As an analytical sort of person, I sometimes pose questions to myself that other, less analytical people, wouldn’t waste a second considering. Would it save driving time if I only chose routes that did not require making a left turn? Could a baseball team win using essentially only relievers and no starters, that is putting a three inning cap on how long any pitcher would be left in the game? There are no answers, although I suspect the most likely answers are a) not significantly and b) no, but wait a few years.
One debate I’ve had with myself for several years now is the question: which TV show is better, the first 5 seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or the entire 5 season run of its spin-off, Angel? The general rule of thumb is that spin-offs and sequels rarely surpass their origins, but there are exceptions. The Empire Strikes Back is generally considered to be better than Star Wars (Okay, A New Hope); Aliens is considered better than Alien. Um, can I say Good Times was better than Maude?
I am limiting the comparison to the first 5 seasons of Buffy and not the show’s entire run for two reasons. First, comparing the same number of seasons seems fairer than letting Buffy have the benefit of an additional two seasons of product (although the comparison isn’t exact as Buffy’s first season was truncated, so we’re comparing 110 episodes of Angel to 101 episodes of season 1-5 Buffy). The more important reason is that seasons 6 and 7 of Buffy seriously sucked, so if I were taking an average episode rating those seasons would pull the Buffy average WAY down.
Obviously, given the entwined nature of the two shows, with shared writers, actors, and producers, they have a lot in common. Both had relatively weak first seasons, although this is easier to forgive for Buffy as it was starting de novo, while Angel should have hit the ground running but took a while to find its footing. Both employed an episodic format but had seasonal arcs. Both tended to push the envelope of TV standards and practices in terms of subject matter and violence, although in retrospect these incidents seem trite compared to what’s allowed on network TV today.
During some down time I went back and re-read a couple of episode guides I had for both series, and decided to revisit the question of which show was better. I COULD re-watch every episode of both series (I own them on DVD), but I have a life. I did selectively go through my Angel DVDs, viewing a little more than half of the episodes in all 5 seasons (more in season 4, which was highly serialized). My conclusion is that Angel was the superior show by a nose.
I will concede that Buffy hit higher highs than Angel. Buffy had a number of classic episodes, including the Emmy nominated Hush, the controversial Earshot (delayed for broadcast for several months after the Columbine shooting), and the spectacular end to season 3, Graduation Day. Angel never quite reached those heights, although Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been and Smile Time do rate as classics.
Of course if you have higher highs, you also tend to have lower lows. Buffy had a small number of klunkers, but they are there. Angel had bad episodes too, but they can be somewhat forgiven because a) they usually fit into a seasonal arc whose overall quality made you accept some less-than-great story telling in service of the greater arc; and b) the episode that failed were usually trying to be a little more ambitious than the format or budget was capable of. Angel produced a few cringe-inducing episodes during the season 4 arc, but given that they were dealing with an honest-to-goodness apocalypse you can get through them for the greater good. As for Buffy, there is no excuse for the episodes Inca Mummy Girl or Dead Man’s Party.
While the characters on Buffy did grow incrementally as the series progressed, the characters on Angel evolved to the point where it was a tribute to the actors that they could change along with them. Cordelia (Charisma Carpenter) went from spoiled rich girl to heroine, and Wesley Wyndom-Price (Alexis Denisof) went from comic relief to badass to tragic hero. And Fred (Amy Acker) went from mild-mannered cave-dwelling physicist to Illyria, Bitch Goddess of the universe (which is quite a range). The fact that the show could produce consistently good writing, straddling the line between drama and comedy, while swinging for the fences is an impressive feat.
Angel was, after season one, very consistent yet at the same time very ambitious. When I say that I think Angel was a tad better than Buffy seasons 1-5, I mean no disrespect to Buffy. Both shows should be firmly placed in the pantheon of great horror TV series (alongside The X-Files and Kolchak: The Night Stalker). It’s like saying Willie Mays was a better outfielder than Mickey Mantle, a silly comparison that should only be made by someone with way too much free time.
Angel had a head start as it could build off of Buffy’s solid infrastructure, but the bottom line is I have to acknowledge the show’s consistency and ambition while also acknowledging that Buffy had a few imperfections in seasons 4 and 5. Buffy had season-long arcs, but nothing like the hubris of Season 4 of Angel, which involved an evil goddess from another dimension giving birth to itself and enslaving the entire world. The goddess Glory on Buffy Season 5 was nothing but Cordelia with some super powers; Jasmine in season 4 of Angel was a terrifying threat to humanity.
So, there is one less question to keep you awake before going off to dreamland—Angel seasons 1-5 is a slightly better show than Buffy seasons 1-5.
No comments:
Post a Comment