I've rated every ep - what do you think?

I was browsing through the archives here and had completely forgotten this thread

Me too.

Regarding my old episode list, it needs updating. I need to rate 'the body' higher (it's now my second favourite episode after 'restless'), and I now have a much higher regard for the angel s2 darla story-arc episodes too. I may even rate 'she' higher.

... did I really rate 'orpheus' a 9? It's mostly rubbish!

I've realised that I never actually laid out the criteria by which I arrive(d) at my marks. So, here are the things that influence my scores (for "Buffy", and for any other TV show/film), with the odd example thrown in for good measure.

This is a really great idea for a post, and should hopefully get some discussion going. If I may make a few comments-

What Makes a Good Buffy Episode?

Plot: What's the episode's story? The narrative should be interesting, make sense, and hold the viewer's attention throughout. Being unpredictable is also a positive, but any twists must be believable and not just there for cheap shocks. Many episodes lose out a little on this criterion, due to either having too little plot, propelling the story via constant coincidence, or being full of holes.

I basically feel the same way, though I don't mind coincidences too much.

Theme: Most "Buffy" episodes exist to communicate a specific message. So, what's the message, is it worth saying, and how well is it said?

For me, having any kind of theme or metaphor at all is a plus, even if it's told poorly.

I've seen so many tv shows where each episode is nothing more than 'defeat the villain of the week'.

Pacing: The episode's writer has 42 minutes to tell their story. Will they use that time to create something gripping, or something plodding and dull? "Lover's Walk", "Hush" and "Earshot" all win on pacing, as they incorporate a lot of content without ever feeling rushed. In contrast, most eps in S6 and S7 fail on this point as they unravel so incredibly slowly. There's nothing wrong with being relaxed or leisurely, but if your story is simple, economic writing is a must.

Poor pacing bothers me the most when it's season / story arc wise rather than episode-wise.

A story arc should not be made to last a season if it basically consists of nothing but a villains introduction ep, a villains defeat ep, and nothing inbetween. I've seen shows that have had entire seasons where you could skip everything between the first and last episodes of the season *coughsmallvillecough*. For the buffyverse though only btvs season 7 is really guilty of this, and I wouldn't have minded the slower pace if only we could have spend more time with the main characters during that time.

But after years of decent season-long pacing, it just makes s7 stand out more when it fails.

Humour/Wit: It goes without saying that if an episode is designated as comedic, it needs to be funny. However, dramatic episodes also need humour (to provide shelter for the audience - and if the writer is skilled enough, it can reflect and comment upon the drama, thus enhancing the heavier/more emotional parts). Humour was never really an issue before S5 - bar one or two, the comedy episodes were always funny, and even the darkest stories had lighter moments. Post"The Body", the show really started to struggle with jokes, either relying on constant repetition of things we'd heard before (Anya being socially inappropriate; the nerds making a pop culture reference) or introducing new elements that failed abysmally (the wedding party in "Hell's Bells").

For me, an episode doesn't have to make me laugh. Part of what I like about the show was that, whenever a character intentionally makes a funny comment, it isn't there purely to make the audience laugh, it's there to show that the character has a sense of humour, and as such I don't mind if the joke fails. I'm basically watching for the story/drama, and any time the show makes me laugh, it's a bonus.

That said, when a character or situation exists soley to be comic relief, and they're not funny, what you're left with is an annoying waste of time. Like most of 'hells bells'. Or cho-ann.

Character Development and Consistency: Characters should have clearly established personalities and behave within the confines of those personalities. They should grow and change as a result of their experiences, but this growth needs to be accompanied by a discernable, on-screen 'line of development' showing the audience how event 'Y' impacted character 'X' and modified their behaviour/attitude. If bizarre and/or inconsistent behaviour occurs, it needs to be explained by the plot (e.g. Buffy becoming crazy because Kathy was sucking her soul in "Living Conditions"). Inconsistency should not be handwaved with broad excuses ('well, X was angry/depressed/not thinking straight'), or the classic thought-terminator 'but that happens in real life!'

Agreed.

A big part of what I love about buffy/angel is how much the characters change and develop, I'd dare say these shows are among the best written shows I've seen in that regard, if not the best.

There have been a few instances of bad writing character-development-wise (spuffy springs to mind), but even when characters are taken in a direction I think they shouldn't, I still love the fact that the characters change at all.

Originality: It's hard to be 100% original, but new spins on old ideas are always welcome.

This is another area in which I'd say buffy and angel better than your average shows, even within the scifi/fantasy genre.

I'd say originality is a plus in general, though I wouldn't put it as one of my major criterea for making a good episode. Even an unoriginal story can be entertaining if the characters are engaging (or even better, if they are reacting to a situation differently than they did in a previous episode with the same story, since it gives us a chance to see how they've grown/changed).

Acting: As with humour, not really a problem until S5/S6. There were minor issues here and there (David Boreanaz in S1; occasional woodenness from Marc Blucas and Amber Benson in S4), but the acting of the core four and most of the supporting cast was almost always excellent. Michelle Tractenberg, Clare Kramer and Charlie Weber all hurt S5, but the real damage came in S6, when SMG stopped caring - and AH, NB and ASH all followed suit. By the end of S7, the only actor who wasn't doing a poor job was James Marsters.

Hmm, I didn't notice any especially poor acting in buffy or angel. Certainly compared to some other shows.

...Well except for clare kramer. She was terrible. But she was endearing with it, and playing a non-human character she made it work for me.

Make-up and Effects: A number of S1 eps (and most shows featuring the Oz-wolf) get pulled down by poor or unconvincing costuming, while the cool looks of monsters like Gnarl and the Gentlemen push their respective eps up. Not a huge factor, but one that ices the cake.

Has there ever been a good werewolf costume, even in movies?

Related to this, I've never liked the cgi on the show. Sometimes it works, like vampires turning into dust (or was that a practical effect?), but other occasions like the dead demons becoming blobs in 'life serial' just make me cringe.

And the council blowing up with a cgi explosion makes me hit fast-forward.

Camerawork and Cinematography: How is the episode filmed, blocked and lit? These factors were wonderfully handled throughout S1-4. In S5, the lighting got simpler and scenes became saturated with sickly yellow hues, and in S6/7 we started getting poorly composed shots, nighttime scenes where it was hard to see what was going on, glare - and worst of all, amateur jangly-cam ("Touched").

On angel too, the Camerawork/Cinematography seemed to peak at season 2 and go downhill (though it was never as bad as buffy s7).

I don't understand how a show can have it's lighting/sharpness deteriorate like that, unless maybe it was a budget cut that forced them to use substandard equipment.

Titillation: If all else fails, go for something that targets those base impulses: excellent fight choreography; explosions; attractive people not wearing much; sex scenes. Not the kinds of things that could ever make for great episodes, but they can make the difference between an unforgiveable episode and a merely poor one.

I personally would put fight choreography as more of a major factor than those others, but then, I'm a bit of a fight scene snob.

Buffy and angel have always had some of the best fight scenes I've seen on tv, now if only they'd be willing/allowed to show some blood I'd have no cause for complaints.

Add those together, and that's pretty much it, at least for me.

That's a very comprehensive list of criteria, good job!

Though if I may add two more of my own-

Crossovers- Maybe this counts as a base impulse, but I love seeing characters from one show appear on the other (when it's done well anyway). And I have to applaud any occasion where there is a crossover of story, as well as just characters.

Continuity- The more the better.

...So long as it's not overdone.

A lot of tv shows run out of ideas towards their final years, and try to bring in viewers by bringing back past characters, but s7's 'back to the beginning' theme is so blatant it almost excuses this. But still, did we really need to see the mayor again?

partcynic
RP Moderator

Posts: 14,392

I've rated every ep - what do you think? Jun 21, 2012 14:14:36 GMT -5

Quote

Post by partcynic on Jun 21, 2012 14:14:36 GMT -5

Regarding my old episode list, it needs updating [...] I now have a much higher regard for the angel s2 darla story-arc episodes too. I may even rate 'she' higher.

... did I really rate 'orpheus' a 9? It's mostly rubbish!

I'm happy to hear the Darla arc has grown on you. Those eps are my favourite "Angel" material, and some of the best done for either show. Also kind of pleased to hear about "She" - parts of it really suck (and it's obviously one of the weaker eps of S1), but some other stuff is thoughtful enough to raise it above the very worst of the series.

This is a really great idea for a post, and should hopefully get some discussion going.

Thanks. I'm surprised we never had this discussion before, since it's central to the whole rating and reviewing business.

For me, having any kind of theme or metaphor at all is a plus, even if it's told poorly.

I've seen so many tv shows where each episode is nothing more than 'defeat the villain of the week'.

That's a good point. Even if it's bad, it's good to know there was some thought behind the final product. That said, because my ratings are a "Buffy"-only scale (and if I ever get round to it, "Angel"-only scale), I don't really factor my opinions of other TV shows into it. I figure most other programmes would average around the 1 or 2 mark, meaning that I'd end up having the give almost all the "Buffy"-s 7+ scores.

Poor pacing bothers me the most when it's season / story arc wise rather than episode-wise.

Yeah - the two things feed into each other. If your season arc is slowly paced, then the episodes relating to it are likely to be accordingly plodding.

That said, when a character or situation exists soley to be comic relief, and they're not funny, what you're left with is an annoying waste of time. Like most of 'hells bells'. Or cho-ann.

Agreed.

A big part of what I love about buffy/angel is how much the characters change and develop, I'd dare say these shows are among the best written shows I've seen in that regard, if not the best.

There have been a few instances of bad writing character-development-wise (spuffy springs to mind), but even when characters are taken in a direction I think they shouldn't, I still love the fact that the characters change at all.

Yes! This is certainly one of the things that held/holds my continued interest in the show. It also really helps that most of the character slips are confined to the last couple of seasons - the only really egregious one from the high school years is "Dead Man's Party".

Hmm, I didn't notice any especially poor acting in buffy or angel. Certainly compared to some other shows.

...Well except for clare kramer. She was terrible. But she was endearing with it, and playing a non-human character she made it work for me.

The core group is usually very good. The first time I saw major character (excluding Dawn) acting that made me cringe was in "Grave". Alyson looks pained by her horrid dialogue and SMG half-asses her 'I wanna see you grow up!' speech.

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who has issues with Clare Kramer. She was nicely threatening in "Intervention" and "Tough Love", but the rest is mostly horrible. Glory comes across as smart and powerful when reading the shooting scripts for early/mid-S5, but CK's acting means that none of it is apparent on screen. She way overdid the shrieky ditz part of the character, and omitted most of the bite.

Has there ever been a good werewolf costume, even in movies?

Touche!

Related to this, I've never liked the cgi on the show. Sometimes it works, like vampires turning into dust (or was that a practical effect?), but other occasions like the dead demons becoming blobs in 'life serial' just make me cringe.

And the council blowing up with a cgi explosion makes me hit fast-forward.

I've always thought the CGI was decent for TV FX circa 1996-2003, but the two examples you list are definitely amongst the worst stuff they did.

On angel too, the Camerawork/Cinematography seemed to peak at season 2 and go downhill (though it was never as bad as buffy s7).

I don't understand how a show can have it's lighting/sharpness deteriorate like that, unless maybe it was a budget cut that forced them to use substandard equipment.

Not sure about "Angel", but I think that Joss pulled Michael Gershman (the director of photography for S2-4 and bits of S5, possibly S1 too) from "Buffy" to "Firefly" when that launched - explaining why the visual quality suddenly dropped. I think budget cuts were part of it, too - I'm rewatching S5 now, and so much of the lighting is terrible. Everyone looks jaundiced, and the standard nighttime scenes have the same look as the climax of "Helpless", which was deliberately underlit to create tension.

Buffy and angel have always had some of the best fight scenes I've seen on tv, now if only they'd be willing/allowed to show some blood I'd have no cause for complaints.

Definitely. The one thing I can hand-on-heart say I liked throughout the show's run was the fight choreography.

That's a very comprehensive list of criteria, good job!

Cheers! I agree with you about Crossovers and Continuity, though I would be tempted to include the former under the 'base impulse' category (as you suggested) and Continuity as equal parts of plot, theme and character development/consistency.

A lot of tv shows run out of ideas towards their final years, and try to bring in viewers by bringing back past characters, but s7's 'back to the beginning' theme is so blatant it almost excuses this. But still, did we really need to see the mayor again?

No, we didn't! It at least made sense when the First appeared to Faith as the Mayor, but the "Lessons" scene with Spike just didn't work at all.

cyclica
Slayer

Posts: 15,389

I've rated every ep - what do you think? Jun 25, 2012 14:45:27 GMT -5

Quote

Post by cyclica on Jun 25, 2012 14:45:27 GMT -5

Also kind of pleased to hear about "She" - parts of it really suck (and it's obviously one of the weaker eps of S1), but some other stuff is thoughtful enough to raise it above the very worst of the series.

I still find She to be one of the worst, if not the worst episode, I just don't find it that bad anymore (or deep down either). I guess I don't really hate any angel episodes anymore... though I've lost a bit of respect / patience for the angelus scenes in s4.

Then you've got those eps like Orpheus and Damage which are part terrible and part awesome, making them hard to rank.

I figure most other programmes would average around the 1 or 2 mark, meaning that I'd end up having the give almost all the "Buffy" -s 7+ scores.

^ That's a little harsh. I love btvs and ats but I wouldn't consider them miles and miles above most other tv shows. I'd like to give shows I haven't seen the benefit of the doubt, even if the adverts didn't look all that great.

Btw, slightly off topic, but have you ever watched farscape? It's the only show I regard in equal quality to buffy and angel, and hold to the same standards. It had a somewhat rocky first season and some dodgy special effects, but beyond that I always think of it as being on par with buffy and angel, certainly when it comes to character development and ongoing storylines (though I suppose it's too different a show to really compare).

The core group is usually very good. The first time I saw major character (excluding Dawn) acting that made me cringe was in "Grave". Alyson looks pained by her horrid dialogue and SMG half-asses her 'I wanna see you grow up!' speech.

The only time I had a real problem with any of the mains was buffy in Gone, though that was more the voice-over than the actual acting.

Continuity as equal parts of plot, theme and character development/consistency.

I guess you're right. I tend to think of continuity seperately, even though it is covered by the other 'sections'.

the "Lessons" scene with Spike just didn't work at all.

It didn't make sense story-wise, but I loved it on it's own. Can a single scene be regarded as a guilty pleasure?

partcynic
RP Moderator

Posts: 14,392

I've rated every ep - what do you think? Jun 30, 2012 5:53:09 GMT -5

Quote

Post by partcynic on Jun 30, 2012 5:53:09 GMT -5

I still find She to be one of the worst, if not the worst episode, I just don't find it that bad anymore (or deep down either). I guess I don't really hate any angel episodes anymore... though I've lost a bit of respect / patience for the angelus scenes in s4.

Then you've got those eps like Orpheus and Damage which are part terrible and part awesome, making them hard to rank.

Fair enough. I'd personally give "She" a 4, putting it above all but 3 or 4 eps from "Angel" S3, and equal to most of S4 and S5. "Damage" is down there (maybe a 3), and "Orpheus" somewhere in the middle.

That's a little harsh. I love btvs and ats but I wouldn't consider them miles and miles above most other tv shows. I'd like to give shows I haven't seen the benefit of the doubt, even if the adverts didn't look all that great.

Btw, slightly off topic, but have you ever watched farscape? It's the only show I regard in equal quality to buffy and angel, and hold to the same standards. It had a somewhat rocky first season and some dodgy special effects, but beyond that I always think of it as being on par with buffy and angel, certainly when it comes to character development and ongoing storylines (though I suppose it's too different a show to really compare).

I tend to subscribe to Sturgeon's law here - 90% of any medium is garbage, and even those that start well will almost inevitably become garbage (as we saw with "Buffy", and I would say with "Angel" too). While I don't think "Buffy" is the absolute pinnacle, there's certainly very little on TV that can touch S1-4 (when taken as a group). The main issue is that very few shows can withstand critical analysis, and it's the ones that can that I tend to gravitate towards - especially now that scripted works have been eroded by reality television.

I haven't ever seen Farscape, but I have heard consistently good things about it, though.

The only time I had a real problem with any of the mains was buffy in Gone, though that was more the voice-over than the actual acting.

I think that the voice track in "Gone" was badly recorded and mixed, as it doesn't sound like Buffy is actually present in her scenes. It's weird given that they got it right with Marcie on a smaller budget.

It didn't make sense story-wise, but I loved it on it's own. Can a single scene be regarded as a guilty pleasure?

Sure, why not?

In S7, you have to take all the pleasure you can find.

***
From the earlier post:

Regarding my old episode list, it needs updating. I need to rate 'the body' higher (it's now my second favourite episode after 'restless')

I've been doing a "Buffy" rewatch, and just saw "The Body" yesterday. I think it might actually drop in my ratings (only by a point though - its acting and construction remains brilliant). If I'm criticising most of S6 and S7 for being slow-paced slabs of plotless emoting, it's only fair that their parent episode also takes a hit. "OMWF" will probably go down too, but aside from those, it looks like everything else will remain where it is.

That said, I kind of want to push the Dark Willow eps up for being entertaining despite their stupidity, but if the coming viewing is anything like the last few, I won't find them entertaining at all.

cyclica
Slayer

Posts: 15,389

I've rated every ep - what do you think? Jun 30, 2012 14:39:10 GMT -5

Quote

Post by cyclica on Jun 30, 2012 14:39:10 GMT -5

Fair enough. I'd personally give "She" a 4, putting it above all but 3 or 4 eps from "Angel" S3, and equal to most of S4 and S5.

Wow I didn't realise you disliked s3 onwards so much (or maybe I just forgot). Would you be interested in having a discussion about angel s3, maybe starting a new thread?

I haven't ever seen Farscape, but I have heard consistently good things about it, though.

I'd recommend checking it out.

Sure, why not?

In S7, you have to take all the pleasure you can find.

In that case, I choose to enjoy the scene of giles just about to be hit in the head with an axe, while ignoring the parts of that story before and after it.