Throughout this month, we will be testing new features (like search) so you may experience some hiccups from time to time. We'll try to not be too disruptive...
@Nex:
I'm just going to address this, as my University teaches a Buffy class. We also have classes based on MASH and Seinfeld. Hell, we also have classes dedicated to Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, and His Dark materials.
A class dedicated to Buffy is hardly a rarity.
How many universities in America teach a class on Buffy?
Is he seriously trying to say that wrestling has any more of a cultural impact than Buffy? People still watch wrestling?
This another Twilight Tween trying to start some shit? For the retarded members of our audience this isn't wrestling vs Buffy it's what makes Buffy culturally relevant. For the record, more than 30 million people watch RAW each week. Sooooooooooo yeah dumbass I would say people still watch wrestling. If you're trolling you're really bad at it. I know emos like you blog about Buffy. You were probably one of those kids always slitting your wrists and shit because life is too hard.
What Angelus Dominus and RobbyBevard (the adults) are discussing is what puts Buffy over the top. What does it do that thousands of other shows haven't already done? How is it culturally relevant? THAT is the key issue here. When I think cultural relevance, when normal people not emo tweens think cultural relevance MASH comes to mind, not Buffy.
@RobbyBevard:
Like wrestling does?
And here come the claws.
@RobbyBevard:
"Gaydom?" Really?
Really.
@RobbyBevard:
You do realize you're on a site dedicated to a japanese comic book and that every single person here is a geek or nerd to some degree, right?
Of course. We might talk about Buffy, or Naruto, or Bleach or something like that around our water coolers metaphorically speaking but nothing we talk about matters to people who aren't nerds or geeks. I doubt Congress is gearing up for the next chapter of One Piece.
@RobbyBevard:
And that you're sporting an avatar of a nearly naked sweaty man based on your love of a franchise that you clearly think important and want to talk about?
Ouch. This kitten has claws.
@RobbyBevard:
All the time. It was incredibly reflective of the 90's, life in school in general, and influenced the tone of many things that came afterward.
So did Wonder Years.
@RobbyBevard:
Nearly every episode of the first several seasons was a common problem many teens faced, exaggerated into a monster of the day.
What show were you watching?
@RobbyBevard:
And yes, it did touch upon gay and lesbian issues, and presented them in an incredibly positive light with a very likeable character. (Censors wouldn't let Willow and Tara even kiss for nearly a year. While full blown straight sex was just fine.) Added in with the strong female leads and it had a lot of effect on how mainstream entertainment can deal with those sorts of things. Along with Xena and Ellen Degeneres, there was a time not all that long ago where it really WAS impossible to have a lesbian on tv, or a gay man that wasn't an outrageous stereotype.
I take it you've never seen Lifetime.
@RobbyBevard:
It tapped into all of them regularly.
You only see those things in Buffy that you want to see. I mean a thread ago you slammed 90s Spider-Man because it didn't capture the essence of the comics. By the way, it did. And now you're an advocate for Buffy and you're pointing out things you claim it did when, it didn't do any of those things. This is not What's Hot with RobbyBevard. You only see this stuff in Buffy because you actually liked the show. Nevermind the fact that all Buffy did was capitalize on the emo lifestyle of tweens.
@RobbyBevard:
Pop culture and influence, and long term relevence to society as a whole are completely different things. If you're going to be that extreme, nothing on television ever has contributed to anything, aside from Star Trek inspiring a generation to grow up and make cell phones.
That's a lie and you know it. Star Trek are not we would have still had cellphones, smartphones, cool visors, the list goes on. Technology doesn't need television Robby. It grows and evolves on its own.
@RobbyBevard:
Well yeah. The entire medium is only a little older than 50 years. Most entertainment ages badly in the course of a century. I Love Lucy, and the Honeymooners are probably the only things you can point to from 50 years ago that anyone remembers. All in the Family and MASH might have footnotes in the year 2062 as having has a little impact on society of the past, but they're not going to vibe with the times at all by then when they're 80 year old shows.
It's a given they'll be less relevant over-time. But the key here is that they actually had "relevance." You credit Buffy and Ellen and Xena with making lesbians market friendly. B.S. I think Virginia Woolf had a jump on them by a century except most Americans are too retarded to read. Xena didn't start wearing flannel until season 4 and that was only because ratings plummeted and Universal needed to find some way to get their numbers up. SAME with Buffy. These shows didn't advocate same-sex relations because of some equality driven virtue. These cashcows reached a point where they couldn't be milked so their parent companies did what they needed to do. I don't give credit where it's not due. That's not me.
@RobbyBevard:
JFK was shot 50 years ago. And we walked on the moon. But does anyone born in the last 30 years care at all beyond historical significance?
Does anyone care about Buffy or the lifestyle of tortured 90s teens today? Of course not. Sorry to throw this out there but no one cares about teenagers. If Buffy did something to change that then maybe I'd give it some props. If it changed how we all think then mad ups. But to adults living in the real world, teens are just kids with unbalanced hormones who still aren't mature enough to make smart decisions. Know why people still think that? Because that's reality. To most normal people Buffy is just a tv show. How do I know this? Because it hasn't changed anything. If I go on any forum right now, right this moment and ask anyone, "Hey, how has Buffy the Vampire Slayer changed your life?" most people aren't going to know what I'm talking about.
Still waiting on Versus XIII. It's like SE is going out of their way to pursue EVERY title but that.
I love how we all are calling him Wesker Jr. when his actual name (Jake) is so much easier to type.
That's totally a name only a mom would give.
@RobbyBevard:
Are you making a point about culture, popularity, influence, talk around the water cooler, size of fanbase, the sheer number of people that know about something even peripherally, longevity, or bringing up societal issues to the public?
They're all vastly different goals with vastly different criteria.
For something to be culturally relevant it has to hit all those things. There's no way around that. Buffy didn't deal with any issues that anyone was dealing with. Unless you count Willow's escapades through gaydom and I'm fairly certain that the 70s beat Buffy by a mile. No one with a life talked about the latest episode of Buffy around the water cooler. The show never brought up any issues in society and it never commented on the times we lived in. If you look at everything you listed and if you look at Buffy, you would find that the show didn't tap into any of these things.
@RobbyBevard:
MAS*H was a show that ran for a decade that hit all the points above. So is reality tv to some extent but in a completely different way. I vaguely know what a Snookie is, and I've heard of Paris Hilton, but I don't care or have any interest in those things… but its still a big enough part of the mainstream I've heard of it.
Lord of the Rings the books are not the same as Lord of the Rings the movies are not the same as the Transformer movie.
You sort of proved my point with MASH. In order for something to be culturally relevant it has to hit all those points. Saying that Buffy is culturally relevant is like saying Harry Potter is culturally relevant. They're popular yes. Insanely yes. But they're not relevant.
If history or communication students 50 years from now need to look at popular media that captured eras, defined generations, addressed real issues, was culturally relevant, no one is going to look up Buffy except the D students.
People looking for things to be offended by week 2
Ah, you mean those people who only join discussions to complain about something.
On that same note, Wendy's loli fanservice isn't as bad as it could be, and it's not nearly as bad as some claim. I mean has anyone seen Nisenmonogatari? Shinobu.
@RobbyBevard:
"Something being popular is not the same as something being culturally relevant."
Well played.
@RobbyBevard:
How was Austin 3:16 culturally relevant? It touched a chord among nerds and virgins? It was only ever talked about in the smallest circles of shut-ins.
Hm
@RobbyBevard:
And Homer was relevant to the greeks in ancient Rome, and Shakespeare to Europe 500 years ago. Not exactly the same thing as modern television.
How does that support your argument? Buffy isn't like All in the Family where it actually dealt with modern issues (modern being a relative term).
@RobbyBevard:
And also those that make television and movies, and bring the entertainment and culture in the widest spread of influence available in the modern world, and thus, culturally relevent.
By that argument everything in television is culturally relevant.
@RobbyBevard:
So let's try this again.
Yes. Let's.
"Not being a dick, just acting like one."
I don't get the relevance of Buffy so I'm asking people who are more knowledgable like RobbyBevard to explain it to me. I'm asking a question and I admit that I am being a bit abrasive and I apologize. But if you're here to just troll me for asking a question then you need to shut the fuck up while the adults are talking. You guys say Buffy is relevant. I don't see it. So I'm asking someone to explain it to me why that is, so I can understand this better. If you can't get with that go wank off on another thread.
@RobbyBevard:
Dafoe was perfect as Norman Osborn. PERFECT.
And then he put on the power ranger's mask and all credibility went right out.
I agree and disagree. Dafoe was perfect HELL YES. But I don't knock the power ranger helmet. Comic book movies aren't going to look like the comic books bro. I'm sorry but they just aren't. I was glad they didn't fuck up the Spidey costume. (Oh and look at what they did now.) Anyway, William Dafoe as the GG was so epic that even with that humiliating costume he sold it. You have to give the devil his due.
Molina as Doc Oc on the other hand…, my god that was just terrible.
0