I really feel this is the case with Genevieve Cortese in SPN S4, who makes me think of Sarah Thompson in AtS S5. In both cases these were supposed to be mysterious young women with hidden agendas who were presumed evil, but whom the lead(s) had to deal with in order to accomplish tasks at hand. Both also had a brief sex scene with a lead they had no chemistry with. In both cases I think they have fallen incredibly flat and in both cases had the misfortune of following in the footsteps of a more vibrant and compelling actress (Stephanie Romanov in AtS, Katie Cassidy in SPN). While in AtS, Eve's role couldn't be called pivotal (in fact the character could have been dropped without losing anything), she could have been a point of great interest in a season set up with conflicting motives, secrets and double-crosses. Unfortunately she came off as neither a femme fatale nor a force to be reckoned with. She simply didn't bring any strength to the role. By comparison Ruby looks to be much more central in SPN S4, and may turn out to be a pivotal character. Cortese however not only doesn't command the screen, she doesn't really inhabit the role either. In the long run I think this choice was a bigger blunder, though there's always hope she will grow into the part.
Of course much of a show's success rests on the series leads and there opinion seems to vary pretty widely. I personally think Sarah Michelle Gellar was a very flexible actress who was capable of doing many things well, and the show would have foundered had she been unable to. She was surrounded by costars who were distinctive in their roles though some, such as Nicholas Brendon or Charisma Carpenter, had a limited range and excelled mostly in their comedic scenes. On the SPN side Jensen Ackles and Jared Padalecki were very fortunate in developing a strong acting partnership early on which brings a certain rhythm to their dialogue and interactions that overcomes clunky writing or less than captivating scenes. It doesn't, however, overcome everything. One of the unfortunate elements of SPN, I think, is that the stronger actor was cast in the more stylized and showy role. I think few people would argue that that person is Jensen Ackles. And certainly within S1 but also throughout the show, he has had more hooks on which to hang his performance since Dean's actions and reactions are rather more predictable than Sam's. He gets to play the action hero more often, gets to be the ladies man, and has more comedic bits in any given episode. I also believe that it is largely due to his range as an actor that Dean soon became more nuanced, more intense, and a more responsive character than was originally intended which has been an incredible benefit to the show.
By comparison Jared Padalecki struggled through a lot of S1 and the contrast between the two actors was often marked. Playing Sam was going to be the more challenging job from the start, as Sam got to do less visually and at the same time was often saddled with exposition and moodiness in the role. Moreover as the plotline developed, Sam became the more mysterious character whereas Dean, by contrast, became increasingly easy to read. Although I feel JP is often not given credit for some fine performances (as a whole I thought S3 was notable leap forward for him), even four seasons in he's still playing catch-up.
And this brings me to the final issue which is the writing itself. When it comes to things such as plot holes and continuity errors, neither show has an outstanding record. To me the best example of this is looking at the BtVS series finale. Buffy's final assault plan made very little sense and the day was won not by any doing of hers but through a solution which was quite literally brought in from another show for reasons which remain inexplicable. I think the episode won points for dramatic resolution and unexpected turns but logically it was a mess. Ultimately the series was not focused around explaining mythology or coming up with clever (or even sensible) problem-solving strategies. It was focused on the emotional journeys of the characters, as told through often very witty dialogue.
The reason I think that plot holes and unexplained occurrences are a bigger weakness on SPN is that it has fewer distractions. By looking at where there are logical gaps in a story it becomes obvious where the writers' priorities lie. That priority seems to be making things happen to characters visually. With the more MotW stories, these things happen largely to characters we don't know well, and sometimes to ones we never come to care about. It is much easier to overlook flaws when we're involved in something important occurring between Sam and Dean. But in S1 in particular, the amount of time devoted to Winchester family history, or meaningful exchanges between Sam and Dean was fairly small, and realistically speaking there's only so much screen time Sam and Dean can occupy in a given episode. As a result there's even more of a need for clever plotting to make the more routine elements of the show a larger draw. I'd be surprised though if most viewers of the show find it to have a lot of unexpected plot twists or really memorable case stories. And while SPN does have some wonderfully funny moments, most of its dialogue is not what could be called clever. Lastly, although his record on the show is mixed, I find it interesting that the most tightly plotted episode (Nightshifter), one of the funniest episodes, (Bad Day at Black Rock), and some of the most out-of-the-box episodes (Monster Movie) can be attributed to the one writer who also spent time on AtS. While no SPN episode has yet equaled Hush in either quality or audacity, or had an episode as starkly visceral as The Body, I think it’s Once More With Feeling that is the clearest comparison of what's missing.
There's certainly no need for SPN to put on a musical episode, but it did seem to me that Monster Movie was in many ways its equivalent. Remember what I said about SPN being much more focused on the visual? Well with its trademark dialogue, BtVS was always more focused on sound, not just on what was being said but how it was being said. So I find it kind of fascinating how when SPN does its format-breaking episode, it's all about the visuals. And I personally thought it was done very well - so much so that it wasn't until after my second viewing that I noticed one really big unexplained (or unlikely) plot event. But this episode was almost entirely self-contained. The Buffy musical was a remarkable episode not because everyone broke into song and dance, but because those songs and scenes laid the groundwork so well for developments all through the rest of the season. That one episode was S6 in microcosm. Monster Movie, on the other hand, was for all practical purposes a one-shot. It wasn't trying to use another genre to shed light on SPN in a way their usual storytelling methods couldn't. They were just doing something neat. And therein lies, to me, the most profound difference in the shows. Supernatural is too easily willing to be a 2 trick pony, rather than a 4 trick pony.
However the short answer is no, but I was intrigued by some of the arguments people made for why it was. The most interesting to me was where someone pointed out that the first of Buffy's landmark episodes, "Hush" didn't come along until S4, and we've only just reached that milestone with SPN. Aside from saying emphatically that "Heaven and Hell" was no "Hush," I thought that this wasn't true. I think the first landmark episode for Buffy was actually "Innocence."
Virtually anyone who watched the show in order (or even went back and watched it in order) seems to agree that the show hit a turning point with that episode and the Angelus plot twist. Up until then the show had had some good episodes and some wobbly episodes but the overall arc of the show had never been anything special. That episode however, as well as several that followed, was striking because the show suddenly became about something. From day one, of course, we were told the show's setup was a metaphor and some of those metaphors were fairly heavy handed but consistently there. But that episode turned the entire season into something else. S2 was about betrayal. Not just that but the way the show handled the issue of betrayal made the show speak about life in a very visceral way, not just an intellectual one.
In Innocence everyone is getting betrayed. Buffy lies to Joyce about what she's been up to. Angel and Buffy were both betrayed by Jenny. Willow discovers Xander has been lying to her. Willow's willing to betray the sincerity of Oz's feelings for short-term gain. And in the other key plot twist for the season, Dru is soon going to be betraying Spike, leading him to team up with Buffy and start any number of other storylines rolling. At the end of the season he turns against Angelus, Xander betrays both Willow and Buffy with his lie about Willow's plans, Buffy's continual lies to Joyce finally result in her own betrayal when Joyce fails to support her, Giles betrays the Scoobies by revealing his secrets to "Jenny", and of course we have Buffy's betrayal of Angel's trust in the last scenes. In between the two episodes Cordelia dumps Xander, and Oz lies about being a werewolf, both for selfish reasons, and earlier in the season Giles lied to everyone in The Dark Age (with Lie to Me, perhaps deliberately, being the episode immediately before it).
This larger canvas is, to me, part of why Buffy will always be a stronger show than SPN, regardless of what they manage to do in their remaining season and a half. On the one hand, the bond between the Winchesters is a fulcrum for the show. This is a show about the development of a relationship, not just the growth of a character, and what those bonds can lead to. It is compelling and the reason why at least 50% of its viewers (not fans) watch. But it is also a weakness because that relationship and those 2 characters are burdened with carrying everything in the show - it must all go through their experience or else it becomes rather irrelevant.
By comparison if we look back at Buffy S2, the theme of betrayal (and its companion, forgiveness, which is less universal) is filtered through the experiences of many characters. Even though most of these turn on a type of romantic betrayal, there are familial ones as well - Spike and Angel, Giles, Buffy and Joyce, Jenny and her family - even Oz, who is bitten by his werewolf cousin, whom his aunt and uncle never protected him from. The betrayals also range from the small to the vitally important, and the way they are handled changes from person to person. There are all sorts of ways to explore the theme, the repercussions, and the responses. 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 is a detriment to the show not just in the short run but the long run.
For example, Bobby is a character we have now known for 2 and a half seasons. We know a few things about him, but his views on any number of topics are left in the dark even though they would be highly informative about (1) the SPN verse (2) the history of the Winchesters (3) the nature of his relationship to each of them and (4) Bobby himself. By comparison after 2 and a half seasons (Spike made just one appearance in S3), we get a rich origin story for the vampire in BtVS. We get the same for Darla in a companion episode on Angel - a character who appeared in even fewer episodes than he did. And both of those origin stories told us about still more characters, such as Angel and Dru. To be fair we did finally get an origin story about Mary in S4, but the real purpose of that wasn't so much to tell us about Mary but about the overall arc. Think, for example, how little we learned about John Winchester. I really enjoyed meeting all the Campbells but they were essentially one-shot characters. We don't suddenly get development on a character who has been with us repeatedly and who will continue on their journey in the future.
This is also not to say that everyone on BtVS got this treatment. Anya was around for 5 seasons before she got her story, Tara's background (3 seasons) was very slight, we got no background on Oz at all (2 ½), and very little for Cordelia, Giles or Wesley. However there were numerous recurring characters on this show, some, such as Jonathan, Harmony, and Amy, appearing from S1 through the final episodes of the Buffyverse. All of them got some kind of character development over the seasons. By comparison when characters don't even reappear on SPN, there's no way they can go anywhere or contribute to the storyline. But even when they do, such as Bobby, there are often diminishing returns. This season, for example, complaints have begun about how Bobby has become a convenient crutch to provide answers or handle things offscreen that would otherwise be done by the Winchesters, or which end up being pat solutions. The fact is Bobby had begun serving that purpose as early as S2. The difference is that we were just getting to know Bobby then and having any character provide some sort of other perspective in the show, however slight, was welcome. (This role was made quite literal in Tall Tales).
That issue about perspective is also important to the verse as a whole. While there is no reason that the SPN verse couldn't have, say, a spinoff show with an entirely new cast of characters, I think it would be a hard sell. In SPN, the verse does not have the same range or the same emotional impact as it did in the Buffyverse. In part this is because Buffy starts with a clear mytharc - the slayer legend - and that slayerhood is just as critical in BtVS's very last episode. "Angel" had less range but it too, after 5 seasons, ended with a battle against the foes presented in the very first episode. It's too soon to say whether at the end of SPN we'll see a very clear series arc in terms of the Winchesters' battle. But because the show's focus is so much on them, the larger issues of good and evil, a timeless fight, and distinct groups who are on different "sides" really fall by the wayside. It may just be my perspective, but to me the focus of SPN has always been (in a seasonal sense) on Sam and Dean's lives. And I think this is largely because the mythology of hunters has not been built out and we have seen very few hunters in the series. There was an opportunity to do this in S2, but this was done fairly haphazardly and we only got fragments. By comparison, even though Buffy was supposed to be the one and only, there was always access to Slayer history through Giles, and we met new slayers as early as S2 and S3. We also had dealings with the Watcher's Council in S3 and S5 and some more bits about them in S7. In short, there was far more building of Buffy's role in the verse, and more contact with various players, than there have been for Sam and Dean in their verse. Everything about them is centered first on their family background and secondarily on their profession.
Another issue with the verse development is that when you start out with a large verse, it leads to curiosity about exploring different parts of it - which (depending on how competently it's done) can lead to satisfaction in new storylines which go in those directions. For the most part the boundaries of the Buffyverse didn't change that much over 7 seasons (although I think they broadened farther and faster on Angel, which was less focused on Angel himself than BtVS was on Buffy). Which is one reason why I think the sudden and bizarre appearance of the Guardians in S7 was a real misstep. Had it actually been more developed it would have shifted the development of the mythos rather abruptly - as it was it just seemed a strange and ill explained anomaly in the final episodes.
By comparison, things have been shifting all over the SPN verse, particularly this year. We started out with Sam and Dean as monster hunters, broadened into Sam being possibly demonic, then looked at Sam as possibly being some important tool for evil, then broadened into a (rather ill executed) demon war, and now have both Winchesters in potentially critical roles between heaven and hell. That's a heck of a shift. What's more, it's a shift they have nothing to do with. As I mentioned in a meta over a year ago, one of the important differences between the two series has been in the difference between sacrifice and loss. For example, the reasons why Buffy or Sam were chosen have been random and largely unexplained. For both there was a cycle to the choosing and both, at least in the beginning, resisted what had happened to them. The difference of course is that Buffy was shown her abilities could be used as a force for good and Sam was told (inasmuch as anyone told him anything) that they were evil. Ironically both of them developed powers as a result of a demonic infusion, although the first time we even get hints of that with Buffy is in S5.
As a result Buffy was quickly able to own who and what she was and act accordingly, to understand her own place in the world. Sam (and by extension Dean) have been muddling around in the dark for several seasons, and thus losing agency as a result. They've had (we now know) bad things happen to their family as a result of their mother's chance encounter with the YED, bad things happen to them as a result of their father's decisions and silences, bad things happen to them as a result of the YED's decisions, and now bad/good things happen to them as a result of angelic intervention for reasons we still don't know but might be random chance yet again. And if - just a wild speculation - we end up having SPN conclude with Dean becoming an angel, for example, we're not only talking a major change in the show from Day 1, but also a storyline more tightly centered than ever on these two individuals. Because it will all have been about outside things happening to them.
By comparison while Buffy has always been presented as being unique among slayers, she is still one of a long line of them (and at this point, one of many). She also has ties with many people, some positive, some negative, some shifting, who share decisions with her, who are affected by her choices, and with whom she has to deal when she does things. In fact, one of the things often complained about by viewers is when Buffy doesn't seem to consider those things and acts as if everything is about her. Sometimes this is just writing sloppiness, but in other cases it is part of her character - and the fact that there are other important characters to highlight this flaw or to actually take her to task in the text, is an option we rarely get with the Winchesters. When we do get it, it is easy to dismiss these things. When Isaac complains about the Winchesters' recklessness, whether we agree with him or not he's dead soon himself of equally reckless causes so there goes that argument. In 4.02 when the dead come back to accuse the Winchesters of their callous behavior and the body count and suffering they've often left behind them, well, they're ghosts not acting of their own free will. Either way, there is no one to stick around and be a consistent reminder of these issues or a voice of constraint. This is one of the areas in which Bobby's silence can be seen as support, but in other cases his silence is something of a void. To a large degree, Sam and Dean are accountable to no one - it's one of the reasons John Winchester had to leave the storyline early on. All other figures who try to hold them accountable - other hunters, law enforcement, occasional helpers - can ultimately be dismissed in the face of the circular obligations that Sam and Dean have to one another. As a result the most profound consequences of what they do are again with one another. Dean's deal is what has brought the most dramatic changes in their relationship For example, even when John died and Dean had confirmation he'd made a deal, Dean resisted trading himself for John and Sam never suggested it at all. (I've always thought, though, that this was a factor in Dean making his own deal later for Sam). On the other hand, Sam decided at once he was going to try and break Dean's deal and we know he later tried to trade himself for Dean.
This lack of outside impact and the circularity of what does have consequence also means that it's difficult to have a lot of independent character development because so much of what occurs is about one another and the relationship. The most interesting change on the horizon is Dean's hell storyline. While for Sam his time apart was all wrapped up in Dean and his own failure to help his brother, for Dean it was finally all about himself. He is also quite right when he says it's something Sam will never be able to understand. While Sam spent (between MS and post-S3) less than a year apart from Dean, and another 3 months going through the fairly hellish experience of watching Dean die over and over, Dean has spent longer than Sam's been alive away from him. Dean's been dead longer than he himself was alive. No matter how he'd spent that time, he is forever going to be distant from Sam in some ways. And now Sam knows it too. I don't actually expect the show to make much of that, but if they wanted to they now could.
To some people, of course, all of these differences will simply be a matter of story preference. Some respondents cited SPN as being a darker show, for example. While I think Buffy had more darkness than people seem to remember, I do agree with this although I think the darkness in SPN is more often suggested than explored. Others think that the lack of metaphorical structure in the show's premise and in its story arcs is a plus rather than a minus. I think though that this suggests that SPN doesn't use them when in fact they use them often on an episodic level. What they do not seem to have done is set up the original premise of the show - two ghost hunters on the road in search of their father - as a deliberate metaphor. However, I would argue that the lack of deliberation does not mean the metaphor didn't exist. The road trip concept itself is a longstanding metaphorical structure for identity development, self-discovery, and American history. Certainly Kripke's choice of names for his characters reveals he couldn't have been unaware of this issue. That they begin on a road trip to find their father (and therefore the truth about their own past) just makes that metaphor even clearer. Somewhere I wrote a bit of meta about how the theme of both shows was actually the same - a journey to adulthood and independence by the title characters. I think this is somewhat obscured by the fact that Sam and Dean are much older when the series begins and are going through uncommon experiences rather than the relatable high school issues. But I think the mirroring of Mary and Jess's death sending Sam on the road, and Sam's words to Dean ("Dad lets you hunt alone?") in the Pilot shows that the framework is in place, it's just given a different setting.
When it comes to what suits people's tastes, it's impossible to say anything in response to an "I just like this show better." That's why we have so many different kinds of entertainment. And to some degree comparing the shows on a production level comes down to a simple difference of opinion. But I did find it an interesting exercise.
For one thing, it seems to me the SPN fandom is particularly visual (and I'm not talking about the eye candy). For example while I've seen meta on how visual symbolism is used in BtVS, I think there tends to be a lot more discussion about issues such as cinematography, direction and set design in SPN. Maybe this is just because the show is still in progress and so there's a lot of close attention being paid to these issues. But I do think that the look of SPN is quite important and that it's been a concern from early on. I know that these fandom discussions have changed the way I see things and what I watch for.
That said I see a real difference in terms of cutting corners on SPN. BtVS also used dual cameras in their shots but they tended to shoot a lot more coverage in scenes than I've seen used in SPN. This ends up meaning a much smoother transition among characters and within a setting when things get edited together. On the other hand BtVS did much less location shooting than SPN does (most shows do, in fact) and weather and light conditions generally demand a quick pace in that respect. One thing BtVS generally lacked are the often gorgeous establishing shots SPN does. On the other hand there was some rather awful green screen work in SPN S1.
Music is a bit of a toss-up. It certainly is a more crucial element in setting tone at SPN, whereas the music used on BtVS didn't really separate it from any other shows on the WB which all tended to integrate contemporary songs in some way. When it comes to scores though both shows do pretty well and have come up with some memorable material.
Special effects? Honestly not a plus for either show. Given the speed and extent to which they must be produced I suppose it's too much to expect this area to be really seamless. For the most part they work, and I have seen worse in other projects.
Makeup, hair and wardrobe is rather different for both shows. For one, make-up and prosthetics are a far less demanding job on SPN. Most of their MotW are humans with ghoulish makeup or CG effects. By comparison on Buffy even the vampires had considerably more work done than the vamps on SPN, and as often as not there were full body casts of monsters. Also, the large cast (and a heavily female cast) demanded a lot of the hair and make-up people. By comparison SPN has a small cast, few guest stars, and male leads. And even so I've often been annoyed by make-up that ends at the neck and thus stands out as make-up, and I think everyone will know what I'm talking about when I mention JP's hair in ELaC. Points definitely go to BtVS on this one. Wardrobe though? Usually less challenging on SPN (although personally I love the fact that Sam and Dean's clothing gets recycled regularly). However BtVS had some truly horrible wardrobe choices over the years. I call this a draw only because BtVS also did some lovely period pieces (though I gather, not all that historically accurate).
Set design is something I have trouble figuring out, if only because SPN does a lot of location shooting whereas BtVS had a lot of standing sets. I think that SPN tends to use its sets in a more central way than BtVS did though, so I'm giving this to them.
Then there is casting. I always thought that BtVS and AtS tended to do a really good job with casting. There were certainly some clunkers in 13 combined seasons although there were a lot of regular and recurring roles (which is where weakness tends to show up most clearly) and they were pretty well filled. Some have argued that Marc Blucas was a real mistake for Riley, and anyone watching S1 of BtVS might question why David Boreanaz was hired either. Of course Boreanaz blossomed in his own series, and I think whether or not Blucas was a poor choice has more to do with who Riley was supposed to be. Personally I thought Blucas's woodenness tied into his combined stoicism/lack of questioning, but overall he certainly wasn't a cast standout.
SPN's casting has been hit and miss with fewer roles in a shorter time. Some of the choices have been outstanding (Sterling K. Brown and Amy Gumenick come to mind). Others, dragged down episodes (Lori in Hookman, Cassie in Route 666). In at least one example casting mistakes may drag down a whole season.
I really feel this is the case with Genevieve Cortese in SPN S4, who makes me think of Sarah Thompson in AtS S5. In both cases these were supposed to be mysterious young women with hidden agendas who were presumed evil, but whom the lead(s) had to deal with in order to accomplish tasks at hand. Both also had a brief sex scene with a lead they had no chemistry with. In both cases I think they have fallen incredibly flat and in both cases had the misfortune of following in the footsteps of a more vibrant and compelling actress (Stephanie Romanov in AtS, Katie Cassidy in SPN). While in AtS, Eve's role couldn't be called pivotal (in fact the character could have been dropped without losing anything), she could have been a point of great interest in a season set up with conflicting motives, secrets and double-crosses. Unfortunately she came off as neither a femme fatale nor a force to be reckoned with. She simply didn't bring any strength to the role. By comparison Ruby looks to be much more central in SPN S4, and may turn out to be a pivotal character. Cortese however not only doesn't command the screen, she doesn't really inhabit the role either. In the long run I think this choice was a bigger blunder, though there's always hope she will grow into the part.
Of course much of a show's success rests on the series leads and there opinion seems to vary pretty widely. I personally think Sarah Michelle Gellar was a very flexible actress who was capable of doing many things well, and the show would have foundered had she been unable to. She was surrounded by costars who were distinctive in their roles though some, such as Nicholas Brendon or Charisma Carpenter, had a limited range and excelled mostly in their comedic scenes. On the SPN side Jensen Ackles and Jared Padalecki were very fortunate in developing a strong acting partnership early on which brings a certain rhythm to their dialogue and interactions that overcomes clunky writing or less than captivating scenes. It doesn't, however, overcome everything. One of the unfortunate elements of SPN, I think, is that the stronger actor was cast in the more stylized and showy role. I think few people would argue that that person is Jensen Ackles. And certainly within S1 but also throughout the show, he has had more hooks on which to hang his performance since Dean's actions and reactions are rather more predictable than Sam's. He gets to play the action hero more often, gets to be the ladies man, and has more comedic bits in any given episode. I also believe that it is largely due to his range as an actor that Dean soon became more nuanced, more intense, and a more responsive character than was originally intended which has been an incredible benefit to the show.
By comparison Jared Padalecki struggled through a lot of S1 and the contrast between the two actors was often marked. Playing Sam was going to be the more challenging job from the start, as Sam got to do less visually and at the same time was often saddled with exposition and moodiness in the role. Moreover as the plotline developed, Sam became the more mysterious character whereas Dean, by contrast, became increasingly easy to read. Although I feel JP is often not given credit for some fine performances (as a whole I thought S3 was notable leap forward for him), even four seasons in he's still playing catch-up.
And this brings me to the final issue which is the writing itself. When it comes to things such as plot holes and continuity errors, neither show has an outstanding record. To me the best example of this is looking at the BtVS series finale. Buffy's final assault plan made very little sense and the day was won not by any doing of hers but through a solution which was quite literally brought in from another show for reasons which remain inexplicable. I think the episode won points for dramatic resolution and unexpected turns but logically it was a mess. Ultimately the series was not focused around explaining mythology or coming up with clever (or even sensible) problem-solving strategies. It was focused on the emotional journeys of the characters, as told through often very witty dialogue.
The reason I think that plot holes and unexplained occurrences are a bigger weakness on SPN is that it has fewer distractions. By looking at where there are logical gaps in a story it becomes obvious where the writers' priorities lie. That priority seems to be making things happen to characters visually. With the more MotW stories, these things happen largely to characters we don't know well, and sometimes to ones we never come to care about. It is much easier to overlook flaws when we're involved in something important occurring between Sam and Dean. But in S1 in particular, the amount of time devoted to Winchester family history, or meaningful exchanges between Sam and Dean was fairly small, and realistically speaking there's only so much screen time Sam and Dean can occupy in a given episode. As a result there's even more of a need for clever plotting to make the more routine elements of the show a larger draw. I'd be surprised though if most viewers of the show find it to have a lot of unexpected plot twists or really memorable case stories. And while SPN does have some wonderfully funny moments, most of its dialogue is not what could be called clever. Lastly, although his record on the show is mixed, I find it interesting that the most tightly plotted episode (Nightshifter), one of the funniest episodes, (Bad Day at Black Rock), and some of the most out-of-the-box episodes (Monster Movie) can be attributed to the one writer who also spent time on AtS. While no SPN episode has yet equaled Hush in either quality or audacity, or had an episode as starkly visceral as The Body, I think it’s Once More With Feeling that is the clearest comparison of what's missing.
There's certainly no need for SPN to put on a musical episode, but it did seem to me that Monster Movie was in many ways its equivalent. Remember what I said about SPN being much more focused on the visual? Well with its trademark dialogue, BtVS was always more focused on sound, not just on what was being said but how it was being said. So I find it kind of fascinating how when SPN does its format-breaking episode, it's all about the visuals. And I personally thought it was done very well - so much so that it wasn't until after my second viewing that I noticed one really big unexplained (or unlikely) plot event. But this episode was almost entirely self-contained. The Buffy musical was a remarkable episode not because everyone broke into song and dance, but because those songs and scenes laid the groundwork so well for developments all through the rest of the season. That one episode was S6 in microcosm. Monster Movie, on the other hand, was for all practical purposes a one-shot. It wasn't trying to use another genre to shed light on SPN in a way their usual storytelling methods couldn't. They were just doing something neat. And therein lies, to me, the most profound difference in the shows. Supernatural is too easily willing to be a 2 trick pony, rather than a 4 trick pony.