‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer’ Changed The World. Now What?

Sarah Michelle Gellar’s revival of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, the show that ushered in her ascent to stardom and created a voracious fandom that still can’t believe it’s over, is dead at Hulu. Nathan and Gita sat down to talk about what the show means to them both, and what, if anything, they would have wanted from a reboot.

Nathan Grayson: Hey Gita, seeing as it is Woke Week on Aftermath, and Buffy The Vampire Slayer is obviously the wokest show of all time (created by an abusive white guy and a bunch of vastly more talented writers and actors), now feels like as good of a time as any to reflect on its television-reshaping highs and lows. It’s also been an eventful time in the Buffyverse, with Sarah Michelle Gellar and Chloe Zhao’s sequel series getting canned and Nicholas Brendan, the actor who played Xander, passing. How do you feel about the former? Is there a good way to resurrect Buffy in this day and age, or is it probably for the best that that Hellmouth of worms remains closed for now?

Gita Jackson: Here's the thing: when I met my husband, a lot of our early dates were us getting super stoned and watching Star Trek episodes that he thought were particularly good. I tried to do this for him with Buffy, and other than “Band Candy” and the one where Cordelia wishes that Buffy never came to Sunnydale, showing David Buffy episodes was not nearly as much fun. It made me really consider if we, as a culture, are well and truly done with what made Buffy such an incredible TV show as it was airing (and for a decade or so after).

Nathan: What do you think that specific thing was? What are we done with that makes the show difficult to return to now?

Gita: Buffy was made as a response to the television environment it was born into. At that time, shows about teenage girls that took their concerns seriously—and gave them struggles beyond going to prom—were pretty much non-existent. Adding that Buffy was a genre show, which was a hard sell on television at the time, it’s a miracle this thing even got made.

But that was then. Now, the teen drama television show, pioneered by the WB and UPN, the network that aired Buffy, has taken off. There are a lot more women on television in general, and a lot more stories about teen girls. I would even say in the writing department, Gossip Girl gives Buffy a run for its money in terms of witticisms and dramatic turns. Even science fiction has become a more accessible genre for TV viewers. I mean, Stranger Things combines so many of the elements I just talked about and it was a smash hit for Netflix for like, ten years. Buffy was a show that was intended to change the world, and then it did that. So why did Sarah Michelle Gellar want to do a remake?

Nathan: It's a great question, especially given how hesitant she’d been to reprise the role of Buffy previously. And based on the leaked script—which she has admittedly cautioned fans against taking as gospel, given that pilots are subject to change—it seems like what she and others involved arrived at was a pretty hamfisted attempt at modernizing the concept of a Slayer. Tbh I’m just gonna let the script speak for itself here:

The original Buffy paved the way for TV to explore a lot of “woke” themes—before that term had entered mainstream parlance—but this just seems like it’s playing catch up (and embarrassing itself in the process).

Gita: Yeah, apparently this script got better after rewrites. But OOF.

It makes me wonder—what WOULD you want from a Buffy remake? Any new swings at the idea of the Slayer that would make you tune in?

Nathan: Honestly, I'm not sure! I think for me, Buffy is a time capsule, and that's part of what I enjoy about it even now. Watching the early seasons feels like going to a high school I could have attended (albeit without all the monsters), sans phones, social media, and other modern concerns. This is the definition of nostalgia, but sometimes it's nice to return to a familiar place that we can no longer access physically.

I think what I'd be most interested in is a version of what we already got, except NOT piloted by a wormy little tyrant—a version of Angel, for example, that didn't totally fuck over Cordelia and actually gave her character the arc and ending she deserved. But all of that is in the past now. It can't be undone. (That said #justiceforcordelia)

Gita: If Cordelia Chase has no defenders, I am dead.

For the most part I agree with you. It’s okay, I think, for a show to just be over, to let its narrative rest and the wheels finally stop spinning. I love the idea of leaving Buffy in the last moments of the show, overlooking the remains of the Hellmouth, because that means her life as the Slayer is basically over. If there was more show, then she’d have to get back to work again. Let her be…. Close-ish to happy! For once!

There was exactly one narrative decision I liked in the proposed Buffy show: Buffy is no longer a Slayer and now works as a thoroughly boring insurance agency. She has no notoriety or destiny, and no one knows who she is. That, to me, is the fate she deserves. Why ruin that by giving her a problem to solve?

Nathan: Right! On the whole, both Buffy and Angel actually stuck their landings pretty well. Sure, Angel ends on a cliffhanger, but it’s so representative of what that show was about: the main characters facing down impossible odds, understanding that doom almost certainly awaits, and choosing to stand side by side as a massively dysfunctional supernatural family and fight anyway. It’s difficult to imagine a better conclusion (and believe me, the very, very bad comics tried).

Speaking of: Buffy or Angel?

Gita: Personally I am an Angel person. Besides the bizarre season where Cordelia turns evil, it’s got a lot less of the typical Whedon Brand Bullshit that I find annoying about Buffy. Buffy has this incredible five season run where four of those five seasons are just phenomenal, and then Whedon starts doing that thing where he just tortures the characters for basically no reason other than he believes that happiness is antithetical to compelling storytelling. Seasons six and seven are the absolute nadir of that storytelling frame: Willow is a drug addict! Xander left at the altar! Buffy has an even more pronounced death wish because she actually died and wants to go back.

The seasons of Angel that are good are also just much more rewatchable to me. I love a good Los Angeles noir thriller, I love Cordelia, and at the very least Wesley Wyndham Price getting his balls smashed so hard every week that he becomes an angst ridden mess is more funny to me than watching a bunch of young women learn that nothing good will ever happen to them.

How about you?

Nathan: I wasn't sold on Angel after a friend forced me to sit through season one in college, but after that it really finds its footing (at least, until season four, lol) and surpasses Buffy, for sure. The characters grow and evolve in such satisfying ways, and whereas Buffy tried to make Angel a tragic, unattainable love interest, Angel (the show) realizes he’s at his best when everyone is giving him shit. It’s often surprisingly funny, but with a darker tone that makes the humorous moments stand out more. Also, one of its central locations was a karaoke bar, so I’m basically obligated to love it.

Season five of Angel is my favorite Buffy anything.

What a comeback after the cauldron of misery that was season four.

Gita: Season five of Angel has puppets. What more could you want? But someday, I do hope to take my husband through the cathartic and messy season 5 of Buffy, the series finale that the show truly should have had.

It's the kind of television writing that you can see in the blueprints of everyone’s favorite shows nowadays. There’s a reason why Whedon was once admired for his craft. The long term, episode by episode plotting is just exquisite.

Nathan: If an alien ever gets stranded on earth, and I'm tasked with introducing it to the concept of television, I will show it the puppet episode of Angel.

And then it will probably be even more confused.