Possible Buffy reboot without Joss Whedon?

[Chiasm]

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/05/new-buffy-movie.html


According to the Hollywood Reporter, the rights holders of Buffy the Vampire Slayer -- which began as the 1992 crapmound film starring Kristy Swanson and was later transformed by writer Joss Whedon into one of the touchstone TV series of the last 25 years -- are planning a remake/relaunch.

That raucous sound you hear is that fanbase currently consulting an engineer to figure out exactly how to support all of the hell they're gonna raise. Because -- get this -- Whedon isn't involved. AT ALL.

I really hope this is a joke because if not this is the stupidest idea I've heard out of Hollyweird in a long time. This is still a viable franchise, as the comic sales show, and removing Joss from the process is a guaranteed way to piss off the fanbase.

[GRANT!]

It's seems a bit premature since the show which was more popular then the original movie ended only 6 years ago. It was bound to happen but it would be smarter to wait until they had more distance from the property. Also they can probably only use Buffy and any character from the movie since I believe Mutant Enemy owns Willow, Xander, Angel, Giles etc, etc. So they would have to reinvent the mythology if Whedon isn't involved. Seems kind of like a lost cause right now.

Though I don't think a Whedon/Geller Buffy movie would be all that successful either.

[The Black Guardian]

Oh, dear gawd, no! The Kuzuis wrecked Buffy once already. Removing Joss from the process is bad enough, but Kuzui involvement is like salting the wounds.

[Chiasm]

The only thing that should happen with the Buffy verse is either a new series by Joss* or a sequel movie starring as many of the main players as they can get and I think they could probably get most of them so long as everyone knew it was a one time gig (a few would probably do more but not all).

* I want Fray on the Sci Fi channel or the CW where it won't be expected to pull 10 million viewers an episode.

[KandouErik]

So - the networks can't bear to let Joss Whedon's other shows enjoy success (Firefly, Angel, ratings struggling Dollhouse) - but they are more than willing to go with a tired old idea and beat it until it's dead?

[the_coldest_sun]

So - the networks can't bear to let Joss Whedon's other shows enjoy success (Firefly, Angel, ratings struggling Dollhouse) - but they are more than willing to go with a tired old idea and beat it until it's dead?

Of course, since it was extremely popular in its day and no doubt made lots of money.

[marshal99]

Without Whedon , might as well make a parody - starring Paris Hilton as Bunny the vampire layer.

[GRANT!]

So - the networks can't bear to let Joss Whedon's other shows enjoy success (Firefly, Angel, ratings struggling Dollhouse) - but they are more than willing to go with a tired old idea and beat it until it's dead?

The networks have nothing to do with it. This is an independent production company (which owned the Buffy rights since the movie) doing the remake.

[Tobias March]

They wants some of that Twilight money.

Go into the bookstores and look at the Supernatural Romance section.

Christ on a bike.

They must be salivating at the mouths about this. Who gives a toss about Whedon, or feminist subtext, or a heroine who can stand up for herself.

It's all about the shirtless vampire boys and girls with tight tops.

[Tony Bang]

But without Whedon.... where will all the forced pop culture jokes come from?

[Sean Walsh]

Oh, dear gawd, no! The Kuzuis wrecked Buffy once already. Removing Joss from the process is bad enough, but Kuzui involvement is like salting the wounds.

How did they ruin it before? They've been part of the Buffy process since the beginning...

[Ilash]

And the stupid idea of the year goes to...

[DonC]

They wants some of that Twilight money.

Go into the bookstores and look at the Supernatural Romance section.

Christ on a bike.

They must be salivating at the mouths about this. Who gives a toss about Whedon, or feminist subtext, or a heroine who can stand up for herself.

It's all about the shirtless vampire boys and girls with tight tops.


And we have a winner! I had to suffer through that section over the weekend looking for the new Buffy trade paperback. It was almost as bad as walking down the feminine hygiene aisle at the grocery store.

[worstblogever]

I might be interested if every twenty minutes, they cut to PeeWee Herman on the floor of a high school gym, rolling back and forth, still in his death throes.

[Legato]

I hope Joss fights this. The only time I would want Buffy back is when Joss is involved with it.

[Superbeast]

This is doomed. Buffy made no money under the Kuzuis for a reason, they don't know how to use the character successfully. Whedon's take is what made money, this will simply result in lots of internet petitions and Whedon laughing his ass off two years from now when Fox beg him to come back to direct the franchise again.

[Legato]

This is doomed. Buffy made no money under the Kuzuis for a reason, they don't know how to use the character successfully. Whedon's take is what made money, this will simply result in lots of internet petitions and Whedon laughing his ass off two years from now when Fox beg him to come back to direct the franchise again.

In that case I hope the movie is made so that it will fail miserably. They should learn that a Buffy without Joss automatically results in epic failure

[Hoss]

So - the networks can't bear to let Joss Whedon's other shows enjoy success (Firefly, Angel, ratings struggling Dollhouse) - but they are more than willing to go with a tired old idea and beat it until it's dead?

Part of your opening statment is contradictory since there is no objective measure that shows that Dollhouse and Firefly were successful as weekly series. Good DVD sales for Firefly proved it had a small yet faithful audience - not that it was popular enough to sustain it as a weekly show. Serenity barely managed to make back its production budget with DVD sales. That means there was no profit and the studio ate alot of the marketing costs.

The thoughts that networks dump a bunch of money into a show and then don't want it to succeed is counterintuitive. Yes, there are times when networks might pull the plug on a show too quick, but that is more a lack of nerves than a desire to see something fail. When you are dumping between half a million to a million dollars an episode to make a TV show there is only so much of a loss you can show on your spreadsheet before your own future employment comes into question.

Sci-Fi TV is expensive to make since it requires so many effects and sets and large ensembles and are aimed at fairly narrow audiences. And you usually end up with a product that gets a core following, wins a bunch of sci-fi awards, and makes no money for you and needs to get cancelled after 20 or so episodes.

So, if you have a property like Buffy that continues to produce well in other media and in DVD sales, you'd be silly to not try and go back to the well. Sure, it would make sense to bring Whedon back, even if you are rebooting, but my guess is that if Whedon isn't involved it is because he doesn't want to be.

[Jack]

There's no reason it couldn't be good. Sure, it'll likely be different from the series, but that's not the same thing as being bad.

[Hoss]

In that case I hope the movie is made so that it will fail miserably. They should learn that a Buffy without Joss automatically results in epic failure


You wouldn't rather they find somebody who brings a new and interesting creative vision for it?

[the_coldest_sun]

You wouldn't rather they find somebody who brings a new and interesting creative vision for it?

I'm sorry but have you read the Terminator: Salvation thread or the idiot "cleverly" expressing his distaste for the movie by starting a new thread asking if the franchise should be "terminated"?

This is by no means directed at Legato's comment, but regarding fanbases in general. Of course they don't (sadly).

[Ryan K]

My first thought: %$#@ them.

My second thought: It ain't gonna happen. Maybe 10-15 years from now, but 6 years after the show ended with Whedon still very active in the universe in comics. I mean the Whedonesque folks are probably already bribing people for the location of the Kuzui's house. My guess is that after all of the negative fan and press reaction (New York Post, E, Hollywood Reporter, EW, etc) they're already changing their minds and figuring out that maybe this was a bad idea.

I understand they want that Twilight and Star Trek money, but Buffy never appealed to that wide an audience. The title alone causes most to dismiss it. I'm not completely opposed to the idea, but it would have to involve Whedon for me to be remotely interested.

What really pisses me off more than anything was that my brain about shot out of my toes when I read the "Buffy movie" headline on IMDB, only to discover this bullshit. 60 to 0, like that.

[Ryan K]

There's no reason it couldn't be good.

The producer directed the first film.

That's a reason. I'm not saying it couldn't be good. Just saying that's a reason it might not be. A damn good reason.

[Ryan K]

but my guess is that if Whedon isn't involved it is because he doesn't want to be.

The Hollywood Reporter story says he hasn't been asked.

Which right there is a big reason the Whedonites are pissed.

I've read some statements from people trying to convince the Whedonites that the sky is not falling, that point to the new Star Trek movie and J. J. Abrams.

The big difference of course being that Gene Roddenberry's been dead for two decades and trhe franchise was run into the ground by hacks. While Buffy ended six years ago and Whdon is still very active and creatively fresh. If anything, he's the kind of guy they should be looking at to reimagine other sci-fi/fantasy works.

Plus, there've been rumours of a Gellar-Buffy film for a decade now, and there was a reunion last year that had some people getting their hopes back up. This news is just like a ginat slap in the face to Whedon's fans.

[Hoss]

The producer directed the first film.

That's a reason. I'm not saying it couldn't be good. Just saying that's a reason it might not be. A damn good reason.


But weren't they the same people who hired Wheddon for the TV show?

[Ryan K]

But weren't they the same people who hired Wheddon for the TV show?

Whedon wrote the movie. Kuzui bought the script and decided to direct it herself. Her vision and Whedon's did not line up as evidenced by the film.

Unfortunately, Kuzui and her company retained rights to the character, which is why they are listed as producers of the show. From what I understand they exerted no control over the show, just pocketed a check.

This all probably explains why Angel, Spike, Xander, Willow, et al won't be involved in the new film, because Kazui probably doesn't retain the righst to those characters.

[Hoss]

The Hollywood Reporter story says he hasn't been asked.

Which right there is a big reason the Whedonites are pissed.
.

That I can understand. Though an in continuity Buffy movie directed by Whedon would be extremely narrow in audience.

It sounds to me like the Kuzuis feel they've milked the Whedon Buffy for all it is worth and want to see if a new continuity for a series with high name recognition will work.

Really, 99% of Whedon Buffy fans will turn out to see the movie even if it just to tear it a new hole. But they'll still get their money - yeah, I know they say they will stay away, but by and large they won't because, well, they never do.

[Ryan K]

That I can understand. Though an in continuity Buffy movie directed by Whedon would be extremely narrow in audience.

Oh absolutely. At best they'd probably have to hope for Serenity-type numbers and just bank on great DVD sales for an extended period. It would no doubt be profitable, but it certainly wouldn't be a blockbuster.


It sounds to me like the Kuzuis feel they've milked the Whedon Buffy for all it is worth and want to see if a new continuity for a series with high name recognition will work.

Really, 99% of Whedon Buffy fans will turn out to see the movie even if it just to tear it a new hole. But they'll still get their money - yeah, I know they say they will stay away, but by and large they won't because, well, they never do

I just don't think they can get much box office out of anything named Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I mean, they want to make a darker version. How do you make a darker version of something called Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

And without it's creator, the Buffy fans will not only boycot, but probably aggressively undermine it.

[the_coldest_sun]

Really, 99% of Whedon Buffy fans will turn out to see the movie even if it just to tear it a new hole. But they'll still get their money - yeah, I know they say they will stay away, but by and large they won't because, well, they never do.

Again, as evidenced in the T4 thread.

[Legato]

Again, as evidenced in the T4 thread.

Just that this is made by the same person who has made me avoid three Seasons of Buffy before I realized that the series was superior over the film.

Also I dont trust the person making this movie because of the reason as to why Kuzuis is doing it. If it weren't for the success of Twilight then Kuzuis wouldn't have brought the Buffy franchise back. So this is basically just milking off of Twilight's success.

Now I would have no problem with this had Kuzuis atleast consulted Whedon first but she didn't.


Im all for someone taking a different spin on things as long as it remains somewhat close to the vision that Whedon had.

[Legato]

Again, as evidenced in the T4 thread.

That is also why I wouldn't dare spend money on a movie that I hate.

[passer-by]

That I can understand. Though an in continuity Buffy movie directed by Whedon would be extremely narrow in audience.

It sounds to me like the Kuzuis feel they've milked the Whedon Buffy for all it is worth and want to see if a new continuity for a series with high name recognition will work.

Really, 99% of Whedon Buffy fans will turn out to see the movie even if it just to tear it a new hole. But they'll still get their money - yeah, I know they say they will stay away, but by and large they won't because, well, they never do.
I'm not sure that "99% of Whedon Buffy fans will turn out to see the movie". Anyway, a Buffy movie without Whedon would make even less money than one with Whedon IMO. In other words, very little.

I think they should reconsider and ask Whedon to take part in the project.

[Legato]

I'm not sure that "99% of Whedon Buffy fans will turn out to see the movie". Anyway, a Buffy movie without Whedon would make even less money than one with Whedon IMO. In other words, very little.

I think they should reconsider and ask Whedon to take part in the project.

If anything atleast bring some of his creative input into the movie.

[kalorama]

Will it suck? Who knows? Is it a bad idea? Not really.

The possibility that Buffy fans won’t have anything to do with it is probably perfectly okay to the filmmakers because (as much as the Whedon army is loathe to admit it) Buffy fans are a relatively small clique who don’t nearly comprise a large enough number to carry a feature film in and of themselves. Hell, they were barely enough to keep the TV show on the air. (Had the show aired anywhere other than WB/UPN, its viewer numbers likely would have gotten it canceled before it ever saw year 3).

Much like the recent Star Trek film (which has been monstrously successful–and in all likelihood spurred the Buffy revival) the whole point of this reboot will be to remake the franchise for a new generation of (mostly younger) fans, not cater slavishly to the old fans who are obsessively steeped in the nostalgic detail of what’s gone before (but, at the same time, leaving the door open for any of them who want to come along for the ride).

Could it fail? Sure, but then so could everything. That being said, the reasoning behind the decision, for a business standpoint (and never forget, it is a business) is actually pretty sound.

[Jared]

I'm guessing they're inspired by the current reboot craze. But if they think a fresh new Buffy is going to hit big like those did with a reboot, they're probably wrong. Buffy was a successful show on a minor network, that now has a fairly successful comic series. But Buffy isn't a cultural icon like Batman, Bond, and the Enterprise.

I think Gellar has said she's done with Buffy anyway. They should just take the basic premise and make a something about a new slayer for 30 or 40 million. Have Joss direct if he's interested. In my opinion he really proved himself with Serenity. He understands that making a good action movie is different from making a TV show. At the very least make sure to get his public support to appease the fanboys.
The idea of a Fray movie isn't bad. At least it's something we haven't really seen before: vampires in the future.

[Legato]

I'm guessing they're inspired by the current reboot craze. But if they think a fresh new uffy is going to hit big like those did with a reboot, they're probably wrong. Buffy was a successful show on a minor network, that now has a fairly successful comic series. But Buffy isn't a cultural icon like Batman, Bond, and the Enterprise.

I think Gellar has said she's done with Buffy anyway. They should just take the basic premise and make a something about a new slayer for 30 or 40 million. Have Joss direct if he's interested. In my opinion he really proved himself with Serenity. He understands that making a good action movie is different from making a TV show. At the very least make sure to get his public support to appease the fanboys.
The idea of a Fray movie isn't bad. At least it's something we haven't really seen before: vampires in the future.


I say they should do a Buffy movie that done have anything to do with Buffy. Thare are other Slayers and they can create a universe around a different Slayer instead of Buffy.

I can understand that the Buffy character is markettable but with the right writing involved a fresh new Slayer would be the right way to go.

[The Xenos]

what is this.. i don't even..

The logic in this... or lack of.. befuddles me. I get tehre's some legal loophole, but they're morons to go after this.

[Legato]

what is this.. i don't even..

The logic in this... or lack of.. befuddles me. I get tehre's some legal loophole, but they're morons to go after this.

The fact that they are doing it behind Whedons back makes me dislike this even more.

[Chiasm]

I say they should do a Buffy movie that done have anything to do with Buffy. Thare are other Slayers and they can create a universe around a different Slayer instead of Buffy.

I can understand that the Buffy character is markettable but with the right writing involved a fresh new Slayer would be the right way to go.

Exactly. I and I think most Buffy / Angel fans could get behind a new series around new characters. But its far too soon to reboot a series when all the main forces are still viable. I could even get behind a new series that featured some of the old characters and was essentially a sequel.

[kalorama]

Exactly. I and I think most Buffy / Angel fans could get behind a new series around new characters.

But this isn't being pitched primarily to Buffy/Angel fans. And pitching a series to Buffy/Angel fans is pitching a series to a relatively small audience that likely wouldn't be enough to sustain a show in today's market

[Legato]

Exactly. I and I think most Buffy / Angel fans could get behind a new series around new characters. But its far too soon to reboot a series when all the main forces are still viable. I could even get behind a new series that featured some of the old characters and was essentially a sequel.

That is a valid point.

Star Trek worked because Hollywood had to wait a few decades until a reboot is possible without the backlash involving the Trekkies. Buffy OTOH is still fresh to some people and Joss could have done a movie eventually since he has always said that he would like to put Buffy on the big screen one day

I just got this feeling that they are rebooting it without Joss's consent and Whedon is still working on Buffy but in comic book form.

If they were smart they should have waited till Whedon is completly done with Buffy and give ten years before they could make the remake work without the backlash.

The only logical thing they could do is make a Buffy movie but with a new Slayer and new characters centered around this new Slayer.

Take Joss's idea but use it to expand the universe more, not copy off of it.

[Chiasm]

That is a valid point.

Star Trek worked because Hollywood had to wait a few decades until a reboot is possible without the backlash involving the Trekkies. Buffy OTOH is still fresh to some people and Joss could have done a movie eventually since he has always said that he would like to put Buffy on the big screen one day

I just got this feeling that they are rebooting it without Joss's consent and Whedon is still working on Buffy but in comic book form.

If they were smart they should have waited till Whedon is completly done with Buffy and give ten years before they could make the remake work without the backlash.

The only logical thing they could do is make a Buffy movie but with a new Slayer and new characters centered around this new Slayer.

Take Joss's idea but use it to expand the universe more, not copy off of it.

They could just do a handoff.

Create a story that is sequel to all things Buffy yet centered around one new slayer. Depower all the slayers except one through some story contrivance. Pay an obscene amount of money to Sarah Michelle Gellar to come in for a scene or two to pass the torch. Then move on with the whole new cast. It'll be new, the new creators will have free reign to do what they want without being beholden to what came before, and it will appease the old fans by paying respect to what came before.

[Chiasm]

But this isn't being pitched primarily to Buffy/Angel fans. And pitching a series to Buffy/Angel fans is pitching a series to a relatively small audience that likely wouldn't be enough to sustain a show in today's market

The only people clamoring for more Buffy is the hardcore base. Buffy was a critical and cultural phenomenon for its run yet it never drew mass ratings. So its not as if there is a mass audience out there waiting for more Buffy except for the existing fanbase. Without that fanbase you basically have no one that wants a reboot of this and without that fanbase a reboot isn't going to do much unless it can find a way to pay homage to what came before (like I just gave an example of in my prior post).

[Legato]

They could just do a handoff.

Create a story that is sequel to all things Buffy yet centered around one new slayer. Depower all the slayers except one through some story contrivance. Pay an obscene amount of money to Sarah Michelle Gellar to come in for a scene or two to pass the torch. Then move on with the whole new cast. It'll be new, the new creators will have free reign to do what they want without being beholden to what came before, and it will appease the old fans by paying respect to what came before.

Like how the Star Trek reboot did. Could work.

With this Joss can still do Buffy in his own vision while the new creators can do Buffy without walking over Whedon's work and create a new story of their own. In a idea like this it could give the Buffy Franchise a nice jumpstart.

[kalorama]

The only people clamoring for more Buffy is the hardcore base. Buffy was a critical and cultural phenomenon for its run yet it never drew mass ratings. So its not as if there is a mass audience out there waiting for more Buffy except for the existing fanbase. Without that fanbase you basically have no one that wants a reboot of this and without that fanbase a reboot isn't going to do much unless it can find a way to pay homage to what came before (like I just gave an example of in my prior post).

There doesn't have to be a "mass audience waiting for it" in order to get a mass audience to see it. (There wasn't a mass audience clamoring for the first Star Wars movie until it was made. There wasn't a mass audience clamoring for Titanic until it was made.) But the surest way to ensure that a mass audience doesn't see it is to tailor it to the very narrow preferences and desires of the small niche audience that's clamoring for it.

[Red Lotus]

How did they ruin it before? They've been part of the Buffy process since the beginning...


Watch the first Buffy movie where they took over and you will see how they ruined it. They really didn't have anything at all to do with the show that was all Whedon.



Whedon wrote the movie. Kuzui bought the script and decided to direct it herself. Her vision and Whedon's did not line up as evidenced by the film.

Unfortunately, Kuzui and her company retained rights to the character, which is why they are listed as producers of the show. From what I understand they exerted no control over the show, just pocketed a check.

This all probably explains why Angel, Spike, Xander, Willow, et al won't be involved in the new film, because Kazui probably doesn't retain the righst to those characters.

What he should do is make a Faith movie use Angel, Spike, Xander, Willow, and who ever else he owns the rights to and put it out at the same time as the new Buffy movie and laugh as his movie crushes the Buffy one.

[Superbeast]

Watch the first Buffy movie where they took over and you will see how they ruined it. They really didn't have anything at all to do with the show that was all Whedon.





What he should do is make a Faith movie use Angel, Spike, Xander, Willow, and who ever else he owns the rights to and put it out at the same time as the new Buffy movie and laugh as his movie crushes the Buffy one.

I think he'd be able to rope in Dushku, Masters and Brendon but I can't see Hannigan, Head or Boreanaz signing on at this point in their careers. I also don't think it would crush it but it would probably make it's money back globally if not domestically since there is still a worldwide cult following for the characters.

This will inevitably come out and basically get thrown under a bus for lacking the nuances of the TV show. A reboot to the reboot a la Leterrier's Incredible Hulk will follow when Fox realises they are throwing money at the wrong people to guide the franchise.

Kazui's Buffy = one bomb of a movie.

Whedon's Buffy = 7 series, 5 series spin off, books, comic books, dolls, annuals, posters, pencil cases.

I mean, any studio should be able to figure out which is the more bankable creative team to handle the franchise after simply looking at the profits compared to one another.

[Chiasm]

There doesn't have to be a "mass audience waiting for it" in order to get a mass audience to see it. (There wasn't a mass audience clamoring for the first Star Wars movie until it was made. There wasn't a mass audience clamoring for Titanic until it was made.) But the surest way to ensure that a mass audience doesn't see it is to tailor it to the very narrow preferences and desires of the small niche audience that's clamoring for it.


There wasn't a audience though trying to undermine Star Wars or Titanic either which is exactly what you'll get if they try a reboot this soon. The analogies to Trek aren't valid because in Trek's case the original actors were no longer viable but with Buffy they are. And both Star Wars and Titanic were UNKNOWN quantities when they were released whereas everyone has an opinion about Buffy. They are either fanatical about it, ambivelant about it because they tried it and didn't get it, or they detest the concept because of the silly name. Everyone is going to have an opinion about the Buffy remake and few of them are going to be good unless they do it right like Legato and I have suggested by making it a loose sequel to the series with a new cast - kind of like Star Trek: The Next Generation was to the original.

[Ilash]

Like how the Star Trek reboot did. Could work.

With this Joss can still do Buffy in his own vision while the new creators can do Buffy without walking over Whedon's work and create a new story of their own. In a idea like this it could give the Buffy Franchise a nice jumpstart.

The only difference is that what is great about Buffy is inexorably tied to Joss Whedon (not to mention the vast) in a way that Star Trek wasn't even tied to Gene Roddenbery. The chance of this working out well is very, very slim. After all, Star Trek is very much the exception - I still can't believe that a remake turned out to be so damn good.

[kalorama]

There wasn't a audience though trying to undermine Star Wars or Titanic either which is exactly what you'll get if they try a reboot this soon. The analogies to Trek aren't valid because in Trek's case the original actors were no longer viable but with Buffy they are. And both Star Wars and Titanic were UNKNOWN quantities when they were released whereas everyone has an opinion about Buffy. They are either fanatical about it, ambivelant about it because they tried it and didn't get it, or they detest the concept because of the silly name. Everyone is going to have an opinion about the Buffy remake and few of them are going to be good unless they do it right like Legato and I have suggested by making it a loose sequel to the series with a new cast - kind of like Star Trek: The Next Generation was to the original.

And how, exactly, will they undermine the film? By bitching about it online? Yeah, that always works. And the analogies to Star Trek have nothing to do with the "viability" of the actors, esp. since both Gellar has long since made it clear she's done with Buffy and some of Boreanaz's comments after the end of Angel (to say nothing about the fact that he porked up and sleepwalked through half of the last season's episodes) gave the distinct impression he'd gotten tired of the whole thing. The only analogy that matters (and the only one I made) is that it's a known property that's lain idle for a few years being re-imagined from a fresh perspective. And "everyone" certainly does not have an opinion about Buffy. The only people who have an opinion about Buffy are the people who watched the show and their opinion doesn't really matter, because as I said, they're not the ones being courted here.

[StoneGold]

The only difference is that what is great about Buffy is inexorably tied to Joss Whedon (not to mention the vast) in a way that Star Trek wasn't even tied to Gene Roddenbery. The chance of this working out well is very, very slim. After all, Star Trek is very much the exception - I still can't believe that a remake turned out to be so damn good.

Except that Gene did Next Generation and died while it was on, creating a sense of continuity. Let's see Buffy carry on some decades after Whedon's death.

[Chiasm]

And how, exactly, will they undermine the film?

Every film like that this that succeeds has a built in audience eagerly awaiting its making. Twilight thrived because the fans of the books wanted to see it so bad. Ditto with the Harry Potter movies. Take away those fans and your movie is going to sink. As I keep saying, if they take the Star Trek: TNG route then most of the fanbase is going to give it a try but if they reboot the fanbase will boycott meaning this movie will have to try and draw new fans. And if you weren't a fan of Buffy before its not likely your going to suddenly become one.

[Hoss]

Every film like that this that succeeds.

Every film like what?

There are plenty of films aimed at teen-agers and tweeners that have done well with out a prior audience.

We are making alot of assumptions but at the end of the day, if this version is good it will draw in new audiences and all but the most curmudgeon Buffy Fan will flock to it. If it is badly done then nothing will save it.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Except that Gene did Next Generation and died while it was on, creating a sense of continuity. Let's see Buffy carry on some decades after Whedon's death.

And love or hate Gene Rodenberry , but the man pretty much gaurded his baby . Sure he lost some power after the 1st Trek movie under-performed at the box office and the budget went outta whack...but he was there for TNG and laid out its future foundation.

And its not like they all decided in the ST reboot to piss on Rodenberry's vision. They kept the same characters , the people we all had grew up watching and brought them togethor in a new cool way ....with time travel and shaking shit up.

Now do I feel a Buffy revamp could work ? Sure....but I'd wait a decade and let the franchise have its down time . Its only been 7 years since the show went off the air and the comics move a shitload. Plus your gonna have angry Whedon fans.

So give it a decade and then ...let a new director/writers come in and revamp the franchise for that next generation.

[kalorama]

Every film like that this that succeeds has a built in audience eagerly awaiting its making. Twilight thrived because the fans of the books wanted to see it so bad. Ditto with the Harry Potter movies. Take away those fans and your movie is going to sink. As I keep saying, if they take the Star Trek: TNG route then most of the fanbase is going to give it a try but if they reboot the fanbase will boycott meaning this movie will have to try and draw new fans. And if you weren't a fan of Buffy before its not likely your going to suddenly become one.

The obvious difference between those examples and Buffy is that size of the fanbases for those other franchises each dwarfs the size of Buffy's. For the entirety of its run Buffy was among the lowest rated shows on broadcast television. And this was back in the days before Internet TV, the ubiquity of TiVo, and full seasons of a show released on DVD at the end of each season, when the Nielson numbers were a more or less accurate reflection of how many people actually watched the show.

[kalorama]

So give it a decade and then ...let a new director/writers come in and revamp the franchise for that next generation.

Seven years is a generation in the high-turnover world of pop culture.

[xnef1025]

There's ways to do this and still bridge the movie to the series. An idea did pop into my head that is very like what Star Trek did involving the First and alternate dimensions.

[spoon_jenkins]

Really, 99% of Whedon Buffy fans will turn out to see the movie even if it just to tear it a new hole. But they'll still get their money - yeah, I know they say they will stay away, but by and large they won't because, well, they never do.
You haven't really demonstrate a basis for this claim. For me, the writing and the creative direction of Joss Whedon as well as the acting were reasons that I got into the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series so deeply. I'm not irresistibly drawn to vampires generally of BtVS without those elements. I'm not a general vampire aficiando. I've seen portions of the BtVS movie on TV, but I've never bothered to watch it all the way from start to finish. Merely bearing the BtVS name isn't enough.

If you were right, you'd expect to see 99% of the TV shows fans get the DVD of the old movie. I don't think that's remotely close to what happened.

And as big a fan of the show as I am, I didn't enjoy the show towards the end and stopped watching early in season 7. I don't intend to get the last two seasons on DVD (which have been out for years), because I didn't enjoy. I'm not going to buy a ticket for a BtVS movie if I think I'll dislike it.

And I don't think I'm a 1% outlier. It's a common practice for people to keep their $10 rather than spending it on a movie they think they'll dislike just for the purpose of complaining.

[Guy1]

We could always view this as the DBGT of the Buffy-verse and move on.

[G. Wayne]

So they want the recognition (what little there is) of the Buffy name for a new movie to get some of that Twilight love.

But, they're doing it without
-Whedon.
-any of the supporting characters, unless they get the rights off of Mutant Enemy.
-any of the old cast, as of this point, anyway. Gellar has said she's done. Boreanz(sp?) has said similar. Of course if you're not going to have the old characters, at least I wonder why you'd bother dusting off the old actors. For that matter, did Nicholas Brendon get the weight thing under control? And Marsters is also pushing 50 by now.

So odds are they're going to reboot Buffy, without the most well known Buffy, or any of the creative team that made it popular. And depending on who you talk to, a lot of people won't touch something simply because of a name like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Granted I'm not in Hollywood, but am I the only one wondering why they don't just try to come up with something else?

And on a sidenote, I still think a series/movie/whatever about Giles' early years would be the way to go for a new take on the Buffyverse.

[Legato]

So they want the recognition (what little there is) of the Buffy name for a new movie to get some of that Twilight love.

But, they're doing it without
-Whedon.
-any of the supporting characters, unless they get the rights off of Mutant Enemy.
-any of the old cast, as of this point, anyway. Gellar has said she's done. Boreanz(sp?) has said similar. Of course if you're not going to have the old characters, at least I wonder why you'd bother dusting off the old actors. For that matter, did Nicholas Brendon get the weight thing under control? And Marsters is also pushing 50 by now.

So odds are they're going to reboot Buffy, without the most well known Buffy, or any of the creative team that made it popular. And depending on who you talk to, a lot of people won't touch something simply because of a name like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Granted I'm not in Hollywood, but am I the only one wondering why they don't just try to come up with something else?

And on a sidenote, I still think a series/movie/whatever about Giles' early years would be the way to go for a new take on the Buffyverse.

Given the fact that Giles has a more mysterious past than even Angel I would agree

[Chiasm]

And on a sidenote, I still think a series/movie/whatever about Giles' early years would be the way to go for a new take on the Buffyverse.

That would be cool. There are so many ways they could explore the Buffyverse further without starting over with a new Buffy. As someone else mentioned, the mere name Buffy the Vampire Slayer made many people roll their eyes and dismiss the first series without giving it a chance. That isn't going to change. They could do what you suggest and do a prequel about Giles or they could do a new show called Tales of the Slayer
, or The Vampire Slayer Chronicles or something like that. Set in 2010 some seven years after the end of Buffy. The hardcore fans would know it was a sequel but it wouldn't have the baggage of the old series and it would be free to do whatever it wanted.

[RonnieThunderbolts]

To everyone speculating that they CAN'T use Angel, Giles, Xander, Willow, etc...

Actually, they do have the rights to the supporting characters. Their controlling interest in the Buffy property includes all spin-off characters, even though they had nothing whatsoever to do with the production of the Buffy TV series their are still credited as executive producers, as they are on every episode of Angel.

[passer-by]

To everyone speculating that they CAN'T use Angel, Giles, Xander, Willow, etc...

Actually, they do have the rights to the supporting characters. Their controlling interest in the Buffy property includes all spin-off characters, even though they had nothing whatsoever to do with the production of the Buffy TV series their are still credited as executive producers, as they are on every episode of Angel.Mutant Enemy holds the rights to these characters.
The Kuzui may have been executive producers, but that gives them no rights over the TV show characters. Whedon is the one who created them.

EDIT: And Whedon is one of the executive producers as well.

[RonnieThunderbolts]

Mutant Enemy holds the rights to these characters.
The Kuzui may have been executive producers, but that gives them no rights over the TV show characters. Whedon is the one who created them.

EDIT: And Whedon is one of the executive producers as well.

I know Whedon is one of the execs, I don't think that is in any way germane to the discussion at hand. I know Whedon created them, but he created them for Fox, who owned and still own Buffy. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation owns each and every character from the Buffy series, not Mutant Enemy. Angel was an original creation for the show and the Kuzuis STILL had instant executive producer credits, regardless of their complete lack of involvement on either the Buffy or Angel TV shows. The Kuzui's don't own ANY of the characters, they currently hold a controlling interest on the film and television rights for the property. Any movie or show involving any of the characters, just like Angel, would have the Kuzui's names on them, and they'd likely get a royalty check.

If you check the comic books or novels or ANY licensed items they will all say that Buffy and all the characters are property of Twentieth Century fox Film Corporation with absolutely no mention of Mutant Enemy because they aren't owners of any of the intellectual property.

[passer-by]

You're right, just checked the Buffy/Angel trades. Don't know why I thought these characters were creator-owned, like those of the Vertigo titles.

Which means that the Kuzuis can incorporate ALL the Buffyverse characters in a movie without Whedon?! Fox is definitely the Big Whedon-Screwer.

[RonnieThunderbolts]

You're right, just checked the Buffy/Angel trades. Don't know why I thought these characters were creator-owned, like those of the Vertigo titles.

Which means that the Kuzuis can incorporate ALL the Buffyverse characters in a movie without Whedon?! Fox is definitely the Big Whedon-Screwer.

Yeah, I think it is weird that they have said they don't want to use any of the show's creations/characters, they only have improved the overall concept.

[kalorama]

Yeah, I think it is weird that they have said they don't want to use any of the show's creations/characters...

More evidence that they aren't aiming this towards the previous shows core fanbase.

[JCAll]

I may be fingering myself as a devient here, but am I the only person that like the Buffy movie?
The general consensus every time it comes up is Mvies = bad - TV Show = good. But I always like the movie too.

I'll never understand all the hate it attracts, expecially considering how awesome the Paul Reubens death scene was. Assuming he actually died.

[kalorama]

That would be cool. There are so many ways they could explore the Buffyverse further without starting over with a new Buffy. As someone else mentioned, the mere name Buffy the Vampire Slayer made many people roll their eyes and dismiss the first series without giving it a chance. That isn't going to change.

Of course it can change. It's been more than 10 years since the TV show debuted (almost 20 since the movie). When Buffy started, the idea of a show about teenage angst and vampires struck people as ridiculous. In the wake of Twilight, not so much (well, it still strikes many as ridiculous, but not so ridiculous that it can't turn a profit).

[vcassel]

this could make some money. it would be too difficult to try to sell old buffy to new fans because of the tons of backstory. but this...a love story between a tortured vampire and the ditzy high school girl sworn to kill his kind. all they need is a trailer showing whoever would be playing angel (if angel would even be in it) shirtless, in a near statutory rape scene with a 16 year old and teeniboppers will start salivating. best of all they can't be accused of ripping off of twilight because buffy's already been around.

btw what is it with all these old vampires trying to get into high school girls' panties? anyone else think this is a really creepy cultural phenomenon?

[Red Lotus]

I know Whedon is one of the execs, I don't think that is in any way germane to the discussion at hand. I know Whedon created them, but he created them for Fox, who owned and still own Buffy. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation owns each and every character from the Buffy series, not Mutant Enemy. Angel was an original creation for the show and the Kuzuis STILL had instant executive producer credits, regardless of their complete lack of involvement on either the Buffy or Angel TV shows. The Kuzui's don't own ANY of the characters, they currently hold a controlling interest on the film and television rights for the property. Any movie or show involving any of the characters, just like Angel, would have the Kuzui's names on them, and they'd likely get a royalty check.

If you check the comic books or novels or ANY licensed items they will all say that Buffy and all the characters are property of Twentieth Century fox Film Corporation with absolutely no mention of Mutant Enemy because they aren't owners of any of the intellectual property.

But this might not be a Twentieth Century fox Film. As of right now its not linked to any studio. its just Kuzuis own the rights to the first film. Say she goes to another studio then Twentieth Century fox could stop her from using the characters.

[RonnieThunderbolts]

But this might not be a Twentieth Century fox Film. As of right now its not linked to any studio. its just Kuzuis own the rights to the first film. Say she goes to another studio then Twentieth Century fox could stop her from using the characters.

Actually, Twentieth Century Fox owns Buffy, completely. If the Kuzuis produce a new movie they HAVE to go through Twentieth Century Fox, they own the character and the title outright, for the TV series, the film, the books, the tie-ins, they are all owned by Twentieth Century Fox. The Kuzuis have an interest in the property.

There seems to be some confusion about ownership of a property vs. film/television rights. Watchmen seems like a good example. Watchmen was made by Warner Brothers, but the rights to the characters and property as a film were previously held by 20th Century Fox. 20th Century Fox never owned Watchmen as a whole, or any of their characters, they owned only exclusive rights to make a film based on those characters that have always been under the ownership of DC Comics/Warner Brothers.

The same situation exists for the Kuzuis and Buffy. They have never given up the film rights to Buffy, but the characters and property of the original film and television series are all under the ownership of 20th Century Fox.

It could indeed be produced by another studio, but it would still be under the ownership of 20th Century Fox whether or not it uses character from the show, movie or both.

[Anna]

Anthony Head's not happy: http://perezhilton.com/2009-06-02-buffy-actor-wont-watch-new-movie

[Legato]

Anthony Head's not happy: http://perezhilton.com/2009-06-02-buffy-actor-wont-watch-new-movie

I bet Sarah Michelle Gellar isn't to thrilled either. Mostly Im interested in what Joss thinks of this

[kalorama]

Given that she'd pretty much declared her disassociation from Buffy years ago, I doubt she cares that much.

[Legato]

Given that she'd pretty much declared her disassociation from Buffy years ago, I doubt she cares that much.

Maybe. Then again it did help her career some.

[kalorama]

Maybe. Then again it did help her career some.

Yet she had no problem walking away from it and making clear to all concerned that she wasn't interested in going back to it. She's done everything but take out billboard space to make it clear that it's a closed chapter and she's moved on. That being the case, there's no much reason to think she's losing any sleep over this.

[Legato]

Yet she had no problem walking away from it and making clear to all concerned that she wasn't interested in going back to it. She's done everything but take out billboard space to make it clear that it's a closed chapter and she's moved on. That being the case, there's no much reason to think she's losing any sleep over this.

I do feel bad for her though. Despite that she has moved on people would still remind her of her role on the show despite that she has done other projects since then.

So no matter what she does she will still be remembered as the actress who played as Buffy.

[marshal99]

Nowadays , i don't think Sarah distance herself from buffy as she used to be , since at that time , her movie career was just taking off and she wants to make her name for herself other than buffy but over the years , her movie career obviously hasn't taken off as well as she would have liked so i guess she would be receptive to any ideas at this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSc-eKNiNJo

After all , she reunited with many of the buffy casts last year for that buffy reunion and talk about the good times during the filming of the series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbU3sypbhiE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFEWYmqU2S0

[Legato]

Nowadays , i don't think Sarah distance herself from buffy as she used to be , since at that time , her movie career was just taking off and she wants to make her name for herself other than buffy but over the years , her movie career obviously hasn't taken off as well as she would have liked so i guess she would be receptive to any ideas at this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSc-eKNiNJo

After all , she reunited with many of the buffy casts last year for that buffy reunion and talk about the good times during the filming of the series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbU3sypbhiE

I would have to agree. Besides Scooby Doo what other big hit movie has she done since then? Thare was The Grudge but she got killed off in the sequels

[Chiasm]

Nowadays , i don't think Sarah distance herself from buffy as she used to be , since at that time , her movie career was just taking off and she wants to make her name for herself other than buffy but over the years , her movie career obviously hasn't taken off as well as she would have liked so i guess she would be receptive to any ideas at this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSc-eKNiNJo

After all , she reunited with many of the buffy casts last year for that buffy reunion and talk about the good times during the filming of the series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbU3sypbhiE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFEWYmqU2S0

Yep. Really of the whole cast the only ones whose careers have done well post Buffy / Angel are Alyson Hannigan and David Boreanaz. Sure James Marsters has had roles on Smallville and Torchwood and Amy Acker has had roles on Alias and Dollhouse but neither would be considered a star role. And the rest have either mostly disappeared,, been relegated to C level Sci Fi movies of the week (Brendon), or been in flop after flop (like Gellar who has done quite a few movies, none of which except the Grudge and Scooby Doo have done anything worth talking about). I think Sarah would be more than willing to go back at this point for a movie, a handoff, or whatever just to get her name back in the headlines.

Sarah's post Buffy career can be seen here. Its kind of sad really.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001264/

[kalorama]

Nowadays , i don't think Sarah distance herself from buffy as she used to be , since at that time , her movie career was just taking off and she wants to make her name for herself other than buffy but over the years , her movie career obviously hasn't taken off as well as she would have liked so i guess she would be receptive to any ideas at this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSc-eKNiNJo

After all , she reunited with many of the buffy casts last year for that buffy reunion and talk about the good times during the filming of the series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbU3sypbhiE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFEWYmqU2S0

Given enough time, even a couple who went through the most horrific divorce will likely get to the point where they can stand being in the same room together. That doesn't mean they want to remarry.

She got together with old friends and reminisced about old times. That's a whole different thing than trying to relive those times.

[Legato]

Yep. Really of the whole cast the only ones whose careers have done well post Buffy / Angel are Alyson Hannigan and David Boreanaz. Sure James Marsters has had roles on Smallville and Torchwood and Amy Acker has had roles on Alias and Dollhouse but neither would be considered a star role. And the rest have either mostly disappeared,, been relegated to C level Sci Fi movies of the week (Brendon), or been in flop after flop (like Gellar who has done quite a few movies, none of which except the Grudge and Scooby Doo have done anything worth talking about). I think Sarah would be more than willing to go back at this point for a movie, a handoff, or whatever just to get her name back in the headlines.

Sarah's post Buffy career can be seen here. Its kind of sad really.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001264/

The saddest thing is that Gellar is a talented actress just that she hasn't been in any movies that could actually let other people take notice of that.

I know Boreanaz is doing really good in Bones but what has Hannigan been doing recently?

[kalorama]

I would have to agree. Besides Scooby Doo what other big hit movie has she done since then? Thare was The Grudge but she got killed off in the sequels

Just because she hasn't become a huge box office star doesn't mean her career has failed. She's worked steadily in films since Buffy ended. Just because they aren't blockbusters doesn't mean she's struggling. A lot of actors prefer working in independent or smaller films. More significantly, returning to Buffy wouldn't likely be a big career boost anyway. The show barely scraped together enough viewers to stay on the air, so reviving it in the same form that failed to attract a huge audience the last time isn't likely to attract one this time. That's the whole point of revamping it from the ground up, to create something with broader appeal.

[Jared]

The saddest thing is that Gellar is a talented actress just that she hasn't been in any movies that could actually let other people take notice of that.

I know Boreanaz is doing really good in Bones but what has Hannigan been doing recently?


Hannigan is a regular on How I Met Your Mother. With the American Pie movies she probably had the best career of any cast member while the show was still going.

Seth Green seems to be doing alright for himself with Robot Chicken, and he still pops up in TV, movies. Plus he's a voice on Family Guy. I don't think Buffy was his first break though.

If Gellar would get back to her fighting weight, the way she looked the first couple seasons and in Cruel Intentions, she'd probably get more work. She's not ugly, but right now I wouldn't cast her as a bombshell...which is what most youngish female roles call for in major releases.

Anyway, I wouldn't feel too bad for her. I highly doubt she and Freddie are having trouble paying the bills.

[Legato]

Hannigan is a regular on How I Met Your Mother. With the American Pie movies she probably had the best career of any cast member while the show was still going.

Seth Green seems to be doing alright for himself with Robot Chicken, and he still pops up in TV, movies. Plus he's a voice on Family Guy. I don't think Buffy was his first break though.

If Gellar would get back to her fighting weight, the way she looked the first couple seasons and in Cruel Intentions, she'd probably get more work. She's not ugly, but right now I wouldn't cast her as a bombshell...which is what most youngish female roles call for in major releases.

Anyway, I wouldn't feel too bad for her. I highly doubt she and Freddie are having trouble paying the bills.

From what I heard from Freddie he has a job working for the WWE as a writer right?

[marshal99]

From what I heard from Freddie he has a job working for the WWE as a writer right?

He's no longer with the WWE if i'm not wrong.

[Legato]

He's no longer with the WWE if i'm not wrong.

Your probably not. Not like he would be doing that full time or anything

[lou-bert vs. q-bert]

I bet Sarah Michelle Gellar isn't too thrilled either. Forget her! Imagine how Kristy Swanson feels about this double-whammy.

[Legato]

Forget her! Imagine how Kristy Swanson feels about this double-whammy.

Unlike Sarah now thare is a Buffy actress who haven't had much of a career. Kristy is probably hoping that she would be called up to do a cameo appearance

[Jared]

Forget her! Imagine how Kristy Swanson feels about this double-whammy.

Hopefully so upset that to cope she does another Playboy shoot.

[Anna]

Well, competing on a reality show and getting pregnant by your married partner really boost one's carrer doesn't it? :rolleyes:

[Jared]

Well, competing on a reality show and getting pregnant by your married partner really boost one's carrer doesn't it? :rolleyes:

That figure skater got her pregnant? Wow, I wouldn't have thought such a thing possible...

[Anna]

That figure skater got her pregnant? Wow, I wouldn't have thought such a thing possible...

Lloyd Eisler was a pairs skater, many of them are attracted to women. IIRC Skating With Celebrities had decent enough ratings; but the show couldn't survive the scandal which included rumors of other skaters covering for him and Kristy coming to blows with his wife (who was pregnant when Lloyd knocked Kristy up.)

[Pól Rua]

You know, when I first heard about this, I thought it was a bad idea.

Now that I've heard the assembled bleating of so many entitled whinerbabies who, not content with just enjoying Joss Whedon's work, have decided to make him their own personal god and saviour,

Now I WANT them to make the damn thing, just so that maybe a couple of these pathetic creatures can suffer the way I have listening to their mewling and bitching.




A brief caveat here.
I'm not talking about ALL Joss Whedon fans, here. I myself am a Joss Whedon fan. I liked Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dr.Horrible and even started getting into Dollhouse about halfway into the season.
But seriously, if I read another, "Joss is the greatest person who ever lived. I would gladly stab a pregnant woman in the eye if he asked me to. Why doesn't he write ALL the television and ALL the movies? The Kazuis need to burn in HELL for blaspheming against him!!!" comment, so help me, I'm gonna flip right the hell out.

[Legato]

Believe me Im one of the few who admits that Whedon isn't perfect. His run in X-Men is what open my eyes to that. Also Dollhouse is pretty much one of the few Whedon shows that doesn't impressed me.

I find Doctor Horrible, while cleverly written, pretty overrated. It's good but not as great as the majority of the Whedon fans claim it is

[vcassel]

You know, when I first heard about this, I thought it was a bad idea.

Now that I've heard the assembled bleating of so many entitled whinerbabies who, not content with just enjoying Joss Whedon's work, have decided to make him their own personal god and saviour,

Now I WANT them to make the damn thing, just so that maybe a couple of these pathetic creatures can suffer the way I have listening to their mewling and bitching.




A brief caveat here.
I'm not talking about ALL Joss Whedon fans, here. I myself am a Joss Whedon fan. I liked Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dr.Horrible and even started getting into Dollhouse about halfway into the season.
But seriously, if I read another, "Joss is the greatest person who ever lived. I would gladly stab a pregnant woman in the eye if he asked me to. Why doesn't he write ALL the television and ALL the movies? The Kazuis need to burn in HELL for blaspheming against him!!!" comment, so help me, I'm gonna flip right the hell out.

uh oh. i'm sure that'll shut em up. who would want someone to filp the hell out in a thread in here? it's not like that doesn't already happen every other minute.

[Sighphi]

So Buffy fans are having the same reaction as Trek fans.
AHAHAHHAHAH!!!
Now they understand!

[Legato]

So Buffy fans are having the same reaction as Trek fans.
AHAHAHHAHAH!!!
Now they understand!

Now lets see if this remake ends up being as good as the Trek remake:wink:

[StoneGold]

Lloyd Eisler was a pairs skater, many of them are attracted to women.I've heard as many as seven. IIRC Skating With Celebrities had decent enough ratings; but the show couldn't survive the scandal which included rumors of other skaters covering for him and Kristy coming to blows with his wife (who was pregnant when Lloyd knocked Kristy up.)

Yes, because scandal is a bad thing for reality shows.

[Anna]

I've heard as many as seven.

Yes, because scandal is a bad thing for reality shows.

It's worse for the figure skating community, especially when some of the people involved have built careers off their squeaky clean images.

[Chiasm]

So Buffy fans are having the same reaction as Trek fans.
AHAHAHHAHAH!!!
Now they understand!

Its different though. The Trek cast obviously could not reprise their roles in a meaningful way due to their age and some of them being dead . And its been 40 years so its not like the show just ended. The Buffy cast could reprise their roles for a last hurrah and its only been five years since Angel ended. Plus the Trek movie did exactly what I've suggested several times in this thread by bringing in an original cast member to do a handoff to the new crew.

[marshal99]

If it's a remake of the movie , it won't be the same as the tv series.

I'll still watch it though. I only wished that Whedon can convince the tv studios to fund a tv movie special of spike or buffy but it's not like he's making much of an effort to do so. Most of the cast members i'm sure would follow whedon through and through , he does inspire a lot of loyality in his actors/actress.

[Tobias March]

If it's a remake of the movie , it won't be the same as the tv series.

I'll still watch it though. I only wished that Whedon can convince the tv studios to fund a tv movie special of spike or buffy but it's not like he's making much of an effort to do so. Most of the cast members i'm sure would follow whedon through and through , he does inspire a lot of loyality in his actors/actress.

I would still be more curious about a BBC produced Ripper show.

That is what I was hanging out for, plus the high concept of 'supernatural Cracker', just made me want to squeal girlishly.

But that was years ago....no idea if it'll ever see the light of day. ASH is currently playing Uther Pendragon in that limpid Merlin show. Ugh.

[hugh45]

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/05/new-buffy-movie.html






I really hope this is a joke because if not this is the stupidest idea I've heard out of Hollyweird in a long time. This is still a viable franchise, as the comic sales show, and removing Joss from the process is a guaranteed way to piss off the fanbase.

NNOOOOO!! It's going to turn into another lame Twilight. :eek:

[hugh45]

But without Whedon.... where will all the forced pop culture jokes come from?

From the hip MTV and Disney. :evilsmile:

[lou-bert vs. q-bert]

Hopefully so upset that to cope she does another Playboy shoot.I already can see the cover reading, "Buffy's bared boobs are back!"

[Legato]

I already can see the cover reading, "Buffy's bared boobs are back!"

Im sure the first throught coming from a person who reads that title would be hopes that Sarah would be on the cover.

[Jared]

Im sure the first throught coming from a person who reads that title would be hopes that Sarah would be on the cover.

At the risk of coming off as rather lascivous (sp)...not if said person saw Kristy's previous shoot. One of the best "celebrity" spreads they've done, IMO. Or...so I've heard. God bless photshop.

It is rather sad that whenever Kristy is on TV for something, Buffy is always the work that they cite. Geez, they could at least mention The Chase instead. It's a bit more recent and probably just as many people didn't see it.

[Legato]

At the risk of coming off as rather lascivous (sp)...not if said person saw Kristy's previous shoot. One of the best "celebrity" spreads they've done, IMO. Or...so I've heard. God bless photshop.

It is rather sad that whenever Kristy is on TV for something, Buffy is always the work that they cite. Geez, they could at least mention The Chase instead. It's a bit more recent and probably just as many people didn't see it.

Personally I dont blame Kristy on the horribleness of the Buffy movie. I think with a decent script she would have done as good of a job as Buffy as Sarah

[lou-bert vs. q-bert]

.t is rather sad that whenever Kristy is on TV for something, Buffy is always the work that they cite. Geez, they could at least mention The Chase instead. It's a bit more recent and probably just as many people didn't see it.They could also mention The Phantom. I'm sure even less people, at least those who don't frequent these boards, didn't see that too.

[DonC]

Im sure the first throught coming from a person who reads that title would be hopes that Sarah would be on the cover.


Sarah Michelle Gellar doesn't have boobs to bare.

[lou-bert vs. q-bert]

Sarah Michelle Gellar doesn't have boobs to bare.She did when she was younger, then lost 'em when she got skinny, then she finally filled out again when she turned 30, and got 'em back.:smile:

Kristy though has always had the huge boobs.:eek:

[vcassel]

She's rumoured to be under consideration for the role of Buffy Summers in the reboot of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie:

http://blogs.nypost.com/popwrap/archives/2009/06/megan_fox_as_buffy_the_vampire_slayer.html

Whether or not she would consider taking this role hasn't been reported, but given her misgivings about other parts I would think she'd be unlikely to be interested.

In order to not let the Joss Whedon lovers who are in disbelief that a reboot is even in consideration of being made distract from this rumor, I'm posting this here.

[hugh45]

She's rumoured to be under consideration for the role of Buffy Summers in the reboot of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie:

http://blogs.nypost.com/popwrap/archives/2009/06/megan_fox_as_buffy_the_vampire_slayer.html

Whether or not she would consider taking this role hasn't been reported, but given her misgivings about other parts I would think she'd be unlikely to be interested.

In order to not let the Joss Whedon lovers who are in disbelief that a reboot is even in consideration of being made distract from this rumor, I'm posting this here.

I don't mind her being a slayer,but as Buffy, NO!! :mad:

[The Zapper]

And I thought Buffy couldn't get any worse. I was wrong.

[vcassel]

well, i'm not for buffy anything really. i was a fan of the show but after seeing what whedon was able to do in movies with serenity and also being floored by way better shows like lost i look back at buffy and see an uneven, sometimes confused mess. but really, if they are going to do this, it's not like megan fox is the worst actress of the bunch who have played buffy thus far.

[DonC]

well, i'm not for buffy anything really. i was a fan of the show but after seeing what whedon was able to do in movies with serenity and also being floored by way better shows like lost i look back at buffy and see an uneven, sometimes confused mess. but really, if they are going to do this, it's not like megan fox is the worst actress of the bunch who have played buffy thus far.


Was there a Buffy besides Kristy Swanson and Sarah Michelle Gellar that I just never noticed?

[kalorama]

Whether or not she would consider taking this role hasn't been reported, but given her misgivings about other parts I would think she'd be unlikely to be interested.

There's really no basis for assuming that, given that we have no real idea what this part will actually be like. It's likely going to be different from both the film and the TV show in many significant ways (otherwise, what's the point of a do-over), so there's no way to make any correlation between this role and those of Wonder Woman or Laura Croft, which she reportedly turned down (neither of which bear any substantive resemblance to any of the previous versions of Buffy anyway).

Clearly she has no inherent qualms about doing action movies (or movies based on comics).

[G. Wayne]

A better -looking- Buffy, yes. In my opinion, jury's still out on whether or not Megan Fox can actually act though.

[kalorama]

Was there a Buffy besides Kristy Swanson and Sarah Michelle Gellar that I just never noticed?

The only movie I've ever seen Megan Fox in is Transformers, and on that alone I'll give her the decision over Swanson, based on what I've seen of the latter's work.

And, technically, I guess you could say that Eliza Dushku played Buffy, in the episode where they switched bodies. (Did a nice job too.)

[vcassel]

Was there a Buffy besides Kristy Swanson and Sarah Michelle Gellar that I just never noticed?

thanks for pointing out my misuse of the word bunch :rolleyes:

[vcassel]

There's really no basis for assuming that, given that we have no real idea what this part will actually be like. It's likely going to be different from both the film and the TV show in many significant ways (otherwise, what's the point of a do-over), so there's no way to make any correlation between this role and those of Wonder Woman or Laura Croft, which she reportedly turned down (neither of which bear any substantive resemblance to any of the previous versions of Buffy anyway).

Clearly she has no inherent qualms about doing action movies (or movies based on comics).

you're right, but i still think it. just putting a hunch out there like most people here.

[DonC]

thanks for pointing out my misuse of the word bunch :rolleyes:


No, I was saying Gellar and even Swanson are both better actresses than Megan Fox. Granted being a better actress than Megan Fox is kind of like being a better baseball player than a guy with no legs. It doesn't take much effort.

[Fatguy]

Was there a Buffy besides Kristy Swanson and Sarah Michelle Gellar that I just never noticed?

Yeah....its not as if those two are spectacular actresses. I wouldn't rate Megan Fox below either. They all go into the "Generic pretty girl who isnt very good but not bad enough to make you walk out of the theater" category.

[Libaax]

Whats with people and putting Megan Fox everywhere......


She hasnt shown she can act enough to any starring let alone Buffy.

Who cares about Buffy without Whedon anyways....

[vcassel]

No, I was saying Gellar and even Swanson are both better actresses than Megan Fox. Granted being a better actress than Megan Fox is kind of like being a better baseball player than a guy with no legs. It doesn't take much effort.

ah, sorry. misread what you said.

[vcassel]

Who cares about Buffy without Whedon anyways....

we won't know until we have a proper trailer and then release

[Riddles_McMurphy]

how many movies has she been in? i think she's hot, smart and funny. i don't care if she doesn't like wonder woman, i never liked wonder woman anyways. the only movie i've seen her in was transformer and i liked it. i thought her acting was fine. i laugh at all the fanboys who say "she sucks at acting" when all they've probably seen was transformer.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Yeah, judging a person's work by watching the work they've done, what a stupid fanboy thing to do.

[jade_nova]

how many movies has she been in?

I think only one so far. Megan Fox is the flavor of the month. People's opinions about her will change once they see her in more stuff.

[Fatguy]

I think only one so far. Megan Fox is the flavor of the month. People's opinions about her will change once they see her in more stuff.

She was in "How to lose friends and alienate people", which I have not seen.

[Ilash]

Why Megan Fox of all people? Sure, she's hot but I've seen no proof whatsoever that she can actually act. Her looks seemed to have obscured her complete lack of charisma as well. I haven't seen her in Transformers but she made very little impression on me in How To Lose Friends...

[vcassel]

Why Megan Fox of all people? Sure, she's hot but I've seen no proof whatsoever that she can actually act. Her looks seemed to have obscured her complete lack of charisma as well. I haven't seen her in Transformers but she made very little impression on me in How To Lose Friends...

why megan fox? because she's a draw. it's not hard to figure out. she's an 'it' girl right now and studios put a lot of effort into drawing a crowd to see their efforts or else what's the point for them?

and for those people asking what she's been in, why don't you utilize wikipedia and/or imdb. she's been in a few things of which i've only seen transformers so i may not have the insight that some of you seem to possess in recognizing future acting talent but i do possess the thoughtfulness it takes to realize actors grow into their abilities so it's too soon to pass anybody off yet. besides, it's not like buffy the vampire slayer deserves an incredible actress. think of who it's probably going to be marketed to. do you really think the studios believe that the audience they're courting appreciates a subtle and nuanced performance.

[Ilash]

why megan fox? because she's a draw. it's not hard to figure out. she's an 'it' girl right now and studios put a lot of effort into drawing a crowd to see their efforts or else what's the point for them?

and for those people asking what she's been in, why don't you utilize wikipedia and/or imdb. she's been in a few things of which i've only seen transformers so i may not have the insight that some of you seem to possess in recognizing future acting talent but i do possess the thoughtfulness it takes to realize actors grow into their abilities so it's too soon to pass anybody off yet. besides, it's not like buffy the vampire slayer deserves an incredible actress. think of who it's probably going to be marketed to. do you really think the studios believe that the audience they're courting appreciates a subtle and nuanced performance.

Yeah but you're not a studio-executive, are you? Surely there are better young actresses for the role?

[vcassel]

Yeah but you're not a studio-executive, are you? Surely there are better young actresses for the role?

where the hell did i infer that? it's just my opinion which is worth almost nothing just like yours. if everyone here had to justify their opinions with professional qualifications you'd see a pretty blank screen. you're not a casting director, are you?

[Ilash]

where the hell did i infer that? it's just my opinion which is worth almost nothing just like yours. if everyone here had to justify their opinions with professional qualifications you'd see a pretty blank screen. you're not a casting director, are you?

Sorry, let me be clear, I was referring to this:

why megan fox? because she's a draw. it's not hard to figure out. she's an 'it' girl right now and studios put a lot of effort into drawing a crowd to see their efforts or else what's the point for them?

I just don't understand why someone who isn't interested in the financial side of movies would care whether she's an "it" girl or not. Aren't you more interested in whether she'd be any good? Of course the whole enterprise is such a stupid idea in the first place, I don't really think it matters who they get for the title role.

[Pól Rua]

You know, you could have put almost any vaguely pretty actor in this thread title and it probably would've worked.
Seriously, I've got less than no respect for Sarah Michelle Geller as an actress.
Honestly, if she wasn't working with good scripts and an excellent ensemble cast, I can't see anyone giving her any credibility whatsoever.

[vcassel]

Sorry, let me be clear, I was referring to this:



I just don't understand why someone who isn't interested in the financial side of movies would care whether she's an "it" girl or not. Aren't you more interested in whether she'd be any good? Of course the whole enterprise is such a stupid idea in the first place, I don't really think it matters who they get for the title role.

by 'someone' do you mean the moviegoer? well, this may be a baseless assumption but the timing of rebooting buffy seems to me to coincide with the recent tween vampire in high school craze of which megan fox is popular with right now. i really don't think this thing is marketed to adults. first clue is they're not courting whedon and his built in fan base.

[Ilash]

You know, you could have put almost any vaguely pretty actor in this thread title and it probably would've worked.
Seriously, I've got less than no respect for Sarah Michelle Geller as an actress.
Honestly, if she wasn't working with good scripts and an excellent ensemble cast, I can't see anyone giving her any credibility whatsoever.

I don't know, I think you're underrating Gellar. I thought she was pretty excellent as Buffy. Her choice in film roles kind of sucks though.

[Ilash]

by 'someone' do you mean the moviegoer? well, this may be a baseless assumption but the timing of rebooting buffy seems to me to coincide with the recent tween vampire in high school craze of which megan fox is popular with right now. i really don't think this thing is marketed to adults. first clue is they're not courting whedon and his built in fan base.

Sure but my point really is that I don't personally care how popular the actress is, just that she's good for the role.

[Pól Rua]

I don't know, I think you're underrating Gellar. I thought she was pretty excellent as Buffy. Her choice in film roles kind of sucks though.

Or maybe she looks like a good actress when she's mouthing words by Joss Whedon and responding to Nicholas Brendan, Alyson Hannigan and Anthony Stuart Head.
Something a talking parrot in a wig could do.

That said, I have yet to see any evidence that Megan Fox is actually good for anything other than being photogenic.

[Ilash]

Or maybe she looks like a good actress when she's mouthing words by Joss Whedon and responding to Nicholas Brendan, Alyson Hannigan and Anthony Stuart Head.
Something a talking parrot in a wig could do.

That said, I have yet to see any evidence that Megan Fox is actually good for anything other than being photogenic.

Oh sure, the material helps, as does her excellent supporting cast but if she looks like a good actress, maybe she is one - at the very least for that part. Buffy is a very complex character so I do think that at least acting talent is required to be able to portray that. More simply, I think she's good in the show because when I see her on screen I don't see someone acting as Buffy Summers, I just see Buffy Summers.

[Athena Bast]

I think only one so far. Megan Fox is the flavor of the month. People's opinions about her will change once they see her in more stuff.

She was in "Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen" and apparently 37 episodes of "Hope & Faith" as well.

The latter strikes me a bit odd. I don't know why.

[kalorama]

It strikes me as odd that Hope and Faith lasted 37 episodes.

[kalorama]

i really don't think this thing is marketed to adults. first clue is they're not courting whedon and his built in fan base.

No, the first clue is that it's Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

[vcassel]

No, the first clue is that it's Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

i was going to say that. i couldn't phrase it in a way that didn't come off as redundantly self evident.

[Athena Bast]

It strikes me as odd that Hope and Faith lasted 37 episodes.

It actually lasted nearly 60.

[kalorama]

It actually lasted nearly 60.

That's almost twice as surprising.

[Chiasm]

Joss Whedon briefly talked about the possible Buffy movie during an interview he was doing about season II of Dollhouse. Sounds like the powers that be behind the new Buffy movie reached out to him AFTER the **** storm that broke and Joss turned them down. He took the high road in his reply but I sense an implication in it that Joss is basically saying screw you to them.

And, sorry, but don't hold your breath that Whedon might become involved in the big-screen Buffy the Vampire Slayer reboot. "I believe [the producers] did ultimately reach out to my agent after the news broke," Whedon says. "I think that's something better left untouched by me. So, I wish them luck."

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/06/joss-whedon-buffy-dollhouse-1.html

[Anna]

Some consider Fox to be a younger, hotter Angelina. I think she lacks the wholesomeness to be Buffy.

[kalorama]

Which may not be an issue, because it's entirely possible that the "new Buffy" won't be all that wholesome. And, as a matter of fact, the old Buffy really wasn't that wholesome either. In both the film and her back story in the TV show, prior to becoming the Slayer she was an arrogant stuck-up bitch.

[marshal99]

Wasn't so much as a arrogant stuck up bitch than a outsider/loner who doesn't fit in.

[kalorama]

Wasn't so much as a arrogant stuck up bitch than a outsider/loner who doesn't fit in.

That was after she became the slayer. Before she was called, she was basically Cordelia Chase's evil twin.

[pitbull in a skirt]

Some consider Fox went under plastic surgery to be a younger, hotter Angelina. I think she lacks the wholesomeness to be Buffy.

:wink:

You know, if Megan Fox hadn't modify her face to look *sexy*, I could see her as a more girl next door brunette Buffy.

http://img28.imagevenue.com/loc1187/th_79826_Megan_Fox_2005_Olympus_Fashion_Week_Day_4 _726_122_1187lo.jpg (http://img28.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=79826_Megan_Fox_2005_Olympus_Fashion _Week_Day_4_726_122_1187lo.jpg) http://img187.imagevenue.com/loc440/th_79968_Megan_Fox_2005_Olympus_Fashion_Week_Day_4 _246_122_440lo.jpg (http://img187.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=79968_Megan_Fox_2005_Olympus_Fashion _Week_Day_4_246_122_440lo.jpg)

http://img32.picoodle.com/img/img32/4/1/12/f_meganfox11tm_965ad45.jpg

[James maybe]

I'd love to see Summer Glau as a slayer. I think she's amazing plus it would possibly make-up for never seeing River (Firefly) reach her full potential!

[Legato]

I'd love to see Summer Glau as a slayer. I think she's amazing plus it would possibly make-up for never seeing River (Firefly) reach her full potential!

I just may see the Buffy movie just for Summer alone. Pretty underrated actress IMO

[hugh45]

I've got idea!! Why don't we reboot "Citizen Kane", "The Godfather" w/a lot of hot looking young actors/actress. No one cares,it's all about the Benjamins.
:eek: :rolleyes:

[Legato]

I've got idea!! Why don't we reboot "Citizen Kane", "The Godfather" w/a lot of hot looking young actors/actress. No one cares,it's all about the Benjamins.
:eek: :rolleyes:

Believe me someone will definitly remake The Godfather.

Atleast some of Clint Eastwoods famous classics are still safe. Like The Man With No Name Trilogy

[Anna]

There's not too many people who'd mess with Clint.

[Legato]

There's not too many people who'd mess with Clint.

For now yes. But should something serious happen to Clint, Hollywood will no doubt remake his movies just to milk off of his infamy

[Ben Akers]

I'd love to see Summer Glau as a slayer. I think she's amazing plus it would possibly make-up for never seeing River (Firefly) reach her full potential!

The end battle of Serenity wasn't enough for you?

[kalorama]

I've got idea!! Why don't we reboot "Citizen Kane", "The Godfather" w/a lot of hot looking young actors/actress. No one cares,it's all about the Benjamins.

To imply any sort of parallel between either of thos two (Let alone both) and Buffy, even as a joke, borders on lunacy.

[hugh45]

To imply any sort of parallel between either of thos two (Let alone both) and Buffy, even as a joke, borders on lunacy.

oh? Then I need an enama :rolleyes:

[kalorama]

oh? Then I need an enama :rolleyes:

If your shrink is prescribing enemas to deal with your mental health problems, you might want to think about getting a new doctor.

[Jared]

:wink:

You know, if Megan Fox hadn't modify her face to look *sexy*, I could see her as a more girl next door brunette Buffy.

http://img28.imagevenue.com/loc1187/th_79826_Megan_Fox_2005_Olympus_Fashion_Week_Day_4 _726_122_1187lo.jpg (http://img28.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=79826_Megan_Fox_2005_Olympus_Fashion _Week_Day_4_726_122_1187lo.jpg) http://img187.imagevenue.com/loc440/th_79968_Megan_Fox_2005_Olympus_Fashion_Week_Day_4 _246_122_440lo.jpg (http://img187.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=79968_Megan_Fox_2005_Olympus_Fashion _Week_Day_4_246_122_440lo.jpg)

http://img32.picoodle.com/img/img32/4/1/12/f_meganfox11tm_965ad45.jpg


She doesn't look like her face was worked on. She's older, tanner, and wearing more makeup in the second pic.

[Ilash]

To imply any sort of parallel between either of thos two (Let alone both) and Buffy, even as a joke, borders on lunacy.

Well, to be fair, it is entirely possible to consider Citizen Kane and The Godfather to be clearly superior works of art to Buffy, while still enjoying them less. After all, one of the great strengths of serialized storytelling is that the good ones have a habit of really working their way into your heart in a way that even the best films (usually) don't.

And yes, this is my way of saying that I enjoy Buffy more than either of those two films and that it actually means more to me too.

[kalorama]

She doesn't look like her face was worked on. She's older, tanner, and wearing more makeup in the second pic.

And I'm pretty sure she's several years older now than she was when the bottom photo was taken.