P.S.: It's so weird to see an essay in 2025 that just... takes for granted that Joss Whedon is a genius! Because like... he's not a great *guy,* to put it mildly, and I definitely don't like how deified he was back in the '00s. But he absolutely belongs on a Mount Rushmore of 21st century television, and his filmography is better than people give him credit for, and yes I'm including the MCU crap in this analysis. (This observation brought to you from the woman who just saw "Flight Risk," which is just "Speed" minus all the "oh, this was *definitely* co-written by Joss" tics, and predictably kind of bad!)
Ultimately what bothers people about him, I think, is that he's a talented writer on the progressive/left end of the political spectrum *and* a sleazy asshole, and a lot of people on the progressive/left end of the political spectrum would like to think that precludes them from being sleazy assholes. (Or even just, like... a good person period.) Which motivates people to claim that, actually, he's a no-talent hack whose scripts are wall-to-wall unfunny quips (blame Kevin Feige for that!), or a Weinstein-level sex predator (he's more of a Scott Rudin - not that I'm excusing him, but c'mon now), or even worse - a neoliberal!!!1 (Which is hilarious in the context of "Not Fade Away," where Angel all but turns to the camera and says "reformism is bad, let's kill some billionaires!")
"I think, is that he's a talented writer on the progressive/left end of the political spectrum *and* a sleazy asshole, and a lot of people on the progressive/left end of the political spectrum would like to think that precludes them from being sleazy assholes. (Or even just, like... a good person period.)"
I really think this is part of it. I've been thinking about this a lot because of my own experiences with men who undeniably were progressive, went against their traditional/oppressive upbringing, and were still absolutely horrible to deal with on a personal level. These people exist. James Cameron is kind of like this too, I think, at least from what I've read, but he's more straightforward about being an asshole, so there was never a big reveal.
I've waited for this essay for months, and it did not disappoint - I got into Buffy long after the show ended and thus missed out on all this fan "lore."
I'm fascinated by the "desegregation" reading on Spuffy, mostly because around the same time that discourse was brewing on Buffy Prime, there was literally an interracial relationship on Angel - and as far as I can tell, the fans were mostly rooting *against* the Fred/Gunn pairing! I don't think it's bizarre to consider anti-vampire bigotry as a racial metaphor in the context of Angel, which invited that sort of analysis (e.g. "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been," my pick for the best episode of the show, explicitly positions half-human/half-vampire Angel as a "tragic mulatto;" the Kate episodes had some pretty obvious post-Rodney King anxiety), but I... don't think fandom really partook in that kind of analysis when it wasn't backing up their ship.
On the topic of the revival and "how many Danas are there?" - this is more or less exactly the premise of "The Nevers," the show Joss Whedon created for HBO a few years ago (which was then unceremoniously dumped on Tubi for tax writeoffs, lmao). Which I thought was very good and interesting, for what it's worth - but understandably, no critic in 2021 was going to stick out their neck and say "wow, I'm so pumped for this cool new Joss Whedon show!"
"there was literally an interracial relationship on Angel - and as far as I can tell, the fans were mostly rooting *against* the Fred/Gunn pairing! I don't think it's bizarre to consider anti-vampire bigotry as a racial metaphor in the context of Angel, which invited that sort of analysis"
You may be pleased to hear that a shipper poll on a forum had "Frunn" winning by a wide margin over "Fresley" when it came to preferences! There's also 1x09, with the genocidal nazi troops, and Doyle as a well-meaning half-demon certainly added depth to that perspective. And Connor's whole thing, him existing in the first place but also his hatred for everything demon that ended up being challenged as the show progressed. Angel was much more nuanced when it came to their portrayal of demons, I think I buy the differentiation that it's more adult in that sense, whereas Buffy stuck with the coming of age oversimplification of good and bad. Fans can be incredibly selective in what they pick up on and choose to champion. Another thing I didn't have space for was the inconsistent problem with age gaps--literally no-one has a problem with Anya having 1000+ years on Xander. Because no one really had a competing ship they prefer. And I've seen people invent/exaggerate an age gap between Fred/Wesley to make that pairing morally wrong.
I never did watch The Nevers, but your description has sold me on it! I'll have to check it out.
I loved reading this. It was refreshing to delve into an examination that wasn’t trying to revisit the past from a social justice perspective or to dredge over the animosities between the cast and crew now, but instead to remember what it was like to be a fan at the time.
I was all in when it came to Buffy. I travelled to London to watch James Marsters live in concert, twice! It doesn’t offend me that people are now investigating what happened behind the scenes and speaking up about things they didn’t dare speak of at the time, but it bothers me that there’s so little leeway given to people whose lives the series changed. It’s hard to recapture that same passion when so much modern discourse seems focused on retrospectively demonstrating where all the bodies are buried. In an ideal world both could coexist. People could accuse Whedon of his crimes whilst acknowledging that the cast and crew achieved alchemy and made something bigger than the sun of its parts.
There was very much a vibe of Europeans who’d travelled to London to throw their underwear at him while he raised his eyebrows and sang songs about swimming up their streams!
My wife and I are longtime BUFFY watchers. I love the show dearly, and never knew anything about almost every paragraph on this post.
I'm way behind on these topics, so forgive a banal comment, but I was so disappointed in TED LASSO. LASSO was great for a season but then every character became good or understandable: there were no antagonists. It seemed like they started making LASSO for fans who all loved every character.
How wonderful that Joss Whedon read what the fans wanted -- and refused to honor their hyper-banal requests! Fans are dumb. Never listen to the fans. BUFFY went on too long but the big needle drops of plot were never the problem, the show just ran out of gas, and no wonder, there were 144 episodes for goodness sakes. Whedon was already my hero, and I respect him even more having read this page.
That makes me so happy to hear! I live for digging out stuff that's been forgotten or pushed aside, so I'm glad much of this was new to you.
I think a lot of shows suffer from that Lasso problem, especially lately. I know audience capture is a term used for journalism, but it feels like it applies to these types of creative projects as well. I always respected that Whedon went all in with his plots and rarely dragged anything out--and yes, it must've taken some fortitude to be exposed to people's wishes (and demands) and not bow to them.
Oh, you brought back lots of memories: at the time “Buffy” started, I was working for several movie magazines, and got to deal with the repercussions of ANY commentary, positive or negative, whenever I went to a convention to promote those magazines. Your assessment about not wanting to have been a fan back then and looking askance at the proposed revival also hit a nerve, because those are pretty much my views on the much-hyped revival of “Babylon 5.”
What: other than being threatened with a stomping on an elevator solely for my association with a magazine that MIGHT have said something bad? (To be fair, that was a regular occurrence back then: I know old-school fans who still talk about punching out Norman Spinrad for daring to write a negative review of “Return of the Jedi” in “Starlog” in 1983.)
Great job here - the writing was perfect, and the thinking was clear. I was a fan till Buffy took the dive ending in her second death. Her comeback from that was a bridge too far for me. There's been a lot of talk not too long ago about Whedon sexually harassing the actors - a lot of insinuation and really no details, but I'd have thought that would end any chance of a sequel series, and, I don't know, but aren't vampires passe these days?
You're talking about the new series? That sent me back to the book, which I've been reading all night, and it's even better than I remembered it. Have you read it? If you're so inclined, you can read it here: https://novel12.com/interview-with-the-vampire/chapter-1-73628.htm
1: Jamie Kellner coming up is hilarious, and a name I didn't think I'd read about outside of wrestling circles. As head of Turner Broadcasting, he cancelled World Championship Wrestling from Turner networks; the company was hemorrhaging money, but Kellner's decision to cancel its TV slot basically meant it was worthless to anyone who wanted to buy it. From 2001 to like 2019 there wouldn't be a capable competitor to the WWE because of him, and WWE got to snap up the WCW trademarks and tape library for like $2 million (basically nothing).
2: I wonder how much of the Spike sympathy and associated pseudo-racism discussion would've happened if he wasn't "hot." This isn't a gotcha or anything because it's a pretty big "duh" but I kind of just thought "huh, maybe for some people that not happening would've kept them (or delayed them) from getting involved with social issues entirely."
3: I'm always interested in how the Buffy fandom felt about the "official Season 8" being in comic book form. I want to say this was one of the first times a non-comic property launched a comic with the purpose of perpetuating the canon/storylines, instead of starting over fresh or being an adaptation.
Kellner as the villain for multiple fanbases, checks out!
Marsters being hot is 100% part of the reason why people were so invested in his character. The same seems to apply to Wesley who often shares a fanbase and also has a very dark, involved character development. I found a LOT of Spike fans who only liked him when he was a broody sexy guy though, which was so weird to me. Like in s4--he *makes* that season, but because he was being goofy a lot of the Spike-heads absolutely hated it. Very strange to observe.
So, I honestly didn't see much talk about the Buffy comics in the forums. I think Angel's s6 comics was brought up more because that show was actually cancelled, so it was basically what could have been, whereas Buffy had a closed book type of ending. I've read up on some of the plots and it's absolutely bananas what they did in the Buffy comics, so I'm definitely not interested in them whatsoever--but there is a part of the fandom that considers them canon.
P.S.: It's so weird to see an essay in 2025 that just... takes for granted that Joss Whedon is a genius! Because like... he's not a great *guy,* to put it mildly, and I definitely don't like how deified he was back in the '00s. But he absolutely belongs on a Mount Rushmore of 21st century television, and his filmography is better than people give him credit for, and yes I'm including the MCU crap in this analysis. (This observation brought to you from the woman who just saw "Flight Risk," which is just "Speed" minus all the "oh, this was *definitely* co-written by Joss" tics, and predictably kind of bad!)
Ultimately what bothers people about him, I think, is that he's a talented writer on the progressive/left end of the political spectrum *and* a sleazy asshole, and a lot of people on the progressive/left end of the political spectrum would like to think that precludes them from being sleazy assholes. (Or even just, like... a good person period.) Which motivates people to claim that, actually, he's a no-talent hack whose scripts are wall-to-wall unfunny quips (blame Kevin Feige for that!), or a Weinstein-level sex predator (he's more of a Scott Rudin - not that I'm excusing him, but c'mon now), or even worse - a neoliberal!!!1 (Which is hilarious in the context of "Not Fade Away," where Angel all but turns to the camera and says "reformism is bad, let's kill some billionaires!")
"I think, is that he's a talented writer on the progressive/left end of the political spectrum *and* a sleazy asshole, and a lot of people on the progressive/left end of the political spectrum would like to think that precludes them from being sleazy assholes. (Or even just, like... a good person period.)"
I really think this is part of it. I've been thinking about this a lot because of my own experiences with men who undeniably were progressive, went against their traditional/oppressive upbringing, and were still absolutely horrible to deal with on a personal level. These people exist. James Cameron is kind of like this too, I think, at least from what I've read, but he's more straightforward about being an asshole, so there was never a big reveal.
I've waited for this essay for months, and it did not disappoint - I got into Buffy long after the show ended and thus missed out on all this fan "lore."
I'm fascinated by the "desegregation" reading on Spuffy, mostly because around the same time that discourse was brewing on Buffy Prime, there was literally an interracial relationship on Angel - and as far as I can tell, the fans were mostly rooting *against* the Fred/Gunn pairing! I don't think it's bizarre to consider anti-vampire bigotry as a racial metaphor in the context of Angel, which invited that sort of analysis (e.g. "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been," my pick for the best episode of the show, explicitly positions half-human/half-vampire Angel as a "tragic mulatto;" the Kate episodes had some pretty obvious post-Rodney King anxiety), but I... don't think fandom really partook in that kind of analysis when it wasn't backing up their ship.
On the topic of the revival and "how many Danas are there?" - this is more or less exactly the premise of "The Nevers," the show Joss Whedon created for HBO a few years ago (which was then unceremoniously dumped on Tubi for tax writeoffs, lmao). Which I thought was very good and interesting, for what it's worth - but understandably, no critic in 2021 was going to stick out their neck and say "wow, I'm so pumped for this cool new Joss Whedon show!"
"there was literally an interracial relationship on Angel - and as far as I can tell, the fans were mostly rooting *against* the Fred/Gunn pairing! I don't think it's bizarre to consider anti-vampire bigotry as a racial metaphor in the context of Angel, which invited that sort of analysis"
You may be pleased to hear that a shipper poll on a forum had "Frunn" winning by a wide margin over "Fresley" when it came to preferences! There's also 1x09, with the genocidal nazi troops, and Doyle as a well-meaning half-demon certainly added depth to that perspective. And Connor's whole thing, him existing in the first place but also his hatred for everything demon that ended up being challenged as the show progressed. Angel was much more nuanced when it came to their portrayal of demons, I think I buy the differentiation that it's more adult in that sense, whereas Buffy stuck with the coming of age oversimplification of good and bad. Fans can be incredibly selective in what they pick up on and choose to champion. Another thing I didn't have space for was the inconsistent problem with age gaps--literally no-one has a problem with Anya having 1000+ years on Xander. Because no one really had a competing ship they prefer. And I've seen people invent/exaggerate an age gap between Fred/Wesley to make that pairing morally wrong.
I never did watch The Nevers, but your description has sold me on it! I'll have to check it out.
I loved reading this. It was refreshing to delve into an examination that wasn’t trying to revisit the past from a social justice perspective or to dredge over the animosities between the cast and crew now, but instead to remember what it was like to be a fan at the time.
I was all in when it came to Buffy. I travelled to London to watch James Marsters live in concert, twice! It doesn’t offend me that people are now investigating what happened behind the scenes and speaking up about things they didn’t dare speak of at the time, but it bothers me that there’s so little leeway given to people whose lives the series changed. It’s hard to recapture that same passion when so much modern discourse seems focused on retrospectively demonstrating where all the bodies are buried. In an ideal world both could coexist. People could accuse Whedon of his crimes whilst acknowledging that the cast and crew achieved alchemy and made something bigger than the sun of its parts.
Thank you so much!
I'm jealous that you got to see JM perform, that must've been a real treat!
There was very much a vibe of Europeans who’d travelled to London to throw their underwear at him while he raised his eyebrows and sang songs about swimming up their streams!
That does not surprise me at all, I have heard some pretty wild stories from the con circuit!
My wife and I are longtime BUFFY watchers. I love the show dearly, and never knew anything about almost every paragraph on this post.
I'm way behind on these topics, so forgive a banal comment, but I was so disappointed in TED LASSO. LASSO was great for a season but then every character became good or understandable: there were no antagonists. It seemed like they started making LASSO for fans who all loved every character.
How wonderful that Joss Whedon read what the fans wanted -- and refused to honor their hyper-banal requests! Fans are dumb. Never listen to the fans. BUFFY went on too long but the big needle drops of plot were never the problem, the show just ran out of gas, and no wonder, there were 144 episodes for goodness sakes. Whedon was already my hero, and I respect him even more having read this page.
That makes me so happy to hear! I live for digging out stuff that's been forgotten or pushed aside, so I'm glad much of this was new to you.
I think a lot of shows suffer from that Lasso problem, especially lately. I know audience capture is a term used for journalism, but it feels like it applies to these types of creative projects as well. I always respected that Whedon went all in with his plots and rarely dragged anything out--and yes, it must've taken some fortitude to be exposed to people's wishes (and demands) and not bow to them.
oh and I meant to write more simply: THANK YOU for a great post!
Oh, you brought back lots of memories: at the time “Buffy” started, I was working for several movie magazines, and got to deal with the repercussions of ANY commentary, positive or negative, whenever I went to a convention to promote those magazines. Your assessment about not wanting to have been a fan back then and looking askance at the proposed revival also hit a nerve, because those are pretty much my views on the much-hyped revival of “Babylon 5.”
Oooh, if you want to share any particular stories, I'd love to hear them!
What: other than being threatened with a stomping on an elevator solely for my association with a magazine that MIGHT have said something bad? (To be fair, that was a regular occurrence back then: I know old-school fans who still talk about punching out Norman Spinrad for daring to write a negative review of “Return of the Jedi” in “Starlog” in 1983.)
Great job here - the writing was perfect, and the thinking was clear. I was a fan till Buffy took the dive ending in her second death. Her comeback from that was a bridge too far for me. There's been a lot of talk not too long ago about Whedon sexually harassing the actors - a lot of insinuation and really no details, but I'd have thought that would end any chance of a sequel series, and, I don't know, but aren't vampires passe these days?
Ah, but the new Interview With The Vampire is doing so well!
You're talking about the new series? That sent me back to the book, which I've been reading all night, and it's even better than I remembered it. Have you read it? If you're so inclined, you can read it here: https://novel12.com/interview-with-the-vampire/chapter-1-73628.htm
I swear it's coming soon because I'm dying to discuss Firefly next.
Great piece, as always. A couple things:
1: Jamie Kellner coming up is hilarious, and a name I didn't think I'd read about outside of wrestling circles. As head of Turner Broadcasting, he cancelled World Championship Wrestling from Turner networks; the company was hemorrhaging money, but Kellner's decision to cancel its TV slot basically meant it was worthless to anyone who wanted to buy it. From 2001 to like 2019 there wouldn't be a capable competitor to the WWE because of him, and WWE got to snap up the WCW trademarks and tape library for like $2 million (basically nothing).
2: I wonder how much of the Spike sympathy and associated pseudo-racism discussion would've happened if he wasn't "hot." This isn't a gotcha or anything because it's a pretty big "duh" but I kind of just thought "huh, maybe for some people that not happening would've kept them (or delayed them) from getting involved with social issues entirely."
3: I'm always interested in how the Buffy fandom felt about the "official Season 8" being in comic book form. I want to say this was one of the first times a non-comic property launched a comic with the purpose of perpetuating the canon/storylines, instead of starting over fresh or being an adaptation.
Kellner as the villain for multiple fanbases, checks out!
Marsters being hot is 100% part of the reason why people were so invested in his character. The same seems to apply to Wesley who often shares a fanbase and also has a very dark, involved character development. I found a LOT of Spike fans who only liked him when he was a broody sexy guy though, which was so weird to me. Like in s4--he *makes* that season, but because he was being goofy a lot of the Spike-heads absolutely hated it. Very strange to observe.
So, I honestly didn't see much talk about the Buffy comics in the forums. I think Angel's s6 comics was brought up more because that show was actually cancelled, so it was basically what could have been, whereas Buffy had a closed book type of ending. I've read up on some of the plots and it's absolutely bananas what they did in the Buffy comics, so I'm definitely not interested in them whatsoever--but there is a part of the fandom that considers them canon.