The preferred Buffy?


Swanson or Gellar?

reply

Gellar, but only by default

I can't really say because I found the movie in general so unifomly awful that judging Swanson's performance based on the wretched, unfunny, unsuspensful, un-pretty much everything script and production is unfair. Perhaps if she would have been working off the non-butchered original script, I could make a more definitive call. But everyone was working in a vacuum.

It was agonizing flashbacks to this piece of garbage that prevented me from seeing the much, Much, MUCH superior show until season 3, which is another reason I hate the 1992 movie.

Jesus is my Best friend, but he still won't loan me money.

reply

Based on your post, I think I've just figured out something fascinating about movie fans. When we see a good performance, we give all the credit to the actor. But when an actor does poorly, we blame the writer or the director or ANYONE but the actor.

I once heard from a film professor that being surrounded by incompetents is no excuse for not putting forth effort in the business of moviemaking. He pointed out that some films are completely awful except for the star's performance, and that in those cases the actors took the burden of redeeming their work upon themselves.

Having said that, I don't think of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER is that kind of movie - at least, not the way it was cast. Kristy Swanson and Luke Perry, as good as they are, cannot carry a feature by themselves. (At least, they couldn't do so back then. Kristy's gotten better since 1992; I'm not so sure about Luke, though.) And as for Donald Sutherland, his character was killed before the story was even close to being finished. The one actor everyone seems to remember from this was Paul Reubens, and his character was never meant to be really important.

reply

[deleted]

I like them both, but to be fair Swanson only played the character in this one movie while Gellar played it longer.


Alison Lohman for Supergirl

reply

Donald Sutherland or stereotypical British guy?

Rutger Hauer or anybody?

Paul Reubens or anybody?

Luke Perry, David Arquette, Stephen Root... the cast of the movie was incredible where the cast of the show was drawn from soap operas, as was Kristy Swanson (sort of). So in the movie you've got a lead trying to keep pace with veterans, and in the show the lead is matched with peers. Of course one will look worse given the environment.

But Kristy could still emote, hit a punchline, and sell a drop kick better than SMG. From a completely shallow perspective, Swanson wins again for being fit and healthy when SMG appears to eat cigarettes three meals a day.

reply

Only someone who hasn't watched more than one or two episodes of the series would think that the movie cast was better. It's not just the cast that makes the series better but also the fact that Joss Whedon has heavy involvement in the show, whereas the movie was a bastardization of the Buffy story thanks to the idiocy of the Kuzuis. The movie was nothing but cheese, whereas the show had a lot of depth to it although it could be cheesy at times and makes no apologies about it.
With regards to SMG's physique: she wasn't stick-thin in the first three seasons so there goes that part of your argument.

reply

From the very first episode:

http://disparue.org/gallery/5/buffy/1/101/images/buffy101_2814.jpg

Exactly how do you define stick thin? She looks no different than Barbie here.

The claim that a creator having more control automatically guarantees a better outcome is devoid of even rudimentary logic. Stanley Kubrick, yes. Michael Bay, no. A does not equal B. Also, the Kuzuis were involved with the series.

Only someone who has never seen decent action choreography would think that the combat in the series is anything but garbage. All rapid edits and cheap camera tricks.

reply

History is pretty clear on this: The Kuzui's only involvement in the show was collecting money for owning a portion of the rights to Buffy, the concept. FRK obtained those rights when she put up the money for the movie. Neither she nor her husband are credited with any input to the TV show. Their names are on it because she bought a measure of Joss Whedon's creation in order for Joss to get the movie made. A decision he has been very clear that he regrets.

reply

I believe James Marsters was suppose to be Paul's character. Luke Perry - David Boreanaz. Stephen Root - Armin Shimerman. Hilary Swank - Charisma Carpenter. Michele Abrams - Alyson Hannigan. Andrew Lowery - Nicholas Brendon. Rutger Hauer - Mayor Richard Wilkins. Personally I can't respect the series with the disrespect they show the character and legend of Dracula. I mean buffy the series fans are like twilight fans. Pain in the ass and could care less about respect for the genre and vampires.

reply

It must be pretty tough to be stuck. Dracula got the Buffy treatment in Season 5, Ep. 1. Watch it and we'll all listen to the sound of you grinding your sculpted fangs down to nubs. (Buffy: "I'm standing right here.")

Seriously, though, are you really a Dracula fan boy. For the record (pun intended) vampire legend predates Bram Stoker by, oh, say, all of human history. You don't think Stoker invented the idea, do you?

reply

You suggest that the show's cast is somehow inferior to the movie's because the movie's cast is...older?

When age becomes the most important factor in acting talent, Chloe Grace Moretz, Kirsten Dunst, Jennifer Lawrence and many other greats will have to hop into time machines and erase their youthful, weak performances.

And BTW, Donald Sutherland, a brilliant actor, sucked the energy out most of his scenes. The man was collecting money for his reputation.

reply

"You suggest that the show's cast is somehow inferior to the movie's because the movie's cast is...older?"

No, experienced. Hired for merit. Try to stick with the context.

As to your off-topic list of other young actresses to support your rebuttal to a point nobody made... mixed. A good one that will never outgrow her youthful looks, a terrible one (seriously, Marie Antoinette?), and one that is hard to judge based on her work in franchises with poorly written source material. Then again I lost all respect for her when the naked photos she took and put online got hacked and she called it "a sex crime."

Thanks for making me jump in my time machine and go back four years. It was worth it to see what the cast of the show has been up to lately, and to have my opinion of their acting abilities validated.

reply

Swanson,for the sole reason that watching a vapid Valley Girl slaying vampires was hilarious. This movie is intentionally stupid,and I loved it.

reply

Gellar. I think Swanson is a pretty horrendous actress.

PUPPY! PUPPY! PUPPY WITH A TUTU!

reply

Gellar because that Buffy was more complex.

lol

reply

Swanson of course. Sarah seems too intelligent to play ditzy girls like Buffy (who wasnt even half as ditzy as she was SUPPOSED to be in the show ) and Daphne from Scooby Doo... she is 10x more suited to playing scream queens or evil schoolgirls.

http://i44.tinypic.com/x4ozk.jpg

reply

Gellar of course.

I don't get how people say "SMG wasnt as nearly as ditzy as she was supposed to be/ she was too serious"

Did you watch the show? No she wasn't a "valley girl" because
When we meet Buffy in the series she has already been the slayer for a year and knows of what is out there. SMG does a magnificent job in making Buffy her OWN character rather than just replicating Swanson. Reading some of these responses I gather many of you didn't actually WATCH the show ( not saying this because I liked SMG better but some comments just don't make any sense what do ever) and/or didn't grasp how Buffy evolved since becoming the slayer.


FYI there is an origins episode in the series where SMG plays Buffy before she knows she is the slayer and she does a magnificent job.

reply

I'd agree with you except Buffy wasn't meant to be a complete ditz in the TV series. If she had been the series wouldn't have lasted so long, unless it had been formatted as a silly sitcom.

I do agree with you about Gellar as Daphne however. If 'Daphne Blake' had been portrayed as she is in the original animated show, as the ditzy rich girl contrast to Velma's plain Jane smart girl, Kristy Swanson would have been a better choice to play her.

reply

SMG is a pain in the ass to watch on the Buffy series. All poor me and oh I must cry at everything. I wanted Faith to kill her so much. Damn preppy cry baby who needs to get tough and stop crying about everything bad that is happening. All through the series it's like no angel is evil again, no I have to kill vampires, no spike is a pain in the ass, no no no. Just shut up and get tough. I understand how she is burdened by being the slayer, but dude I'm a woman and after awhile you need to stand up and not be afraid.

Kristy Swanson was great and can act a whole lot better then little cry baby. I liked how she went from a preppy bimbo type to a preppy wiser girl. More strong willed then cry baby.

reply

I don't ever remember Buffy being a "preppy cry baby". She had her moments where she showed emotional vulnerability, sure, but she was a bad-ass at least 90% of the time. Maybe you should watch the show again and take a closer look. If you think that Kristy Swanson is a better actress, you must not know anything about acting. If she's so good, how come she mainly ends up being in made for TV crap? At least SMG still has a decent acting career, most recently being the lead of the CW show Ringer.

reply

Just cause a person is on big budget *beep* doesn't make them a great actress. Look at all the preppy kids out there today.

reply

[deleted]

In the series:

Buffy dies twice. She is (literally) "ripped out of heaven" by her friends. She has to kill her lover to save the world from being sent to hell. She is beaten, stabbed, slashed, shot, deliberately made insane, can't save her mother from a banal death, gets raped by a former lover....

Toughen up, girl, indeed. Sheeeeesh!

reply