After speeding my way through the first three seasons of Buffy, I'm slowly trying to finish the series up. The high quality and creative content of each and every episode of the first three seasons had me starving for more each time the ending credits rolled. The precipitous drop in quality following the third season finale makes me almost force myself to continue.

Right now I'm on Season 6. Season 6 has actually had quite a few up points. Then I watched "As You Were" (6x15). The episode was so bad it had me wanting to stab my eyes out with scissors half way through it. It was every bit as bad as the low points of Season 4...and my were there some low points! Surprisingly, the only good part of the entire episode was Riley. Surprising because I never liked Riley when he was a series regular. Then they bring him back as an awesome demon hunter!

This episode simply solidifies my conviction that there was a fundamental change in the type of storytelling in Buffy following Season 3 that is simply not as good. Whose decision it was to make this change--Whedon, Noxon, studio executives--I don't know? At least I can fondly remember the first three seasons, which I thank Joss Whedon for. I'll finish the series, because Whedon spun an epic tale that deserves being followed through to completion, but in my mind, the first three seasons will always characterize the best of the series.

Actually, I think the last few seasons were much more creative than the first three.  In the first two especially, they constantly reused cliche horror movie villains and story elements.  Sometimes they succeeded in putting their own spin on them, but most of the time it didn't seem like they really bothered.  Most of the "monster of the week" episodes come off really cheesy to me.  

In the last few episodes, they focused more on the characters than the villains.  As a rule, I enjoy character-driven stories much more than concept-driven stories.  This is why I love Firefly and Battlestar Galactica but hate Dr. Who and Star Trek.

I dislike the terms "character-driven" and "concept-driven." I also dislike "plot-driven," "event-driven," "action-driven," and any other driver you can think of. What is story other than the combination of character, plot, concept, and message? I prefer to use the term "story-driven."

If a story has such an imbalance of its component parts that it warrants the tag character-driven or concept-driven, I view it as a deficiency on the part of the writer to balance the components of his story. When writing, I attempt to combine the best possible characters with the best possible plot based on the best possible concept. What would a character-driven story look like: the best possible characters combined with a mediocre plot? Or what would a plot-driven story look like: mediocre characters combined with the best possible plot? Both seem to be an inferior way to write.

The other reason I don't think the character/concept-driven distinction works is because our series likes and dislikes overlap. You like Battlestar Galactica, and I dislike Battlestar Galactica. You dislike Doctor Who and Star Trek, and I like both series. But we both like Firefly. It is my favorite series second only to Doctor Who. What did the writers of Firefly do that the writers of the other three series failed to do?

I don't think the first two seasons simply recycled horror cliches nor do I think their intent was to give their own spin on them. I think they consciously employed horror cliches to convey their message. Message is an integral part of story just like character and plot, and Joss Whedon is a master of message.

I still am not able to put my finger on it, but I don't think dropping the horror cliches is the shift in storytelling that caused me to dislike the later seasons. I think they had dropped those by Season 3, but Season 3, my favorite season, still had the spark.

I think we have different definitions of "driven."  When I say "character-driven," I'm not talking about an imbalance in quality.  I mean that the creator spends more time focusing on the characters than the concept or theme.  It's possible to have a character-driven story with mediocre characters and a fantastic plot.  That story would really suck, though.

When I watch Firefly, I imagine the writers sitting around saying something like "Okay, we need to have more conflict in Wash and Zoe's relationship, so let's have an episode about Wash's jealousy."

When I watch Star Trek, I imagine the writers saying "Wouldn't it be cool if there was a sentient nuclear warhead, and the crew had to decide whether it was more morally acceptable to kill it or let it destroy the planet?"

6x16 - Hell's Bells

This episode was good. Really good. When I checked the writing credit, I was surprised it wasn't Whedon. It had a very Whedonesque air about it. I'm sure he had a hand in the breaking of most (if not all) the Buffy stories, especially an episode as pivotal as this one, but to what degree he was involved in this specific story, I can only conjecture.

It was actually written by Rebecca Rand Kirshner, the brilliant writer who brought us "Tabula Rasa" (6x08) earlier this season. Events like a death in the family or a wedding usually seem artificial on TV. Whedon (and, in this case, Kirshner) have the ability to make the viewer (that's you and me) vicariously experience the emotions of the characters (remember, Whedon's excellent handling of Buffy's mom's death in Season 5?).

I can't say I'm heartbroken that Xander and Anya didn't get hitched. I've never liked Anya's character. Some people may interpret statements like that to mean I'm not a Buffy fan. I am a huge Buffy fan, but I personally dislike the character (like I disliked Riley's character...until they brought him back all cool in the last episode.)

6x17 - Normal Again

This episode was neither great or lousy. It was just okay. A problem (in my opinion) Buffy is plagued with after Season 3 (except for Season 4, which was lousy.)

I am still trying to pin down what characteristic makes me love the first three seasons but be much more ambivalent about the last four seasons. After a conversation with Daniel today, I think I may have an inclination. To quote the book I'm currently reading for my Contemporary Theology class, The Suffering of God by Terence Fretheim, I'll use the two word phrase Fretheim probably uses a couple dozen times in his first chapter. Metaphors matter.

In Buffy 1-3, monsters, magic, and such, henceforth referred to as "the supernatural," were a metaphor for the high school struggles every teenager experiences. The struggles may seem insurmountable, but with friends and belief in your own abilities, you will survive. This metaphor was extremely successful and grounded such a fantastical series. The series transcended normal prime time fare to actually be about something.

For obvious reasons, the writers could not continue this metaphor after graduation.* Rather than rebuild the show around a new metaphor (like...ah...college or "real life"), the writers decide to build the show around the supernatural. College and real life become parodies (I mean, really, they couldn't come up with something better than Doublemeat Palace?) used as a throwaway framework to support whatever supernatural element the writers decided to throw into the plot. The show ceased to transcend the medium and became just another prime time show. Not lousy, but not great. Just okay. Great shows have great metaphors. Metaphors matter.

Since most of my fellow Buffy fans seem to strongly disagree with my honest thoughts about the later Buffy seasons, I'd like to know the consensus about my assessment on the difference between the early and later seasons.

*The question I'm asking myself now is should a show where high school is such a central metaphor have continued past graduation or would a writer with more interest in artistic integrity than continuing a popular show have ended it at such a logical junction? I have not actually come to an answer myself yet, and it does not pertain to the point I'm trying to make at this time.

I think I agree with your analysis about the metaphors.  There aren't as many thematic metaphors in the later seasons, and the ones that are there are pretty heavy-handed.  

I wouldn't say the show stopped being "about something," though.  It stopped being about the struggles of high school as shown through supernatural metaphors, and became about a group of young adults trying to make it in the real world while also under insanely difficult circumstances (demon-fighting, being taken out of heaven, friends being murdered, uncontrollable singing, etc).  Of the two, the second theme is more interesting to me.

I can't decide how much I like "Normal Again," though.  I think it was an interesting idea, but the last scene kind of ruins the whole thing for me.  It seems to take place outside of the continuity of the rest of the show somehow, and it only exists to screw with your head.

Or, maybe the two realities exist in separate dimensions.  In dimension A, Buffy is a real vampire slayer.  In dimension B, Buffy is a nutcase who has vivid hallucinations of being a vampire slayer.  When the demon poked her, he made some sort of link between the two dimensions, and Buffy's mind kept switching back and forth.  

Now I think I like the episode again.

My problem with "Normal Again" was the plot seemed far too similar to dozens of other multiple-personality disorder movies, novels, and TV episodes. The whole episode felt like a rehash of Identity with a demon thrown in. I think I would have liked the episode a lot more if it seemed to have something unique to add to the concept, but it simply didn't.

Actually, "Identity" came out a year after "Normal Again" aired.  So maybe Identity was a rehash of a Buffy episode.  Or maybe they were both rehashes of other things that came before them.

I think it is always difficult for "High School" based shows to move beyond graduation...Veronica Mars, & Saved by the Bell are prime examples. It has something to do with all the main characters staying the same, or very similar to the same, even though the setting of the show completely changes.

It also has something to do with the shows being about figuring-out adult-hood. We do this every day and don't want to watch a show about it. We want to watch shows that help us escape from reality...

but then again, reality TV is really, really popular right now...

I can't believe it! While trolling the Moonlight forums at TV.com, I came across another Buffy fan who shares my sentiment that the show was amazing through season 3 and not so great after that:

5. Re: Bloodties | 09/28/2007 10:24am

Most of the people at Whedonesque seem to prefer the first 3 seasons.

Doesn't "trolling" mean you were posting controversial things just to start an argument?  Or have I gotten my forum slang confused again?

Okay, here's Wikipedia's definition of internet trolling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

Unless you meant this definition:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28gay%29

Hahahahahaha!

I finally finished Season 6. The ending arc was enjoyable.

I also watched Transformers last night, which had in Tom Lenk in it. Unfortunately, in a useless role.

I know, I was disappointed that Tom Lenk's character had no purpose in the movie.  Or any of the hacker kids, for that matter.

I'm glad you like the end of Season 6.  They aren't really the most well-done episodes, but it's my favorite part of the story.

I saw Transformers last weekend. It was as awful as you said it would be.

Whedon just doesn't know when to stop.

Every series must end. At some point, you've got to decide, "Okay, one more sequel will just be ridiculous." For instance, someone really should have stopped them from making Final Destination 3 (and now they're making Final Destination 4!) I don't care how limitless the concept is, a television series can't have unlimited seasons. The best strategy is to "stop while everyone is still asking for more but before they start begging you to stop" or in other words to "stop while you're ahead." C.S. Lewis said he could have kept writing Chronicles of Narnia books but decided to stop at seven while everyone still loved the series then to keep going until everyone was tired of it.

C.S. Lewis knew when to stop, but Whedon just doesn't know when to stop.

The perfect place to have ended Buffy the Vampire Slayer would have been at the end of season 3. You would have had people asking for more (which you still could have given them in a slightly different form with the Angel spin-off and occasional SMG guest appearances on that series), and it was still before people started longing for the series to end. Maybe I started longing for the series to end before other fans. I started longing for the series to end during the abysmal season 4. If anyone ever makes a list of the worst seasons of television, Buffy season 4 should be near the top of the list. Admittedly, season 5 was a little better, but it was a downhill slope after that. Whedon should have cut his losses and ended the series at the end of season 5 (and I may have forgiven him for season 4) but instead we were dragged through two more mediocre-at-best seasons.

If Buffy had ended after season 3, the series would be remembered as great. If it had ended after season 5, it would have been remembered as good. But Whedon just doesn't know when to stop. He dragged it out until it was remembered as a bad aftertaste.

Now Whedon has continued on to "season 8" in the form of comics. I know the series has been running for a while now, but I've just recently snagged volume 1 (issues 1-5). While I still had some respect for the series after being dragged through seven seasons, all respect for the franchise has completely evaporated with volume 1 of "season 8." Thanks a lot, Whedon. Do you and George Lucas get together to plan these things? Every thing I loved about the first three seasons of Buffy is completely gone.

Buffy was an intimate tale about a small group of friends who lived in a normal world but faced uncommon threats. The comics literally have a cast of thousands set in a fantasy world. Gone is the intimacy and by transforming the world from a normal world to a fantasy world, they have succeeded in making the uncommon common. Some of this might have been forgiven if the artwork had been amazing. Instead we are offered artwork that ranges from average to childish. On some of the panels, it looks like the artist forget to draw in the face or finish all the details.

I disagree about ending it at Season 3, but I can see your point.  The show definitely changed after that, but I liked seeing the characters' lives change as they grew up.

I kind of agree about the comics, though.  They've just been getting weirder and weirder.  Some things that happen later on are just so absurd that it doesn't feel like Buffy anymore.  I'm still reading and enjoying them, but I think the show ended with a perfectly satisfactory ending, and didn't need a continuation.

Angel, on the other hand, definitely deserved to be continued beyond its rushed cliffhanger ending in my opinion, and I think the comics on that end have been handled much more sanely.  The characters, relationships, and setting have all changed pretty dramatically, but it has managed to keep the same tone as the show, which I think is most important when hopping media like that.