Buffy the Vampire Slayer : Did the age of the actors change the show for you?

Did the age of the actors change the show for you?

I've mentioned this in other threads, and I thought there might have been another topic recently that delved into this a little bit, but if it exists I can't find it, so here it is - do you think having older actors changes the context of the show for you at all; in contrast to if the roles were played by actors more in line with the character's ages? Even if it were the same actors, just timed differently so that when Buffy was 20, it was also about when SMG was 20, and so on.

In season 1, Buffy, Willow, Xander and Cordelia are all roughly 16; they're Sophomores, but in reality SMG was about 18 or 19 when she started filming the series. Nicky Brendon was around 24 or 25. Alyson Hannigan was 22, and Charisma about 25/26.

Now, Cordelia definitely began to look too old for high school by season 3, if not sooner. I was actually surprised that Nicky Brendon was as old he was, and not that much younger than Charisma, but it kind of brings home a point I always bring up about what I feel is a contextual disconnect in "Hells Bells," where you see him all dressed up in his tux, and in reality he was over 30, while the character is maybe 21. I used to think you'd have to picture Xander from season 1 to get a more accurate idea of Xander at the correct age, but even that's not true, now that I looked closer at the math.
Now I'm not strictly saying there's anything wrong with getting married at 21 (statistically around 25 is generally considered the sweet spot though); it's not impossible for two people to find one another at that age, and make a long term relationship work. It does happen, but arguably that's more the except than the rule and it takes two people with a level of maturity that isn't on average with the norm for people around that age; and I feel like Xander doesn't quite measure up, even in season 6. Sure, he's got a good job, he's been in some tough situations, but that's about it. He definitely has a lot of emotional issues, he's insecure; some of it he tries to cover with his humor, other times he lets it get the better of him with his anger. When I re-watch "Hells Bells", I generally try to imagine Xander's scenes with Xander as he looked like in season 1, but now, looking at his actual age, you'd still have to shave about four years off of that; and that I feel would have painted a much different picture, of someone who really is, for the most part, still a kid, way in over his head - wrapped up in literal magical song (of his own, irresponsible doing) about his less than perfect relationship, and facing a horrifying, if albeit false future of unhappiness the day of his wedding, which leads to him walking away; and I argue that the disparity in how old he looks in that episode influences how you look at his decision not to go through with it. He looks like he should be mature enough, to be more ready for that next step than he actually would be.

The same thing with Buffy. The reason I decided to post this thread was after posting similar remarks in another thread about who you would cast as a modern Buffy; and it got me thinking about the character's dynamic and interaction with other characters, if she actually looked her age throughout the series. Imagine Buffy from season 1 facing her mother dying, let alone taking care of Dawn, trying to juggle bills and the responsibility of an adult life; all at the age of 19 or 20, and in addition to all of the responsibilities of being the Slayer. I feel like Giles' response that he was in her way of reaching her full potential as an adult would hold even less water than it does in the series as it is. Yes, you may be an adult at 18, 19, 20 years old, and are at a point where you should be making your way into the world, and finding your footing, but she had her entire support system torn away from her, and she died and get pulled out of heaven, and effectively becomes the mother to a fully grown teenager; and to top it off, her one remaining source of mature, emotional support walks out on her, because he's stifling her growth somehow. SMG at 25 (Buffy season 6) looks plenty mature to at least try and tackle those challenges, whereas I feel that a more realistic portrayal of the character - essentially Buffy/SMG via season 1 or 2 - would set a very different tone in that story.

I think other things would probably be different too. Certainly Angel lusting after a 16 year old school girl would stand out a little more for its creepiness factor. As would Wesley's fixation on Cordelia during her senior year.
If they were hypothetically creating the show with age approximate actors, would it be better for them to correct at least the Angel thing, and have Angel turned when he was even younger, even though the actor's aging might be more noticeable over time, and in spite of the fact that he's still technically several hundred years old; just to have the two at least look closer in age in season 1-3?

Willow's arc in season 6 wouldn't even be Willow via season 1, but more like season -4.

Would anything else change for you? Or do you think it wouldn't have influenced the stories nearly as much?


"What's the matter, sir? It still tastes like cream of corn."
"Except it's deviled ham!"

Re: Did the age of the actors change the show for you?

I think if Buffy was a show that tried to be hyper realistic it would have bothered me to a certain degree. But it's a fantasy. Something like Friday Night Lights (which is possibly my favorite show) had a cast where half of the teenage characters looked in their mid-twenties or later. And that sometimes annoyed me, because it was a show that aimed for realism. Overall, I've accepted it as the nature of the medium in general, so it doesn't bother me much in most cases.

Re: Did the age of the actors change the show for you?

I can't really agree with the distinction between realism and fantasy; I mean the nature of any work of fiction, no matter how outlandish the tale, is to find some point of entry for the intended audience to identify with, generally with the main characters. If they seem too inauthentic, it typically will take you out of the story - like you described with Friday Night Lights.

I'm not suggesting that was necessarily the case with Buffy; obviously it worked well enough as it stands, to capture the attention of its viewers and sustain it, for the most part, through all seven season, and five seasons of a spin-off series; and for some people even beyond the live action material. To that latter point, I'd point out how the comics roll things back and depict the characters more in line with their intended age; and I imagine are probably held static, the way most comics do.
But I do feel like it could have been richer for having a closer touch to reality; even as it's mixed with the more fantastic nature of the stories. And the beats in the story that were more grounded in reality - the death of Buffy's mother, the relationship between Dawn and Buffy and how that changed after Joyce was gone, and the other elements of the core group's personal lives and interactions - would have arguably benefited from that as well; for all the reasons I contended in my previous post, and probably then some.

In a similar contrast, in regard to surreal fantasy, you have something like the Harry Potter film franchise, who had a cast consisting of age approximate actors, including children playing the younger roles. And they grew into their roles at roughly the same pace as their characters; maintaining a degree of realism, in spite of unreality of everything else. They of course got incredibly lucky with the actors they chose, with kids who predominantly matured as fine performers over; and who mostly succeeded in not succumbing to the weight of their notoriety.


"What's the matter, sir? It still tastes like cream of corn."
"Except it's deviled ham!"

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Did the age of the actors change the show for you?

Yes, because Eliza dushku was 17 years old, practically a child, when she first played Faith in season 3.
I'm not sure how old they intended Faith to be but a minor living alone in a motel room, making a mistake and then giving in to evil was a lot more sympathetic than I'd like to think the writers intended it to be.
Because of how young Faith looked, and how bad her life seemed, I could never get behind how 'difficult' Buffy's life was. For a normal human sure Buffy had a hard life, but for a slayer, Buffy's life wasn't as hard in comparison to a slayer like Faith.

Re: Did the age of the actors change the show for you?

I always got the impression that Faith was about 18 when she arrived in Sunnydale; she struck me as being just a little older than Buffy, but close enough to be contemporaries. The only thing that seemed incongruent with that were some of the stories she was telling when she first arrived, which also seemed to fit more with someone who had been a Slayer longer than the few months between her arrival and Kendra's death. All things considered about Faith, I think in retrospect it's likely she was making up some of the things, like wrestling an alligator, or whatever.
I don't have too much of a problem sympathizing with her, to a limited degree, because it makes the conflict more interesting when the choices and actions aren't black and white, right or wrong; and it makes her ultimate redemption that much easier to accept.

I can also kind of buy someone street smart and life hardened like Faith, living on the streets at 17/18 years old, and being able to get by. It should have still been a concern for Giles, and especially Wesley, or even Joyce.


"What's the matter, sir? It still tastes like cream of corn."
"Except it's deviled ham!"

Re: Did the age of the actors change the show for you?

I always felt that Faith was younger than Buffy. She probably dropped out of school at age fifteen, and then was with her watcher for about a year. So Faith was probably just turned 17 when she arrived in Sunnydale or 16 going on 17. Buffy turned 17 in the middle of season two when Angel took her virginity which she served up to him on a silver platter.

Faith joins the cast in season three. So she is younger than Buffy. That's why Giles should be held responsible for her spiral into evil. He should have pretended she was his niece or something and took her in. Leaving her to fend for herself without any money and an easy target in a flea bag of a hotel was totally irresponsible of him. Then all the blame gets placed on Wesley who was just out of the Watcher's Academy himself. Maybe Wesley was 21 or 22 years old himself. While Giles was a grown man of about 40 years old.

So we should be initially sympathetic to what Faith was going through. She was totally isolated and the only one who seemed to get what she was going through was Angel. He understood how the dark can drag you in when life gets tough. The first death she caused was obviously an accident. A horrible accident, but not intentional. Her blaming Buffy was a defense mechanism fueled by her feelings of being unworthy and second best. Things that Buffy realized too late to repair. Then Buffy allowed her feelings for Angel to dictate her actions against Faith.

Re: Did the age of the actors change the show for you?


Faith joins the cast in season three. So she is younger than Buffy.
How does one correlate to other? By some apocryphal accounts she was a few months older, and already 18 when she arrived in Sunnydale. Others suggest she was a few months young, but always close in age to Buffy; and never canonically definitive. One might point to her tattoos as an indication of her age, but given her character, it wouldn't be out of the question that she got her tattoos illegally.
There's also the question of her cruciamentum; that if she were under 18 when called, that she would have gone through it at some point in season 3. While, if she were already 18, maybe even 19 when called, the Council would just grandfather her in.

For the record, Alexis was around 34 during season 3; so Wesley was probably not in his 20s. Sure, several of the other actors played younger out of necessity, which obviously is what this thread is about, but arguably in the case of characters like Giles and Wesley, playing adults; there's no reason for them not to be their approximate age, unless the part calls for it to be otherwise.


"You can lead a hearse to water, but you can't make it sink." The Cat

Re: Did the age of the actors change the show for you?

People try to claim Faith was younger simply because they want her to be sympathetic. If she's older--which the script suggests she is--then there is less ease in rationalizing her behavior. Someone 18 and out of school gets less poor-baby points than a high school dropout who supposedly had a hard life.

In the comics, if you consider them canon, Faith's hard life had an absentee drunk father. So no worse than Xander or Tara or even Buffy or Willow.

The script says she's 18-ish in Faith, Hope and Trick. She knows nothing of the slayer test, which would suggest she's over 18. Faith says she's the "big" sister in Graduation Daw, which again suggests she's older.

Perhaps your OP plays into it a little. The others are older, so in contrast 20 year old SMG playing 17 year old Buffy makes Faith seem that much younger.

Top